Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?

  • 24 Replies
  • 1291 Views
I am looking for arguments for the Earth being flat, counterarguments to these, counter-counter arguments, and so on, in a discussion that stays focused in the debate and doesn't troll. I have found some writings arguing that Earth is flat, but I haven't found any resources giving counter arguments to these. If there aren't any such debates, I might be willing to start one.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 10:53:44 AM by FilthyGlobist »

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2017, 11:15:35 AM »
Noone that is capable of debating would seriously be pro flat earth, because there is no argumemt for it.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 11:17:19 AM by User324 »
Best and most up to date information about coronavirus: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85245.0

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2017, 11:26:16 AM »
Noone that is capable of debating would seriously be pro flat earth, because there is no argumemt for it.
I have seen an argument for flat earth, namely the one at http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm. Presumably there's no reasonable argument for flat earth and thus the debate wouldn't be reasonable, but I think there still could be a debate, and I'm interested to see what it would look like.

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2017, 11:28:05 AM »
Noone that is capable of debating would seriously be pro flat earth, because there is no argumemt for it.
I have seen an argument for flat earth, namely the one at http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm. Presumably there's no reasonable argument for flat earth and thus the debate wouldn't be reasonable, but I think there still could be a debate, and I'm interested to see what it would look like.

Just take a look at the flat earth debate forum.
There are always the same few 'arguments' the flat earthers have. They are easy to destroy and thus get destroyed everytime, then usually the flatties start to troll. It get's boring really fast.
Best and most up to date information about coronavirus: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85245.0

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2017, 12:10:57 PM »
Noone that is capable of debating would seriously be pro flat earth, because there is no argumemt for it.
I have seen an argument for flat earth, namely the one at http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm. Presumably there's no reasonable argument for flat earth and thus the debate wouldn't be reasonable, but I think there still could be a debate, and I'm interested to see what it would look like.

Just take a look at the flat earth debate forum.
There are always the same few 'arguments' the flat earthers have. They are easy to destroy and thus get destroyed everytime, then usually the flatties start to troll. It get's boring really fast.
What happens when they don't start to troll? Is there a debate then?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 41046
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2017, 12:18:10 PM »
It's mostly the angry globularists who make it impossible for a debate to occur. They like to pretend it's the FEers, but we are seriously outnumbered here.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2017, 12:20:25 PM »
What happens when they don't start to troll? Is there a debate then?
How could there be a debate, if there are no arguments?
Best and most up to date information about coronavirus: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85245.0

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2017, 12:22:59 PM »
It's mostly the angry globularists who make it impossible for a debate to occur. They like to pretend it's the FEers, but we are seriously outnumbered here.

What are your arguments for FE, candy angel?

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2017, 12:37:37 PM »
It's mostly the angry globularists who make it impossible for a debate to occur. They like to pretend it's the FEers, but we are seriously outnumbered here.

I'm not angry.  >:( >:( >:(
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2017, 12:58:26 PM »
It's mostly the angry globularists who make it impossible for a debate to occur. They like to pretend it's the FEers, but we are seriously outnumbered here.

What are your arguments for FE, candy angel?

She doesn't like to talk about it.

Pro tip: she has none
Best and most up to date information about coronavirus: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85245.0

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2017, 01:30:56 PM »
It's mostly the angry globularists who make it impossible for a debate to occur. They like to pretend it's the FEers, but we are seriously outnumbered here.
Yes, it is hard for debate to continue when you are shown to be wrong beyond any reasonable doubt and have no rational defence your claims.
I would still say it is the FEers for coming in with baseless claims they can't back up.

*

Sentinel

  • 570
  • Open your eyes...
Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2017, 01:56:38 PM »
It's mostly the angry globularists who make it impossible for a debate to occur. They like to pretend it's the FEers, but we are seriously outnumbered here.

