A uniform universe

Ok, i get it, thanks. But that brings me back to my original point: you can always reject a RE-centric interpretation of an observation, but never the observation itself. Which is why it, at least to me, seems like a bad trade, id go as far as saying bad science actually, to reject a theory that explains almost all our observations for one that does not come anywhere near that, with no evidence that that theory in other heavily significant areas are closer to the truth.

Many FEers aren't satisfied by RE answers, mounting an argument based on the success of RET isn't going to work.

Am i overinterpreting you if i get the feeling that science isnt always acknowledged as such around here?

It's the Flat Earth Society. Guess.

Haha yes, I came her last year to debate this topic because I found it fun, no matter how stupid I think some of it is, I debate it for fun, the reason why I'm hear. It just makes me wonder if people are actually being serious. Also, there has not been any good reasons I have seen.

Some are definitely trolls (some more entertaining than others, there were a few threads a while back where someone straight-faced argued for the non-existence of air. That was fun). Some are more likely to be serious.

Some are definitely trolls (some more entertaining than others, there were a few threads a while back where someone straight-faced argued for the non-existence of air. That was fun). Some are more likely to be serious.

Wow that made me laugh. I really hope this community plans a trip to the antartica with a mix of RET'ers and FE'ers just to settle the debate though.

It's the Flat Earth Society. Guess.

Ok, i guess i had that one coming

Was just curious...me being here is mostly for fun, and a little as an intellectual excercise too. Was just wondering if the latter will turn out to be overly optimistic...

[quote author=j79 link=topic=65605.msg1752924#msg1752924 date=1453935347
Was just curious...me being here is mostly for fun, and a little as an intellectual excercise too. Was just wondering if the latter will turn out to be overly optimistic...
[/quote]
It varies. Don't have high standards, but there are a few fun models out there. Understanding them, considering them: that's what I enjoy. Don't waste too much time on things like circumpolar stars of the coriolis effect (used to accurately predict the weather) because FET doesn't have any good answer. It's the end of a discussion, no one wants that. Don't expect pages of good evidence either.
There was JRowe a while ago. He's the only FEer I've seen who actually constructed a proper model that you could actually read. Most FEers don't present their model, except piecemeal. I think he left to his own forum, but if you can track him down you might have fun with that.
Scepti's denpressure model is a fun one, if you can figure it out: it's an attempt to explain gravity without universal acceleration. seems to have a few obvious flaws, but I'm in the middle of a discussion meant to puzzle them out. There are less than I first thought, I'll admit.

Just don't take everything seriously, and engage some of the trolls: they have some of the more fun discussions. Mountain-denial was another good one.

Quote from: Jane on January 27, 2016, 02:45:17 PM

Some are definitely trolls (some more entertaining than others, there were a few threads a while back where someone straight-faced argued for the non-existence of air. That was fun). Some are more likely to be serious.

Wow that made me laugh. I really hope this community plans a trip to the antartica with a mix of RET'ers and FE'ers just to settle the debate though.

That would settle the debate, but FE's never do experiments to confirm anything. And, even if they did, they would say NASA changed Antartica or put them in a virtual world or something

That would settle the debate, but FE's never do experiments to confirm anything. And, even if they did, they would say NASA changed Antartica or put them in a virtual world or something

So basically, all the FE believers are current societies Sheldon Coopers, they refuse to accept they're wrong.

Quote from: n37 on January 27, 2016, 03:08:39 PM

That would settle the debate, but FE's never do experiments to confirm anything. And, even if they did, they would say NASA changed Antartica or put them in a virtual world or something

So basically, all the FE believers are current societies Sheldon Coopers, they refuse to accept they're wrong.

And that's confirmation bias 

Unless you believe in God why earth is the only planet that is flat?

Quote from: Master_Evar on January 27, 2016, 12:59:48 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 26, 2016, 08:37:49 PM

Quote from: matty on January 26, 2016, 01:16:24 PM

If the Solar System is uniform, every planet orbits the sun, with the planets having moons orbiting them. Then what drives people to believe that the Earth does not follow this rule of other planets

Using your logic:
Since every other planet in the Solar System is devoid of life (as far as we know), and the Solar System is uniform, then the Earth must also be devoid of life.

Seems to me that the Earth is not like the other planets.

