More evidence why the earth is a freaking round ball.

Ok retards let me settle this once and for all.

You think the earth is fact despite the given evidence of gravity.
You clame you can only see the earth is flat given the fact you can only see flat infront of you, this is disproved by being higher in the air, allowing to see a curve in the horison.
Also, satalites rotate around the earth taking pictures, showing indeed the earth is flat.

Throwing all that out the window, just for shits and giggles, let's say all of the previously stated evidence is just not there.

We know for a SOLID UNQUESTIONABLE ACT that the moon is a fucking sphere. So are all the other planets, and the Sun too. So, you're telling me that you think all the other planets out there are spheres, but we're a fucking flat disc?

Come on.

I think this website is fake just to give people who have a brain heart trouble.

You think the earth is fact despite the given evidence of gravity.

I'm not sure if I got you wrong here, but gravity does not prove anything to be round.

You clame you can only see the earth is flat given the fact you can only see flat infront of you, this is disproved by being higher in the air, allowing to see a curve in the horison.

You can also see this effect on sea level, the classic example of a boat sinking below the horizon.

Throwing all that out the window, just for shits and giggles, let's say all of the previously stated evidence is just not there.

We know for a SOLID UNQUESTIONABLE ACT that the moon is a fucking sphere.

Actually, if we are to throw away everything that proves this (satellites etc), what do we get? We get a round-looking thing up there, always facing the same side towards us. That's what we can see. And if we threw away all the equipment to prove the moon is round, how can this be an "unquestionable fact"?

So are all the other planets, and the Sun too. So, you're telling me that you think all the other planets out there are spheres, but we're a fucking flat disc?

Why would everything have to be the same? Earth has water, something which (as far as I know) have not yet been found on another planet or on the moon. So there is no running water out there, but it is here? Now how can that be?

I think this website is fake just to give people who have a brain heart trouble.

That's no excuse to be a jackass.

Experiments in space have shown that matter will attempt to form the simplest shape in a weightless environment:
 Liquids under the influence of their own gravity form into spheres... Or is that using one wrong argument to prove another?

At times different parts of the moon are visible to us: A small proportion at either "edge" is sometimes in light & sometimes in shade. Answer: It's a sphere that wobbles slightly on it's axis. Although the majority of the same side faces us all the time, not all of it does.
Ps - there are pics from the far side, you know.

Water _has_ been found on other planets, particularly Mars. One of it's icecaps is frozen water (while the other is solid Carbon Dioxide). There may be some water in the Venutian atmosphere & it's likely that the larger gas giants have water vapour somewhere in their 'atmospheres'.

I will admit that the first poster was a bit of an arse in his line of argument though.

Your turn.

"pics from the far side" - come on it all looks the same

I offer you evidence the earth is round. The only thing you offer is that you can't see it's round (because duh, you have human eyes.)

Let me give you an example. Get a really big ball and hold it right infront of your eyes. Yeah, it looks flat. Pull it away, yep, it's a sphere.

Anyways. Back to the main point. Your evidence is no evidence which isn't a point/case/fact at all.

You figure you could at least say "We found the edge of the world, Jimmy fell off it the other day" Some sort of proof.

While we do have people that have gone AROUND the world, you know, minus the part where he fell off. You can't argue that.. some guy goes one direction the entire time and ends back where he is. Round.

Last post here cause I seriously think this is a big joke. No one is really this stupid. :shock:

widget, you're correct, no argument there.

jgoogz

The only thing you offer is that you can't see it's round
...
Your evidence is no evidence which isn't a point/case/fact at all.

Au contraire. I haven't offered a single piece of evidence whatsoever.

While we do have people that have gone AROUND the world, you know, minus the part where he fell off. You can't argue that

And I didn't argue that.

Edited to add:
widget, what I meant was running water, which wasn't obvious, I agree.
Also, as far as the moon goes, there are pics of the other side. But the original point was that we see that it's round. Sure, someone who looks at the moon fairly often does notice a difference in the wobble, but that's not true for the common person (I've never even thought about it until I learned it in school). Call it nit-picking, because it probably is.

