Why do you think the Earth is round?

Quote from: Robosteve on June 23, 2009, 02:14:48 AM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 22, 2009, 05:08:37 PM

Dark matter is observed.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.



Allow my boot to show you the door. Do call again.

I don't see it.

If I believe the earth isn't flat, and I don't see any possible way for it to be any shape that isn't discussed, then I have to believe it's a sphere.

Why?

First of all, I asked why you think the Earth is round, not for you to copy and paste a bunch of crap from a website that advocates that position. And second of all, cite your sources.

It's actually quite simple: if you read through that short text and you possess a reasonable mind, then there are no reasons left to believe that the Earth is flat => he gave you some of the reasons why he believes the Earth is round.

Even better: it's no longer a matter of believing that it's round, it has become knowing for certain that it is round.

Now of course you'll retort with: have you yourself gone up and seen for yourself that it is actually round?
Answer: it's not necessary. The ample proof that can be found in any space observatory (of which I have visited a few) or even in any library all over the world is enough to convince any reasonable person.

Best regards,

P.S.: Speaking of sources... where is that paper on your "massive break through" concerning "the universal accelerator"? I believe you said it would be ready in April. It's almost July...

It's actually quite simple: if you read through that short text and you possess a reasonable mind, then there are no reasons left to believe that the Earth is flat => he gave you some of the reasons why he believes the Earth is round.

Why do you equate not believing the Earth is flat with believing it to be round? And I don't want to read a bunch of copypasta; if I wanted to read that I would have searched Google for "proof of round earth" instead of making this thread. I want to hear from REers, in their own words, why they believe the Earth to be round. That is to say, what has convinced them so strongly that it is round that they (for the most part) are unwilling to even consider the FE model.

Even better: it's no longer a matter of believing that it's round, it has become knowing for certain that it is round.

It is not possible to know anything for certain. To think we can and do is not only arrogant, but also narrow-minded.

Now of course you'll retort with: have you yourself gone up and seen for yourself that it is actually round?
Answer: it's not necessary. The ample proof that can be found in any space observatory (of which I have visited a few) or even in any library all over the world is enough to convince any reasonable person.

Libraries contain proof of a round Earth? Tell me, what observation can you make in a library that proves to you the Earth is round?

P.S.: Speaking of sources... where is that paper on your "massive break through" concerning "the universal accelerator"? I believe you said it would be ready in April. It's almost July...

I have already commented on this matter. I took a break from Flat Earth theory for a while during the course of the semester. It is now the winter break, and so I shall hopefully be able to get it completed before next semester.

Why do you equate not believing the Earth is flat with believing it to be round? And I don't want to read a bunch of copypasta; if I wanted to read that I would have searched Google for "proof of round earth" instead of making this thread. I want to hear from REers, in their own words, why they believe the Earth to be round. That is to say, what has convinced them so strongly that it is round that they (for the most part) are unwilling to even consider the FE model.

I really don't need anymore reasons to accept the "Round Earth world view" than the fact that a "Flat Earth world view" has been proven wrong millennia ago and is still being proven wrong on a daily basis.

How is it being proven wrong on a daily basis? By astronomers for instance, or by the regular launches of rockets and astronauts (here in Belgium we've got "our own" Frank De Winne; he's to stay in the International Space Station for half a year) into space and all the data (yes, including pictures (!)) they gather and send back to Earth, not to mention the several space probes that have been exploring our solar system for several decades now and have given us a massive amount of new knowledge about our own "little corner in space".
Oh, and how about the Hubble Telescope. Magnificent images of deep space the little gizmo has given us, images that clearly show us that the stars are not only 3100 miles away, but tens / thousands / millions / billions of light years.

Of course, the difference between you and me is: I believe that all of this is really happening, that astronomers are not idiots that can't even detect through their telescopes that the stars are only 3100 miles away and am fascinated by it / by their work, you believe that all of this is part of a huge charade / conspiracy that is meant to hide the true shape of the Earth from us.

It is not possible to know anything for certain. To think we can and do is not only arrogant, but also narrow-minded.

To think that we can't know anything for certain is nothing more than philosophical masturbation / prattle. And it's certainly not arrogant to say that some things (and actually quite many things) can be known for certain.

