My challenge to flat earthers

  • 756 Replies
  • 180315 Views
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2015, 07:04:57 AM »
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?


I'm not saying that...REers are saying that. When they say the atmosphere is dragged along with the Earth spinning and this spinning causes the coriolis effect which causes bullets to skew and causes Foucault's pendulum to rotate then I'd expect to see clouds at the surface to travel W-E also.

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?


like I said above, if Foucault's pendulum is effected so much on the surface of the Earth, I'd certainly expect to see surface clouds to be affected by the spinning Earth also. If not, explain why.

Quote
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 too am relative to Foucault's pendulum which is attached to the surface of the Earth, going W-E and you say it is rotating with the Earth. Therefore I should have no problem seeing low hanging clouds always drifting W-E on a very, very calm day. As I said before, when the wind blows they should go every which way. But, when the wind stops blowing and it is calm again they should all begin to go W-E again. I'm simply saying I should see this effect at least somewhat and I don't. 

Quote
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?


You should get my point from above.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2015, 07:20:16 AM »
If the Earth was round, God would not have told us it was flat.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2015, 07:51:56 AM »
If the Earth was round, God would not have told us it was flat.

I remind you that the Bible has been translated a few times.  It says that Earth is a circle because they probably used the same word to describe a circle and a sphere.  Translating things can often skew the meaning a bit.  If you don't believe me then get Google translate to translate a phrase to another language and then back to English because it will be a bit different.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2015, 08:38:14 AM »
If the Earth was round, God would not have told us it was flat.

I remind you that the Bible has been translated a few times.  It says that Earth is a circle because they probably used the same word to describe a circle and a sphere.  Translating things can often skew the meaning a bit.  If you don't believe me then get Google translate to translate a phrase to another language and then back to English because it will be a bit different.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

How would this be possible if the world were anything other than flat?
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2015, 09:15:23 AM »
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

How would this be possible if the world were anything other than flat?

Have you ever been on a really high mountain?  I have and I certainly can't see all the kingdoms of the world from there.  Are you suggesting that Earth's shape has changed since biblical times?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2015, 09:18:07 AM »
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

How would this be possible if the world were anything other than flat?

Have you ever been on a really high mountain?  I have and I certainly can't see all the kingdoms of the world from there.  Are you suggesting that Earth's shape has changed since biblical times?

No, merely that a greater mountain was created so that a higher point could be reached. This would be simple: to see every kingdom on the surface of a sphere, however, is not.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2015, 09:31:26 AM »
No, merely that a greater mountain was created so that a higher point could be reached. This would be simple: to see every kingdom on the surface of a sphere, however, is not.

Since when did Satan have the power to create mountains?  He is not an all powerful God you know.  You can't even see all the cities in the world even from the top of Mount Everest whoch is so tall that people need breathing equipment to stay up there for long.  Even high altitude balloons can't see actoss a large ocean, let alone see all cities in the world.

In an age where you could pull up a photo of New York City in 5 secinds I fail to see how it's so alarming that someone can see all cities on Earth from a single point.  It didn't say that he saw them in person.

If you want to continue this conversation then I suggest you make another thread.  I want to talk about evidence that anyone can observe first hand in this thread, not theology.  Not everyone is a Christian but everyone believes what they experience first hand.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2015, 09:44:31 AM »
The bible also says that bats are birds.

Not really the best book to use as evidence.....
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2015, 10:12:33 AM »
No, merely that a greater mountain was created so that a higher point could be reached. This would be simple: to see every kingdom on the surface of a sphere, however, is not.

Since when did Satan have the power to create mountains?  He is not an all powerful God you know.  You can't even see all the cities in the world even from the top of Mount Everest whoch is so tall that people need breathing equipment to stay up there for long.  Even high altitude balloons can't see actoss a large ocean, let alone see all cities in the world.

In an age where you could pull up a photo of New York City in 5 secinds I fail to see how it's so alarming that someone can see all cities on Earth from a single point.  It didn't say that he saw them in person.

If you want to continue this conversation then I suggest you make another thread.  I want to talk about evidence that anyone can observe first hand in this thread, not theology.  Not everyone is a Christian but everyone believes what they experience first hand.

