#### eratosthenes the second

• 2
##### Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« on: January 03, 2016, 03:54:04 AM »
Argument 1:

SOME Flat Earthers suggest that gravity as we know it does not exist.  Instead, the flat shaped Earth is accelerating at 9.8 meters per second squared in order for us to "feel" gravity as we are pushed to the ground by Newton's Third Law.  How do you explain the enormous speed the Earth must have achieved over the course of 4.543 billion years?  Let's put in numbers:

Let's start with the Creationist's idea of a 6000 year old Earth.  6000 years is 1.8922E11 seconds.  The Earth's speed, after 6000 years (assuming it started at rest when "God" created it) is:

v = at
v = 9.8*1.8922E11
v = 1.854356E12 m/s

This is 6181.18667 times the speed of light!

What if we use the true age of our planet, around 4.5 billion years?  This is around 1.42E17 seconds.  Thus the speed of Earth must be:

v = at
v = 9.8*1.42E17
v = 1.3916E18 m/s

That is 4,638,666,666.67 times the speed of light!

Einstein showed that nothing can exceed the speed of light as the mass of an object increases with speed.  Exceeding the speed of light would infinitely increase the mass!  How can Earth's speed be over 4.5 billion times the speed of light?!

Argument 2:

Most of us have noticed how a ship disappears over the horizon because of Earth's curvature, or how an island appears top first when we sail toward it.  How do Flat Earthers explain how objects disappear bottom first the farther we move away from them, or how they appear top first as we get closer and closer?

Argument 3:

Most of us have traveled to different parts around the world, we have experienced jet lag and different time zones.  If the Sun rose over a flat Earth, it would be day EVERYWHERE!  When the Sun would set, it would be night EVERYWHERE!  We would not need any time zones, because 12PM would be day for everybody and 8PM would be night for everybody at the same time.  How do you explain this?

*PLEASE REFER TO THE ATTACHMENTS, THEY TOOK ME SOME TIME TO SKETCH AND I THINK THEY ARE VERY "CUTE" *

-Eratosthenes The Second

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9010
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2016, 04:12:00 AM »
1) You are using the wrong equation.

2) Perspective effect.

3) The sun acts as a spotlight.

#### Luke 22:35-38

• 382
• The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2016, 04:36:15 AM »
1) You are using the wrong equation.

2) Perspective effect.

3) The sun acts as a spotlight.

2. How does perspective does that.

3. The sun is a ball. Also why doesn't it fall down to earth? Not only that everyone should see the sun no matter where you are or what time it is.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10537
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2016, 04:39:02 AM »
Argument 1:

SOME Flat Earthers suggest that gravity as we know it does not exist.  Instead, the flat shaped Earth is accelerating at 9.8 meters per second squared in order for us to "feel" gravity as we are pushed to the ground by Newton's Third Law.  How do you explain the enormous speed the Earth must have achieved over the course of 4.543 billion years?  Let's put in numbers:

Let's start with the Creationist's idea of a 6000 year old Earth.  6000 years is 1.8922E11 seconds.  The Earth's speed, after 6000 years (assuming it started at rest when "God" created it) is:

v = at
v = 9.8*1.8922E11
v = 1.854356E12 m/s

This is 6181.18667 times the speed of light!

What if we use the true age of our planet, around 4.5 billion years?  This is around 1.42E17 seconds.  Thus the speed of Earth must be:

v = at
v = 9.8*1.42E17
v = 1.3916E18 m/s

That is 4,638,666,666.67 times the speed of light!

Einstein showed that nothing can exceed the speed of light as the mass of an object increases with speed.  Exceeding the speed of light would infinitely increase the mass!  How can Earth's speed be over 4.5 billion times the speed of light?!
You made the mistake of ignoring Special Relativity. That's a very bad idea, especially if you're going to throw Einstein's name around in your posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Luke 22:35-38

• 382
• The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2016, 04:44:29 AM »
Argument 1:

SOME Flat Earthers suggest that gravity as we know it does not exist.  Instead, the flat shaped Earth is accelerating at 9.8 meters per second squared in order for us to "feel" gravity as we are pushed to the ground by Newton's Third Law.  How do you explain the enormous speed the Earth must have achieved over the course of 4.543 billion years?  Let's put in numbers:

Let's start with the Creationist's idea of a 6000 year old Earth.  6000 years is 1.8922E11 seconds.  The Earth's speed, after 6000 years (assuming it started at rest when "God" created it) is:

v = at
v = 9.8*1.8922E11
v = 1.854356E12 m/s

This is 6181.18667 times the speed of light!

