[Tom Bishop]

In the suggestions forum there is discussion to turn the upper level forums into a debate club, and get away from the current "ask the experts" theme. There aren't many FE'ers to debate against and it just creates a forum full of dead threads. Some doubt that people would participate, however.

Personally, I feel that the people coming here have at least some interest in the topic, and that doing this will create more interesting, self sustaining discussions.

Imagine that this message was at the top of the present day forums:

Welcome to the Debate Club

The top level Flat Earth Discussion Forums are a Debate Club. As in any debate club, the goal is to exercise your ability in debate to poke holes in arguments and expose weaknesses, even if you do not believe in that position yourself. Keep in mind that this is a friendly debate. Post in the Flat Earth Debate Club and join the fun!

Would you ever consider making an argument in favor of Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

See the thread in Suggestions & Concerns that started this off.

[Max_Almond]

I've argued in favour of a flat earth in real life, and it's pretty good fun.

It's also fairly easy, since most people don't know the right questions to ask.

It only gets tricky when someone asks a good question.

So though I'm tempted to say "yes", given that I would expect good questions to be asked here, I'm gonna have to go with "no".

I'll have a debate with you though, Tom, from the opposite side, if you're up for it.

[Max_Almond]

Go on then: I'll start.

The Earth is flat. You've been lied to. Research it and you'll see that I'm right.

[rabinoz]

Go on then: I'll start.

The Earth is flat. You've been lied to. Research it and you'll see that I'm right.

You claim that the earth is flat.
How then do you explain how to sun and moon both seem to rise from behind something and set behind something?

[Tom Bishop]

I would be happy to debate from the other side. I can pose questions where the theory is weak and we can think up a good explanation for it, which we can post in the wiki to build up and better our arguments. And isn't that a good thing?

If you are serious about this and promise not to troll, and to think up genuine responses, then sure, I would engage with you in that. Differences aside, I am interested in what kind of arguments or rational you would make for some of these topics.

Don't we all want to see some good arguments for this topic?

Start a new thread on that, Max, and we can start. I will post where things are the weakest. This thread was mainly to gauge participation interest.

[Tumeni]

I will post where things are the weakest.

Whenever your're ready ...

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Will you be deleting this thread if you get enough yeses? Otherwise it kind of gives the game away?

I wouldn’t mind butting in now and then when a RE’er was either wrong or being a dick and playing a flatty, but I don’t think I could do it for long, unless I could continually state, “because Sam says so” or ask over and over for proof we aren’t in a RE matrix, when does it become trolling if you are asking us to basically troll?
If I set up an Alt’ that was Inti-like or pasted reams of gobbledegook a la Sandy, would you ask me to represent more the position of this site? If so I have a few questions.

[Tom Bishop]

The argument of "Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied the matter, look at his study, he says that perspective is the cause" is an appeal to an authority. Is that really any different than one million appeals to "wikipedia said so" we see posted on the forum anyway?

When Rowbotham's study is questioned and it is asserted that the sun would never set on a flat earth the debator can just simply say "But how did the Ancient Greeks know that perspective lines receded infinitely into the distance without touching when they came up with their perspective theory?"

That puts the onus back onto the person asking the question (that Ancient Greek question is something I have never seen a good answer to).

We just need to put a little effort into this and we will have some good and interesting conversations. Some people will troll (as they always will), but some people will actually engage and think of something to move the conversation forward.

The current "ask the experts" theme is a bad one. There aren't enough participating FE'ers. These debates can't be held up waiting on me to join in. Right?

[edby]

"But how did the Ancient Greeks know that perspective lines receded infinitely into the distance when they came up with their perspective theory?"
That puts the onus back onto the person asking the question (that Ancient Greek question is something I have never seen a good answer to).

Euclid's geometry answers the question perfectly well under his definition of 'parallel line' and any reasonable definition of 'perspective line'.

[Tom Bishop]

"But how did the Ancient Greeks know that perspective lines receded infinitely into the distance when they came up with their perspective theory?"
That puts the onus back onto the person asking the question (that Ancient Greek question is something I have never seen a good answer to).

Euclid's geometry answers the question perfectly well under his definition of 'parallel line' and any reasonable definition of 'perspective line'.

Yeah, that's his theory, but how did he KNOW that the perspective lines were infinite and never touched? What experiment did he do?

Some pressing questions brings us into some interesting topics to discuss.

We don't need to be waiting for me to appear to continue these conversations. I feel that the people here are smart and clever enough to maintain these conversations on their own.

[AATW]

Yeah, that's his theory, but how did he KNOW that the perspective lines were infinite and never touched? What experiment did he do?

