Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.

  • 46 Replies
  • 3114 Views
?

Sphericalearth

  • 6
  • Engineer
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2019, 12:58:39 PM »
Can anyone answer my questions now ?

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 5035
  • I abuse wise
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2019, 07:15:16 PM »
Can anyone answer my questions now ?

Why would you think that you would get an answer now?
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

*

Mattathome

  • 2
  • I love this site, it goes round and round...
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2019, 12:16:22 AM »
Indeed.  That you dug up a four year old thread does not garner victory in your debate, nor does it prove any argument on your part.

I've lurked on these forums for just a short time and I'll be honest it's mostly for entertainment value.  I could attempt to engage as many others have done in debate, or questions, but I've read enough into the Flat Earth to know what the answers will be.  Flat Earth is a belief structure entirely based on all of these individuals who know beyond any shadow of any doubt that they have been lied to by...almost everyone else.  They have taken it upon themselves to open doors and seek what will reinforce those beliefs, be it a religious, physical, and/or a scientific proof.  They go through each day knowing this so firmly and so absolutely that the burden of proof must fall to everyone else to prove them wrong.  I've read many threads here on this website and these forums exist as a medium to that ideology. This is their home turf and you will never disprove that no matter the argument, at least from their perspective.

For example, I could do much the same thing with a theory I can create based on my own observations and surroundings.  I was born and raised in southern Florida, and my claim is that there is no such thing as snow, it does not exist.  I know there are pictures, and predictable weather patterns, and seasons, and a whole basis of science and discovery behind it, but yet I have never experienced this so called snow.  I have been lied to.  The Earth is a tropic paradise, I see it each day.  This must be a conspiracy driven by evil intent and insatiable greed.  This fakery of snow so people can spend billions on clothing, ski equipment, snowmobiles, and mountain resorts must come to light.  So I venture forth in the world (to my front porch) with my loyal followers (my chihuahua and my cat) to enlighten the masses.  Many laugh, and offer proof that I scoff upon.  You accept being a blind fool I say.  Some bring me actual snow in a desperate attempt of paragon evidence.  Bah! I say again, I can create the same thing from the freezer in my kitchen. How could magical icicles fall from the sky? It's never happened!  On and on, I can create a solution against any forth coming evidence that snow is real, and for as long as I remain in southern Florida and base all my ideas on my surroundings I can never be disproven in any way.  Snowless Earth wins again, and again...and again.

The point is, you can take all of the most prominent hierarchy of The Flat Earth Society, load them into a rocketship and launch them into Space.  Have them all put on spacesuits and flush them out of the airlock.  They will all look down upon the Earth below and say, "Yup, looks pretty flat to me! I was right all along!"  Matter of fact, I've read that a man built a homemade Rocket last year and did almost exactly that.  Flat Earth is like watching a train-wreck in slow motion, like tuning into Keeping up with the Kardashians every week and you are all but left with wondering "How the Fuck did this happen?"

Though for myself, I'm glad we have the Flat Earth Society in certain respects.  Reading these debates I've learned so much more about Science, Physics, and the Cosmos beyond than I ever have in all my years of schooling.  In regards to the Flat Earth Theory itself I find it is endlessly fascinating to watch how boundless the human imagination can go.  I don't take it upon myself to debunk the FET, I don't feel the need to. As a repair technician I've seen all kinds of people do crazy things.  Try as I might to prevent breakdowns and costly repairs it always happens again and again.  In my line of work we call it Building a Better Idiot.  Here, you can present what you will but if you think for a second that you can present evidence so compelling that you'll change the hearts and minds of these believers then you are in for a long haul.  My one suggestion is that if you really, truly seek to engage and challenge what these people believe, then you must learn their perspective.  Otherwise be silent and enjoy the show.

All of that being said, I'm sorry Sphericalearth, but you lose and will always lose in this medium.  Coming back with a haughty

Can anyone answer my questions now ?

Of a four year old thread will not resolve or convince anyone.  I fail to see why you even bothered.

 
Seeking Truth, but refusal to believe...that is paradoxitradalsensationimorbididiocyalism.


Why are you clicking that?

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 843
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2019, 11:50:57 AM »
What is the circumference of the DE disk?
Nullius in Verba

*

Mikey T.

