I'm an "RE" but how do you debate this?
« on: January 18, 2018, 07:37:26 PM »
1. How can planes go from Europe or Asia to America without crossing the Atlantic Ocean, It'd be impossible if the Earth was flat to do that?
2. It's not prohibited to go to Antartica, you can go with exploration purposes. The treaty prohibits military use in Antartica. You can just go to Antartica for yourself and see there is no giant ice wall.
3. How do you explain the moon, stars, and other planets are round. You can get a telescope and see for yourself that the moon and other planets are spheres.
4. It's impossible for the Earth to be flat because of gravity. An object this size will collapse on itself because of the size.
5. If gravity doesn't exist how can you explain that in vacuum where there is no air, objects still fall and how can you explain that objects that are denser than others would fall faster because they are denser.

Re: I'm an "RE" but how do you debate this?
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2018, 08:16:04 PM »
1. How can planes go from Europe or Asia to America without crossing the Atlantic Ocean, It'd be impossible if the Earth was flat to do that?
2. It's not prohibited to go to Antartica, you can go with exploration purposes. The treaty prohibits military use in Antartica. You can just go to Antartica for yourself and see there is no giant ice wall.
3. How do you explain the moon, stars, and other planets are round. You can get a telescope and see for yourself that the moon and other planets are spheres.
4. It's impossible for the Earth to be flat because of gravity. An object this size will collapse on itself because of the size.
5. If gravity doesn't exist how can you explain that in vacuum where there is no air, objects still fall and how can you explain that objects that are denser than others would fall faster because they are denser.

All of these topics have been addressed multiple times over and can be searched for within the forum. There is not really a single flat theory, but generally speaking, most would would provide the following refutations.

1. The GPS makes the pilots think the Earth is sphere and makes them fly along a longer route that takes them over the Atlantic.
2. Google some pics taken from the Ocean, sure looks like an ice wall to me. There maybe exploration to the Antarctic, but those are only just beyond the edge, even the ones to the 'South Pole' are merely to a spot were they are 'told' it's the South Pole.
3. The Earth is not a planet, it is a plane, and therefore no expectation that it should look like something it is not.
4. There is no gravity, the force of acceleration you feel is UA accelerating the disc of Earth upwards at 9.8 m/s2. Local variations in that force are cause by Celestial Gravitation (not to be confused with a force of attraction between two massive bodies).
5. Those object are not falling, the Earth is accelerating toward them.


On a side note:

You are absolutely mistaken about an object of higher density falling faster in a vacuum. Gravity accelerates all objects at the same rate, regardless of mass or density. This can be seen in the equation describing gravitational attraction between two masses (EFE reduces to Newtonian Gravity where the gravitational field is weak and velocities are much less than the speed of light.):

 F=G((m1 X m2) / r2)

As you can see, the volume of the masses is not a factor.

Macarios

Re: I'm an "RE" but how do you debate this?
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2018, 05:58:51 AM »
1. How can planes go from Europe or Asia to America without crossing the Atlantic Ocean, It'd be impossible if the Earth was flat to do that?
2. It's not prohibited to go to Antartica, you can go with exploration purposes. The treaty prohibits military use in Antartica. You can just go to Antartica for yourself and see there is no giant ice wall.
3. How do you explain the moon, stars, and other planets are round. You can get a telescope and see for yourself that the moon and other planets are spheres.
4. It's impossible for the Earth to be flat because of gravity. An object this size will collapse on itself because of the size.
5. If gravity doesn't exist how can you explain that in vacuum where there is no air, objects still fall and how can you explain that objects that are denser than others would fall faster because they are denser.

All of these topics have been addressed multiple times over and can be searched for within the forum. There is not really a single flat theory, but generally speaking, most would would provide the following refutations.

