was just beginning to think that the comedy was over

but i see its going strong again, keep it up gayz!

When I say "basic physics" I mean everything in your post is literally covered in your first physics class that requires calculus. You learn how to derive the elliptical shape of orbits, the changing velocity as the location in the orbit changes, etc. This stuff has been mathematically explained for over three hundred years. I'm not being pompous, I'm stating a fact that this is basic physics. You don't need anything non-classical to explain it.

Just because you learned the facts you were taught, doesn't mean you actually learned how to think. For example - if orbits were Mathematically theorized 300 hundred years ago, does that mean they were proved? Keep raging, hows that working for you?

In space, it's been proven that objects with mass clump together, this is called accretion. You can even see videos of it in action. Eventually, you get larger bodies that bump into other bodies and break apart and bump into other shit and eventually forming a larger body. This repeats for such a long time, eventually you have massive objects. At a certain point, and you'll see, objects are so large yet they aren't spherical. Why is that? Because they aren't massive enough. In order to have a globular shape, you need a truly tremendous amount of mass. All mass is falling into the center if gravity exists, and it just gets compacted so. It's the natural course of things. You couldn't have a body in space that was flat. It will not occur naturally unless all the mass is perfectly distributed which it is not. We can observe accretion disks. The planet will form around the most massive material in all of this chaos, so you can't physically have a flat planet.

And furthermore, you can see the horizons and the curvature of the earth. You can see atmospheric distortion of light with a sunset. You are viewing light that is traveling through more of the atmosphere to get to you and you get vibrant hews of orange and pink, etc. A flat earth just outright denies what we observe and can prove. This isn't really a debate of whether the earth is flat or spherical, it's a matter of do you even want to be wrong? There's an endless amount of information proving a globular earth. If you think the earth is flat having seen all the evidence, I recommend you read Carl Sagan's Candle in the Dark, it really aims at informing people how to use science correctly to draw conclusions about the natural world and how people use it incorrectly to 'prove' false hypotheses using logical fallacies and conspiracy, etc. The whole idea is basically, you have an idea. Cool, can you prove you're right? Is the information correct? Have you checked it? Double checked it? Can you repeat these results from this experiment? Can other people do the same? If not, it may be that you're wrong. It may also be that you're right but have to go back and look for a different way to prove it. If all of this fails, it likely means you were wrong though and instead of wasting time trying to prove something that isn't correct, you can address a different area. Ancient man knew the earth was flat and they had a much greater knowledge of the skies than any of you. Yet somehow here we are "debating" whether or not it is indeed flat or spherical.

Have you ever travelled? The further or closer to the equator you are, you end up seeing different stars. This wouldn't be the case on a flat earth.

Have you ever looked at the moon with a telescope. You can see it's not flat. You can literally see it curving on itself. We can observe this easily and with other planets too.

Have you ever seen a shadow clock? If the earth were flat, the shadows would of two sticks stuck in the ground would be the same, but they won't be...because the earth isn't flat.

You can fly a plane AROUND the earth. Not to mention we have pictures taken by astronauts up in space who we see fly up there...and come back down to us.

You can observe any lunar eclipse and see the shadow earth casts.

There is too much evidence for anyone to draw a logical conclusion the earth is flat. I urge anyone who believes in a flat earth to approach the subject with neutrality and really weigh the evidence. If your 'evidence' relies on the fact that scientists are trying to trick you... that's a big red flag. If they have to skew evidence to fit their theory, that's a big red flag... Scientific hypotheses and theories can be proven because they are observable and you can test them yourself and get the same results. That's why we use the scientific process; it isn't flawless but it works damn well.

If you can open yourself to the idea that the earth is indeed not flat and that it's alright to be wrong, I think you're going to learn so much more and see the universe for what it is, truly awe inspiring.

You're not arguing his point though, you're just diverting. It's not like people just overnight believed this. But it's been proven time and time again correct. I'm more curious why you think it isn't correct. That's kind of how the scientific process works. If you can prove something and back it up and other people can verify it, it's probably true. And it's true until someone comes along and can prove it isn't true. If that were the case, that would be amazing. But no ones been able to do that so as far as I'm concerned it is true. If I have an invisible pet dragon that I say is real, but you can't prove its real using any scientific method, it's more than likely I'm just lying right? You should not believe me by any means. You can want me to be right about my dragon but in the face of zero evidence, logically you should not believe I'm right.

You ask if he learned how to think and the answer is yes. He's been given the tools necessary to understand how and why this is the case and seeing and doing the calculations verify this. It seems like you just don't want to be wrong. The proof is there, you're just ignoring it, it's that simple. these ideas are culmination a of thousands of years of progress, and trial and error, not just guesses.

Lastly, your lack of understanding does not equal a lack of evidence. Know the difference

This post was edited by mephistopholes on Jun 21 2016 12:57pm

In order to create an effect similar to gravity, the ground would have to be accelerating upwards, not simply moving. Moving at a constant speed would not create any gravity-like effect. People in an airplane, for example, do not get slammed into the rear bulkhead as soon as they get up, despite the fact that the plane is moving forward at some half a thousand km/hour.

Hence, a theory that attempts to explain the effect we call gravity as simply a result of constant upward movement, is simply garbage. The only way it could possibly hold water is by replacing "constant movement" with "constant acceleration". Because that's what gravity is - acceleration. If you let go of an object in air, it will accelerate towards the ground. It will not fall at a constant speed. If you suggest that it's not falling at all, but instead the ground is moving towards it, then how could the ground move at a constant speed while the distance closes at an accelerated rate?

Does that make sense? This is what Thor already said, but clearly you didn't get it the first time. Maybe this will help.

All of this is 100% explained in Flat Earth, maybe you should study a few things before you make assumptions and a complete fool of yourself. The only curve you'll ever see is the learning one.
Thinking you can't fly a plane around Flat Earth is the oldest ball earth myth.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 21 2016 02:39pm

Well, point me out to your best sources and I'll gladly read them, sultan. I'm never so solidified in my views that I'm not susceptible to change. From my experience though, I've never seen a flat earth argument that can remotely hold up to the rigors of valid criticism and disprove a round earth.

This post was edited by mephistopholes on Jun 21 2016 02:52pm

in the Flat Earth theory the sun is a spotlight, right? If so why is the sky blue?