The mountain would then be higher than Everest and the paths of balloons. Satan is not in this story, the Devil is. Satan is a servant of God, the one who performs God's tests and acts on God's behalf, and who tested Adam and Eve in Eden. The Devil is the ruler of Hell, who is charged with keeping watch of those thrown into the darkness and the lake of fire (two distinct places). Hollywood simplification is not God's truth.
Revelation 20 implies them to be the same, but this is a mistranslation. Satan means Adversary: sometimes this the title of Satan, sometimes it is merely the noun.
God is transcendent. There is not one thing that happens, that is not His will. God is not limited. The temptation of Christ was His choice, such that Christ could be shown to be pure. It is well within God's power to raise a mountain.
They went up to a mountain to see all the Earth. This does not mean they used a computer: no, it is very clear altitude is what allowed the sight.

This is not standalone theology. Everyone my observe firsthand the word of God, and they may pray so that the Holy Spirit will verify it for them. This is the truest observation possible. You cannot ignore God.

The bible also says that bats are birds.

Not really the best book to use as evidence.....
If the Bible said the sky was blue, and next week someone rewrote the dictionaries and switched the definitions of blue and green, would this make the Bible wrong, or the redefiner wrong?
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2015, 12:45:13 PM »
on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a  hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km   
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit! W.C. Fields

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2015, 01:11:55 PM »
on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a  hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km

Core samples of earths core? That hasn't happened.

And please provide you source for Cooks 60,000km polar navigation.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2015, 02:58:24 PM »
on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a  hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km

We indeed would expect that if any drills actually did take core samples, but that has never happened.  The deepest borehole ever made extended only 40,000 feet down and by comparison the Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.  That borehole didn't even puncture the thin crust.

The reason we know as much as we do about the interior of the Earth is because of volcanic a activity and seismic analysis, the latter of which proves that Earth is round.  Seismic analysis works by waiting for an earthquake to happen and then picking up the seismic waves after they travel through Earth.  By analyzing how the seismic waves refract it's possible to get a pretty good idea of what they passed through.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2015, 07:11:05 PM »
on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a  hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km

We indeed would expect that if any drills actually did take core samples, but that has never happened.  The deepest borehole ever made extended only 40,000 feet down and by comparison the Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.  That borehole didn't even puncture the thin crust.

The reason we know as much as we do about the interior of the Earth is because of volcanic a activity and seismic analysis, the latter of which proves that Earth is round.  Seismic analysis works by waiting for an earthquake to happen and then picking up the seismic waves after they travel through Earth.  By analyzing how the seismic waves refract it's possible to get a pretty good idea of what they passed through.
Mikey, you are correct about the deepest hole ever drilled, the kola ultradeep hole in Russia not breaking through the thin crust  however, observations of the physical core drill samples revealed that the understanding of the crust gleaned from seismic analysis couldn't be more wrong, it became less dense and more porous the deeper they went, it proved the crust was formed in layers, all the exact opposite of what was "known" by expert geologists with their seismic analysis so to say the later proves the earth is round is erroneous at best. now given what the knowledge gained from observation of physical evidence and empirical data proved the theory to be completely wrong do you concede  that what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is merely speculation or do you concede that if  what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is empirical  then we would expect a much deeper whole than the poultry 40,000 feet and core samples taken from the hole consistent with the depth of our knowledge.   
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit! W.C. Fields

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #43 on: September 23, 2015, 07:28:58 PM »
on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a  hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km

 

And please provide you source for Cooks 60,000km polar navigation.
Why, are you putting up $250 too?
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit! W.C. Fields

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2015, 07:59:04 PM »
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.

I can "Understand why you bothered to post that inane rambling..... Just: Consider the source .LOL.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2015, 08:17:08 PM »
Mikey, you are correct about the deepest hole ever drilled, the kola ultradeep hole in Russia not breaking through the thin crust  however, observations of the physical core drill samples revealed that the understanding of the crust gleaned from seismic analysis couldn't be more wrong, it became less dense and more porous the deeper they went, it proved the crust was formed in layers, all the exact opposite of what was "known" by expert geologists with their seismic analysis so to say the later proves the earth is round is erroneous at best. now given what the knowledge gained from observation of physical evidence and empirical data proved the theory to be completely wrong do you concede  that what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is merely speculation or do you concede that if  what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is empirical  then we would expect a much deeper whole than the poultry 40,000 feet and core samples taken from the hole consistent with the depth of our knowledge.