I honestly wonder why that would be on a flat earth forum.
Maybe such delicate and utter pressing topics like wearing welding helmets at night for protection from the all so mean and harmful lunar rays have actually been capable to scare the true believers away or something?
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6522
Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2017, 02:02:52 PM »
I am looking for arguments for the Earth being flat, counterarguments to these, counter-counter arguments, and so on, in a discussion that stays focused in the debate and doesn't troll. I have found some writings arguing that Earth is flat, but I haven't found any resources giving counter arguments to these. If there aren't any such debates, I might be willing to start one.

I would propose looking at this argument for a FE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72129.0

It's kind of deep and difficult to disprove from what I've observed. It's the only FET that doesn't rely on a NASA/Other Space Agencies conspiracy as far as I know.

Have a look at it and see what you think.

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2017, 02:14:00 PM »
I am looking for arguments for the Earth being flat, counterarguments to these, counter-counter arguments, and so on, in a discussion that stays focused in the debate and doesn't troll. I have found some writings arguing that Earth is flat, but I haven't found any resources giving counter arguments to these. If there aren't any such debates, I might be willing to start one.
You will find it difficult to find.
The common FE tactic is to bail or change subject when refuted.

Please feel free to start a debate and see if you can be different.

Presumably there's no reasonable argument for flat earth and thus the debate wouldn't be reasonable, but I think there still could be a debate, and I'm interested to see what it would look like.
In order to have a proper debate both sides need to be of roughly equal standing.
You can't really have a debate where one side has mountains of evidence of facts and rational argument, while the other side has "it looks flat" and deceit.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm.

Is it really? Or is it more a pile of nonsense/lies?

Nope. After looking at it it isn't a pile of lies. It is a joke website.
EDIT: It appears to be a joke website set up by a kid during high school.

Here is part of it's mission statement describing Earth:
Quote
On the comparatively smooth topside, Europe sat in the middle of the circle, with the other continents scattered about the fringes, and parts of Africa hanging over the edge. The oceans lapped against the sides of the Earth, and in places ran over, creating currents that would pull over the edge ships that ventured too far out to sea

So no, no real arguments for a FE, just satire, pointing out the stupidity of some of the FEer "arguments".
But lets see what they have anyway, well, on there "Why a Flat Earth?" page they list 5 "arguments", not one, and several have subsections.
So this is already approaching on gish gallop and setting up for a typical FE debate where they jump around between "arguments" bringing up the same old refuted crap never admitting they are wrong.
But lets look at each of them:

1 - Aether
It appeals only to Michelson Morley and claims that it shows Earth is stationary, and claims that light needs a medium to propagate. Light is a collection of photons. It needs no medium to travel, unless you want to appeal to the "media" of string theory/wavefunctions and so on.

But more importantly, there wasn't just a single experiment like this. There are a multitude. The main ones are stellar aberration (which links to Airy's failure), MM and Sagnac.
You also need to realise that there were 2 ideas about the propagation of light in classical physics (before all the QM and wave-particle duality). This is because in some cases light acted as a wave, but in others it acted as a particle.
So, there was the aether model, in which light propagated in this medium and thus all speeds would be relative to the medium. But there was also the ballistic model, where light would act as particles and follow Newtonian relativity where the velocity of a photon would be c+v where v is the velocity of the emitter.

MM showed that if there was an aether, it was stationary w.r.t. But was consistent with the ballistic model.
Stellar aberration showed that if there was an aether, it was moving w.r.t. Earth. (Airy's failure attempted to determine which, but was a fundamentally flawed experiment and was unable to tell.)
Saganc showed that light did not act ballistically, and that Earth was rotating, w.r.t this aether.

Notice the contradiction here?
The ballistic model does not work, and the aether model requires the aether to be moving and stationary w.r.t. Earth, so it is also impossible and disproved.

So both models of light fail. The only consistent model we have is that of relativity, where light is the same speed for all observers in inertial reference frames. The results of all three are consistent with this model. But it is unable to say if Earth is moving or everything else is. All it is capable of saying is that Earth is rotating.

