Shock Horror

I am in a state of shock from what I have read on this forum.

I do not aim to be offensive to the Flat Earth believers on this forum but from my point of view it is a sad state of affairs when people will actually believe in such rubbish. It knocks what confidence I had left in the human race (the rest was destroyed by creationists and people who believe the moon landings were a hoax, and oh yea Kent Hovind - a.k.a knob end)

I'm in shock because I can not contemplate in what state of mind you have to be in to believe this. I know Lead is 650 times more common in Americans today than 150 years ago thanks to Thomas Midgley, Junior but this can surely not completely account for the simplicity in your theories. Is it religion? Drugs? Terrible education? It is truly mind-boggling to me.

I have looked at Raa’s Picture and it is a joke. Does he expect any sane person to look at that and not think he is crazy?

Ravingnutter’s (a good choice of name if you don’t mind me saying) claims about gravity are absolute rubbish.

Well gravity is a man made believe which make us believe in roundness and the so-called expanding universe theory.

What has the sun got to do with a flat earth anyway?

The Earth is Flat.

Ice is cold water, and you get Ice floating on top of water, so gravity cannot affect all types of water,
Boiling water creates steam, which rises up into the Flat earths cloud system, so gravity does not affect that type of water system. -----(Does It)

So where are you coming from.

Ignorance can be excused, Stupidity cannot.

Look around you and the Flat Earth.
It’s not all-just black and white.

I thought he was joking but then I started reading his other posts.

Ice is water crystals and steam is water vapour so they are still a form of water
So if gravity affects all types of water as you stated on your round earth theory all types of water would stay at ground zero.
So why does ice water float above the water line and steam rise up into the heavens.
And what has a ship floating on water got to do with The Flat Earth.

The Panama and Sues cannels were built to allow shipping to step around the flat earth to the other side on their travels.

surly you must have known that.
What stops a bullet projectile from going all around your so-called round earth?

Exactly. The flat earth.

It gets to the end of the Flat Earth.
And as it cannot use the Sues or Panama cannels to turn round it then shoots of into space.
Its not gravity and friction which stops the bullet projectile.
It’s the Flat Earth

First of all Ravingnutter Gravity is a real force and every single tiny insignificant piece of mass in the universe has gravity. You, me, the computer you’re reading this on, everything. The strength of gravity which different objects possess is only subject to one thing, their mass. One very smart scientist (not part of the conspiracy) called Cavendish in 1797 using John Michells apparatus (search it in Google if you want more information on the experiment I don’t want to go too far into detail) was able to work out the earths weight to be approx 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds by effectively measuring the gravity of other objects (this figure has been re-estimated with modern technology by less than 1% of Cavendish’s findings) If you go to a mountain the gravity of the mountain is not substantial enough for you to feel it but substantial enough to measure. This makes it impossible for a flat earth (or any other planet) to form in our universe

Second Ravingnutter the water is at its most dense at 4 Celsius. Ice floats for this reason. Gravity is a very weak force, standing up beats it but your understanding of Gravity is shockingly bad I recommend for you to go study GCSE Physics.

If you drop a bullet and shoot one at a perfect horizontal angle they will both hit the ground at the same time because horizontal and vertical forces applied to a object do not affect each other so the vertical force (explosion in the barrel of the gun) doesn’t effect the horizontal force (gravity pulling the bullet towards the centre of our spherical earth)
For this reason a bullet will not continually travel round the world.

If I may quote Ravingnutter ‘ignorance can be excused, stupidity cannot’.
Ravingnutter you will not be doing the excusing of people. I presume you have never left America (I also assume your American) and as a person, not very out looking and probably couldn’t tell me which country Bollywood originates from. The Earth is an Oval shape. Get over it, why do you want to believe that there is a flat earth? Does it give your life some meaning? The fact that no one has ever lived a meaningful life ever because life is pointless task leads me to believe it doesn’t give a damn weather you are stupid enough to believe the earth is flat. In 100 hundred years we will all be 6 feet under and what we did today in a week’s time and on this messaging board is insignificant as with everything else in the universe.

But I thought writing this out would amuse me for 20 minutes and hay its not every day you discover (and get the chance to argue with!) there are people who believe in some crackpot idea.

What makes you think Ravingnutter was an actual FE?  As his name would suggest he was making fun of this site.

BTW, that was posted a year and a half ago.  What makes you think he is still active?

