What am I missing?

As my username would suggest, I'm new to this whole FE thing, and I have to ask... What is it about this that has you all so convinced?

Is it purely religious?

The evidence of a spherical Earth is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Is the passing opinion that it is all a conspiracy? Is the consensus that there are no satellites? The GPS doesn't actually work? That the pictures as seen from space fabricated? That there is, actually no one on space?

The ice wall? Are you comfortable believing in it even though no one has documented its existence?

The tides? They just don't exist?

Is this simply a case of religion guiding opinion? Or is this an evidence-based hypothesis that can, and has been tested?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

This book helps convince many.

How does the moon cause a high tide on opposite sides of the earth at the same time?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

This book helps convince many.

How does the moon cause a high tide on opposite sides of the earth at the same time?

That book was written 130 years ago. How does it explain satellites, the Apollo program, the ISS, or any type of modern science.

And to answer your question, the centrifugal force caused by the gravitational relationship between the Earth and Moon cause the high tides on the other side of the Earth. A real quick Google search usually answers those kinds of questions.

Quote from: hoppy on December 07, 2014, 07:16:02 PM

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

This book helps convince many.

How does the moon cause a high tide on opposite sides of the earth at the same time?

That book was written 130 years ago. How does it explain satellites, the Apollo program, the ISS, or any type of modern science.

And to answer your question, the centrifugal force caused by the gravitational relationship between the Earth and Moon cause the high tides on the other side of the Earth. A real quick Google search usually answers those kinds of questions.

blah, blah blah

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

This book helps convince many.

How does the moon cause a high tide on opposite sides of the earth at the same time?

Because the earth is pulled toward the moon more than the bulge on the opposite side.

Quote from: NewToThis on December 07, 2014, 07:24:49 PM

Quote from: hoppy on December 07, 2014, 07:16:02 PM

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

This book helps convince many.

How does the moon cause a high tide on opposite sides of the earth at the same time?

That book was written 130 years ago. How does it explain satellites, the Apollo program, the ISS, or any type of modern science.

And to answer your question, the centrifugal force caused by the gravitational relationship between the Earth and Moon cause the high tides on the other side of the Earth. A real quick Google search usually answers those kinds of questions.

blah, blah blah

Blah, blah, science, evidence, logic, blah...

That answers even better.

What am I missing?

That it's largely a joke.

What am I missing?

That it's largely a joke.

Ok, I'm relieved to hear you say that. THAT I can understand.

As my username would suggest, I'm new to this whole FE thing, and I have to ask... What is it about this that has you all so convinced?

Is it purely religious?

The evidence of a spherical Earth is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Is the passing opinion that it is all a conspiracy? Is the consensus that there are no satellites? The GPS doesn't actually work? That the pictures as seen from space fabricated? That there is, actually no one on space?

The ice wall? Are you comfortable believing in it even though no one has documented its existence?

The tides? They just don't exist?

Is this simply a case of religion guiding opinion? Or is this an evidence-based hypothesis that can, and has been tested?

For me, it's not religious at all.  I feel that the evidence for a round earth just isn't that strong.  Sure people say that the earth is round, but how do we know exactly?  It's nice to take people on their words, but often we risk committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, the moon pulls the tides much like round-earthers say, it's just much closer.

For me, it's not religious at all.  I feel that the evidence for a round earth just isn't that strong.  Sure people say that the earth is round, but how do we know exactly?  It's nice to take people on their words, but often we risk committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, the moon pulls the tides much like round-earthers say, it's just much closer.

What, specifically, do you find that a flat earth explains more convincingly than a spherical earth? List one or a few items rather than a laundry list if you prefer.

Meanwhile, how could a nearby moon produce the observed pattern of tides on a flat earth? What causes the high tide under the moon if it's not gravity (TBH, I forget if you subscribe to UA or not)? Why would there be a high tide both under the moon and opposite where it is if the earth were flat?

Quote from: NewToThis on December 07, 2014, 07:06:48 PM

As my username would suggest, I'm new to this whole FE thing, and I have to ask... What is it about this that has you all so convinced?

Is it purely religious?

The evidence of a spherical Earth is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Is the passing opinion that it is all a conspiracy? Is the consensus that there are no satellites? The GPS doesn't actually work? That the pictures as seen from space fabricated? That there is, actually no one on space?

The ice wall? Are you comfortable believing in it even though no one has documented its existence?

The tides? They just don't exist?

Is this simply a case of religion guiding opinion? Or is this an evidence-based hypothesis that can, and has been tested?

For me, it's not religious at all.  I feel that the evidence for a round earth just isn't that strong.  Sure people say that the earth is round, but how do we know exactly?  It's nice to take people on their words, but often we risk committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, the moon pulls the tides much like round-earthers say, it's just much closer.