  • 2399
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2019, 05:20:19 PM »
What is the circumference of the DE disk?
Hate to add to the necro thread but to answer your question since I have not seen JROWE around lately, the DE model at that time had a circumference near the same as the Globe model, so around 25000 miles.  There may have been a bit of a difference but I believe the intent was that the model matched more closely to reality as far as distances.  Many FE models have to stretch and skew continents and oceans  the further South you go.  The DE model tried to address that along with Southern circumpolar star paths.  It got a little weird around the equator with some teleportation like effect going on and the Sun being in the middle between the two discs with a lensing effect to make the sun appear in the sky.  I don't know all of those particulars and he probably made more changes beyond the point at which I was paying attention. 

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 843
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2019, 09:54:18 AM »
What is the circumference of the DE disk?
Hate to add to the necro thread but to answer your question since I have not seen JROWE around lately, the DE model at that time had a circumference near the same as the Globe model, so around 25000 miles.  There may have been a bit of a difference but I believe the intent was that the model matched more closely to reality as far as distances.  Many FE models have to stretch and skew continents and oceans  the further South you go.  The DE model tried to address that along with Southern circumpolar star paths.  It got a little weird around the equator with some teleportation like effect going on and the Sun being in the middle between the two discs with a lensing effect to make the sun appear in the sky.  I don't know all of those particulars and he probably made more changes beyond the point at which I was paying attention.

Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?
Nullius in Verba

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15651
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2019, 01:11:27 PM »
What is the circumference of the DE disk?
Hate to add to the necro thread but to answer your question since I have not seen JROWE around lately, the DE model at that time had a circumference near the same as the Globe model, so around 25000 miles.  There may have been a bit of a difference but I believe the intent was that the model matched more closely to reality as far as distances.  Many FE models have to stretch and skew continents and oceans  the further South you go.  The DE model tried to address that along with Southern circumpolar star paths.  It got a little weird around the equator with some teleportation like effect going on and the Sun being in the middle between the two discs with a lensing effect to make the sun appear in the sky.  I don't know all of those particulars and he probably made more changes beyond the point at which I was paying attention.

Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?
Most flat earth models have the same length of the equator...
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4460
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2019, 01:35:59 PM »
Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?

The RE have the SAME problem as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78333.msg2114379#msg2114379

*

sokarul

  • 16098
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2019, 08:12:22 PM »
Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?

The RE have the SAME problem as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78333.msg2114379#msg2114379
Linking to a thread where you demonstrate your improper use of math. That will show us.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

rabinoz

  • 22532
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2019, 04:03:10 AM »
Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?

The RE have the SAME problem as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78333.msg2114379#msg2114379
The Globe has no such problem.
The average radius is 6371 km and 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km.
The distance from the equator to the North Pole is 10,002 km (to the nearest kilometre).
The discrepancy between 4 × 10,002 km (Meridional Circumference), 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km (from the average radius) and 40,075 km the Equatorial Circumference is simply because the earth is not a perfect sphere.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4460
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2019, 04:36:51 AM »
The Globe has no such problem.
The average radius is 6371 km and 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km.
The distance from the equator to the North Pole is 10,002 km (to the nearest kilometre).
The discrepancy between 4 × 10,002 km (Meridional Circumference), 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km (from the average radius) and 40,075 km the Equatorial Circumference is simply because the earth is not a perfect sphere.

But it does have such problems.

This is the correct FE map (Piri Reis map):



It has a radius of 6363.63 km.

For the RE map, you have to DOUBLE the radius: it now becomes 12727.2727 km.

That is, you take the map, DOUBLE its radius and fill in the remaining space with water.

Your map has the following surface area expressed for a circle: π(2r)2 (=4πr2) (surface area for a sphere: 4πr2 = π(2r)2)

The FE map has this formula: πr2

The RE map has a radius TWICE THE SIZE of the radius of the FE map.

FE radius = 6363.63 km

RE radius = 12727.27 km




Problem #2: how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere without attractive gravity?

You want to use gravitons?

How do two gravitons attract each other?

Can you explain the attractive mechanism?

Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?

You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.

Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.

You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.

It is even worse than pure magic.

Please explain the physics to your readers.

What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.

Do you want to use gravitons?

So, how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Let us examine the graviton problem. There are only two possible choices: either these gravitons were a one-time emission five billion years ago, or they are being emitted continuously by the iron/nickel core. In both cases the graviton must either consist of two kinds of particles, one which has an emissive vortex, the other one which has a receptive vortex, or a single particle with two ends consisting of an emissive vortex, while the other end has a receptive vortex.

In both cases we are dealing immediately with the defiance of the law of conservation of energy: how in the world can these vortices function after five billion years with no loss of energy?

