If the earth is flat, then why...

We (us serious guys, at least) seem to, for some reason, be wrong a lot less than you guys. I'll admit when I'm wrong, no issues here.

No, you are wrong far more often, you just refuse to admit it and instead try and change the subject or doing whatever you can to avoid admitting you were wrong.

And you don't seem very serious, with all your pathetic, childish antics at trying to avoid issues being discussed.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 01:56:59 PM

We (us serious guys, at least) seem to, for some reason, be wrong a lot less than you guys. I'll admit when I'm wrong, no issues here.

No, you are wrong far more often, you just refuse to admit it and instead try and change the subject or doing whatever you can to avoid admitting you were wrong.

And you don't seem very serious, with all your pathetic, childish antics at trying to avoid issues being discussed.

Where did I avoid any issues being discussed? Why would I be here if I had nothing to say?

Again, you seem to just be more interested in asserting your weird type of arrogance than actually countering anything.

Quote from: RocketSauce on October 03, 2017, 09:09:09 AM

I looked it up... It's still officially a Theory...

I have to be honest, it's a little refreshing to see one of you admit you were wrong. Kudos.

If I know I'm wrong about something, I will gladly tell everyone... Oops, my bad, I'm an asshole... If I'm working on a project or come up with a Theory, design a plan... I want feed back... does this make sense, does this work. I understand it is embarrassing to be wrong, and it's seen to weaken your position...

Imagine a politician during a debate saying... No, you're correct, i was mistaken.... Their entire political career is over.

It's like being in class when you work as a group... If you have a very vocal dude that is always wrong, and is 100% positive he's right.... and is convinced, and adamant... that guy gets ostracized from the group.

If you have a super smart guy, that is wrong once... and has super low self-esteem... That dude falls apart and start self-flagellating... or they double down on the bullshit...  It's like they have everything riding on being right all the time... Like the kid that has to 100% every homework assignment or test....

I absolutely hate to be wrong... because that means I was so sure of myself that I put it out there... But, I'm wrong all the time... Id rather be unsure.
 
By extension... I do not sympathize with people that double down on bullshit... (Flat Earth Society....)

It would be better if you guys tried to agree amongst yourselves in your private forum on a model that has been peer reviewed... before presenting it... at least you would be unified. 

Try working out the kinks first before you have Round Earthers with too much time on their hands disassemble all of the alternative views... (I'm talking to you stacked atmosphere and Coin Flipping Earth...)


I admit though... When you fall to the level of a Flat Earther... Be happy that you are anonymous... It's hard to come back from this one...

Where did I avoid any issues being discussed? Why would I be here if I had nothing to say?

How about repeatedly in this thread, where you have continually failed to address the OP and explain how this could possibly work with a FE.
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly pleaded ignorance to how a sharp horizon indicates Earth is flat?
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly claimed that refraction can explain it, yet failed to provide an explanation of how when asked?
How about in other thread, where you baselessly asserted that the great circle corresponds to the curve you should see as the horizon and continually avoided the issues that were raised in relation to that?

You seem to be here to just spout shit and stir people up.

Again, you seem to just be more interested in asserting your weird type of arrogance than actually countering anything.

No, I'm more interested in pointing out BS and explaining why it is BS.
I have repeatedly countered the crap FEers have brought up.
I even countered some things REers have brought up which were wrong.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Where did I avoid any issues being discussed? Why would I be here if I had nothing to say?

How about repeatedly in this thread, where you have continually failed to address the OP and explain how this could possibly work with a FE.
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly pleaded ignorance to how a sharp horizon indicates Earth is flat?
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly claimed that refraction can explain it, yet failed to provide an explanation of how when asked?
How about in other thread, where you baselessly asserted that the great circle corresponds to the curve you should see as the horizon and continually avoided the issues that were raised in relation to that?

You seem to be here to just spout shit and stir people up.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Again, you seem to just be more interested in asserting your weird type of arrogance than actually countering anything.

