An unbiased debate.

I would like to see if we can come to some sort of an understanding.

Some individuals believe the Earth is flat. Some individuals believe the earth is round (or spherical.) Obviously, only one group of individuals is correct, and the other group is entirely wrong. For the moment, I am willing to take the stance that I believe nothing about the shape of the Earth. It could be flat, or it could be round. However, I must ask that everyone drop their bias for the moment, whether you support a RE or a FE. We are just here to examine the evidence and come to an ultimate conclusion.

So, how can an unbiased person come to a conclusion?

First, let us determine what evidence is valid. Many flat Earth supporters say that video and photography that supports a round Earth cannot be trusted, because the camera lens can alter the material, and it can also be edited using software. I will agree to this, but it also applies for footage that demonstrates the opposite, because for all we know this evidence could also have been modified. So, the kind of evidence we are looking for to reach our conclusion is the kind that cannot be maliciously changed or misinterpreted.

There are a few rules that everyone must follow in this debate:

• No attacking individuals personally.
• No biased statements.
• You must stay on topic.
• No raging.
• No provoking anger.

Break a rule once and you are automatically disqualified from participating in this debate. No exceptions.

Now, let's respectfully begin this thread.

Your suggestion is more than reasonable mate but there's a big problem: This is the FES we're talking about here; the existence of which not even all round-earthers can agree as to whether or not is real or just a really long troll/prank/con-job. No, truly!

If the FE'ers were to agree with your rules, most would be unable to post to begin with (including our much esteemed 'mod') and the others who actually could would have to agree within a few pages the Earth is indeed an oblate spheroid. Am I perhaps exaggerating? Not even close.

All they have is derailing, avoiding questions, ad hominems, fallacies and really, really entertaining delusions about how they think the world works (eg. see some of JRowe & sceptimatic's work; it's gut-busting stuff). Let's face it: that's why most of us are here - for the fun of it.

In their heart of hearts, they know the Earth is a spheroid, all other noise is just an attempt to distract them from their empty lives because they 'figured it out' and that sets them apart and makes them special.

Your suggestion is more than reasonable mate but there's a big problem: This is the FES we're talking about here; the existence of which not even all round-earthers can agree as to whether or not is real or just a really long troll/prank/con-job. No, truly!

If the FE'ers were to agree with your rules, most would be unable to post to begin with (including our much esteemed 'mod') and the others who actually could would have to agree within a few pages the Earth is indeed an oblate spheroid. Am I perhaps exaggerating? Not even close.

All they have is derailing, avoiding questions, ad hominems, fallacies and really, really entertaining delusions about how they think the world works (eg. see some of JRowe & sceptimatic's work; it's gut-busting stuff). Let's face it: that's why most of us are here - for the fun of it.

In their heart of hearts, they know the Earth is a spheroid, all other noise is just an attempt to distract them from their empty lives because they 'figured it out' and that sets them apart and makes them special.

- This is aside from the debate -

While I completely agree with your statements, my idea is that this debate can help those who are not trolling and are seriously buying into the FE model come back to reality.

- Bias deactivated -

You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong. 

You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.

That isn't that plausible though.
How could the true shape of the earth not even be guessed for so many years?
I know; Conspiracy^tm

In their heart of hearts, they know the Earth is a spheroid, all other noise is just an attempt to distract them from their empty lives because they 'figured it out' and that sets them apart and makes them special.

I don't think I could have put it better.

You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.

I know the big words in the flat earth vocabulary are "denial" and "fake."

If you want to get into  reality the earth is a globe. No question about it. Period.

Quote from: jroa on June 25, 2015, 04:01:40 PM

You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.

I know the big words in the flat earth vocabulary are "denial" and "fake."

If you want to get into  reality the earth is a globe. No question about it. Period.

It was declared by the OP that the Earth is either round or flat and those are the only possibillities.  I then said maybe we are both wrong, and you trolls come out of the woodwork, like clockwork.  Maybe you people should get real jobs and leave us non-shills alone to have adult discussions, you arogant &#$.

You cannot have "an unbiased debate". It's oxymoronic. Further it is somewhat naive.

I'm not even sure one can have unbiased discovery. Each new assumption is built on previous assumptions.


Regardless, in the thread so far there has been one unbiased comment so far, which was rapidly panned. Several posts attacking zeteticists of being in need of some sort of special self-affirmation, including one in which our "unbiased" OP admits his open bias.

Truly remarkable.

