Has There Ever Been a RE v FE Debate?

I'm searching for any live debate about FE. I can't find any. I know there are a few on YouTube that happen over podcast or over the phone, but they usually suck because it's between two people who know nothing about math or physics (like Jeranism) and they often leave issues open because they can't prove anything one way or another. So I'm wondering if anyone has ever debated a flat-earther in person (I'm picturing a debate like the one between Bill Nye and Ken Ham; a lot of people were interested in that one).

If there hasn't been one, why not? I'd bet any RE scientist would be willing to debate a FE scientist.

And if there hasn't been one, why hasn't the FE community tried to coordinate one? Like the Nye v Ham debate, it would generate a lot of interest and would be a good way for the FE to can more traction.

I was member of Flat Earth group on Facebook.
It was pretty much live chat.
But be careful:
When I explained how I measured distance to the Moon myself, using two different methods,
and when explained how radar astronomy measured distances to Moon, Venus and Mars,
and when asked them about inconsistencies in measuring Sun altitude in Flat model
they ran away from the facts and banned me so I don't present them more.

I never used bad words or personal attack. I didn't have to. Facts and figures were always enough to me.

FE won't win except if the North Polar Centered FE map is changed to be South Polar Centered FE map.

They should also rely on Universal Acceleration, Breathing Earth.

FE's flaws so far are as miserable as RE's flaws.

FE won't win except if ...

Sorry to disappoint you: there's nothing to win.

Earth is measured loads of times and the size, shape, mass, speed and orbit are well known.

It just seems like a matter that would be resolved for a lot of people if it didn't take place only on internet forums and YouTube.

a FE scientist.

Are there any? 

I think this might be the reason you have to make do with debates with the likes of Jeranism.

Quote from: Jargon on June 12, 2019, 05:55:04 PM

a FE scientist.

Are there any? 

wise is a flat earth scientist, according to his/her profile page. 

On YouTube red rhetoric has some debates. Spoiler, flat earthers always get whipped.

Quote from: Danang on June 13, 2019, 01:53:12 AM

FE won't win except if ...

Sorry to disappoint you: there's nothing to win.

Earth is measured loads of times and the size, shape, mass, speed and orbit are well known.

Calculations with verifications, this is the crucial matters. I so far have given calculations with evidences, either for PHEW FE map, and PHEW maths.

Quote from: Macarios on June 13, 2019, 05:19:37 AM

Quote from: Danang on June 13, 2019, 01:53:12 AM

FE won't win except if ...

Sorry to disappoint you: there's nothing to win.

Earth is measured loads of times and the size, shape, mass, speed and orbit are well known.

Calculations with verifications, this is the crucial matters. I so far have given calculations with evidences, either for PHEW FE map, and PHEW maths.

LOL.
You can't even get right the Circumference over Diameter ratio for a simple circle.

I'm searching for any live debate about FE. I can't find any. I know there are a few on YouTube that happen over podcast or over the phone, but they usually suck because it's between two people who know nothing about math or physics (like Jeranism) and they often leave issues open because they can't prove anything one way or another. So I'm wondering if anyone has ever debated a flat-earther in person (I'm picturing a debate like the one between Bill Nye and Ken Ham; a lot of people were interested in that one).

If there hasn't been one, why not? I'd bet any RE scientist would be willing to debate a FE scientist.

And if there hasn't been one, why hasn't the FE community tried to coordinate one? Like the Nye v Ham debate, it would generate a lot of interest and would be a good way for the FE to can more traction.

There have been quite a number of "debates" between Flat Earthers and others. Some were scientists and even cosmologists.

But, often these people are not the best to "debate" Flat Earthers as such debates often turn into slanging matches and not the reasoned debate a scientist might be prepared.
Here is one such debate that I expect would be fairly well run.
I originally doubted that a cosmologist would be the best opponent for Mark Sargent but Dr. Jeff Zweerink was well prepared so have a look:

Is the Earth FLAT? Flat Earther Mark Sargent vs. Astrophysicist Dr. Jeff Zweerink! (#122) by The Fallen State

This isn't a debate but there are interesting comments "The Flat Earth Society":

Professor Dave Debates Podcast #6 - Is the Earth Flat? by Professor Dave Explains

Again this is not a debate but is a video where Professor Dave responds to "attacks" by Flat Earthers:

GlobeBusters DEBUNKED LIKE NEVER BEFORE by Professor Dave Explains - Bob & Jeran Kicked Out 5 by UNIRock2
This Professor Dave started with an earlier video where he did not know a lot about the "Flat Earth model" (who does?).
After the first video he become quite adept at tackling this sort of thing even though it's quite far from his usual instructional video.
Here's his own YouTube channel, Professor Dave Explains 431,305 subscribers - it is good to see that it's far more popular than any Flat Earth channel!

