I've got a new idea to simplify the debate

I suggest the RE'ers to list and numerotate here all the RE arguments, and same for the FE'ers.

And FE'ers could correctly try to give an explanation to RE arguments. Same for RE'ers.

This would allow us to maintain a list of all of the evidence for each side, and help us to know which one is the most scientifically plausible.

I suggest the RE'ers to list and numerotate here all the RE arguments, and same for the FE'ers.

And FE'ers could correctly try to give an explanation to RE arguments. Same for RE'ers.

This would allow us to maintain a list of all of the evidence for each side, and help us to know which one is the most scientifically plausible.

I don't think anybody will be bothered enough to keep track of arguments for any more than a day. Unless you are willing to make this list.

The only problem with such a list is that all the evidence supporting a round earth will be disputed by the flat earthers as either faked,  involving maths or science,  produced by satanists,  and so on,  you get the idea.

Whereas all the evidence for a flat earth.....   wait a minute,   there isn't any?     That's going to be a VERY short list.

I tried to make a similar thread in the General section. I may have put up some pretty tough requirements though to be listed, just to make sure that it's quality evidence. Didn't get so much evidence to list, and FE:s completely ignored the thread. Listing arguments instead of evidence (which I did) may be trickier.

I suggest the RE'ers to list and numerotate here all the RE arguments, and same for the FE'ers.

And FE'ers could correctly try to give an explanation to RE arguments. Same for RE'ers.

This would allow us to maintain a list of all of the evidence for each side, and help us to know which one is the most scientifically plausible.

Ok, I'm gonna list a few:

-There is absolutely no compelling explanation for ships and buildings appearing to "sink" below the horizon

-Sunsets wouldn't work on a flat Earth

-The southern circumpolar stars can be seen from everywhere in the southern hemisphere when looking southwards, which would be impossible on a flat earth

-Foucault pendulum

-Cavendish experiment

-Coriolis effect

-Round Earth shadow in lunar eclipses (flat earthers try to pretend that it's some sort of "shadow object" or something

-Time zones make no sense in the flat Earth map and would never work with a spotlight sun

-Flight distances in the southern hemisphere would be ridiculous compared to what we observe

-The very fact that distances on globes are accurate disproves a flat earth, because geometry on a spherical surface doesn't work on a flat surface

-Photographic evidence (that, of course, flat earthers reject)

-Antarctica midnight sun

-Satellites and the ISS can easily be observed from the earth

That's just some for now.

I'm gonna update the list

ROUND EARTH

-There is absolutely no compelling explanation for ships and buildings appearing to "sink" below the horizon

-Sunsets wouldn't work on a flat Earth

-The southern circumpolar stars can be seen from everywhere in the southern hemisphere when looking southwards, which would be impossible on a flat earth

-Foucault pendulum

-Cavendish experiment

-Coriolis effect

-Round Earth shadow in lunar eclipses (flat earthers try to pretend that it's some sort of "shadow object" or something

-Time zones make no sense in the flat Earth map and would never work with a spotlight sun

-Flight distances in the southern hemisphere would be ridiculous compared to what we observe

-The very fact that distances on globes are accurate disproves a flat earth, because geometry on a spherical surface doesn't work on a flat surface

-Photographic evidence (that, of course, flat earthers reject)

-Antarctica midnight sun

-Satellites and the ISS can easily be observed from the earth

-Satellites can easily observe the Earth

-Gravity variation between North Pole and Equator

-No Ice Wall in Antartica

-Rocket launches can easily be observed

-We are able to bring back rocks from the Moon

-We are able to place reflectors on the Moon, and shoot lasers on them

FLAT EARTH

-NASA is a conspiracy

-???

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

It's not so much an argument against a flat earth, more like an inconvenience with the current model:

-The flat earth model and universal acceleration does nothing to explain the orbits of any celestial object

-The distances of the moon, the planets, and the sun have been measured and do not agree with the predictions of the flat earth model

-The "official" model of the planets that is proposed here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets does not explain the transit of Venus, or the fact that there was no noticeable difference in the parallax of Venus compared to the parallax of the sun, since the transit happened at the same time for observers all over the Earth.

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

I don't know. Maybe because it aims to simplify the debate by creating a list of arguments and counter arguments?

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:09:31 AM

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

I don't know. Maybe because it aims to simplify the debate by creating a list of arguments and counter arguments?

