maybe I'll find one genuine conversation but no... I'm not going to bother.
A genuine conversation is a 2 way street. You need to be willing to listen to what the other person says and respond to it rather than just spout nonsense and insult those that refute you.
This is easy to disprove with basic knowledge of momentum. If one particle collides with another they are not going to stick together, one is going to knock the other away.
You might want to work on your knowledge of momentum.
If you have 2 particles which collide, they can fuse together and the momentum of the resulting object will be the sum of the momentum of the 2 other objects.
Remember, momentum is a vector quantity, not a scalar.
That means it has direction. That means you can have 2 particles collide and the end result is the resulting object is stationary.
You can even test this yourself:
Get a bowl, get 2 balls, drop them into the bowl, with them rolling down the side. See what happens.
the same way to see balls on a Newton's cradle move.
Which is based upon transferring momentum from one end to the other, and using metal balls which will not easily deform or lose the energy.
Try it with rubber balls, or rocks. It wont work as well.
I have tried to discuss this with REers before.
Discuss, or preach ignoring anything they say?
There is a difference.
They could only resort to metallic bonding: metals, which I remind you, could not exist under RET before the formation of stars.
So don't use metals as an example.
If you want star formation, you need to do it with a gas.
Gravity will not make particles of dust stick together. There is no center to pull them to before a planet exists
They don't need a centre. They need a non-homogenous environment such that the force of gravity doesn't balance out perfectly.
All you get is random collisions that cancel each other out and leave you with nothing.
No you don't.
While you have random collisions, these form a very chaotic system where that slight initial randomness is multiplied resulting in a structure forming.
We could disprove RET with reference to gravity and tides.
You mean PROVE RET with gravity and tides.
This is well-established under RET; there is something known as the Roche limit. Any satellite that gets closer to a planetary body than the Roche limit of said world would be torn apart by those tidal forces
You have already had your ass handed to you on this by me and many others. Why repeat the same lies?
This only applies to satellites that are held together by purely gravitational forces.
The Roche limit is where the tidal forces overcome the self-gravitation of the object.
It does not apply to objects held together by other forces like electrostatics.
It is still an undeniable fact that there is a constantly varied force on each of us, and even on our buildings, where the tops are subject to a different force than the bottoms.
And due to their small size, this force amounts to nothing.
It is given by Ft=2*k*dr/r^3 (or 2*dr/r times the weight)
So that means even if you have a magic 1 km tall building, that will have a force of 0.03% of its weight.
This is nothing, it will not tare itself apart.
This disparity is supposed to be enough to tear apart whole moons.
Yes, MASSIVE moons, like Earth's at a radius of over 1000 km, which is primarily held together by its own gravity, not by electrostatic forces like we are.
The response to this? Nothing. Obsessing over the fact I used the Roche limit as an illustration, and ignoring the central thrust of the argument.
No, our response was pointing out that the Roche limit only applies to objects held together by their own gravity; that the tidal forces on us are insignificant as we are held together by much stronger forces than our own gravity.
Meanwhile you obsessed over tiny disagreements which didn't effect your argument being refuted.
We can also look at sunsets.
Which conclusively prove Earth is round, as the sun drops below the horizon, meaning it would need to go below a flat Earth, yet remains above some point on Earth.
And let us not forget the most important part of RET; the curve of the Earth. When the Sun sets it goes behind that curve, so concerned strictly with the atmosphere, the light from it only passes through a little more air than any other object you care to mention that goes over the horizon.
An object going over the horizon is typically only a few km away.
The oblique angle means light from the sun travels those few km, and then a few hundred more, so hardly "a little more".
One, skyscrapers. Travel away from one, no matter how tall, the top never goes red.
Try constructing one that is 50 km tall. See if that goes red.
Indeed, the same can be said for stars. Why is the Sun unique in turning red?
Their size and intensity.
Two, turn your back to the sunset. If it is the distance light travels that affects the color, one should expect the sky farthest from the Sun to turn red first.