Being or not being devoid of life is not a property of a planet, but a property of the environment on a planet. And a lot of planets (and moons) could potentially have microorganisms on them, so life. And we know (have observed) that the environment of planets can vary greatly from each other, so why wouldn't earths environment vary greatly from other planets?

So you agree the OP's logic is not sound.  Thanks.

I do, but not in that message. I actually disagreed with your logic, as life on planets don't depend on the shape of the planet, but on the environment of the planet, something which is consistently inconsistent. You somehow managed to interpret a message that had nothing to do with what I wrote, actually close to the opposite. Just how do you fail at interpreting messages so badly?

That would settle the debate, but FE's never do experiments to confirm anything. And, even if they did, they would say NASA changed Antartica or put them in a virtual world or something

To be fair, there are a fair few models out there that do feature Antarctica.

Unless you believe in God why earth is the only planet that is flat?

Why would Earth be the same class of object as the planets we see in the sky? Seriously, this is a terrible argument.

Why would Earth be the same class of object as the planets we see in the sky? Seriously, this is a terrible argument.

Terrible in the sense that it wont convince anyone because its not intuitively obvious, yes. Terrible on its own merits, not at all actually. None of the known laws of nature has observable areas where they dont apply, or only apply within certain areas. That does not mean that it cant be so, that is true. But it does make the question highly relevant i think. I think i know what you are saying here, that "if you dont have an explanation, you will have to accept mine" is a terrible argument. And i would agree with that. But "you cant prove me wrong, therefore i am right" is equally terrible.

The spirit of the question is about ad hoc explanations. That ad hoc explanations must fit in the system, and if they cant be made to do that without obvious contradiction, they are probably fallacious. Thats a perfectly valid point in my book.

Terrible in the sense that it wont convince anyone because its not intuitively obvious, yes. Terrible on its own merits, not at all actually. None of the known laws of nature has observable areas where they dont apply, or only apply within certain areas. That does not mean that it cant be so, that is true. But it does make the question highly relevant i think. I think i know what you are saying here, that "if you dont have an explanation, you will have to accept mine" is a terrible argument. And i would agree with that. But "you cant prove me wrong, therefore i am right" is equally terrible.

The spirit of the question is about ad hoc explanations. That ad hoc explanations must fit in the system, and if they cant be made to do that without obvious contradiction, they are probably fallacious. Thats a perfectly valid point in my book.

No, terrible because there is no actual logic anywhere within it. The argument is "See these things in the sky? No, not those stars, not that comet, not that black hole... Yes, those planets, finally. You see those? the Earth is one of them!"
That's not a argument. There is no reasoning whatsoever present. Most arguments you can break down into reasons (R1, R2...) and conclusions. Try doing that to that argument, see if you can find any reasonable leaps at any stage.

The laws of nature can make multiple objects. The Earth is not a star. It's a ridiculous argument, seriously.

No, terrible because there is no actual logic anywhere within it. The argument is "See these things in the sky? No, not those stars, not that comet, not that black hole... Yes, those planets, finally. You see those? the Earth is one of them!"
That's not a argument. There is no reasoning whatsoever present. Most arguments you can break down into reasons (R1, R2...) and conclusions. Try doing that to that argument, see if you can find any reasonable leaps at any stage.

The laws of nature can make multiple objects. The Earth is not a star. It's a ridiculous argument, seriously.

The logic is sound. There is no such thing as a purely logical argument, the fact that an argument uses assumptions cant be used to argue that its invalid. Thats not how logic works. You will always have to use axioms somewhere, and you can have a logically valid argument that leads to false conclusions if the assumptions are wrong. But that does not mean that the logic itself is flawed.

You can use the same argument to argue that we cant be sure that if you drop something tomorrow, it will fall down like it has always done in the past. And you would be right.

Stuff with mass has in all observed cases fallen down if dropped, therefore stuff with mass will fall down if dropped tomorrow.

The logic is sound, if you take into account the hidden premise "the "falling down of stuff" is caused by a force that is predictable and consistent".

Its the exact same argument i made above. You can question the premise that the laws of nature are universal and predictable, but the logic is valid.

I dont really disagree with you in principle...but extreme sceptisism a la Descartes is very uninteresting to me. We can agree that we can never know anything with certainty, and use that fact to shoot down whatever argument anyone ever makes. But it gets kinda boring after a while doesnt it?

The laws of nature can make multiple objects. The Earth is not a star.

Is "the laws of nature can make multiple objects. The Earth is not a star. Therefore is any object possible" any less ridiculous?