Does this have anything to do with my challenge?  If it does then you will have to cite your sources and explain how this proves anything about the shape of the Earth.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2015, 10:36:39 PM »
Mikey, you are correct about the deepest hole ever drilled, the kola ultradeep hole in Russia not breaking through the thin crust  however, observations of the physical core drill samples revealed that the understanding of the crust gleaned from seismic analysis couldn't be more wrong, it became less dense and more porous the deeper they went, it proved the crust was formed in layers, all the exact opposite of what was "known" by expert geologists with their seismic analysis so to say the later proves the earth is round is erroneous at best. now given what the knowledge gained from observation of physical evidence and empirical data proved the theory to be completely wrong do you concede  that what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is merely speculation or do you concede that if  what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is empirical  then we would expect a much deeper whole than the poultry 40,000 feet and core samples taken from the hole consistent with the depth of our knowledge.

Does this have anything to do with my challenge?  If it does then you will have to cite your sources and explain how this proves anything about the shape of the Earth.
to be honest it has more to do with the validity of your reply to my post than the shape of the earth but while we're on the subject you will have to cite your sources and explain  how earthquakes and seismic analysis proves the earth is round as you claim. dazzle me.
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit! W.C. Fields

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2015, 11:20:54 PM »
on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a  hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km

 

And please provide you source for Cooks 60,000km polar navigation.
Why, are you putting up $250 too?

No, this is a debate and I'm asking you to back up your claim.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2015, 08:13:05 AM »
to be honest it has more to do with the validity of your reply to my post than the shape of the earth but while we're on the subject you will have to cite your sources and explain  how earthquakes and seismic analysis proves the earth is round as you claim. dazzle me.

Check out the "mapping the Earth's interior" section of this Wikipedia article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #49 on: September 24, 2015, 10:19:08 AM »
on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a  hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km

 

And please provide you source for Cooks 60,000km polar navigation.
Why, are you putting up $250 too?

No, this is a debate and I'm asking you to back up your claim.
No, this is not a debate, this is a challenge but my source was "the internet"
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit! W.C. Fields

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #50 on: September 24, 2015, 10:42:46 AM »
to be honest it has more to do with the validity of your reply to my post than the shape of the earth but while we're on the subject you will have to cite your sources and explain  how earthquakes and seismic analysis proves the earth is round as you claim. dazzle me.

Check out the "mapping the Earth's interior" section of this Wikipedia article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology
i just read the whole section and thats not science, it just describes how unproven methods are employed to reach unprovable conclusions. Unless they also took core samples that confirmed what they concluded from seismic analysis it has no more credibility than claiming to have won the lottery before the numbers are even drawn.
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit! W.C. Fields

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #51 on: September 24, 2015, 11:14:59 AM »
i just read the whole section and thats not science, it just describes how unproven methods are employed to reach unprovable conclusions. Unless they also took core samples that confirmed what they concluded from seismic analysis it has no more credibility than claiming to have won the lottery before the numbers are even drawn.

It says how seismic waves can travel through the Earth and be picked up in the other side.  How would that be possible on a flat Earth?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #52 on: September 24, 2015, 12:47:42 PM »
the same way ripples travel across the surface of a pond to the edge if you throw a stone in the middle, i think you're confusing "consistent with" and "proof of" for example; a bloody nose  is consistent with a punch in the face but a nose bleed is not by itself proof of the face having been punched, when shock waves travel from one side of the earth to the other it only proves that shock waves travel across the surface, (like ripples) whether that surface is round or flat makes no difference.   
« Last Edit: September 24, 2015, 01:01:51 PM by brutal delux »
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit! W.C. Fields

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2015, 12:44:59 PM »
This thread seems to have lost popularity.  I wonder why more flat earthers are not attempting to win a challenge that's only possible if Earth is not round.  That was rhetorical, I actually no exactally why: the Earth is actually round.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #54 on: September 27, 2015, 04:22:32 AM »
If the Earth was round, God would not have told us it was flat.