2 - Movement
Here they claim Earth can't keep moving through space. How do they do this? By appealing to the non-existent aether.
Remember, even if Aether did exist, it was meant to be a medium with 0 viscosity. That is it would be incapable of exerting a force due to friction.
Also note that this is just a much (if not more) a "problem" regardless of what model you use.

With reality, you have Earth moving through space. With other models, you have the sun, the stars, the planets and so on all moving through space, at MUCH GREATER SPEEDS (unless you have Earth rotating).

So this argument is just pure crap. It relies upon a substance which does not exist and makes it harder for a FE.

It then moves on to centrifugal forces.
Those same "forces" are acting on everything on Earth at once. There is no external wall pushing Earth to make it follow a curved path. It is merely the sun's gravity. As such, we follow a roughly circular orbit rather than falling straight into the sun.
Due to the nature of gravity, things on both sides of Earth, that near the sun and that away from the sun, experience a tidal force resulting in them weighing slightly less, in part responsible for the king tides.

Or to put it the other way around, Earth would move in a straight line through space, but the sun's gravity pulls Earth (and everything on it) towards it, resulting in it all following a curved path.

So once again, pure crap.

3 - Holding things to a curved surface
I am somewhat tempted to not bother reading and just say gravity, but I'll be nice.
It appeals to gravity, but then completely ignores how it works.
Gravity is a force (real or apparent, I don't care) attracting every mass to every other mass.
There isn't some magic universal down which objects are pulled towards. Instead, it is Earth's gravity pulling people to the centre of mass of the object.
That means at both poles (and everywhere else) you are pulled towards Earth, and thus stay on.

Setting objects on Earth will be nothing like setting grains of rice on a beach ball.

Firstly, the beach ball is sitting on Earth. Earth is not sitting on the sun or any other object of considerable mass which creates a very strong gravitational field. Secondly, the Earth weighs far more than a beach ball (and is vastly more dense) and thus will have a much greater gravitational attraction that the beach ball.

If you want to try this experiment, you need to do so in free fall outside the roche limit. That is the limit where the self-gravity of an object is stronger than the tidal forces on it due to other objects.

Another option would be to use an analog for gravity, such as magnetism. Get a nice round magnet, and then see if iron filings stick to it, or if they fall off.

And while I appealed to magnetism, at that is the easiest force to use, gravity is not the same as magnetism. Magnetism relies upon dipoles and thus has poles which need to reorient. Gravity does not. Gravity uses point "charges". There is no requirement for realignment (and even if there was, no requirement that it takes a long time). It has also been shown to be real through numerous experiments and to act as a force that is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared. Several masses can also act from different directions at once.


4 - "Down" isn't the same everywhere
No. They wouldn't.
They would both be affected by Earth's gravity the same.
They would both be pulled towards the centre of Earth.

Using their pictures, the direction of Earth's gravitational field at the north pole is -y, towards the centre of Earth.
The direction of Earth's gravitation field at the south pole is +y, towards the centre of Earth.

As such, if you take something from the NP to the SP, it will simply follow Earth's gravitational field (or try to until it is stopped by something it can't go through, like the ground), so instead of going towards -y it will go towards +y, and thus down to Earth, not up.

5 - Fluids
The atmosphere is not simply contained by a large dome. If that was the case, the pressure would be equal everywhere. It would not vary based upon height as all the evidence shows. So the FEers reason for "why" doesn't actually work. Instead they need to appeal to something else as well to explain the pressure gradient and from there, they no longer need the dome as you eventually reach a point where the pressure is insignificant. Instead, they just need a side wall.

This is primarily based upon the previous BS. Water and air are held to Earth by gravity. There is no need for any realignment, and regardless of where the water or air is, gravity will pull it towards the centre of Earth.

Yes, the moon has no atmosphere. That is because it's gravity is too weak to hold onto any kind of decent atmosphere.
Look at other planets like Jupiter or Saturn or Uranus. They have loads of atmosphere. They are almost entirely composed of gas. The same is true for the sun.

That is because they are massive enough to hold onto a lot of gas.

