Earth is Flat

[Subduction Zone]

I did not expect to get these kind of replies in a Christian forum of all places.

You cannot even explain something that can be seen every day. You cannot explain sunrise and sunset.

Science works on testable models. If you cannot make a testable model for your beliefs they are most likely wrong.

 

[Kinable]

You cannot even explain something that can be seen every day. You cannot explain sunrise and sunset.

Science works on testable models. If you cannot make a testable model for your beliefs they are most likely wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to have a description of what the video demonstrates. The rules of the forum require it. And you need to be ready to support the claims yourself. From the thumbnail it looks as if they are relying on a lens. Sorry, no magic lens in the sky.

 

[Freodin]

Add optics to the range of topics that Flerfs do not understand.

Did you notice that the "experiment" uses a very specific lense to achive this effect? Could you notice that different lenses give different effects?

Might you notice that such a specific lense does not exist - is in fact impossible to exist in our atmosphere... even on a Flat Earth?

 

[Kinable]

You need to have a description of what the video demonstrates. The rules of the forum require it. And you need to be ready to support the claims yourself. From the thumbnail it looks as if they are relying on a lens. Sorry, no magic lens in the sky.

Lets be honest, even if I did explain, your confirmation bias would immediately reject it because your mind is already made up about the shape of the earth. I try not to debate against people with a confirmation bias because it never ends, you're not open to even the slightest possibility that the Earth is not a sphere in space so why bother.

The truth is that we aren't entirely sure how the Earth works yet because not enough people do research on the subject and true flat earth theory is really hard to find. When you search flat earth you get 98% results trying to debunk it using globe earth science. Obviously a flat earth wouldn't work in the big bang theory model of the universe. When an object like the sun gets far enough away it gets closer and closer to the vanishing point horizon. For all I know the sun might be above the firmament and thus it acts like a lens similar to the globe earth atmosphere. Everything is pretty self explanatory tbh.

 

[pitabread]

Lets be honest, even if I did explain, your confirmation bias would immediately reject it because your mind is already made up about the shape of the earth. I try not to debate against people with a confirmation bias because it never ends, you're not open to even the slightest possibility that the Earth is not a sphere in space so why bother.

I'll be happy to consider that the Earth is not a sphere the moment a Flat Earther can explain how equatorial telescope mounts work in a flat Earth cosmological universe.

Oh, and also explain the existence of satellites and the ISS. With something other than claiming they either don't exist or they are just weather balloons.

The truth is that we aren't entirely sure how the Earth works yet because not enough people do research on the subject and true flat earth theory is really hard to find.

If the Earth really were flat then flat Earth cartography would be a multi-billion dollar business. Flat Earthers would be able to self-fund anything they wanted.

Yet it isn't and they can't....

 

[Kinable]

I'll be happy to consider that the Earth is not a sphere the moment a Flat Earther can explain how equatorial telescope mounts work in a flat Earth cosmological universe.

Oh, and also explain the existence of satellites and the ISS. With something other than claiming they either don't exist or they are just weather balloons.

If the Earth really were flat then flat Earth cartography would be a multi-billion dollar business.

Yet it isn't...

Satellites don't exist though. If they did, why don't the satellite dishes on our houses ever have to be moved or adjusted to compensate for globe earth's movement or when the satellite is on the other side of the earth?

You guys want me to explain LITERALLY EVERYTHING to change your minds while you're perfectly fine with believing gravity is determined by an object's mass. This is not observable or testable, you can't even get a feather to stick to a wrecking ball just based on it's mass, because gravity doesn't work that way.

 

[pitabread]

Satellites don't exist though.

Satellites are directly trackable and visible from the Earth's surface. In fact, they are quite common to view when star-gazing.

Replies like this are exactly why everyone thinks Flat Earth is a joke. You're trying to claim that things are directly observable don't exist.

 

[Kinable]

Satellites are directly trackable and visible from the Earth's surface. In fact, they are quite common to view when star-gazing.

Trackable how? How do you know those are satellites?

 

[Freodin]

Satellites don't exist though. If they did, why don't the satellite dishes on our houses ever have to be moved or adjusted to compensate for globe earth's movement or when the satellite is on the other side of the earth?

If you want to criticise something, you should at least be able to understand how it is supposed to work.
The answer is "geostationary orbits". These satellites are never "on the other side of the earth". They are in a fixed position.

And if these are "ground based"... then why do these dishes all point skywards? And skywards in an angle that is dependent on the latitude of the dishes global position?

You guys want me to explain LITERALLY EVERYTHING to change your minds while you're perfectly fine with believing gravity is determined by an object's mass. This is not observable or testable, you can't even get a feather to stick to a wrecking ball just based on it's mass, because gravity doesn't work that way.

Yes, if you want to criticise an established and well-working system, you should be able to explain how your alternative works... and why it should be preferred.

