The 3 big lies: atmosphere, gravity, refraction

Thanks for the teamwork and the respectful feedback, considering your point of view.

You asked questions, and you gave yourself the same answers I would have given you, to every single one of them. And I am left with only one question to answer: what is the alternative to your overcomplex theory? Flat earth.

We don't have to account for bubbles floating in space. We don't have to account for this absurd idea that a ball spins and doesn't lose all the water in it, like a wet tennis ball would. We don't have to account for the lies of space travel, such as the evident ones in the moon landing. Wow, the world finally becomes a place that makes sense: we're the subjects of someone's experiment in a big lab, and I think he has forgotten us for a few thousand years in this snow globe which we call "earth".

Pretty sad, yes, but at least we don't have to jam theories into our head through 20 years of education. We don't need no education, as flat earthers. You can figure things out by yourself. Education is brainwashing. We don't need no thought control.

This is either very elaborate trolling by someone who doesn't actually believe in FE (in which case, kudos to you) or someone who believes it but is honest about the why - wanting to escape from the complexities of reality into a simpler, more comforting answer - which also deserves respect.

If it is the latter though, do me one favor: If you have kids, give them all the opportunities to study and learn everything for themselves.

Thanks for the teamwork and the respectful feedback, considering your point of view.

You asked questions, and you gave yourself the same answers I would have given you, to every single one of them. And I am left with only one question to answer: what is the alternative to your overcomplex theory? Flat earth.

We don't have to account for bubbles floating in space. We don't have to account for this absurd idea that a ball spins and doesn't lose all the water in it, like a wet tennis ball would. We don't have to account for the lies of space travel, such as the evident ones in the moon landing. Wow, the world finally becomes a place that makes sense: we're the subjects of someone's experiment in a big lab, and I think he has forgotten us for a few thousand years in this snow globe which we call "earth".

Pretty sad, yes, but at least we don't have to jam theories into our head through 20 years of education. We don't need no education, as flat earthers. You can figure things out by yourself. Education is brainwashing. We don't need no thought control.

Keep in mind that for anyone who has used a telescope and knows amateur astronomy, virtually everything about a FE is wrong. Nothing works. RET/heliocentricity work just fine for what we observe - including PREDICTIONS months/years in advance.

But there are no practical benefits to FE either. No map (no airplane/ship travel). No satellites (no dish TV, GPS, weather warnings, mapping - GoogleEarth). No exploration (discovering America, Antrarctica). No mathematical/scientific advancement (what have FEers discovered that has WORKED because of FEF?). This is the kind of "theory" that would be floated by governments to keep people from even THINKING about space or exploring Antarctica. RET gives people freedom, FEF gives people slavery. Just go to work little robot and pay your taxes. There is nothing out there for you. Don't even DREAM about it. Talk about thought control.

We don't need no education, as flat earthers. You can figure things out by yourself. Education is brainwashing. We don't need no thought control.

Except, under that worldview, we'd have no: Computers, Airplanes, TV, Internet, Modern Medicine, Phones, Microwave Ovens, Nuclear Power Plants...

Every major technological advance has built upon the collective knowledge of generations past. Via... EDUCATION. Something about Shoulders of Giants ring a bell? I'm guessing not, education and whatnot.

Hmm, maybe the factory workers building these things benefited from education, whereas the inventor if I remember correctly has often been a college dropout.

In some cases. But in order to drop out of college, you first have to get into college, which requires education. You seem to be referring specifically to Mr. Jobs and Mr. Gates, who attended Reed College and Harvard University, respectively. You don't get into either of those places by being intentionally ignorant and intellectually lazy.

Or in the other cases, often someone who was inventive and creative, despite being discouraged from being that way in school.

Can you back up "discouraged from being that way in school"? I know that's a popular attitude on these forums[nb]Probably most popular among those who did not do well in school.[/nb], but, like so many other things here, where's your evidence?
 

Hmm, maybe the factory workers building these things benefited from education, whereas the inventor if I remember correctly has often been a college dropout. Or in the other cases, often someone who was inventive and creative, despite being discouraged from being that way in school.

Yes, a lot of inventors were "college dropouts" and while I was in education myself (Tertiary level) I am quite aware of the limitations of the education systems in various coutries.
At UC Berkeley (long long ago!) one professor remarked that he simply could not understand how students could make the transition from college level to the top universities.

I know full well that (especially in earlier years) our (USA and Australian) education systems are so often targetted at the "middle" range of students.  Those at the bottom get left behind and some of the top, very gifted ones sometimes get so bored they "phase out".
At University I often remarked that the best students often did well in "spite of the staff" - they sometimes almost left us behind!

Also we so often find that the most successful ones are often not those with the highest "IQ" (whatever that means), but those with good common sense and plenty of ambition.

Yes, it takes all types, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and many others did so well more by tenacity and sheer doggedness than their level of education.

Then on the other side the development of semiconductors and computers was largely driven by scientists and engineers (often hard to tell them apart) with very academic backgrounds.

I started out at an early in age in a machine shop, using lathes, drill presses, made dies etc.  I know a bit of both sides.

But, whatever you were taught in is school is not evidence that the earth is flat, mind you I don't think my schooling had much on the globe either! 
But, the whole premise that these things you oppose are lies is hardly the way to get a rational argument.
[Fix typo]

Thanks for the teamwork and the respectful feedback, considering your point of view.

You asked questions, and you gave yourself the same answers I would have given you, to every single one of them. And I am left with only one question to answer: what is the alternative to your overcomplex theory? Flat earth.

