Before I typed this debate I did not have a full grasp on the theories of Flat Earth. Now that I have a better understanding of the basics, I can see how some of my points are easily refutable (in theory). One basic question I still have however, is that you accept there's a horizon and that the sun "goes down", correct? Why does it appear as if the sun is "going down", when in your model of Earth, the sun is actually just moving out of view as it circles above Flat Earth? Optical illusion? Magic?
No, the sun is a spotlight. It shines a down illuminating a set area. If you are outside the spotlight, you can't see the sun ie it is night. Light is two-way. If you can't see it, it can't shine on you. Sunset is merely the sun no longer shining on you.
Excuse the crudity of the diagram. The spotlight would be much larger and the moon does not track directly opposite all the time.
Also, Not every observable planet (to us) has life on it, but theoretically there are many planets in the universe with life on them and they too are most likely round.
Theoretically? According to whose theory? According to flat earth theory there are many planets out there that must be flat. But they are just as hard to find as ones with life on them.
Since many of you have acknowledged the existence of other planets in this thread and you seem to agree that they are spherical (because they are observable to the naked eye with a telescope; its hard to refute).... then the method in which these other spherical planets were formed is in question under Flat Earth theory, and frankly causes a large hole in the FE theory.
Flat is a very good shape for celestial things. The solar system is a flat disk. The rings of Saturn form flat disks. In fact
the entire universe is flat. Flat is a great shape for anything that forms with high inertial energy. We know that the earth was hit by another body early in its life (its thought that is what created to moon). Its entirely possible that impact caused a huge amount of spin which flattened the earth out due to centripetal forces (much more powerful than gravity as the solar system shows. Its not ball shaped either).
As we all know from basic Middle School science class:
Yes, round earth indoctrination starts early.
The force of gravity pulled molten material inwards towards the planet's center into the shape of a sphere. Later, when the planets cooled, they stayed spherical, of course planets are not perfectly spherical because they also spin, but... for these to exist then gravity must exist. I have read in the FAQS that many of you stand by the theory that the Earth itself is moving upward at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). If gravity exists (since we know it does because of the existence of other spherical planets), then why is the Flat Earth not affected by gravity's influence? Once again, what makes Earth so special that it exists outside laws that obviously effect every other planet in our solar system?
When you look at theories on gravity not existing, you need to look at what drives the heavens instead. If you go back to your hero Aristotle, he theorised that the universe consisted of
47 prime movers. Celestial gears if you will, that drove the planets, moons, sun, etc this ties in with a theory of a
clockwork universe, a metaphor for determinism and also spawns theories such as deism. I am a deist, and so this theory is close to my heart. Its a good fit for me.