I remind you that the Bible has been translated a few times.  It says that Earth is a circle because they probably used the same word to describe a circle and a sphere.  Translating things can often skew the meaning a bit.  If you don't believe me then get Google translate to translate a phrase to another language and then back to English because it will be a bit different.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

How would this be possible if the world were anything other than flat?

It would be possible if it was only a metaphor. Lots of things in the Bible are metaphors.

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #55 on: October 19, 2015, 03:33:39 AM »
Sound waves need a medium of particles to travel on. No particles would result in no sound. If I stand at the equator and speak to my friend who is directly east of me and sound moves at 761mph approx. in air then the sound waves from my speech should never reach their ears considering earth is proposed to spin at 1040mph. It should be noted that the speed of sound is not directly influenced by gravity but rather atmospheric density to transmit between particles. Essentially sound wave moves through a medium unhindered by gravity and reverberates on particles causing sound. I would expect not to be able to hear the described scenario on a round earth (not saying its impossible) but very much expect it if I were not moving( on flat earth).
"If you were me, then I'd be you. You can't stop me no matter who you are!" - Ace Ventura pet detective

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #56 on: October 19, 2015, 08:10:58 AM »
Sound waves need a medium of particles to travel on. No particles would result in no sound. If I stand at the equator and speak to my friend who is directly east of me and sound moves at 761mph approx. in air then the sound waves from my speech should never reach their ears considering earth is proposed to spin at 1040mph. It should be noted that the speed of sound is not directly influenced by gravity but rather atmospheric density to transmit between particles. Essentially sound wave moves through a medium unhindered by gravity and reverberates on particles causing sound. I would expect not to be able to hear the described scenario on a round earth (not saying its impossible) but very much expect it if I were not moving( on flat earth).

Let's say you are on a supersonic jet and you turn around to talk to your co-pilot, they would be able to hear you just fine assuming that the sound of the plane does not make it too hard.  That is because sound moves relative to the medium it's going through.  The air spins with the Earth so therefore sound moves relative to the Earth.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #57 on: October 19, 2015, 12:36:55 PM »
Your logic is undeniable only under an assumption of round earth. If you will, imagine a flat earth and how a sound wave would react, I would say exactly like we experience on earth. If one travels fast enough then can outrun sound. Then from that viewpoint(flat earth) imagine a spinning planet do you not think the rules would change? A flat earth explanation makes more sense to me though I can make sense of both ideas.
"If you were me, then I'd be you. You can't stop me no matter who you are!" - Ace Ventura pet detective

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #58 on: October 19, 2015, 12:38:27 PM »
I've heard a lot of talk about Newtons first law on this page, that objects in motion want to stay in motion unless acted upon. Our planet and every other planet for that matter has a certain amount of Kinetic energy moving through friction-less space and gravitation from the Sun causes a constant stalemate of opposing energies? .Where then does Earth receive this Kinetic Energy to combat the constant pull of the suns gravity. Like when I jump off the ground I only am pulled back down when my kinetic energy runs out. Also the proposed speed of the sun moving through space as 45,000 miles per hour and when the earth is traveling the opposite direction (relative to sun) that the sun is moving towards for half the year logically I would expect varying distances from our planet to the sun or that the sun would eventually leave us in the dust. 
"If you were me, then I'd be you. You can't stop me no matter who you are!" - Ace Ventura pet detective

Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« Reply #59 on: October 19, 2015, 12:52:51 PM »
trains can stretch to 12,000 feet, sometimes as much as 14,000 feet (more than four kilometres), weighing up to 18,000 tons. At the trains end it would be around a foot lower elevation than the engine. This means all weight is constantly being pulled up hill. how is this possible? A more logical answer in that the load is moved over a flat surface so once moving the only hindering force is friction. I believe trains would not move on a round earth.
"If you were me, then I'd be you. You can't stop me no matter who you are!" - Ace Ventura pet detective