My challenge to flat earthers

I am prepared to give $250 to any flat earthers who can successfully complete this challenge.

To complete this challenge you must tell me one thing we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't see in reality.  If Earth were really flat then this would be easy.

To put it simply, there is no reason to doubt round Earth if you have no reason to doubt round Earth, so if nobody can think of a reason to doubt round Earth then I am not going to doubt round Earth.

Earth moving under us when we jump vertically.
Keep your $250 and put it towards a sweater for when you go to university. After all, 18 year old kid's need all the help they can get. It appears that you're a different breed.
Let me guess. Richie Rich?....ermmmm, you hate money?.....ermmmm. you love the flat Earth forum that much, you feel, as an 18 year old that it's worth giving $250 to anyone who can answer your question. A question that no 18 year old should be so desperate to ask. Yet here we are, seeing it in this very topic made by YOU.

 

Earth moving under us when we jump vertically.

Just like the train moves under us when we jump vertically?

Keep your $250 and put it towards a sweater for when you go to university. After all, 18 year old kid's need all the help they can get. It appears that you're a different breed.
Let me guess. Richie Rich?....ermmmm, you hate money?.....ermmmm. you love the flat Earth forum that much, you feel, as an 18 year old that it's worth giving $250 to anyone who can answer your question. A question that no 18 year old should be so desperate to ask. Yet here we are, seeing it in this very topic made by YOU.
 

Err, what?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Earth moving under us when we jump vertically.

Just like the train moves under us when we jump vertically?

Quote

Keep your $250 and put it towards a sweater for when you go to university. After all, 18 year old kid's need all the help they can get. It appears that you're a different breed.
Let me guess. Richie Rich?....ermmmm, you hate money?.....ermmmm. you love the flat Earth forum that much, you feel, as an 18 year old that it's worth giving $250 to anyone who can answer your question. A question that no 18 year old should be so desperate to ask. Yet here we are, seeing it in this very topic made by YOU.
 

Err, what?

What can't you understand?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 21, 2015, 11:28:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Earth moving under us when we jump vertically.

Just like the train moves under us when we jump vertically?

Quote

Keep your $250 and put it towards a sweater for when you go to university. After all, 18 year old kid's need all the help they can get. It appears that you're a different breed.
Let me guess. Richie Rich?....ermmmm, you hate money?.....ermmmm. you love the flat Earth forum that much, you feel, as an 18 year old that it's worth giving $250 to anyone who can answer your question. A question that no 18 year old should be so desperate to ask. Yet here we are, seeing it in this very topic made by YOU.
 

Err, what?

What can't you understand?

I can't understand why you bothered to post that inane rambling.

Earth moving under us when we jump vertically.

Why would that be expected?  You don't fly back when you jump in any other moving object like a plane, train, car, boat, ect.  An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon, so when you jump in or on a moving object you will move with it.  You will have to do better then that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2015, 11:30:09 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 21, 2015, 11:28:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Earth moving under us when we jump vertically.

Just like the train moves under us when we jump vertically?

Quote

Keep your $250 and put it towards a sweater for when you go to university. After all, 18 year old kid's need all the help they can get. It appears that you're a different breed.
Let me guess. Richie Rich?....ermmmm, you hate money?.....ermmmm. you love the flat Earth forum that much, you feel, as an 18 year old that it's worth giving $250 to anyone who can answer your question. A question that no 18 year old should be so desperate to ask. Yet here we are, seeing it in this very topic made by YOU.
 

Err, what?

What can't you understand?

I can't understand why you bothered to post that inane rambling.

The trouble with air heads like yourself is, a challenge was thrown out and was met but you can't grasp it due to you being hell bent on making sure you keep up your backward bad tempered attitude

I'll try and go through it with you to help you olut.

Mikeboy said: "I am prepared to give $250 to any flat earthers who can do this challenge."

To complete this challenge you must tell me one thing we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't see in reality.  If Earth were really flat then this would be easy.

My answer to it was that we do not see the Earth move under our feet when we jump up.
I gave ONE answer to his challenge.

That's all he asked for. He did not stipulate that it had to be argued against.
To any normal rational thinking person/s, they would expect to see - on a spinning Earth - that Earth to move under their feet should they jump up but we do not see that, so I answered his challenge and he loses.

