Why is the earth flat?

I'm sorry but its strange to be said that the RET relies on jumping to conclusions when the FET says that there is a disk floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it, and people on it attempting to keep the rest from figuring out the truth.
Answer me why there is a disk, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?

RET says that there is a ball floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it.
Answer me why there is a ball, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?

Just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. My model explains how the disk is formed and why, and how it does not defy the laws of physics, as well as what and why the Sun works, and why we stay on the disk's surface. (And I don't believe in a conspiracy. the notion of people hiding a Flat Earth is popularised by REers, look at what serious FEers believe and on the wiki etc, it's that there is a space travel conspiracy and a space travel conspiracy alone. Thinking the world is round is no more than an honest mistake. And yet no matter how often I repeat that REers just insist I'm somehow wrong about my own model).

It's not jumping to conclusions just because you haven't seen the workings.

Getting a little miffed now.

That's okay.

Take a breather, count to ten,whatever...

Its the Internet.

Why do heavier things fall on a flat earth.

Density and buoyancy.

The part of seeing Europe from America was a bad reason. However you proved it with a round earth theory, when I was looking for a flat earth theory.

RE and FE can agree on some things, especially obvious things.

I'm worried that the name of something can change how you interpret what it means. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million kmē and curves a 8 inches per mile. Thus the horizon is roughly 3 miles away and I doubt the human eye can see an 8 inch difference from 3 miles away.

There are people starving in Africa, drug addicts down the street, and you are worried about a horizon 3 miles away?

I have not been proven wrong. Because for some reason I'm still here, my beliefs have not been changed, and others in this thread have been countering your arguments as well. I am not changing my name.

You were proven wrong, whether you admit it or not.

Everyone here can easily read your claim.

Everyone here can easily read my rebuttal.

It will be okay.

Since you do not want to deal with your window, the Bonneville Salt Flats, or Kansas, I will bid you good day.

Take a Xanax or drink some sleepy time tea.

Quote

I'm sorry but its strange to be said that the RET relies on jumping to conclusions when the FET says that there is a disk floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it, and people on it attempting to keep the rest from figuring out the truth.
Answer me why there is a disk, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?

RET says that there is a ball floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it.
Answer me why there is a ball, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?

Just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. My model explains how the disk is formed and why, and how it does not defy the laws of physics, as well as what and why the Sun works, and why we stay on the disk's surface. (And I don't believe in a conspiracy. the notion of people hiding a Flat Earth is popularised by REers, look at what serious FEers believe and on the wiki etc, it's that there is a space travel conspiracy and a space travel conspiracy alone. Thinking the world is round is no more than an honest mistake. And yet no matter how often I repeat that REers just insist I'm somehow wrong about my own model).

It's not jumping to conclusions just because you haven't seen the workings.

At least round earthers have a logical explanation and description of what is happening in the solar system we live in and can accurately describe things to points so precise that it's very difficult not to be true. Flat earthers provide absolutely nothing. You guys can't even make a map that makes any sense, whereas I can take a round earther map and somehow it's always accurate. Why would the object we live on behave any differently than the objects we can see around us?

Source?

Come drive in the Midwest of the US.

Or go walk on the Bonneville Salt Flats or Salar de Uyuni.

That way you do not need a source.

At least round earthers have a logical explanation and description of what is happening in the solar system we live in and can accurately describe things to points so precise that it's very difficult not to be true. Flat earthers provide absolutely nothing.

No, you just haven't bothered to learn any of it. I provide plenty, such as in my sig in every damn post I make, you're just ignoring it because you'd rather lie and feel superior than mount an honest argument. Not taking the time to learn a model does not mean a model does not exist. Did you even read what I wrote?!

You guys can't even make a map that makes any sense, whereas I can take a round earther map and somehow it's always accurate.

You try making a map from scratch for god's sake. The RE and FE maps are identical on a small scale and on a large scale map plays second fiddle to landmarks because there's a lot that interrupts straight-line motion.

Why would the object we live on behave any differently than the objects we can see around us?

You tell me. I'm guessing, as you're a REer, you must believe the Earth's a star then? We see those around us.

It doesn't 'behave differently,' being in a different place means it's subject to different forces. Otherwise you're saying only one kind of entity can form and we're just like the Sun. That isn't the case under RET, why would it be under FET?