There is no such thing as a purely logical argument

Well, flat earthers generally use purely logical arguments like:

"Look outside your window and you will see that the horizon doesn't curve. Therefore, the earth is flat."

"If there are so many sattelites in space, why they don't fall into the atmosphere in a meteor shower?"

"If the atmosphere is made of gases and it stays on Earth, it must be held by something."

And that's a problem, too many logical arguments and no evidence or education to back them up.

Quote from: j79 on January 28, 2016, 03:13:05 AM

There is no such thing as a purely logical argument

Well, flat earthers generally use purely logical arguments like:

"Look outside your window and you will see that the horizon doesn't curve. Therefore, the earth is flat."

"If there are so many sattelites in space, why they don't fall into the atmosphere in a meteor shower?"

"If the atmosphere is made of gases and it stays on Earth, it must be held by something."

And that's a problem, too many logical arguments and no evidence or education to back them up.

Agree, although i must say that the arguments you mention are quite shaky logically speaking. It doesnt necessarily follow from the first argument that the earth is flat, unless you also believe that everything we see with our eyes is as things really are. The second is not even an argument. The third is pretty sound though.

The logic is sound. There is no such thing as a purely logical argument, the fact that an argument uses assumptions cant be used to argue that its invalid. Thats not how logic works. You will always have to use axioms somewhere, and you can have a logically valid argument that leads to false conclusions if the assumptions are wrong. But that does not mean that the logic itself is flawed.

But you can't just make up any axiom you'd like. The axioms of logic are known and defined, and don't alter.

You can use the same argument to argue that we cant be sure that if you drop something tomorrow, it will fall down like it has always done in the past. And you would be right.

Stuff with mass has in all observed cases fallen down if dropped, therefore stuff with mass will fall down if dropped tomorrow.

The logic is sound, if you take into account the hidden premise "the "falling down of stuff" is caused by a force that is predictable and consistent".

Its the exact same argument i made above. You can question the premise that the laws of nature are universal and predictable, but the logic is valid.

I dont really disagree with you in principle...but extreme sceptisism a la Descartes is very uninteresting to me. We can agree that we can never know anything with certainty, and use that fact to shoot down whatever argument anyone ever makes. But it gets kinda boring after a while doesnt it?

There's no extreme skepticism, and that argument bears no similarity to your argument. "All objects with mass fall, therefore if we go out to space and let go of an object, it will fall." That's far closer to your argument. Why would objects in a different situation end up looking the same?
It makes no sense.

At no point have I made any claim approaching "The laws of nature are not predictable." Instead, you seem to be relying on the clearly false statement that the unaltering laws of nature will create only one class of object.

Quote from: Jane on January 28, 2016, 02:29:05 AM

The laws of nature can make multiple objects. The Earth is not a star.

Is "the laws of nature can make multiple objects. The Earth is not a star. Therefore is any object possible" any less ridiculous?

What?

Look, see if you can answer this question. This is the crux of your argument, after all:
Out of all the objects we see in the sky, many of which are completely different from one another, why would the Earth bear a similarity to one particular class? Why a planet, and not a comet, or a star, or  black hole? Before we discovered lenses we wouldn't really have been able to identify planets: we'd have only seen stars. Would a valid conclusion have been every star was like the Earth?

There is no reason whatsoever why the Earth would need to be the same kind of object as another. None.

The whole premise, that because we see spheres form in space the Earth must be a sphere, is ludicrous. If we somehow stood on the Sun, we would see planets form all around us. Should we conclude that the Sun is a planet?
No, because the presence of the Sun alters the environment and when the same natural laws are followed, planets form rather than stars.

There are good arguments. Stop wasting time on utterly terrible ones like that, seriously. The only way it even remotely works is if you presuppose the RE model where there is a connection between Earth and those planets. This is irrelevant in every other situation.

Quote from: n37 on January 28, 2016, 03:35:08 AM

Quote from: j79 on January 28, 2016, 03:13:05 AM

There is no such thing as a purely logical argument

Well, flat earthers generally use purely logical arguments like:

"Look outside your window and you will see that the horizon doesn't curve. Therefore, the earth is flat."

"If there are so many sattelites in space, why they don't fall into the atmosphere in a meteor shower?"

"If the atmosphere is made of gases and it stays on Earth, it must be held by something."

