The earth is clearly flat...

I challange any RE'er for simple scientific proof that the earth is round.  I will prove you wrong.  :shock:

Ok.. have a go on me,.

Fix your avatar, page-breaker!  :evil:

I challange any RE'er for simple scientific proof that the earth is round.  I will prove you wrong.  :shock:

There is none that proves the Earth is spherical or flat.  But here's the real shocker:  no one is going to listen either way!  

Am I right or am I right or am I right or am I right?

Fix your avatar, page-breaker!  :evil:

I did, shit breaker.

Aww, I loved your avatar the way it was.  :cry:

There is none that proves the Earth is spherical or flat. But here's the real shocker: no one is going to listen either way!

I accept that as truth, but I want to at least try and prove that what I believe is true. Otherwise, it would feel too easy to just give up and say that is totally true.

And again, that's also somewhat following Schroedinger's Cat, no?

weeeeeee
yeah i agree

Edit- Because it grates on me when you do that.- TheEngineer

If you want proof of the round earth, just look at the 48 pages of topics in this room already.

No, no, that's been done to death. And the FEers have unbacked and unproved counters to every one of them (about half of these are 'lol conspiracy that I can't prove, but it must be there since the earth is flat!')

You know what I want you to do?
Go on the offensive. This is something that FEers never do. Why?

So, give me photographic or scientifically-backed evidence for that the earth is flat. Not that proves a flat earth could theoretically exist. Proof that we are, infact, on a flat earth right now.
We've done the same for the round earth many times over (just because you deny it doesn't mean it isn't evidence)

All scientific theories are just that... theories.

All scientific theories are just that... theories.

Circular definitions are my favorite.  I would like to point out that the FE is not even a theory, in the sense of scientific theories.

If you want proof of the round earth, just look at the 48 pages of topics in this room already.

No, no, that's been done to death. And the FEers have unbacked and unproved counters to every one of them (about half of these are 'lol conspiracy that I can't prove, but it must be there since the earth is flat!')

You know what I want you to do?
Go on the offensive. This is something that FEers never do. Why?

So, give me photographic or scientifically-backed evidence for that the earth is flat. Not that proves a flat earth could theoretically exist. Proof that we are, infact, on a flat earth right now.
We've done the same for the round earth many times over (just because you deny it doesn't mean it isn't evidence)

Yeah but it looks flat so it must be flat. Also I want to be cool, or "radicool" so I want to think the world is flat because it's a fun idea. I'm right.

So, give me photographic or scientifically-backed evidence for that the earth is flat. Not that proves a flat earth could theoretically exist. Proof that we are, infact, on a flat earth right now.
We've done the same for the round earth many times over (just because you deny it doesn't mean it isn't evidence)

Well, I looked outside, and it looks pretty flat to me.

Quote from: "CircleTriangles"

So, give me photographic or scientifically-backed evidence for that the earth is flat. Not that proves a flat earth could theoretically exist. Proof that we are, infact, on a flat earth right now.
We've done the same for the round earth many times over (just because you deny it doesn't mean it isn't evidence)

Well, I looked outside, and it looks pretty flat to me.

Go skiing in the French Alps, then tell me it's flat. Retard.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "CircleTriangles"

So, give me photographic or scientifically-backed evidence for that the earth is flat. Not that proves a flat earth could theoretically exist. Proof that we are, infact, on a flat earth right now.
We've done the same for the round earth many times over (just because you deny it doesn't mean it isn't evidence)

Well, I looked outside, and it looks pretty flat to me.

Go skiing in the French Alps, then tell me it's flat. Retard.

It's not a uniform disc.  Duh.

Quote from: "CircleTriangles"

So, give me photographic or scientifically-backed evidence for that the earth is flat. Not that proves a flat earth could theoretically exist. Proof that we are, infact, on a flat earth right now.
We've done the same for the round earth many times over (just because you deny it doesn't mean it isn't evidence)

Well, I looked outside, and it looks pretty flat to me.

You know when you're flying high in a plane and everything looks small? it isn't really.
The Earth looks flat from your perspective because 360º/24,901.55 miles (earths diameter)= 0.014456931395836805339426662195727...º per mile. How far can you see?

All scientific theories are just that... theories.

God I hate that argument. Using it only proves how ignorant you really are.

How does something become a Scientific Theory? By having a lot of solid evidence to back it up.

How far can you see?

Depends on what is or is not in my way.

what about if there was nothing in your way, how far could YOU see?

what about if there was nothing in your way, how far could YOU see?

Back home, I could see a neighboring town from about twelve miles away.  I live in Iowa, and it's pretty flat.

But wait, that town is in my way, so that doesn't work ... damn.

what about if there was nothing in your way, how far could YOU see?

There would be nothing to see if there was nothing in your way.