Quote

At least round earthers have a logical explanation and description of what is happening in the solar system we live in and can accurately describe things to points so precise that it's very difficult not to be true. Flat earthers provide absolutely nothing.

No, you just haven't bothered to learn any of it. I provide plenty, such as in my sig in every damn post I make, you're just ignoring it because you'd rather lie and feel superior than mount an honest argument. Not taking the time to learn a model does not mean a model does not exist. Did you even read what I wrote?!

All I'm saying is round earthers offer descriptions of their theories that are observed in the real world. Flat earthers provide nothing. No verifiable math, logic, etc. Round earthers can build satellites that work, observe hurricanes, tell you exactly when the sun will rise and set wherever you are on the round earth, etc. What have flat earthers proven?

You guys can't even make a map that makes any sense, whereas I can take a round earther map and somehow it's always accurate.

You try making a map from scratch for god's sake. The RE and FE maps are identical on a small scale and on a large scale map plays second fiddle to landmarks because there's a lot that interrupts straight-line motion.
[/quote]
Round earthers were able to. A flat earth would be easy to map.

Quote

Why would the object we live on behave any differently than the objects we can see around us?

You tell me. I'm guessing, as you're a REer, you must believe the Earth's a star then? We see those around us.

It doesn't 'behave differently,' being in a different place means it's subject to different forces. Otherwise you're saying only one kind of entity can form and we're just like the Sun. That isn't the case under RET, why would it be under FET?

Of course it would behave differently than what we observe. First it would be a flat disc when we see round objects around us, second it would be accelerating "upwards", whatever that means and other objects seem to rotate in circles.

All I'm saying is round earthers offer descriptions of their theories that are observed in the real world. Flat earthers provide nothing. No verifiable math, logic, etc. Round earthers can build satellites that work, observe hurricanes, tell you exactly when the sun will rise and set wherever you are on the round earth, etc. What have flat earthers proven?

Again, you are outright lying, and by this point knowingly doing so. I have provided the means for you to see what we can provide, and you're just pretending it doesn't exist.
We provide less maths, certainly, because accurate equations require hugely detailed experiments that require more resources than any of us have. As far as the abstract goes, FET and RET agree on the basics, the departures aren't newtonian, what you're asking is to basically derive models on par with relativity. That's not a first step. I agree, it would be nice to see more, but some things simply aren't feasible. Einstein worked for years on the backs of work others had done. We don't have that. No FEer can study FET full-time because it is not a respected field, and we have less to work with.

Round earthers were able to. A flat earth would be easy to map.

Round earthers took centuries and had the resources of multiple countries, are you being serious?! Sure, provide that and I'll be happy to.

Of course it would behave differently than what we observe. First it would be a flat disc when we see round objects around us, second it would be accelerating "upwards", whatever that means and other objects seem to rotate in circles.

It's not accelerating upwards, only a minority of FEers believe that. The FAQ's poorly maintained. if you haven't been paying enough attention to this site to learn even that, how exactly are these sweeping proclamations of yours informed?
Just like, under RET, there is a reason for some things to be planets and others to be stars, there is a reason under FET for some things to be flat, and the other to be round. That should not be a hard concept.

Quote

All I'm saying is round earthers offer descriptions of their theories that are observed in the real world. Flat earthers provide nothing. No verifiable math, logic, etc. Round earthers can build satellites that work, observe hurricanes, tell you exactly when the sun will rise and set wherever you are on the round earth, etc. What have flat earthers proven?

Again, you are outright lying, and by this point knowingly doing so. I have provided the means for you to see what we can provide, and you're just pretending it doesn't exist.

What's the lie? Tell me one thing that round earthers have proven that you can disprove? Heck, I can click a button on my phone and it knows exactly where I'm located and can tell me exactly how far and what direction I need to go to get to the destination I want. So obviously someone knows how to calculate precisely someones location on this object. Where are the flat earther technologies that work? It's weird how the round earthers always tell me when I fly how long it will take, what I will be flying over, and where I will end up... and I always end up there. I've never seen a flat earther tell me that.

We provide less maths, certainly, because accurate equations require hugely detailed experiments that require more resources than any of us have. As far as the abstract goes, FET and RET agree on the basics, the departures aren't newtonian, what you're asking is to basically derive models on par with relativity. That's not a first step. I agree, it would be nice to see more, but some things simply aren't feasible. Einstein worked for years on the backs of work others had done. We don't have that. No FEer can study FET full-time because it is not a respected field, and we have less to work with.