And that's a problem, too many logical arguments and no evidence or education to back them up.

Agree, although i must say that the arguments you mention are quite shaky logically speaking. It doesnt necessarily follow from the first argument that the earth is flat, unless you also believe that everything we see with our eyes is as things really are.

Well, in the beginning of science(from what I know), scientists created theories by studying things with our senses. Later, we created mechanisms to make us see and experience what our senses can't. But that doesn't make the argument more truthful anyway.

But you can't just make up any axiom you'd like. The axioms of logic are known and defined, and don't alter.

No they are not? What are the defined and unaltering axioms of logic then?

There's no extreme skepticism, and that argument bears no similarity to your argument. "All objects with mass fall, therefore if we go out to space and let go of an object, it will fall." That's far closer to your argument. Why would objects in a different situation end up looking the same?
It makes no sense.

True, but that changes nothing?

At no point have I made any claim approaching "The laws of nature are not predictable."

Maybe i am misunderstanding you, but you seem to claim exactly that? That the laws of nature are not the same in different locations? That even if they work in one way at x, they could work in a completely different way at y?

Instead, you seem to be relying on the clearly false statement that the unaltering laws of nature will create only one class of object.

No, i am relying on nothing like that. What i am saying is that the laws of nature as we know them creates multiple classes of objects, and that earth belongs to the class "planets".

Look, see if you can answer this question. This is the crux of your argument, after all:
Out of all the objects we see in the sky, many of which are completely different from one another, why would the Earth bear a similarity to one particular class? Why a planet, and not a comet, or a star, or  black hole? Before we discovered lenses we wouldn't really have been able to identify planets: we'd have only seen stars. Would a valid conclusion have been every star was like the Earth?

Because we have an idea about how all these different objects came about in the first place.One that explains pretty well why it makes sense to put Earth in the category of planets. The "before we discovered lenses" argument is a strawman.

There is no reason whatsoever why the Earth would need to be the same kind of object as another. None.

Need to be? No. Our ideas could be wrong. I never said it needs to be so.

The whole premise, that because we see spheres form in space the Earth must be a sphere, is ludicrous. If we somehow stood on the Sun, we would see planets form all around us. Should we conclude that the Sun is a planet?
No, because the presence of the Sun alters the environment and when the same natural laws are followed, planets form rather than stars.

But that is not the premise i use, you are making that up. You are contradicting yourself a bit here i think. You can use the laws of nature to argue that we cant conclude that Earth is a star, but i cant use the exact same laws of nature to conclude that Earth is a planet?

There are good arguments. Stop wasting time on utterly terrible ones like that, seriously. The only way it even remotely works is if you presuppose the RE model where there is a connection between Earth and those planets. This is irrelevant in every other situation.

That was my point when i talked about extreme skepticism. Sure, if we throw out all our current theories and label observations that does not fit fabrications of a conspiracy, you have a point.

If we cant argue from a vantage point in current science, how can we argue anything in a scientific way?

But you can't just make up any axiom you'd like. The axioms of logic are known and defined, and don't alter.

No they are not? What are the defined and unaltering axioms of logic then?

There's no extreme skepticism, and that argument bears no similarity to your argument. "All objects with mass fall, therefore if we go out to space and let go of an object, it will fall." That's far closer to your argument. Why would objects in a different situation end up looking the same?
It makes no sense.

True, but that changes nothing?

At no point have I made any claim approaching "The laws of nature are not predictable."

Maybe i am misunderstanding you, but you seem to claim exactly that? That the laws of nature are not the same in different locations? That even if they work in one way at x, they could work in a completely different way at y?

Instead, you seem to be relying on the clearly false statement that the unaltering laws of nature will create only one class of object.

No, i am relying on nothing like that. What i am saying is that the laws of nature as we know them creates multiple classes of objects, and that earth belongs to the class "planets".

Look, see if you can answer this question. This is the crux of your argument, after all:
Out of all the objects we see in the sky, many of which are completely different from one another, why would the Earth bear a similarity to one particular class? Why a planet, and not a comet, or a star, or  black hole? Before we discovered lenses we wouldn't really have been able to identify planets: we'd have only seen stars. Would a valid conclusion have been every star was like the Earth?

Because we have an idea about how all these different objects came about in the first place.One that explains pretty well why it makes sense to put Earth in the category of planets. The "before we discovered lenses" argument is a strawman.