The only thing heightening the irony would be if proponents of near-universally accepted globularism feel in such need of affirmation that they had to seek out and find an alternate view point to attack using such compelling arguments as "everyone knows" and then engage in mutual stroking of egos at their brilliance to have accepted the Orthodoxy with question and then "enlightening" we poor, feeble-minded fellows who dare oppose it.    Oh, wait

I think tarot cards are silly, but you won't find me seeking out tarot card forums to enlighten the believers with appeals to popularity and waiting for others to cheer me on so I can feel good about myself at night. Nevermind returning endlessly to said forum to berate them for daring to believe something unpopular, heaven forbid. Some of you are in desperate need of a mirror.

Quote from: Googleotomy on June 25, 2015, 06:42:38 PM

Quote from: jroa on June 25, 2015, 04:01:40 PM

You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.

I know the big words in the flat earth vocabulary are "denial" and "fake."

If you want to get into  reality the earth is a globe. No question about it. Period.

It was declared by the OP that the Earth is either round or flat and those are the only possibillities.  I then said maybe we are both wrong, and you trolls come out of the woodwork, like clockwork.  Maybe you people should get real jobs and leave us non-shills alone to have adult discussions, you arogant &#$.

Twice in the one day I find myself agreeing with jroa,  is there some planetary alignment I'm not aware of?  In addition to round or flat, there is concave earth,   hollow earth,  infinite earth and I'm sure there are others,   in some versions of bendy light theories concave earth makes more sense than flat earth.   Pity the concave earth people don't come around here much, the one ot two that have are certifiable.

There can be no such thing as an unbiased debate but there can be a debate where the focus is on evidence and reason rather than personal attacks,  derailment and modestman type anti-everything trolling.

The simplest and most zetetic argument I can think of for a round earth is the existence of the horizon,  the fact that visibility is limited to just a few miles by the horizon, is pretty conclusive proof the earth is round.   Some logical extensions can be made to that, 

First,  the horizon on a clear day is a sharp line,  if we were looking at the perspective vanishing point it would be 300km away and a blurry blue haze.   
Second,  the higher you climb the further you see,  if you climb to the top of a hill or tall building,  the horizon is further away.  Not possible on a flat eath.
Third.  Sunsets,  sunsets are problematic in flat earth theory,  (look it up in ENAG) in round earth sunsets are simply the sun goes below the horizon. 

That's enough for a start.

This looks like a great idea, count me in.  In this thread I will be completely unbiased and pretend that I know nothing about the shape of the Earth.

This looks like a great idea, count me in.  In this thread I will be completely unbiased and pretend that I know nothing about the shape of the Earth.

I think you and your friends are doing one hell of a job pretending you know about the shape of the Earth so it'll be a good laugh to see you pretend you know nothing. I'd like to see how you manage to start this and end it.

There are scientific instruments and equipment (and very simple ones) that can only work if the earth is spherical.

The German Equitorial telescope mount is one. Two perpendicular axes mounted on a alt-azimuth. Line it up to the polar axis dependant on your latitude and it will track any star in sky throughout the night. Impossible on a flat earth.

There are scientific instruments and equipment (and very simple ones) that can only work if the earth is spherical.

The German Equitorial telescope mount is one. Two perpendicular axes mounted on a alt-azimuth. Line it up to the polar axis dependant on your latitude and it will track any star in sky throughout the night. Impossible on a flat earth.

Can you show us your video of it working. It's an unbiased debate so you need to show you proving stuff.
Mikeman has already said that he's willing to pretend that he knows absolutely nothing about a globe and will start from scratch. How about you do the same, which means you can't rely on stuff like this as a proof of anything. Ok?

Take your pick:
https://www.google.com/search?q=German+Equatorial+telescope&safe=active&rlz=1C1GGGE___US611US611&es_sm=93&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=SpeOVae4GsiXgwSUtobACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&dpr=1

I would like to see if we can come to some sort of an understanding.

Some individuals believe the Earth is flat. Some individuals believe the earth is round (or spherical.) Obviously, only one group of individuals is correct, and the other group is entirely wrong. For the moment, I am willing to take the stance that I believe nothing about the shape of the Earth. It could be flat, or it could be round. However, I must ask that everyone drop their bias for the moment, whether you support a RE or a FE. We are just here to examine the evidence and come to an ultimate conclusion.

So, how can an unbiased person come to a conclusion?

