[Idttisgoit]

I am stating here the earth is round(without any evidence presented) and want you, if don't mind, to proof me that it is instead flat.
Preferably with studies and sources I can look up. Or simple physics, what ever you like.

If I am offending somebody I am sorry this was not my intention.

Thanks in andvance

[Tom Bishop]

There would be a lot to discuss. A lot of it is put on the Wiki - https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki

Rather than asking for proof I would rather you go through this link and tell us what you find most compelling and what can be improved.

[Idttisgoit]

Ok lets start with this: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Cosmos
Here is stated that basically everything except the earth is a sphere. On an simple logical thinking: Why should the earth be an exception to the rest of the cosmos and be flat?

[Tom Bishop]

We sort of explain it in the opening section of the planets section, but we should probably address it there as well.

The conclusion that Earth is a sphere because we see spheres is only one interpretation.

One could also interpret that the Earth is a plane because we know from human experience that bodies generally need a platform to exist over or upon. Billiard balls need a Pool Table. Basketballs need a Basketball Court. The game Water Polo generally takes place with a flat foundation with layers of an aqueous medium, with a flat surface and floating balls. It does not follow that because the balls in those games are round, the those courts are also round.

Around the creation of RE, during the times of antiquity, the theories of space and the cosmos were primarily in human imagination beyond experience. They imagined a free-floating universe, with one assumption applied upon the next. The necessity of the Earth being a sphere because we see spheres was one of those assumptions.

[Idttisgoit]

While I'm reading through this just another question came up my mind:
Why is there a north pole but no south pole in the flat earth model, could it not also be the other way around?

[Idttisgoit]

We sort of explain it in the opening section of the planets section, but we should probably address it there as well.

As far I can tell the FE model does say that the Planets are bound to the sun somehow (maybe with gravity). Explaining it with systems that all assumed the earth is round.
The modern explanation of the solar system is based on the "assumption" there is gravity and with this the earth is orbiting around the sun like every other planet in the system. With this (and probably more information) they calculated the sizes of the moon, sun and the other planets. When there is gravity in a FE model then the sun would be about as big as the moon and the other planets equivalent smaller about the same rate. And the distances would be much smaller. Also the earth would have to have more mass in the center than on the edges which would be a measurable difference in gravity.

The conclusion that Earth is a sphere because we see spheres is only one interpretation.

One could also interpret that the Earth is a plane because we know from human experience that bodies generally need a platform to exist over or upon. Billiard balls need a Pool Table. Basketballs need a Basketball Court. The game Water Polo generally takes place with a flat foundation with layers of an aqueous medium, with a flat surface and floating balls. It does not follow that because the balls in those games are round, the those courts are also round.

Those examples are easy to understand but have a problem with the scale of this situation.
According to RE the earth has a radius of 6.371 km and a mass of 5,972 × 10^24 kg. Lets say there is a Human with the mass of 100 kg.
Now lets take a ball with the radius of 1m it would have a mass(with the same density) about 2,3 * 10^4 kg 
Compared to the Human with 100 kg  he would have a mass of 1 * 10^(2 - 20) kg = 1*10^(-15) g and with the density of an human there would be a square 0.00001 cm edge length that is about to compare for the scale. If you would put an object of that size to the ball it would probably stick to it because of gravity but only as long you don't have any other gravity that is stronger than that of that ball.

Got stuck here with gravity.
What I wanted to show is that with that scale comparison the ball would be almost flat for the "human square" because it can't see the curve.

[Tumeni]

Around the creation of RE, during the times of antiquity, the theories of space and the cosmos were primarily in human imagination beyond experience.

So if this was PRIOR to experience, do you now agree that, 60 years or so since Sputnik, we are POST experience?

[AATW]

The necessity of the Earth being a sphere because we see spheres was one of those assumptions.

Not sure if that was ever really true. You know about some of the observations which were made which showed the earth was a sphere.
But the fact we observe spheres everywhere we look - the sun, other planets, moons - does reaffirm the fact that we live on one too.
And we understand why. Gravity will pull any coherent object above a certain mass into a spherical shape.
This is where RET wins, it explains why we live on a sphere. In FET the earth is different from the other objects we observe just because.

And as Tumeni has been pointed out, we no longer live in a world of imagination - since the space race the sphere of the earth has been observed.

[Tom Bishop]

Not sure if that was ever really true.

Look into Pythagoras:

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.264688/2015.264688.The-Story_djvu.txt

Pythagoras himself had been a believer in the spherical shape of the earth, reasoning that it must be a sphere since all the other heavenly bodies were spheres, and because of the evidence sailors gave of seeing stars rise or fall in the sky as the ship moved north or south.

And as Tumeni has been pointed out, we no longer live in a world of imagination - since the space race the sphere of the earth has been observed.

I'm not so certain about that. This former CIA officer has some questionable remarks about NASA.

[Idttisgoit]

"Not a space agency" - yeah NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"When Alan brought in all the Nazi scientists [...] that is where the bulk of the mind control happend". - what does the one thing to do with the other?
Also this is a statement from one person that is (for me obviously) bad at wording. And this is taken out of context.

And for me please don't link youtube videos. They are the worst source of information you can get usually. Also for almost every video that proves something I can give you 3 that prove the opposite and probably all of them use very bad scientific or rhetoric methods in order to achieve their goal.

[Idttisgoit]

Also my question above were not answered, but that is fine.

I go one for you:
Do you think space travel is real?
What about the ISS wich you can see with the pure eye on clear nights?
When the NASA is "mind controlled" what about the russian space project?

