The 3 big lies: atmosphere, gravity, refraction

As flat earthers, whenever we come up with evidence, or with questions, which were the simple questions asked by humans, before they went through schooling, we are always fed those 3 big lies that are meant to quell our doubts, and usually work.

When we ask:

1) if the earth is spinning, why aren't we feeling it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

2) if the earth is round, why don't those on the bottom fall off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

3) if the earth is round, why are we seeing these distant places across the lake (or the sea)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Let me know what you think.

As flat earthers, whenever we come up with evidence, or with questions, which were the simple questions asked by humans, before they went through schooling, we are always fed those 3 big lies that are meant to quell our doubts, and usually work.

When we ask:

1) if the earth is spinning, why aren't we feeling it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

2) if the earth is round, why don't those on the bottom fall off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

3) if the earth is round, why are we seeing these distant places across the lake (or the sea)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Let me know what you think.

1. I see the earth spinning,  don't you?  I see that big yellow ball rise in the morning and set every night.
2. I'm in Australia,  and it's you who are upside down. Why don't you fall off..
3. Can you give me an example of something being seen at a distance greater than the curvature should allow, where there has been proper establishment of sight lines.

I wouldn't use the word refraction if you don't, whenever you ask a FEer to explain the sun setting, they say it's refraction making it look like it is below the cloud line.

While I remember it, that video in your signature is wrong,  if you calculate the lighthouse visibility distances correctly you get the following graph

I wouldn't use the word refraction if you don't, whenever you ask a FEer to explain the sun setting, they say it's refraction making it look like it is below the cloud line.

The only reason sight lines are refracted downwards under normal circumstances is due to the air density varying caused by the lapse rate, and the curvature of the earth.  Without the curvature there can be no refraction of sight lines close to the horizon. 

As you go up in altitude the air density changes and the refractive index changes,  on a flat earth, the air density might change with the lapse rate,  but unless the sight line passes through layers of differing refractive index there will be no bending of the light beam.    ( Cue: Sandokhan and the telluric currents,  or the Electromagnetic Accelerator... )

There are times when temperature gradients are present in the atmosphere, which cause mirages ( inverted images ),  if it's not inverted it ain't a mirage.  Most commonly an effect called "Looming"   which can be caused by a temperature gradient.

Remember a vertical temperature gradient of only 0.11 degrees C per vertical meter, can bend light to match the curvature of the earth.  You can literally see forever under those conditions.   ( well up to the scattering limit of 300 km anyway )

As flat earthers, whenever we come up with evidence, or with questions, which were the simple questions asked by humans, before they went through schooling, we are always fed those 3 big lies that are meant to quell our doubts, and usually work.
When we ask:
1) if the earth is spinning, why aren't we feeling it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
2) if the earth is round, why don't those on the bottom fall off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
3) if the earth is round, why are we seeing these distant places across the lake (or the sea)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
Let me know what you think.

• Yes, this earth is really spinning at 0.0007 rpm, wow, sure you won't get giddy! Get real!.  We don't feel it because the angular velocity is very slow! 
  
• Yes, put simply gravity.  Go look up the Cavendish Experiment and the numerous times it has been verified!
  
• For every photo you show of visible buildings, ships,  bridges, etc there are plenty of others showing hidden   buildings, ships,  bridges, etc! An 0.5° of refraction can make a big difference over tens of miles!  Refraction can work both ways too.
  

Rayzor, when you say "temperature gradient", and rabinoz, when you say "angular velocity", you lose me, and you prove to be in another league, in the league of scientists, so now I can't debate you any longer, because I don't know enough science. However, this science you know, and language you use, could very well be a trick like "gravity", to quell my doubts.

In other words, I suspect your science and knowledge to be a very tall complex building which rests on a few lies, which you believe to be the truth, so I am not calling you a liar.

But I don't believe I have to get a college degree in a scientific subject, or even have to read a book, to understand that I am being fooled by your "science".

