Is the earth flat?

[Alpha]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

There is a pro flat Earth meme that shows a game show host asking "Show me Curved Water".

My answer: A drip, falling to Earth; due to gravity.

That is a False equivalence. We understand adhesion, cohesion, meniscus and surface tension. We can test it and demonstrate it. I am talking about the surface of a standing body of water. Are you trying to pass of a rain drop as some kind of representation of the globe model?

[Fatboxingfan]

Do you not believe that a raindrop that is curved or concave because of surface tension?

[Alpha]

Do you not believe that a raindrop that is curved or concave because of surface tension?

That is a False equivalence. We understand adhesion, cohesion, meniscus and surface tension. We can test it and demonstrate it. I am talking about the surface of a standing body of water. Are you trying to pass of a rain drop as some kind of representation of the globe model?

[Beanz]

Alpha you do not even understand what you are saying, but I will indulge you. Your first paragraph -

"By affirmative claim, I am referring to the official narrative. It is taught to us and we are told we live on a spinning, pressurized system in a vacuum. So that is the claim that I am questioning. The burden of proof lies with those making that claim."

The burden of proof does not lie with a claim widely believed and backed with documentation, evidence, experiments etc for more than a thousand years. It is not even a claim anymore, it is a long established and verified fact. You are asking that reality be turned on its head in order to indulge your teenage whimsy.

You can feel the effects of living in a pressurised system simply by diving deep underwater, climbing a mountain or flying in a plane. Your ears popping will let you know.

That such pressure can exist on a huge planet in the near vacuum of space is not remarkable. It only becomes troublesome when you impose your own willful stupidity. You are having to reject Gravity without providing a replacement because of your flat earth trance.

You eschew nuance and complexity in order to make up for your own lack of a theories own gaping holes. Helium is lighter than air and so inside a balloon with a slimmer bottom than top it will due to this pressure float upwards. It doesn't disprove the globe model it proves it. Just like birds using uplift to fly proves it.

The earth spinning again doesn't present conceptual problems until you present scenarios which do not match with lived experience. You are imposing a model that does not fit. We have all traveled at speed on trains and plains and cars and can move about inside the vehicle travelling at speed without a problem.

[Alpha]

Alpha you do not even understand what you are saying, but I will indulge you. Your first paragraph -

"By affirmative claim, I am referring to the official narrative. It is taught to us and we are told we live on a spinning, pressurized system in a vacuum. So that is the claim that I am questioning. The burden of proof lies with those making that claim."

The burden of proof does not lie with a claim widely believed and backed with documentation, evidence, experiments etc for more than a thousand years. It is not even a claim anymore, it is a long established and verified fact. You are asking that reality be turned on its head in order to indulge your teenage whimsy.

You can feel the effects of living in a pressurised system simply by diving deep underwater, climbing a mountain or flying in a plane. Your ears popping will let you know.

That such pressure can exist on a huge planet in the near vacuum of space is not remarkable. It only becomes troublesome when you impose your own willful stupidity. You are having to reject Gravity without providing a replacement because of your flat earth trance.

You eschew nuance and complexity in order to make up for your own lack of a theories own gaping holes. Helium is lighter than air and so inside a balloon with a slimmer bottom than top it will due to this pressure float upwards. It doesn't disprove the globe model it proves it. Just like birds using uplift to fly proves it.

The earth spinning again doesn't present conceptual problems until you present scenarios which do not match with lived experience. You are imposing a model that does not fit. We have all traveled at speed on trains and plains and cars and can move about inside the vehicle travelling at speed without a problem.

Beanz you've already been spanked, you are easy. You have already admitted that you are unable to practically demonstrate your belief that standing bodies of water can naturally conform to the exterior of a shape. Test the physics of water for yourself, I guarantee a body of water will always provide the same results.

You are just a zealot. I'll be waiting for you to bring something practical to the table, but we both know you can't.

I'm not sure why you are bothering to continue, as I've said plenty of times, I'm not trying to convince anyone, you wanted to start the thread, I'm just asking questions of the claims taught to me, on my own journey. I am happy to leave you to your belief. But I find it hilarious that you are trying to get me back into your cult belief.

[Fatboxingfan]

The burden of proof is on you Alpha. You are making the claim the Earth is not a sphere. The burden of proof is on you to back up that claim. We are all still waiting for your proof that the Earth is not a sphere and that gravity does not exist.

[Beanz]

Alpha. It has been 10 months now since this thread was started, and you have yet to produce anything close to a cogent argument. Lie after lie and inventing the position of your opponents does not make a debate, it becomes little more than a farce. A lot of the problem lies in you laughable grasp, or should I say lack of grasp, when it comes to the fundamentals of philosophy. This is how you have framed everything so you don't get a free pass for using language and concepts you simply do not understand.