No, I'm more interested in pointing out BS and explaining why it is BS.
I have repeatedly countered the crap FEers have brought up.
I even countered some things REers have brought up which were wrong.

Just because you don't accept something doesn't mean I'm wrong. You have to prove it, which most of the time you fail to do.

You seem like the type who thinks they could never be wrong. That is a dangerous thing.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2017, 02:19:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Where did I avoid any issues being discussed? Why would I be here if I had nothing to say?

How about repeatedly in this thread, where you have continually failed to address the OP and explain how this could possibly work with a FE.
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly pleaded ignorance to how a sharp horizon indicates Earth is flat?
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly claimed that refraction can explain it, yet failed to provide an explanation of how when asked?
How about in other thread, where you baselessly asserted that the great circle corresponds to the curve you should see as the horizon and continually avoided the issues that were raised in relation to that?

You seem to be here to just spout shit and stir people up.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Again, you seem to just be more interested in asserting your weird type of arrogance than actually countering anything.

No, I'm more interested in pointing out BS and explaining why it is BS.
I have repeatedly countered the crap FEers have brought up.
I even countered some things REers have brought up which were wrong.

Just because you don't accept something doesn't mean I'm wrong. You have to prove it, which most of the time you fail to do.

No, ffs, just no.  It's not on anyone else to prove something you said is false.  The burden is entirely on you to substantiate your statements with evidence.  I asked you earlier in the thread to provide math showing the type of refraction you would need isn't magic, but actually physically explainable.  As expected, you've come up with nothing. 

If I tell you the world is shaped like a cube, I can't then tell you that you have to prove me wrong if you don't accept it.  I need to offer the evidence that supports my claim.  God damn I hope you are lying about your science degree, and if you're not, I really really hope you aren't responsible for teaching science to anyone because you apparently have no clue about how anything works.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 03:01:15 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2017, 02:19:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Where did I avoid any issues being discussed? Why would I be here if I had nothing to say?

How about repeatedly in this thread, where you have continually failed to address the OP and explain how this could possibly work with a FE.
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly pleaded ignorance to how a sharp horizon indicates Earth is flat?
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly claimed that refraction can explain it, yet failed to provide an explanation of how when asked?
How about in other thread, where you baselessly asserted that the great circle corresponds to the curve you should see as the horizon and continually avoided the issues that were raised in relation to that?

You seem to be here to just spout shit and stir people up.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Again, you seem to just be more interested in asserting your weird type of arrogance than actually countering anything.

No, I'm more interested in pointing out BS and explaining why it is BS.
I have repeatedly countered the crap FEers have brought up.
I even countered some things REers have brought up which were wrong.

Just because you don't accept something doesn't mean I'm wrong. You have to prove it, which most of the time you fail to do.

No, ffs, just no.  It's not on anyone else to prove something you said is false.  The burden is entirely on you to substantiate your statements with evidence.  I asked you earlier in the thread to provide math showing the type of refraction you would need isn't magic, but actually physically explainable.  As expected, you've come up with nothing. 

If I tell you the world is shaped like a cube, I can't then tell you that you have to prove me wrong if you don't accept it.  I need to offer the evidence that supports my claim.  God damn I hope you are lying about your science degree, and if you're not, I really really hope you aren't responsible for teaching science to anyone because you apparently have no clue about how anything works.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If I claim something and substantiate it, if you don't properly address what I've used to substantiate it, you can't have a proper argument.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 03, 2017, 03:19:06 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 03:01:15 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2017, 02:19:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Where did I avoid any issues being discussed? Why would I be here if I had nothing to say?

How about repeatedly in this thread, where you have continually failed to address the OP and explain how this could possibly work with a FE.
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly pleaded ignorance to how a sharp horizon indicates Earth is flat?
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly claimed that refraction can explain it, yet failed to provide an explanation of how when asked?
How about in other thread, where you baselessly asserted that the great circle corresponds to the curve you should see as the horizon and continually avoided the issues that were raised in relation to that?