And, to repeat myself, you should be able to demonstrate your understanding of the system you are criticizing.
Gravity does indeed work based on the masses of the involved objects. It is not a very strong force though... you can easily find the relevant numbers on the net, and also the experiments that can be done to establish these numbers.
The problem that Flerfs like to ignore when they do their "debunkings" of gravity... spinning tennis balls or demanding water poured over a football to stick to it... in all these cases, there is a really really big object interfering with these experiments... the earth.

It is like trying to disprove the idea that a vaccuum cleaner could hold a piece of paper... while this paper is stuck to a train running away from you at 100 mph.

 

[topher694]

Time and time again in FE discussions the same FE prove gets thrown out every time it is refuted and it never makes any difference. It's clear "evidence" and "proof" will never be enough for flat-earthers, but that is the nature of conspiracy theories.

So how about a different approach? If flat earth were true, it would be the only biblical principle built entirely on deception. In order for FE to be true there HAS to be people out there purposely deceiving. Sure there has been deception out there since the fall, but God doesn't build his truth on deception. If FE is true that means that the lie is more powerful than God. Those in the conspiracy have the power to suppress God and exalt their lie. God's light is supposed to expose. In fact if FE were true, that would make God a liar as well. I mean how is it right that something that could prove the Bible as conclusively as a flat earth (in their minds) would, would only be available to the generations that live in this technological era where we can go into space and prove it? I guess those previous generations didn't have as much of God's favor as we do.

Further, FE arguments themselves use deceptive tactics (I'm not talking about the content itself, that is always discussed ad-nauseam... I mean tactics). For example, often "evidence" is given, but when challenged to go deeper the topic is changed or ignored, that's deceptive. Spamming information is another deceptive tactic often used. Ad-hominen attacks like calling critics "brainwashed", "sciencism", "confirmation bias", "you wouldn't understand anyway".

Want evidence against a flat earth, just look at the deception obsession. Truth can't be build on deception.

 

[pitabread]

Trackable how? How do you know those are satellites?

There are various web sites for tracking information. For example: N2YO.com - real time satellite tracking

Satellites themselves appear typically as slow-moving points of line traveling in a straight path. Some are even visible to the naked eye.

Larger objects like the ISS are more resolvable from the ground and it's a common photography target for amateur astronomers.

Back when I used to be more into astronomy it was quite common to see at least a couple satellites per star-gazing session.

 

[Kinable]

in all these cases, there is a really really big object interfering with these experiments... the earth.

 

[pitabread]

If you want to criticise something, you should at least be able to understand how it is supposed to work.
The answer is "geostationary orbits". These satellites are never "on the other side of the earth". They are in a fixed position.

Of course it's worth noting that not all satellites are in geosynchronous orbit, hence why it's possible to track and observe certain satellites traveling along their orbital path.

 

[topher694]

So now memes=proof?

This is how low we have sunk.

 

[Freodin]

Oh, my, a MEME!!! Whatever shall I do?
But, as always, Flerfs get it wrong.
The problem in all these cases is not "can't prove"... all these things can and have been proven.
There are two major problems... they are not proven with the naked eye... something Flerfs like to demand (Trust your senses!) when it is convenient for them and ignore when it doesn't fit their narrative.
The second problem is when their "experiment" simply does not model reality... in this case, the "water sticking to a ball" meme.

Sorry, I don't post pictures. But if you have ever seen a wet ball, you see "water sticking to a ball". Proportionally even more water than the oceans on earth. In these cases, the relevant force isn't gravity, but other adhesive forces.
So the concept is proven... contrary to what this "meme" claims.

And would it work with gravity? Well, yes, why not? If this force exists - and that can be shown in other ways - it would have that effect.

So what is your alternative?

 

[Kinable]

I just noticed, why am I even debating against an atheist and agnostic? This thread died when the mods moved it here. That explains the confirmation bias, I was really hoping I would only be talking to Christians on this topic. Oh well, I'm done here. I've said all I needed to say on this topic and provided more than enough proof why the earth is not a sphere. I have no interest in debating flat earth with non-Christians, been there done that, it's a debate that never ends.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

A map, dude. FE can't even come up with a map that works.

Lets see your map of the world. No good mate, it's horribly distorted, nothing is the right size or in the right place. That's what happens when you try to wrap a flat map around a ball.

And let's see your maps of the 'solar system', 'galaxy" and 'universe', while we're in fantasyland lol.

 

[Freodin]

Of course it's worth noting that not all satellites are in geosynchronous orbit, hence why it's possible to track and observe certain satellites traveling along their orbital path.

True. Here I was referring to the satellites that the fixed dishes he mentioned are pointed at.

Any astronomer here who has observed on of the geostationaries? At 40,000+ km, they are a little too far away to be visible with the naked eye, and I have no idea what kind of telescope you would need to see them.

 

[pitabread]

I've said all I needed to say on this topic and provided more than enough proof why the earth is not a sphere.

But you never tried to explain how equatorial telescope mounts work on a flat Earth.