No you don't need a college degree,  temperature gradient, simply means the temperature difference between two different points.  So if the temperature at  2 meter high is  20.00 degrees C,  and the temperature at 1 meters high is 20.11 degrees C then the temperature gradient is 0.11 degrees C.   

That tiny 0.11C temperature difference, taken over the length of a sight line to the horizon is sufficient to bend light enough to match the curvature of the earth.

Rayzor, when you say "temperature gradient", and rabinoz, when you say "angular velocity", you lose me, and you prove to be in another league, in the league of scientists, so now I can't debate you any longer, because I don't know enough science. However, this science you know, and language you use, could very well be a trick like "gravity", to quell my doubts.

In other words, I suspect your science and knowledge to be a very tall complex building which rests on a few lies, which you believe to be the truth, so I am not calling you a liar.

But I don't believe I have to get a college degree in a scientific subject, or even have to read a book, to understand that I am being fooled by your "science".

1. It's hard to discuss these "big lies" without understanding how they work, and without using related terms. If anything, it only tells us how qualified you actually are at discussing these phenomena.

2. Just google the definitions and you'll understand what they mean. Gradient is how much the value of a function changes with an increase of 1 of the variable. For example, let's say you have a car that uses 10 liters of fuel per 100km. That means that for every 100km you use 10 liters of fuel. If you add 1 more 100km, you use another 10 liters of fuel. This is a gradient, also called a derivate in mathematics. Angular velocity is how many degrees (or radians) your trajectory (an imaginary line describing the path you are moving along) have to change from going in a straight line to keep you in a circular motion (going around in a circle) per second. In other words, how quickly you'd rise from the earth (or any circle) if you weren't affected by gravity (or anything dragging you into a circle), but still rotated with the earth (or a circle).

3. Do you have ANY proof that they are lies, or is it just your unsupported opinion?

The "temperature difference" between 1 metre and 2 meters,

"0.11 degrees C" is sufficient to "bend light".

This is pure cobblers.

In other words, I suspect your science and knowledge to be a very tall complex building which rests on a few lies, which you believe to be the truth, so I am not calling you a liar.

Here's some basic background information on known optical effects that can occur in the atmosphere.

Start with Looming.   
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html

Note that mirage is a word that ONLY applies if the image is inverted or multiple.  Many people mistakenly call Looming effects mirages.   

If you want to play around with lighthouse visibility calculations  start with the basic C+R calculations.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

Well, I made my points, and you guys all think that I have to acquire immense knowledge before being able to make my points.

I don't think we're going to meet half way here, but thanks for the tips and the advice, and no hard feelings. I think you're enslaved by your knowledge. And I am not going to be burdened by all this knowledge, which I don't consider useful (except for debating you, but I'll find a flat earther scientist for that).

Thanks,  makes a change from debating about maps.     or fending off trolls.   

As flat earthers, whenever we come up with evidence, or with questions, which were the simple questions asked by humans, before they went through schooling, we are always fed those 3 big lies that are meant to quell our doubts, and usually work.

When we ask:

1) if the earth is spinning, why aren't we feeling it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

2) if the earth is round, why don't those on the bottom fall off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

3) if the earth is round, why are we seeing these distant places across the lake (or the sea)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Let me know what you think.

Hi, first post, new here, but I figured I'd take a whack at it:

1:  The Earth is spinning at a consistent rate.  Kind of like moving in a car, when you're at speed, you don't feel it--but slam on the brakes, I bet you do.  Same with the Earth--we're moving along with it, at right around a thousand miles an hour (that figure jumps up astronomically if you take into consideration the movement of the Earth around the Sun, the Sun around Sgr A*, and the Milky Way's movement through the Local Group etc.--goes up to something in the neighborhood of 2.7 MILLION miles an hour).  So, constant rate==don't feel the motion, since you're also moving at that clip.  This is easily explained with Newton's First Law of Motion.  Scientific FACT, irrefutable LAW.  Cannot be broken. 

