[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Lying about the shape of the world and keeping a global conspiracy of it is very inefficient, think about it, how many shills are required to keep promoting the spherical Earth? How much money the government is paying all of them? Or if just like the wiki claimed that the government only assume the Earth is round because of older works, then wouldn't it be more efficient to admit they don't know the shape where they can get funding to find out? Anyway, the point is any normal person knows the fact regarding the shape of the Earth is something so simple that doesn't need to be hidden upon, but if the world leaders is not that normal persons, how is someone so foolish gain all that power then?

[Rounder]

This point has been debated here before.  However according to the wiki to which RE participants are so often directed:

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy...There is a Space Travel Conspiracy.

For what it's worth, there do seem to be plenty of people in here who recognize that IF the Earth is flat, it seems very unlikely that it would be unknown unless there was an effort made to hide it.  There are simply too many people who would be discovering their RE assumptions failing them.  For example, consider the construction of the laser interferometers used to observe gravitational waves.  Setting aside the science (there is already at least one thread discussing it, let's not rehash it here) it is a very precise instrument.  If the tunnels were built with the Earth's curvature in mind on a flat earth, the lasers would miss their targets.  Therefore, in that case one of two things must be true:
1) They knew beforehand the earth was flat, built the thing with that in mind, and are lying to the world about "taking into consideration the curvature".  Conspiracy!
2) They didn't know, built it as if there was curvature to account for, and have now discovered their error and are keeping it quiet while they wait for their Nobel Prize.  Conspiracy!

[Pete Svarrior]

For example, consider the construction of the laser interferometers used to observe gravitational waves. [...]

Please familiarise yourself with the phenomenon of electromagnetic acceleration.

[rabinoz]

For example, consider the construction of the laser interferometers used to observe gravitational waves. [...]

Please familiarise yourself with the phenomenon of electromagnetic acceleration.

You really are serious? What about a little evidence that such a phenomenon exists?
Mind you it seems to be still the same old thing! The earth looks flat, so we have to bend (literally in this case) everything else to suit.

Even your "dark energy" is just magic conjured to explain UA,
which is just more magic to explain your denial of the Earth's gravitation (gravity),
and this denial is necessary to explain the observed gravity. But, it does not do it convincingly! Real gravity varies with latitude, altitude (as 1/r² where r is the radius from the Earth's centre) and with the proximity to massive objects (gravimetric prospecting).

Yes, I have read up on your wonderful EA! All to explain away the simplicity of the sun actually setting behind the curve of the Globe - simple!

Mind you there is another need for magic (EA) when someone finally realises that at the equinox (on Mar 20) the sun will rise due east everywhere on earth, except at the poles which will have 24 hour daylight. Explain that on the flat earth even with EA and all the other magic you can muster!

All magic and guesswork to explain the first incorrect assumption (the flat earth).

[Pete Svarrior]

What about a little evidence that such a phenomenon exists?

The experiment you yourself described can be performed over a short distance. Unless you account for EAT, you're going to miss the mark.

the sun will rise due east everywhere on earth, except at the poles which will have 24 hour daylight

Incorrect.


The rest of your post consists of several paragraphs which can be summarised as "I disagree with you and I'm very sad about this". I'm not going to waste my time on those until you start behaving in at least a vaguely civil manner.

[rabinoz]

What about a little evidence that such a phenomenon exists?

The experiment you yourself described can be performed over a short distance. Unless you account for EAT, you're going to miss the mark.

I did not describe any experiment, and your EA has to not only bend light some 20° and make it appear to come from behind the horizon, but magnify the sun (up to about 4x) to it appear the same size all day. If not magic, it really is an amazing coincidence!

the sun will rise due east everywhere on earth, except at the poles which will have 24 hour daylight

Incorrect.

And, why do you claim that? You have never tested it! But I dare you to check with all your warrior mates all over the world and see it I'm not right.
Mind you I think flat earthers live on a different earth. Mind you the poles are a little harder to check, but most people find http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/ or http://suncalc.net/ very reliable! But I doubt you would.

The rest of your post consists of several paragraphs which can be summarised as "I disagree with you and I'm very sad about this". I'm not going to waste my time on those until you start behaving in at least a vaguely civil manner.

I am not being civil calling Flat Earth assumptions "magic", but Flat Earthers are quite happy to call gravity magic and denigrate many "scientists" (philosophers or astronomers) in the most disparaging fashion and accuse NASA of everything under the sun.

Still i guess you make the rules. In the long run I could not care less what you think, as long as other readers see both sides.

[Pete Svarrior]

If not magic, it really is an amazing coincidence!

Ah, yes, the "it doesn't sound intuitive so it must be false" argument. I see you're going straight for the religious fundamentalist approach. Good form.

