[Norm77]

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?

[totallackey]

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?

There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

[iamcpc]

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?

There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

In addition there is a general idea that there are most likely flaws in the RE system of us flying through space while spinning super fast orbiting the sun while a moon orbits us.

Other than that there are so many different models. It really discredits the entire movement and it's one of my biggest pet peeves.

[ImAnEngineerToo]

broken record time: one cannot feel velocity, only acceleration, and the centripetal acceleration we feel as we revolve and rotate is minuscule.

OP, if you read the wiki I think most the FErs here buy into it. The hierchy seems to be Tom, then the mods, then the followers, and Tom apparently is in charge of the wiki. It has stuff like how (not) gravity works and the sun/moon patterns, etc. there is no agreed upon map here, but individual FErs May have their own idea about what map is correct.

The excuse for this is of course, the cabal is against us, we can’t get any good data because we can’t go past the ice wall, we can’t build rockets, etc.

[Parallax]

It's varied. Generally everyone agrees with the ice wall, because it keeps in the oceans. What's beyond the ice wall itself is a mystery.

[iamcpc]

OP, if you read the wiki I think most the FErs here buy into it. The hierchy seems to be Tom, then the mods, then the followers, and Tom apparently is in charge of the wiki. It has stuff like how (not) gravity works and the sun/moon patterns, etc. there is no agreed upon map here, but individual FErs May have their own idea about what map is correct.

The wiki only really presents one FE model when, in reality, there are at least a dozen.

It's varied. Generally everyone agrees with the ice wall, because it keeps in the oceans. What's beyond the ice wall itself is a mystery.

This is not true. There are at least half of the FE models that I've found in which the oceans are kept in place by something other than an ice wall.

In the infinite earth FE models there is nothing but infinity holding the oceans in.
In the biblical FE models the firmament is holding in the oceans
There are several FE models in which the ocean is being held in by a dome
There are even FE models which don't have a dome, firmament, or great ice wall and what is holding the oceans in place is something unknown or some other force or even gravity

[Parallax]

Well I wasn't meaning literally everyone, but the majority believe in the ice wall. The evidence is there really, as are the photos.

[Roundy]

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc.

It's easy to say there's "usually general agreement" about various aspects of a model, then name just 3 examples, but two of those examples have analogues in FE (Earth is flat, sun revolves around a fixed point above Earth) and one of them is actually so contentious even among REers that it can't really be said to be a sure thing; it's odd that they can be so sure something exists and fall so far short of explaining (or even agreeing, ironically enough given the central point of your post) what it even is.

You're gonna have to do better.

[Bikini Polaris]

I think they do agree on the reality of time zones and usually they think the Sun is quite close to us. I mean, I have never saw a FE denying those two things (and they really deny so many things)

[AATW]

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc.

It's easy to say there's "usually general agreement" about various aspects of a model, then name just 3 examples, but two of those examples have analogues in FE (Earth is flat, sun revolves around a fixed point above Earth) and one of them is actually so contentious even among REers that it can't really be said to be a sure thing; it's odd that they can be so sure something exists and fall so far short of explaining (or even agreeing, ironically enough given the central point of your post) what it even is.

You're gonna have to do better.

I'd say the difference is the (relatively) simple model of a spinning globe earth orbiting a distant sun with a moon orbiting it and with the axis of spin inclined does explain observations pretty well. It explains night and day, seasons, the way the celestial objects move in the night sky, eclipses. The FE model has to explain all these things using different and unexplained phenomena. The angular size of the moon and sun should constantly vary in your model for example, but it doesn't. And while our understanding of gravity might not be complete, our model of it does a pretty good job of explaining and predicting the movement of bodies. I don't believe there's a FE equivalent.

[Bikini Polaris]

I'd say the difference is the (relatively) simple model of a spinning globe earth orbiting a distant sun with a moon orbiting it and with the axis of spin inclined does explain observations pretty well. It explains night and day, seasons, the way the celestial objects move in the night sky, eclipses. The FE model has to explain all these things using different and unexplained phenomena. The angular size of the moon and sun should constantly vary in your model for example, but it doesn't. And while our understanding of gravity might not be complete, our model of it does a pretty good job of explaining and predicting the movement of bodies. I don't believe there's a FE equivalent.

Now this makes me think they also agree there's a worldwide conspiracy from the sixties and involving citizens and technician from all around the... world that produces the same kind of pictures in a consistent way.

