why do you believe?

The point here is that you (and other FEers) have used the earth's appearance at ground level as "evidence" of a FE, which (in evidential terms) does not stand up to scrutiny.  This is not a good starting point for a hypothesis (that the flat earth causes the horizon to be straight).

I take it by "prove ... in every conceivable way", you are referring to evidence that contracts the hypothesis that the earth is a plane?  Watch the sun set.  Watch the stars track across the sky.  Did you ever see an elliptical "star trail" photograph?  If you don't want people you question your beliefs, then you need religion, which is protected by law.

Your eyes are fine. Your brain is deceiving you, because it cannot comprehend that the horizon is not a reliable indicator for the shape of the earth.  Much better to look at the heavens.

All I (and others) are doing is reviewing your "evidence" for a flat earth.  Using expressions such as "Conspiracy has trained you all well" lack any substance and imply you are taking this rather personally (one of the signs of a pseudoscience).

This is more personal stuff.  You clearly have issues that are outside the bounds of scientific debate.  I am not making fun of you people (well may be Tom occasionally), but if you cannot defend your cause without getting in to personal rants about "living in miserable ignorance", then I guess we must agree to differ.  

Please try to look at evidence in a "cold" way and resist the temptation to use gut instinct ("what my eyes tell me to believe").  It has been the downfall of many.

As I've said many times here, if I'm ever presented with incontrovertible evidence that the Earth is not flat, I will change my view.  I have thus far not been presented with such sufficient evidence.  So I'll go with my senses as they rarely fail me in day-to-day life.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 11:33:42 AM

As I've said many times here, if I'm ever presented with incontrovertible evidence that the Earth is not flat, I will change my view.  I have thus far not been presented with such sufficient evidence.  So I'll go with my senses as they rarely fail me in day-to-day life.

What would you consider "incontrovertible evidence"?

So I'll go with my senses as they rarely fail me in day-to-day life.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 11:33:42 AM

So I'll go with my senses as they rarely fail me in day-to-day life.

In all honesty, I don't know.  The universe is a mysterious place and I doubt we'll ever have all the answers.  I guess it would be evidence strong enough that the notion that the Earth is actually flat would be out of the question.  100% proof, I will accept nothing less.  Unless I were to see such proof what reason should I have to rebel against my senses?  They've served me well through my life, whatever awful things you might think of your own.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 12:34:30 PM

In all honesty, I don't know.  The universe is a mysterious place and I doubt we'll ever have all the answers.  I guess it would be evidence strong enough that the notion that the Earth is actually flat would be out of the question.  100% proof, I will accept nothing less.  Unless I were to see such proof what reason should I have to rebel against my senses?  They've served me well through my life, whatever awful things you might think of your own.

Thanks for confirming my assumption. You would never consider anything 100% proof the earth is round. Anything that proves the earth is round you would claim to be fabricated. Stop pretending you are open to the possibility of a round earth. Your senses cannot perceive curvature from the surface of a sphere 7,926.41 miles in diameter. It is a simple matter of geometry. Do you believe in geometry? Nobody expects you to "rebel against your senses". The earth is too large to draw any conclusion about it's shape by looking out your window. You can only see a few miles. How do you draw conclusions about the other 24,900 miles based on the few that you can see? How is that logical?

Well, while I'm no world traveler to be sure, I have seen the surface of the Earth in several different disparate places and I assure you it was flat in all cases.  And I certainly don't claim that anything that "proves" the Earth is round is fabricated.  It's my opinion that the vast amount of evidence you folks bring is not Conspiracy-based at all, but rather the result of an incorrect interpretation of the data spawned from the very bias that allows the Conspiracy to continue to exist without regular folks questioning it.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 02:30:45 PM

Well, while I'm no world traveler to be sure, I have seen the surface of the Earth in several different disparate places and I assure you it was flat in all cases.  And I certainly don't claim that anything that "proves" the Earth is round is fabricated.  It's my opinion that the vast amount of evidence you folks bring is not Conspiracy-based at all, but rather the result of an incorrect interpretation of the data spawned from the very bias that allows the Conspiracy to continue to exist without regular folks questioning it.

