The Rationality Room

I thought I would start a thread for round earthers, where we can share particularly "interesting" flat earth claims we have seen, discuss the best way to refute particular flat earth claims, or generally moan.

Shills can also discuss their tactics and frustrations here. 

NOTE: No personal attacks on, or bullying of flat-earthers.

The claim that "Air doesn't exist" is the most interesting claim I've seen. I don't even see a reason to believe that. Nobody was ever skeptical about it existing or not.

I think we need a better way to shutdown reposts of theories that have already been destroyed, eg zigzag. Why do they keep repeating the same crap?

It's against the rules, we can report the- oh wait, that doesn't work very well.

I think we need a better way to shutdown reposts of theories that have already been destroyed, eg zigzag. Why do they keep repeating the same crap?

I agree. But the responses from the none round earth camp are usually not very well organised. Information needs to be provided in a simple easy to read and understand way.
 - Long posts get ignored
 - Explanations over multiple discussions get lost
 - Previous page death of posts (eg, if you are the last person to post before the next page gets generated, then you just wasted your time)

Is there no way to generate a part in the forum for None flat earth information that is well organised and written that we can borrow from.

But in the interest of this discussion I found this

Funny I have been thinking today about exactly the same thing! There should be up and down in space as even the Sun apparently shines at an angle which suggests it is above or below the region which it shines upon. Funny how it does that being 150 million km away, but that is another issue... Even in the round Earth model, however, they should accept that the North pole is above and the South pole is below, it can't be otherwise since they think the Earth has an axis. How can you have an axis and not have above and below? Every sphere has a bottom and a top. The plane of Earth's orbit apparently has up and down too. The question about the space ship was great! It sounds like a cartoon:) The ship goes below the ball then it flips backwards to land hahaha

Apparently I have to walk on my head in the southern Hemisphere because space has an UP and a DOWN

In this thread I will attempt to disprove the myth of the atom.

This one is particularly interesting, although I am not so sure if it is a claim or just an attempt to claim.

Yeah the up and down in space thread was spectacularly stupid. The atoms thread was by Vauxhall, who likes to question everything and I believe tries to stimulate genuine debate most of e time.

I just got this

Are you trying to say that the air moves with earth and they helicopter moves with the air traveling with earth? If so, conversation over. I dont debate with children.

Vauxhall, who likes to question everything and I believe tries to stimulate genuine debate most of e time.

He's previously stated that beyond the Ice Wall live giant, shapeshifting turtles, some of which are the islands of Japan, one of which he's had sex with. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 04:17:21 AM

Vauxhall, who likes to question everything and I believe tries to stimulate genuine debate most of e time.

He's previously stated that beyond the Ice Wall live giant, shapeshifting turtles, some of which are the islands of Japan, one of which he's had sex with. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

But I love that, that's entertaining! It's people not understanding simple concepts that gets to me.

But I love that, that's entertaining! It's people not understanding simple concepts that gets to me.

To be fair, everyone has different definitions of 'simple'.

Another thing that annoys me, and I've seen it once today, is when a flat earther loses an argument and they respond with "ah okay, maybe we are both right"!

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 05:55:48 AM

But I love that, that's entertaining! It's people not understanding simple concepts that gets to me.

To be fair, everyone has different definitions of 'simple'.

Its just a more simple definition for most flat earthers.

Is anyone else sick to death of aether? It's just like the laziest excuse ever. "Why is the sky blue?" - "Aether." "Why are there two celestial poles?" - "Aether". "Why is the only Christmas carol you ever hear in American movies Deck The Halls With Boughs Of Holly?" - "Aether".

Is anyone else sick to death of aether? It's just like the laziest excuse ever. "Why is the sky blue?" - "Aether." "Why are there two celestial poles?" - "Aether". "Why is the only Christmas carol you ever hear in American movies Deck The Halls With Boughs Of Holly?" - "Aether".

At least they're trying. It's vaguely possibly to have a discussion about aether, when properties are assigned, rather than the "I don't know but you're a shill!" you'd get otherwise.

Just look at the questions for which aether isn't an answer, and see the floundering.

Is anyone else sick to death of gravity? It's just like the laziest excuse ever. "Why is the sky blue?" - "Gravity." "Why are there two celestial poles?" - "Gravity". "Why is the only Christmas carol you ever hear in American movies Deck The Halls With Boughs Of Holly?" - "Gravity".

So tired of RE'ers using an undetectable and unprovable force to avoid answering questions!!