It then claims there are issues with thermodynamics but doesn't provide any.

So where was the argument that supports the FE?
If these were presented as real arguments instead of as satire, it would just be a load of nonsense and lies mixed with a few cherry picked facts to support their BS.

If you wish to try a debate based upon these arguments, feel free to pick one to debate.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 02:21:32 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2017, 02:15:21 PM »
I am looking for arguments for the Earth being flat, counterarguments to these, counter-counter arguments, and so on, in a discussion that stays focused in the debate and doesn't troll. I have found some writings arguing that Earth is flat, but I haven't found any resources giving counter arguments to these. If there aren't any such debates, I might be willing to start one.

I would propose looking at this argument for a FE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72129.0

It's kind of deep and difficult to disprove from what I've observed. It's the only FET that doesn't rely on a NASA/Other Space Agencies conspiracy as far as I know.

Have a look at it and see what you think.
Not relevant for a relatively small object like the earth.  Measured distances prove the shape easily.

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2017, 02:18:21 PM »
I would propose looking at this argument for a FE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72129.0

It's kind of deep and difficult to disprove from what I've observed. It's the only FET that doesn't rely on a NASA/Other Space Agencies conspiracy as far as I know.

Have a look at it and see what you think.
The justification used is pure garbage. It is using something which is only certain to be true in Euclidean spaces and has limited applicability in non-Euclidean spaces.
However, a non-Euclidean (non-flat) flat Earth in general is harder to disprove.
The issue comes with how you measure the curvature of space.
If you assume light follows straight lines (either through space or space time), then it is quite easy to disprove a flat-non-flat Earth.
If instead you assume light bends, then you can't, but you need to provide a justification for why light would bend.

The entire basis seems to be defining Earth as flat and making the space(-time) Earth is in match that, making it nothing more than RE in disguise.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6522
Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2017, 02:23:17 PM »
I would propose looking at this argument for a FE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72129.0

It's kind of deep and difficult to disprove from what I've observed. It's the only FET that doesn't rely on a NASA/Other Space Agencies conspiracy as far as I know.

Have a look at it and see what you think.
The justification used is pure garbage. It is using something which is only certain to be true in Euclidean spaces and has limited applicability in non-Euclidean spaces.
However, a non-Euclidean (non-flat) flat Earth in general is harder to disprove.
The issue comes with how you measure the curvature of space.
If you assume light follows straight lines (either through space or space time), then it is quite easy to disprove a flat-non-flat Earth.
If instead you assume light bends, then you can't, but you need to provide a justification for why light would bend.

The entire basis seems to be defining Earth as flat and making the space(-time) Earth is in match that, making it nothing more than RE in disguise.

Fair enough. But I consider that to be to be the best argument for FE at the moment, which is what the OP was asking for. I think.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 02:41:00 PM by Boots »

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2017, 02:39:05 PM »
I am looking for arguments for the Earth being flat, counterarguments to these, counter-counter arguments, and so on, in a discussion that stays focused in the debate and doesn't troll. I have found some writings arguing that Earth is flat, but I haven't found any resources giving counter arguments to these. If there aren't any such debates, I might be willing to start one.
You will find it difficult to find.
The common FE tactic is to bail or change subject when refuted.

Please feel free to start a debate and see if you can be different.

Presumably there's no reasonable argument for flat earth and thus the debate wouldn't be reasonable, but I think there still could be a debate, and I'm interested to see what it would look like.
In order to have a proper debate both sides need to be of roughly equal standing.
You can't really have a debate where one side has mountains of evidence of facts and rational argument, while the other side has "it looks flat" and deceit.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm.

Is it really? Or is it more a pile of nonsense/lies?

Nope. After looking at it it isn't a pile of lies. It is a joke website.
EDIT: It appears to be a joke website set up by a kid during high school.