Yet, round earthers are able to build those technologies. Why are the flat earthers unable to build technologies to prove the earth is flat? Should be much easier to prove the earth is flat and how to navigate it and locate your position relative to the sun, stars, other planets, etc. For some reason, round earthers can tell you where to look to see a planet and that planet is always there. Kind of weird how flat earthers can't do that.

Round earthers were able to. A flat earth would be easy to map.

Round earthers took centuries and had the resources of multiple countries, are you being serious?! Sure, provide that and I'll be happy to.

Of course it would behave differently than what we observe. First it would be a flat disc when we see round objects around us, second it would be accelerating "upwards", whatever that means and other objects seem to rotate in circles.

It's not accelerating upwards, only a minority of FEers believe that. The FAQ's poorly maintained. if you haven't been paying enough attention to this site to learn even that, how exactly are these sweeping proclamations of yours informed?
Just like, under RET, there is a reason for some things to be planets and others to be stars, there is a reason under FET for some things to be flat, and the other to be round. That should not be a hard concept.
[/quote]

But you can't explain any of those reasons. The earth is flat simply because you say it is flat. Weird how whatever the round earthers tell me always seems to work but flat earthers can't tell me anything that I can observe that makes any sense. Hmmm....

Quote

I'm sorry but its strange to be said that the RET relies on jumping to conclusions when the FET says that there is a disk floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it, and people on it attempting to keep the rest from figuring out the truth.
Answer me why there is a disk, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?

RET says that there is a ball floating in space, somehow keeping things pulled down on it, with a floating ball of light over it.
Answer me why there is a ball, who made it, is it natural? What is the point of it. Is humanity really so special that we deserve a plate to live on, that defies all laws of physics?

Just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. My model explains how the disk is formed and why, and how it does not defy the laws of physics, as well as what and why the Sun works, and why we stay on the disk's surface. (And I don't believe in a conspiracy. the notion of people hiding a Flat Earth is popularised by REers, look at what serious FEers believe and on the wiki etc, it's that there is a space travel conspiracy and a space travel conspiracy alone. Thinking the world is round is no more than an honest mistake. And yet no matter how often I repeat that REers just insist I'm somehow wrong about my own model).

It's not jumping to conclusions just because you haven't seen the workings.

See, thing is that gravity, although it is a theory, is the reason of all of that. I'll explain it simply.
The sun, is so massive and has so many atoms pulling on eachothers, that it naturally forms a sphere, same with earth. Earth, and all the other planets, are pulled towards the sun, and because their velocity is so fast and in one direction, that they do not fall in.
Imagine a Canon on a sphere. If it fires the ball is pulled down to the sphere. If it fires hard enough to get the ball around the sphere, eventually the ball would reach a point where it would continuously rotate around.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 23, 2017, 02:08:50 PM

Getting a little miffed now.

That's okay.

Take a breather, count to ten,whatever...

Its the Internet.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 23, 2017, 02:08:50 PM

Why do heavier things fall on a flat earth.

Density and buoyancy.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 23, 2017, 02:08:50 PM

The part of seeing Europe from America was a bad reason. However you proved it with a round earth theory, when I was looking for a flat earth theory.

RE and FE can agree on some things, especially obvious things.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 23, 2017, 02:08:50 PM

I'm worried that the name of something can change how you interpret what it means. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million kmē and curves a 8 inches per mile. Thus the horizon is roughly 3 miles away and I doubt the human eye can see an 8 inch difference from 3 miles away.

There are people starving in Africa, drug addicts down the street, and you are worried about a horizon 3 miles away?

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 23, 2017, 02:08:50 PM

I have not been proven wrong. Because for some reason I'm still here, my beliefs have not been changed, and others in this thread have been countering your arguments as well. I am not changing my name.

You were proven wrong, whether you admit it or not.

Everyone here can easily read your claim.

Everyone here can easily read my rebuttal.

It will be okay.

Since you do not want to deal with your window, the Bonneville Salt Flats, or Kansas, I will bid you good day.

Take a Xanax or drink some sleepy time tea.

Nononono we are not done yet. How does density and buoyancy work on a flat earth? I want facts not just short sarcastic answers. We have different interpretations of what my point was. I was trying to prove that the earth is round. The Bonneville Salt Flats are just an open plain. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth as it is so huge. I'm not sure if your real or a troll, because your arguments and way of ending the debate is so ridiculous. Saying words does not prove a point, give me evidence and actual scientific answers. Looking forward to your sarcastic response.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 23, 2017, 02:12:20 PM

Source?