You seem to be here to just spout shit and stir people up.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Again, you seem to just be more interested in asserting your weird type of arrogance than actually countering anything.

No, I'm more interested in pointing out BS and explaining why it is BS.
I have repeatedly countered the crap FEers have brought up.
I even countered some things REers have brought up which were wrong.

Just because you don't accept something doesn't mean I'm wrong. You have to prove it, which most of the time you fail to do.

No, ffs, just no.  It's not on anyone else to prove something you said is false.  The burden is entirely on you to substantiate your statements with evidence.  I asked you earlier in the thread to provide math showing the type of refraction you would need isn't magic, but actually physically explainable.  As expected, you've come up with nothing. 

If I tell you the world is shaped like a cube, I can't then tell you that you have to prove me wrong if you don't accept it.  I need to offer the evidence that supports my claim.  God damn I hope you are lying about your science degree, and if you're not, I really really hope you aren't responsible for teaching science to anyone because you apparently have no clue about how anything works.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If I claim something and substantiate it, if you don't properly address what I've used to substantiate it, you can't have a proper argument.

Sorry but, where have you used anything beyond your own word to 'substantiate' something? If I say "Obama was behind 9/11, and it's obvious why because he wasn't in the WH" there is no impetus on you to refute it with anything more than 'No he wasn't, show us actual proof if you want to make that claim' at most. I could very well be wrong, but I don't remember seeing anything from you that would amount to substantial proof, like math or documented experiments. Just you saying "This is how it could/would work." At a minimum this is what it seems 'ItsRoundIPromise' is claiming, and I can't presently recall you offering anything better than your words and personal explanation for just about anything at present. If you've got it, would love to be proven wrong.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 03, 2017, 03:19:06 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 03:01:15 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2017, 02:19:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Where did I avoid any issues being discussed? Why would I be here if I had nothing to say?

How about repeatedly in this thread, where you have continually failed to address the OP and explain how this could possibly work with a FE.
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly pleaded ignorance to how a sharp horizon indicates Earth is flat?
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly claimed that refraction can explain it, yet failed to provide an explanation of how when asked?
How about in other thread, where you baselessly asserted that the great circle corresponds to the curve you should see as the horizon and continually avoided the issues that were raised in relation to that?

You seem to be here to just spout shit and stir people up.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 02:09:51 PM

Again, you seem to just be more interested in asserting your weird type of arrogance than actually countering anything.

No, I'm more interested in pointing out BS and explaining why it is BS.
I have repeatedly countered the crap FEers have brought up.
I even countered some things REers have brought up which were wrong.

Just because you don't accept something doesn't mean I'm wrong. You have to prove it, which most of the time you fail to do.

No, ffs, just no.  It's not on anyone else to prove something you said is false.  The burden is entirely on you to substantiate your statements with evidence.  I asked you earlier in the thread to provide math showing the type of refraction you would need isn't magic, but actually physically explainable.  As expected, you've come up with nothing. 

If I tell you the world is shaped like a cube, I can't then tell you that you have to prove me wrong if you don't accept it.  I need to offer the evidence that supports my claim.  God damn I hope you are lying about your science degree, and if you're not, I really really hope you aren't responsible for teaching science to anyone because you apparently have no clue about how anything works.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If I claim something and substantiate it, if you don't properly address what I've used to substantiate it, you can't have a proper argument.

Exactly, The FEIB claim that the earth is flat.
Therefore it's their burden to prove it.
Not one FEIB Was able to do so.

Sorry but, where have you used anything beyond your own word to 'substantiate' something? If I say "Obama was behind 9/11, and it's obvious why because he wasn't in the WH" there is no impetus on you to refute it with anything more than 'No he wasn't, show us actual proof if you want to make that claim' at most. I could very well be wrong, but I don't remember seeing anything from you that would amount to substantial proof, like math or documented experiments. Just you saying "This is how it could/would work." At a minimum this is what it seems 'ItsRoundIPromise' is claiming, and I can't presently recall you offering anything better than your words and personal explanation for just about anything at present. If you've got it, would love to be proven wrong.