Being the good sport I am, I'm letting him keep his money  but should he be rich enough and of a good natured sportsman like character, I'd like to see him donate the money to a worthwhile person on this forum. A flat Earth theorist or a free thinker who is in need of $250 to help them out of a tight hole.

Anyone that is in need, just say so in this thread and mike will hopefully send you the cash.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Earth moving under us when we jump vertically.

Why would that be expected?  You don't fly back when you jump in any other moving object like a plane, train, car, boat, ect.  An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon, so when you jump in or on a moving object you will move with it.  You will have to do better then that.

Sorry Mike but that was not your challenge. Pay up. In fact you have made me angry so I'm ordering you to pay up to the person who requires the money the most. You lost. I answered the challenge.

To be fair, the train isn't moving no where near the speed of the earths speed that's claimed. I'll take the 250 with this. I took a photo two days ago of Mt Rainer from the steel bridge in Washington state. I could still see the Mt. And it was a flat horizon. The proof here is that it was over 80 miles away. On a ball or concave earth that wouldn't be possible. If I need to present the picture, I'd gladly do that.

To be fair, the train isn't moving no where near the speed of the earths speed that's claimed. I'll take the 250 with this. I took a photo two days ago of Mt Rainer from the steel bridge in Washington state. I could still see the Mt. And it was a flat horizon. The proof here is that it was over 80 miles away. On a ball or concave earth that wouldn't be possible. If I need to present the picture, I'd gladly do that.

Seeing as you are the first person to post for the money, it is your money. Whether Mike delivers on his promise, remains to be seen. Let's see what he's made of.

So you guys are saying that Newtons first law does not apply to objects jumping on earth?

So you guys are saying that Newtons first law does not apply to objects jumping on earth?

It doesn't matter. That's not the challenge. The challenge is clear and I've named ONE thing that was expected.

This is a badly defined challenge. Earth-shape theories have a great deal of knock-on effects. if the Earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist as you predict, light behaves differently... theoretically I could point to any gap or apparent contradiction in the RE model and say that's because it doesn't take into account the changes expected by the FE model: or I could point at something like the origin of life where only hypotheses exist because true evidence is nearly impossible to come by, and say that as all you have is speculation it's not a sufficient answer. After all, that's how the FE model is judged.

Sorry Mike but that was not your challenge. Pay up. In fact you have made me angry so I'm ordering you to pay up to the person who requires the money the most. You lost. I answered the challenge.

The challenge clearly stated that it has to be something that we expect to see on a round Earth, and we don't expect that to be seen on a round Earth because of Newton's first law.  Doing a challenge implies not failing at it, so you didn't win.

To be fair, the train isn't moving no where near the speed of the earths speed that's claimed.

That doesn't matter, Newton's first law applies everywhere and general relativity states that no experiment (including jumping) can be used to determine your velocity and all reference frames are equivalent.  Either disprove those laws or accept my explanation.

I'll take the 250 with this. I took a photo two days ago of Mt Rainer from the steel bridge in Washington state. I could still see the Mt. And it was a flat horizon. The proof here is that it was over 80 miles away. On a ball or concave earth that wouldn't be possible. If I need to present the picture, I'd gladly do that.

Mountains are very tall so they can be seen from further away, and the curvature of the Earth is much too small to be noticed at sea level.  I will have to see the image you are talking about though.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2015, 11:45:06 AM

Sorry Mike but that was not your challenge. Pay up. In fact you have made me angry so I'm ordering you to pay up to the person who requires the money the most. You lost. I answered the challenge.

The challenge clearly stated that it has to be something that we expect to see on a round Earth, and we don't expect that to be seen on a round Earth because of Newton's 3rd law.

Quote from: Magic-Man on September 21, 2015, 11:46:58 AM

To be fair, the train isn't moving no where near the speed of the earths speed that's claimed.

That doesn't matter, Newton's 3rd law applies everywhere and general relativity states that no experiment (including jumping) can be used to determine your velocity and all reference frames are equivalent.  Either disprove those laws or accept my explanation.