I've explained this to you before as well.
You are ignoring the actual mechanism.
The light doesn't simply become redder the more atmosphere it goes through.
Red light scatters at low angles, blue light scatters at high angles.
You would expect the atmosphere which would have a small angle between you and the sun (and thus a large angle for the path of the light) to turn red last (if at all).
It would be the small angle near the sun which turns red first.
The response to this? Handwaving, blanket denial, and a total lack of reasoning.
Explaining why you are wrong, which you simply ignore.
These are just three of the arguments I have given in my time here.
But any round earther will tell you that no FEer has arguments for their position... they will tell you we have nothing.
Because your arguments have all been refuted. You have nothing.
They will lie, right to your face.
No, that would be you, such as your blatant lies above.
As of yet there is no one, grand unified FE model. This is not a weakness, this openness is a strength.
No. This is a massive weakness.
Each model has a serious flaw (or many) which it is unable to explain. Another model is thus invented to explain that problem, but it then has its own.
That makes it a massive weakness. Unlike RET, which has a single unified model, you need to resort to numerous different models to try and explain various things.
I personally drew from the basics of mainstream science, believing there was enough independent corroboration
If you did that you would have accepted RET.
You rejected any part of mainstream science you didn't like and kept the bits you wanted.
They are detailed scientific theories put together in an attempt to explain what we observe in the world.
They are not scientific theories in any way.
They are pathetic attempts to pretend Earth is flat.
FET stands on its own merits.
You mean completely fails on its own merits, while RET stands.
We need no trickery to defend it.
Then what was with all the attempts at trickery above, like the Roche limit?
How many of you round earthers out there can honestly say you tried to learn a model before rejecting it?
Me. Probably plenty of others.
They replace assumptions of RET, focus on new elements, or define new concepts. Replace, say, gravity with just one different core tenet and the knock-on effects will be huge.
Except they aren't assumptions of RET, they are proven facts of science.
Yes, replace gravity and it will have huge knock-on effects.
UA will result in Earth tearing itself apart.
Denspressure will render mercury barometers useless and completely destroy buoyancy.
Your magic aether relies upon pure magic to force things together without then tearing them apart with your cycles.
EM would result in objects blowing themselves apart or blowing other objects away.
And they all fail to explain cavendish (or outright contradict it).
This doesn't equal ad hoc
They are ad-hoc explanations to try and replace reality with baseless assumptions to pretend Earth is flat.
the one altered entity under DET is defined to 'flow from high concentrations to low,' and that's all.
No it isn't. It is defined to magically flow in continuing cycles such that it is not moving from high to low, but instead cycling. It is frictionless, yet magically pulls matter with it but then doesn't, and so on.
So what is a flat Earther?
Someone that rejects RET for reasons gone into lightly here, and who seeks to think for themselves.
There are many reasons they become FEers, none of which are rational. At best they were conned by a flawed argument.
And if they thought for themselves, honestly and rationally, they would end up back at RET.
I define evidence for a theory as: an observation that is in line with what a theory states.
And I pointed out the problem with that.
It makes almost everything evidence.
A better definition is an observation that indicates one hypothesis is more likely to be true than another . Or:
An observation that is in line with what a hypothesis states but is against what another states.
This is just your pathetic way of trying to say there is "evidence of FE," when in reality, it's just when you can't distinguish between FE and RE.
I started a thread specifically to get to the bottom of why so many people complained about this, it gained 124 replies, and no one even tried.
No, you set up a strawman thread where you could dismiss the main objections as not meeting the requirements of the OP.
It is worth pointing out, however, that FE models do make predictions.
It is also worth pointing out that these predictions are almost always shown to be false by observation.
DET, for example, predicts a discontinuity in the rate at which gravity decreases with height. This is specific and testable.
But until you establish what those discontinuities are (i.e. their magnitude) it is unfalsifiable. You also are yet to go and test this.
So, FET offers falsifiable tests. It is based on logic after arguments demonstrated RET fails. FEers give evidence.