Come drive in the Midwest of the US.

Or go walk on the Bonneville Salt Flats or Salar de Uyuni.

That way you do not need a source.

Stop using one example. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth. If the earth were flat, then a horizon would be blurred, not a straight line.

Nononono we are not done yet.

Are you sure?

How does density and buoyancy work on a flat earth? I want facts not just short sarcastic answers.

Objects have measurable density and buoyancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

For buoyancy, in the last image, you can eliminate the word gravity as that is not necessary as far as I am concerned.

We have different interpretations of what my point was.

I do not think so.

I was trying to prove that the earth is round. The Bonneville Salt Flats are just an open plain. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth as it is so huge.

I disagree.

The human eye cannot see the curvature because it is non-existent.

The Bonneville Salt Flats are flat.

Kansas is flat.

If you look out your window, it is flat.

I'm not sure if your real or a troll, because your arguments and way of ending the debate is so ridiculous.

Providing you with actual science is not being a troll.

You made a claim that was obviously incorrect.

I provided irrefutable evidence.

You have not.

Saying words does not prove a point

This is rich!

I am going out on a limb here (not very far), but I venture you are actually communicating the following:

"Anyone who disagrees with my worldview and says so is not proving a point. Only I and those I agree with can say, type, and write anything that proves a point... SO THERE!".

...give me evidence and actual scientific answers.

I have.

Looking forward to your sarcastic response.

I doubt that.

Stop using one example. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth. If the earth were flat, then a horizon would be blurred, not a straight line.

Why?

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 03:18:51 AM

Stop using one example. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth. If the earth were flat, then a horizon would be blurred, not a straight line.

Why?

the earth curving away from us creates a more or less solid line horizon. if the earth were flat, said horizon would be caused by the haze of the atmosphere, which doesn't create a hard line.

Quote from: totallackey on March 24, 2017, 03:31:01 AM

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 03:18:51 AM

Stop using one example. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth. If the earth were flat, then a horizon would be blurred, not a straight line.

Why?

the earth curving away from us creates a more or less solid line horizon. if the earth were flat, said horizon would be caused by the haze of the atmosphere, which doesn't create a hard line.

You do realize that is a totally fallacious argument.

Jesus, that is funny!

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 23, 2017, 10:39:50 AM

I have trouble figuring out why one person would believe in a flat earth, and another would believe in a round earth. Because when one has an argument with the other, both will always have an answer. Of course, one is not just based on unproven theories and things that a five year old could make up. (I'm talking about the flat earth theory) But I guarantee you that whatever fact you throw at me that proves the earth is flat, I will be able to convince you the earth is round. Hence, my name. Bring it on.

Look out your window.

It is called the Bonneville Salt Flats, not the Bonneville Salt Rounds.

Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake.

No, you are quite wrong! When I  look out my window  I do not see "the Bonneville Salt Flats". 

And the Globe is flatter than a pancake, so what is your claim that "Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake" supposed to prove?

I know it does not prove that Kansas is on a Globe, but it means that your "Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake" is not evidence for a flat earth!

Any more proof, those fell flat, though a very roundish flat!

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 01:28:20 AM

Nononono we are not done yet.

Are you sure?

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 01:28:20 AM

How does density and buoyancy work on a flat earth? I want facts not just short sarcastic answers.

Objects have measurable density and buoyancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

For buoyancy, in the last image, you can eliminate the word gravity as that is not necessary as far as I am concerned.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 01:28:20 AM

We have different interpretations of what my point was.

I do not think so.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 01:28:20 AM

I was trying to prove that the earth is round. The Bonneville Salt Flats are just an open plain. The human eye cannot see the curvature of the earth as it is so huge.

I disagree.

The human eye cannot see the curvature because it is non-existent.

The Bonneville Salt Flats are flat.

Kansas is flat.

If you look out your window, it is flat.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 01:28:20 AM

I'm not sure if your real or a troll, because your arguments and way of ending the debate is so ridiculous.

Providing you with actual science is not being a troll.

You made a claim that was obviously incorrect.

I provided irrefutable evidence.

You have not.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 01:28:20 AM

Saying words does not prove a point

This is rich!

