A debate
« on: February 19, 2018, 11:39:38 PM »
I would like to debate any flat earther, I have debated 2 flat people on debate.org and made them run, but it wasn't enough. So please, any other flatman want to try?

Arguments:
1) Ships going down bottom first
2) Curve seen several times
3) Transmission lines curving
4) Stars rotating clockwise in Australia and anti-clockwise in UK (Rotation proven)
5) Water can curve around a ball.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/flat-earth-follies-water-curving-around.html?m=1
6) Lunar eclipses show a sphere.

Pick any you want to go through or whatever you want to go through, I just kindly request for a debate.

It's easier on debate.org but we can do it here too.

JohnAdams1145

Re: A debate
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2018, 12:18:20 AM »
I think you underestimate some of the Flat Earth people here. Because of their high standards of proof and need for you to show experiments that they can perform at home or can be performed cheaply on a large scale, you'll need to invoke a lot of science to debunk them.

They believe they've already addressed many of your points below (although their explanations were absolute junk). So all you'll get is some mean, snarky responses from them.

I'll just give some (not representative of all FE) arguments that I've heard against what you've said:

1. Waves / thermal inversion / atmospheric refraction
2. You'll see a curve because the spotlight is circular. See the High Altitude Photographs section of the wiki.
3. They always droop... This has nothing to do with the flatness of the Earth. If you're referring to undersea cables, a few FEs have asserted that the measurements weren't made to requisite precision to construct the appropriate quadrilateral to debunk the flatness of the Earth.
4. Or the stars could just be rotating above the Earth... There's no FE map so you can't be sure of where the observers are. Of course, if you get into the nitty gritty, this explanation quickly falls apart, but they won't hesitate to take you there.
5. No relevance to whether the Earth is flat. This is a bad argument put forward by FE that most here don't accept. Of course water can curve if you hold it there.
6. Nope. There's a shadow object blocking the Moon.

I'd be happy to play devil's advocate on debate.org against you to show that a lot of their arguments are far more cogent than you believe. Yet when you look at the physics, it all falls apart, because most of the arguments are premised on fundamental misunderstandings of basic physics. But they're not nonsensical.

Re: A debate
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2018, 03:35:06 PM »
I see, my username on debate.org is "Youngastronomer" (no numbers)

Let's respond to the points they make
1) That is not how the atmosphere works unfortunately. Even if you zoom in, it still gets blocked.

2) Not sure what you mean, unless you mean fisheye lens.

3) That doesn't appear to make sense really and is hard to interpret.

4) But it's very difficult for them to find a reason why they don't rotate the same direction.

5) No no, it just disproves the "Water is always flat" argument. If water gets pulled by an adhesive force, it will easily curve and stick, even if the ball spins.

Extra: Why can't we see the same stars as England/Australia?
https://www.dailygrail.com/2017/11/infiltrating-the-flat-earth-international-conference/
This model implies that all of us should see the same stars easily.

Re: A debate
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2018, 04:29:34 PM »
I see, my username on debate.org is "Youngastronomer" (no numbers)

Let's respond to the points they make
1) That is not how the atmosphere works unfortunately. Even if you zoom in, it still gets blocked.

2) Not sure what you mean, unless you mean fisheye lens.

3) That doesn't appear to make sense really and is hard to interpret.

4) But it's very difficult for them to find a reason why they don't rotate the same direction.

5) No no, it just disproves the "Water is always flat" argument. If water gets pulled by an adhesive force, it will easily curve and stick, even if the ball spins.

Extra: Why can't we see the same stars as England/Australia?
https://www.dailygrail.com/2017/11/infiltrating-the-flat-earth-international-conference/
This model implies that all of us should see the same stars easily.
1. This is where the 'waves' bit comes in. "Can you not hide an elephant behind a dime?" Is an oft used phrase in this regard.

2. The sun shines in a spotlight. The apparent curve at the edge in the photographs is simply the edge of the round spotlight of the sun creating to the illusion of a curve.

3. Don't really understand your original point here if I'm honest. Could you clarify?

4. My personal favorite is the bipolar model (the 'official' one of the FES) which allows for two poles, the stars rotating above each in opposite directions.

Extra. Perspective.

I would note I'm no FE believer either, but have been in both forms for some months. While I don't agree with ( or even always understand) their arguments, I do know most of them.

Re: A debate
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2018, 07:05:27 PM »
"1. This is where the 'waves' bit comes in. 'Can you not hide an elephant behind a dime?' Is an oft used phrase in this regard.

2. The sun shines in a spotlight. The apparent curve at the edge in the photographs is simply the edge of the round spotlight of the sun creating to the illusion of a curve.

3. Don't really understand your original point here if I'm honest. Could you clarify?

4. My personal favorite is the bipolar model (the 'official' one of the FES) which allows for two poles, the stars rotating above each in opposite directions.

Extra. Perspective.

I would note I'm no FE believer either, but have been in both forms for some months. While I don't agree with ( or even always understand) their arguments, I do know most of them."