Also, it's wonderful that I always know what to post AFTER I've posted  :roll:

This entire argument is fairly one sided, mostly because the people defending the flat earth theory seem mentally handicapped.

widget, you're correct, no argument there.

He was just proving that you were wrong.  If you agree with him, you've invalidated your previous post, and should probably just concede that the earth is spherical, but no, you go on:

Au contraire. I haven't offered a single piece of evidence whatsoever.

Good for you, you're an idiot! If you can't offer evidence to back your statements up, you should shut up, because you're statements aren't worth making.

Quote

While we do have people that have gone AROUND the world, you know, minus the part where he fell off. You can't argue that

And I didn't argue that.

He's saying you can't argue against his point, not that you did.  Apparantly you can't argue in english either.

widget, what I meant was running water, which wasn't obvious, I agree.

Ok, so now you're disagreeing with widget, who you said you agreed with at the beigining.  But the fact of the matter is: it makes no difference whether the water is running or not, the substance is there, it's merely our proximity to the sun which causes us to have running water, so the "point" you made in your first post is invalid.

Also, as far as the moon goes, there are pics of the other side. But the original point was that we see that it's round. Sure, someone who looks at the moon fairly often does notice a difference in the wobble, but that's not true for the common person (I've never even thought about it until I learned it in school). Call it nit-picking, because it probably is.

No, the entire point was that it appears round from any angle, meaning it must be a sphere.  But you  decided to try to be clever and state : "if we are to throw away everything that proves this (satellites etc), what do we get? We get a round-looking thing up there, always facing the same side towards us. That's what we can see. And if we threw away all the equipment to prove the moon is round, how can this be an "unquestionable fact"? "
Which could almost be a valid point, if he had ever stated that we'd throw away everything to prove that the moon is round, except he didn't he said we'd throw away

You think the earth is fact despite the given evidence of gravity.
You clame you can only see the earth is flat given the fact you can only see flat infront of you, this is disproved by being higher in the air, allowing to see a curve in the horison.
Also, satalites rotate around the earth taking pictures, showing indeed the earth is flat.

That evidence, take a telescope (something he didn't mention), and you can still observe that the moon is round.  And then you concede that we have pictures of the dark side, and that, yes, they also show the moon to be round. Proving his original point.

Don't argue with him if you agree you idiot, and especially not if you can't back up your horribly flawed points

Hmm some people got angry on my behalf.

I don't really think I have anything else to add.

I think I was taken in by some amusing people actually, because I find it unlikely that anyone will be so narrow minded now adays.

Fair play, I'm sure I'd find it funny to seemingly get on someone's tits so much. I think a few of you are getting angry when you should just say "meh... them's idiots."

I thought there would be far more religious zeal on this forum though...

At the ends of the Earth are warps. They bring you to the other side.

lol widget, he didnt get angry, if he were angry he would say " YOUR A STUPID ASSHAT SO SHUT UP< I AM RIGHT U ARE WRONG BLAH BLAH BLAH", instead he eloquently made an intellegent arguement, which you do not have the capacity to stand up to. how can u tell he is angry(edit: and what is he angry about, is he angry that you undeniably pwned his logic and thinking, and hes just upset that he doesnt want to accept the world is actually flat?) he may have used harsh words but that doesnt mean he is angry, i use curse words all the time, or is it the tonal inflection in his voice? oh wait we're just reading text.

he doesnt want to accept the world is actually flat

finally, looks like someone has been enlightened

how did you manage to misspell argument after spelling the word eloquently correctly?

this has turned more from a place for "serious discussion on a serious subject" to grammar school. who gives a shit that i mispelled arguement, were u still able to read it no problem, it was like spelled "rquemant" or some crap. and when i was saying that 6strings is upset and doesnt want to admit the truth, i was being full-heartedly sarcastic, you guys cant seem to rebuttle his arguement, and the only way you can rebuttle with me is point out incorrect spelling. look asshats i am still a kid, but even at my young age i am probably alot more intellegent than you. the fact of spelling being incorrect is minor, as the point is clearly made. if i wanted to be critisized on spelling id go to the Spelling and Grammar forums.