Sorry new to this forum but the notion of a flat earth still completely dumbfounds me beyond belief. It just doesn’t make sense to what we know.

Sure it does.  Re'ers just don't like to admit it.

people who believe the moon landings were a hoax

To be fair, that theory has a lot more grounds than this one. Which is rather sad.

See, the United States actually had a potential motive, and there are some actual supportable evidence, real or not, as opposed to Flat Earth, which relies completely on, "Well, the Earth could conceivably be flat, so it definitly is." The FE theory also has no proofs of it's own, but relies on trying to disprove the proofs for RE, without providing any substantial arguments for their side other than "RE could be wrong, therefore the world must be flat".

The FE theory also has no proofs of it's own, but relies on trying to disprove the proofs for RE.

Who tries to disprove the RE?

without providing any substantial arguments for their side

I see a bunch of those.  They normally include modern physics, as well as some classical ideas and even include some plate theory.

Quote from: "CircleTriangles"

The FE theory also has no proofs of it's own, but relies on trying to disprove the proofs for RE.

Who tries to disprove the RE?

... Every FE'er.

Most suposed 'proofs' of FE end up sounding something like this:
'Gravity doesn't really exist', 'the reason ships sink on the horizon is because of refraction', 'how do you know you're traveling in a straight line?', 'the moon just looks like a cirlce to me'. Need I go on?
See, the thing is, these aren't really proofs at all, but just 'disproofs' of RE.
Name one theory to why the earth is flat that doesn't really on disputting an opposing theory to why the earth is round.

I don't see how any of those disprove the RE.  I see them as simply stating a way for the FE to work.

I don't see how any of those disprove the RE.  I see them as simply stating a way for the FE to work.

Name one theory to why the earth is flat that doesn't rely on disputting an opposing theory to why the earth is round.

Do it. Then, your point will be proved, and I will give up on this particular point of arguement. Otherwise, I am right.
It is cut-and-dry - if you provide one, I'm wrong. If you don't, I'm right. End of story. Now, it's your turn.

atlest they TRY and prove something, it gets tieing debating with christians and all they do is say "GOD DID IT" or "YOU DONT KNOW GOD!!!"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

I don't see how any of those disprove the RE.  I see them as simply stating a way for the FE to work.

Name one theory to why the earth is flat that doesn't rely on disputting an opposing theory to why the earth is round.

Do it. Then, your point will be proved, and I will give up on this particular point of arguement. Otherwise, I am right.
It is cut-and-dry - if you provide one, I'm wrong. If you don't, I'm right. End of story. Now, it's your turn.

Gravity as acceleration.

Quote from: "CircleTriangles"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

I don't see how any of those disprove the RE.  I see them as simply stating a way for the FE to work.

Name one theory to why the earth is flat that doesn't rely on disputting an opposing theory to why the earth is round.

Do it. Then, your point will be proved, and I will give up on this particular point of arguement. Otherwise, I am right.
It is cut-and-dry - if you provide one, I'm wrong. If you don't, I'm right. End of story. Now, it's your turn.

Gravity as acceleration.

But, what happened to 'Gravity doesn't exist and is some magical force you can't prove, and this is why it's possible the earth is flat'? Don't contridict your own groups theories.

Secondly, this isn't a seperate proof, like I requested. It is meant to show an alternate method of Gravity existing as applied to the Flat Earth, and was created as an alternative to what? Round Earth. And is meant to disprove Round Earth in order to show the possibility of Flat Earth, not a direct proof of Flat Earth.

I'm not.  The 'force' we feel as gravity is actually acceleration - in either the RE or FE model.

I'm not.  The 'force' we feel as gravity is actually acceleration - in either the RE or FE model.

I edited this into my last post, but I was too slow. It's been edited slightly from the original to get the point across more clearly and make it harder for you to 'nitpick'.

Secondly, this isn't a seperate proof, like I requested. It is only being used in this arguement to show an alternate to Gravity, showing a possibility of gravity existing on a Flat Earth, and was created as an alternative to what? Round Earth. It is meant to show an alternative possibility to Round Earth, and is not a direct proof of Flat Earth, but rather dirrivitive of the Round Earth theory.

It is only being used in this arguement to show an alternate to Gravity, showing a possibility of gravity existing on a Flat Earth, and was created as an alternative to what? Round Earth.

