Flat earth theory?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

They just ignore the flaws of their argument.

Yeah. Most FE explanations for observations of the world/nature/universe around us are ad hoc and lack internal consistency.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

that is the most retarded " explaination " - that the flat earth cult has

to acheive a 9m / sec 2 " acceleration due to gravity - from " falling "

their alledged flat earth has to be accelerating CONSTANTLY @ 9m / sec 2

they always runaway - when you ask them what thier " flat earth" velocity is NOW

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Akragon

how much " spills off " - per year

is the run - off ACTUALLY sufficient to hydrate 4 elephants and a turtule ??

how are terrestrial sea levvels replenished [ sea levels are not falling ]

science bitches

the water only spills off in one spot... just so the critter can get a drink once in a while

and he has to pee of course... so that evaporates and thats why it rains

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Only to rear their heads again elsewhere.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

please explain how : observers in capetown [ RSA ] , hobart [ tasmania ] observve sigma octantis at the same bearing ?

They don't. They would vary by 45 degrees according to the compass.
Seriously, compasses do not work in Australia to look for anything away from the North Pole.
The reason for this is the earth is flat, so if a point to the south from somewhere like Argentina, would not be also south from Australia because a line from the North Pole through where the observer is in Australia would be looking away from the North and would point a long ways away from where a line through Argentina from the North Pole would be pointing.

the difference between each degree of latitude - always 111km , the difference between each degree of longitude = a function of the latitude

This would be true for a theoretical sphere that you are describing that is so many thousands of miles wide, like some people think the earth is.
Obviously none of it is true for the actual earth.
I think there is a problem with Sphere earth believer's thinking, that because to them, someone describing earth in planar terms seems foreign to them and cannot shift their thinking from a spherical way of thinking of the earth, so they just invalidate it in their minds instead of going through the mental exercise to understand it.
What I mean is there is this very odd reaction that because you cannot describe a flat surface using spherical terminology, then it has to be somehow "wrong" and they cannot force themselves to react in any other way then to shut down completely and go into a mental fetal position.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

. . . simple observation shows when it gets closer to the horizon it gets bigger perceptually.

Can you do that and make a video of it and upload it to YouTube and post the link?
I think it would be very interesting and sure to get a lot of hits.
Watch this video from 2:25.
Seriously, no one in this forum has ever gone to YouTube?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

So what direction does one need to aim to make a bullet go straight?

The direction to a stationary target, where you can look at where it hits, after you fire the shot, by leaving a mark or dent or hole depending on the material used to make the target from.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Can a person walk on the underside of a flat Earth?

This is the only counter to flat earth possible from a sphere earth believer, say something like this and scrunch your face all up and tilt your hear so it touches your shoulder and flap your lips and go like , "Flat earthers be like, blub, blub blub".
I mean look at the video I posted earlier from the Morgile countering a video by a astronomy teacher, and look at how she goes into all these gyrations while ridiculing anyone proposing something counter to her beliefs, saying things like "it is not ok to say the earth is flat", as opposed to the narrator to the counter video, and how serious he is and just deals with the facts. Which one of those are you?

originally posted by: LolliKum
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Can a person walk on the underside of a flat Earth?

This is the only counter to flat earth possible from a sphere earth believer

False. Look at your flat Earth map. Look at the route planes take to go from Sydney to Santiago. Look at the distance required for that flight on a flat Earth. Tell me how that is possible on flat Earth.

again flat earth theory will always remain a theory and not a very popular one because it can never be proven
as it is a fallacy!

What flat earth theory boils down to , is a generation of people unwilling to accept commonly held knowledge of the natural world around us , proven by scientific analysis and backed up by independent observation of naturally occurring phenomenon by millions of scientific minds throughout history!
all because they cant be arsed to figure it out themselves and so automatically deny what they are being told is fact, personal incredulity = flat earth theory

In this case , because people have rallied against NASA for past mistakes or , what the public believe are conspiracies
then every scientific pursuit is in question as being a Lie or a Hoax

yet for that to occur you'd need every scientific mind to be in on it since as far back as copernicus !

so in order for the sphere earth to pass, you'd basically need a lot of people to perpetrate a hoax

I have said time and time again, all of you who support flat earth, prove it , by going to the ice wall and take a few pics or live stream it!

but it will never happen because that will shatter the world view that flat earth is real and everyone else is a liar !

but hey , if the catholic church can change, then so can you too!

originally posted by: LolliKum
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Can a person walk on the underside of a flat Earth?