I am going out on a limb here (not very far), but I venture you are actually communicating the following:

"Anyone who disagrees with my worldview and says so is not proving a point. Only I and those I agree with can say, type, and write anything that proves a point... SO THERE!".

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 01:28:20 AM

...give me evidence and actual scientific answers.

I have.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 01:28:20 AM

Looking forward to your sarcastic response.

I doubt that.

I am attempting to have a debate. So if I disagree with something you say, its because I disagree with something you say. When I said, your just saying words, I mean that you say things without backing it up. The density and buoyancy thing doesn't make sense without a round earth. Because if the earth were a flat plain, that still had the law that heavier things are pulled down, then it would collapse on itself, thus creating a sphere. The Bonneville Salt Flats only look flat, they do have a curve. And one location being flat does not prove the entire world is flat. Allow me to have a debate without trying to shut it down before I've proven my point, or you. Because, to me, your point has not been proven, and I'm the one you have to prove it to.

I am attempting to have a debate.

So far, its just been "NO U!" coming from your side.

So if I disagree with something you say, its because I disagree with something you say.

It is okay to disagree.

When I said, your just saying words, I mean that you say things without backing it up.

You posted this, remember?

"It is called perception. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million kmē and curves at about 8 inches per mile. Just because we don't see the curve doesn't mean its not there. If the earth didn't curve, on a clear day it would be possible to see every thing in a certain direction (Unless your view was obstructed). But for some reason you can't see Europe from the east coast of America."

You posted that without any backing whatsoever...

I, on the other hand, posted very clear and concise IRREFUTABLE explanations for why Europe cannot be seen from the East Cost of the US.

You definitely have things backwards.

The density and buoyancy thing doesn't make sense without a round earth. Because if the earth were a flat plain, that still had the law that heavier things are pulled down, then it would collapse on itself, thus creating a sphere.

Incorrect.

Take a look for examples of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others.

There are examples of that, you know.

The Bonneville Salt Flats only look flat, they do have a curve.

You have again posted an assertion without any back up.

And one location being flat does not prove the entire world is flat.

If you can only occupy one point at a time and that one point looks flat...

And you change locations to a different point and that point looks flat...

Well, you get the picture...

Allow me to have a debate without trying to shut it down before I've proven my point, or you. Because, to me, your point has not been proven, and I'm the one you have to prove it to.

I'm still waiting for you to offer something near a debate.

So far, all you have done is whine and cry because I obliterated your first baseless assertion.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 04:29:44 AM

I am attempting to have a debate.

So far, its just been "NO U!" coming from your side.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 04:29:44 AM

So if I disagree with something you say, its because I disagree with something you say.

It is okay to disagree.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 04:29:44 AM

When I said, your just saying words, I mean that you say things without backing it up.

You posted this, remember?

"It is called perception. The earth has a surface area of 510.1 million kmē and curves at about 8 inches per mile. Just because we don't see the curve doesn't mean its not there. If the earth didn't curve, on a clear day it would be possible to see every thing in a certain direction (Unless your view was obstructed). But for some reason you can't see Europe from the east coast of America."

You posted that without any backing whatsoever...

I, on the other hand, posted very clear and concise IRREFUTABLE explanations for why Europe cannot be seen from the East Cost of the US.

You definitely have things backwards.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 04:29:44 AM

The density and buoyancy thing doesn't make sense without a round earth. Because if the earth were a flat plain, that still had the law that heavier things are pulled down, then it would collapse on itself, thus creating a sphere.

Incorrect.

Take a look for examples of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others.

There are examples of that, you know.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 04:29:44 AM

The Bonneville Salt Flats only look flat, they do have a curve.

You have again posted an assertion without any back up.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 04:29:44 AM

And one location being flat does not prove the entire world is flat.

If you can only occupy one point at a time and that one point looks flat...

And you change locations to a different point and that point looks flat...

Well, you get the picture...

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 04:29:44 AM

Allow me to have a debate without trying to shut it down before I've proven my point, or you. Because, to me, your point has not been proven, and I'm the one you have to prove it to.

I'm still waiting for you to offer something near a debate.

So far, all you have done is whine and cry because I obliterated your first baseless assertion.