2:  Simple answer is gravity, which, oddly enough, Newton also has a Law for.  The longer answer is the Earth, while spinning at a little over a thousand miles per hour, is not spinning fast ENOUGH to overcome Earth's gravitational pull of ~9.8m/s^2.  In addition, it's around 22k miles up that Geostationary orbit exists--that is to say, above that, you fly away, beneath it you fall back.  That's how we have satellites and whatnot that have a constant orbit above the Earth.

3:  Ever notice how ships seem to come up out of the ocean at distance, rather'n just POP into view?  That's because they're coming up over the curve of the horizon.  That's why you can see farther the higher up you are.  That's why lighthouses are designed the way they are, so the light is visible at greater distances (fascinated with lighthouses, particularly since I live near the Graveyard of the Atlantic).

Now, that being said, I realize that point 2 assumes you actually believe in gravity.  I happen to, as math can PROVE beyond doubt that massive bodies (i.e. any object that has mass) will act a certain way when put into the equation.  It's how we predict virtually everything that goes on in the Solar System, thanks to Newton, his Laws of Motion, Gravity, and ya know, discovering how orbits work the way they do before he turned 26 (and inventing calculus to do so, might I add).

I don't know if any of that is solid enough answer for you, but the simple fact is, Scientific Law is Scientific Law.  That's just the way it is, and you can't say "I don't believe in this, therefore it doesn't work as an answer" or "I won't be burdened with your knowledge."  That shows willful ignorance, and is not becoming of an open mind, nor does it show any willingness to engage in debate.

Just my two cents,
~Xenos the Stranger

Thanks to all for your detailed feedbacks. Unfortunately, there is no way that, even if I wanted, I could learn all the things you know. But I also believe that if I suffer from willful ignorance, you guys suffer from willful overcomplexity.

Let me try and break it down further then:

1:  When you're in a car at speed, you don't feel it, so why would you feel the spin of the earth?

2:  Gravity is a Fixed Law of Physics.  It keeps you from flying off the Earth.  Has nothing to do with atmosphere.  Has to do with the Law of Gravity.  If you don't understand it, that's fine--to dismiss it because you don't understand it is foolhardy.

3:  Take an orange.  Put an ant on it.  Let the ant walk around on it, hold the orange so the ant is away from you.  When you see him come up over the edge, it will be his head first followed by his body.  When you see him go out of view, it will be head first followed by his body.  That's because of curvature of the object.

It really does not get much simpler than that.  My 7 year old gets the concepts as laid out here.  There is nothing overly complex about that.  There's nothing hard to understand.

If you don't believe it, that's fine--you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but Science just happens to see it differently.

1:  When you're in a car at speed, you don't feel it, so why would you feel the spin of the earth?

Because they're totally different things. That's the trouble with sci-fi story tellers. Stick the car onto a large ball and spin it, then you'd  know you're moving.

2:  Gravity is a Fixed Law of Physics.

Of course it is, by those elitists who afford no say for the rest of the genuine science theorists. It's a law that has no explanation for why it is a law, because it has no explanation for what it actually is as a force or not a force,depending on what requires explaining.

  It keeps you from flying off the Earth.

Yeah and manages to keep oceans on it and yet is too weak to pull a so called moon or space craft (cough) into it. What utter tripe.

  Has nothing to do with atmosphere.

So says the liars.

  Has to do with the Law of Gravity.

A law made up by teh law makers who decide as and when to fit jigsaw pieces into spaces clearly not set out for purpose but jammed in anyway, then retouched.

  If you don't understand it, that's fine--to dismiss it because you don't understand it is foolhardy.

No...to go along with it for no otehr reason than to follow mass indoctrination is fool hardy - but safe in the knowledge that it gives a person the right to be called, sane.

3:  Take an orange.  Put an ant on it.  Let the ant walk around on it, hold the orange so the ant is away from you.  When you see him come up over the edge, it will be his head first followed by his body.  When you see him go out of view, it will be head first followed by his body.  That's because of curvature of the object.