I stated many facts about why I believe the Earth is special, giving it grounds to not be just a regular old "planet" like all the rest.

Quote from: Canadabear on October 03, 2017, 12:56:26 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 10:22:01 AM

Quote from: RocketSauce on October 03, 2017, 09:09:09 AM

I looked it up... It's still officially a Theory...

I have to be honest, it's a little refreshing to see one of you admit you were wrong. Kudos.

that never happen with a FEIB.

We (us serious guys, at least) seem to, for some reason, be wrong a lot less than you guys. I'll admit when I'm wrong, no issues here.

Same here. I have made some mistakes.

I stated many facts about why I believe the Earth is special, giving it grounds to not be just a regular old "planet" like all the rest.

Who's claiming tha the Earth is "just a regular old 'planet' like all the rest."
But, just what is "a regular old 'planet' like all the rest"? They are all so different.

Earth is of course, special in so many ways, many are given in: What Makes Earth Special Compared to Other Planets.
But none of the features that make Earth special seem to favour a flat over spherical earth.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 04:50:59 PM

I stated many facts about why I believe the Earth is special, giving it grounds to not be just a regular old "planet" like all the rest.

Who's claiming tha the Earth is "just a regular old 'planet' like all the rest."
But, just what is "a regular old 'planet' like all the rest"? They are all so different.

Earth is of course, special in so many ways, many are given in: What Makes Earth Special Compared to Other Planets.
But none of the features that make Earth special seem to favour a flat over spherical earth.

The question was why planets were spherical when the Earth is not. I justify the Earth being a different shape by pointing out that it's different and special in so many other ways. That's all.

Same here. I have made some mistakes.

Looks like you're in good company:

Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
Read more at: Albert Einstein Quotes

Morden College also noted in their reply  that "Modern is a common mis-spelling of Morden."

Correction, rabinoz
That map you show of Australia is not "Australia on North Polar AEP Map"
It is Australia  on "Gleason's Map"....."A Projecton of J.S. Christopher, Modern College, Blackheath, England."
I checked that out on a previous thread..
(Hint : Try "Morden College" instead of "Modern College" for information about "J.S. Christopher")
( www.mordencollege.org.uk )

I know that you are aware of most of this, but some might be interested.

Sure, the Gleason Map may be "A Projecton of J.S. Christopher, Modern College, Blackheath, England."
But that does not stop it being a "North Polar AEP Map" - North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.

• It is certainly centred on the North Pole.
• It is certainly Equidistant in that all distances from the North Pole are scaled correctly.
• As far as can be seen it is an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.

This might be worth reading: The Earth Is Not Flat! Gleason's Map. Here is an extract:

Gleason's Map
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flat-Earthers make much of the words "As It Is" and "Scientifically and Practically Correct," and even more of the descriptions of the motion of the sun in the lower corners. But what did Gleason have to say about it? Do we know?

Well, we certainly know what he said on his US Patent application from 1895.  Here is Gleason's concept drawing as submitted:

You can read the entire patent, which describes the map's use as a time calculator for students. But the most important passage from the flat-Earth standpoint is this:

The map is not so extorted as to lose the relative latitude and longitude of any places on the land or sea, but retains all latitudes and longitudes of places agreeing with other recognized authors; and as the proper relations of continents and countries all stand in their relative position to each other, they are thus impressed upon the mind of the student. The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And note his phrasing "the equator to the two poles." A flat Earth does not have poles.
This type of projection is know as an azimuthal equidistant projection, and when properly used it has many applications in navigation, telecommunications, and even military planning. The projection method has been known for about 1000 years. Azimuthal projections are not always centered on the North Pole; they can be generated mathematically from any point on the globe.

Gleason's "map" was patented as a time calculator, but the projection is a North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.

Quote from: rabinoz on October 03, 2017, 06:40:24 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 04:50:59 PM

I stated many facts about why I believe the Earth is special, giving it grounds to not be just a regular old "planet" like all the rest.