I am trying to have an intelligent mature debate here. If you keep insulting me, well I really can't do much but point it out to you, so keep doing that.
If air molecules are the reason to why we can't see across the Atlantic, then that's fair, but it begs the question: How is the horizon so smooth. If the earth were flat, then the horizon would be blurred due to the atmosphere.
Also, the idea of a flat earth would require a creator or god. As I have not been able to find any reason as to how a flat earth could form naturally, it would require someone to create it. Thus making a flat earth just as likely as any other religion.
Will you give me some of those examples "of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others," because I really don't know what you mean by that. Probably because I'm REtarded.
For both flat earthers and round earthers, the horizon, or end of vision, is three miles away. In the round earth "theory" the earth curves at eight inches per mile. It is not possible for a human eye to see an eight inch difference from three miles away, and if the horizon was blurred, as would indicate a flat earth, but it is clear and smooth.

I am trying to have an intelligent mature debate here. If you keep insulting me, well I really can't do much but point it out to you, so keep doing that.

I have engaged your points.

You can choose to ignore my additional commentary.

If air molecules are the reason to why we can't see across the Atlantic, then that's fair, but it begs the question: How is the horizon so smooth. If the earth were flat, then the horizon would be blurred due to the atmosphere.

That is a baseless assumption.

Also, the idea of a flat earth would require a creator or god. As I have not been able to find any reason as to how a flat earth could form naturally, it would require someone to create it. Thus making a flat earth just as likely as any other religion.

That is a baseless assumption.

Will you give me some of those examples "of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others," because I really don't know what you mean by that. Probably because I'm REtarded.

Will a naturally occurring fire keep burning if you put it under water?

For both flat earthers and round earthers, the horizon, or end of vision, is three miles away. In the round earth "theory" the earth curves at eight inches per mile. It is not possible for a human eye to see an eight inch difference from three miles away, and if the horizon was blurred, as would indicate a flat earth, but it is clear and smooth.

This whole horizon blurred stuff is baseless assertion and fallacious argumentation.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

I am trying to have an intelligent mature debate here. If you keep insulting me, well I really can't do much but point it out to you, so keep doing that.

I have engaged your points.

You can choose to ignore my additional commentary.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

If air molecules are the reason to why we can't see across the Atlantic, then that's fair, but it begs the question: How is the horizon so smooth. If the earth were flat, then the horizon would be blurred due to the atmosphere.

That is a baseless assumption.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

Also, the idea of a flat earth would require a creator or god. As I have not been able to find any reason as to how a flat earth could form naturally, it would require someone to create it. Thus making a flat earth just as likely as any other religion.

That is a baseless assumption.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

Will you give me some of those examples "of things that work in some instances or locations and do not work in others," because I really don't know what you mean by that. Probably because I'm REtarded.

Will a naturally occurring fire keep burning if you put it under water?

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

For both flat earthers and round earthers, the horizon, or end of vision, is three miles away. In the round earth "theory" the earth curves at eight inches per mile. It is not possible for a human eye to see an eight inch difference from three miles away, and if the horizon was blurred, as would indicate a flat earth, but it is clear and smooth.

This whole horizon blurred stuff is baseless assertion and fallacious argumentation.

Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting. I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.
On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.

Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting.

As of right now, no I cannot.

I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.

Okay.

On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.

Hold on a sec...

Lemme check...

Yep...

I do not feel very lonely...

Proved you wrong again!

Geez, I am crushing you in this debate!

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 06:13:22 AM

Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting.

As of right now, no I cannot.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.

Okay.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.

Hold on a sec...

Lemme check...

Yep...

I do not feel very lonely...

Proved you wrong again!

Geez, I am crushing you in this debate!

i think you got crushed.

1. question: you can not answer that question
2. question: you agreed
3. question: you did not answer the important part of the question you pick the unimportant and therefor also no answer.

Quote from: totallackey on March 24, 2017, 06:25:28 AM

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 06:13:22 AM

Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting.

As of right now, no I cannot.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.

Okay.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.

Hold on a sec...

Lemme check...

Yep...

I do not feel very lonely...

Proved you wrong again!

Geez, I am crushing you in this debate!

i think you got crushed.

1. question: you can not answer that question
2. question: you agreed
3. question: you did not answer the important part of the question you pick the unimportant and therefor also no answer.

Failing to answer is not an issue you seem to be too concerned about.

Lemme give you an example: What causes gravity?

Agreeing is also not an issue you seem to be too concerned about.

Lemme give you an example : We agree you are a complete asshat.

Every word written by a person here?

I give it the respect it is due.

