Poll

Would you consider making an argument in favor of Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

Yes
9 (47.4%)
No
10 (52.6%)

Total Members Voted: 19

Why hang up the debates on me or maybe Thork to appear? Why not hear more voices other than my own? Isn't that more interesting?

It would be, yes. As a relative newcomer to this site I very much have the impression that it's something of a "one man show" - and I would think more voices would be satisfying.

Of course you can, in principle, honestly discuss a flat-earth as kind of gedankenexperiment. So you can take the laws of physics and then assume a flat world. Then think of the consequences and design a model. You can even invent new laws of physics and use them in your model. That's all fine and honest.

Have you seen the Vsauce video on flat earth? The point about the impossibility of gravity on a flat world is interesting.

Is this why flat earth believers are forced to deny gravity? Or was it some other reason?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 04:57:14 PM by Max_Almond »
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

Why hang up the debates on me or maybe Thork to appear? Why not hear more voices other than my own? Isn't that more interesting?

It would be, yes. As a relative newcomer to this site I very much have the impression that it's something of a "one man show" - and I would think more voices would be satisfying.

Of course you can, in principle, honestly discuss a flat-earth as kind of gedankenexperiment. So you can take the laws of physics and then assume a flat world. Then think of the consequences and design a model. You can even invent new laws of physics and use them in your model. That's all fine and honest.

Have you seen the V-Sauce video on flat earth? The point about the impossibility of gravity on a flat world is interesting.

Is this why flat earth believers are forced to deny gravity? Or was it some other reason?
Just a reminder not all FE believers deny gravity. Although it's not as popular on this site, infinite plane Earth has no need to deny it, as the most obvious issues with gravity for a finite disc Earth, are fixed under the infinite plane model. Gravity variances are then explained in much the same way as for a finite disc.

As I've pointed out before though Tom, your objection to 'Ancient Greek Math' essentially boils down to claiming geometry that works at any realistically testable difference, stops working at some unknown distance for no known reason, and without any proper evidence (as all of it relies upon the starting assumption of a flat Earth). You then claim it's on us to prove that it keeps working at those distances, rather than understanding it's on you to disprove the model.

If we argue for flat earth, are we allowed to say things like this?



 ;D ;D ;D
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5435
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
I have supporting arguments in that thread that the Latitude and Longitude coordinate system is based on spherical coordinates, and not necessarily a direct test of the distance traveled. Way to quote mine.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 05:45:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

The above really demonstrates, for me, why "arguing on the other side" probably won't work.

The only way to defend flat earth, at a certain stage, is to be intellectually dishonest.
This is the exact problem.

A debate needs an interesting subject matter, and we have that, but it also needs to have two equally credible positions one can take on it, and we don’t have that.

You can only defend FE...what I will charitably call “Theory” by denying all modern science and claiming everything which shows you to be wrong to be fake.
And as you say, you have to be actively dishonest like Tom is being in the threads about horizon dip, pretending he thinks the “real horizon” is actually in the middle of the sky or that tiny errors in alignment are significant.

It’s not an honest way to debate and that’s why a debate club won’t work because you can’t honestly debate from either side on this one.


"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

I have supporting arguments in that thread that the Latitude and Longitude coordinate system is based on spherical coordinates, and not necessarily a direct test of the distance traveled. Way to quote mine.

Quote mining? I ought to say it takes one to know one: but also that's not really "quote mining" as we mean it, since I'm not taking your words out of context to attempt to give them a different meaning.

As it's presented is what you both said and meant.

Though you are perfectly within your rights to say you've changed your mind on that (just as any humble, smart, and honest person would do).

Also, the question was "would we be allowed to say things like that if we were pretending to be flat earthers?" I.e., dispute evidence presented by questioning the very fabric of what is accepted as reality.

If you take that to it's logical conclusion you can just as easily dismiss everything Rowbotham claimed, since he never once personally measured the Bedford Levels, nor paced it out from London to Brighton, nor strung a homemade tape measure across the sea between two points - and keep going that way till you start thinking you're a brain in a jar and it's all just a dream.

Do you see what I'm saying?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 05:46:12 PM by Max_Almond »
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5435
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
actively dishonest like Tom is being in the threads about horizon dip, pretending he thinks the “real horizon” is actually in the middle of the sky

Bobby has shown that the atmosphere in the distance does matter in regards to where the horizon is located.