Who's claiming tha the Earth is "just a regular old 'planet' like all the rest."
But, just what is "a regular old 'planet' like all the rest"? They are all so different.

Earth is of course, special in so many ways, many are given in: What Makes Earth Special Compared to Other Planets.
But none of the features that make Earth special seem to favour a flat over spherical earth.

The question was why planets were spherical when the Earth is not. I justify the Earth being a different shape by pointing out that it's different and special in so many other ways. That's all.

And you actually believe that it being unique in some ways is evidence that it isn't a sphere?  There is absolutely nothing of substance in this idea.  If the question is why other planets are spherical and the Earth is not, the answer needs to be some sort of physical explanation, with either observation or math to support the model, of what has made planets into spheres, and what specifically has left the Earth outside those processes. 

Just saying "Earth is different" is no explanation at all, and doesn't need to be addressed by anyone until you demonstrate what any of the differences you've identified about the Earth have to do with directly influencing its shape.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 06:43:12 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on October 03, 2017, 06:40:24 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 04:50:59 PM

I stated many facts about why I believe the Earth is special, giving it grounds to not be just a regular old "planet" like all the rest.

Who's claiming tha the Earth is "just a regular old 'planet' like all the rest."
But, just what is "a regular old 'planet' like all the rest"? They are all so different.

Earth is of course, special in so many ways, many are given in: What Makes Earth Special Compared to Other Planets.
But none of the features that make Earth special seem to favour a flat over spherical earth.

The question was why planets were spherical when the Earth is not. I justify the Earth being a different shape by pointing out that it's different and special in so many other ways. That's all.

And you actually believe that it being unique in some ways is evidence that it isn't a sphere?  There is absolutely nothing of substance in this idea.  If the question is why other planets are spherical and the Earth is not, the answer needs to be some sort of physical explanation, with either observation or math to support the model, of what has made planets into spheres, and what specifically has left the Earth outside those processes. 

Just saying "Earth is different" is no explanation at all, and doesn't need to be addressed by anyone until you demonstrate what any of the differences you've identified about the Earth have to do with directly influencing its shape.

Earth:
a. Looks incredibly flat every way I've ever seen it.
b. Is incredibly unique and special in a number of demonstrable ways.

Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?

The question was why planets were spherical when the Earth is not. I justify the Earth being a different shape by pointing out that it's different and special in so many other ways. That's all.

I can find where you claim "the Earth being a different shape by pointing out that it's different and special in so many other ways."
Such as:

But, so far. have found nowhere where you "justify the Earth being a different shape" in the sense of actually providing evidence that the earth is flat and not a Globe.
I have found:

Quote from: itsjustcurtis on September 28, 2017, 05:04:13 AM

Hi, I've just had a read through the FAQ and I have some questions regarding the answers given.

<< omitted for brevity - see original post >>

1. Either you take that as a valid source or not. I'm not sure how to help you here. We, here, are very much interested in our own senses.

2. Space agencies make governments look good lots of times. NASA receives a relatively small budget yearly. I disagree with your assertion that it would somehow be simpler to aim a rocket at a certain point allegedly 200 thousands plus miles away rather than busting out a camera and filming on set. Another idea is that they've done so well at it that they have the people funding them fooled.

3. The south pole is all around the edge. To put it more logically, there is no geographical south "pole", but there is a magnetic one.

4. My model takes care of this problem. You're right. The acceleration is linear, when it should not be. Nothing about relativity says you can keep adding 9.8 to 9.8 and never reach c. I assert that the entire universe is accelerating upward at this rate. It's at this scale where relativity breaks down. This can be seen with the alleged expansion of the universe accelerating objects apart at velocities greater than c.

5. On a globe, there are no straight lines. Give that some thought.

6. It is purely speculation that the land might go on for awhile before an actual edge, assuming the land stops at all. There are variations of FET which include an infinite Earth, though I don't subscribe to this idea.

But, there is no evidence there, only statements - show me where the evidence is to be found.
I might make comments on those points in a later post.

