*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2016, 06:26:27 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?

I'm going to ignore how nonsensical your first sentence is, as those are two completely unrelated events. Even if earth were an oblate spheroid as claimed by RErs, you would not be able to directly observe it's curvature from sea level. I'll assume you mean that you're inferring the earth has curvature based on the claim you're supporting. If that's what you're claiming to infer, then please see my reply earlier in the thread.

MrAtlas

Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2016, 07:08:06 PM »

Never mind, junker. One of the intelligent Flat Earthers (Roundy) came with a good answer in another thread. I don't agree with him, but it was a good answer. Maybe you can learn too?

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2016, 07:08:45 PM »


Never mind, junker. One of the intelligent Flat Earthers (Roundy) came with a good answer in another thread. I don't agree with him, but it was a good answer. Maybe you can learn too?

Wonderful, I'm glad you admit you are wrong. Another victory for FE!

MrAtlas

Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2016, 07:18:42 PM »

Your sense of judgement is so wrong. In every possible way. I just said I was happy to finally meet an intelligent (Roundy) flat earther.

Sorry ... :-)


geckothegeek

Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2016, 05:30:41 AM »
Also :
Stand up. Drop a ball. Shouldn't the earth accellarate up and meet the ball ?

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1810
    • View Profile
Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2016, 06:06:59 AM »
Also :
Stand up. Drop a ball. Shouldn't the earth accellarate up and meet the ball ?

Of course.  It does.  What's your point?  ???
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Christer Fuglesang

Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2016, 06:27:41 AM »

I think it was a good and qualified question in the original post of this thread, but nobody really took the time and effort to produce a good and qualified answer. Could we mentally delete the 'one liners' and unproductive 'mouth wrestling' and go back to the original post? Anyone?

Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2016, 07:27:38 AM »

I think it was a good and qualified question in the original post of this thread, but nobody really took the time and effort to produce a good and qualified answer. Could we mentally delete the 'one liners' and unproductive 'mouth wrestling' and go back to the original post? Anyone?
Welcome to TFES in a nutshell.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2016, 04:43:04 PM »
1. Most scientists don't know exactly how gravity works. Gravity is a theory, regardless of one's view of earth and its shape.  If the earth isn't a spinning ball in "outer space," then it stands to reason that objects don't simply drift away, provided they have enough buoyancy.

2. The "objects disappearing over the horizon" has been addressed by numerous YouTubers. If one has a telescope, it will manifest a boat or other object that has sailed past the "curvature." Such would not be possible if the earth were round because the curve would always obsure the view once something was far enough away. Moreover, not all objects descend from view as we move farther away; some actually ascend, depending upon topography. Remember, even a flat earth has mountains, valleys, and uneven terrain.

3. I agree with other posters that the sun is possibly a spotlight rather than a glowing orb. Again, if our world isn't what we were taught, it stands to reason that the sun, moon, and stars operate differently. Anyone who has visited a planetarium has seen that the sky can be projected differently depending on where one is viewing. The larger the scale, the easier it is to show different parts of our world different images of the sky.

Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2016, 03:41:29 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."
You are still not giving me evidence for this infact you make claims and I have never seen them backed up? Like how does this illusion effect work? (example) but there are many more. If its so obvious and easy to debunk our claims go ahead and do it.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2016, 04:36:21 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."
You are still not giving me evidence for this infact you make claims and I have never seen them backed up? Like how does this illusion effect work? (example) but there are many more. If its so obvious and easy to debunk our claims go ahead and do it.

What illusion effect? If you want to know more about universal acceleration, it is in the FAQ/wiki. If you've got a specific question, I'll do my best to answer. Again, not everyone subscribes to this theory.

Christer Fuglesang

Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2016, 09:12:40 PM »
1. Most scientists don't know exactly how gravity works. Gravity is a theory, regardless of one's view of earth and its shape.  If the earth isn't a spinning ball in "outer space," then it stands to reason that objects don't simply drift away, provided they have enough buoyancy.

2. The "objects disappearing over the horizon" has been addressed by numerous YouTubers. If one has a telescope, it will manifest a boat or other object that has sailed past the "curvature." Such would not be possible if the earth were round because the curve would always obsure the view once something was far enough away. Moreover, not all objects descend from view as we move farther away; some actually ascend, depending upon topography. Remember, even a flat earth has mountains, valleys, and uneven terrain.