[Citation Needed]

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 08:48:10 AM

For me, it's not religious at all.  I feel that the evidence for a round earth just isn't that strong.  Sure people say that the earth is round, but how do we know exactly?  It's nice to take people on their words, but often we risk committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, the moon pulls the tides much like round-earthers say, it's just much closer.

What, specifically, do you find that a flat earth explains more convincingly than a spherical earth? List one or a few items rather than a laundry list if you prefer.

Meanwhile, how could a nearby moon produce the observed pattern of tides on a flat earth? What causes the high tide under the moon if it's not gravity (TBH, I forget if you subscribe to UA or not)? Why would there be a high tide both under the moon and opposite where it is if the earth were flat?

The moon both attracts and repeals water.  The high tide on the other end of the disk is a result of the repelled water. 

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 08, 2014, 09:11:29 AM

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 08:48:10 AM

For me, it's not religious at all.  I feel that the evidence for a round earth just isn't that strong.  Sure people say that the earth is round, but how do we know exactly?  It's nice to take people on their words, but often we risk committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, the moon pulls the tides much like round-earthers say, it's just much closer.

What, specifically, do you find that a flat earth explains more convincingly than a spherical earth? List one or a few items rather than a laundry list if you prefer.

Meanwhile, how could a nearby moon produce the observed pattern of tides on a flat earth? What causes the high tide under the moon if it's not gravity (TBH, I forget if you subscribe to UA or not)? Why would there be a high tide both under the moon and opposite where it is if the earth were flat?

The moon both attracts and repeals water.  The high tide on the other end of the disk is a result of the repelled water.

So the moon magically attracting and repelling only water at the same time is perfectly reasonable yet gravity is out of the question?  Explain.

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 12:30:10 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 08, 2014, 09:11:29 AM

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 08:48:10 AM

For me, it's not religious at all.  I feel that the evidence for a round earth just isn't that strong.  Sure people say that the earth is round, but how do we know exactly?  It's nice to take people on their words, but often we risk committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, the moon pulls the tides much like round-earthers say, it's just much closer.

What, specifically, do you find that a flat earth explains more convincingly than a spherical earth? List one or a few items rather than a laundry list if you prefer.

Meanwhile, how could a nearby moon produce the observed pattern of tides on a flat earth? What causes the high tide under the moon if it's not gravity (TBH, I forget if you subscribe to UA or not)? Why would there be a high tide both under the moon and opposite where it is if the earth were flat?

The moon both attracts and repeals water.  The high tide on the other end of the disk is a result of the repelled water.

So the moon magically attracting and repelling only water at the same time is perfectly reasonable yet gravity is out of the question?  Explain.

Attracting and repelling at the same time? Which water molecules are which, and how do they know, or are they both attracted and repelled at the same time? If the latter, wouldn't there be a net attraction or repulsion depending on which is stronger, or, if equal, zero net attraction or repulsion? Interesting concept. Please expand on this.

What am I missing?

That it's largely a joke.

Don't say it's largely a joke ,JimmyTheCrab! That is a no-no !

I got a warning from jroa - "You're chasing newcomers off the website by saying it's a joke."

I think one big joke about flat earthers is their old : "Have you actually been there yourself ? Have you actually seen that yourself  ? Have you actually measured that yourself ?" ......And then there's that "Ice Ring" and that "Ice Dome" ! LOL !

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 12:30:10 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 08, 2014, 09:11:29 AM

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 08:48:10 AM

For me, it's not religious at all.  I feel that the evidence for a round earth just isn't that strong.  Sure people say that the earth is round, but how do we know exactly?  It's nice to take people on their words, but often we risk committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, the moon pulls the tides much like round-earthers say, it's just much closer.

What, specifically, do you find that a flat earth explains more convincingly than a spherical earth? List one or a few items rather than a laundry list if you prefer.

Meanwhile, how could a nearby moon produce the observed pattern of tides on a flat earth? What causes the high tide under the moon if it's not gravity (TBH, I forget if you subscribe to UA or not)? Why would there be a high tide both under the moon and opposite where it is if the earth were flat?

The moon both attracts and repeals water.  The high tide on the other end of the disk is a result of the repelled water.

So the moon magically attracting and repelling only water at the same time is perfectly reasonable yet gravity is out of the question?  Explain.

Yes, just like how magnets "magically" attract and repel magnets.  Do you have an equally hard time wrapping your head around that?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 01:01:48 PM

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 12:30:10 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 08, 2014, 09:11:29 AM

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 08:48:10 AM

For me, it's not religious at all.  I feel that the evidence for a round earth just isn't that strong.  Sure people say that the earth is round, but how do we know exactly?  It's nice to take people on their words, but often we risk committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, the moon pulls the tides much like round-earthers say, it's just much closer.