Here is part of it's mission statement describing Earth:
Quote
On the comparatively smooth topside, Europe sat in the middle of the circle, with the other continents scattered about the fringes, and parts of Africa hanging over the edge. The oceans lapped against the sides of the Earth, and in places ran over, creating currents that would pull over the edge ships that ventured too far out to sea

So no, no real arguments for a FE, just satire, pointing out the stupidity of some of the FEer "arguments".
But lets see what they have anyway, well, on there "Why a Flat Earth?" page they list 5 "arguments", not one, and several have subsections.
So this is already approaching on gish gallop and setting up for a typical FE debate where they jump around between "arguments" bringing up the same old refuted crap never admitting they are wrong.
But lets look at each of them:

1 - Aether
It appeals only to Michelson Morley and claims that it shows Earth is stationary, and claims that light needs a medium to propagate. Light is a collection of photons. It needs no medium to travel, unless you want to appeal to the "media" of string theory/wavefunctions and so on.

But more importantly, there wasn't just a single experiment like this. There are a multitude. The main ones are stellar aberration (which links to Airy's failure), MM and Sagnac.
You also need to realise that there were 2 ideas about the propagation of light in classical physics (before all the QM and wave-particle duality). This is because in some cases light acted as a wave, but in others it acted as a particle.
So, there was the aether model, in which light propagated in this medium and thus all speeds would be relative to the medium. But there was also the ballistic model, where light would act as particles and follow Newtonian relativity where the velocity of a photon would be c+v where v is the velocity of the emitter.

MM showed that if there was an aether, it was stationary w.r.t. But was consistent with the ballistic model.
Stellar aberration showed that if there was an aether, it was moving w.r.t. Earth. (Airy's failure attempted to determine which, but was a fundamentally flawed experiment and was unable to tell.)
Saganc showed that light did not act ballistically, and that Earth was rotating, w.r.t this aether.

Notice the contradiction here?
The ballistic model does not work, and the aether model requires the aether to be moving and stationary w.r.t. Earth, so it is also impossible and disproved.

So both models of light fail. The only consistent model we have is that of relativity, where light is the same speed for all observers in inertial reference frames. The results of all three are consistent with this model. But it is unable to say if Earth is moving or everything else is. All it is capable of saying is that Earth is rotating.

2 - Movement
Here they claim Earth can't keep moving through space. How do they do this? By appealing to the non-existent aether.
Remember, even if Aether did exist, it was meant to be a medium with 0 viscosity. That is it would be incapable of exerting a force due to friction.
Also note that this is just a much (if not more) a "problem" regardless of what model you use.

With reality, you have Earth moving through space. With other models, you have the sun, the stars, the planets and so on all moving through space, at MUCH GREATER SPEEDS (unless you have Earth rotating).

So this argument is just pure crap. It relies upon a substance which does not exist and makes it harder for a FE.

It then moves on to centrifugal forces.
Those same "forces" are acting on everything on Earth at once. There is no external wall pushing Earth to make it follow a curved path. It is merely the sun's gravity. As such, we follow a roughly circular orbit rather than falling straight into the sun.
Due to the nature of gravity, things on both sides of Earth, that near the sun and that away from the sun, experience a tidal force resulting in them weighing slightly less, in part responsible for the king tides.

Or to put it the other way around, Earth would move in a straight line through space, but the sun's gravity pulls Earth (and everything on it) towards it, resulting in it all following a curved path.

So once again, pure crap.

3 - Holding things to a curved surface
I am somewhat tempted to not bother reading and just say gravity, but I'll be nice.
It appeals to gravity, but then completely ignores how it works.
Gravity is a force (real or apparent, I don't care) attracting every mass to every other mass.
There isn't some magic universal down which objects are pulled towards. Instead, it is Earth's gravity pulling people to the centre of mass of the object.
That means at both poles (and everywhere else) you are pulled towards Earth, and thus stay on.

Setting objects on Earth will be nothing like setting grains of rice on a beach ball.

Firstly, the beach ball is sitting on Earth. Earth is not sitting on the sun or any other object of considerable mass which creates a very strong gravitational field. Secondly, the Earth weighs far more than a beach ball (and is vastly more dense) and thus will have a much greater gravitational attraction that the beach ball.