First, let us determine what evidence is valid. Many flat Earth supporters say that video and photography that supports a round Earth cannot be trusted, because the camera lens can alter the material, and it can also be edited using software. I will agree to this, but it also applies for footage that demonstrates the opposite, because for all we know this evidence could also have been modified. So, the kind of evidence we are looking for to reach our conclusion is the kind that cannot be maliciously changed or misinterpreted.

There are a few rules that everyone must follow in this debate:

• No attacking individuals personally.
• No biased statements.
• You must stay on topic.
• No raging.
• No provoking anger.

Break a rule once and you are automatically disqualified from participating in this debate. No exceptions.

Now, let's respectfully begin this thread.

I dont understand.  Nor would it be just to understand a contentious sly grub as your self .

Take your pick:
https://www.google.com/search?q=German+Equatorial+telescope&safe=active&rlz=1C1GGGE___US611US611&es_sm=93&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=SpeOVae4GsiXgwSUtobACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&dpr=1

Ok, so this mount proves a globe, right? Is this what you're saying?
If that's the case then all you high fore-headed boffins know it to be true, so there's nothing left for you to prove.
Off you trot and let those that want to question this stuff, question it.
Little 17 year old mikeman has already said he will start from scratch as if he's just fell out of his nappy onto the flat floor and looked about the world. Now he has to grow up again with no help from the mainstream books on offer, nor the reliance on thousands of years old so called professors of that time.

I'm still waiting for mikeman to put forward his proof of a globe.

You asked for a video of them working. There they are.

You said one side or the other has to be right.  However, there is a third possibility: that both sides are wrong.

See: Torus Earth Theory.

Quote from: Misero on June 27, 2015, 05:30:30 AM

Take your pick:
https://www.google.com/search?q=German+Equatorial+telescope&safe=active&rlz=1C1GGGE___US611US611&es_sm=93&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=SpeOVae4GsiXgwSUtobACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&dpr=1

Ok, so this mount proves a globe, right? Is this what you're saying?
If that's the case then all you high fore-headed boffins know it to be true, so there's nothing left for you to prove.
Off you trot and let those that want to question this stuff, question it.
Little 17 year old mikeman has already said he will start from scratch as if he's just fell out of his nappy onto the flat floor and looked about the world. Now he has to grow up again with no help from the mainstream books on offer, nor the reliance on thousands of years old so called professors of that time.

I'm still waiting for mikeman to put forward his proof of a globe.

"Show me this proof of yours."

*proof displayed*

"Okay. That's cool. I'm going to completely ignore it. You can leave now. Okay now mikeman show me your proof.".........

I'm still waiting for mikeman to put forward his proof of a globe.

There is so much I don't know where to start...

Here goes, just try to debunk this:

• Sunsets are impossible on a flat Earth.
• The south celestial pole is impossible on a flat Earth.
• The Moon always being seen from the same angle from everywhere on Earth is impossible on a flat Earth.
• The Sun always appears the same size regardless of the time of day, which is impossible on a flat Earth.
• I can see the International Space Station and other satellites flying overhead.
• GPS and satellite communications work.
• I can see further the higher up I am.
• The conspiracy required to hide the shape of the Earth and fake space travel is WAY too big for any reasonable person to ever hope to sustain.
• Round Earth predictions come true while flat Earth predictions don't exist.
• I can't see the Sun at night and FET claims that it should still be above the horizon.
• The Coriolis Effect is present as a result of the Earth rotating.
• Stellar Parallax proves that the Earth is moving around the Sun.
• The curvature of the Earth has to be accounted for when plotting out cities.
• Space tourism is a thing.
• Ships disappear beneath the horizon as they go further away, and they can be brought back into view by going higher up.

Alright, good luck.  Considering which thread this is, I will be open minded and consider your response.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2015, 05:44:07 AM

I'm still waiting for mikeman to put forward his proof of a globe.

There is so much I don't know where to start...

Here goes, just try to debunk this:

• Sunsets are impossible on a flat Earth.
• The south celestial pole is impossible on a flat Earth.
• The Moon always being seen from the same angle from everywhere on Earth is impossible on a flat Earth.
• The Sun always appears the same size regardless of the time of day, which is impossible on a flat Earth.
• I can see the International Space Station and other satellites flying overhead.
• GPS and satellite communications work.
• I can see further the higher up I am.
• The conspiracy required to hide the shape of the Earth and fake space travel is WAY too big for any reasonable person to ever hope to sustain.
• Round Earth predictions come true while flat Earth predictions don't exist.
• I can't see the Sun at night and FET claims that it should still be above the horizon.
• The Coriolis Effect is present as a result of the Earth rotating.
• Stellar Parallax proves that the Earth is moving around the Sun.
• The curvature of the Earth has to be accounted for when plotting out cities.
• Space tourism is a thing.
• Ships disappear beneath the horizon as they go further away, and they can be brought back into view by going higher up.

