if all shapes have an edge, where is the edge of space? what "shape"is space? (1)
A shape is only a shape because it contrasts with empty space... That's why shapes have edges and empty space does not.
All shapes have edges bud... Every single one... 2D and 3D
those are your bullshit words, proven not true with just a few simple sentences.
Name the shape that has no edge.
anyway, serious question here, how do people explain the sunset on a flat earth?
Like total idiots you imagine the sun hovering above the ground, held up by nothing, and circling around nothing, with nothing to power it's movement, in a system where gravity doesn't exist.
Speaking of that... The scientific theory of gravity NECESSITATES spherical planets and stars, and also correctly predicts their motion relative to each other.
And the flat earth explanation of "density" is so laughably dumb it can be dismantled in 2 points. And unlike you, when I say I can dismantle an argument, I actually do it.
1.) The flat earth idea of "density" only posits an assumption that things of differing densities will move apart relative to each other, but it doesn't even attempt to explain how or why they always move in a single cardinal direction relative to the ground, or how such a cardinal direction became established in the first place. Gravity can and does explain that.
2.) The "experiments" flat earthers do to try and demonstrate their idea of density like the oil and water mixture actually demonstrate gravity, because those same experiments don't work in space. The liquids wont even stay in the tub. They will float around in the air..
The idea of "density" posits that it's the relative properties of oil and water that keeps everything in the bucket and causes them to separate.
But their relative properties are not changed by being 300 miles up in the sky... And yet going that high will cause all the liquids to float around in the air with no sense of up or down.
3.) (BONUS POINT).... The flat earth idea of density would mean the sun would fall out of the sky since the sun (which is full of energy producing material) is denser than the air, and denser than the empty space above that. So your model of how the sun rises and sets is in direct contradiction with your model that explains how objects fall to the ground.
A shape is only a shape because it contrasts with empty space... That's why shapes have edges and empty space does not.
Name the shape that has no edge.
Like total idiots you imagine the sun hovering above the ground, held up by nothing, and circling around nothing, with nothing to power it's movement, in a system where gravity doesn't exist.
Speaking of that... The scientific theory of gravity NECESSITATES spherical planets and stars, and also correctly predicts their motion relative to each other.
And the flat earth explanation of "density" is so laughably dumb it can be dismantled in 2 points. And unlike you, when I say I can dismantle an argument, I actually do it.
1.) The flat earth idea of "density" only posits an assumption that things of differing densities will move apart relative to each other, but it doesn't even attempt to explain how or why they always move in a single cardinal direction relative to the ground, or how such a cardinal direction became established in the first place. Gravity can and does explain that.
2.) The "experiments" flat earthers do to try and demonstrate their idea of density like the oil and water mixture actually demonstrate gravity, because those same experiments don't work in space. The liquids wont even stay in the tub. They will float around in the air..
The idea of "density" posits that it's the relative properties of oil and water that keeps everything in the bucket and causes them to separate.
But their relative properties are not changed by being 300 miles up in the sky... And yet going that high will cause all the liquids to float around in the air with no sense of up or down.
3.) (BONUS POINT).... The flat earth idea of density would mean the sun would fall out of the sky since the sun (which is full of energy producing material) is denser than the air, and denser than the empty space above that. So your model of how the sun rises and sets is in direct contradiction with your model that explains how objects fall to the ground.
by redefining "shape" to include empty space.
but even if i accepted your new definition (i don't), it doesn't apply to the earth since the earth is not empty space.
I will not waste my time debating geometry and physics with someone that can't define "shape".
That's just about as pointless as trying to debate gender and biology with someone who can't define "woman".