Quote from: Magic-Man on September 21, 2015, 11:46:58 AM

I'll take the 250 with this. I took a photo two days ago of Mt Rainer from the steel bridge in Washington state. I could still see the Mt. And it was a flat horizon. The proof here is that it was over 80 miles away. On a ball or concave earth that wouldn't be possible. If I need to present the picture, I'd gladly do that.

Mountains are very tall so they can be seen from further away, and the curvature of the Earth is much too small to be noticed at sea level.  I will have to see the image you are talking about though.

*Newtons first law.

I am prepared to give $250 to any flat earthers who can successfully complete this challenge.

To complete this challenge you must tell me one thing we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't see in reality.  If Earth were really flat then this would be easy.

To put it simply, there is no reason to doubt round Earth if you have no reason to doubt round Earth, so if nobody can think of a reason to doubt round Earth then I am not going to doubt round Earth.

Clouds would fly past us in one direction at 1000 mph.
Keep yer money clown.

Clouds would fly past us in one direction at 1000 mph.
Keep yer money clown.

Why do you think that would be expected on a round Earth?  If you want to win you will have to give a better explanation then that.

Clouds move with the air, which is why they always go in the same direction as the wind.  The atmosphere moves with the Earth and nothing is being left behind because objects in motion stay in motion.  Please explain what force you think would be pushing the clouds clockwise around Earth such that they resist the motion of the air, because last I checked magic wasn't a fundemental force.

To be fair, the train isn't moving no where near the speed of the earths speed that's claimed. I'll take the 250 with this. I took a photo two days ago of Mt Rainer from the steel bridge in Washington state. I could still see the Mt. And it was a flat horizon. The proof here is that it was over 80 miles away. On a ball or concave earth that wouldn't be possible.

It certainly would.  Mt Rainier is 14,400 ft high and the High Steel Bridge is 420 ft high.  From 80 miles away only 2010 ft of the mountain would be obscured by the earth's curvature - the great majority of it would be viewable.  You can check the sums here:

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

Even at sea level you'd be able to see most of it from 80 miles away - it's very big mountain.

Mike's money is safe.

Flat earthers: this challenge would be incredibly easy if Earth were actually flat.  You always say that the round Earth model is easy to disprove, have you been lying that whole time?  Either admit that the round Earth model works perfectly or tell me where it fails.  There is no middle ground, if the round Earth model fails at nothing then it's better then the flat Earth model and should therefore be accepted.

Flat earthers: this challenge would be incredibly easy if Earth were actually flat.  You always say that the round Earth model is easy to disprove, have you been lying that whole time?  Either admit that the round Earth model works perfectly or tell me where it fails.  There is no middle ground, if the round Earth model fails at nothing then it's better then the flat Earth model and should therefore be accepted.

A deception, by definition, is intended to deceive. You have explanations and answers and fantasies in response to any problem: that does not change the shape of the world.
God willing, you will see thr truth.

Here is my photo taken of Mt Rainer.

https://imageshack.com/i/exscagU6j

This was the best I could do. I havnt figured out how to upload it without using image shack

Quote from: tappet on September 21, 2015, 07:25:14 PM

Clouds would fly past us in one direction at 1000 mph.
Keep yer money clown.

Why do you think that would be expected on a round Earth?  If you want to win you will have to give a better explanation then that.

Clouds move with the air, which is why they always go in the same direction as the wind.  The atmosphere moves with the Earth and nothing is being left behind because objects in motion stay in motion.  Please explain what force you think would be pushing the clouds clockwise around Earth such that they resist the motion of the air, because last I checked magic wasn't a fundemental force.

If the atmosphere is dragged along with the Earth W-E 1000 mph then the clouds should be too. No magic there, clouds in motion stay in motion as long as the Earth spins and the wind doesn't stop them. But, what magic is there that would cause them to stop moving and even go in the opposite direction on a wind free day? I'm talking about a calm summer day when not even a leaf moves. Even if a gust of wind comes along and causes them to stop moving and even go in the opposite direction, surely when it calms down again the atmosphere's friction would latch onto them and cause them to regain momentum and start moving from W-E again. I would expect to see clouds going W-E normally and when a gust of wind blows in the opposite direction they would probably stop and swirl around some, but when the wind stops and it is calm again the atmosphere would latch onto them and they would begin to go W-E again. The clouds should be in motion like this all day long when it is a very calm day. I don't see that happening at all. I've watched clouds drift all over the sky on calm days and never, like a group of soldiers, go marching W-E in unison. What I do see is no particular direction of cloud movement on any calm day. They just drift by going any direction. Sort of like the atmosphere is not spinning at all. I picture it like a fan running blowing smoke away from itself and when the fan stops or slows down till it is just barely turning, the smoke would swirl around the fan going in any direction. Then when you turn the fan back on, the smoke would immediately begin to blow away from the fan again.