[GreatATuin]

I'd say the difference is the (relatively) simple model of a spinning globe earth orbiting a distant sun with a moon orbiting it and with the axis of spin inclined does explain observations pretty well. It explains night and day, seasons, the way the celestial objects move in the night sky, eclipses. The FE model has to explain all these things using different and unexplained phenomena. The angular size of the moon and sun should constantly vary in your model for example, but it doesn't.

The angular size of the moon and sun do vary in a globe earth model, and it does for example accurately predict if a solar eclipse is going to be total, or annular when the angular size of the moon is slightly smaller.

Of course the variation is barely noticeable for the naked eye, and it varies much less than would be expected in a FE model, unless you bend the laws of optics to match the observation.

[GreatATuin]

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?

There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.

I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?

[totallackey]

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?

There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.

I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

[robinofloxley]

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?

There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.

I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Well I find that a strange statement. If I asked you to measure the distance between say New York and Boston with a flat map and demanded to know the answer accurate to +/- 5 nanometers, I assume you'd agree that can't be done, at best you'd manage +/- a few tens or hundreds of metres. On the other hand if I asked you to measure a precision part from a racing engine and you told me the answer to the nearest 10 metres, the answer would be correct, but meaningless. It's all a matter of scale and accuracy of measurement. It's the same argument about the horizon looking flat from close to sea level. The earth is just big. Really, really big and scale makes all the difference. On that scale, looking at the horizon, you're looking at a tiny, tiny fraction of the earth, so of course it would look flat on a globe earth. Similarly with a map covering a few hundred or even a few thousand square miles, compared with the nearly 200 million square miles of earth's surface, the distances you can measure with a ruler are likely to be indistinguishable from those you would find on a globe, It's only when you start to put the entire earth on a flat surface that the differences between a flat and a globe model appear. You can't extrapolate from a flat map of Maine being accurate to then claim this implies a flat map of the earth is accurate. On a globe earth, a flat map of Maine is not accurate, but when you take into account measuring error tolerances, you're not going to be able to tell the difference.

[GreatATuin]

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?

There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.

I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

You have heard about map projections, haven't you? All flat maps are somewhat inaccurate, but if the area that's mapped is small enough, it can be neglected.

There is no definitive map of the flat Earth. I'll quote the FAQ of this very site : "Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, Flat Earth".

[Tumeni]

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.
And all flat maps are very definitive.
It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

The same can be said of any technical drawing, architect's drawing, or schematic of a device or item of manufacture.

All have, at least until the advent of CAD, been drawn on flat sheets of paper, as a representation of a 3D object.

That maps are drawn the same way does not make what they represent flat.

[AATW]

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Can you show me an accurate flat map of the whole earth? By accurate I mean that distances between places on the map and the shapes and areas of countries all match the reality.

[totallackey]

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Well I find that a strange statement. If I asked you to measure the distance between say New York and Boston with a flat map and demanded to know the answer accurate to +/- 5 nanometers, I assume you'd agree that can't be done, at best you'd manage +/- a few tens or hundreds of metres.

Good thing you are not setting the standards of accuracy...

C'mon...why introduce a "nanometer," as a standard of accuracy?

No one has or will ever do this.

On the other hand if I asked you to measure a precision part from a racing engine and you told me the answer to the nearest 10 metres, the answer would be correct, but meaningless. It's all a matter of scale and accuracy of measurement.

Yeah, it would (as a matter of fact, IT IS) be meaningless, so again, why bring it up?

It's the same argument about the horizon looking flat from close to sea level. The earth is just big. Really, really big and scale makes all the difference. On that scale, looking at the horizon, you're looking at a tiny, tiny fraction of the earth, so of course it would look flat on a globe earth. Similarly with a map covering a few hundred or even a few thousand square miles, compared with the nearly 200 million square miles of earth's surface, the distances you can measure with a ruler are likely to be indistinguishable from those you would find on a globe, It's only when you start to put the entire earth on a flat surface that the differences between a flat and a globe model appear. You can't extrapolate from a flat map of Maine being accurate to then claim this implies a flat map of the earth is accurate. On a globe earth, a flat map of Maine is not accurate, but when you take into account measuring error tolerances, you're not going to be able to tell the difference.

It is not the same.

All maps are flat for a reason.

All flat maps are accurate to the point we have used them for 100's of years.

[totallackey]

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Can you show me an accurate flat map of the whole earth? By accurate I mean that distances between places on the map and the shapes and areas of countries all match the reality.

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.