Why are you accusing others of dishonesty?

Why are you accusing others of dishonesty?

Probably because most of the respondents here feel very strongly that you're frequently "intellectually dishonest".
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 06:04:26 PM by Max_Almond »
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Er...could it be that it's because you're dishonest, Tom?  ;D
Please refrain from this sort of pettiness in the upper. If you want to tell the world about your feelings towards Tom, do so in Angry Ranting.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

I'll edit it to more accurately reflect the sentiment.

Though may I also point out that it was in reply to a question?
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
I'll edit it to more accurately reflect the sentiment.
Not really an improvement. Please just try to keep these sort of remarks to their appropriate board in the future.

Though may I also point out that it was in reply to a question?
There are good and bad ways to answer a question. For example, I could answer this with "Yes." - not very helpful, is it? Similarly, an appropriate answer to Tom's question would be providing some reasoning or evidence. Answering it with, effectively, "I'm calling you x because you are x" is devoid of any substance. "You're x because many people think you're x" is much the same.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Fair enough.

Or, even better, probably I should have just left it to the person it was addressed to. ;)

Anyway, back to the matter at hand...
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Despite getting irritated yesterday, I now volunteer to represent FE from the southern FE perspective (!).

Broadly, southern FE supports all the main arguments for Northern FE, but we think the centre of the world is Antarctica, and that the ring of ice is at the outer rim of the world, just as with Northern FE, except we think it has a different location.

We also think there is a gigantic conspiracy to delude ordinary people into thinking there is a place called the 'North Pole', where lines of longitude meet. This is a lie. Clearly the lines radiate out from where we live in the middle of Antarctica, like wheels on from a spoke, and terminate at the Northern Rim.

I did start a thread about this, but a moderator deleted it as 'nonsense'.

Why is it nonsense to suppose that there is a ring of ice around the so-called 'Northern' regions? Why is it nonsense to suppose that the world is flat? It is clearly flat in the ice fields where I live.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2018, 11:39:55 AM by edby »

Thing is, we've been to the north pole, explored it, and even flown across it and come out the other side.

Though to that you'd probably say, "you personally?" and I'd have to admit I hadn't.

Good point.

What about all the photos and videos from space that show the Earth is round? How do you explain them?
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Thing is, we've been to the north pole, explored it, and even flown across it and come out the other side.

Though to that you'd probably say, "you personally?" and I'd have to admit I hadn't.

Good point.

What about all the photos and videos from space that show the Earth is round? How do you explain them?
These are clearly manufactured by NASA. Surely you can do better than that?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Max, there is a book written by Samuel Birley Rowbotham called Earth Not a Globe. You may learn a lot by reading it. Come back when you understand a little bit more.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5435
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
There is a minority subgroup of FE'ers who argue that the south pole is the center. We were discussing it with them last year. They believe that much of upper Siberia and the upper Arctic Circle is poorly understood.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2018, 02:39:57 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1060
    • View Profile
What about all the photos and videos from space that show the Earth is round? How do you explain them?
These are clearly manufactured by NASA. Surely you can do better than that?

I can do better.

Between the space agencies of Russia, China, India, Japan, USA, Europe, and the private efforts of independents from (at least) the USA and New Zealand, humankind has notched up over 70 years of manned and unmanned orbital space flight.

The presence of manned and unmanned orbital craft is verified on a daily basis by organisations and individuals, professional and amateur, from pretty much every civilised country on Earth, who;

- Monitor the orbital tracks of those satellites for geodesic purposes, sometimes purposes independent of the purpose of the satellite
- Download data from those satellites, for a variety of purposes; scientific, commercial and recreational
- Upload data to those satellites, usually for news-gathering, broadcasting, or commercial communication
- Navigate using data from those satellites
- Receive TV and radio services from them
- Observe the satellites by eye or by telescope, sometimes simply for the pleasure of doing so
- Maintain the orbital tracks of those satellites, and operate them, as a commercial enterprise providing services to others

If these satellites were not actually in orbit around a globe Earth, someone in one or more of the above groups would have noticed by now.
 
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Get out of that one, Edby! :)
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Get out of that one, Edby! :)
We have been here a hundred, if not a thousand times before. Go and do some reading in the subject.