When it comes to an Invalid enthymeme, a lack of parallelism, the negative form of a universal affirmative, affirmative fallacies,a fallacy of equivocation etc, flatboxingflan would not only rip you a new metaphorical arsehole, he would install a shiny new allegorical sphincter as a bonus. I can't keep up with him and though i have read quite extensively the works of people like Nietzsche, Scruton , Hume, Kant etc on aesthetics and Plato and Aristotle as a grounding and some Jung and Kierkegaard etc on Existentialism, I am not so versed in philosophy when used as a basis to dismantle debating styles and tactics.

Your very basis of belief. 'Objective reality' you call it, is hugely flawed. You don't understand what Objective Reality is . You don't even know how to apply terms like 'Strawman Argument' and 'Argumentum Ad Hominem'. In fact and here is the kicker, you almost exclusively use these strategies yourself rather than addressing the subject in hand. Look at the post above where you have called me a zealot, a member of a cult. where again you have repeated that lie that I am supposedly repeatedly making the argument that 'standing bodies of water can naturally conform to the exterior of a shape'. Where have I said that? That is YOUR mantra. Fucking hell we have heard you repeat it again and again for months now.

It is YOUR strawman. You have built the scarecrow and wheeled him out in post after post pretending that is the argument everyone is presenting in order to make yourself feel smug when you think you are demolishing it.

It is the core of the argument that you are avoiding like the plague. The interior core of the earth that is keeping everything in place, including the seas, has nothing to do with an argument about the exterior of a shape.

[Alpha]

I am questioning the claims that were taught to all of us, it is the affirmative claim that we live on a globe. That is where the burden of proof lays.

So it's been 10 months and not one practical example of standing bodies of water naturally conforming to the exterior of a shape.

The physics of water are testable. The surface of a body of water will always be level.

Anyone want to provide a practical demonstration of the substance doing what they believe it can is welcome. Otherwise you are just pretending.

pseudoscience
/ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns/
noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

[Andre]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

There is a pro flat Earth meme that shows a game show host asking "Show me Curved Water".

My answer: A drip, falling to Earth; due to gravity.

That is a False equivalence. We understand adhesion, cohesion, meniscus and surface tension. We can test it and demonstrate it. I am talking about the surface of a standing body of water. Are you trying to pass of a rain drop as some kind of representation of the globe model?

How about a bubble that is water floating through through the atmosphere the same as a drip. Why cant that represent a model in miniature? Most planets were apparently gasses and water floating through the void.Planets are not a standing body of liquid either so why force the issue as if they are all plates up and down and around us?

[Andre]

Which brings me to another question if you dont mind: Do flat earth believers also believe that all the other planets are flat and the sun too as well as the moon or just ours? BTW, You are correct I havent read through all the posts here.

[Fatboxingfan]

Andre has ~nailed~ it, and nailed it good.

[Alpha]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

There is a pro flat Earth meme that shows a game show host asking "Show me Curved Water".

My answer: A drip, falling to Earth; due to gravity.

That is a False equivalence. We understand adhesion, cohesion, meniscus and surface tension. We can test it and demonstrate it. I am talking about the surface of a standing body of water. Are you trying to pass of a rain drop as some kind of representation of the globe model?

How about a bubble that is water floating through through the atmosphere the same as a drip. Why cant that represent a model in miniature? Most planets were apparently gasses and water floating through the void.Planets are not a standing body of liquid either so why force the issue as if they are all plates up and down and around us?

I noticed you didn’t respond to attempt to establish first principles, not sure if that was on purpose or you missed it, so I’ll post it again:

Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

Another one would be:

Do you accept images ‘ALONE’ as proof of anything?

I’m not sure if your taking the piss about why it can’t represent a model miniature or not. But I’d start with where is the solid core, all the other metals, minerals, soil etc?

When have I ever said, “they are all plates up and down around us”? Bit of a strawman there mate. Also, we are talking about the physics of tangible substances here on earth.

Which brings me to another question if you dont mind: Do flat earth believers also believe that all the other planets are flat and the sun too as well as the moon or just ours? BTW, You are correct I havent read through all the posts here.

Can you define the term flat earther? As I have said many times, the term has been hijacked to evoke propaganda in your mind. I’m a realist, questions the claims that were taught to me.

I can only speak for and represent myself, through my own experiences. I have never been to these planets or the moon, to be able to move around them in 3D, so I could test them and interact with them. So, I can only tell you what I have seen through telescopes and high zoom cameras. I can tell you that what I see, is far different from what NASA and Co. are showing me. But again, looking at the sky gives me nothing, quantifiable, or measurable for the ground beneath my feet.

It's like you saying an eclipse is proof of curvature. I'm asking where can I measure that curvature? Because it isn't there. You know what the circumference of earth is, you can easily work out how much it should be curving per mile.

[Fatboxingfan]

So you don't trust your eyes, so why start with a presumptuous premise as a priori?

[Alpha]

So you don't trust your eyes, so why start with a presumptuous premise as a priori?

Our senses can be fooled. Like the visual phenomena example I used of railway tracks appearing to converge, when the reality is that thtey remain parallel.

If you want a discussion, lets try to agree on some first principles.

Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

Do you accept images ‘ALONE’ as proof of anything?

If we don't agree, then there is no point in us continuing to discuss the topic.