I won't be the guy that carries this thread into several pages with you, so I'm not going to provide much of a counter to anything you say, just trying to ask the right questions early on so all of the points are out in the open if anybody else does feel like putting the time into this.
The relationship between lunar eclipses and the shape of the Earth that I was trying to point out is that when Earth's shadow is cast upon the moon it reveals the globular shape of the Earth. That was one of the observations that led Aristotle to believe that the Earth is a globe. Flat Earthers don't believe that the sun ever passes behind the Earth... which begs the question how can lunar eclipses occur if the Earth is a non-rotating flat disc and the sun never orbits behind it?
Not sure if you're trying to make a subtle stab at non-Flat Earthers here or not but I don't believe I've ever heard a modern astronomer claim that stars are infinitely burning balls of fire, unless they were speaking poetically or metaphorically. Stars are formed and die over time like anything else in the cosmos.

The connection I was trying to make is that if all of the celestial bodies that we observe with our telescopes from Earth are globular why would Earth be excluded from the laws of physics that formed those spherical bodies? Earth is not very far from our globular neighbors in this solar system, we can even observe Saturn and its rings from a retail purchased telescope, let alone much closer planets like Mars, Venus, Mercury, and of course our Moon. At what point do the laws of physics that made our neighbors travelling globes transition into the laws that Flat Earthers believe made Earth a fixed disc, the edge of Earth's atmosphere?


Don't have time to address the other points right now.

They are not worth addressing. :bonkhead:

When I was in China on business I called my wife back in Boston. It was middle of the day for me and middle of the night for her.

http://nerdophiles.files.wordpress.c...tron.gif?w=470

I like to get straight to the point, so I nip things like that at the bud. Calling it a quack theory is very subjective languange, and when discussing this topic I've found a precedent is needed. If it was a joke, I apologize, but to any and all who may be reading this, a respectful conversation will better happen if we are aware that such things can very justifiably be perceived by their receivers as ad hominem or directly insulting. It's a waste of time that I'm unequivocally adhered to confrontation with. Which is a sh*ttty little paradox.

Anyway, regarding the clock that is the sky, context is needed. First and foremost and always to be remembered, is that the Geocentric Model has variations depending on who you talk to, and it doesn't matter. The reason it doesn't matter is that the Flat Earth Hypothesis has basically been altogether reborn because of the internet, and a collectivization of information about this on a worldwide scale has made it so there can't possibly be a concensus on everything about it yet. This is not important because it gives me an out for answering certain questions either. It's important because the Flat Earth community as a whole recognizes the validity of unanswered questions with answers pending on a more democratic process of inquiry. In the end, and in short, this means I don't know what the sky is made of or quite how it works, but I'm definitely curious.

Talking about the sky, with this in mind, should help build a framework within which one - such as yourself - can more properly observe concpts which they previously thought impossible.

Now, saying "tell me about this clock" is really vague. So I don't know where to begin really. The first thing that comes to mind is that we've been using it as a clock for as long as any history teaches. It's commonly accepted that it is the most reliable barometer by which to measure the passage of time.

The second thing that comes to mind is that Geocentrists usually don't believe in stars as Heliocentrists do. We don't all agree on what they are, but we agree that they are not infinitely burning balls of gas maintaining an overall perfectly round body while travelling through space at a gajillion miles an hour. Many think they would have tails if they were doing that. Big ones. I tend to agree.

Third, the sun and moon are the same size and distance from the Earth to most Geocentrists. They are 32 miles wide and about 3000 miles above the Flat Earth, circling the pole at varying distances from it, which creates the seasons.

Regarding third point: Eratosthenes is documented as having proved the Earth to be spherical, and made what is a pretty accurate calculation on its size, relative to the accepted Heliocentric Model. He put two poles in the ground, perpendicular to level, at a distance of something like 600 or 800 miles. He saw that the shadows diverged from one another, and concluded from this that the Earth is a ball, and is whatever size he came up with. That's all fine and dandy, until you enter the supposed lens effect cited often by Heliocentrists, caused by sunlight passing through the atmosphere. Lenses are at the ready for testing for most people, and it's readily apparent that putting light through the broad side causes it to focus underneath. But in the case of our very special (downright magical) atmosphere it causes sun rays to converge, rather than diverge, as they do in Eratosthenes' experiment. Effectively Eratosthenes proved the Earth is flat. For another example of diverging sun rays look up "crepuscular sun rays". This is relative to the third point because it is these shadows which have helped Geocentrists determine the distance of the sun and moon.

I think I'll stop there in hope that this inspires more concrete questions. :)

I don't have any concrete questions but I can think of a concrete answer to your dilemma.

http://thestripedcouch.com/wp-conten...ete_blocks.jpg

Why does water swirl in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres...or rather, in, say, Japan and Australia? If the earth was flat, it would all flow the same way, right?

This Flat Earth Theory may be big with all the hip kids on the internet, but the truth is that the Earth is really a giant pyramid, as are the Sun and Moon.

"how can lunar eclipses occur if the Earth is a non-rotating flat disc and the sun never orbits behind it?" I lean toward the idea that the moon is self-luminous, and is part of an intelligently designed clock. Some Geocentrists believe there is a third body up there, which somehow blocks sections of the moon. I don't care much for that idea, though I don't call it impossible.

"Infinitely burning balls of fire" Valid call-out. Sometimes I make quips about things I now think are ridiculous, and they are not necessarily textbook descriptions. My bad. I guess you could look at it as a bit of a poetic description, in that it's a bit sarcastic, and relative to the history of humanity goes, they are infinite. They don't burn out or vanish. We are told they do, but we never see it happen.

"At what point do the laws of physics that made our neighbors travelling globes transition into the laws that Flat Earthers believe made Earth a fixed disc, the edge of Earth's atmosphere?" There is much speculation the Geocentric community about the sky in general. Much controversy. Keeping in mind of course that figuring out the sky doesn't actually have anything to do with debunking the Globe or proving the Flat Earth (because we can do from land), all I can say is that Flat Earthers don't believe they are spheres. The Sun, Moon, and Saturn might be spheres (to me, so far) but there is enough reason for doubt, and it's not my foci.

It doesn't actually do that. Flat Earthers have tested it via skype, and have found that the build and levelness of faucets and drains and basins is what causes the direction of flow. Meaning your next-door neighbour may very well have a toilet which flows in the opposite direction.

P A N i want to join your flat earth club PLEASE! what do i get if i join?