You completely missed my point. You can't observe the shape of the entire earth by seeing 3 miles of it. How do you tell the difference between a flat surface, and 0.012% of a sphere? What would you expect to see if the earth is round?

Quote from: cdenley on June 02, 2009, 03:32:07 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 02:30:45 PM

Well, while I'm no world traveler to be sure, I have seen the surface of the Earth in several different disparate places and I assure you it was flat in all cases.  And I certainly don't claim that anything that "proves" the Earth is round is fabricated.  It's my opinion that the vast amount of evidence you folks bring is not Conspiracy-based at all, but rather the result of an incorrect interpretation of the data spawned from the very bias that allows the Conspiracy to continue to exist without regular folks questioning it.

You completely missed my point. You can't observe the shape of the entire earth by seeing 3 miles of it. How do you tell the difference between a flat surface, and 0.012% of a sphere? What would you expect to see if the earth is round?

You miss my point, I think.  If I don't have sufficient evidence, why should I even consider the possibility that the Earth is round, when it is so obviously flat?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 03:35:09 PM

Quote from: cdenley on June 02, 2009, 03:32:07 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 02:30:45 PM

Well, while I'm no world traveler to be sure, I have seen the surface of the Earth in several different disparate places and I assure you it was flat in all cases.  And I certainly don't claim that anything that "proves" the Earth is round is fabricated.  It's my opinion that the vast amount of evidence you folks bring is not Conspiracy-based at all, but rather the result of an incorrect interpretation of the data spawned from the very bias that allows the Conspiracy to continue to exist without regular folks questioning it.

You completely missed my point. You can't observe the shape of the entire earth by seeing 3 miles of it. How do you tell the difference between a flat surface, and 0.012% of a sphere? What would you expect to see if the earth is round?

You miss my point, I think.  If I don't have sufficient evidence, why should I even consider the possibility that the Earth is round, when it is so obviously flat?

You can't observe the entire shape of the earth at the surface anyway.

Well, the idea that it might be flat where I am and round where you are is ludicrous, I'm sorry to say.

And to suggest that observation far above the Earth is more reliable than right at the surface is even more ludicrous.  On what grounds should it inherently be taken for granted that a distant view is more to be trusted than an immediate one?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 03:56:35 PM

Well, the idea that it might be flat where I am and round where you are is ludicrous, I'm sorry to say.

And to suggest that observation far above the Earth is more reliable than right at the surface is even more ludicrous.  On what grounds should it inherently be taken for granted that a distant view is more to be trusted than an immediate one?

Try re-reading my posts. The earth in it's entirety is round. A single 3 mile section would appear flat, since it is only 0.012% of a sphere. How is seeing an entire object (or more of an object) not a more reliable indicator of an object's shape than seeing only 0.012% of the object? Once again, if you are standing on a round earth with a 24,902 mile circumference, what would you expect to see?

Quote from: svenanders on June 02, 2009, 03:48:22 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 03:35:09 PM

Quote from: cdenley on June 02, 2009, 03:32:07 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 02:30:45 PM

Well, while I'm no world traveler to be sure, I have seen the surface of the Earth in several different disparate places and I assure you it was flat in all cases.  And I certainly don't claim that anything that "proves" the Earth is round is fabricated.  It's my opinion that the vast amount of evidence you folks bring is not Conspiracy-based at all, but rather the result of an incorrect interpretation of the data spawned from the very bias that allows the Conspiracy to continue to exist without regular folks questioning it.

You completely missed my point. You can't observe the shape of the entire earth by seeing 3 miles of it. How do you tell the difference between a flat surface, and 0.012% of a sphere? What would you expect to see if the earth is round?