We don't have to account for bubbles floating in space. We don't have to account for this absurd idea that a ball spins and doesn't lose all the water in it, like a wet tennis ball would. We don't have to account for the lies of space travel, such as the evident ones in the moon landing. Wow, the world finally becomes a place that makes sense: we're the subjects of someone's experiment in a big lab, and I think he has forgotten us for a few thousand years in this snow globe which we call "earth".

Pretty sad, yes, but at least we don't have to jam theories into our head through 20 years of education. We don't need no education, as flat earthers. You can figure things out by yourself. Education is brainwashing. We don't need no thought control.

I've said it elsewhere on the forum, I'll say it again here.  In 1969, it was not possible TECHNICALLY to fake the Moon Landing.  They did not have the equipment need to do so.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Watch that, if you don't believe me.

"Bubbles floating in space," what are you talking about?  Planets?  Asteroids?  Actual water bubbles on the ISS?  Those are all accounted for, predicted, and predictable.  Planets and Asteroids follow Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Water turning into a ball on the ISS follows Newton's Universal Laws of Gravity, along with the aforementioned planets and asteroids.

"Absurd idea that a ball spins and doesn't lose all the water on it" again, accounted for by the Laws of Gravity and Motion.  This is not "overly complex," nor is it difficult to learn.

Being a lab rat makes more sense than...  Methinks you've read the Hitchhiker's Guide one too many times.  Earth is not some great cosmic experiment, and the only thing right now that makes it unique is the presence of life.  Outside that, it's just another rocky ball hurtling through space around a host star. 

Telescopes prove this.  Buy one.  Look up at the sky, see the planets.  See the face of the moon, it's craters with their shadows that would not be possible on a flat disk.  Get one large enough to see Jupiter, and take a look at the ISS in GREAT detail, various satellites are there for the viewing as well.

I think you're taking a great deal for granted--"Don't need no education" is a nice Pink Floyd reference, but in actuality, education is quite important.  So when you say "we don't need no education" what do you think that says about you?  And more importantly, if you don't NEED an education, then why did you bother to learn to read, write, communicate thought?  That's all part of an education.  What part, specifically, of education is unimportant?  Math?  Science?  History?  Reading?  Writing?  (I realize not everyone's first language is going to be English, so I split it up as best I could, I'm not sure what other places would replace our "English" class with--because I've learned apparently semantics, despite being able to understand the intent and meaning of the post, will get argued rather than the actual point in an attempt to dodge)

But hey, I don't have all the answers, don't CLAIM to have all the answers, and probably never WILL have all the answers.

If I did, I'd be the Magic Sky Faerie in charge of keeping everything together.  Blessedly, I'm not.  I'm just a young skull full of mush trying to understand the world around me using the Laws set in place by better minds than I, that are repeatable, precise, and accurate in my every-day, REAL WORLD use of them.

We understand that you are too scared.

Of what?  What is there to be afraid of?  More knowledge?  A better understanding of the world around you?  Why is that scary? 

The only thing I fear, honestly?  Plasmodium parasites.  They're a right b*tch to deal with, painful, and they never leave you nor forsake you.  Hell, they're what killed President Monroe, PROBABLY what killed Alexander III of Macedon (or at the least weakened him enough for the poison to do it's job--although I've never bought into the whole "poison" thing, as it took FAR too long for most ancient poisons to work), and a full 50+% of the human race since the dawn of time.

THAT is scary. 

So, what is it you think I'm/we're/they're afraid of?

Buy Mosquito Nets,
~Xenos, a Strange Man with a Strange Plan

Science is self-serving, always has been, which is the first problem. The second is that it's theory at best, not absolute truth, even if it seems like it. Most supporting evidence lives in intangible computer models using math invented to explain itself. Using science to accredit science is weak, let's face it. And all this proves is that science is a perspective and nothing more. We could have just as easily went down a different path with different ways of explaining what we want, but unfortunately we can't unwind time, all we can do is just keep building on the stack, regardless if it is right or wrong, and it has been proven wrong, many many times.

The Earth may not be flat,  but it is most certainly not round. A spherical shape in nature really only occurs within biological things, yet we are expected to believe that a rock floating through a vacuum has taken this shape...highly unlikely.

What's interesting to me is that scientists are finally coming out and admitting that the Earth is not exactly round, and that it may be shaped like a pear. That's a big difference don't you think from what we are taught as children? This in itself shows how subjective science is.

When you observe life through your natural born senses and not what someone taught you only then will you see reality in its true form. The biggest problem that people have is accepting they were lied to. But let me reiterate one thing, using science to support science does nothing for you except keeping the status quo and maintaining the comfy box you live in. Great minds don't regurgitate and that's all I see around here.

Science is self-serving, always has been, which is the first problem. The second is that it's theory at best, not absolute truth, even if it seems like it. Most supporting evidence lives in intangible computer models using math invented to explain itself. Using science to accredit science is weak, let's face it. And all this proves is that science is a perspective and nothing more. We could have just as easily went down a different path with different ways of explaining what we want, but unfortunately we can't unwind time, all we can do is just keep building on the stack, regardless if it is right or wrong, and it has been proven wrong, many many times.

The Earth may not be flat,  but it is most certainly not round. A spherical shape in nature really only occurs within biological things, yet we are expected to believe that a rock floating through a vacuum has taken this shape...highly unlikely.

What's interesting to me is that scientists are finally coming out and admitting that the Earth is not exactly round, and that it may be shaped like a pear. That's a big difference don't you think from what we are taught as children? This in itself shows how subjective science is.