This is the only counter to flat earth possible from a sphere earth believer...

Only? Where did you get that from?
There are many different rebuttals debunking a myriad of flat Earth idea.

I mean, I already mentioned the sunset/sunrise question, and there are plenty other counter arguments to Flat Earth ideas. Your answer about the sunset/sunrise gave a very odd definition of "perspective" that does not match any observation I've ever seen of perspective in action (i.e., your claim that the Sun would NOT appear to get smaller as it gets farther way in the perspective view).

It's almost like you saw a video made by a flat Earther talking about this perspective argument that simply ran with it without really ever thinking about how perspective actually manifests itself in the real world -- that is, it's as if you blindly believe what FE videos tell you without comparing it against how things (such as perpsective) really work.

If so, that would be very close-minded of you to believe everyting you read and hear without taking the time to confirm them for yourself.

(BTW, I also noticed you didn't answer my question about gravity, but instead resorted to deflection)

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

He completely ignored my empirical question about Sydney to Santiago. He must have looked at it, seen it was impossible, and ignored it.

more to the point , how does flat earth theory work with evolution
or with anything else we know about the natural world !

every line of inquiry it fails

how does the flat earth generate a magnetosphere ?

if the earth is flat , how do we have seasons ?

if the earth is flat , why is there an equator , why is there ICE at all on earth if its flat ?

you cant answer any of them because there is no logical process to which you can result in a reasonable answer !

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Tell me how that is possible on flat Earth.

These places do exist, no matter the type of map or globe or whatever you want to use to describe their location, so it is possible to go to them, it is not like they do not exist all of a sudden because you use a different format of a map.
I think probably your real question is how can you fly between those places within a certain amount of time if it seems it would take longer on a different map because it spreads the world out on the southern ends.
There are these things called Great Circles that you can imagine in the northern part of a globe by thinking of slicing a globe in half along the path between the two places to are traveling from and to, and then placing it on a flat map and it looks like an arc, and this is pretty common for things like going from the US to northern Europe and skirting along Greenland in between, except when dealing with the southern parts, or rather in flat earth terms, the outer reaches of the circle of the earth, those arcs will be shaped more like a U than a shallow C.

originally posted by: LolliKum
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Can a person walk on the underside of a flat Earth?

This is the only counter to flat earth possible from a sphere earth believer

Here's another (to go along with all of the other ways people have successfully counter the idea of a Flat Earth):

Why are there stars that can only be see in the Southern Hemisphere and other stars that could be only seen in the Northern hemisphere? You might say "perspective" again, but that does not explain what we can actually observe when it comes to the motions of these stars.


Even though there are problems with this perspective argument, let's ignore those and concentrate on the way those Southern Hemisphere stars move in the sky. Flat Earth's argue that the motion of the Stars in the Northern Hemisphere is due to the way the stars revolve around the Earth -- and that's whys Polaris, the North Star, appears to sit still while the rest of the stars appear to circle it as the night goes on (the "circumpolar" paths of the stars).

That's fine. Let's ignore other reasons that debunk this and go with that FE explanation of "Yes -- the motions of the Northern Hemisphere stars are due to the stars circling the Earth."....

...But then how does that explain the circumpolar star trails in the Southern Hemisphere?

Using that same explanation for the Southern Hemisphere, there is no way that Australia, southern South America, and southern Africa would all see the exact same circumpolar paths of the exact same Southern Hemisphere stars if the flat earth looks like the image below. Australia, southern South America, and southern Africa are all looking in different directions, and not only would each place see very different stars compared to the other Southern Hemisphere places, but there is no way that those stars would appear to move in a circumpolar path.


Please explain the observed apparent motions of the Southern Hemisphere stars as seen from these various far-away locations in the Southern Hemisphere.

a reply to: LolliKum

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



as we know earth was bombarded by heavy asteroids and meteors for a long period of time

if indeed the earth was a disc like that , one hit , would make it spin like a coin on its axis !

then giving it centrifugal force and eventually it would result in a sphere !

a reply to: LolliKum

Stop giving lazy answers. I said look at your flat Earth map, and tell me the distance between Sydney and Santiago on your flat Earth map. Then tell me how long it should take to travel that distance. I am not looking for cool words, you say you do research, so do some and give me the actual answers.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

aye so how do they account for the time taken to travel from point A to point B on a flat earth ?
compared to the reality of travelling around a globe from point A to Point B

Comets !

how does flat earth account for comets passing around the sun , if the sun isnt some huge object millions of miles away and its closer , how do they account for that