Is anyone else sick to death of gravity? It's just like the laziest excuse ever. "Why is the sky blue?" - "Gravity." "Why are there two celestial poles?" - "Gravity". "Why is the only Christmas carol you ever hear in American movies Deck The Halls With Boughs Of Holly?" - "Gravity".

So tired of RE'ers using an undetectable and unprovable force to avoid answering questions!!

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

But we all know that's really the aether!

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 02:31:13 PM

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

But we all know that's really the aether!

As its impossible for earth to still be accelerating at 9.8ms^-1 after all this time, we can know that it can't be aethereal acceleration I'm feeling.

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

Yes I absolutely do.

And don't bring up magnets. I don't want to talk to a scientist because those mf'ers lyin' and gettin' me pissed.

*drops mic*

Actually I don't think we point out often enough how ridiculous the 9.8m/s/s acceleration thing is. At that rate, the earth would have reached the speed of light after a year.

Yes it can keep accelerating, but by smaller and smaller amounts. By now the acceleration would be infinitesimal. We really let them off the hook with that one.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 20, 2015, 02:19:14 PM

Is anyone else sick to death of gravity? It's just like the laziest excuse ever. "Why is the sky blue?" - "Gravity." "Why are there two celestial poles?" - "Gravity". "Why is the only Christmas carol you ever hear in American movies Deck The Halls With Boughs Of Holly?" - "Gravity".

So tired of RE'ers using an undetectable and unprovable force to avoid answering questions!!

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

This is a good example of a fallacious argument we can all learn from. Here we can see how Vauxhall thinks he's making a like-with-like comparison, but he isn't, because we don't assign multiple properties to gravity - just one - and it's not undetectable.
Once the fallacies which FE'ers universally employ are highlighted, it's easy to counter them.

Actually I don't think we point out often enough how ridiculous the 9.8m/s/s acceleration thing is. At that rate, the earth would have reached the speed of light after a year.

Yes it can keep accelerating, but by smaller and smaller amounts. By now the acceleration would be infinitesimal. We really let them off the hook with that one.

The acceleration argument is easily dismissed by gravity variances. Their only recourse with gravity variance is to pretend all the gravity measurements are false (thus losing the argument under the argumentum ad conspirium fallacy). Some of the weaker trolls have attempted to claim that it varies due to the pull of celestial objects, but since these are (a) mostly too weak to measure at all and therefore incapable of causing measurable variances, or (b) strong enough to be easily linked with such bodies as the moon and therefore provide a good test of conventional gravity properties, that too can be dismissed. When pressed on this issue, they will either clam up, claim it has been explained many times (and refuse to provide a link to where) or more commonly these days, cite aether.

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 02:31:13 PM

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

Yes I absolutely do.

I thought you accepted celestial gravitation? How do you explain variations in 'UA', then?

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 20, 2015, 02:43:38 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 02:31:13 PM

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

Yes I absolutely do.

I thought you accepted celestial gravitation? How do you explain variations in 'UA', then?

There are no variations in UA. Any data recorded that shows otherwise is faulty.

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 02:31:13 PM

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

Yes I absolutely do.

And don't bring up magnets. I don't want to talk to a scientist because those mf'ers lyin' and gettin' me pissed.

*drops mic*

Okay. We can easily observe that matter in the observable universe is clumped together into stars, galaxies etc. Without gravity, what is your alternative explanation for this?

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 20, 2015, 02:43:38 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 02:31:13 PM

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

Yes I absolutely do.

And don't bring up magnets. I don't want to talk to a scientist because those mf'ers lyin' and gettin' me pissed.

*drops mic*

Okay. We can easily observe that matter in the observable universe is clumped together into stars, galaxies etc. Without gravity, what is your alternative explanation for this?

Easily observe? Please clarify.

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 05:09:24 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 20, 2015, 02:43:38 PM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 02:31:13 PM

It's hardly underectable. I can detect it right now! Do you deny that mass attracts mass?

Yes I absolutely do.

And don't bring up magnets. I don't want to talk to a scientist because those mf'ers lyin' and gettin' me pissed.

*drops mic*

Okay. We can easily observe that matter in the observable universe is clumped together into stars, galaxies etc. Without gravity, what is your alternative explanation for this?

Easily observe? Please clarify.

Look at the night sky. That's easy enough.

Actually I don't think we point out often enough how ridiculous the 9.8m/s/s acceleration thing is. At that rate, the earth would have reached the speed of light after a year.

Yes it can keep accelerating, but by smaller and smaller amounts. By now the acceleration would be infinitesimal. We really let them off the hook with that one.

Are you saying that Special Relativity is bull sh*t?  Perhaps you should study up on the subject before you make yourself look even more like an ass.