When you observe life through your natural born senses and not what someone taught you only then will you see reality in its true form. The biggest problem that people have is accepting they were lied to. But let me reiterate one thing, using science to support science does nothing for you except keeping the status quo and maintaining the comfy box you live in. Great minds don't regurgitate and that's all I see around here.

So even though you can take the equations, use them yourself, and get a consistent and predictable outcome, Science is somehow hogwash because it's "Self-Serving?"  What you're saying is we should give up on science and just "Look at the world around" us?

Alright.  Here's the thing--I'm a long distance competitive shooter (as well as a competitive speed shooter, but that's a whole 'nother ball game).  I have to take into account the Coriolis Effect EVERY SINGLE COMPETITION where we're shooting at more than 250 yard distances.  Or I will miss.  And in many cases, it comes down to a single shot.

SPEAKING of shots, I do my own reloads.  I have to use math to calculate how fast my bullet is going to leave my gun, and with what force it's going to impact the target, as well as how much recoil it's going to produce.  Why?  Because you're not allowed to shoot certain kinds of loads as they're more likely to go THROUGH the target, while at the same time you're not allowed to shoot others because they may not even leave the barrel!

Laws of Motion predict these factors EXACTLY, and prevent me from blowing myself up as well.

So I should stop doing that?

This really is starting to sound more and more like religion than any kind of theory.  SCIENCE IS A LIE!  THEY'VE LIED TO YOU SINCE YOU WERE A KID!  OPEN YOUR EYES AND CAST OFF THE BURDEN OF EDUCATION!

And replace it with...  what? 

Can YOU tell me, without using any math at all, exactly how much powder I need to load into a .45 LC shell to produce a muzzle velocity of 755 feet per second (the best speed for the recoil my injuries can handle without much issue, while still being legal for the shoots I do), or how much powder I need to load my .45-110 with to produce a constant muzzle velocity of 1,400 feet per second? (Please note, I use smokeless, so "110 grains" don't work, just pointing that out--I DID shoot the Holy Black, but it's far to much work to clean).

I'll even give you my barrel lengths to help out:  My revolvers are 5.5", my .45 LC rifle is 20", and my Sharps is 34". 

So tell me again how science is "self-serving" in that respect?  It keeps me from injuring myself because it gives me predictable, consistent data to use. 

Just like when you want to find the hypotenuse of a right triangle, it's always the same formula, and it always gives the exact right answer.  Builders have been using that for CENTURIES.  Ohm's Law.  My dad was a self employed electrician, that allowed him to calculate what he could get away with as far as what kind of wire would be best for what applications. 

Concrete.  Reliable.  Every.  Single.  Time.

So how is it lies?  How is it fake? 

As to the whole "It's PEAR SHAPED NOW, THEY SAY!" bit?  No.  That's a false representation of what they said.

"The shape of the Geode, as it is called, is nearly a perfect sphere, but because the earth is spinning, it is about 21.5 kilometers flatter at the poles, and bulged-out at the equator by about the same amount. There are also other 'higher-order' shape deviations which make the Earth slightly pear- shaped with a larger southern hemisphere surface area than in the northern hemisphere, but at a level of a kilometer or so in radial girth. The biggest effect, though, is its polar flattening. If you had a basketball to represent the Earth's spherical average shape, the flattening would be 21/6500 = about 1/300 the radius of the basketball or 1/32 of an inch...give or take."

That is to say it's not a perfect sphere (and I don't know any MODERN scientist that has claimed that, at least not a credible one), but because of the spin it's got a slight bulge.

But hey, it's not like SCIENCE knows anything at all (except ya know, how it can be used to predict almost everything about planetary movement (thanks Kepler!), how gravity is going to effect an object (Thanks Newton!), how objects will interact (thanks again, Newton!), the list goes on and on and on)...

But please, enlighten me as to why I need to just give up on science altogether, even though as stated, I use it every single day to keep from blowing my hands off, blinding myself, or accidentally killing one of my fellow shootists.

Never placed below third in a match,
~Xenos, Not As Strange as He One Thought He Was

Science is self-serving, always has been, which is the first problem.

Sceonce is a method. Did you want to say Scientists are self serving?

The second is that it's theory at best, not absolute truth, even if it seems like it.

The scientific method is absolute truth. The results of the scientific method are only empirical truth though, which means that they are bound to a human observer and constantly changing. But since no-one has access to any other form of truth about the world outside their consciousness, that's not a problem. It just needs to make accurate enough predictions, which it does.

Most supporting evidence lives in intangible computer models using math invented to explain itself.

You cannot invent math any more than you can invent logic. You can only discover it.

Using science to accredit science is weak, let's face it.

I don't need science to accredit science, I can use philosophy to do that. The scientific method can be proven by logic using only a-priori realities. Let me now if you want a quick summary.

And all this proves is that science is a perspective and nothing more. We could have just as easily went down a different path with different ways of explaining what we want, but unfortunately we can't unwind time, all we can do is just keep building on the stack, regardless if it is right or wrong,

No.

and it has been proven wrong, many many times.

No.

The Earth may not be flat,  but it is most certainly not round. A spherical shape in nature really only occurs within biological things, yet we are expected to believe that a rock floating through a vacuum has taken this shape...highly unlikely.

No-one knows what shape the earth actually is. But we know what shape it appears to be to a human observer.

What's interesting to me is that scientists are finally coming out and admitting that the Earth is not exactly round, and that it may be shaped like a pear. That's a big difference don't you think from what we are taught as children? This in itself shows how subjective science is.

No, not really. It just shows that new observations change the empirical truth, which is perfectly logical. In order to have an unchanging empirical truth, we'd need to be omniscient, at which point we wouldn't need science in the first place.