If this is just a thread for roundies to post what they think are inconsistencies in the FET model, then perhaps it should have been posted in the Angry Ranting section instead of the debate section? 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 06:11:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:09:31 AM

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

I don't know. Maybe because it aims to simplify the debate by creating a list of arguments and counter arguments?

If this is just a thread for roundies to post what they think are inconsistencies in the FET model, then perhaps it should have been posted in the Angry Ranting section instead of the debate section?

No, it is neither angry nor a rant.

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:25:16 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 06:11:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:09:31 AM

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

I don't know. Maybe because it aims to simplify the debate by creating a list of arguments and counter arguments?

If this is just a thread for roundies to post what they think are inconsistencies in the FET model, then perhaps it should have been posted in the Angry Ranting section instead of the debate section?

No, it is neither angry nor a rant.

Well, it is definitely not meant to be a debate, now is it? 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 06, 2015, 06:35:59 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:25:16 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 06:11:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:09:31 AM

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

I don't know. Maybe because it aims to simplify the debate by creating a list of arguments and counter arguments?

If this is just a thread for roundies to post what they think are inconsistencies in the FET model, then perhaps it should have been posted in the Angry Ranting section instead of the debate section?

No, it is neither angry nor a rant.

Well, it is definitely not meant to be a debate, now is it?

It's meant to help the debate. This topic is meant to resume all of the arguments and counter-arguments of each side in a detailed list. And to propose counter-arguments for each of the listed arguments.

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:39:57 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 06, 2015, 06:35:59 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:25:16 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 06:11:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:09:31 AM

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

I don't know. Maybe because it aims to simplify the debate by creating a list of arguments and counter arguments?

If this is just a thread for roundies to post what they think are inconsistencies in the FET model, then perhaps it should have been posted in the Angry Ranting section instead of the debate section?

No, it is neither angry nor a rant.

Well, it is definitely not meant to be a debate, now is it?

It's meant to help the debate. This topic is meant to resume all of the arguments and counter-arguments of each side in a detailed list. And to propose counter-arguments for each of the listed arguments.

What would be the point of having a debate forum if everyone's arguments are laid out in one thread?  Would a debate in your idealized forum go something like this, "oh yeah, what about post 23?  Well, I can counter that with post 11.  Yeah, well you are ignoring post 48?"  Perhaps you think we should just have a FAQ and nothing else?  Most of you people say you come here for the intellectual challenge.  How much fun would it be if you came here and someone said, "Your points are already in the everything thread.  Sorry, there is nothing more to discuss?"

Perhaps you think your roundy buddies need help with their weak arguments, so you are trying to create a single place where they can look up answers when they get backed into a corner with logic and Free Thinking?  I find it's odd that you think every argument and counter argument should be placed in a central location on a Flat Earth Forum.  Did somebody hurt your feelings or something? 

Quote from: XaeXae on September 06, 2015, 06:54:29 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:39:57 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 06, 2015, 06:35:59 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:25:16 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 06:11:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:09:31 AM

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

I don't know. Maybe because it aims to simplify the debate by creating a list of arguments and counter arguments?

If this is just a thread for roundies to post what they think are inconsistencies in the FET model, then perhaps it should have been posted in the Angry Ranting section instead of the debate section?

No, it is neither angry nor a rant.

Well, it is definitely not meant to be a debate, now is it?

It's meant to help the debate. This topic is meant to resume all of the arguments and counter-arguments of each side in a detailed list. And to propose counter-arguments for each of the listed arguments.

What would be the point of having a debate forum if everyone's arguments are laid out in one thread?  Would a debate in your idealized forum go something like this, "oh yeah, what about post 23?  Well, I can counter that with post 11.  Yeah, well you are ignoring post 48?"  Perhaps you think we should just have a FAQ and nothing else?  Most of you people say you come here for the intellectual challenge.  How much fun would it be if you came here and someone said, "Your points are already in the everything thread.  Sorry, there is nothing more to discuss?"

Perhaps you think your roundy buddies need help with their weak arguments, so you are trying to create a single place where they can look up answers when they get backed into a corner with logic and Free Thinking?  I find it's odd that you think every argument and counter argument should be placed in a central location on a Flat Earth Forum.  Did somebody hurt your feelings or something?

I think this is at great help against trolls like you who keep posting the same "unrelated to topic" arguments all over this page.