If pictures taken by space probes, of which many people have whitnessed the launch, show me that Earth is a globe, then I take the roudness (or "oblate spheroidness") of our home world as a fact that cannot be doubted any longer.
To question these facts just for the sake of questioning them or because you like a conspiracy-theory better, is useless - and arrogant - skepticism.

A simpler example: I know for certain that I have been born once upon a time and that eventually I will die.
I know for certain that the clothes I'm currently wearing have been made out of cotton and some polyester.
I know for certain that clouds have been formed by vaporization of maynly sea water.

And so on...

Again: to say that you can never know these things for certain is useless philosophical babbling in my oppinion. Yes, you may call me arrogant and narrow minded on this; so be it. I'm not going to waste my time on endlessly questioning and doubting everything I learn and see.

Sometimes you just have to accept things as facts, and move on. Like "the round Earth" for instance. Accept that science has proven the planet to be round, and move on with your life.

Libraries contain proof of a round Earth? Tell me, what observation can you make in a library that proves to you the Earth is round?

No observation.

Simply the reading of many books on cosmology and geography for instance, two of my biggest personal interest (next to my main one: history).

Or next to books, the viewing of many beautiful documentaries about our planet and about the cosmos. Give those a shot! It's defenitely worth a view!


So there you have it. Some of the reasons why I prefer the "round Earth world view" over "the flat Earth world view".

If you think those are lousy, narrow-minded reasons, then so be it. They are enough for me.

Regards,

Ordinarily, I would quote the various parts of your post and respond to them each in turn, but your post really seems to carry a single theme which I would like to respond to once. You seem to feel that secondary evidence - that is to say, pictures taken by NASA, books you read in the library, the labels on your clothing - constitute absolute proof of certain things. To be quite blunt, this makes you no less a sheep than fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible provides absolute proof of Creationism. Moreover, you have no place in a debate forum, and I will not be responding to any more of your posts as you clearly lack elementary debate skills.

Ordinarily, I would quote the various parts of your post and respond to them each in turn, but your post really seems to carry a single theme which I would like to respond to once. You seem to feel that secondary evidence - that is to say, pictures taken by NASA, books you read in the library, the labels on your clothing - constitute absolute proof of certain things. To be quite blunt, this makes you no less a sheep than fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible provides absolute proof of Creationism. Moreover, you have no place in a debate forum, and I will not be responding to any more of your posts as you clearly lack elementary debate skills.

Some things are debatable, some things aren't... Ever since space flight became reality, "Flat Earth" stopped being debatable, unless of course you want to continue "debating" about a conspiracy. Where are "the debating skills" in that?

I do not need you to teach me debating skills or tell me what they are, or tell me that I lack them. Especially not if one of your "main debating skils" is attacking other people on spelling or grammar errors and calling people names, like you do on such a regular basis here on this "debate forum".

Me being a sheep? Perhaps... probably in the sciences that I have no master grade in then. I'm only a humble historian, with only little knowledge and understanding of physics and chemistry for instance. So at one point I have to decide to trust that scholars in physics and chemistry will explain their science to me as well as they can.
Same goes for cosmology and astronomy: at one point I have to decide to trust those who master the field of research far better than me.
You call that "being a sheep". I call it: trusting people, trusting honest scientist who try to explain thier field of research to me as well as they can. Of course it's necessary to carefully select the sources that I read (e.g.: just as I would never resort to Erich Von D?niken to learn the truth about who built the pyramids, I will never resort to the likes of Rowbotham to learn the truth about Earth's shape), but still, at one point it becomes a matter of trust in stead of continuing to uselessly question everything I learn and read.

As far as debating goes: start a debate with me on history, and I'll show you what a real debate is. Let me tell you, it will definitely not include "huge conspiracies" and attacking non native speakers on making mistakes against a foreign language.

Bring up your conspiracy, or "undetectable shadow object", or "dark energy field", or "electromagnetic universal accelerator", or ice wall or..., on any scientific congress about cosmology / astronomy and you'll very quickly know where the exit of auditorium is.