You miss my point, I think.  If I don't have sufficient evidence, why should I even consider the possibility that the Earth is round, when it is so obviously flat?

You can't observe the entire shape of the earth at the surface anyway.

Well, the idea that it might be flat where I am and round where you are is ludicrous, I'm sorry to say.

And to suggest that observation far above the Earth is more reliable than right at the surface is even more ludicrous.  On what grounds should it inherently be taken for granted that a distant view is more to be trusted than an immediate one?

In one case I am seeing the Earth from a distance, with who knows what distorting my view.  In the other I am seeing it first-hand with no obstructions.  I say again, why should the former inherently be a more reliable indicator than the latter?  It seems to me its faults more than make up for its alleged advantage.

In one case I am seeing the Earth from a distance, with who knows what distorting my view.  In the other I am seeing it first-hand with no obstructions.  I say again, why should the former inherently be a more reliable indicator than the latter?  It seems to me its faults more than make up for its alleged advantage.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 03:56:35 PM

And to suggest that observation far above the Earth is more reliable than right at the surface is even more ludicrous.  On what grounds should it inherently be taken for granted that a distant view is more to be trusted than an immediate one?

Your hypothesis is that the whole of the earth is flat.

The more of the whole that you see, the closer you are to having evidence that the hypothesis is correct.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 02, 2009, 08:34:23 PM

In one case I am seeing the Earth from a distance, with who knows what distorting my view.  In the other I am seeing it first-hand with no obstructions.  I say again, why should the former inherently be a more reliable indicator than the latter?  It seems to me its faults more than make up for its alleged advantage.

In this case, the "obstruction" would be the size of the earth in relation your view point.  It's staring you in the face.

The heavens are a much more reliable indicator; This involves the gathering of data and analysis.  However it will stand up to passing scrutiny (unlike the "first hand" window test).

Can you tell the shape of a basketball by looking at it through a microscope? Who knows what is distorting your view if you look at it from two feet away? A microscope would be a more reliable indicator of a basketball's shape, and it looks flat, therefore it must be flat.

Now you're just being silly.  A basketball looks round to my observation and indeed is round.  Your basketball example only supports my FE hypothesis.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 09:49:48 AM

But how do I know that the whole I see isn't distorted somehow?

By investigating and isolating the possible means for distortion. In short: experimentation.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 09:49:48 AM

Now you're just being silly.  A basketball looks round to my observation and indeed is round.  Your basketball example only supports my FE hypothesis.

Not if you actually put some thought into it. A basketball only looks round because you can see it's entire shape. If you can only see 0.012% of the basketball by looking through a microscope, similar to seeing 0.012% of the earth by looking at it from the surface, it will appear flat. Observing it through a microscope gives you a closer observation, and therefore a more reliable one according to you. There is less atmosphere to "obstruct" your view.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 10:14:51 AM

Interesting.  And how have RE scientists done this exactly, to determine with such certainty that the Earth is round?

I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that. If in doubt use google.

What's more interesting is how flat earthers determine the contrary.

Have FEers determined that "the whole" observed is distorted somehow? If so how did they do it?

It's a flawed analogy.  In both cases I base my judgment of the shape of the object on what I personally observe, without obstruction.  How close I am has nothing to do with it, and in fact my experience of the basketball is more immediate if I'm looking at it first-hand rather than through a microscope (by which method there would necessarily be obstructions).  Therefore I'm not being inconsistent at all by insisting that the Earth is flat and the basketball is round as I'm basing both on direct and immediate evidence.  The basketball through a microscope is just as much an abstraction of observable reality as the Earth from great heights is.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 10:46:30 AM

As I've pointed out many times, direct and immediate observation indicates that the Earth is flat.  If there's any chance that the view from above is distorted there's no reason for me to assume that the view from above is the more correct one.

Umm no. You need to find out why it might be distorted. You know through experimentation and all that.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 10:46:30 AM

Since it goes against my own direct and immediate observation I choose to reject it.