Relative to you, you mean.

A deception, by definition, is intended to deceive. You have explanations and answers and fantasies in response to any problem: that does not change the shape of the world.
God willing, you will see thr truth.

Correct models have this odd tendency of matching with observations.  If you want me to doubt that Earth is round then you will have to give me a reason to and if you do that then I will become a flat earther and give you $250.  Reality does not conform to lies, and if a lie perfectly conforms with reality then by definition it's not a lie.  If Earth were flat then this challenge would be easy, so go ahead and give it your best shot.  If you can't find one flaw with the model you rejecting then why are you rejecting it?

Round Earth Theory is dependent on mass attracting mass, a.k.a. gravity.  Why do your round Earth scientists claim that that they can not calculate why galaxies do not fling themselves apart using gravity theory? 

You don't have to send me the check.  Just donate it to your Mormon church. 

Quote from: mikeman7918 on September 21, 2015, 09:17:08 PM

Quote from: tappet on September 21, 2015, 07:25:14 PM

Clouds would fly past us in one direction at 1000 mph.
Keep yer money clown.

Why do you think that would be expected on a round Earth?  If you want to win you will have to give a better explanation then that.

Clouds move with the air, which is why they always go in the same direction as the wind.  The atmosphere moves with the Earth and nothing is being left behind because objects in motion stay in motion.  Please explain what force you think would be pushing the clouds clockwise around Earth such that they resist the motion of the air, because last I checked magic wasn't a fundemental force.

If the atmosphere is dragged along with the Earth W-E 1000 mph then the clouds should be too. No magic there, clouds in motion stay in motion as long as the Earth spins and the wind doesn't stop them. But, what magic is there that would cause them to stop moving and even go in the opposite direction on a wind free day? I'm talking about a calm summer day when not even a leaf moves. Even if a gust of wind comes along and causes them to stop moving and even go in the opposite direction, surely when it calms down again the atmosphere's friction would latch onto them and cause them to regain momentum and start moving from W-E again.

Are you saying you think winds aloft are always the same direction and speed as winds at the surface? Really?

Why would you think that? Should we add Meteorology 101 to the ever-lengthening list of things you're (or act like you are, for some strange reason) ignorant about?

I would expect to see clouds going W-E normally and when a gust of wind blows in the opposite direction they would probably stop and swirl around some, but when the wind stops and it is calm again the atmosphere would latch onto them and they would begin to go W-E again. The clouds should be in motion like this all day long when it is a very calm day. I don't see that happening at all. I've watched clouds drift all over the sky on calm days and never, like a group of soldiers, go marching W-E in unison. What I do see is no particular direction of cloud movement on any calm day. They just drift by going any direction. Sort of like the atmosphere is not spinning at all.

Don't forget you're going W-E at (about) the same rate, so, relative to you, they're hardly moving.

I picture it like a fan running blowing smoke away from itself and when the fan stops or slows down till it is just barely turning, the smoke would swirl around the fan going in any direction. Then when you turn the fan back on, the smoke would immediately begin to blow away from the fan again.

Yeah... that happens when the air is moving relative to you. Fans cause this to happen.

Do you have a point?

Those big things on ridgelines with the big blades swooshing around are windmills, not fans. Do you know the difference? Did you think they are what causes winds to blow?

Round Earth Theory is dependent on mass attracting mass, a.k.a. gravity.  Why do your round Earth scientists claim that that they can not calculate why galaxies do not fling themselves apart using gravity theory? 

You don't have to send me the check.  Just donate it to your Mormon church.