There are quite a few debates under videos on this YouTube channel but some are painful to watch so I won't post any: Fight the Flat Earth

Quote from: Danang on June 13, 2019, 04:49:42 PM

Quote from: Macarios on June 13, 2019, 05:19:37 AM

Quote from: Danang on June 13, 2019, 01:53:12 AM

FE won't win except if ...

Sorry to disappoint you: there's nothing to win.

Earth is measured loads of times and the size, shape, mass, speed and orbit are well known.

Calculations with verifications, this is the crucial matters. I so far have given calculations with evidences, either for PHEW FE map, and PHEW maths.

LOL.
You can't even get right the Circumference over Diameter ratio for a simple circle.

Rarely people realize that the volume of a sphere is slightly 👉 50% 👈 of a cube's volume.
This is surely the gate of Phew Revolution. :')

Rarely people realize that the volume of a sphere is slightly 👉 50% 👈 of a cube's volume.
This is surely the gate of Phew Revolution. :')

Why is there any mystery about that? The volume of a cube of side s is s³ and the volume of a sphere of radius r is (⁴/₃) x π x r³.

So if the radius of the sphere is ^s/₂ its volume is (⁴/₃) x π x (^s/₂)³.  Hence the ^{(volume of sphere)}/_{(volume of enclosing cube)} = ^π/₆ = 0.5236 or just over 50%.

So long as you use the real !

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 06:13:14 AM

Rarely people realize that the volume of a sphere is slightly  50%  of a cube's volume.
This is surely the gate of Phew Revolution. :')

Why is there any mystery about that? The volume of a cube of side s is s³ and the volume of a sphere of radius r is (⁴/₃) x π x r³.

So if the radius of the sphere is ^s/₂ its volume is (⁴/₃) x π x (^s/₂)³.  Hence the ^{(volume of sphere)}/_{(volume of enclosing cube)} = ^π/₆ = 0.5236 or just over 50%.

So long as you use the real !

By experiment the volume of a sphere is slightly under 50%, not above 50% of a cube's volume.

It approximately equals to 3 pyramids (for h=1) which is exactly 50% of a cube's volume AKA "4".

You'll find a trouble when comparing the volume ratio of a cone and a pyramid. It's supposed to be appoximately 0.75 : 1.

Pi says 0.7852 : 1
Phew says 0.7477 : 1

Quote from: rabinoz on June 14, 2019, 07:41:13 PM

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 06:13:14 AM

Rarely people realize that the volume of a sphere is slightly  50%  of a cube's volume.
This is surely the gate of Phew Revolution. :')

Why is there any mystery about that? The volume of a cube of side s is s³ and the volume of a sphere of radius r is (⁴/₃) x π x r³.

So if the radius of the sphere is ^s/₂ its volume is (⁴/₃) x π x (^s/₂)³.  Hence the ^{(volume of sphere)}/_{(volume of enclosing cube)} = ^π/₆ = 0.5236 or just over 50%.

So long as you use the real !

By experiment the volume of a sphere is slightly under 50%, not above 50% of a cube's volume.

And all experiments have experimental error!

It approximately equals to 3 pyramids (for h=1) which is exactly 50% of a cube's volume AKA "4".

Yes, approximately!

You'll find a trouble when comparing the volume ratio of a cone and a pyramid. It's supposed to be appoximately 0.75 : 1.

No I won't!
The volume of a cone with radius r and height h is (1/3) x π x r² x h and the volume of a pyramid with side 2 x r and height h is (1/3) x 4 x r² x h.

So "the volume ratio of a cone and a pyramid" is π/4 = 0.785398, what's the big problem?

Pi says 0.7852 : 1
Phew says 0.7477 : 1

Tough, so Phew is wrong again. If engineers, like I was, used you  Phew nothing would have would out or fitted properly.

"what's the big problem?"

>> YOU! 

"what's the big problem?"

>> YOU! 

NoU!