Oh. So you thought, sod trying to find things out I'll just choose what to believe as I fancy. Oh well.

What should you see out your window if the earth is a sphere with a 24,902 mile circumference?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 10:14:51 AM

It's a flawed analogy.  In both cases I base my judgment of the shape of the object on what I personally observe, without obstruction.  How close I am has nothing to do with it, and in fact my experience of the basketball is more immediate if I'm looking at it first-hand rather than through a microscope (by which method there would necessarily be obstructions).  Therefore I'm not being inconsistent at all by insisting that the Earth is flat and the basketball is round as I'm basing both on direct and immediate evidence.  The basketball through a microscope is just as much an abstraction of observable reality as the Earth from great heights is.

I'm trying to help you with the idea of scale, which you seem to have difficulty with, which is why I gave you a smaller scale comparison.

If you really want a more accurate analogy, you would have to be 0.0000019% your current size, standing on the basketball, and able to see of the basketball only what was visible through my hypothetical microscope.

That doesn't change the fact that by observing the same portion of the basketball as you do of the earth, you would draw the conclusion that the basketball is flat.

What is more "immediate" from where you happen to be does not make it a more reliable observation point than seeing an object in its entirety.

If you happened to be orbiting the earth, or standing on the moon, then your immediate view of the earth would make its shape much more apparent.

Just because you are consistently observing things from where you happened to be standing does not mean anything, since you're standing in some arbitrary spot on the earth itself.

Also, you have not yet answered my question: What should you see out your window if the earth is a sphere with a 24,902 mile circumference?

Who said your eyes are deceiving you?

Just because you cannot see enough of the earth for its shape to be apparent doesn't mean there is anything deceiving about the image you are seeing. Its all a matter of scale, and its a problem with your mind, not your eyes.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:14:10 AM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 03, 2009, 11:02:48 AM

Umm no. You need to find out why it might be distorted. You know through experimentation and all that.

I see no reason why.  Modern science is full of things that are taken for granted despite not knowing why they take place.  Gravity, for example.  Its existence is trusted despite no one knowing why it exists. 

Red Herring.

The problem is that gravity does not contradict any current hypothesese (except FE. )  It's laws describing its effects are universal.

If your hypothesis includes the possibility that distortion might occur, you need to find out if it does or it doesn't.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:14:10 AM

I'm not believing what I fancy, I'm believing what I directly observe.

But you've have failed to perform any experimentation as to whether such a distortion exists. You simply decided that your "direct and immediate" observation was sufficient.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:51:16 AM

It's still in its infancy, but I see no reason why the theory of electromagnetic acceleration, which is universal, shouldn't account for the distortion.

Without knowing what kind of distortion you're talking about, it seems we're all in the dark. If you're talking about bendy light, then the FAQ states this is not accepted. Until you have produced valid evidence for such distortion you cannot select such a theory as explanatory.

In addition, please note that the FAQ should be considered a starting point. It addresses many questions those new to FET have about the theory but in no way represents a comprehensive, all-encompassing view of the theory. It should also be noted that not all points in the FAQ are necessarily agreed on by all FE proponents.

Quote

Quote

But you've have failed to perform any experimentation as to whether such a distortion exists. You simply decided that your "direct and immediate" observation was sufficient.

And again, you haven't given me sufficient reason to not decide that my direct and immediate observation is sufficient.

Yes I have.

Quote from: KillaBee on June 03, 2009, 03:03:54 AM

Your hypothesis is that the whole of the earth is flat.

The more of the whole that you see, the closer you are to having evidence that the hypothesis is correct.

I understand scale just fine; read my first post in this thread.

Ooh, a thought experiment, that proves everything.  

Which is irrelevant to my point.

Yes, you've said that before, I'd just like to see it supported.

I've addressed this already multiple times.  The observation from up close tells me one thing and the observation from far above tells me another.  How is the conclusion you draw from high above inherently more reliable than the conclusion you draw from up close?