Don't you ever let a round earther tell you otherwise.
I will tell you otherwise.
Yes, it has some falsifiable tests, like using the model to calculate the location of the sun, which fails, falsifying the model.
Others' like yours, have tests which do not make the model falsifiable, as you could simply say the discontinuities are smaller.
There are no logical arguments indicating RET fails, just deceit.
And FEers are yet to present actual evidence of their models.
So we've talked a lot about FET. Now, let's talk about the round earther.
No thanks. RET stands on its own merit. There are so many different REers it isn't funny.
While some will match your claims, there are plenty of others.
Such as those that rationally and honestly refute the arguments of FEers, with understanding.
There are two forms of round earther arguments.
I would say there are several.
There are those from a position of "ignorance" where they ask for an explanation for something under FE which is already explained under mainstream science, like gravity or buoyancy.
Then there are those that provide arguments which indicate Earth is round, like observed curvature.
Then there are those which show a particular FE model is wrong by pointing out a contradiction between it and reality.
typically fail because the round earther either has no understanding of the model and does not wish to be corrected
No, they often succeed, because the "correction" is a load of crap which amounts to the FEer not wanting to admit their model is wrong.
One could ask why they would come here, why they're interested in something so laughable in the world at large.
Because all it takes for stupidity to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.
I come here to point out the BS, so that others are less likely to be conned into it.
It can also provide a mental challenge at times.
The answer is simple; they wish to feel superior.
No. That would be you.
There isn't really anything special about being a REer. The majority of the world accepts Earth is round.
However, for the FEer, they feel special. They feel they have broken away from the chains of conformity and thought for themselves and realised something most people don't.
Don't you think that sounds like they are feeling superior?
a) exhaustion. They will either list countless arguments, or make overlong posts
You mean like you and Sandokhan?
If you don't want our posts to be long, keep yours short, and don't bring up complex things which will take a while to respond.
They will repeat the exact same question, even after acknowledging an answer.
No, after acknowledging that what was provided didn't actually answer the question.
come down to no more than 'RET was here first.' They have had more time to develop their model so of course it has more details, none of that alters how false it is or how correct FET is.
No, they will typically do the opposite, indicating that FE isn't anything new, that people in the past thought Earth was flat, only to have humanity realise that that belief was wrong, discard it, and accept Earth is round.
In developing a model for the shape of the world, starting from the assumption it was flat, people concluded it was roung.
They will try to drag the conversation to some grammatical quirk or word choice and totally ignore the point you're making. Sometimes they will even initiate a blatant change of topic from the one they are losing.
Just like you and Sandy. In fact, Sandy almost entirely refuses to stay on topic, as that is his "debate" tactic. Continually changing subjects to avoid having to admit he was wrong.
FET is dead on arrival.
Not because of how it functions, but because no one will ever listen.
No. Entirely because of how it functions, which is to say it doesn't function.
No matter what experiments you perform, what predictions you make, you'll be met with the same.
Because you ignore all the problems.
It doesn't matter if you can make your model predict one thing which you can show.
If that is not general, and can't be applied to other times or locations or things, then it isn't useful.
Being able to predict that Polaris will appear at 45 degrees angle of elevation at 45 degrees north is fairly useless, when it fails to predict the correct angle of elevation elsewhere.
But FET never gets a chance.
No debate. No honesty. Just lies, insults, fallacy after fallacy, and even this post will be met with more of the same outrage.
Because that is all the FEers can do to try and defend it.
Meanwhile the REers bring honesty, evidence and rational arguments.
DET is yours to learn and make your own judgement on. Don't reject it because it's different, take the time to understand it, to see how it does work rather than assuming it doesn't, and make up your own mind.
No it doesn't. I have already addressed why it doesn't work without adding in pure magic (by which I mean numerous assumptions, some of which contradict other assumptions). You failed to provide any adequate answer.
You weren't even able to provide a justification of how your aether keeps flowing rather than almost instantly settling out.