What experiment do you think is possible over infinite distances? The actual answer is you don't need to do an experiment, you just need to understand that a triangle where two of the points are a fixed distance apart remains a triangle (i.e the angle at the third point is > 0) no matter how far those two points is from the third. This is self evident, it doesn't need rigorous proof.

So yeah, it is easy, as you show repeatedly on here, to find some objection to pretty much anything but it all becomes a bit silly as in this example or my repeated example about how I don't believe kangaroos exist: refusing to believe anyone who says they've seen one, claiming any photo and video of them is CGI, being taken to see one and claiming it's animatronic and so on. You can always do this, as you're doing in the threads about horizon dip, but it becomes increasingly desperate and silly.

You can keep on denying the nature of reality but it doesn't make for an honest or interesting debate. Not for long anyway. Hence the same threads repeating over and over on here. It will be interesting to see if the changes you're discussing in S&C make much difference but I'm sceptical because the issue here is the subject matter, and there's not much you can do about that...

[edby]

Yeah, that's his theory, but how did he KNOW that the perspective lines were infinite and never touched? What experiment did he do?

Since perspective lines are only finitely long projections, it is easy to prove this. We can't observe infinitely long parallel lines, but since we have defined them as parallel, we do know they will never meet.

Tom, I am always confused about whether you mean parallel line or perspective line. Much of this is about clear use of language.

[Tom Bishop]

Since you guys admit that the infinite perspective line concept probably has never been demonstrated, and that you could not do it, and that there are no experiments on infinite perspective lines, what just happened here?

The Rowbotham side seems to have gained ground in the debate. The fundamental assumptions of the Ancient Greek side was never truly demonstrated in the first place.

The Rowbotham side just needs to continue to point out that certain assumptions are being made and the tables have completely turned.

[Max_Almond]

Would a simple way to remember the difference be that perspective lines exist in 2D drawings and images, while parallel lines exist also in reality?

Also to point out: rarely do people genuinely "appeal to Wikipedia". Rather, Wikipedia is a starting point. It has references to more in depth studies. The information in there has been peer reviewed and verified.

It's a big difference to "appealing to Sam" - he's just one man, with some far out, unverified ideas, and very often shown to be wrong.

Likewise, no one's really "appealing to the ancient Greeks", but rather referencing them as the discoverers/inventors of something we have tested over and over again, and can test again today, if we like.

Does that make sense?

[AATW]

The fundamental assumptions of the Ancient Greek side was never really demonstrated in the first place.

*sigh*.

But that's the following conversation taking place:

A: A triangle's angles always add up to 180 degrees.
B: How do you know that is always the case? Have you tested every single triangle individually?
A: Well no, but...
B: I WIN!

If an isosceles triangle has three points, A,B and C, A and B are the base and C is the top. If A and B are a fixed distance apart and move downwards away from C at what distance is the angle ACB 0?
You are effectively claiming the answer is finite but it can't be. I don't need to do an experiment over infinite distances to prove that, it's bleedin' obvious and the lack of an experiment over infinite distances isn't a "win" for you. Yes, you can continue the debate but it's not an interesting or honest debate.

[edby]

Since you guys admit that the infinite perspective line concept probably has never been demonstrated, and that you could not do it, and that there are no experiments on infinite perspective lines, what just happened here?

Hold on, I just 'it is easy to prove this' and you said it 'probably has never been demonstrated', what did just happen here? Are you actually reading anything that anyone says?

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Since you guys admit that the infinite perspective line concept probably has never been demonstrated, and that you could not do it, and that there are no experiments on infinite perspective lines, what just happened here?

The Rowbotham side is winning the debate! The fundamental assumptions of the Ancient Greek side was never truly demonstrated in the first place.

Bertrand Russel called. Said something about a teapot. Between Earth and Mars I think?

Euclidean perspective is demonstrable for all testable distances. Claims that they don't hold up over infinite distances would be unfalsifiable. You have the burden of proof.

[edby]

Euclidean perspective is demonstrable for all testable distances. Claims that they don't hold up over infinite distances would be unfalsifiable. You have the burden of proof.

I think you are confusing the issue here by even suggesting that a geometrical proof is 'testable'. Geometric and mathematical proof is a priori, i.e. from first self-evident principles, and requires no empirical investigation.

'There is no greatest prime number'
'What have you tested every prime number to ensure it isn't the greatest?'
'Well obviously not'
'I win!!!'

[Tom Bishop]

The response in all of the above is "but math says..."

But if no one has experimented on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that perspective plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.

Since it is widely admitted that experiments have not been made on that matter, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that the universe plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.

Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such things, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.

A hypothesis that you will need to prove wrong yourself, not demand proof for. It's already been proven experimentally over many different distances.