You state this sort of thing:

I think I made my stance pretty clear when I said "the Earth is not a globe".
Personally, I believe this mostly because I've never seen it to be anything other than flat. This, however, is not the topic of the current argument.

But, you rarely make a comment when shown clear evidence that would seem indicate that the earth is not flat.

I am looking for reasons why you consider the earth flat and not a globe.

I have not been able to look far, so maybe if you have some links to where you might give more detail.

On another topic:
You validly state that "Ad hominem is never a valid tactic.
If it is a logical fallacy" so why do so many flat-earthers (not you) attack Globe supporters with things like:
Dutchy calls all who support space mission "NASA fanboy", even if unconnected with NASA.
Sceptimatic calls all who disagree "indoctrinated".
etc,
I know it's not your problem, but so many FE supporters here and on YouTube, where it is much worse, all the time.

Earth:
a. Looks incredibly flat every way I've ever seen it.
b. Is incredibly unique and special in a number of demonstrable ways.

Who's arguing about that?
And I might be able to come up with a lot more differences between Earth and the other planets than have been listed so far.
Many of these more subtle differences make earth a much more habitable place that it might otherwise be.

Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?

We use the term "planet" because in the Heliocentric Globe Earth shares many characteristics with the other planets.

What Is a Planet?
The International Astronomical Union defined a planet as an object that:

• orbits the sun
• has sufficient mass to be round, or nearly round
• is not a satellite (moon) of another object
• has removed debris and small objects from the area around its orbit

From Space.com

  Saves my typing it .
And there is a special name Earth. Invent another name if you want.

And your question "Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?" has no bearing on where or not the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 06:43:12 PM

The question was why planets were spherical when the Earth is not. I justify the Earth being a different shape by pointing out that it's different and special in so many other ways. That's all.

I can find where you claim "the Earth being a different shape by pointing out that it's different and special in so many other ways."
Such as:

But, so far. have found nowhere where you "justify the Earth being a different shape" in the sense of actually providing evidence that the earth is flat and not a Globe.
I have found:

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 01:58:56 AM

Quote from: itsjustcurtis on September 28, 2017, 05:04:13 AM

Hi, I've just had a read through the FAQ and I have some questions regarding the answers given.

<< omitted for brevity - see original post >>

1. Either you take that as a valid source or not. I'm not sure how to help you here. We, here, are very much interested in our own senses.

2. Space agencies make governments look good lots of times. NASA receives a relatively small budget yearly. I disagree with your assertion that it would somehow be simpler to aim a rocket at a certain point allegedly 200 thousands plus miles away rather than busting out a camera and filming on set. Another idea is that they've done so well at it that they have the people funding them fooled.

3. The south pole is all around the edge. To put it more logically, there is no geographical south "pole", but there is a magnetic one.

4. My model takes care of this problem. You're right. The acceleration is linear, when it should not be. Nothing about relativity says you can keep adding 9.8 to 9.8 and never reach c. I assert that the entire universe is accelerating upward at this rate. It's at this scale where relativity breaks down. This can be seen with the alleged expansion of the universe accelerating objects apart at velocities greater than c.

5. On a globe, there are no straight lines. Give that some thought.

6. It is purely speculation that the land might go on for awhile before an actual edge, assuming the land stops at all. There are variations of FET which include an infinite Earth, though I don't subscribe to this idea.

But, there is no evidence there, only statements - show me where the evidence is to be found.
I might make comments on those points in a later post.

You state this sort of thing:

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 03:10:33 PM

I think I made my stance pretty clear when I said "the Earth is not a globe".
Personally, I believe this mostly because I've never seen it to be anything other than flat. This, however, is not the topic of the current argument.

But, you rarely make a comment when shown clear evidence that would seem indicate that the earth is not flat.

I am looking for reasons why you consider the earth flat and not a globe.

I have not been able to look far, so maybe if you have some links to where you might give more detail.