And one more:
Are all pictures of the earth made form space are fake?
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+from+space&sxsrf=ALeKk02D-PBm72RIfLWQSWYkKvXFjpP6hA:1596806452887&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4wZjLl4nrAhUtsKQKHfEUDhcQ_AUoAXoECAsQAw&biw=1908&bih=914

[Tom Bishop]

Here is the full video from the source. Feel free to tell us how it is out of context.

[Pete Svarrior]

I go one for you:
Do you think space travel is real?

Please read the FAQ before posting here.

[Idttisgoit]

I go one for you:
Do you think space travel is real?

Please read the FAQ before posting here.

Ok sorry for missing that point. While for me the conspiracy explanation is pretty weak.

[Idttisgoit]

Objects cannot exceed the speed of light. Doesn't this mean that the Earth can't accelerate forever?
Due to special relativity, this is not the case. At this point, many readers will question the validity of any answer which uses advanced, intimidating-sounding physics terms to explain a position. However, it is true. The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1. This means that velocity can never reach the speed of light, regardless of how long one accelerates for and the rate of the acceleration.

See Universal Acceleration for more details

...(some math)
As you can see, it is impossible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth past the speed of light.

Explanations for Universal Acceleration
The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.

Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.
Davis Plane
This model states that there is an infinite plane of exotic matter somewhere below the disk, pushing in the opposite manner of traditional gravity. This is a recent theory, and is in progress.

Assuming you deny gravity: Here it gets explained by the "Dark Energy" while the sentence is true that there are physicists that believe that this is a valid model the model itself is only a attempt to explain why the universe is expanding and speeding up when expanding based on the big bang theory. The theory of dark matter and dark energy is not yet disproved but the half of the scientific community is skeptical.

And with that the big bang theory is a contradiction to the "no gravity" theory because it is based on that too.

in short: "Dark Energy" explains "no gravity". "Dark Energy" is explained by big bang theory. Big bang theory involves the usage of gravity.

[Idttisgoit]

Here is the full video from the source. Feel free to tell us how it is out of context.

Now this is interesting. He got an question and then talks about something different in order to distract from the question a bit then continues to answer something that has not been asked.
The point where he talks about something different is where he make some weird claims that either he believes but don't have to be true or he just tells shit because of rhetoric.

But still: one person without proof says something = no value.
 

[Tumeni]

This former CIA officer has some questionable remarks about NASA.

So what? Dressing up in Judge's robes, sitting on something that you have (EDIT yourself) named the "International Tribunal for Natural Justice" does not automatically confer any authority on what you say.

Further EDIT - ...and NASA is not the only space agency in the world.

EDIT
https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2018/04/17/itnj-down-sizes-due-to-budget-constraints/

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/itnj-chief-justice-stripped-of-ability-to-practise-law/

[Tom Bishop]

This former CIA officer has some questionable remarks about NASA.

So what? Dressing up in Judge's robes, sitting on something that you have (EDIT yourself) named the "International Tribunal for Natural Justice" does not automatically confer any authority on what you say.

Further EDIT - ...and NASA is not the only space agency in the world.

EDIT
https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2018/04/17/itnj-down-sizes-due-to-budget-constraints/

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/itnj-chief-justice-stripped-of-ability-to-practise-law/

Gross. You linked me to a site dedicated to discrediting allegations of child sex abuse. Such a site would clearly be biased against an organization with a commission called "Inquiry of Human Trafficking and Sex Abuse".

Did you read those links? Essentially things like "We have never heard of a lifetime Ambassador of Liberia. Therefore this person is a fraud!" This, despite that the Ambassador title is sometimes a lifetime title in the US.

Other lame things like criticizing their "professional-looking stationary" and something about a 1992 ponzi scam past of a man named James B. Gilmore who Sacha Stone in the justice organization apparently just once took a picture with in a group at an event and put on his facebook page, if you read this page closely.

Here that same website is attempting to discredit children who told police that they were sexually abused:

Video share: What did the Hampstead children REALLY say?

It’s an article of faith amongst those who believe in the Hampstead SRA hoax that the two Hampstead children made a series of videos in which they talked about a Satanic cult that was run by their father, their teachers, parents at their school, social services, Cafcass, and various police officers.

In those videos, the children gave a detailed, accurate, and very specific account of what was done to them. Viewers were shocked at their ability to recite specific details of sexual and cult practices which no child could know about unless they had actually experienced it.

Right?

Maybe not.

In this video, we take a look at what the children actually said, how much detail they actually provided, and whether some of the things they described were even physically possible.

Whether or not those children were making false statements there, the whole website is focused and dedicated to discrediting sex abuse accusations. There are clearly some questionable people running that website, if their motive is to discredit allegations of sex abuse.

The website mocks people who question convicted pedophile Jeffry Epstein's suicide while on a 24/7 suicide watch

They are opposed to the "Believe the Children" slogan

Many articles, multiple long FAQs dedicated to discrediting child abuse evidence:

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/hampstead-hoax-faq/frequently-asked-questions-what-about-the-videos/

What about the videos?

Many people find the videos of RD’s children very compelling indeed, and ask questions like, “How could they possibly remember that much detail unless they’d actually experienced it?” or “I just know those children weren’t acting; it’s just not possible!”

They are against the Child Protection Task Force conference:

‘Child Protection Task Force’ conference coming up

...

You’re too late to get free tickets, but if you’re willing to fork out over an undisclosed amount of hard-earned cash (seriously, we couldn’t find a straight answer on how much this shindig is supposed to cost), you can settle in for a long, long day, listening to such luminaries as pretend journalist and professional bingo-caller Brian Gerrish, anti-vaccine loony Christina England, Leonard Lawrence the ‘Poisoned Air Pilot’, and many more!

Again, a gross, voluminous website criticizing and attempting to discredit child sex abuse claims and the various organizations around that. Really makes you wonder who would dedicate so much time to writing all those articles and why.