And, why do you claim that? You have never tested it! But I dare you to check with all your warrior mates all over the world and see it I'm not right.

Niiiiice, the "I dare you to prove a negative, and if you can't then I must be right" trope. You're really taking the creationist apologist cake today, aren't you?

Mind you the poles are a little harder to check

Well, at least you understand why your suggestion was shite. That's something.

I am not being civil

Correct.

[andruszkow]

If not magic, it really is an amazing coincidence!

Ah, yes, the "it doesn't sound intuitive so it must be false" argument. I see you're going straight for the religious fundamentalist approach. Good form.

And, why do you claim that? You have never tested it! But I dare you to check with all your warrior mates all over the world and see it I'm not right.

Niiiiice, the "I dare you to prove a negative, and if you can't then I must be right" trope. You're really taking the creationist apologist cake today, aren't you?

Mind you the poles are a little harder to check

Well, at least you understand why your suggestion was shite. That's something.

I am not being civil

Correct.

Don't the rules apply to the admins? Low content post, and it doesn't contribute to the debate. Seems more like a way to avoid the obvious facts rabinoz is throwing at you.

March 20 will supply you with enough "phenomenons" to totally dismiss FET. There's even enough time to coordinate with fellow users globally.

[Pete Svarrior]

Don't the rules apply to the admins?

Sorry, which admins?

Low content post, and it doesn't contribute to the debate.

I respectfully disagree. I'd also recommend that you look at your own posts - something to do with glass houses.

Seems more like a way to avoid the obvious facts rabinoz is throwing at you.

"Obvious facts" such as that rabinoz doesn't like UA and EAT. Awesome debate, 10/10.

March 20 will supply you with enough "phenomenons" to totally dismiss FET. There's even enough time to coordinate with fellow users globally.

There might be enough time for us to coordinate, but there's definitely not enough time for us to overturn the Antarctic Treaty. Not being able to actually access the area of contention is a bit of a big one, don't you think?

[andruszkow]

Don't the rules apply to the admins?

Sorry, which admins?

Low content post, and it doesn't contribute to the debate.

I respectfully disagree. I'd also recommend that you look at your own posts - something to do with glass houses.

Seems more like a way to avoid the obvious facts rabinoz is throwing at you.

"Obvious facts" such as that rabinoz doesn't like UA and EAT. Awesome debate, 10/10.

March 20 will supply you with enough "phenomenons" to totally dismiss FET. There's even enough time to coordinate with fellow users globally.

There might be enough time for us to coordinate, but there's definitely not enough time for us to overturn the Antarctic Treaty. Not being able to actually access the area of contention is a bit of a big one, don't you think?

Again with the arrogant attitude. Classic, and predictable.

You can go to antarctica as much as you want. It's only a question of economics.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

If not magic, it really is an amazing coincidence!

Ah, yes, the "it doesn't sound intuitive so it must be false" argument. I see you're going straight for the religious fundamentalist approach. Good form.

And, why do you claim that? You have never tested it! But I dare you to check with all your warrior mates all over the world and see it I'm not right.

Niiiiice, the "I dare you to prove a negative, and if you can't then I must be right" trope. You're really taking the creationist apologist cake today, aren't you?

Mind you the poles are a little harder to check

Well, at least you understand why your suggestion was shite. That's something.

I am not being civil

Correct.

As a creationist apologist I'm actually offended by the comparison.

Rabidnotes goes on every unrelated thread and copies and pastes the same crap on each one.

Sometimes he centers and bolds what he says

Sometimes he puts a whole shit load of information into a skinny table for some reason But one things for sure, when asked a question that stumps him he agrees it's a good question, then reaches in his trick bag and pastes the innumerous results from all the billions of cavendish experiments as his main gotcha, eventhough it has no bearing on Earth's shape.

[Pete Svarrior]

You can go to antarctica as much as you want.

Incorrect.

Again with the arrogant attitude.

You're one to talk - butting into a discussion with nothing but insults to add, expecting to be taken seriously.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Regarding a conspiracy, who would really even know it besides the actual astronauts, and the owners at the very very very top?

You could work at NASA applying the 12 years of higher education in geodesics and engineering you've obtained and do everything right by the book when preparing the trajectories for putting something into orbit. And when they tell you "Hey great job, you're awesome at what you do, the satellite went up without a hitch!" Are you going to debate them about it? You can't personally verify that it worked, all you see is a rocket launching into the air. You can only assume you're being told the truth. Do you think the guy that counts down from 10 to 1 in monotone has to be in on too?