On another topic:
You validly state that "Ad hominem is never a valid tactic.
If it is a logical fallacy" so why do so many flat-earthers (not you) attack Globe supporters with things like:
Dutchy calls all who support space mission "NASA fanboy", even if unconnected with NASA.
Sceptimatic calls all who disagree "indoctrinated".
etc,
I know it's not your problem, but so many FE supporters here and on YouTube, where it is much worse, all the time.

I don't know who Dutchy is, but scepti is/was completely insane and his views do not reflect mine or most of the other peoples' here.

I don't know how many times I have to say that the main piece of evidence is right outside your window.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 07:31:42 PM

Earth:
a. Looks incredibly flat every way I've ever seen it.
b. Is incredibly unique and special in a number of demonstrable ways.

Who's arguing about that?
And I might be able to come up with a lot more differences between Earth and the other planets than have been listed so far.
Many of these more subtle differences make earth a much more habitable place that it might otherwise be.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0

Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?

We use the term "planet" because in the Heliocentric Globe Earth shares many characteristics with the other planets.

Quote

What Is a Planet?
The International Astronomical Union defined a planet as an object that:

• orbits the sun
• has sufficient mass to be round, or nearly round
• is not a satellite (moon) of another object
• has removed debris and small objects from the area around its orbit

From Space.com

  Saves my typing it .
And there is a special name Earth. Invent another name if you want.

And your question "Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?" has no bearing on where or not the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.

Right. Earth does not fit that description.

Quote from: rabinoz on October 03, 2017, 08:18:55 PM

The International Astronomical Union defined a planet as an object that:

• orbits the sun
• has sufficient mass to be round, or nearly round
• is not a satellite (moon) of another object
• has removed debris and small objects from the area around its orbit

From Space.com  Saves my typing it .
And there is a special name Earth. Invent another name if you want.

And your question "Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?" has no bearing on where or not the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.

Right. Earth does not fit that description.

I'm afraid a statement by you to that effect is not evidence. Like to provide adequate evidence of that?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 08:22:48 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on October 03, 2017, 08:18:55 PM

The International Astronomical Union defined a planet as an object that:

• orbits the sun
• has sufficient mass to be round, or nearly round
• is not a satellite (moon) of another object
• has removed debris and small objects from the area around its orbit

From Space.com  Saves my typing it .
And there is a special name Earth. Invent another name if you want.

And your question "Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?" has no bearing on where or not the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.

Right. Earth does not fit that description.

I'm afraid a statement by you to that effect is not evidence. Like to provide adequate evidence of that?

Isn't that what this whole website is for?

Isn't that what this whole website is for?

I am still waiting for any of you people to show tangible non debunked scientific evidence for a flat Earth so clearly no this site is so FE people can repeat the same comments  over and over thinking they are superior without actually proving it. Show me a single peer reviewed paper within the last 2 years from a credible scientist who showed a single shred of evidence the planet is flat

Earth:
a. Looks incredibly flat every way I've ever seen it.

  Weird statement. Do you live on the sea, or on some very big flat desert or steppe where you can't even see mountains. I for example always see some valleys and hills and never ever have seen incredibly flat earth. Even at the sea the surface starts curving down at horizon and things disappear behind it. No flatness anywhere.

Just because you don't accept something doesn't mean I'm wrong. You have to prove it, which most of the time you fail to do.

No, which most of the time I succeed in doing and you just ignore it.

You seem like the type who thinks they could never be wrong. That is a dangerous thing.

No, I know I can be wrong and have been wrong numerous times, far too many to count.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If I claim something and substantiate it, if you don't properly address what I've used to substantiate it, you can't have a proper argument.

The problem is you aren't substantiating your claims.
You are using something typically irrelevant to pretend it substantiates the claim, or you are just using other baseless claims.
All we need to do is show (or in some cases just claim) that what you are using doesn't substantiate your claim or is baseless.
The burden is then on you to show how it substantiates it or that it isn't baseless.
And you continually fail to do that and instead just state the same crap again and again.

I stated many facts about why I believe the Earth is special, giving it grounds to not be just a regular old "planet" like all the rest.

