No, the earth is not flat

[posthuman]

Magnetic north is the center of the Earth plane.

plz diagram & explain the magnetic field of a disc.

East and West are simply circles around the center in a counterclockwise or clockwise direction respectively.

that's exactly what i put in my post; see point 1 measuring directions by the stars;
plz stop strawmanning me. i've been examining the science of flat earth theory since you were 5 yrs old.

 

[posthuman]

'we've only had 10 yrs'

wow lol.

 

[posthuman]

Who made the sky?



watch it

 

[posthuman]

What God created is interesting ain't it?

 

[posthuman]

@JStates

please put a big green dot on this image to indicate where on the shell of the dome you think the north star ((polaris)) is located?

ok thkz.

 

[Handyman62]

STOP STRAWMANNING US. You are not the only one doing it, but it's getting annoying.

You do not understand what serious flat earthers believe. You misrepresent us, and then attack the misrepresentation. This is called the "Strawman Fallacy." It is dishonest and insulting.

Magnetic north is the center of the Earth plane. East and West are simply circles around the center in a counterclockwise or clockwise direction respectively. If you go east or west long enough, you come back to your starting point.

By the way, this information was already covered in the serious flat earth materials I have already posted on this site.

Strawmanning you?? So me asking you a few questions means you have to accuse me of attacking you?

If you think your reaction makes you and your cause look better then more power to you.

 

[kinda]

View attachment 235349

What God created is interesting ain't it?

100%

Picture was taken of a star from my beginners telescope. Looks like a moon right?

 

[Combanitorics]

I can appreciate questioning the powers that be and all, but the earth is not flat. Two indisputable observations prove it:

1. You cannot see all stars from all points, and that's due to curve of the earth. From our perspective in the northern hemisphere, we cannot see the Southern Cross. And they cannot see northern hemisphere stars from the south. I have never seen a flat earther explain how this can possibly comport with their dome model. If you've ever visited a dome (like the Capitol Rotunda) you can see everything in it from any point under it. Look at any of the countless models of the so-called flat earth online. Pick a point - any point. Then ask yourself why you cannot see all the stars from that point. It simply does not make sense.
2. The apparent rotation of the stars is another easy objection to the flat earth model. When you observe the stars and trace them over the course of an evening, they appear to rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern. Known as diurnal motion, this fits exactly with what you would expect from a sphere. It's not even worth exploring how different constellations of stars could appear to rotate in complete opposite directions under a dome.

Again, these are observations anyone can make with their own eyes. There is no room for CGI, fish eye lenses, NASA conspiracies, or the other usual litany of conspiracies flat earthers use to dismiss "globe earthers" out of hand. Sorry. Earth isn't flat.

The fundamental problem with the flat earth theory is that in order to believe in it and know enough to map it you have to embrace Lobachevski Geometry, which requires Riemannian geometry, which is totally reactionary. Talk about plagiarizing and throwing back to prehistory, it's Euclid's Elements without the fifth postulate.

 

[Handyman62]

The fundamental problem with the flat earth theory is that in order to believe in it and know enough to map it you have to embrace Lobachevski Geometry, which requires Riemannian geometry, which is totally reactionary. Talk about plagiarizing and throwing back to prehistory, it's Euclid's Elements without the fifth postulate.

I'm going to put it in simple terms.

To many things about the flat earth theory don't pass the smell test.

 

[Combanitorics]

I'm going to put it in simple terms.

To many things about the flat earth theory don't pass the smell test.

Personally, I think that's a valid reason not to believe in it. Well, it might not be "Logically valid and sound both!" in all capital letters in Aristotelian Greek, but it is good enough. There are two ways to formally disprove it, one is to derive the fifth postulate on a two-column table, and the other one is via reductio ad absurdum.

 

[posthuman]

The fundamental problem with the flat earth theory is that in order to believe in it and know enough to map it you have to embrace Lobachevski Geometry, which requires Riemannian geometry, which is totally reactionary. Talk about plagiarizing and throwing back to prehistory, it's Euclid's Elements without the fifth postulate.

and then you've thrown away topology altogether because you've constrained yourself to a plane - it's exactly what i've been trying to point out earlier this evening; you cut yourself off from even beginning to speak about things like domes. they simply can't exist in such a world.

 

[Handyman62]

Personally, I think that's a valid reason not to believe in it. Well, it might not be "Logically valid and sound both!" in all capital letters in Aristotelian Greek, but it is good enough. There are two ways to formally disprove it, one is to derive the fifth postulate on a two-column table, and the other one is via reductio ad absurdum.

I'll put it another way.

If I found out the Pastor of the Church I attend believed in the flat Earth theory.

I would leave and find another Church.

 

[Gideon300]

So how do I find this ice wall?

You won't. It's not there.

 

[Dino246]

STOP STRAWMANNING US. You are not the only one doing it, but it's getting annoying.

You do not understand what serious flat earthers believe. You misrepresent us, and then attack the misrepresentation. This is called the "Strawman Fallacy." It is dishonest and insulting.

Magnetic north is the center of the Earth plane. East and West are simply circles around the center in a counterclockwise or clockwise direction respectively. If you go east or west long enough, you come back to your starting point.