Isn't that what we are arguing here?

It is meant to show an alternative possibility to Round Earth, and is not a direct proof of Flat Earth, but rather dirrivitive of the Round Earth theory.

Now, you have stacked the deck so that I can't provide you what you asked for.

Quote from: "CircleTriangles"

It is only being used in this arguement to show an alternate to Gravity, showing a possibility of gravity existing on a Flat Earth, and was created as an alternative to what? Round Earth.

Isn't that what we are arguing here?

Quote

It is meant to show an alternative possibility to Round Earth, and is not a direct proof of Flat Earth, but rather dirrivitive of the Round Earth theory.

Now, you have stacked the deck so that I can't provide you what you asked for.

You can't provide what I asked for because such a proof doesn't exist.
Which is what I said in the first place.

The point in the first place was for you to provide a proof of the Flat Earth.
Something like that is not a proof. It is a theory as to why a flat earth might be possible by contridicting the evidence that the earth is Round.
Every single theory for how a Flat Earth might exist is simply dirrivitive of, and in response to, evidence for how the Earth is round. If there was a real proof, such as photographic evidence, observation evidence, or experimental evidence, it would be seperate, clear and distinct, and would not rely on rebuttles to such things (evidence) that indicates that the earth is round.

This was your original request.

Name one theory to why the earth is flat that doesn't rely on disputting an opposing theory to why the earth is round.

But now,

It is meant to show an alternative possibility to Round Earth, and is not a direct proof of Flat Earth, but rather dirrivitive of the Round Earth theory.

It seems that anything I say can be considered a derivative of the RE model.  Therefore, I can no longer fulfill your request.

Once again, no one is trying to disprove the RE, but to simply show that the FE could work in the framework.

Once again, no one is trying to disprove the RE, but to simply show that the FE could work in the framework.

Except that the RE and the FE can not exist at one time. We are on either one, or the other (unless you want to add more models into the equation just to complicate things). And since the flat earth relys on conspiracy and has no proofs (i.e.; photographical proofs, observational proofs, experimental proofs), it is not possible to prove that the Flat Earth exists, only that it could, theoretically, exist (and this arguement is still shaky), where as the Round Earth has these proofs.

This is the reason the only arguments for Flat Earth are derivitive of the Round Earth model - because there are no direct proofs. However, the Round Earth has many direct proofs that are completely unrelated to Flat Earth model. Which is where people come in trying to disprove the Round Earth, as has been seen over and over again on this forum. Because there is no direct proof of Flat Earth, the only way to defend the theory is to try to show that the proofs of Round Earth are also possible on Flat Earth. Which brings us full circle to the start of this paragraph.

To sum it up: There are no original ways to justify that we are, infact, on a flat earth. All of the ways that the flat earth are justified were created by criticing the round earth model. These critiques are often used as 'proofs', but they don't prove anything other than that, if you look hard enough, you can 'create' holes in any theory by making up shit. Like, 'the reason ships appear to sink is because of refraction. Therefore, it's possible that the world might not be round, so it must be flat.'

To sum it up even more: All of the evidence behind Flat Earth being a possibilty is uneducated bullshit that was made up in order to try to 'disprove' the actual, real proof of Round Earth.

Except that the RE and the FE can not exist at one time. We are on either one, or the other (unless you want to add more models into the equation just to complicate things).

No shit the world is either one or the other.

Way to go for plausible deniability, Tom/ Your wisdom astounds me.















































































Not. :roll:

omg a not joke.  I thought only people in Sacha Baron Cohen movies thought they were funny.

Oh wow, you watch them too? LETS B FRIENDZ!!!!111!!oneeleven

:roll:

I'm just saying that the only thing amusing about your "joke" is that you think it's funny.

Quote

Except that the RE and the FE can not exist at one time. We are on either one, or the other (unless you want to add more models into the equation just to complicate things).

No shit the world is either one or the other.

Obviously, you didn't actually read that post.
It's simple, but, then, so is 'the earth is round'.

Way to take the very first sentence out of a long post, take it out of it's context, and insult that one sentence without adressing any of the rest of the post.

Go back and try again.

I'm not going to try to provide a proof, because The Engineer already provided one.  Any proof for flat earth is going to contradict proof for round earth.  An object is defined by what it is not, and evidence for flat earth is not evidence for round earth.  What you're asking is impossible, because it's a paradox.