No, you stated several baseless claims, some of which were false and some of which were based entirely upon your ignorance.
That is not justification for Earth to be special.

Earth:
a. Looks incredibly flat every way I've ever seen it.

No it doesn't. You even admitted that.
You cannot tell if it is flat or round. As such, saying it looks incredibly flat to try and dismiss it being round is extremely dishonest.
This would also require you to have never seen a sharp horizon.

b. Is incredibly unique and special in a number of demonstrable ways.

You mean the number of ways you are yet to demonstrate and instead just appealed to your ignorance?

Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?

Why should it having life or not dictate its shape?

I don't know how many times I have to say that the main piece of evidence is right outside your window.

I wouldn't call it the main piece of evidence, but depending on where you are it certainly is good evidence, evidence that Earth is round that is.
It is not evidence that Earth is flat.

Isn't that what this whole website is for?

It is what it is meant to be for, but they are yet to be able to provide any.

I don't know how many times I have to say that the main piece of evidence is right outside your window.

If you could say it one fewer time than the sum total of the times you've said it so far that would be ideal.  The comment is worthless as evidence, as has been explained a number of times in a number of different ways.  Here's one more:  The Earth is too big to see out your window, so that observation technique fails to provide any meaningful evidence one way or the other, without additionally using inference to assess other data, such as a rising or setting sun, or the horizon. 

So, do you have any ACTUAL evidence to support the claim, or are you just going to keep repeating the same unsubstantiated garbage and circular reasoning we've been hearing from you so far?

Quote from: rabinoz on October 03, 2017, 10:02:32 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 08:22:48 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on October 03, 2017, 08:18:55 PM

The International Astronomical Union defined a planet as an object that:

• orbits the sun
• has sufficient mass to be round, or nearly round
• is not a satellite (moon) of another object
• has removed debris and small objects from the area around its orbit

From Space.com  Saves my typing it .
And there is a special name Earth. Invent another name if you want.

And your question "Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?" has no bearing on where or not the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.

Right. Earth does not fit that description.

I'm afraid a statement by you to that effect is not evidence. Like to provide adequate evidence of that?

Isn't that what this whole website is for?

Well, why do you refuse to provide such evidence?
Simply saying that "the earth looks flat" is not sufficient. A huge Globe should look flat and elsewhere I have explained why.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 03, 2017, 07:28:20 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 06:43:12 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on October 03, 2017, 06:40:24 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 03, 2017, 04:50:59 PM

I stated many facts about why I believe the Earth is special, giving it grounds to not be just a regular old "planet" like all the rest.

Who's claiming tha the Earth is "just a regular old 'planet' like all the rest."
But, just what is "a regular old 'planet' like all the rest"? They are all so different.

Earth is of course, special in so many ways, many are given in: What Makes Earth Special Compared to Other Planets.
But none of the features that make Earth special seem to favour a flat over spherical earth.

The question was why planets were spherical when the Earth is not. I justify the Earth being a different shape by pointing out that it's different and special in so many other ways. That's all.

And you actually believe that it being unique in some ways is evidence that it isn't a sphere?  There is absolutely nothing of substance in this idea.  If the question is why other planets are spherical and the Earth is not, the answer needs to be some sort of physical explanation, with either observation or math to support the model, of what has made planets into spheres, and what specifically has left the Earth outside those processes. 

Just saying "Earth is different" is no explanation at all, and doesn't need to be addressed by anyone until you demonstrate what any of the differences you've identified about the Earth have to do with directly influencing its shape.

Earth:
a. Looks incredibly flat every way I've ever seen it.
b. Is incredibly unique and special in a number of demonstrable ways.

Why should we have the same word for it as the lifeless spherical masses above?

Where have been in all your life-what places ?
Ever been on the ocean or on a shore on the ocean ?


Ask any sailor in any Navy in the world and they would tell you....from a lowly Seaman to a Fleet Admiral. :
"Looks incredibly round  - like a globe - every way I've ever seen it."