When Earth becomes an orange with an ant on it, then you have a valid point. Until then you've simply described an orange with an ant on it that you see, head first.

It really does not get much simpler than that.  My 7 year old gets the concepts as laid out here.  There is nothing overly complex about that.  There's nothing hard to understand.

Exactly. Your 7 year old also gets Santa and his presents, as well as Rudolph but they never seem to question the propulsion system or speed of Santa with any scepticism . Why?....simple...It's because it's best not to question or bite the hand that feeds you the fantasy for reality.

If you don't believe it, that's fine--you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but Science just happens to see it differently.

Science sees nothing differently. Science is not an invention. It is not a thinking entity. Science is everything and it's the exploring and questioning of the stuff we are and is around us that we can make conclusions about, or theorise about.
We are all scientists in  our own right. But just like those who win wars getting to dictate history, they can also dictate the outcome of what certain sciences are about, because the average bear has no way of proving otherwise.
It's a war of lies and philosophy, mixed with real theories/truth's/potential truth's.

In other words, I suspect your science and knowledge to be a very tall complex building which rests on a few lies, which you believe to be the truth, so I am not calling you a liar.

Now that is so generous of you. Now just what are these "few lies" that we in all our ignorance believe?

But I don't believe I have to get a college degree in a scientific subject, or even have to read a book, to understand that I am being fooled by your "science".
In other words, stop using technical jargon to win the argument. If I put an orange in my hand, and put a little piece of paper on it, and I spin the orange, the piece of paper falls off. And the air around the orange moves, so the little orange does not have any atmosphere, nor gravity, and yet it is a ball like the earth. I bet that even if I took a big bowling ball, things would not change. So, knock off the ball-shit.

Polite aren't we! The little orange does have gravity of its own, but it is exceedingly small!
Even the bowling ball's gravity is minuscule, but how can we ever discuss this sort of thing in kiddie talk!
When discussing the diameter of the earth we get big numbers, but compared to the mass of the bowling ball (around 7 kg), the earth's mass is positively massive (around 6×10²⁴ kg if you don't like writing numbers like this try 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 - hope I didn't lose count).

The gravitational acceleration due to your bowling ball would be about 4.24x10^-6 m/s², again if you don't like numbers written like this try 0.00000424 m/s² compared to about 9.82 m/s².  Your bowling ball has gravity, but less than one millionth that of the earth.

Of course you can't expect to see it attracting a bit of paper or its own "atmosphere'.

If you expect a reasonable discussion, then you talk reasonably!

Look, your flat earth theories have so many holes in them that you really should find answers to them!
How can you ever expect to be accepted when your model:

• doesn't have a map that works.
• doesn't get the observed directions of sunrise and sunset right.
• cannot sensibly explain solar and lunar eclipses.
• cannot sensibly explain phases of the moon.
• cannot explain the observed motions of the planets.
• cannot fit the observed dimensions of the earth onto a plane surface.
• cannot even properly explain gravity.

And the list goes on!
About the only argument you have is: "The earth looks flat so it must be!" - massive argument that!
If you want to play flat earth, go study up Terry Pratchett's "Disc World" series!  If you are really interested in the real world, get a real model that works, before trying to challenge the Globe!

Believe me, the simplest model, and the one that holds together is the Heliocentric Globe Earth.

That is why after around 2,000 years of observations and examination it was accepted around 1,600 AD.
It wasn't by chance or one person's ideas, it was the culmination of many people's work.

A lot of the earlier material was Egyptian and Greek, then in the "dark ages" (for the Western World) many accurate measurements and observations came from Islamic observers. The current model of course came from European Astronomers in the period 1,500 to 1,650 AD.

Of course this is all NASA conspiracy to you, and I could never hope to defeat that so carry on in ignorance.

If you don't believe it, that's fine--you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but Science just happens to see it differently.

I see you've encountered the resident idiot scepti,  he can be safely ignored for all practical purposes.   

Welcome to  the forum BTW.   