Also since it seems to be common knowledge that Boeing, Northrup Grumman and the several other contractors make up 90% of NASA, and they get trillions of dollars from our government in the form of military contracts etc. Don't you think they'd have a vested interest in doing whatever they're told as well? Wouldn't be hard to convince them to be "in on it," would it?

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

This point has been debated here before.  However according to the wiki to which RE participants are so often directed:

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy...There is a Space Travel Conspiracy.

Yeah, but smart person that could gain all this power should known to use the advantage of telling the truth to gain more funding of researching the shape of the world they live on, instead of wasting money making propaganda of space travel.

But one things for sure, when asked a question that stumps him he agrees it's a good question, then reaches in his trick bag and pastes the innumerous results from all the billions of cavendish experiments as his main gotcha, eventhough it has no bearing on Earth's shape.

Cavendish experiment is about finding Earth density, it requires the assumption that gravity is the product of attraction between masses, since the experiment give a result of 99% accuracy that couldn't be an accident, either a total hoax or a real success. If you believe the Cavendish experiment did happen as we are told, then gravity which is the product of attraction between mass would pull the Earth into a spherical form should it be a flat world.
If you think the Cavendish experiment is a hoax please dispute this in a new topic.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

This point has been debated here before.  However according to the wiki to which RE participants are so often directed:

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy...There is a Space Travel Conspiracy.

Yeah, but smart person that could gain all this power should known to use the advantage of telling the truth to gain more funding of researching the shape of the world they live on, instead of wasting money making propaganda of space travel.

But one things for sure, when asked a question that stumps him he agrees it's a good question, then reaches in his trick bag and pastes the innumerous results from all the billions of cavendish experiments as his main gotcha, eventhough it has no bearing on Earth's shape.

Cavendish experiment is about finding Earth density, it requires the assumption that gravity is the product of attraction between masses, since the experiment give a result of 99% accuracy that couldn't be an accident, either a total hoax or a real success. If you believe the Cavendish experiment did happen as we are told, then gravity which is the product of attraction between mass would pull the Earth into a spherical form should it be a flat world.
If you think the Cavendish experiment is a hoax please dispute this in a new topic.

Why would gravity pull a flat world into a sphere? Where do you get that information? Is there any experimental evidence to back that up? Or is that just some kind of hypothetical talking point you've assimilated as an original idea?

As for Cavendish style experiments, most, especially the amateur ones are fatally flawed in one way or another. Bottom line is it may or may not measure something. I've seen theories saying it may be an electromagnetic phenomenon or even inverse gravity caused by pressure. Sandokhan has some extremely interesting and well documented theories regarding gravity as well. As with any data it can be interpreted different ways, we just choose to shoe horn it to fit what we want it to fit.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Why would gravity pull a flat world into a sphere? Where do you get that information? Is there any experimental evidence to back that up? Or is that just some kind of hypothetical talking point you've assimilated as an original idea?

From all your previous response, i knew you would start asking stuff like this. But i had high hopes that you really would know this for yourself. *sigh*
Gravity forces everything into a shape that represents the lowest energy state. A cube has corners that have more potential energy than that sides. They would gradually erode to become rounded. There is a certain mass needed to have things become a sphere shape. Asteroids, comets and such can be angular because they are not large enough to experience the same effect as something as large as a planet.

And now before you will response with another question "And why does sphere represent the lowest energy state?" because spheres have no edges, a flat disc does have an edge.
Okay you probably want proof too, crush a soda can or bunch of paper which your hands, what shape is the result?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Why would gravity pull a flat world into a sphere? Where do you get that information? Is there any experimental evidence to back that up? Or is that just some kind of hypothetical talking point you've assimilated as an original idea?

From all your previous response, i knew you would start asking stuff like this. But i had high hopes that you really would know this for yourself. *sigh*
Gravity forces everything into a shape that represents the lowest energy state. A cube has corners that have more potential energy than that sides. They would gradually erode to become rounded. There is a certain mass needed to have things become a sphere shape. Asteroids, comets and such can be angular because they are not large enough to experience the same effect as something as large as a planet.

And now before you will response with another question "And why does sphere represent the lowest energy state?" because spheres have no edges.

Any documented evidence or experiments to attest to this? Or is this purely hypothetical still? Didn't know gravity forced anything to do anything, even in pure logical standpoint it is the attraction of one molecule to another. If you have a disc with a certain thickness, any molecule attracts to any other molecule, at the inverse squared of the distance between them. The molecules on the far edges of a disc would attract to every other molecule that makes up the mass. The molecule at the extreme opposite end of the thick disc, wouldn't want to bend over itself and touch the molecules on the other end of the disc. Without a spherical center, the mass is evenly dispersed. There is just enough chance that the Earth would bend to be concave as to bend and make a near perfect sphere.