Alright, good luck.  Considering which thread this is, I will be open minded and consider your response.

This looks like a great idea, count me in.  In this thread I will be completely unbiased and pretend that I know nothing about the shape of the Earth.

So much for PRETENDING you know nothing and then going into frenzy mode of seemingly accepting that all your above are proof's, bearing in mind, you are unbiased and know nothing about a globe.

 

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 03:36:41 AM

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.

If I follow this line of thought,  we are going to end up arguing gravity vs denspressure,   so I say the water,  ( and everything else ) is attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity,  which leads me to ask,  would denspressure work on a globe?  or does denspressure only work if the earth is flat?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2015, 03:39:36 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 03:36:41 AM

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.

If I follow this line of thought,  we are going to end up arguing gravity vs denspressure,   so I say the water,  ( and everything else ) is attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity,  which leads me to ask,  would denspressure work on a globe?  or does denspressure only work if the earth is flat?

Denpressure couldn't work on a globe. If the Earth was a globe is would have no foundation for a dome, unless the dome.
To keep atmospheric pressure in and to stop water from falling off, you have to have a system that we know works in real life and not what appears to work in fantasy.

When you pour water onto a flat plate you know it's going to run off. To stop it running off you have to create a barrier. Ice works well. It's a little more complicated than just placing a ring of ice around the rim of the plate. The plate has to be covered or life does not exist in any form.

The ice at the foundation is built up die to no energy reaching the outer edge of it. The inner edge gets so much until it becomes too thick. This creates a build up.
It also builds up from the centre of dense to less dense molecules. The least dense have no more pressure to offer. It freezes against a vacuum, just like a beaker with water in would freeze inside a bell jar if the pressure is evacuated enough.

This dome is self sustaining. It's natural. It is not a construction by man nor any other entity.
This snow globe like Earth is holding everything in.

Your globe  can only hold all it's stuff in by using magic, which is what it used, complete with explanations that make no rational sense, yet are accepted due to severe indoctrination/brainwashing and ridicule for those who dare to question it.

So, as for denpressure versus gravity being your key issue with this. The real issue is much simpler. Gravity is made up. It's a fantasy. It cannot be explained. Mine can but it can only be explained to those who are not of a mind to immediately reject it by trying to use bullshit to do so.

Try it some day if you have the balls to take a different view. I'm not arsed either way. I just say, do it for you as an exercise in alternate thinking.
I've done the globe nonsense. I've been through it all and took the globe side just like you. I only realised how pathetic it was when I had the time to actually think in a critical way over a period of time. I had to be dragged into it with a struggle. Now I have no need to be dragged. I can clearly see the lies in the globe model and a lot of the stuff that goes with it.

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 04:17:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2015, 03:39:36 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 03:36:41 AM

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.

If I follow this line of thought,  we are going to end up arguing gravity vs denspressure,   so I say the water,  ( and everything else ) is attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity,  which leads me to ask,  would denspressure work on a globe?  or does denspressure only work if the earth is flat?

Denpressure couldn't work on a globe. If the Earth was a globe is would have no foundation for a dome, unless the dome.
To keep atmospheric pressure in and to stop water from falling off, you have to have a system that we know works in real life and not what appears to work in fantasy.

When you pour water onto a flat plate you know it's going to run off. To stop it running off you have to create a barrier. Ice works well. It's a little more complicated than just placing a ring of ice around the rim of the plate. The plate has to be covered or life does not exist in any form.

The ice at the foundation is built up die to no energy reaching the outer edge of it. The inner edge gets so much until it becomes too thick. This creates a build up.
It also builds up from the centre of dense to less dense molecules. The least dense have no more pressure to offer. It freezes against a vacuum, just like a beaker with water in would freeze inside a bell jar if the pressure is evacuated enough.

This dome is self sustaining. It's natural. It is not a construction by man nor any other entity.
This snow globe like Earth is holding everything in.

Your globe  can only hold all it's stuff in by using magic, which is what it used, complete with explanations that make no rational sense, yet are accepted due to severe indoctrination/brainwashing and ridicule for those who dare to question it.