My cut is this, you can not use just simple logic without knowing some physics to explain things:

• Take a metal ball and throw it up - it comes down. Why do planes made of TONS of metal fly?
• Take a metal ball and drop it in water - it goes down. Why do ships made of TONS of metal float?
• Size (like some women say) matters. What can be observed on something thousands of miles in diameter may not be directly observed on something 1 foot across. What a person sees is not what an ant/amoeba sees. Try to explain a lake to an ant/amoeba.
  
  Somethings CAN be scaled down. Take a solar eclipse:
  
  How can the FE explain such a small shadow on the Earth (predicted MONTHS in advance) when the Moon is sometimes BIGGER than the Sun in the sky?
  
  In some things, like gravity that is affected by the SQUARE of the distance and mass that is affected by the CUBE of radius, when comparing relatively very large or small things cause MASSIVE effects that may not been directly seen without very precise equipment. So you many not like the MATH involved but it IS involved.

Boats don't float because they have air inside them.

Thanks for the feedback.

Well, what I thought of, when you said boat and airplane is that their shape is not that of a bowling ball. For example, the boat has air inside it, which must be the cause it floats. I bet if you put all that air in a bowling ball, and sealed it properly, then it would float, too. So in that case I don't see how size matters. And the airplane flies, not because it's a bigger bowling ball, but because of the shape they gave to the metal, and because they added an engine to it. So, in this case, too, I would say that it is not size that makes it fly. But if I had to explain this concept in terms of gradients and angular velocities, then of course you'd win this argument, too.

It is more complicated than that. Rowboats don't have air in them. There is just as much air "in" them as outside of them, yet they float. There are bathyspheres that have air in them and can even carry several tanks of compressed air (more air than ships) but they still sink. Volume has to do something with it.

Same for planes (there are gliders without engines that float for many hours) and dirigibles that weigh TONS that have helium or hot AIR inside them.

My point is there is an observed phenomenon, then engineers actually building these things need MATH to design them so they work. So we have words and equations. That is why people try to prove/disprove what they say here that way. If we are discussing these things with a 5 yr old, we would discuss things differently than with an adult. The answers the people gave you to your OP questions are much more easily and directly answered mathematically sometimes.

One thing you mention is SHAPE. Size matters too. These are the answer to all your OP questions.

1) We don't feel it because the Earth is big and the atmosphere (other than wind) turns with the Earth.
2) This supposes there is somewhere to fall "down" to. If you are floating in space, there is no down. As I have stated in other threads, with gravity there is only "in" and "out" relative to the center of the Earth. "up" is "out" and "down" is "in" everywhere on Earth. The Earth is not a globe sitting on your desk with everything being pulled "down". As in Reply #1, flip the Earth and ask why everything north of the equator doesn't fall "down".
3) This is a fallacy when things are very near the surface of the water. When they are higher where refraction and mirages are negligible, the truth comes out.(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65105.msg1744796#msg1744796)

BTW, this may be of interest to you also (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65619.msg1752793#msg1752793)

I don't think we're going to meet half way here, but thanks for the tips and the advice, and no hard feelings. I think you're enslaved by your knowledge.

Funny, I think we're liberated by our knowledge and you're enslaved by your desire to remain ignorant. As you say, there will probably be no meeting halfway.

And I am not going to be burdened by all this knowledge, which I don't consider useful (except for debating you, but I'll find a flat earther scientist for that).

Not being able to understand things and show us where we're wrong, relying on others to try, is a good thing? If it makes you happy, who am I to argue?

Seems to me there is a willful desire to stay ignorant here.  Despite damn good efforts on all parties involved to explain things, it basically seems to come back to "I don't believe in this, therefore nothing you say will convince me otherwise."

Like the one fella what got a bit nasty with me about how Scientific Law don't exist or whatever--there was so much ignorance in that, no real reason to reply because either A) they honestly believe that and are beyond any hope, 2) they're a massive troll, or C) a combination of the two (and for the record, my kid don't believe in Santa--not much of one for lying to my kid).