1 ) You could hide the elephant but the horizon is only 3 miles away on the ground (assuming you are 6 feet, well I am.) I don't think the waves could cover a big ship. And you can't see the waves, the water generally looks stable.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ship+crossing+horizon&client=ms-android-tmobile-gb&prmd=visn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSv6CflbXZAhUJL8AKHcXpBj8Q_AUIEigC&biw=360&bih=560#imgrc=BtSgejgSJlm55M:

2) The sunlight can make the Earth look curved?

3) If you look at Lake Pontchartrain's transmission towers, they are crossing the horizon and curving down. Upon zooming in with a Nikon P900, the curvature became much more visible (not the other way round.)


4) Sounds unusual, clarify please?

Re: A debate
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2018, 07:56:02 PM »
1. As I said, I know the arguments, but understanding of them is limited. I suggest looking around the forums some. It's been discussed a number of times.

2. https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs I'm not sure how best to describe it. That's their page on it, hopefully that helps. Think of it like, the 'curve' we're seeing is actually the curved edge of the sun's spotlight? I hope that makes sense.

3. Ah, yes. The last time this was brought forth it was simply declared fake/a hoax. The thread is relatively recent, and I had posted in it. I can see about digging it up for you if you like. I don't recall it really getting anywhere though.

4. From the page Layout of the Continents in the wiki, we have the Bipolar model:


In this the sky/stars would be comprised of two 'celestial gears' with one focus above the North Pole, and the other above the South Pole. The 'grind against one another' at the Equator. The rotation of them explains the Coriolis effect, as well as the stars rotating in opposite directions. As an aside it also cleans up Antarctica into it's own continent, and according to at least one member of the society it's actually technically their 'official' suggestion for the layout of the FE.

Re: A debate
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2018, 09:36:26 PM »
1. As I said, I know the arguments, but understanding of them is limited. I suggest looking around the forums some. It's been discussed a number of times.

2. https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs I'm not sure how best to describe it. That's their page on it, hopefully that helps. Think of it like, the 'curve' we're seeing is actually the curved edge of the sun's spotlight? I hope that makes sense.

3. Ah, yes. The last time this was brought forth it was simply declared fake/a hoax. The thread is relatively recent, and I had posted in it. I can see about digging it up for you if you like. I don't recall it really getting anywhere though.

4. From the page Layout of the Continents in the wiki, we have the Bipolar model:


In this the sky/stars would be comprised of two 'celestial gears' with one focus above the North Pole, and the other above the South Pole. The 'grind against one another' at the Equator. The rotation of them explains the Coriolis effect, as well as the stars rotating in opposite directions. As an aside it also cleans up Antarctica into it's own continent, and according to at least one member of the society it's actually technically their 'official' suggestion for the layout of the FE.

1) Alright, I'll surf around.

2) Sorry if I sound very stupid, it still sounds very peculiar to me.

3) Yeah, but simply claiming it's fake is not an argument but an assertion.

4) Looks spherical, but it's probably convex. Even so, this means we don't live on an infinite paper or a pancake.

Sounds like flat earth isn't very easy to beat.

Re: A debate
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2018, 09:52:28 PM »
2. I don't blame you, it is in a way. Think about holding a mag light, or similar flashlight you can focus into having sharp edges, and shining it downwards onto a table. The edges are curved right? Imagine that's the sun, and you send something up from the table towards it. You would be able to see that light edge, and could even describe it as a curve. FE asserts that's what is happening.

3. Welcome to the FE forums to be honest. They had a few bits of circumstantial evidence that they used to 'back up' the assertion, but nothing terribly concrete. It was enough I could see a neutral observer allowing some doubt, but nowhere near enough that I felt it could be thrown out as completely fake without more.

4. I believe they still consider it a paper/pancake? This one has much less discussion, in no small part because it has some very serious issues impeding it from being even close to an 'acceptable' rough model in comparison to the AEP.

Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: A debate
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2018, 01:59:23 AM »
I feel bad for so many people when maps like the flat one included here are shown.  When people in Samoa travel to Hawaii, it is not that long of a flight.  But it looks here that it will take several refuelings of the best commercial jets.  So long as we stay in our basement and ignore that people live in places everywhere on these maps, it might work.  But we should care about the Polynesians and everyone and not just slap them in the face with silly maps that ignore where they live.
These people share a common history and they should not have to be relegated to the fringes of the world for the convenience of flat earthers who choose to live in the middle parts.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
    • View Profile
Re: A debate
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2018, 03:21:55 AM »
I would like to debate any flat earther, I have debated 2 flat people on debate.org and made them run, but it wasn't enough. So please, any other flatman want to try?

Arguments:
1) Ships going down bottom first
2) Curve seen several times
3) Transmission lines curving
4) Stars rotating clockwise in Australia and anti-clockwise in UK (Rotation proven)
5) Water can curve around a ball.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/flat-earth-follies-water-curving-around.html?m=1
6) Lunar eclipses show a sphere.

Pick any you want to go through or whatever you want to go through, I just kindly request for a debate.

It's easier on debate.org but we can do it here too.

Given that this is just a RE circlejerk, I am locking this thread.