There is no reason whatsoever why the Earth would need to be the same kind of object as another. None.

Need to be? No. Our ideas could be wrong. I never said it needs to be so.

The whole premise, that because we see spheres form in space the Earth must be a sphere, is ludicrous. If we somehow stood on the Sun, we would see planets form all around us. Should we conclude that the Sun is a planet?
No, because the presence of the Sun alters the environment and when the same natural laws are followed, planets form rather than stars.

But that is not the premise i use, you are making that up. You are contradicting yourself a bit here i think. You can use the laws of nature to argue that we cant conclude that Earth is a star, but i cant use the exact same laws of nature to argue that Earth is a planet?

There are good arguments. Stop wasting time on utterly terrible ones like that, seriously. The only way it even remotely works is if you presuppose the RE model where there is a connection between Earth and those planets. This is irrelevant in every other situation.

That was my point when i talked about extreme skepticism. Sure, if we throw out all our current theories and label observations that does not fit fabrications of a conspiracy, you have a point.

If we cant argue from a vantage point in current science, how can we argue anything in a scientific way?

No, terrible because there is no actual logic anywhere within it. The argument is "See these things in the sky? No, not those stars, not that comet, not that black hole... Yes, those planets, finally. You see those? the Earth is one of them!"

This is backed up by evidence, every object we see in space is a sphere, so why is the Earth a separate entity? It makes sense that objects big enough form a sphere under the influence of gravity, if the earth is flat, but has a large surface area, due to the evidence we see of different sized astrological objects, the Earth will form a sphere under it's own gravitational attraction. Since if FE'ers believe the Earth has a set diameter, and this diameter is bigger than objects we see with our own eyes in space, then how illogical is it to presume it doesn't follow this rule?

Quote from: matty on January 26, 2016, 01:16:24 PM

If the Solar System is uniform, every planet orbits the sun, with the planets having moons orbiting them. Then what drives people to believe that the Earth does not follow this rule of other planets

Using your logic:
Since every other planet in the Solar System is devoid of life (as far as we know), and the Solar System is uniform, then the Earth must also be devoid of life.

Seems to me that the Earth is not like the other planets.

Prove it. I've never seen any real human heart, but is that an argument to say "humans don't have hearts" ? It's the same logic. Imagine you see an advertising panel far far away. So far away that you can't see anything that's right on it. You can only see the shapes. Can you affirm that there's nothing write on it ? No, because you can't really see it. Same for planets. As long as you visited all the planet you can't say there's no life on their. You could say prove me that there's life on other planets, and I can't. But your only argument to say Earth is different is the life, and other planets don't have. But that's wrong because you can't prove it as you can't prove there's nothing write on the advertising panel of my example.

Sorry for my bad english, i'm a non-native speaker.

Quote from: Jane on January 28, 2016, 04:20:57 AM

But you can't just make up any axiom you'd like. The axioms of logic are known and defined, and don't alter.

No they are not? What are the defined and unaltering axioms of logic then?

Wait, what? Are you saying that an axiom and deduction I make up on the spot are just as valid as, say, a car cannot be both parked and unparked simultaneously?

Google 'laws of logic.'

Quote from: Jane on January 28, 2016, 04:20:57 AM

There's no extreme skepticism, and that argument bears no similarity to your argument. "All objects with mass fall, therefore if we go out to space and let go of an object, it will fall." That's far closer to your argument. Why would objects in a different situation end up looking the same?
It makes no sense.

True, but that changes nothing?

Quote from: Jane on January 28, 2016, 04:20:57 AM

At no point have I made any claim approaching "The laws of nature are not predictable."

Maybe i am misunderstanding you, but you seem to claim exactly that? That the laws of nature are not the same in different locations? That even if they work in one way at x, they could work in a completely different way at y?

Look at the analogy I used earlier (quoted and bolded).

that earth belongs to the class "planets".

Why?

Because we have an idea about how all these different objects came about in the first place.One that explains pretty well why it makes sense to put Earth in the category of planets. The "before we discovered lenses" argument is a strawman.

It's not a straw man: your argument relies on the fact we haven't observed flat objects. Certainly, they wouldn't exist under RET, but if you're trying to contradict FET then just assuming RET is true is a ridiculous starting point. So, in a reasonable setting for a debate, the fact we haven't observed something doesn't mean they don't exist.
You're just assuming the RE model. That's a terrible argument for the RE model. It's completely circular.