What if we use the true age of our planet, around 4.5 billion years?  This is around 1.42E17 seconds.  Thus the speed of Earth must be:

v = at
v = 9.8*1.42E17
v = 1.3916E18 m/s

That is 4,638,666,666.67 times the speed of light!

Einstein showed that nothing can exceed the speed of light as the mass of an object increases with speed.  Exceeding the speed of light would infinitely increase the mass!  How can Earth's speed be over 4.5 billion times the speed of light?!
You made the mistake of ignoring Special Relativity. That's a very bad idea, especially if you're going to throw Einstein's name around in your posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light

And you zoomed right past my questions.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10537
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2016, 05:01:28 AM »
And you zoomed right past my questions.
Yes, I responded to one question. I even quoted it in its entirety so that it's clear what I'm responding to.

Are you so entitled that you think we're obliged to respond to your posts? You've been around here for a while, you know how to search on the Wiki.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 05:03:53 AM by SexWarrior »

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### TheEarthIsSphere

• 13
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2016, 03:49:28 PM »
If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9010
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2016, 04:14:36 PM »

If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.

There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."

#### andruszkow

• 563
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2016, 04:18:01 PM »

If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.

There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."
This is so entertaining
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9010
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2016, 04:21:01 PM »

If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.

There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."
This is so entertaining

I agree. It's always fun educating the indoctrinated.

#### andruszkow

• 563
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2016, 04:26:41 PM »

If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.

There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."
This is so entertaining

I agree. It's always fun educating the indoctrinated.
No no, the entertaining part is that even though we are entitled to believe whatever we want, you're actually serious about this.

Me being "indoctrinated" has no value in itself since it's complete nonsense, it's the fact that you go about your every day actually believing this, possibly even sharing this with those next to you.

THAT'S entertaining.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

#### andruszkow

• 563
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2016, 04:28:50 PM »
Oh, while packing no valid claims or evidence to disprove the fact that the earth is a globe and avoiding every valid question like it was Teflon, refusing to swallow your pride and admit you're wrong.

Entertainment for the masses indeed.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9010
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2016, 04:36:26 PM »

Oh, while packing no valid claims or evidence to disprove the fact that the earth is a globe and avoiding every valid question like it was Teflon, refusing to swallow your pride and admit you're wrong.

Entertainment for the masses indeed.

I'm not sure where you are getting your perceptions from, but feel free to continue as it isn't up to me to stop you from believing whatever you want.

If you have anything to add relative to the OP, then I'd suggest you do that.

#### andruszkow

• 563
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2016, 05:05:10 PM »
Done that a million times on this forum but as per standard with you people you deny even the most substantial piece of evidence, hence my message two replies ago.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9010
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2016, 05:19:58 PM »

Done that a million times on this forum but as per standard with you people you deny even the most substantial piece of evidence, hence my message two replies ago.

My apologies, I'm not aware of your posting habits. I haven't denied any evidence, as I haven't been presented with any.

#### MrAtlas

##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2016, 05:22:33 PM »
1) You are using the wrong equation.

2) Perspective effect.

3) The sun acts as a spotlight.

Perspective effect? The backbone of the flat earthers is that "I can see the earth is flat, therefor it's flat!" .. But when you can see that the earth is curved, then it's 'perspective effect'!?

PS: My compliments to the nice drawings :-D

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9010
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2016, 05:25:28 PM »

1) You are using the wrong equation.

2) Perspective effect.

3) The sun acts as a spotlight.

Perspective effect? The backbone of the flat earthers is that "I can see the earth is flat, therefor it's flat!" .. But when you can see that the earth is curved, then it's 'perspective effect'!?

PS: My compliments to the nice drawings :-D

May I ask when you saw the curvature of the earth?

#### MrAtlas

##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2016, 05:32:55 PM »

Did you read 'argument 2' in the initial post? You probably did, because you replied on it :-)

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9010
##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2016, 05:35:21 PM »

Did you read 'argument 2' in the initial post? You probably did, because you replied on it :-)

I did read it. I'm not sure how that pertains to the question I asked you specifically.

#### MrAtlas

##### Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2016, 06:14:45 PM »

I see the curvatures of the earth when I see objects from far away. Like in argument 2.

Will you answer or just derail the debate?