When you observe life through your natural born senses and not what someone taught you only then will you see reality in its true form.

No you wont. Your senses only give you a very subjective perspective of reality. Your mind is interpreting everything you see, and you only get your mind's interpretations, not the true form. A subject can't be an objective observer, it's a contradiction of terms.

Quote from: Waxi on January 28, 2016, 08:44:50 PM

Science is self-serving, always has been, which is the first problem.

Sceonce is a method. Did you want to say Scientists are self serving?

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

The second is that it's theory at best, not absolute truth, even if it seems like it.

The scientific method is absolute truth. The results of the scientific method are only empirical truth though, which means that they are bound to a human observer and constantly changing. But since no-one has access to any other form of truth about the world outside their consciousness, that's not a problem. It just needs to make accurate enough predictions, which it does.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

Most supporting evidence lives in intangible computer models using math invented to explain itself.

You cannot invent math any more than you can invent logic. You can only discover it.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

Using science to accredit science is weak, let's face it.

I don't need science to accredit science, I can use philosophy to do that. The scientific method can be proven by logic using only a-priori realities. Let me now if you want a quick summary.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

And all this proves is that science is a perspective and nothing more. We could have just as easily went down a different path with different ways of explaining what we want, but unfortunately we can't unwind time, all we can do is just keep building on the stack, regardless if it is right or wrong,

No.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

and it has been proven wrong, many many times.

No.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

The Earth may not be flat,  but it is most certainly not round. A spherical shape in nature really only occurs within biological things, yet we are expected to believe that a rock floating through a vacuum has taken this shape...highly unlikely.

No-one knows what shape the earth actually is. But we know what shape it appears to be to a human observer.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

What's interesting to me is that scientists are finally coming out and admitting that the Earth is not exactly round, and that it may be shaped like a pear. That's a big difference don't you think from what we are taught as children? This in itself shows how subjective science is.

No, not really. It just shows that new observations change the empirical truth, which is perfectly logical. In order to have an unchanging empirical truth, we'd need to be omniscient, at which point we wouldn't need science in the first place.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 28, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

When you observe life through your natural born senses and not what someone taught you only then will you see reality in its true form.

No you wont. Your senses only give you a very subjective perspective of reality. Your mind is interpreting everything you see, and you only get your mind's interpretations, not the true form. A subject can't be an objective observer, it's a contradiction of terms.

Holy crap I think I just fell in love with you...  Would that I had that level of eloquence.  Best I can do with this is give examples from my own life where Science is used DAILY.

Thank you for this, quoted to reinforce the point, because DAMN.

Seriously, this answers virtually everything that this thread needed answered, or reinforces the answers presented by myself and others.

Thank you,

Thank you,

THANK YOU!
~Xenos, Stranger in a Strange Land

Hello everyone, beautiful observations, we're bringing the best out in each other, despite disagreeing on these other flat earth concepts.

I found interesting things in everything everyone wrote, and also agree with many things. There's no point in objecting.

Something I did not mention yet is 911. Do you all, with all your science and confidence, and education, believe that 911 was NOT an inside job? Do you all NOT think that it was a controlled demolition?

Because if you subscribe to the official description of events, then to my eyes this fact alone wipes out all your credibility in terms of critical thinking, and then I will be convinced that education harms your logical thinking, as I already think anyway. Instead what I think is really good is learning on your own. Also, I have nothing against "studying". What I am against is being forcefully taught things without having asked.

Off topic. Also, do you have any evidence that it was a controlled demolition? Your opinions or thoughts does not count as evidence btw. Also, please don't post youtube videos, but text and pictures.

Welcome to the forum, Waxi!

Science is self-serving, always has been, which is the first problem.

Wow! That's like, really, like... deep, man!

The second is that it's theory at best, not absolute truth, even if it seems like it.

Science does not provide proof. Never has, probably never will. It must be time to trot this out again, I guess. It's been a couple months, maybe.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Most supporting evidence lives in intangible computer models

Can you describe the computers Newton and Kepler were using?
 

using math invented to explain itself.

Wow! That's like, really, like... deep, man!

Using science to accredit science is weak, let's face it.

Science uses predictions from its models and measured data to accredit its models. If predictions match the data, the model that made them is supported; if the predictions do not agree with the data, the model is not supported.

And all this proves is that science is a perspective and nothing more.

The scientific method is a process of checking conclusions against measurements and observations.

We could have just as easily went down a different path with different ways of explaining what we want

Been there, done that. See "The dark ages." It wasn't real pretty.

Fortunately, it got better.

but unfortunately we can't unwind time, all we can do is just keep building on the stack, regardless if it is right or wrong, and it has been proven wrong, many many times.

Fortunately, in science, predictions are continuously compared to data. If the predictions are found wanting, that's taken into consideration, and the models producing incorrect predictions are questioned, and, if necessary, modified or replaced.

The Earth may not be flat,  but it is most certainly not round. A spherical shape in nature really only occurs within biological things

Can you provide a citation for this assertion?

yet we are expected to believe that a rock floating through a vacuum has taken this shape...highly unlikely.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. It's wrong, but thanks for sharing, anyway.

What do you know about the shear strength and plasticity of rock in large volumes and at high temperature that suggests this may be true?

What's interesting to me is that scientists are finally coming out and admitting that the Earth is not exactly round

If, by "exactly round", you mean "perfectly spherical", then, no, you're wrong again. The shape of the Earth was postulated to be ellipsoidal in the seventeenth century and conclusively measured to be so in the eighteenth[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Europe[/nb].

and that it may be shaped like a pear. That's a big difference don't you think from what we are taught as children? This in itself shows how subjective science is.