Need to be? No. Our ideas could be wrong. I never said it needs to be so.

Uh, yes you did. If it doesn't need to be so, you don't have an argument.

Quote from: Jane on January 28, 2016, 02:29:05 AM

The whole premise, that because we see spheres form in space the Earth must be a sphere, is ludicrous. If we somehow stood on the Sun, we would see planets form all around us. Should we conclude that the Sun is a planet?
No, because the presence of the Sun alters the environment and when the same natural laws are followed, planets form rather than stars.

But that is not the premise i use, you are making that up. You are contradicting yourself a bit here i think. You can use the laws of nature to argue that we cant conclude that Earth is a star, but i cant use the exact same laws of nature to argue that Earth is a planet?

That doesn't make sense.
WHat exactly am I making up?! Your exact argument is that the fact we observe spheres means that the Earth must be one. I demonstrated that wasn't true by simple observation. You're the one who's constantly bringing in laws of nature without specifying them, and with no reason or relevance.

Quote from: Jane on January 28, 2016, 02:29:05 AM

There are good arguments. Stop wasting time on utterly terrible ones like that, seriously. The only way it even remotely works is if you presuppose the RE model where there is a connection between Earth and those planets. This is irrelevant in every other situation.

That was my point when i talked about extreme skepticism. Sure, if we throw out all our current theories and label observations that does not fit fabrications of a conspiracy, you have a point.

If we cant argue from a vantage point in current science, how can we argue anything in a scientific way?

So your argument literally is just "Just rely on RET being true."

I'm a REer, and you're being more idiotic than most of the flat earthers on this site. Your argument is utterly circular. Yes, RET has a mountain of evidence behind it, but the fact is FEers don't accept that as should be incredibly obvious, so I have no idea what you're trying to do by relying on conclusions of RET.
I didn't bring up any conspiracy whatsoever. I simply said that to prove RET you cannot just assume RET is true.

If you can prove and demonstrate the existence of a natural law that would prevent a flat surface forming, which seems to be the unstated premise of your argument, then you'll have a case: but if you can do that, you don't need this ludicrous line of assertion.

Quote from: Jane on January 28, 2016, 02:29:05 AM

No, terrible because there is no actual logic anywhere within it. The argument is "See these things in the sky? No, not those stars, not that comet, not that black hole... Yes, those planets, finally. You see those? the Earth is one of them!"

This is backed up by evidence, every object we see in space is a sphere, so why is the Earth a separate entity? It makes sense that objects big enough form a sphere under the influence of gravity, if the earth is flat, but has a large surface area, due to the evidence we see of different sized astrological objects, the Earth will form a sphere under it's own gravitational attraction. Since if FE'ers believe the Earth has a set diameter, and this diameter is bigger than objects we see with our own eyes in space, then how illogical is it to presume it doesn't follow this rule?

Some FEers don't believe every object we see is a sphere, and even if they did that is still not an argument.

Look, what is so hard to understand about the fact that, to convince anyone who doesn't accept RET, you shouldn't just rely on RET being true? This argument alternates between absurd and circular, and at no point even approaches logic.

Plenty of FEers don't even accept gravity, so I have no idea what you're trying to prove with conclusions from that.

It's entirely possible (at least purely in theory) that a flat world could form, and the subsequent effect on its surroundings would let spheres form: in the same way that a star formed, and so made it possible for planets to form, in RET.

Can you really not see how awful this argument is?!

Plenty of FEers don't even accept gravity, so I have no idea what you're trying to prove with conclusions from that.

I know they don't but when you look through a telescope and you see other objects travelling in ellipses around others, you can only conclude there is gravity, I don't know what FE'ers say about this. I have yet to see evidence against gravity. If us being able to jump is because the Earth is accelerating upwards then why why are satellites able to go round planets, which we can see for ourselves at home.

Quote

Plenty of FEers don't even accept gravity, so I have no idea what you're trying to prove with conclusions from that.

I know they don't but when you look through a telescope and you see other objects travelling in ellipses around others, you can only conclude there is gravity, I don't know what FE'ers say about this. I have yet to see evidence against gravity. If us being able to jump is because the Earth is accelerating upwards then why why are satellites able to go round planets, which we can see for ourselves at home.

Dark energy, aetheric whirlpools, there are a few possibilities, and I'm pretty sure some deny the existence of the moons of other planets.