What, specifically, do you find that a flat earth explains more convincingly than a spherical earth? List one or a few items rather than a laundry list if you prefer.

Meanwhile, how could a nearby moon produce the observed pattern of tides on a flat earth? What causes the high tide under the moon if it's not gravity (TBH, I forget if you subscribe to UA or not)? Why would there be a high tide both under the moon and opposite where it is if the earth were flat?

The moon both attracts and repeals water.  The high tide on the other end of the disk is a result of the repelled water.

So the moon magically attracting and repelling only water at the same time is perfectly reasonable yet gravity is out of the question?  Explain.

Yes, just like how magnets "magically" attract and repel magnets.  Do you have an equally hard time wrapping your head around that?

Can you demonstrate a magnet that both repels and attracts to the same side of the magnet like your magical moon?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 01:01:48 PM

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 12:30:10 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 08, 2014, 09:11:29 AM

Quote from: Pongo on December 08, 2014, 08:48:10 AM

For me, it's not religious at all.  I feel that the evidence for a round earth just isn't that strong.  Sure people say that the earth is round, but how do we know exactly?  It's nice to take people on their words, but often we risk committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, the moon pulls the tides much like round-earthers say, it's just much closer.

What, specifically, do you find that a flat earth explains more convincingly than a spherical earth? List one or a few items rather than a laundry list if you prefer.

Meanwhile, how could a nearby moon produce the observed pattern of tides on a flat earth? What causes the high tide under the moon if it's not gravity (TBH, I forget if you subscribe to UA or not)? Why would there be a high tide both under the moon and opposite where it is if the earth were flat?

The moon both attracts and repeals water.  The high tide on the other end of the disk is a result of the repelled water.

So the moon magically attracting and repelling only water at the same time is perfectly reasonable yet gravity is out of the question?  Explain.

Yes, just like how magnets "magically" attract and repel magnets.  Do you have an equally hard time wrapping your head around that?

There is no explanation for why particles have magnetism, but we know a lot about it when it comes to what it does, and the same applies to gravity.  Your magical Moon theory is just speculation, nothing more.

The moon both attracts and repeals water.  The high tide on the other end of the disk is a result of the repelled water.

Hmm .. interesting but unless you explain it further, this is just another baseless hypothesis.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
This book helps convince many.

No it doesn't.  It's nothing more than an embarrassingly outdated collection of pseudo-scientific "facts", misrepresentations, and outright lies authored by a former lay preacher named Rowbotham, who possessed no scientific qualifications.

When it was cobbled together by expanding an 1849, 16-page pamphlet—in order to earn some easy money for this virtual snake-oil salesman—radio transmission wasn't even invented.  Nor were airplanes, X-rays, automobiles, telephones, submarines, vacuum cleaners, light bulbs, washing machines, helicopters, record players, neon lighting, machine guns, sonar and radar etc.

At the time, modern science was in its infancy, and it was impossible for Rowbotham to have any idea at all of what he was talking about.  Which is why there's so many absurdities in the ENaG book.  In the 21st century, it's nothing more than an interesting curiosity of a time long past, when, generally speaking, the wider public's knowledge of science was virtually zero.  And which made them easy dupes for Rowbotham to fool—and pay for the privilege LOL.

Quote from: hoppy on December 07, 2014, 07:16:02 PM

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
This book helps convince many.

No it doesn't.  It's nothing more than an embarrassingly outdated collection of pseudo-scientific "facts", misrepresentations, and outright lies authored by a former lay preacher named Rowbotham, who possessed no scientific qualifications.

When it was cobbled together by expanding an 1849, 16-page pamphlet—in order to earn some easy money for this virtual snake-oil salesman—radio transmission wasn't even invented.  Nor were airplanes, X-rays, automobiles, telephones, submarines, vacuum cleaners, light bulbs, washing machines, helicopters, record players, neon lighting, machine guns, sonar and radar etc.

At the time, modern science was in its infancy, and it was impossible for Rowbotham to have any idea at all of what he was talking about.  Which is why there's so many absurdities in the ENaG book.  In the 21st century, it's nothing more than an interesting curiosity of a time long past, when, generally speaking, the wider public's knowledge of science was virtually zero.  And which made them easy dupes for Rowbotham to fool—and pay for the privilege LOL.

Well to be fair, he is right. As long as you lack basic mathematical skills, the willingness to question everything and test it for yourself and eyes, I am sure this book will help convince you to go with pure fantasy over testable fact.