1. The GPS makes the pilots think the Earth is sphere and makes them fly along a longer route that takes them over the Atlantic.
2. Google some pics taken from the Ocean, sure looks like an ice wall to me. There maybe exploration to the Antarctic, but those are only just beyond the edge, even the ones to the 'South Pole' are merely to a spot were they are 'told' it's the South Pole.
3. The Earth is not a planet, it is a plane, and therefore no expectation that it should look like something it is not.
4. There is no gravity, the force of acceleration you feel is UA accelerating the disc of Earth upwards at 9.8 m/s2. Local variations in that force are cause by Celestial Gravitation (not to be confused with a force of attraction between two massive bodies).
5. Those object are not falling, the Earth is accelerating toward them.


On a side note:

You are absolutely mistaken about an object of higher density falling faster in a vacuum. Gravity accelerates all objects at the same rate, regardless of mass or density. This can be seen in the equation describing gravitational attraction between two masses (EFE reduces to Newtonian Gravity where the gravitational field is weak and velocities are much less than the speed of light.):

 F=G((m1 X m2) / r2)

As you can see, the volume of the masses is not a factor.

1. The GPS also makes airplanes think the Earth is sphere and make them use less fuel along those "longer routes".
2. Flat Earth believers never accept pictures unless they "prove" what they want. You can find ice walls few kilometers long in Arctic too, but they are "fake".
3. The Earth is not a planet, it is just snow globe. Inept God couldn't reach more than 50 000 miles or so. He is also old, and couldn't see well, so he made Earth different.
4. You can measure difference in acceleration between poles and Equator. Poles 9.83 m/s2, Equator 9.78. That is why UA after only two hours made mountains 1296 kilometers high on poles.
5. The objects are not falling. If nearest planet or asteroid is close enough it accelerates towards them.

Side note is ok. In vacuum speed of fall depends only on acceleration, not on mass/weight.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: I'm an "RE" but how do you debate this?
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2018, 03:47:01 PM »
1. The GPS also makes airplanes think the Earth is sphere and make them use less fuel along those "longer routes".
2. Flat Earth believers never accept pictures unless they "prove" what they want. You can find ice walls few kilometers long in Arctic too, but they are "fake".
3. The Earth is not a planet, it is just snow globe. Inept God couldn't reach more than 50 000 miles or so. He is also old, and couldn't see well, so he made Earth different.
4. You can measure difference in acceleration between poles and Equator. Poles 9.83 m/s2, Equator 9.78. That is why UA after only two hours made mountains 1296 kilometers high on poles.
5. The objects are not falling. If nearest planet or asteroid is close enough it accelerates towards them.

Side note is ok. In vacuum speed of fall depends only on acceleration, not on mass/weight.

You have been warned by me once, and reminded by another member that you are intentionally misrepresenting the FET model supported here. Consider this another warning. Next one is a short ban, followed by longer bans.

Re: I'm an "RE" but how do you debate this?
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2018, 09:36:18 PM »
1. The GPS also makes airplanes think the Earth is sphere and make them use less fuel along those "longer routes".
2. Flat Earth believers never accept pictures unless they "prove" what they want. You can find ice walls few kilometers long in Arctic too, but they are "fake".
3. The Earth is not a planet, it is just snow globe. Inept God couldn't reach more than 50 000 miles or so. He is also old, and couldn't see well, so he made Earth different.
4. You can measure difference in acceleration between poles and Equator. Poles 9.83 m/s2, Equator 9.78. That is why UA after only two hours made mountains 1296 kilometers high on poles.
5. The objects are not falling. If nearest planet or asteroid is close enough it accelerates towards them.

Side note is ok. In vacuum speed of fall depends only on acceleration, not on mass/weight.

You have been warned by me once, and reminded by another member that you are intentionally misrepresenting the FET model supported here. Consider this another warning. Next one is a short ban, followed by longer bans.
How do you explain planes using less fuel along these 'longer' routes?