Regardless, I'm not claiming their position is logically tenable, only that as a proof this argument doesn't work.

Dark energy, aetheric whirlpools, there are a few possibilities, and I'm pretty sure some deny the existence of the moons of other planets.

Regardless, I'm not claiming their position is logically tenable, only that as a proof this argument doesn't work.

This argument does work, there is evidence to back it up. Show me evidence that there are no moons and I will consider it.

Regardless, I'm not claiming their position is logically tenable, only that as a proof this argument doesn't work.

From what I've seen on this site, no argument works against them, as they would say that it's just fake.

This argument does work, there is evidence to back it up. Show me evidence that there are no moons and I will consider it.

Even with every planet and every moon being perfect spheres and all clearly visible from the Earth, that does not inherently imply anything about the Earth. It's the same principle as to why seeing all manner of moons and planets from the Sun doesn't imply the Sun is one of those things.
And that is an entirely relevant analogy. It's the same argument: and it remains nonsense. You don't get to reject the same line of logic you're using only when the flaw is clear. It doesn't work.

From what I've seen on this site, no argument works against them, as they would say that it's just fake.

Sure, but this argument doesn't even work on the grounds of basic logic, let alone convincing a FEer.

Wait, what? Are you saying that an axiom and deduction I make up on the spot are just as valid as, say, a car cannot be both parked and unparked simultaneously?

Google 'laws of logic.'

Deduction, yes. There is no such thing as "making a deduction up on the spot". You either deduce correctly, or make a logical mistake. The axioms have nothing to do with logical validity at all. Axioms on the other hand, no. I was questioning your claim that "The axioms of logic are known and defined, and don't alter." Axiom is just a fancy word for assumption. A premise we dont question. If you can show me a list of known, defined and unaltering axioms of logic, i'd love to see it. Now that we are playing the google-game, google infinite regress. All axioms are by definition assumptions. Some more likely to be true than others, that goes without saying, but there are no objectively and universally true axioms. But lets call them premisses instead, sounds like we are not using the words in quite the same way.

Look at the analogy I used earlier (quoted and bolded).

Sorry, i dont get it.

It's not a straw man: your argument relies on the fact we haven't observed flat objects. Certainly, they wouldn't exist under RET, but if you're trying to contradict FET then just assuming RET is true is a ridiculous starting point. So, in a reasonable setting for a debate, the fact we haven't observed something doesn't mean they don't exist.
You're just assuming the RE model. That's a terrible argument for the RE model. It's completely circular.

My argument relies on the fact that we havent observed any object like FE, and the fact that we can actually explain why it is so.
If "assuming the RE model" means that i am nor ready to throw out working science, then yes. What is the alternative?

Uh, yes you did. If it doesn't need to be so, you don't have an argument.

Well, no i did not. Besides that, you could argue that i dont have an argument. But then noone can ever have an argument about anything. Nothing ever needs to be some way. Thinking like that only make sense inside the framework of logic, after you accept the truth of the premisses. In that sense you are right. My logic depends on the obervations and theories that eventually lead to a RE worldview. As hard as that makes things, you will have to try harder to convince me that there is an alternative to doing what i am doing. A bad tool is better than no tool, no?

So your argument literally is just "Just rely on RET being true."

What position am i supposed to argue from then? FE has no explanations of anything, so how can i prove it wrong? Your argument basically boils down to "it could be true, and you can only prove it wrong if you assume that it is false". Thats true, ill give you that much. What else can i do? You are basically saying that there are no ways to argue against FE, arent you? If not, could you explain how it can be done in a more meaningful way?"

If you can prove and demonstrate the existence of a natural law that would prevent a flat surface forming, which seems to be the unstated premise of your argument, then you'll have a case: but if you can do that, you don't need this ludicrous line of assertion.

See, thats exactly my point. Obviously i cant do that if i assume that FE is correct, and argue from that POV. I can do that if i argue from the POV that RE is correct, but you consider that irrelevant. Catch 22.

Look, what is so hard to understand about the fact that, to convince anyone who doesn't accept RET, you shouldn't just rely on RET being true? This argument alternates between absurd and circular, and at no point even approaches logic.

Its not hard to understand at all. But the logical consequence of that seems to be that you cant argue against FE without accepting FE...and if you accept FE, how can you argue against it from within its own logical framework when there is no theory explaining anything? I cant attack the basic premisses, because that can only be done from a non-FE POV. So the only way would be to point out inconsistencies within the logical framework itself, and there is basically no internal logical framework to speak of...none that i have found yet at least.