If you want to try this experiment, you need to do so in free fall outside the roche limit. That is the limit where the self-gravity of an object is stronger than the tidal forces on it due to other objects.

Another option would be to use an analog for gravity, such as magnetism. Get a nice round magnet, and then see if iron filings stick to it, or if they fall off.

And while I appealed to magnetism, at that is the easiest force to use, gravity is not the same as magnetism. Magnetism relies upon dipoles and thus has poles which need to reorient. Gravity does not. Gravity uses point "charges". There is no requirement for realignment (and even if there was, no requirement that it takes a long time). It has also been shown to be real through numerous experiments and to act as a force that is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared. Several masses can also act from different directions at once.


4 - "Down" isn't the same everywhere
No. They wouldn't.
They would both be affected by Earth's gravity the same.
They would both be pulled towards the centre of Earth.

Using their pictures, the direction of Earth's gravitational field at the north pole is -y, towards the centre of Earth.
The direction of Earth's gravitation field at the south pole is +y, towards the centre of Earth.

As such, if you take something from the NP to the SP, it will simply follow Earth's gravitational field (or try to until it is stopped by something it can't go through, like the ground), so instead of going towards -y it will go towards +y, and thus down to Earth, not up.

5 - Fluids
The atmosphere is not simply contained by a large dome. If that was the case, the pressure would be equal everywhere. It would not vary based upon height as all the evidence shows. So the FEers reason for "why" doesn't actually work. Instead they need to appeal to something else as well to explain the pressure gradient and from there, they no longer need the dome as you eventually reach a point where the pressure is insignificant. Instead, they just need a side wall.

This is primarily based upon the previous BS. Water and air are held to Earth by gravity. There is no need for any realignment, and regardless of where the water or air is, gravity will pull it towards the centre of Earth.

Yes, the moon has no atmosphere. That is because it's gravity is too weak to hold onto any kind of decent atmosphere.
Look at other planets like Jupiter or Saturn or Uranus. They have loads of atmosphere. They are almost entirely composed of gas. The same is true for the sun.

That is because they are massive enough to hold onto a lot of gas.

It then claims there are issues with thermodynamics but doesn't provide any.

So where was the argument that supports the FE?
If these were presented as real arguments instead of as satire, it would just be a load of nonsense and lies mixed with a few cherry picked facts to support their BS.

If you wish to try a debate based upon these arguments, feel free to pick one to debate.

"So where was the argument that supports the FE?"
There was none. I'm sorry if you thought I thought there were any arguments that supported FE. I meant to say that there were arguments for FE, though perhaps none that made any sense.

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2017, 02:50:49 PM »
"So where was the argument that supports the FE?"
There was none. I'm sorry if you thought I thought there were any arguments that supported FE. I meant to say that there were arguments for FE, though perhaps none that made any sense.
See, I see "argument for X"
as an argument which indicates X is true, i.e. one which supports X.

Debatably, they could be called arguments, but they are all fallacious.

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2017, 04:14:48 PM »
This may, quite logically, be called a minority report from a small segment of the world's population......but

But some of us just find it baffleing to hear that they are really (?) those that believe that the earth is flat.

Since this is the debate section I could give you some reasons from that minority segment if you would like to question them or debate them.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2017, 05:30:25 PM »
I am looking for arguments for the Earth being flat, counterarguments to these, counter-counter arguments, and so on, in a discussion that stays focused in the debate and doesn't troll. I have found some writings arguing that Earth is flat, but I haven't found any resources giving counter arguments to these. If there aren't any such debates, I might be willing to start one.