I've stood on many arbitrary spots on the Earth and drawn the same conclusion.

Maybe I glossed over it because I already addressed it in my first post in this thread.  Reread it.

Well, you are.  You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.

And when this is actually proven, rather than merely stated over and over again, I will change my opinion.

There's plenty of evidence for the distortion.  Sunsets, disappearing ships, and the curved appearance of the Earth from far above are all evidence for electromagnetic acceleration.

You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

I understand scale just fine; read my first post in this thread.

I did. What's your point?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

Ooh, a thought experiment, that proves everything.  

You claimed my analogy to be "flawed", so I corrected the flaw.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

Which is irrelevant to my point.

Your logic would wrongly lead you to believe the basketball is flat? How is that irrelevant to your point that the earth must be flat according to the same logic?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

Yes, you've said that before, I'd just like to see it supported.

That's what all the examples are for. You want more? Did you ever stand directly next to a skyscraper? It's a little hard to observe the structure when you're standing that close. It's much easier when you see it from a distance.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

I've addressed this already multiple times.  The observation from up close tells me one thing and the observation from far above tells me another.  How is the conclusion you draw from high above inherently more reliable than the conclusion you draw from up close?

I've addressed this already multiple times. Because you can actually see the object, and not a tiny, insignificant portion of it.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

I've stood on many arbitrary spots on the Earth and drawn the same conclusion.

Yet you've only stood on the earth, and only observed it three miles at a time. You have never seen it in it's entirety, or enough of it to draw any conclusions about it's shape from sight alone.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

Maybe I glossed over it because I already addressed it in my first post in this thread.  Reread it.

I did. You never addressed it. When you do finally answer it, an explanation and diagram would be great.

I believe because it is what my eyes tell me to believe.  Now you will say "But RE predicts that the Earth will appear flat too!  You can't always trust your eyes!" with which I partially agree.  So when sufficient evidence is presented to me that my eyes are in fact deceiving me in this matter I will become a REer for life.  But after a great deal of time on this forum, having REers daily attempt to prove their ridiculous hypothesis in every conceivable way, I have yet to see that evidence.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

Well, you are.  You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.

Your eyes aren't telling you the earth is flat. Your eyes are telling the small portion of the earth you can see has no observable curvature.

This is what should be expected when seeing a round earth from its surface.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

And when this is actually proven, rather than merely stated over and over again, I will change my opinion.

When it is proven that a 3 mile section of a 24,902 mile sphere would have no observable curvature, or that the earth is flat? If it is the former, that can be proven with simple geometry. If it is the latter, then I think we already established there can be no hypothetical proof, because you would simply claim it to be fake. The only way to prove the shape of an object would be to show you some kind of image representation of it. This has been done, but I'm sure you would claim every photograph or video which shows a round earth has been faked or manipulated.

Just going to jump back in here with a question for roundy.

You say that EA explains the curvature of the earth when viewed from altitude:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:09:24 PM

There's plenty of evidence for the distortion.  Sunsets, disappearing ships, and the curved appearance of the Earth from far above are all evidence for electromagnetic acceleration.

But, if it makes the earth appear significantly curved from high altitude, then it must surely make the earth appear very slightly curved even from ground level.

But according to you:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 11:46:46 AM

You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.

So why cant you see this minute curvature with your own eyes?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 03, 2009, 12:09:24 PM

Again, just saying that doesn't make it true.

I'm afraid it does. It's simple logic.

You're trying to make a statement about the wholeness of something. It's entirety.

Let's pretend instead of the form of the earth, it was kittens and their colour.

So I could say "All kittens are grey".

But you've only seen two kittens you might reply.

You might argue, that if I could see all the kittens then I would know for certain if all kittens were grey.

Therefore, the more kittens I am able to observe, the closer I come to being able to state with confidence "all kittens are grey".