This entire argument is fairly one sided, mostly because the people defending the flat earth theory seem mentally handicapped.

Quote

widget, you're correct, no argument there.

He was just proving that you were wrong.  If you agree with him, you've invalidated your previous post, and should probably just concede that the earth is spherical, but no, you go on:

I do admit his arguments are, as far as I can see, valid. However, I had slept for about 5 hours previous week, so I wasn't thinking straight at the time. widget and I are (at least as far as I can tell), not speaking about the exact same arguments.

Good for you, you're an idiot!

That's rich, but unfortunately a fallacy (ad hominem).

If you can't offer evidence to back your statements up, you should shut up, because you're statements aren't worth making.

I didn't offer evidence to back my statements up, simply because I didn't make any statements.

Quote

Quote

While we do have people that have gone AROUND the world, you know, minus the part where he fell off. You can't argue that

And I didn't argue that.

He's saying you can't argue against his point, not that you did.  Apparantly you can't argue in english either.

As far as English goes, want me to start with your grammatical errors?

Quote

widget, what I meant was running water, which wasn't obvious, I agree.

Ok, so now you're disagreeing with widget, who you said you agreed with at the beigining.

I never said I agreed with him, I said that there was nothing wrong with his arguments. Apparently, you can't argue in English, so that makes two of us. Also, this was edited in afterwards, when I had cleared my head a bit (remember I told you about my lack of sleep), and I didn't want to change the original post, so I just added some extra at the end.

But the fact of the matter is: it makes no difference whether the water is running or not, the substance is there, it's merely our proximity to the sun which causes us to have running water, so the "point" you made in your first post is invalid.

Like I said, the point I was making might not have been clear (that what I actually meant was running water, which so far has not been found on any other planet). My point still stands.

No, the entire point was that it appears round from any angle, meaning it must be a sphere.

Yes, but we "threw all of that out the window", which means we can't see it from any other angle than from earth, meaning we have but one side to play with.

But you  decided to try to be clever and state : "if we are to throw away everything that proves this (satellites etc), what do we get? We get a round-looking thing up there, always facing the same side towards us. That's what we can see. And if we threw away all the equipment to prove the moon is round, how can this be an "unquestionable fact"? "
Which could almost be a valid point, if he had ever stated that we'd throw away everything to prove that the moon is round, except he didn't he said we'd throw away

Maybe you missed this quote?

Ok retards let me settle this once and for all.

You think the earth is fact despite the given evidence of gravity.
You clame you can only see the earth is flat given the fact you can only see flat infront of you, this is disproved by being higher in the air, allowing to see a curve in the horison.
Also, satalites rotate around the earth taking pictures, showing indeed the earth is flat.

Throwing all that out the window, just for shits and giggles, let's say all of the previously stated evidence is just not there.

I've highlighted the parts you might have missed, for your convenience.

Quote

You thinkthe earth is fact despite the given evidence of gravity.
You clame you can only see the earth is flat given the fact you can only see flat infront of you, this is disproved by being higher in the air, allowing to see a curve in the horison.
Also, satalites rotate around the earth taking pictures, showing indeed the earth is flat.

That evidence, take a telescope (something he didn't mention), and you can still observe that the moon is round.   And then you concede that we have pictures of the dark side, and that, yes, they also show the moon to be round. Proving his original point.

Yes, but like you've already seen by now, we've "thrown all that out the window, just for shits and giggles", so we don't have telescopes nor pics of the dark side. Now what?

Don't argue with him if you agree you idiot

Why not? Also, that's another ad hom. Be a grown up and leave the name calling out of this.

and especially not if you can't back up your horribly flawed points

I've backed it up now. You're welcome.

I thought there would be far more religious zeal on this forum though...

I'm not very religious, but feel free to continue the discussion anyways.

I thought there would be far more religious zeal on this forum though...

I wish there was. That would entertain me.

Alright, Major Tom, a few things:
1) You clearly don't understand ad hominem, when I said "Good for you, you're an idiot", I wasn't using it to invalidate your argument, and it therefore isn't ad hominem.