Actually gravity does discribe how galaxies don't fly apart.  What it doesn't perfectly discribe is how spiral galaxies have an almost perfect golden spiral shape and some of the specific details about how they rotate.  Being a flat earther you believe that what we are told about galaxies is a lie, so according to that scientists must have made up the slightly mysterious motion of galaxies.  I guess you think that scientists are only trustworthy when they say something that supports your bias.  Our knowlage of physics is incomplete, which is something that's expected in both the round and flat Earth models.  Scientists openly admit that the gravity of known masses doesn't account for all galactic motion, which means that other forces and/or masses are involved and not that gravity is a lie.  Scientists openly admit that there is no single verified explanation yet, which means that it's no big secret.

I did state that it has to be something that we don't observe in reality which does imply that we should be able to observe it rather then taking someone's word for it.  You will have to do better then pointing out that there are unknowns about the universe, because the theory you are replacing it with can't even explain sunsets.

Quote from: jroa on September 22, 2015, 08:49:19 PM

Round Earth Theory is dependent on mass attracting mass, a.k.a. gravity.  Why do your round Earth scientists claim that that they can not calculate why galaxies do not fling themselves apart using gravity theory? 

You don't have to send me the check.  Just donate it to your Mormon church.

Actually gravity does discribe how galaxies don't fly apart.  What it doesn't perfectly discribe is how spiral galaxies have an almost perfect golden spiral shape and some of the specific details about how they rotate.  Being a flat earther you believe that what we are told about galaxies is a lie, so according to that scientists must have made up the slightly mysterious motion of galaxies.  I guess you think that scientists are only trustworthy when they say something that supports your bias.  Our knowlage of physics is incomplete, which is something that's expected in both the round and flat Earth models.  Scientists openly admit that the gravity of known masses doesn't account for all galactic motion, which means that other forces and/or masses are involved and not that gravity is a lie.  Scientists openly admit that there is no single verified explanation yet, which means that it's no big secret.

I did state that it has to be something that we don't observe in reality which does imply that we should be able to observe it rather then taking someone's word for it.  You will have to do better then pointing out that there are unknowns about the universe, because the theory you are replacing it with can't even explain sunsets.

What reality are you talking about?
The reality of GWB the day after 911?
The reality presented by, e.g. NASA about human space travel?
Your reality about spacecrafts landing in Utah?
Do you really have $250:- ?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on September 22, 2015, 09:56:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 22, 2015, 08:49:19 PM

Round Earth Theory is dependent on mass attracting mass, a.k.a. gravity.  Why do your round Earth scientists claim that that they can not calculate why galaxies do not fling themselves apart using gravity theory? 

You don't have to send me the check.  Just donate it to your Mormon church.

Actually gravity does discribe how galaxies don't fly apart.  What it doesn't perfectly discribe is how spiral galaxies have an almost perfect golden spiral shape and some of the specific details about how they rotate.  Being a flat earther you believe that what we are told about galaxies is a lie, so according to that scientists must have made up the slightly mysterious motion of galaxies.  I guess you think that scientists are only trustworthy when they say something that supports your bias.  Our knowlage of physics is incomplete, which is something that's expected in both the round and flat Earth models.  Scientists openly admit that the gravity of known masses doesn't account for all galactic motion, which means that other forces and/or masses are involved and not that gravity is a lie.  Scientists openly admit that there is no single verified explanation yet, which means that it's no big secret.

I did state that it has to be something that we don't observe in reality which does imply that we should be able to observe it rather then taking someone's word for it.  You will have to do better then pointing out that there are unknowns about the universe, because the theory you are replacing it with can't even explain sunsets.

What reality are you talking about?
The reality of GWB the day after 911?
The reality presented by, e.g. NASA about human space travel?
Your reality about spacecrafts landing in Utah?
Do you really have $250:- ?

The common reality. Reality as accepted by majority of people.

Round Earth Theory is dependent on mass attracting mass, a.k.a. gravity.

No, ultimately it is dependent on one thing: the earth being round.




Aside from that, it is shown experimentally, and by observation that mass does attract mass.

  Why do your round Earth scientists claim that that they can not calculate why galaxies do not fling themselves apart using gravity theory? 

Lots of things can't be fully explained, that doesn't mean we don't know how gravity behaves in our solar system.