Great thread, with good intentions. Lets hope its not moved to "complete nonsence" like my other thread, feels like someone in here is working against me :S fuckin creeper

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 07:04:00 AM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 06, 2015, 06:54:29 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:39:57 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 06, 2015, 06:35:59 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:25:16 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 06:11:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:09:31 AM

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

I don't know. Maybe because it aims to simplify the debate by creating a list of arguments and counter arguments?

If this is just a thread for roundies to post what they think are inconsistencies in the FET model, then perhaps it should have been posted in the Angry Ranting section instead of the debate section?

No, it is neither angry nor a rant.

Well, it is definitely not meant to be a debate, now is it?

It's meant to help the debate. This topic is meant to resume all of the arguments and counter-arguments of each side in a detailed list. And to propose counter-arguments for each of the listed arguments.

What would be the point of having a debate forum if everyone's arguments are laid out in one thread?  Would a debate in your idealized forum go something like this, "oh yeah, what about post 23?  Well, I can counter that with post 11.  Yeah, well you are ignoring post 48?"  Perhaps you think we should just have a FAQ and nothing else?  Most of you people say you come here for the intellectual challenge.  How much fun would it be if you came here and someone said, "Your points are already in the everything thread.  Sorry, there is nothing more to discuss?"

Perhaps you think your roundy buddies need help with their weak arguments, so you are trying to create a single place where they can look up answers when they get backed into a corner with logic and Free Thinking?  I find it's odd that you think every argument and counter argument should be placed in a central location on a Flat Earth Forum.  Did somebody hurt your feelings or something?

I think this is at great help against trolls like you who keep posting the same "unrelated to topic" arguments all over this page.

Great thread, with good intentions. Lets hope its not moved to "complete nonsence" like my other thread, feels like someone in here is working against me :S fuckin creeper

Oh, should we sticky this thread?  Or perhaps make a Round Earth Repository so that any new person does not need to do any research before claiming that the toilets flush backwards in Australia?  You are delusional. 

Quote from: XaeXae on September 06, 2015, 06:54:29 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:39:57 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 06, 2015, 06:35:59 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:25:16 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 06:11:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:09:31 AM

Why was this thread posted in the debate section?

I don't know. Maybe because it aims to simplify the debate by creating a list of arguments and counter arguments?

If this is just a thread for roundies to post what they think are inconsistencies in the FET model, then perhaps it should have been posted in the Angry Ranting section instead of the debate section?

No, it is neither angry nor a rant.

Well, it is definitely not meant to be a debate, now is it?

It's meant to help the debate. This topic is meant to resume all of the arguments and counter-arguments of each side in a detailed list. And to propose counter-arguments for each of the listed arguments.

What would be the point of having a debate forum if everyone's arguments are laid out in one thread?  Would a debate in your idealized forum go something like this, "oh yeah, what about post 23?  Well, I can counter that with post 11.  Yeah, well you are ignoring post 48?"  Perhaps you think we should just have a FAQ and nothing else?  Most of you people say you come here for the intellectual challenge.  How much fun would it be if you came here and someone said, "Your points are already in the everything thread.  Sorry, there is nothing more to discuss?"

This is for RESUMING the arguments and to see easily if they were already countered. Not for the debate in himself. Discussion about the presented points is still possible out of this topic.

Perhaps you think your roundy buddies need help with their weak arguments, so you are trying to create a single place where they can look up answers when they get backed into a corner with logic and Free Thinking?  I find it's odd that you think every argument and counter argument should be placed in a central location on a Flat Earth Forum.

I find it's normal.

Did somebody hurt your feelings or something?

Ad hominem, ad hominem...

Sorry, but we have a debate section for the debate, in and of itself. 

Sorry, but we have a debate section for the debate, in and of itself.

Go truck your elf, you trucking motherlucker. I reallly hope someone trucks you over with a big black mock. and then finally someone might be able to truck some logic into your lane. Have a nice day

Sorry, but we have a debate section for the debate, in and of itself.

Are you seriously going to debate whether or not this thread posted on the debate section meant to help with the debate and generate some debate belongs to the debate forums and generates debate?? WTF jroa? Well, even if it wasn't a debate thread, it now is, because of you!

Now, instead of trying to figure out whether or not this is a debate thread or not, why don't you post some of your arguments for a flat earth? It would be a lot more useful.

Also, who mentioned toilets flushing backwards?

This is my argument, please archive this if you wish.

1. Start at north pole. Walk/Fly/Drive/Swim/Hover in a straight line, the shortest route to the equator, any direction will do as long it's a straight line.