The geoid was found to be "lumpy", and not perfectly ellipsoidal, in the nineteenth century[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Asia_and_Americas[/nb]. The exact distribution and magnitude of the "lumps" is still being measured, but differs from an ellipsoid of revolution by a few dozens of meters.

The Earth can correctly be described as a sphere, an ellipsoid, and a more-irregular geoid depending on the precision needed for the context. It can even be considered flat if you're limiting the area to be sufficiently small. It's not subjective, it just a matter of how much precision is required in a particular instance. Plats of property boundaries for a few city blocks are routinely treated as though they were on a plane, saving the complication of working with a spherical surface; the error introduced is negligible. If you're estimating how long it will take an airliner to fly between, say, Honolulu and Hong Kong, a spherical model gives an answer that's good enough, and is much easier to calculate than the more-precise ellipsoid. If you're doing astrometric measurements, the difference in the direction to the zenith between the spherical and ellipsoidal models may be significant, and worth the extra effort to use. If you need really precise distances between distant points on the Earth, for, say, interferometry, the more complete geoidal datum may be necessary.

When you observe life through your natural born senses and not what someone taught you only then will you see reality in its true form. The biggest problem that people have is accepting they were lied to.

Our natural-born senses are fairly limited.

What lies are you referring to? The Earth is much closer to spherical than flat, if that's what you mean. That's really easy to see using only your natural-born senses and a little thought. Sorry.
 

But let me reiterate one thing, using science to support science does nothing for you except keeping the status quo and maintaining the comfy box you live in. Great minds don't regurgitate and that's all I see around here.

Wow! That's like, really, like... deep, man!
 

Thanks for the teamwork and the respectful feedback, considering your point of view.

You asked questions, and you gave yourself the same answers I would have given you, to every single one of them. And I am left with only one question to answer: what is the alternative to your overcomplex theory? Flat earth.

We don't have to account for bubbles floating in space. We don't have to account for this absurd idea that a ball spins and doesn't lose all the water in it, like a wet tennis ball would. We don't have to account for the lies of space travel, such as the evident ones in the moon landing. Wow, the world finally becomes a place that makes sense: we're the subjects of someone's experiment in a big lab, and I think he has forgotten us for a few thousand years in this snow globe which we call "earth".

Pretty sad, yes, but at least we don't have to jam theories into our head through 20 years of education. We don't need no education, as flat earthers. You can figure things out by yourself. Education is brainwashing. We don't need no thought control.

There is a tiny problem!
The dimensions for the earth I live on just will not fit on a flat plane.
Now I know this has a bit of that forbidden topic (arithmetic):

It seems fairly well accepted[nb]I will go into more detail if you wish!
[/nb] that the equatorial circumference of the earth is (close to) 40,000 km and
the distance from the equator to the north pole is (close to) 10,000 km.[nb]I know that the accepted figures are 40,075 km and 10,002 km resp, but I am using rounded numbers for simplicity.[/nb]
So the

But, on any flat earth map I have seen the distance from the "equator to the north pole" is the radius of the "equatorial circle" and we know that the

There is a big discrepancy here.  Put simply:

There are numerous other "more minor" problems for your flat earth.

If the shape and "mode of operation" of the earth and solar system were so simple, why did it take almost 2,000 years to settle on a model that explained observed phenomena?  No conspiracy or lies, just the result of a lot of patient investigation.

I can't believe we're really having to discuss this at all. I don't know what to say anymore.

The only reason your theory is so popular is because it's been forcefully jammed into everyone's minds, including yours. And now it benefits from conformism. The reason you're so frustrated at us is because you had to put up with indoctrination for so many years, and now you're taking it out on us, because you envy us -- you think it's unfair that we got away, with our minds intact.

Ad hominem and bandwagon fallacies.  Not a great way to start.

Your theory that we live on a ball that rotates on itself like a tennis ball, and humans don't fall off, and all the water does not fall off, and it never stops spinning, and the air around it moves along with the ball (!) clearly does not make any sense. You would never apply your own theory to any sort of ball, no matter how big, but you stop reasoning when it comes to the earth, because of years of forceful indoctrination.

And the fact that you have been taught hundreds of technical jargon and names for the elaborate lie you have been taught only confuses you further.

Personal Incredulity fallacy.  Because you can't understand it, therefore it is not true.  Because you don't get science or our "technical jargon" therefore, it must not be true.

Now let us imagine my theory were called "sdfgsgsre" and the parts of my theory were "fgfdgervb" and "fgmelk". Do you know anything about these terms? Did you go to flat earth school and learned what these two terms, "fgfdgervb" and "fgmelk" mean? Aren't you ashamed of your ignorance? How dare you debate flat earth with me before going to flat earth school and learning all about "fgfdgervb" and "fgmelk"?

Well, this is exactly the way you all sound to me when you tell me about the terms and the components of your elaborate lie.

Just the fact that someone knows the "fgfdgervb" and "fgmelk" of his theory does not make his theory true.

Tu Quoque fallacy--attempting to criticize someone else on the grounds that because you don't understand basic science, or refuse to learn it because you might get "indoctrinated" (a dodge, by the way), you'll turn the argument around, a la Red Herring, to take the heat off of you.

This is not good debate, mate.  This is not even REMOTELY good debate.  No, I do not feel ashamed for not knowing the deep intricacies of the Flat Earth Hypothesis, as everything about it goes against the Laws of Science, those Laws, that because you don't understand, you DISMISS. 

You say we're all indoctrinated, how?  You think we've not done done research AFTER school on our own? 