If the Earth is constantly accelerating, why haven't we left the stars and other planets behind?  Anyone with a halfway good telescope can see Jupiter and Venus.  Heck, on a clear night you can see them with the naked eye.  In fact, why is it that the constellations come back to the same configurations at the same time every year?  You know, as if we'd just completed a trip around the sun?

As for that matter, why is it that on a flat earth we'd only have one hemisphere (above the disc) to show of night sky, whereas we have northern and southern hemisphere starfields which have been exhaustively plotted?

Why do the stars turn around a single point when filmed with a time-lapse camera?  (I can take a photo and prove it if you want).


JohnAdams1145

Re: I'm an "RE" but how do you debate this?
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2018, 01:50:16 AM »
ack1308,

The FE community has not decided on an accepted map with consistent distance measurements; to do this, they would need to agree on which distances to accept, which is a rather tedious process, as they expect a lot out of the measurements, which become loathsome to do on an individual level to the required degree of precision (they don't trust GPS which has already done the measurements).

To us Round Earth people, it's obvious why it's impossible to construct a flat map: enough distance measurements proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is round. Therefore, it's fallacious to refer to the AE map and use it to disprove Flat Earth; many of them also admit that it's wrong and more work needs to be done to get a consistent map (of course, I've stated the RE opinion on the feasibility of consistency).

To address your acceleration point, the entire observable Universe accelerates with the Earth; however, the Earth shields us from the mysterious force that accelerates everything else, allowing us to be accelerated by the surface normal force of the Earth and for us to perceive weight and gravity. They invoke Einstein's equivalence principle (although they reject GR as a whole, it's not fallacious to use parts of RE theory) to show that no experiments can differentiate between a "downward" force on all of us and such acceleration. However, I prefer to interpret this invocation of Einstein's equivalence principle differently (I'll disclaim here that I know close to nothing about GR, besides some of the math used for it). Their model makes exactly the same predictions as one in which there is a magical force (violating the isotropy of space) pulling only those dwelling near a large, flat mass like the Earth "downward."

Now, the explanations tendered for the various effects explained by RE as the results of us sitting in a non-inertial reference frame (i.e. a spinning ball) are the variants of gravitation that FE accepts ("celestial gravitation"). Tom Bishop himself has stated that gravitation is what makes Foucault pendulums precess (it's on the wiki as well). Of course, if one does the mathematics on such things, one realizes that there actually need to be several, some arbitrarily applied, forces to correct for the vastly differing effects (distant stars on a pendulum, local variations in Earth's gravity); I do not know whether FE accepts this conclusion, and I don't claim to speak for them, but I do know that it is mathematically entailed from the assumption that "celestial gravitation" corrects for certain effects.

However, the most obvious failing of UA, to me, is the fact that the other planets are round. Again, I'm no authoritative expert on the FE hypothesis, but I believe they concede that their roundness is due to "celestial gravitation"; however, under UA + celestial gravitation, we'd actually see the other planets considerably flatter in the UA direction of acceleration, as the hypothesis is that the Earth's mass shields us from UA. Why shouldn't some of the mass of the other planets shield them as well? This would result in the downward (inward) gravitational force trying to pull everything together, but UA pushing on one axis in an imbalanced fashion. It's sort of like kicking a round football; while it is accelerating, you can see it flattens a bit. Of course, if FE acknowledges we can launch rockets to these planets, then a simple measurement of weight with the normal parallel to the direction of UA and another measurement with the normal orthogonal to the direction of UA will easily disprove the FE hypothesis. Then again, one could just turn the probe's camera toward Earth.

Of course, then there's always the Cavendish Experiment. FE can assert that gravity (an attraction between massive objects) is much weaker than we currently believe, but they have to give a reason why it deviates from the experimentally verified on a small scale F = (Gm1m2)/r^2 when the masses and radii get large. There is no satisfactory explanation. This experiment has been repeated enough that simply calling it "fake" is not enough.

I know nothing about the stars in the sky, so I won't address this point.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 01:58:04 AM by JohnAdams1145 »