2. When you reach the equator, make a 90 degree turn. Directions don't matter, as long as you walk the same distance.

3. when you reach the same distance, make a 90 degree turn in the same direction. Walk the same distance.

4. now, this is the funny part. on a sphere, these steps will make a perfect triangle and you will be back to where you started.

if however you were on a flat earth, you will end up in the middle of nowhere, but if you repeat the last step you will make a perfect square and be back at the north/south pole.



This also works if you start at a random location.

This is my argument, please archive this if you wish.

1. Start at north pole. Walk/Fly/Drive/Swim/Hover in a straight line, the shortest route to the equator, any direction will do as long it's a straight line.

2. When you reach the equator, make a 90 degree turn. Directions don't matter, as long as you walk the same distance.

3. when you reach the same distance, make a 90 degree turn in the same direction. Walk the same distance.

4. now, this is the funny part. on a sphere, these steps will make a perfect triangle and you will be back to where you started.

if however you were on a flat earth, you will end up in the middle of nowhere, but if you repeat the last step you will make a perfect square and be back at the north/south pole.



This also works if you start at a random location.

This argument is already on the list I think, where it says that geometry on a spherical surface can't be "translated" into a flat surface and keeping the distances intact.

Quote from: sircool on September 06, 2015, 08:56:19 AM

This is my argument, please archive this if you wish.

1. Start at north pole. Walk/Fly/Drive/Swim/Hover in a straight line, the shortest route to the equator, any direction will do as long it's a straight line.

2. When you reach the equator, make a 90 degree turn. Directions don't matter, as long as you walk the same distance.

3. when you reach the same distance, make a 90 degree turn in the same direction. Walk the same distance.

4. now, this is the funny part. on a sphere, these steps will make a perfect triangle and you will be back to where you started.

if however you were on a flat earth, you will end up in the middle of nowhere, but if you repeat the last step you will make a perfect square and be back at the north/south pole.



This also works if you start at a random location.

This argument is already on the list I think, where it says that geometry on a spherical surface can't be "translated" into a flat surface and keeping the distances intact.

I listed all of the arguments here : https://lite6.framapad.org/p/Round_Earth_and_Flat_Earth_arguments

Great

Great

Thanks!

Quote from: sircool on September 06, 2015, 10:29:23 AM

Great

Thanks!

That's great, and thanks for that, but I'd like to point out that geometry on three dimensional spheres is still euclidean. I think you should fuse this point with the point that states that since the distances on globes are accurate, the earth can only be round, because spherical objects can never be projected accurately on a flat surface.

Quote from: XaeXae on September 06, 2015, 10:41:27 AM

Quote from: sircool on September 06, 2015, 10:29:23 AM

Great

Thanks!

That's great, and thanks for that, but I'd like to point out that geometry on three dimensional spheres is still euclidean. I think you should fuse this point with the point that states that since the distances on globes are accurate, the earth can only be round, because spherical objects can never be projected accurately on a flat surface.

yes, I agree. And i think its possible to prove it. Perhaps flight times in the northern and southern hemisphere could be compared?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2015, 11:24:57 AM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 06, 2015, 10:41:27 AM

Quote from: sircool on September 06, 2015, 10:29:23 AM

Great

Thanks!

That's great, and thanks for that, but I'd like to point out that geometry on three dimensional spheres is still euclidean. I think you should fuse this point with the point that states that since the distances on globes are accurate, the earth can only be round, because spherical objects can never be projected accurately on a flat surface.

yes, I agree. And i think its possible to prove it. Perhaps flight times in the northern and southern hemisphere could be compared?

Yeah, in fact, I'm going to ask my uncle, who is a pilot, about it.

i like how none of the flat earthers have given their evidence

This is my argument, please archive this if you wish.

1. Start at north pole. Walk/Fly/Drive/Swim/Hover in a straight line, the shortest route to the equator, any direction will do as long it's a straight line.

2. When you reach the equator, make a 90 degree turn. Directions don't matter, as long as you walk the same distance.

3. when you reach the same distance, make a 90 degree turn in the same direction. Walk the same distance.

4. now, this is the funny part. on a sphere, these steps will make a perfect triangle and you will be back to where you started.

if however you were on a flat earth, you will end up in the middle of nowhere, but if you repeat the last step you will make a perfect square and be back at the north/south pole.



This also works if you start at a random location.

When did you conduct this experiment?  Please, post your methods and data so that it can be verified.