Maybe you need a bit of a refresher course.
Ad hominem would be something like this:
You: The earth is round
Me: No, you're wrong because you're an idiot

The fact that you're an idiot doesn't invalidate your opinion, and I never stated it did, I said you were an idiot and went on to explain why, you then took that out of context and decided it was ad hominem, when it wasn't.

Next:

I didn't offer evidence to back my statements up, simply because I didn't make any statements

If you didn't make any statements, then why are you even bothering to say anything? If you make no statements and provide no proof, you haven't done anything, so logically, one of your statements must be false, as we can see that you have, in fact, said something.

As far as English goes, want me to start with your grammatical errors?

I would love that, and it's not your grammar I'm calling into question, but your ability to understand what he's saying.

I never said I agreed with him, I said that there was nothing wrong with his arguments.

Arguing semantics won't get you anywhere, especially when the semantics are flawed.  If you don't find a flaw in his arguments, you have no choice but to agree with his, and your edit was more of an addendum than anything, and I believe I also commented on it as well.

Like I said, the point I was making might not have been clear (that what I actually meant was running water, which so far has not been found on any other planet). My point still stands.

No, your point doesn't stand, because, as I said before, the substance, H2O is there, the only difference between it and the running water on earth is the temperature, which is simply a result of proximity to the sun.  The fact remains that the substance is there, it makes no difference what state it's in.  Simply reiterating your point doesn't mean it still stands.

Quote

jgoogz wrote:
Ok retards let me settle this once and for all.

You think the earth is fact despite the given evidence of gravity.
You clame you can only see the earth is flat given the fact you can only see flat infront of you, this is disproved by being higher in the air, allowing to see a curve in the horison.
Also, satalites rotate around the earth taking pictures, showing indeed the earth is flat.

Throwing all that out the window, just for shits and giggles, let's say all of the previously stated evidence is just not there.

I've highlighted the parts you might have missed, for your convenience.

Alright, clearly you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you.  I even clearly stated what he said was

You think the earth is fact despite the given evidence of gravity.
You clame you can only see the earth is flat given the fact you can only see flat infront of you, this is disproved by being higher in the air, allowing to see a curve in the horison.
Also, satalites rotate around the earth taking pictures, showing indeed the earth is flat.

This doesn't constitute everything that we could use to prove the moon's roundness, such as telescopes and eclipses.  All we've thrown away is: evidence of gravity, the fact that at higher altitudes, we see a curve on the horizon, and satelites.  Nothing else, did you perhaps miss that?  Should I highlight it all in bold "for your convinience"?

Quote

Don't argue with him if you agree you idiot

Why not? Also, that's another ad hom. Be a grown up and leave the name calling out of this.

Again, not ad hom. because I'm not using it to disprove your point, and if you agree with him, arguing with him is pointless.  Especially since you're not actually pointing out any flaws with his argument.

This has to be for some class or something somewhere. No chance people can be this stupid.  Seriously.

You're all just wasting your time trying to convince these guys the earth is actually a sphere.  So don't bother.

Bye flat-earthers, it was.. intresting to say the least.

Good joke/test/whateverthehellthisis.

6strings, I like you but I would definitely leave this website as fast as you can. These guys have to be joking around.

If the earth is flat, we stay on it because its travelling upwards, now if this is the case, you must believe that other planets can be spherical and have gravity and physics much like round earth scientist believe in, AND if they stay in our view they must be travelling upwards too and if only disc planets existed the storms of jupiter would would be left behind as it moved up itself.
And the fire of the sun would leave a tail like comets do pretty much killing us

Or, other planets and the sun are a total illusion...

I tried humour, that didn't work, so there was a serious question so answer it.

i think i read somewhere that the flat earthers believe that the sun is cold but that our atmosphere convert the electromagnetic waves into "hot" rays of light. what's worse is that i read that they think the sun is 11 miles away from earth. i smoke a lot of weed and my friend does LSD but nothing could fuck me up enough to have flat-earth logic.

If I was gonna make something like this up i'd put the sun atleast 50million miles away