I would propose looking at this argument for a FE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72129.0

It's kind of deep and difficult to disprove from what I've observed. It's the only FET that doesn't rely on a NASA/Other Space Agencies conspiracy as far as I know.
Sure, "It's kind of deep and difficult to disprove" because no-one, including John Davis, understands it.
And no-one, including John Davis, has any idea what might cause such massive curvature of space.
As I have claimed before I might be barking up the wrong tree somewhere but it seems to me that all John Davis, is trying to do is to obfuscate the whole issue so that any ordinary person will see the whole thing as too deep and complicated to question.
He seems to be trying to emulate Bunthorne from Iolanthe
Quote from: W.S. Gilbert
And ev'ry one will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"
Seems to fit this:
. . . . . . I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
. . . . . . . .
I'm a bit more practical. If the earth
looks like a Globe, measures like a Globe, supports satellites like a Globe and in all respects behaves like a Globe
The earth really is a Globe.

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2017, 05:59:34 PM »
Noone that is capable of debating would seriously be pro flat earth, because there is no argumemt for it.
I have seen an argument for flat earth, namely the one at http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm. Presumably there's no reasonable argument for flat earth and thus the debate wouldn't be reasonable, but I think there still could be a debate, and I'm interested to see what it would look like.
By the way, has anyone worked out who their great authority on the Globe, Grigori Efimovich, really was.
The nearest Grigori Efimovich I can find is Grigori Efimovich Rasputin seeming to prove that the whole site is a spoof to discredit the flat earth and in particular this society.
See The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, "The Flat Earth Society Or Who the Hell is Grigori Efimovich?"
which contains this post,
Quote
Paul Ganssle
January 20, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Rather, Im pretty sure http://www.theflatearthsociety.org is satire.
Pretty telling what http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf has made others think of this place.

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2017, 09:43:35 PM »
Noone that is capable of debating would seriously be pro flat earth, because there is no argumemt for it.
I have seen an argument for flat earth, namely the one at http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm. Presumably there's no reasonable argument for flat earth and thus the debate wouldn't be reasonable, but I think there still could be a debate, and I'm interested to see what it would look like.
By the way, has anyone worked out who their great authority on the Globe, Grigori Efimovich, really was.
The nearest Grigori Efimovich I can find is Grigori Efimovich Rasputin seeming to prove that the whole site is a spoof to discredit the flat earth and in particular this society.
See The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, "The Flat Earth Society Or Who the Hell is Grigori Efimovich?"
which contains this post,
Quote
Paul Ganssle
January 20, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Rather, Im pretty sure http://www.theflatearthsociety.org is satire.
Pretty telling what http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf has made others think of this place.

When I first came across this website, and I don't recall how or why I came across this website, I was inclined to think this website was just another spoof website. But I came across this opinion because I do know what I do know about the earth.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2017, 12:40:21 AM »
By the way, has anyone worked out who their great authority on the Globe, Grigori Efimovich, really was.
The nearest Grigori Efimovich I can find is Grigori Efimovich Rasputin seeming to prove that the whole site is a spoof to discredit the flat earth and in particular this society.
Apparently people seem to think Christopher Columbus was he.

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2017, 03:41:00 PM »
By the way, has anyone worked out who their great authority on the Globe, Grigori Efimovich, really was.
The nearest Grigori Efimovich I can find is Grigori Efimovich Rasputin seeming to prove that the whole site is a spoof to discredit the flat earth and in particular this society.
Apparently people seem to think Christopher Columbus was he.
Yes,  ":P people :P seem to think" all sorts of odd things. It is rumoured that some ":P people :P seem to think" the earth is flat!

Possibly true, but ascribing the following to poor old Christopher Columbus seems a trifle ludicrous!
Quote from: Flatearthsociety.htm
1) Maintaining speed

In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?

2) An accelerating world
     A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory.

3) The impossibilities of holding unsecured objects in place on a curved surface

1) Staying on top
     Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

2) Falling off
As we begin to make this argument, we acknowledge beforehand that we are aware of the property of matter known as friction. Yes, we realize that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet.

     Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

Mind you, I still think that the site is a spoof site to make all flat-earthers seem more ridiculous (than they already are).

But it seems that the answer to the OP question, "Where can I find a focused, in-depth debate about if Earth is flat?" is "not here!"