Originally posted by FreakyKBHHere is what I think: You and every other so-called flat Earther is just taking a position as devils advocate and having a joke about it laughing your ass off at our expense. Therefore I see no need to continue this farce. You do not really believe the Earth is flat if you believe the Moon is actually more or less spherical.
Somewhere along the southern edge of the world, of course.
The sun really is 100 million miles away more or less because you can put thermometers and optical energy measuring tools on both sides of the Earth one at sunset and the other at sunrise and the the measurements are the same.
So the measurement thousands of years ago of the stick at noon where one about 1000 Km from the other shows a difference in shadow angle. That is not because the sun is closer and you know that full well.
In short you are having a great time seeing how we jump through your hoops.
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou do realize he is having a great laugh at putting us through these stupid hoops don't you? You have to know he really doesn't believe Earth is flat, he is just playing devil's advocate for laughs.
Where though? If the South Pole doesn't exist, where's the South Pole station?
Originally posted by sonhouseI think you could be correct
You do realize he is having a great laugh at putting us through these stupid hoops don't you? You have to know he really doesn't believe Earth is flat, he is just playing devil's advocate for laughs.
No one would seriously argue for a flat earth.
But then there are people on RHP who argue for a 6000 years old universe.
So it is hard to tell,but I think he must be having a laugh.
Originally posted by biffo konkerWe are all going to look pretty silly if it transpires we inhabit a 6000 year old flat Earth that is situated on the back of a turtle, and which deliberately plotted the assassination of JFK.
I think you could be correct
No one would seriously argue for a flat earth.
But then there are people on RHP who argue for a 6000 years old universe.
So it is hard to tell,but I think he must be having a laugh.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou have a right to formulate your own opinions, as do we all.
Here is what I think: You and every other so-called flat Earther is just taking a position as devils advocate and having a joke about it laughing your ass off at our expense. Therefore I see no need to continue this farce. You do not really believe the Earth is flat if you believe the Moon is actually more or less spherical.
The sun really is 100 millio ...[text shortened]... w that full well.
In short you are having a great time seeing how we jump through your hoops.
All of us make those decisions on what we consider to be compelling evidence.
Either side can take isolated inconsistencies found in the opposing view and simply run with it, insisting the argument won.
As has been overwhelmingly demonstrated on this and other topic-related threads, I've endeavored to provide multiple peculiarities present in the opposing view and yet even on exceedingly simple exercises, these challenges have been met with silence or changes of focus.
Those espousing the opposing view have been tasked with (to hear the cacophonous chorus) what should be an easy assignment: prove the globe earth model.
To this point in the conversations, that assignment has remained unfulfilled.
There are plenty of those voting for the globe earth model.
There are plenty of those same voters decrying the idiocy of any other thought in light of what is "known."
And yet what is "known" has proven (thus far) completely and unequivocally un-provable.
This is a bizarre sequence of events, by any stretch.
So, two questions to ask one's self:
1. Why are the questions posed to globe earth proponents seemingly too difficult to fulfill?
2. How can such a universally-accepted piece of "knowledge" (globe earth) be too difficult to prove objectively?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnswers:
So, two questions to ask one's self:
1. Why are the questions posed to globe earth proponents seemingly too difficult to fulfill?
2. How can such a universally-accepted piece of "knowledge" (globe earth) be too difficult to prove objectively?
1. They aren't.
2. It isn't.
See Thread 165913.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you are serious, which I doubt, it is you who refuse to accept any scientific evidence that has existed for 3000 years. If you are serious you think satellites are just going round in a circle above Earth which puts you in the position of not believing in gravity also since a real flat planet would not allow satellites to go in a simple circle like it would have to in your mythology.
You have a right to formulate your own opinions, as do we all.
All of us make those decisions on what we consider to be compelling evidence.
Either side can take isolated inconsistencies found in the opposing view and simply run with it, insisting the argument won.
As has been overwhelmingly demonstrated on this and other topic-related threads, I've end ...[text shortened]... a universally-accepted piece of "knowledge" (globe earth) be too difficult to prove objectively?
YOU are the one who needs to think things through and try to visualize the implications of a flat Earth, not us.
For instance, visualize a planet sized object that happens to be 'flat', where the 'diameter' is much larger than the depth of the planet.
Now think about what the gravity field would look like.
Now visualize how you are going to have some kind of stable orbit above such a flat surface. All that would happen in the real world is the satellite would spiral downwards to crash into the ground, there is no stable orbit possible for such a path through space.
If you don't agree with that, you have a much more fundamental issue going on, tilting against the windmills of 400 years of physics.
Originally posted by sonhouseI have (and continue to) study ALL the evidence for any explanation of the physical world.
If you are serious, which I doubt, it is you who refuse to accept any scientific evidence that has existed for 3000 years. If you are serious you think satellites are just going round in a circle above Earth which puts you in the position of not believing in gravity also since a real flat planet would not allow satellites to go in a simple circle like it w ...[text shortened]... e a much more fundamental issue going on, tilting against the windmills of 400 years of physics.
Historically speaking, man has held the globe model as reality a small fraction of the whole; the remaining time man has held the world to be various forms of flat, or table-like.
Bringing gravity into the situation will only muddy the waters, as it is a phenomenon too malleable to take serious, too complex and therefore at odds with an otherwise simple physical reality.
No one has suggested any depth to the planet, that I am aware of.
I am aware that the furthest we have ever drilled into the core is 12 miles, but what lies beyond that is nothing more than speculation.
That being said, you haven't answered the two questions...
Originally posted by FMFMore air-filled proclamations.
Answers:
1. They aren't.
2. It isn't.
See Thread 165913.
If you want, I can post a link to the thread and you can read it for yourself.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am suggesting that people, if they are interested, should see how you fared on the thread where this topic was discussed, and see - for themselves - whether your characterization of what your 'opponents' were and weren't able to argue is true or not.
More air-filled proclamations.
If you want, I can post a link to the thread and you can read it for yourself.
For someone who thinks he was somehow vindicated on that thread, you don't half huff and puff when it's suggested that people go look and judge for themselves how you acquitted yourself on it. 😉