I joined this forum to try and bring some light to the dark, kind of like Diogenes with his light looking for an honest man.  I'm beginning to wonder if there's a point, if when you present easy to verify by observation data, and they STILL stick their head in the sand saying "LA LA LA LA I don't get technical jargon," or "LA LA LA LA Gravity don't exist" or my personal favorite that I've seen, "THEY'RE ALL LIARS IN ON THE CONSPIRACY!"

Ah well, hopefully one day, they will step out of the cave and see the shadows for what they really are.

Go figure... And I considered the most polite flat earther out there. Well, at least I managed to not get insulted. Thanks for all your efforts. But I believe you have great knowledge of a theory that is based on a few huge lies. It's contagious. I don't want to get started learning it, because once infected, I might become an academic like you guys, and then there's no way out.

How are they based on lies? 

How are the Laws of Science, which are fundamental, and cannot be broken, be based on lies?  I can use them to get results on anything plugged in--trajectory of a rocket, top speed of a particular aerodynamic (or hydrodynamic, more my speed honestly) design, how much weight an object will hold, how much volume an area has, how much breathable air is in an airtight space, how thick or thin something needs to be for protection from certain objects and elements, marksman shots at 1000+ yards (as a competitive shooter, I use that nearly every day)...

How, if they are lies, am I able to get accurate information by using them?

What exactly is a lie?

And how do you come to that conclusion?

EDIT: On insulting people, that's no way to win an argument.  Most debate fallacies I try to avoid, ad hominem most of all.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So, bear with me, and talk in simple terms, don't be enslaved by your knowledge. What is my proof? My proof is that if I put a piece of dust in one of these balls...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Cannon

...it will fall off. If I spin the ball, there will not be a tiny atmosphere around it. And, in fact, I don't see why this ball should be spinning on itself to begin with.

I am certainly not enslaved by my knowledge!  I check the validity with observations all the time!

And really, I don't see what the Tsar's cannon ball tells us at all!

In fact, the dust will most likely stick to the cannon ball, but gravity has nothing to do with it at all!  Don't you ever have to dust objects around the house.  Dust seems to collect on walls and most everything else.

You say "there will not be a tiny atmosphere around it".  Don't be ridiculous, there is a lot of atmosphere around it, just the earth's atmosphere.
The tiny gravitation produced by the cannon ball could not produce a noticeable "atmosphere" around itself, and what minuscule bit there might be could never be separated from the earth's own.


Even a massive object like the cannon ball attracts a similar object with a force so small that it takes an extremely sensitive balance to even detect it!

The earth has significant gravity simply because it is so massive! 

What on earth do you mean by "If I spin the ball, . . . . . . . . . And, in fact, I don't see why this ball should be spinning on itself to begin with." 

Subscribed.

  If you don't understand it, that's fine--to dismiss it because you don't understand it is foolhardy.

No...to go along with it for no otehr reason than to follow mass indoctrination is fool hardy - but safe in the knowledge that it gives a person the right to be called, sane.
[quote author=Xenos2112 link=topic=65610.msg1752716#msg1752716 date=1453891823

This is the crux of it. That false dichotomy. Scepti doesn't UNDERSTAND it, so he uses the "indoctrination" bugaboo as his Satan proxy. If elementary math is indoctrination, then it's a futile argument. It's like telling a religious person there is no God. They aren't coming from a position of INFORMED acuity, they are taking it on faith. Flat Earthers are, universally, obtuse. There is never a reasonable debate using logic, because they believe in magic; not empirical, accepted data. There is nothing elite about it - many of the world's greatest scientific minds are from poor, war-torn countries. ALL of the data (not most) conclusively has proven that the Earth is round. The ONLY way to argue that is with magic, or a profound misunderstanding of basic math and the scientific method. 

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 27, 2016, 02:50:23 AM

  If you don't understand it, that's fine--to dismiss it because you don't understand it is foolhardy.