It's entirely possible (at least purely in theory) that a flat world could form, and the subsequent effect on its surroundings would let spheres form: in the same way that a star formed, and so made it possible for planets to form, in RET.

Never said it was impossible.

Can you really not see how awful this argument is?!

I can see things from your point of view, yes. What i can also see, is that discussing FE then seems futile as its pretty much unfalsifiable from within.

I am seriously starting to think that FE's are just trolling. How else could you explain a "Complete nonsense" board on a scientific forum?

Deduction, yes. There is no such thing as "making a deduction up on the spot". You either deduce correctly, or make a logical mistake. The axioms have nothing to do with logical validity at all. Axioms on the other hand, no. I was questioning your claim that "The axioms of logic are known and defined, and don't alter." Axiom is just a fancy word for assumption. A premise we dont question. If you can show me a list of known, defined and unaltering axioms of logic, i'd love to see it. Now that we are playing the google-game, google infinite regress. All axioms are by definition assumptions. Some more likely to be true than others, that goes without saying, but there are no objectively and universally true axioms. But lets call them premisses instead, sounds like we are not using the words in quite the same way.

Well if you're not going to google:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus#Basic_and_derived_argument_forms
There are necessarily true axioms: the foundations on which logic is built. They're universal, so there's no need to count them as separate assumptions.

Sorry, i dont get it.

What don't you understand? You're claiming that something being true in one area (geographically) means it's true in all areas: yet that isn't the case for, say, gravity. Gravity varies depending on location.

My argument relies on the fact that we havent observed any object like FE, and the fact that we can actually explain why it is so.

Except the question of how a FE could form is a completely separate argument, and that the former presupposes that the Earth is round.

If "assuming the RE model" means that i am nor ready to throw out working science, then yes. What is the alternative?

If you have science that can directly show a RE, then you have a standalone argument and you don't need to waste time with this train wreck.

Well, no i did not. Besides that, you could argue that i dont have an argument. But then noone can ever have an argument about anything. Nothing ever needs to be some way. Thinking like that only make sense inside the framework of logic, after you accept the truth of the premisses. In that sense you are right. My logic depends on the obervations and theories that eventually lead to a RE worldview. As hard as that makes things, you will have to try harder to convince me that there is an alternative to doing what i am doing. A bad tool is better than no tool, no?

When you immediately stop defending your argument to get downright existential, that's a surefire sign your argument is indefensible.

What position am i supposed to argue from then? FE has no explanations of anything, so how can i prove it wrong? Your argument basically boils down to "it could be true, and you can only prove it wrong if you assume that it is false". Thats true, ill give you that much. What else can i do? You are basically saying that there are no ways to argue against FE, arent you? If not, could you explain how it can be done in a more meaningful way?"

See, thats exactly my point. Obviously i cant do that if i assume that FE is correct, and argue from that POV. I can do that if i argue from the POV that RE is correct, but you consider that irrelevant. Catch 22.

Do you really not see a difference between "Not assuming RET is true," and "assuming FET is true?"

A good argument to disprove would be, say, circumpolar stars: stars visibly rotating around two points in the sky. FET can't explain that. It also can't explain the coriolis effect, because there's no difference between hemispheres/planes in FET. We can debate how feasible universal acceleration, which needs infinite energy and doesn't explain variations in gravity without appealing to something else, is as an explanation for gravity. There are a hell of a lot of other arguments to be made, that have an actual chain of reasoning or logic behind them.
Even "Curvature is visible from sea level," would be a better argument, because even if the facts involved are wrong, at least there's an actual logical inference.

Its not hard to understand at all. But the logical consequence of that seems to be that you cant argue against FE without accepting FE...

I have said nothing remotely close to that.
To argue against something though, you do need to look at the consequences of said something. How do you intend to disprove a model without looking at anything related to that model?

I can see things from your point of view, yes. What i can also see, is that discussing FE then seems futile as its pretty much unfalsifiable from within.

If it were purely hypothetical, yes, but they're claiming the world we live in is flat. Are you really saying the only way you've got to figure out things about the Earth, is to look at completely unrelated objects?

I am seriously starting to think that FE's are just trolling. How else could you explain a "Complete nonsense" board on a scientific forum?

It's a social forum as well, to be fair.