Regards,

P.S.: I have been to observatories here in Belgium myself and have actually watched through telescopes myself. I have seen a few of our planets with my very own eyes (Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) and guess what... they were not tiny globes orbiting the sun about 3000 miles above Earth... They were what I have always been taught they are.
Of course you can go on to say that I have been fooled by those running the observatory, but again: to me, that's useless skepticism.

(Edit: addition made to the 3rd paragraph of my post.)

Gulliver, is that you?

Quote from: Caemis on June 27, 2009, 02:22:20 PM

If I believe the earth isn't flat, and I don't see any possible way for it to be any shape that isn't discussed, then I have to believe it's a sphere.

Why?

If any other shape was possible, wouldn't it be argued (in a serious manner) by now?

Libraries contain proof of a round Earth? Tell me, what observation can you make in a library that proves to you the Earth is round?

 http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
For example.

If you'd bothered to read the thread instead of just jumping in with your valued post you would have seen the link I gave earlier.

I saw it. I then saw that it was a Let Me Google That For You link, and closed the tab before the animation had run to completion. If you want me to take you seriously, link directly to a source.

If any other shape was possible, wouldn't it be argued (in a serious manner) by now?

Why does it matter if any other shape is possible?

http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
For example.

If that same library contained a copy of Earth: Not a Globe, would you convert to FE? Or do you only trust texts which support your personal belief?

RoboSteve, can i ask,

Why is it that RE'ers are expected, no, demanded to provide proof for our beliefs, when FE'ers are not?

Why are we to believe what you tell us, unless we can prove otherwise, when you have no proof of your own?

And when there is proof, solid evidence, eye witness accounts, physical proofs, they are immediately disregarded as being faked, yet "Ice Wall" and "Upwards Acceleration" are perfectly acceptable, with no proof whatsoever?

I appreciate that you started this thread to find out why RE'ers believe in what they believe in, however i would also appreciate it if you could answer my questions, instead of hitting out with some useless comment like "What does that have to do with RE? This thread is about RE"

Cheers

RoboSteve, can i ask,

Why is it that RE'ers are expected, no, demanded to provide proof for our beliefs, when FE'ers are not?

Why are we to believe what you tell us, unless we can prove otherwise, when you have no proof of your own?

And when there is proof, solid evidence, eye witness accounts, physical proofs, they are immediately disregarded as being faked, yet "Ice Wall" and "Upwards Acceleration" are perfectly acceptable, with no proof whatsoever?

I appreciate that you started this thread to find out why RE'ers believe in what they believe in, however i would also appreciate it if you could answer my questions, instead of hitting out with some useless comment like "What does that have to do with RE? This thread is about RE"

Cheers

If you want to ask a question about FET, by all means make a thread for it. I'm not demanding proof of RE in this thread, I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.

Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 03:39:08 AM

http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
For example.

If that same library contained a copy of Earth: Not a Globe, would you convert to FE? Or do you only trust texts which support your personal belief?

Isn't that like asking if that same library contained a copy of the Koran, would you convert to Islam?

Isn't that like asking if that same library contained a copy of the Koran, would you convert to Islam?

Precisely. My point is that books do not constitute absolute proof, or even particularly compelling evidence, of anything.

I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.

Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site.  She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round?  Then how come there is a horizon?  That's just stupid."  That clinched if for me.

Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 09:09:58 AM

I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.

Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site.  She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round?  Then how come there is a horizon?  That's just stupid."  That clinched if for me.

That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is.  We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility.  Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.

Quote from: JeR on July 02, 2009, 01:27:37 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 09:09:58 AM

I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.

Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site.  She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round?  Then how come there is a horizon?  That's just stupid."  That clinched if for me.

That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is.  We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility.  Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.

My daghter is extremely intelligent  and asked her question based on her observations.  I spend most of my surfing time on an atheist forum, and was thinking FE,ers were like creationists in that they have the answer and pound the facts to fit.  whereas science lets the facts lead one to a conclusion and change the conclusion if necessary. 

Quote from: d00gz on July 02, 2009, 08:55:57 AM

RoboSteve, can i ask,

Why is it that RE'ers are expected, no, demanded to provide proof for our beliefs, when FE'ers are not?

Why are we to believe what you tell us, unless we can prove otherwise, when you have no proof of your own?

And when there is proof, solid evidence, eye witness accounts, physical proofs, they are immediately disregarded as being faked, yet "Ice Wall" and "Upwards Acceleration" are perfectly acceptable, with no proof whatsoever?