Moreover, you have another huge problem: each object on the surface of the earth must connect to the gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core through strings of gravitons which fit neatly and totally to each and every graviton released by the object itself. How then can that object move freely on the surface of the sphere? Obviously the strings of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core are not intelligent enough to know the random direction of movement of the object. Are you telling your readers that the strings of the object can slide freely from a static string of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core, to another with no loss of energy, not to mention the very mechanism itself?

The gases in the atmosphere do not obey any kind of an attractive law of gravity.

The gravitons cannot be used to explain attractive gravity.

Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.


Problem #3: the position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.

And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:



You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).


"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.


For the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth.


BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.

Now, that is one HUGE problem for your map!


*

rabinoz

  • 22532
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2019, 05:32:48 AM »
Then the DE model has the same problem as most flat earth models; namely the length of the equator. See, if the distance from the central(North?) pole of a flat earth disk to the Equator is 6200 miles. But a circle with a radius of such a distance should have a circumference of 39,000 miles. How can the Equator then be only 25,000 miles?

The RE have the SAME problem as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78333.msg2114379#msg2114379
The Globe has no such problem.
The average radius is 6371 km and 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km.
The distance from the equator to the North Pole is 10,002 km (to the nearest kilometre).
The discrepancy between 4 × 10,002 km (Meridional Circumference), 2 × π × 6371 = 40,030 km (from the average radius) and 40,075 km the Equatorial Circumference is simply because the earth is not a perfect sphere.
But it does have such problems.

This is the correct FE map (Piri Reis map):
So if the "Piri Reis map" is the correct FE map, how is it that:
  • You seem the only flat earther who supports it?

  • How did your version end up with a more or less correctly shaped Australia and Antarctica when neither were discovered at that time.
    This seems to be the information on the Piri Reis map:

    "Antarctica" looks to be a total guess, extending way up into the Indian and Pacific Oceans and there simply is no Australia.

    In other words what YOU call a "Piri Reis map" is just your guess.
Quote from: sandokhan


It has a radius of 6363.63 km.
Show where that 6363.63 km came from, thank you!

Because that definition of the metre is 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator on the meridian that passes through Paris - try to fit THAT onto YOUR map!
Quote
The Standard Meter
(Article taken from "Backsights" Magazine published by Surveyors Historical Society)
The French originated the meter in the 1790s as one/ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole along a meridian through Paris.  It is realistically represented by the distance between two marks on an iron bar kept in Paris.  The International Bureau of Weights and Measures, created in 1875, upgraded the bar to one made of 90 percent platinum/10 percent iridium alloy.

Quote from: sandokhan
For the RE map, you have to DOUBLE the radius: it now becomes 12727.2727 km.
No, we do not "have to DOUBLE the radius"! Whyever would you claim that?
 
In any case, why should the dimensions of the Globe be connected with your "Piri Reis map"?

Until I get a reasonable answer for that I'll ignore that rest of your post.

The rest is totally irrelevant to any answer to my post so I'll take the liberty of simply deleting that too.

*

sokarul

  • 16098
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2019, 05:48:16 AM »

For the 100th time, the graviton is string theory, not general relativity.

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16997
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2019, 06:05:35 AM »
rabinoz, sandokhan's post is way bigger than yours.

Do you need a fluffer?
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2019, 06:08:32 AM »
This is the correct FE map (Piri Reis map):
There is no correct FE map.
FEers are yet to produce one that matches reality.
For example, your one has Australia and America far too far apart.

For the RE map, you have to DOUBLE the radius: it now becomes 12727.2727 km.
No we don't. We will take the radius that measurements indicate. The radius of the very real RE has nothing to do with your broken map.

Problem #2: how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere without attractive gravity?
RE accepts gravity. It has no reason to reject it.

You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.
The depends on what you mean by "mechanism."
It is explained through the curvature of space time.
It is just as well explained as any other fundamental force.
Meanwhile FE has no explanation for why things fall.

You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.
Pure nonsense.
You do not need a perfect ellipsoid. If you wish to assert such garbage you will need to provide more than your baseless assertions.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.
And another baseless assertion.

So no problem with the map at all, or RE at all.
Just your baseless assertions.

*

sokarul

  • 16098
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2019, 06:09:10 AM »
rabinoz, sandokhan's post is way bigger than yours.

Do you need a fluffer?

A fluffer sucks of camera men who film porn. What does that have to do with this thread?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

rabinoz

  • 22532
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strict debate only with those flatearthers only, who have answers.
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2019, 06:58:07 AM »
rabinoz, sandokhan's post is way bigger than yours.

Do you need a fluffer?
I could pad it out with lots of copy-n-paste ;). Would that help ????