3. I agree with other posters that the sun is possibly a spotlight rather than a glowing orb. Again, if our world isn't what we were taught, it stands to reason that the sun, moon, and stars operate differently. Anyone who has visited a planetarium has seen that the sky can be projected differently depending on where one is viewing. The larger the scale, the easier it is to show different parts of our world different images of the sky.

Re. 1. (for a start):
I think this is a poor answer on a fair question. According to the FE theory the Earth should have a constant acceleration of 9,82 m/s2. No matter how you put it, we would by now have exceeded the speed of light many times. Is this what the FES insist on this?

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2016, 09:28:17 PM »

1. Most scientists don't know exactly how gravity works. Gravity is a theory, regardless of one's view of earth and its shape.  If the earth isn't a spinning ball in "outer space," then it stands to reason that objects don't simply drift away, provided they have enough buoyancy.

2. The "objects disappearing over the horizon" has been addressed by numerous YouTubers. If one has a telescope, it will manifest a boat or other object that has sailed past the "curvature." Such would not be possible if the earth were round because the curve would always obsure the view once something was far enough away. Moreover, not all objects descend from view as we move farther away; some actually ascend, depending upon topography. Remember, even a flat earth has mountains, valleys, and uneven terrain.

3. I agree with other posters that the sun is possibly a spotlight rather than a glowing orb. Again, if our world isn't what we were taught, it stands to reason that the sun, moon, and stars operate differently. Anyone who has visited a planetarium has seen that the sky can be projected differently depending on where one is viewing. The larger the scale, the easier it is to show different parts of our world different images of the sky.

Re. 1. (for a start):
I think this is a poor answer on a fair question. According to the FE theory the Earth should have a constant acceleration of 9,82 m/s2. No matter how you put it, we would by now have exceeded the speed of light many times. Is this what the FES insist on this?

No, we would not have exceeded the speed of light.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1810
    • View Profile
Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2016, 09:32:18 PM »
Yeah, to think so just shows a poor understanding of relativity.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Christer Fuglesang

Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2016, 09:36:34 PM »

1. Most scientists don't know exactly how gravity works. Gravity is a theory, regardless of one's view of earth and its shape.  If the earth isn't a spinning ball in "outer space," then it stands to reason that objects don't simply drift away, provided they have enough buoyancy.

2. The "objects disappearing over the horizon" has been addressed by numerous YouTubers. If one has a telescope, it will manifest a boat or other object that has sailed past the "curvature." Such would not be possible if the earth were round because the curve would always obsure the view once something was far enough away. Moreover, not all objects descend from view as we move farther away; some actually ascend, depending upon topography. Remember, even a flat earth has mountains, valleys, and uneven terrain.

3. I agree with other posters that the sun is possibly a spotlight rather than a glowing orb. Again, if our world isn't what we were taught, it stands to reason that the sun, moon, and stars operate differently. Anyone who has visited a planetarium has seen that the sky can be projected differently depending on where one is viewing. The larger the scale, the easier it is to show different parts of our world different images of the sky.

Re. 1. (for a start):
I think this is a poor answer on a fair question. According to the FE theory the Earth should have a constant acceleration of 9,82 m/s2. No matter how you put it, we would by now have exceeded the speed of light many times. Is this what the FES insist on this?

No, we would not have exceeded the speed of light.

Obviously not. But why not, and when will we? Please enlighten me. It should be a matter of time with this constant acceleration. 

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10537
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2016, 09:42:50 PM »
Obviously not. But why not, and when will we? Please enlighten me. It should be a matter of time with this constant acceleration.
No, it shouldn't. You are operating under the assumptions of classical mechanics, which break down when the speeds involved get close to c.

You also need to read the FAQ. It's just lazy to try and argue points that have already been answered in the "you should read this before arguing points" document.

So, just because I'm so nice:

https://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#Objects_cannot_exceed_the_speed_of_light._Doesn.27t_this_mean_that_the_Earth_can.27t_accelerate_forever.3F
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
Re: Dear Flat Earthers, can you refute these three arguments?
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2016, 09:45:42 PM »
Obviously not. But why not, and when will we? Please enlighten me. It should be a matter of time with this constant acceleration.

We won't. Ever. Under special relativity, acceleration will asymptotically approach the speed of light but never reach it.


EDIT - What SexWarrior said.