1 - misrepresentation of spherical Earth as postulated by Flat Earth believers
2 - geometrical impossibilities of the Flat Earth map
3 - trigonometrical impossibilities of Flat Earth
4 - illumination & climate impossibilities of Flat Earth
5 - geological impossibilities of Flat Earth
The first does not even begin to falsify FET,
Point 1 is not about falsify, it's about a misrepresentation of spherical Earth which is the basis for Flat Earth; the curvature. If one attacks a theory, model or idea, one should with the best of efforts represent at least the idea well. If not, it's a straw man, a fallacy.
2-4 are flaws with the uniplanar FE model only (DET works fine), and tectonics are murkier but there would seem to be no issue between that and DET.
I registered and opened a topic to have an intellectual debate. A comment "works fine" is not an argument, explanation nor anything else of intellectual value.
You note that FEers can misrepresent RET, I urge you to be cautious of the opposite as well.
That is also a fallacy; irrelevant. And yet at the same time I may be culpable of it; I may represent Flat Earth (a new idea, not widely described, so it may be I got the wrong perception) ideas wrong, but then I ask for clarification of the points I accidentally misrepresented. However, the spherical Earth model is so well established, studied and information is freely available to everyone, that misrepresenting that model and a misrepresentation of Flat Earth cannot be rationally equalized.
It is incredibly common for REers to misrepresent FET, especially DET.
The term Round Earth(er) is silly. Even the Flat Earth idea is a Round Earth. Round is a description of an object in 2D. Circles are round. And the Flat Earth edge seems to be represented as a circle. Other possibilities than Round Earth would be Square Earth, Rectangular Earth, Hexagonal Earth, Elliptical Earth or whatever other 2D descriptive term.
The correct term to use is
Spherical Earth; the widely accepted model of the Earth is that it's a near-sphere (3D) with only some slight difference from a perfect sphere due to the rotation around its axis. Other 3D spherical terms like "Ball Earth" or "Globe Earth" would also be correct.
Luke is one of the more notable offenders. You can use the search function to see he repeat certain questions all over the forum in multiple threads, is answered every single time, and still persists in asking the exact same question with no acknowledgement. Then there's Sokarul who inexplicably insists, despite repeated correction, that DET must involve teleportation, or EarthIsRound who denies the existence of the explicitly titled section 'evidence' for DET, or Jadyyn who loved to spam the forum with one argument he refused to justify...
I don't know who those people are and when they come here to debate my points, I am happy to talk to them. I am not going to use search functions to look up how other people are reacting to topics; completely irrelevant for this debate, this topic, these points and that is what I am interested in. I also have no interest in disputes about people who cannot even respond.
Don't put it all on the shoulders of FEers.
Is this "the Flat Earth
Society" or not? I put the points on the shoulders of those who made them in the first place, nothing more.
On DET, the link is in my sig. As with any scientific theory, it would take too long to explain from first principles.
Until an hour ago I didn't even know what Dual Earth "Theory" was. I've clicked your link to the forum and saw some really really sketchy sketches. You really want to publish those as basis for your ideas? Why not make them better, nicer and easy to understand for everyone? Why stick to some sketches made on the back of a napkin?
Please refrain from calling your ideas "Theory". Theory is a specific term within science. Your ideas are merely a hypothesis, if even.
2 and 4 would seem to be answered trivially, the sun is addressed, and while tectonics aren't explicitly mentioned, I hope the lack of an issue is clear. If you take the time to read the model, I hope you find it makes sense.
Also, pay no attention to the REers. I'm almost certain this message will be met with mocking yet stranegly they'll inevitably offer nothing except assertion in response. Unjustified claims, baseless smearing, verifiably false lies.
I read a lot of harsh words, not any argument, explanation or other intellectual content.
The 5 points I made are left completely unaddressed.
What is your purpose here? Do you want to market your DE"T" or are you interested in the intellectual debate the section and topic title asks for? I've read the guidelines for this section of the forum and liked the focus on content and arguments, so can you please address that?
Thanks, Gaia