So, as for denpressure versus gravity being your key issue with this. The real issue is much simpler. Gravity is made up. It's a fantasy. It cannot be explained. Mine can but it can only be explained to those who are not of a mind to immediately reject it by trying to use bullshit to do so.

Try it some day if you have the balls to take a different view. I'm not arsed either way. I just say, do it for you as an exercise in alternate thinking.
I've done the globe nonsense. I've been through it all and took the globe side just like you. I only realised how pathetic it was when I had the time to actually think in a critical way over a period of time. I had to be dragged into it with a struggle. Now I have no need to be dragged. I can clearly see the lies in the globe model and a lot of the stuff that goes with it.

The whole point of this thread is to have an open mind,  that's where I'm coming from.  (or trying to)

I can see why the earth has to be flat for denspressure to work,   so continuing with denspressure,   what causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease with altitude?

The whole point of this thread is to have an open mind,  that's where I'm coming from.  (or trying to)

I can see why the earth has to be flat for denspressure to work,   so continuing with denspressure,   what causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease with altitude?

I've tried to explain this and people just either don't get it because they are incapable of thinking on that line or they immediately put up a gravity shield of thought.

Let's see how you fare again, Geoff. Maybe you've decided to play another game.

I'll say this in a few words. I expect you to try and grasp it by using your common sense.
If atmosphere is pushed UP from the ground into gas form, it's pushed into sea level molecules of compressed mass and now has to have more energy to expand through it, by which time it gets broken down into it's various elements meaning it takes a place higher up due to that energy force.

Because it's expanded due to energy it squeezes through the denser molecules which react by crushing back by smaller but denser numbers.
As this molecule  takes it's place in the atmospheric layer, it displaces molecules in that layer until some will reach the top as they expand due to not having to have any more or very little matter to push through. Because of this they become really expanded meaning less can occupy the space above, not to mention the dome is channeling the matter around it like an arch, leaving less at the top.

Think of it like climbing into bed, only you have to do it by pushing yourself into the covers because your bed is full of wet army blankets stacked up. You lay under them and feel yourself getting crushed. You fight against it by pushing back against those covers, trying to kick them away.
You are so frenzied that you've literally heated yourself up by friction and now you have to push through those blankets to try and get to the top or to a place where you can expand yourself.

Imagine getting to the very top and laying on top of the blankets. You are now only applying your own body onto the blankets below whilst your ceiling facing side has no pressure upon it at all so you have nothing to expand into or struggle against, so you go dormant or go to sleep, until someone else does the same thing and starts nudging your arse to get on top of you. You can call this a semi frozen under dome and so on as you come down.

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 05:07:11 AM

The whole point of this thread is to have an open mind,  that's where I'm coming from.  (or trying to)

I can see why the earth has to be flat for denspressure to work,   so continuing with denspressure,   what causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease with altitude?

I've tried to explain this and people just either don't get it because they are incapable of thinking on that line or they immediately put up a gravity shield of thought.

Let's see how you fare again, Geoff. Maybe you've decided to play another game.

I'll say this in a few words. I expect you to try and grasp it by using your common sense.
If atmosphere is pushed UP from the ground into gas form, it's pushed into sea level molecules of compressed mass and now has to have more energy to expand through it, by which time it gets broken down into it's various elements meaning it takes a place higher up due to that energy force.

Because it's expanded due to energy it squeezes through the denser molecules which react by crushing back by smaller but denser numbers.
As this molecule  takes it's place in the atmospheric layer, it displaces molecules in that layer until some will reach the top as they expand due to not having to have any more or very little matter to push through. Because of this they become really expanded meaning less can occupy the space above, not to mention the dome is channeling the matter around it like an arch, leaving less at the top.

Think of it like climbing into bed, only you have to do it by pushing yourself into the covers because your bed is full of wet army blankets stacked up. You lay under them and feel yourself getting crushed. You fight against it by pushing back against those covers, trying to kick them away.
You are so frenzied that you've literally heated yourself up by friction and now you have to push through those blankets to try and get to the top or to a place where you can expand yourself.

Imagine getting to the very top and laying on top of the blankets. You are now only applying your own body onto the blankets below whilst your ceiling facing side has no pressure upon it at all so you have nothing to expand into or struggle against, so you go dormant or go to sleep, until someone else does the same thing and starts nudging your arse to get on top of you. You can call this a semi frozen under dome and so on as you come down.

Ok,   I'll need time to think about that.    I'm not Geoff by the way.   

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">