No, the earth is not flat

[JStates]

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.

You should go look at my Biblical Cosmology thread. I had so much Bible material on the subject it took two full posts to introduce the thread. Thus far, no one has really commented on the Bible part of this at all. :/

 

[JStates]

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.

You wanna see the ice wall? You've got the internet and eyeballs, pal!

 

[JStates]

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.

Actually, it could be done experimentally by proving what is really behind the phenomenon we describe as "gravity" ...or stuff falling.

The consensus view says it's mass attracting mass, but this cannot be demonstrated here on Earth's surface and there are some huge problems with the concept. One being that the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold matter together are way stronger than gravity, leading to some imbalances in the physicists' math. There needs to be more mass in the universe and there simply isn't. This is why there is a desperate search to find dark matter and dark energy, because 95% of the theorized mass in the universe is simply missing under the heliocentric model.

But there's another explanation for gravity, and amazingly it's build upon demonstrable facts that the mainstream accepts. I'm not going to talk about it right now, since I just saw an experimental proof of it yesterday and need some time to process things.

Basically you can reverse gravity by changing the polarity of the electrostatic field that surrounds us.

 

[Handyman62]

You wanna see the ice wall? You've got the internet and eyeballs, pal!

Oh boy a YouTube video! Now I'm convinced.

 

[posthuman]

Actually, it could be done experimentally by proving what is really behind the phenomenon we describe as "gravity" ...or stuff falling.

The consensus view says it's mass attracting mass, but this cannot be demonstrated here on Earth's surface and there are some huge problems with the concept. One being that the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold matter together are way stronger than gravity, leading to some imbalances in the physicists' math. There needs to be more mass in the universe and there simply isn't. This is why there is a desperate search to find dark matter and dark energy, because 95% of the theorized mass in the universe is simply missing under the heliocentric model.

But there's another explanation for gravity, and amazingly it's build upon demonstrable facts that the mainstream accepts. I'm not going to talk about it right now, since I just saw an experimental proof of it yesterday and need some time to process things.

Basically you can reverse gravity by changing the polarity of the electrostatic field that surrounds us.

• is it buoyancy, which is just a derived measure of gravity?
  • laughable. previously covered in this thread.
• is it magnetism, because wow Tesla was cool?
  • consider the Cavendish experiment. i've conducted it myself with non-conductive charge-neutral materials.

 

[posthuman]

Oh boy a YouTube video! Now I'm convinced.

i mean we could post youtube videos too.
but then it would cease to be a conversation/discussion. it'd just be a string of advertisement.

as previously stated IMO posting videos to make your argument is a cop-out, and demonstrates that the poster does not have a working knowledge of the material. it's insulting to the reader to tell them to go watch a video if you are capable of formulating the logic yourself. it dehumanizes the entire concept of 'forum'

i will not watch any of their videos. i am here to talk to people, not to commercials.

 

[Gideon300]

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.

The reality is that the earth has been seen from the moon. The earth is obviously spherical. It is also possible to travel from east to west (or vice versa) and end up where you started. FE people have to deny the bleeding obvious and call 600 people liars. At least six of those people are/were born again Christians. Yet they supposedly were in on a conspiracy to fool the world.

I don't care if people want to believe such nonsense. I do care about truth. And I care about Christians being slandered by other Christians. Of all people, Christians should love truth.

 

[Gideon300]

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.

Such is the delusion FE people suffer that they use pictures of Arctic ice shelves and say that is the wall. The only problem with that is the "wall" is only at the poles. Fly from Singapore around the equator. You will land back in Singapore. You will encounter no ice shelf.

 

[posthuman]

Such is the delusion FE people suffer that they use pictures of Arctic ice shelves and say that is the wall. The only problem with that is the "wall" is only at the poles. Fly from Singapore around the equator. You will land back in Singapore. You will encounter no ice shelf.

yeah lol i'm always like, um, that wall has clearly visible land on top of it extending past the frame of the photo, so...

beyond the dome! the final frontier!

 

[Dino246]

yeah lol i'm always like, um, that wall has clearly visible land on top of it extending past the frame of the photo, so...

beyond the dome! the final frontier!

Cue Tina Turner.

 

[JStates]

The only problem with that is the "wall" is only at the poles. Fly from Singapore around the equator. You will land back in Singapore. You will encounter no ice shelf.

Exactly as flat earthers would predict. *Slow clap*

 

[JStates]

yeah lol i'm always like, um, that wall has clearly visible land on top of it extending past the frame of the photo, so...

beyond the dome! the final frontier!

The dome is hypothetical, and it's not the same as the ice wall. Where the dome periphery meets the ice plateau is unknown. It could be hundreds or thousands of miles out.

 

[JStates]

i mean we could post youtube videos too.
but then it would cease to be a conversation/discussion. it'd just be a string of advertisement.

as previously stated IMO posting videos to make your argument is a cop-out, and demonstrates that the poster does not have a working knowledge of the material. it's insulting to the reader to tell them to go watch a video if you are capable of formulating the logic yourself. it dehumanizes the entire concept of 'forum'

i will not watch any of their videos. i am here to talk to people, not to commercials.

Yeah, babies won't eat their veggies unless they are all mashed up and spoon fed to them either. Any other arbitrary limitations to this "discourse" that you would like to lay on the table now?

Seems to me you're not interested in actually examining anything that goes contrary to your chosen ideology.

 

[Dino246]

Yeah, babies won't eat their veggies unless they are all mashed up and spoon fed to them either.

There is no need to throw petty insults. It only demonstrates that you are too emotionally invested in the discussion, and should take a break.

 

[JStates]

There is no need to throw petty insults. It only demonstrates that you are too emotionally invested in the discussion, and should take a break.

It was never a real discussion, but yes, I have unfollowed this thread. I have left enough bread crumbs here for honest truth seekers who are interesting in putting in the requisite work.

 

[Dino246]

It was never a real discussion, but yes, I have unfollowed this thread.

How convenient! It allows you to save face and avoid dealing with the evidence that destroys your position.

 

[Gideon300]

Exactly as flat earthers would predict. *Slow clap*

Now I am completely confused. You can circumnavigate the globe except it is not a globe?

 

[Gideon300]

Yeah, babies won't eat their veggies unless they are all mashed up and spoon fed to them either. Any other arbitrary limitations to this "discourse" that you would like to lay on the table now?

Seems to me you're not interested in actually examining anything that goes contrary to your chosen ideology.

It's not ideology. It's the wrong use of the word anyway. Globe earth is demonstrable fact. FE relies on speculation, misunderstanding, misinterpretation and the amazing ability to deny truth that stares them in the face.

 

[GaryA]

The only problem with that is the "wall" is only at the poles. Fly from Singapore around the equator. You will land back in Singapore. You will encounter no ice shelf.

Exactly as flat earthers would predict. *Slow clap*

Now I am completely confused. You can circumnavigate the globe except it is not a globe?

He is saying that a flat earther would not expect to encounter any ice shelves anywhere on the equator.

Because, there are no ice shelves on the equator. ( in either model )

In the Flat Earth model:

~ there is no 'south pole'; instead, there is an 'ice wall' - which is a continuous ring around the oceans.

~ You can "circumnavigate" [the earth] in the East-West direction (in a circular path) but not in the North-South direction.

 

[GaryA]

The only problem with that is the "wall" is only at the poles.

I believe I understand what you meant by saying this; however, you are trying to "visualize" the Flat Earth model from a Ball Earth model POV - which will not work.