By the way, this information was already covered in the serious flat earth materials I have already posted on this site.

You can complain about straw man fallacies, but you haven't yet explained the sun appearing to the Southeast from the Sidney Opera House. Step up, man.

 

[JStates]

You can complain about straw man fallacies, but you haven't yet explained the sun appearing to the Southeast from the Sidney Opera House. Step up, man.

Sure, sure. Care to explain what gravity is, or give me that HD photo of the whole globe Earth I keep asking for?

Your Sidney Opera House question is a good one, and I don't have an answer for it at the moment. But there is sort of a veiled implication behind these ceaseless questions that needs to be addressed: the heliocentric model does not have all the answers to all of the universe's questions as some seem to think. You globers keep complaining that I cannot answer every question thrown at you... but I notice that you also keep avoiding the best work that flat earthers have produced. I doubt a single one of you could even debunk the tiny pamphlet "Kings Dethroned" by Hickson.

Globers and flat earthers alike can justifiably appeal to a simple human lack of omniscience when they fail to answer with perfection every query posed to them. However, there can be no discussion whatsoever if parties are going to resort to fallacious argumentation.

 

[Dino246]

Sure, sure. Care to explain what gravity is, or give me that HD photo of the whole globe Earth I keep asking for?

Your Sidney Opera House question is a good one, and I don't have an answer for it at the moment. But there is sort of a veiled implication behind these ceaseless questions that needs to be addressed: the heliocentric model does not have all the answers to all of the universe's questions as some seem to think. You globers keep complaining that I cannot answer every question thrown at you... but I notice that you also keep avoiding the best work that flat earthers have produced. I doubt a single one of you could even debunk the tiny pamphlet "Kings Dethroned" by Hickson.

Globers and flat earthers alike can justifiably appeal to a simple human lack of omniscience when they fail to answer with perfection every query posed to them. However, there can be no discussion whatsoever if parties are going to resort to fallacious argumentation.

I don't do ceaseless questions; I ask for flatters to explain one observable phenomenon. Nobody has stepped up. The only person who even tried failed miserably and was rebuked by another flatter for his folly.

As for gravity, if you don't accept the standard mass explanation, I can't help you, as I don't have a viable alternative. I have heard of another theory but don't understand it well enough to explain it.

If you want to avoid fallacious argumentation, then don't expect me to support assertions that I didn't make.

 

[Gideon300]

Sure, sure. Care to explain what gravity is, or give me that HD photo of the whole globe Earth I keep asking for?

Your Sidney Opera House question is a good one, and I don't have an answer for it at the moment. But there is sort of a veiled implication behind these ceaseless questions that needs to be addressed: the heliocentric model does not have all the answers to all of the universe's questions as some seem to think. You globers keep complaining that I cannot answer every question thrown at you... but I notice that you also keep avoiding the best work that flat earthers have produced. I doubt a single one of you could even debunk the tiny pamphlet "Kings Dethroned" by Hickson.

Globers and flat earthers alike can justifiably appeal to a simple human lack of omniscience when they fail to answer with perfection every query posed to them. However, there can be no discussion whatsoever if parties are going to resort to fallacious argumentation.

Every flat earth argument is fallacious. So that explains the lack of discussion.

 

[Combanitorics]

Proving that the Earth is flat has to be done theoretically. That's what all proofs are, in reality. In any of the seven disciplines. The Earth can be proved flat in a fallacious geometry. It's the one Euclid defined and expounded on, minus the fifth postulate, and adding (which can be derived in absentia of postulate five) one triangle similarity proof. It was Rimann who first subtracted the parallel postulate and Lobachevsky who first added Angle Side Side. At least most people think so. It's "modern math" or in the lyrics of the profound (and maybe a bit profane) Tom Lehrer, New Math. Lehrer also thinks that Lobachevsky plagiarized, and I've heard attempted proofs before, but they all rely on grammar, and are not specifically geometrical.

 

[Runningman]

If the Earth was flat and people managed to get a picture of that, there would be droves of people claiming it was photoshopped much like how the flatearthers claim globe Earth photos are faked. I say just flip a coin and pick what you want to believe. It doesn't really make a difference either way. P.S. - the Bible doesn't confirm or deny flat earth.

 

[Handyman62]

Proving that the Earth is flat has to be done theoretically. That's what all proofs are, in reality. In any of the seven disciplines. The Earth can be proved flat in a fallacious geometry. It's the one Euclid defined and expounded on, minus the fifth postulate, and adding (which can be derived in absentia of postulate five) one triangle similarity proof. It was Rimann who first subtracted the parallel postulate and Lobachevsky who first added Angle Side Side. At least most people think so. It's "modern math" or in the lyrics of the profound (and maybe a bit profane) Tom Lehrer, New Math. Lehrer also thinks that Lobachevsky plagiarized, and I've heard attempted proofs before, but they all rely on grammar, and are not specifically geometrical.

The lack of proof of a flat earth is much simpler to prove. The fact that nobody has seen this ice wall that is supposed to surround the earth is plenty of proof.

If this ice wall did exist there would almost certainly have been thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people that would have shown proof of it.

This ice wall could not be hidden from 99.9% of the population.