No...to go along with it for no otehr reason than to follow mass indoctrination is fool hardy - but safe in the knowledge that it gives a person the right to be called, sane.
[quote author=Xenos2112 link=topic=65610.msg1752716#msg1752716 date=1453891823

This is the crux of it. That false dichotomy. Scepti doesn't UNDERSTAND it, so he uses the "indoctrination" bugaboo as his Satan proxy. If elementary math is indoctrination, then it's a futile argument. It's like telling a religious person there is no God. They aren't coming from a position of INFORMED acuity, they are taking it on faith. Flat Earthers are, universally, obtuse. There is never a reasonable debate using logic, because they believe in magic; not empirical, accepted data. There is nothing elite about it - many of the world's greatest scientific minds are from poor, war-torn countries. ALL of the data (not most) conclusively has proven that the Earth is round. The ONLY way to argue that is with magic, or a profound misunderstanding of basic math and the scientific method.

Bandwagon logical fallacy is what's going on there.  Saying I've been indoctrinated so I can say I'm sane, rather than trying to refute my argument at all, dismissing it as indoctrinated drivel.  I mean, I get when your argument has no legs to stand on based in Scientific LAW, you'd resort to that.  Could also be considered slight ad hominem, since he's insulting my intellect by assuming I just blindly follow what's popular.  In a nutshell, he's shown he's not someone to be debated with, as he's not interested in a debate, but rather inflammatory attacks against anything that could POSSIBLY show him another path.

Acenci, what was unconvincing about them?  Help me understand what you're having an issue with, and with what limited knowledge I have (I don't claim to have all the answers), I'll do my best to help you figure it out.

As to the Earth stopping spinning, it will...  In about 1.9 Trillion Years.  Granted, it'll only take about FIVE billion years for the Sun to go Red Giant and destroy it, or about a billion years AFTER Andromeda and the Milky Way collide (I wish I was here for that!  What a lightshow!). 

Any rate, it's 3:20AM my time, I've been running a 101.2 fever for the past 36 hours, and I'm tired.  I may pop back in tomorrow evening if I'm up to it.

Regards,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

Xenos2112, let's both take a little time off. You know where to find me on YouTube, in case you feel the urge for an argument (see video below my post, in my signature).

I prefer the term debate, but if you're looking for an argument, I'm more than happy to oblige on that front as well--just know that my tactics shift when I go from debate to argument.  I tend to get...

Well, let's just say there's a reason I wasn't on the debate team my Senior Year.

Something something "Throwing a wall of information at the opposition" something something "You can't just blast them like that" something something "You're off the team." 

Not going to lie, I was on quite a bit of acid back then, don't RIGHTLY remember what Mr. Lazer said, but it was something along those lines!

As to taking a break, hell, I'm laid up with the fever, chills, and a few other things that it's impolite to discuss in an open forum, it's not like I'm going anywhere.  Although the idea of sleep IS appealing.  Should have went to bed when I said I was checking out, but YAY having insomnia!

Any rate, enjoy.

Regards,
~Xenos, Sick and tired of being sick and tired

We understand that you are too scared.

As flat earthers, whenever we come up with evidence, or with questions, which were the simple questions asked by humans, before they went through schooling, we are always fed those 3 big lies that are meant to quell our doubts, and usually work.

When we ask:

1) if the earth is spinning, why aren't we feeling it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

2) if the earth is round, why don't those on the bottom fall off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

3) if the earth is round, why are we seeing these distant places across the lake (or the sea)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Let me know what you think.

Sorry for barging in here late OP, but I have a question about the "lies":

What you listed are essentially theories to explain certain observations that we make. So the question is, do you believe that the observations the theories are based on are made up, indeed are lies? Or do you simply believe that the theory is incorrect and that there is a better way to explain the observation?

Because a wrong theory isn't technically a "lie". And if you think the theories are wrong, then what would you like to see them replaced with? Do you know of more inclusive/simpler theories that should be used instead?