You are arguing from a standpoint of absolute unwillingness to change your position, even after being show, WITH SCIENCE, the answer to your so-called "lies."  You then start spouting off how you don't NEED education, which shows how deeply religious you are about this.

And yes, that's what it is.

It's a religion.

You're no different than a young earth creationist who refuses to believe that despite the OVERWHELMING scientific evidence, the Earth is FAR older than 6000 years, and it is ROUND.

NASA is lying to us?  Hell man, Aristotle, of the ANCIENT GREEKS thought the Earth was round.

Does the conspiracy go back that far?

Now, let's try this again, and this time, please, don't use so many logical fallacies.  They make my brain bleed when I see them.

Particularly bandwagon, ad hominem, and personal incredulity.  Because NONE of those should EVER be used. 

Regards,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

Hmm, it sounds like you want to have the last word, and you also want to fail me. Fine, this is my last post, so you will be able to have the last word. And feel free to fail me. I am fine just relying on my own mind and I don't need to be approved by your institutions. I am attending my own mental institution.

I don't want to FAIL you, I want to HELP you.  But you wish to remain ignorant.  Willful ignorance is the most damaging thing you can do to yourself.  You are actively saying "I don't understand it, I don't WANT to understand it, so I'm going to believe whatever I want to suit myself." 

That is the underlying message of what you just said--and if that's what you want, by all means, go!  I cannot help you.

But if, IF there is an HONEST desire to understand the world around you, and IF you have an open mind and are a "Free thinker" as you claimed, then you'll at least take some of what I said to heart.

If not, oh well.  At the end of the day, you're nothing but a bunch of pixels on my computer screen, I honestly don't care what happens to you one way or the other--but I really do hope, in my heart of hearts, that you are not THAT ignorant.

Regards,
~Xenos, Stranger in a Strange Land

Here is something to ponder concerning Refraction (OP #3):

If refraction makes things (the Sun) look HIGHER in the sky:


and the Sun is ALWAYS above the Earth:


why does it set and not look HIGHER in the sky?

I can't believe we're really having to discuss this at all. I don't know what to say anymore.

Then maybe it would be best to say nothing at all.

The only reason your theory is so popular is because it's been forcefully jammed into everyone's minds, including yours.

Well, no... the reason so many people believe the Earth is spherical is because that model actually works.

And now it benefits from conformism.

Although argumentum ad numeram (appeal to popularity) is a fallacy, its opposite, "everyone believes it, so it must be wrong", is also a fallacy.

The reason you're so frustrated at us is because you had to put up with indoctrination for so many years, and now you're taking it out on us, because you envy us -- you think it's unfair that we got away, with our minds intact.

LOL!

Your theory that we live on a ball that rotates on itself like a tennis ball, and humans don't fall off, and all the water does not fall off, and it never stops spinning, and the air around it moves along with the ball (!) clearly does not make any sense.

As already pointed out this is argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from personal incredulity, or argument from ignorance).

You already said you refuse to understand it. That doesn't make it wrong.

You would never apply your own theory to any sort of ball, no matter how big

Sez who? I apply it to "balls" (a.k.a. spheres and spheroids) the size and mass of planets and stars all the time. It works great!

but you stop reasoning can tell it works when it comes to the earth, because of years of forceful indoctrination both casual and careful observations.

True, once some corrections are applied.
 

And the fact that you have been taught hundreds of technical jargon and names for the elaborate lie you have been taught only confuses you further.

How do you know it's a lie if you refuse to learn about it? Why do you think technical names are a bad thing? Because you're too lazy, or afraid, to learn what they mean?

Now let us imagine my theory were called "sdfgsgsre" and the parts of my theory were "fgfdgervb" and "fgmelk". Do you know anything about these terms? Did you go to flat earth school and learned what these two terms, "fgfdgervb" and "fgmelk" mean? Aren't you ashamed of your ignorance? How dare you debate flat earth with me before going to flat earth school and learning all about "fgfdgervb" and "fgmelk"?

These terms are new to me (duh! You just made them up.) Can you define them?

Well, this is exactly the way you all sound to me when you tell me about the terms and the components of your elaborate lie.

That's because you can't be bother to learn the meaning of well-defined terms. Don't complain to us about it.

Just the fact that someone knows the "fgfdgervb" and "fgmelk" of his theory does not make his theory true.

Of course not. What makes a theory useful (we can never be absolutely sure it's perfectly true, although we can often be quite sure it's true to the precision of the data) is how well it explains known data, and how well it predicts data that hasn't been collected yet. The meanings of the words used to describe the theory need to be defined and agreed on in order to communicate. That's all. If you make up a new term, you need to define it so it can be understood by others.

-------------

By the way, regarding the atmosphere, I liked what was written by this user, and agree with what he said. Maybe this is better for the academics here, because his language is not as simple as mine, but of course they still will not agree with him:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65460.msg1747392#msg1747392

Quote from: Marciano on January 10, 2016, 10:12:41 AM

So, looks like the main objection is that some folks believe that the atmosphere is somehow "glued" to the surface of the Earth and hence, anything in that atmosphere acts as if it is on the surface of the earth, even though it is in the air. 

That's interesting. 

<irrelevant picture>
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><link to some youtube video, I guess>

Sorry, but I'm just a little bit skeptical. 

OK. So?