12 miles? so 12*0.014456931395836805339426662195727...º still extremely low. No wonder it looks flat

Ok all you raging RE'ing lunatics out there.  How about tackling this brain buster.  So, we all know that the equivlence principle of general relativity states that mass and energy curve space time, which means that the "gravitational force" we feel is nothing more than a tendancy to follow a straight path.  As a result gravitational fields have equivlent accelerating refrence frames, at least in a differential limit.  Additionaly, it is a result of classical electrodynamics that accelerating charged particles radiate.  So, why do charged objects held motionless in a gravitational field not radiate?  Indeed, I did a quick calculation and found that they should produce ultra low RF radiation in earth's field, which is not detected.  why? WHY? Therefore the earth is flat.  Or how about this argument, you cannot disprove that government officials put computer chips inside of our heads, which make us percieve a round earth.  You also cannot disprove that flying purple monkys on crack created the universe.  Flat-earth forever...

Ok all you raging RE'ing lunatics out there.  How about tackling this brain buster.  So, we all know that the equivlence principle of general relativity states that mass and energy curve space time, which means that the "gravitational force" we feel is nothing more than a tendancy to follow a straight path.  As a result gravitational fields have equivlent accelerating refrence frames, at least in a differential limit.  Additionaly, it is a result of classical electrodynamics that accelerating charged particles radiate.  So, why do charged objects held motionless in a gravitational field not radiate?  Indeed, I did a quick calculation and found that they should produce ultra low RF radiation in earth's field, which is not detected.  why? WHY? Therefore the earth is flat.  Or how about this argument, you cannot disprove that government officials put computer chips inside of our heads, which make us percieve a round earth.  You also cannot disprove that flying purple monkys on crack created the universe.  Flat-earth forever...

You failed to mention Quantum Mechanics, as well as its effects.

And how would that change things? are you proposing a solution similiar to Hawking radiation and quantum evaporation of black holes? Nope, the energy scale of this experiment does not merrit such an analysis as g is small and we are not working at the plank scale.  Indeed, one could imagine a tangible charged rod held in a G-field.  No need for fancy curved space-time quantum field theories.  Perhaps you are questioning classical electromagnetic theory?  In that case, quantum field theory and QED still mandate that charges subjected to an external field radiate, on average at least.  Try again...

And how would that change things? are you proposing a solution similiar to Hawking radiation and quantum evaporation of black holes? Nope, the energy scale of this experiment does not merrit such an analysis as g is small and we are not working at the plank scale.  Indeed, one could imagine a tangible charged rod held in a G-field.  No need for fancy curved space-time quantum field theories.  Perhaps you are questioning classical electromagnetic theory?  In that case, quantum field theory and QED still mandate that charges subjected to an external field radiate, on average at least.  Try again...

I meant quantum energy fluctuations, via good ol' Uncertainty Principle.

Ok, I'm feeling you...but I still don't think it's a solution.  Take a limiting case where the G-field is strong.  The equivlent accelerating refrence frame would be, say, a massive linear accelerator.  Again, the linear accelerator exactly recreates the conditions inside the G-field B/C of the equivlence principle.  Now the linear accelerator will blow away quantum energy fluctuations, or perhaps more appropriatly, momentum fluctuations.  The electron accelerates from 0 to .9C, whith a quantum uncertanty of maybe 10^-9 m/s^2.  Do you see what I am saying? ... It wont matter...

Come on RE'ers, givin up your beloved globe that easily?  Answer my paradox ... if you dare  :twisted: !

Do the flat earth have a motor on its upside??
I mean, how is it possible to accelerate to the infinity??
Higher than light velocity is not possible...so accelerating since millions of years, we should had reach for long time ago  the light velocity..
Can you explain this, anti-matter??

Ok all you raging RE'ing lunatics out there.  How about tackling this brain buster.  So, we all know that the equivlence principle of general relativity states that mass and energy curve space time, which means that the "gravitational force" we feel is nothing more than a tendancy to follow a straight path.  As a result gravitational fields have equivlent accelerating refrence frames, at least in a differential limit.  Additionaly, it is a result of classical electrodynamics that accelerating charged particles radiate.  So, why do charged objects held motionless in a gravitational field not radiate?  Indeed, I did a quick calculation and found that they should produce ultra low RF radiation in earth's field, which is not detected.  why? WHY? Therefore the earth is flat.  Or how about this argument, you cannot disprove that government officials put computer chips inside of our heads, which make us percieve a round earth.  You also cannot disprove that flying purple monkys on crack created the universe.  Flat-earth forever...

if a charged particle held motionless does not radiate, when according to you it should because of the accelerational equivalent due to the RE's gravity, then doesn't this too throw the FEs model that the flat earth is constantly accelerating upward. therefore the only way to achieve a 'motionless particle' is to move it towards the earth at an acceleration of g.

This so called paradox is apparent in both RE and FE theory

Do the flat earth have a motor on its upside??
I mean, how is it possible to accelerate to the infinity??
Higher than light velocity is not possible...so accelerating since millions of years, we should had reach for long time ago  the light velocity..
Can you explain this, anti-matter??

I think you need to read up on your relativity. An object can definitely accelerate for infinity without breaking any of Einstein's laws.

Can you explain gravity?