When I attempt to paraphrase, I read the wailing by asshats like you/Geoff/sokarul/JackAss/etc.

When I provide completely factual responses to the posts exactly as written, I read the wailing by asshats like you/Geoff/sokarul/JackAss/etc.

You, in particular.

I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.

...
I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.

yes i sometimes do not answer a question, but i also do not declare in the same post that i won that debate.

why should i stop posting here, i have a ton of fun here.
always when i read your post (and from other Flattards) i imagine it in a deep southern redneck accent. (like Larry the Cableguy)
 
 

Quote from: totallackey on March 24, 2017, 06:59:03 AM

...
I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.

yes i sometimes do not answer a question, but i also do not declare in the same post that i won that debate.

And neither do I.

why should i stop posting here, i have a ton of fun here.

I did not ask you to stop posting.

I asked you to stop SHITPOSTING!

Jesus, learn to fucking read and stop subjecting others to your boring ass meaningless crap.

It may be fun to you, but I can guarantee it is not fun to others...

A person should only be subjected to so many train wrecks in one day, for christ's sake...

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 06:13:22 AM

Can you explain how earth could naturally form a flat plain. Because that would be extremely interesting.

As of right now, no I cannot.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

I believe it was you who gave me the argument the facts on air molecules and I was applying that to other things that would occur because of that.

Okay.

Quote from: ProveMeWrong on March 24, 2017, 05:45:28 AM

On another note, do flat earthers not believe in other planets? How alone you must feel.

Hold on a sec...

Lemme check...

Yep...

I do not feel very lonely...

Proved you wrong again!

Geez, I am crushing you in this debate!

Now on a personal level, why is it easier to believe in a theory which has a basis that you don't know, or understand, or is impossible to explain, than a "theory" that explains its basis, and many of the other questions we have of physics?
And also, what are the things I see through my telescope, if not planets. And if they are just stars, what is the point of them. And, what is a star if the earth is flat?

Quote from: Canadabear on March 24, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 24, 2017, 06:59:03 AM

...
I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.

yes i sometimes do not answer a question, but i also do not declare in the same post that i won that debate.

And neither do I.

Quote from: Canadabear on March 24, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

why should i stop posting here, i have a ton of fun here.

I did not ask you to stop posting.

I asked you to stop SHITPOSTING!

Jesus, learn to fucking read and stop subjecting others to your boring ass meaningless crap.

It may be fun to you, but I can guarantee it is not fun to others...

A person should only be subjected to so many train wrecks in one day, for christ's sake...

If I had to say who the king of shitposting was here, my vote would be for you, Mr Complete Manservant, or total lackey. Do you ever post anything worthwhile? I now remember why I decided to take a few months break from these forums, because there is just no quality to the FE arguments and no new thoughts on how a FE model could operate! People come and go here, I think your time to go is way overdue!

Quote from: totallackey on March 24, 2017, 07:29:48 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on March 24, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 24, 2017, 06:59:03 AM

...
I wish you would cease your incessant incontinence and stop shitposting these boards.

yes i sometimes do not answer a question, but i also do not declare in the same post that i won that debate.

And neither do I.

Quote from: Canadabear on March 24, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

why should i stop posting here, i have a ton of fun here.

I did not ask you to stop posting.

I asked you to stop SHITPOSTING!

Jesus, learn to fucking read and stop subjecting others to your boring ass meaningless crap.

It may be fun to you, but I can guarantee it is not fun to others...

A person should only be subjected to so many train wrecks in one day, for christ's sake...

If I had to say who the king of shitposting was here, my vote would be for you, Mr Complete Manservant, or total lackey. Do you ever post anything worthwhile? I now remember why I decided to take a few months break from these forums, because there is just no quality to the FE arguments and no new thoughts on how a FE model could operate! People come and go here, I think your time to go is way overdue!

Aww But I just got started with him.

Now on a personal level, why is it easier to believe in a theory which has a basis that you don't know, or understand, or is impossible to explain, than a "theory" that explains its basis, and many of the other questions we have of physics?

To which theory are you referring?

And also, what are the things I see through my telescope, if not planets. And if they are just stars, what is the point of them. And, what is a star if the earth is flat?

I do not know, specifically, what you are seeing through your telescope, if anything.

If they are what is referred to as planets, then okay.

If they are what is referred to as stars, then okay.

I am unsure of the connection between stars and a flat earth.