Quote

I thought of this.  I'm in a car, on the freeway doing 50 mph.  I toss a ball in the air, inside the car.  It falls straight down, into my hand.  Next time, I toss the ball out the window to another car, that has their window down and is just 10 feet away from my car.  The ball however, doesn't make it, unless I throw it with a lot of force.  So, in a "closed system," the ball travels with the car, whether it travels at 10 mph or 100 mph.  However, in an "open system," the ball rapidly decelerates and doesn't keep up with the car, unless it has another form of momentum.  So, we should assume that the people who are objecting, in general, believe that the earth and the sky represent a "closed system."  And, it would appear, that the force they attribute this "closure" to is "gravity" (<opinion>).   <More opinion>. 

<Another erroneous opinion with a very befuddled explanation offered as justification>.

Yeah, OK.

You already said you weren't going to argue about this because you didn't know anything about it, acenci. You've clearly demonstrated your lack of understanding again, and your arguments are fallacies. So why keep arguing?

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
 - Will Rogers

Right from your OP it should have been blindingly obvious as soon you come up with we are always fed those 3 big lies that the last thing you wanted was a reasoned discussion. Essentially calling your opponents liars before you start is hardly the way to get cooperation.

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?
2) if the earth is round, why don't those on the bottom fall off?
3) if the earth is round, why are we seeing these distant places across the lake (or the sea)?
Let me know what you think.

The answers to these questions have been discussed numerous times. If you were interested you have done a bit of research.

Just a bit of advice (again), fix your own fatally flawed "Flat Earth Model", because it has numerous flaws where it simply does not fit the real earth.

Acenci im sorry but you come off as very stupid yet very polite. My god it s baffling to have such distorted logic. There is something called The Rules Of Evidence, the earth is accepted to be round because it fits observations and evidences.

You have to be seriously retarded to think that a flat earth makes more sense. No it doesnt. It doesnt because nothing we observe is explained by the earth being flat.

You cant escape reality, and there is no excuse for thinking the earth is flat when all the evidence that it s  round is available and comprehensible.

So then you dont believe in space missions then? Those pictures from the Earth being round pretty much seals it, with evidences all over to support it.

I give +1 for 911 tho, yes i would agree with you that it was probably a demlition, but make a new thread if you want to speak about that 

Dude, if you promise to not use the magic word "refraction" and "mirage", then make yourself comfortable, because the list will be long, and this will be fun. Flat earthers will come from all over the web to bring you examples of places that should not be seen.

Can you explain how this works on a flat Earth?


The globe Earth explanation is quite simple.  The difference in camera height resulted in the hillside and bridge 'sinking' into the horizon (water line) while the weather conditions that day allowed for the slight curving of light close to the surface of the water resulting in the ability to see the shoreline features (although with a 'squashed' appearance) which would otherwise be blocked from view.

I'm curious how it would work on a flat Earth though.

Thanks to all for the respectful and detailed feedback. What a beautiful environment, of like-minded people, who want to investigate the truth. and jam it into my head.

Unfortunately, I did not know I would be the only flat earther here on this forum and in this section, having to reply to dozens of objections by so many globe earthers.

Really? When you throw down a challenge like this...

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.

... followed by...

Let me know what you think.

...you don't expect to have to defend it?

This seems especially odd after you provide three lame examples that have already been discussed and debunked at great length.

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

So, I have to pass the baton to the next flat earther who will accept it, because I don't have the knowledge and time to answer all these objections, and I don't have the confidence necessary to read all these insults and still write what I think.

Maybe you shouldn't start a discussion on a topic you don't know enough about to hold your own. Also, if you don't have a thick-enough skin, then you might want to avoid insulting, right off the bat, the people you're challenging, especially ones who do know what they're talking about. "Lies", indeed... 

Furthermore, I had posted this thread in another section, "Flat Earth General" and now it has been moved to "Flat Earth Debate" and I am expected to be eager to debate, but it was not in this section that I had posted this thread and I am not eager to debate and in some cases be insulted. I posted it in a section where I expected a majority of us flat earthers to be ganging up on a couple of globe earthers.

Sorry that didn't work out for ya'.

Honestly, it seems unlikely that the outcome would have been any different in either place since the same crowd hangs out in both. Have you considered that maybe your arguments were so weak that even the flat-earth folks wouldn't go near them?

Don't go away mad...

Sorry, acenci.  The roundies are lack a pack of dogs, and when they can find a weakness, they will all pounce on you at the same time, each one repeating the same thing his predecessors did in slightly different words.  Not a one of them has an original thought.  Unfortunately, we pride ourselves on not kicking out the troublemakers here simply because they have a different opinion than ourselves, unlike Dubay's forum, which I know you are very familiar with.  Anyway, I am sorry for showing up late to this gang fight, and I hope you do not let these roundies run you off.  Nothing would make them happier than to run off another free thinker, so don't give them the satisfaction. 

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 when you're driving in a car with the windows closed, do you feel like you're moving?
2 gravity
3 Why is it on when I'm on a cruise and we're leaving port, the shore line disappears before the tall buildings?

Yes, I am not leaving. I am staying and reading. I gave it everything I had. I think I produced some reasoning, and coherent thoughts.  But, according to them (the globe earthers), I said nothing meaningful. I can't just repeat it over and over again.
Let's wait to see if another flat earther with more energies comes along.

So are we waiting! Whenever we give what we think are sound reasons why the earth simply cannot be flat, we usually get soundly ignored, or sometimes picked up on simple typos, nothing of substance.
Not that that's hard!

Thanks to all for the respectful and detailed feedback. What a beautiful environment, of like-minded people, who want to investigate the truth. and jam it into my head.

Unfortunately, I did not know I would be the only flat earther here on this forum and in this section, having to reply to dozens of objections by so many globe earthers. So, I have to pass the baton to the next flat earther who will accept it, because I don't have the knowledge and time to answer all these objections, and I don't have the confidence necessary to read all these insults and still write what I think.