Also, as we know our Earth isn't made out of pliable plastic or paper, it is multiple layers or hard stone, crust, iron, magma, giant volumes of water etc. To assume it should just fold in upon itself is illogical, and you still arrive at the same question, how was Earth formed in the first place? Big Bang doesn't have any actual hypothetical mechanism on how a multi layered sphere with varying, yet perfect amounts of periodic chemicals happened to form out of an explosion.

[rabinoz]

Why would gravity pull a flat world into a sphere? Where do you get that information? Is there any experimental evidence to back that up? Or is that just some kind of hypothetical talking point you've assimilated as an original idea?

From all your previous response, i knew you would start asking stuff like this. But i had high hopes that you really would know this for yourself. *sigh*
Gravity forces everything into a shape that represents the lowest energy state. A cube has corners that have more potential energy than that sides. They would gradually erode to become rounded. There is a certain mass needed to have things become a sphere shape. Asteroids, comets and such can be angular because they are not large enough to experience the same effect as something as large as a planet.

And now before you will response with another question "And why does sphere represent the lowest energy state?" because spheres have no edges.

Any documented evidence or experiments to attest to this? Or is this purely hypothetical still? Didn't know gravity forced anything to do anything, even in pure logical standpoint it is the attraction of one molecule to another. If you have a disc with a certain thickness, any molecule attracts to any other molecule, at the inverse squared of the distance between them. The molecules on the far edges of a disc would attract to every other molecule that makes up the mass. The molecule at the extreme opposite end of the thick disc, wouldn't want to bend over itself and touch the molecules on the other end of the disc. Without a spherical center, the mass is evenly dispersed. There is just enough chance that the Earth would bend to be concave as to bend and make a near perfect sphere.

Also, as we know our Earth isn't made out of pliable plastic or paper, it is multiple layers or hard stone, crust, iron, magma, giant volumes of water etc. To assume it should just fold in upon itself is illogical, and you still arrive at the same question, how was Earth formed in the first place? Big Bang doesn't have any actual hypothetical mechanism on how a multi layered sphere with varying, yet perfect amounts of periodic chemicals happened to form out of an explosion.

I don't know what the point of discussing anything with you. You question gravity, so I quote the Cavendish Experiment and say that it has been repeated dozens (that might have been the word), so you come back with:

But one things for sure, when asked a question that stumps him he agrees it's a good question, then reaches in his trick bag and pastes the innumerous results from all the billions of cavendish experiments as his main gotcha, eventhough it has no bearing on Earth's shape.

billions of cavendish experiments

[/size]
What is the point? You claim that you are not pushing for a flat earth, yet every word you utter (slight exaggeration - but you have been know for that) is trying to cut down the globe!

Do you believe in anything - doesn't look like it.

You happily dismiss gravitation, even though verified billions of times (you said it) you go along with the stuff Sandokhan (and Mathis) presented that has not been verified. 

In other words it does not matter what the evidence is, if it goes against your ideas it must be wrong, but if it reinforces you ideas, then it MUST be right - brainwashed?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

What does the experiment have to do with the shape of the Earth? Nothing. Do you agree with your buddy that gravity would make any object a sphere?

My only agenda is to point out the absurdity in trusting in cosmology that revises itself every 100 years or so. I know you wont know how much of a dickhead people will think you are then, but it's probably similar to how contemporary science scoffs at luminiforous æther, and the way doctors used to scoff at the notion of something as obvious as washing his hands, and for relevance sake, the way people would laugh at you if you said the earth was a round ball at one point. Quest for knowledge is a never ending, but I get the impression some people here think we're done.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Didn't know gravity forced anything to do anything

You forgot, in Newtonian gravity[1] that mass accelerate other mass, hence it force all particle with mass to accelerate towards the center of mass.

Also, as we know our Earth isn't made out of pliable plastic or paper, it is multiple layers or hard stone, crust, iron, magma, giant volumes of water etc.

Irrelevant on something very massive and dense

To assume it should just fold in upon itself is illogical

But it doesn't fold itself "compressed" into a sphere is a more correct term. Also the Earth didn't form as a flat disc in the first place.

Big Bang doesn't have any actual hypothetical mechanism on how a multi layered sphere with varying, yet perfect amounts of periodic chemicals happened to form out of an explosion.

A common creationist mistake to attempt disprove complicated stuff by the Big bang, the reason the Earth is denser in the center is because of buoyancy[2], the heavier iron will fall to the center of mass and the lighter element to the crust.

[1] General relative refined that gravity is actually not a force, but a result of bent spacetime. But this is irrelevant in the current discussion since we're arguing about Newtonian gravity.

[2] You know how buoyancy works, so i expect no question regarding of buoyancy in spheres.