Furthermore, I had posted this thread in another section, "Flat Earth General" and now it has been moved to "Flat Earth Debate" and I am expected to be eager to debate, but it was not in this section that I had posted this thread and I am not eager to debate and in some cases be insulted. I posted it in a section where I expected a majority of us flat earthers to be ganging up on a couple of globe earthers.

Every time I argue against evolution I'm usually the only one arguing against dozens with a few John-come-lately that usually dont stick around to help so I feel your pain. You're still wrong though.

Quote from: acenci on January 30, 2016, 10:46:34 AM

Thanks to all for the respectful and detailed feedback. What a beautiful environment, of like-minded people, who want to investigate the truth. and jam it into my head.

Unfortunately, I did not know I would be the only flat earther here on this forum and in this section, having to reply to dozens of objections by so many globe earthers. So, I have to pass the baton to the next flat earther who will accept it, because I don't have the knowledge and time to answer all these objections, and I don't have the confidence necessary to read all these insults and still write what I think.

Furthermore, I had posted this thread in another section, "Flat Earth General" and now it has been moved to "Flat Earth Debate" and I am expected to be eager to debate, but it was not in this section that I had posted this thread and I am not eager to debate and in some cases be insulted. I posted it in a section where I expected a majority of us flat earthers to be ganging up on a couple of globe earthers.

Every time I argue against evolution I'm usually the only one arguing against dozens with a few John-come-lately that usually dont stick around to help so I feel your pain. You're still wrong though.

You should try arguing the FE side sometime. 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2016, 05:56:05 PM

Quote from: acenci on January 30, 2016, 10:46:34 AM

Thanks to all for the respectful and detailed feedback. What a beautiful environment, of like-minded people, who want to investigate the truth. and jam it into my head.

Unfortunately, I did not know I would be the only flat earther here on this forum and in this section, having to reply to dozens of objections by so many globe earthers. So, I have to pass the baton to the next flat earther who will accept it, because I don't have the knowledge and time to answer all these objections, and I don't have the confidence necessary to read all these insults and still write what I think.

Furthermore, I had posted this thread in another section, "Flat Earth General" and now it has been moved to "Flat Earth Debate" and I am expected to be eager to debate, but it was not in this section that I had posted this thread and I am not eager to debate and in some cases be insulted. I posted it in a section where I expected a majority of us flat earthers to be ganging up on a couple of globe earthers.

Every time I argue against evolution I'm usually the only one arguing against dozens with a few John-come-lately that usually dont stick around to help so I feel your pain. You're still wrong though.

You should try arguing the FE side sometime.

I only side with what I believe to be true.

Quote from: jroa on January 30, 2016, 06:02:29 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2016, 05:56:05 PM

Quote from: acenci on January 30, 2016, 10:46:34 AM

Thanks to all for the respectful and detailed feedback. What a beautiful environment, of like-minded people, who want to investigate the truth. and jam it into my head.

Unfortunately, I did not know I would be the only flat earther here on this forum and in this section, having to reply to dozens of objections by so many globe earthers. So, I have to pass the baton to the next flat earther who will accept it, because I don't have the knowledge and time to answer all these objections, and I don't have the confidence necessary to read all these insults and still write what I think.

Furthermore, I had posted this thread in another section, "Flat Earth General" and now it has been moved to "Flat Earth Debate" and I am expected to be eager to debate, but it was not in this section that I had posted this thread and I am not eager to debate and in some cases be insulted. I posted it in a section where I expected a majority of us flat earthers to be ganging up on a couple of globe earthers.

Every time I argue against evolution I'm usually the only one arguing against dozens with a few John-come-lately that usually dont stick around to help so I feel your pain. You're still wrong though.

You should try arguing the FE side sometime.

I only side with what I believe to be true.

Well, that must be really convenient for you.  I bet you are a master debater. 

Sorry, acenci.  The roundies are lack a pack of dogs, and when they can find a weakness, they will all pounce on you at the same time, each one repeating the same thing his predecessors did in slightly different words.  Not a one of them has an original thought.

Do you have nothing to add to the actual topic but more ad-hominem remarks? Helping him with his arguments would be a better show of support than the usual fallacies we routinely get as answers to questions.

Can you explain, for instance, why you would expect people to "fall off" the Southern Hemisphere of the Earth (assuming that that's what acenci is referring to as the "bottom")? What are they going to fall on to? If you don't think there is a "bottom" of the spherical Earth that people would fall off of, can you explain it to acenci?

Just when I was about to give up, I was browsing on YouTube and, as luck would have it, I came across this video, I remembered how we were discussing the orange and how you were all asking for evidence, and so here it is.

This experiment shows, despite what this debunker claims, how the orange we have been discussing does not hold the water (even when it is not spinning):

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#ws

Are you sure? In the video, the narrator says the orange is still wet even after spinning it much faster than the Earth spins. Did you pay attention while watching it?

Of course, the water sticks to the orange because of adhesion, not gravity. The orange (and the water!) are in a strong gravity field due to the presence of the very massive Earth (massive compared to the orange and the water), so the much weaker gravity field of the orange is completely overwhelmed by the gravity of the Earth.

If you think the oceans, people, etc. should "fall" off the spherical Earth, what is it that you think is pulling them away from it? If there were a much, much larger object a few earth-diameters away pulling us "down" toward it, like the Earth in the vid pulls the water (and the orange, which is why it has to be on a string, and the bit of water which does stick to the orange), don't you think we'd have noticed it by now?

Amusing video, and, thankfully, brief, but not convincing of your point at all. In fact, it seems to contradict it. Sorry.