I appreciate that you started this thread to find out why RE'ers believe in what they believe in, however i would also appreciate it if you could answer my questions, instead of hitting out with some useless comment like "What does that have to do with RE? This thread is about RE"

Cheers

If you want to ask a question about FET, by all means make a thread for it. I'm not demanding proof of RE in this thread, I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.

So basically you're doing what i expected you to do, and avoiding the question.

If you're going to be so anal about people only discussing RE theory in your thread, i feel i should point out that you did create it in the "Flat Earth Questions and Clarification" section of the forum.

Are you unable to answer my question?

My daghter is extremely intelligent  and asked her question based on her observations.  I spend most of my surfing time on an atheist forum, and was thinking FE,ers were like creationists in that they have the answer and pound the facts to fit.  whereas science lets the facts lead one to a conclusion and change the conclusion if necessary. 

Susceptibility to indoctrination, particularly when it starts at birth, has very little to do with a person's level of intelligence.  I'm sure you and your daghter are both very intelligent.  I consider things scientifically too.  The difference between me and the average globularist is that I like to consider all possibilities.  It's the only way real scientific progress is made.  It has yet to be scientifically proven that the Earth is flat.  But ever since the ancient Greeks decided that a spherical Earth would be "harmonious" and the Catholic Church adopted that worldview globularist scientists have been scrambling to do exactly what you accuse us of doing: pounding the facts to fit.

That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is.  We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility.  Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.

 I see that you are quite ignorant about the ways of teaching. They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think. Also, you can't raise anymore such obedient and unquestioningly serving children. Maybe in middle ages when kids were your property but now you canb't even spank your teenager without him going to police or something like that. They can think for themselves and know things, so, don't give us here your groundless opinions about people who are taught not to question things. Only thing I can see which is totally unquestionable is ENaG. And that is FE thing, so it seems to me that you are taught not to question things and not to open your mind to the possibility.
And you are misunderstanding something. People usually don't believe in round earth. They see that it is only possibility after learning about it and seeing how world works. If you can get over for example on your inconsistencies about world map and traveling times then maybe people may start to think that there is possibility to other shape but FE still fails totally to provide correct map.

Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site.  She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round?  Then how come there is a horizon?  That's just stupid."  That clinched if for me.

If we're accepting children's views as valid evidence, I suppose that makes Santa Claus real too?

So basically you're doing what i expected you to do, and avoiding the question.

If you're going to be so anal about people only discussing RE theory in your thread, i feel i should point out that you did create it in the "Flat Earth Questions and Clarification" section of the forum.

Are you unable to answer my question?

I feel that doing so would derail the thread. I would like to try to keep the discussion on-topic, and I will answer your question if you post it in a new thread.

They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think.

Who is "they"? Certainly not any education system I've ever known.

Quote from: JeR on July 02, 2009, 01:27:37 PM

Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site.  She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round?  Then how come there is a horizon?  That's just stupid."  That clinched if for me.

If we're accepting children's views as valid evidence, I suppose that makes Santa Claus real too?

Where is the evidence for Santa Claus?

Quote from: Robosteve on July 03, 2009, 02:54:18 AM

Quote from: JeR on July 02, 2009, 01:27:37 PM

Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site.  She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round?  Then how come there is a horizon?  That's just stupid."  That clinched if for me.

If we're accepting children's views as valid evidence, I suppose that makes Santa Claus real too?

Where is the evidence for Santa Claus?

Children think he exists. This is valid evidence according to JeR.

Quote from: zork on July 03, 2009, 12:11:04 AM

They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think.

Who is "they"? Certainly not any education system I've ever known.

  You know, every time you ask such kind of question about something that is implied(and you do that quite often) you make yourself seem like you have some kind of reading/understanding handicap. And if you don't know any teachers/education systems that teach children to think, question and have somewhat open minds then I must conclude that you are product of system which taught you to blindly and unquestioningly follow his model figures. Too bad that you are such blind believer.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 02, 2009, 02:12:53 PM

That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is.  We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility.  Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.

 I see that you are quite ignorant about the ways of teaching. They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think.

We are taught not to question the shape of the Earth as surely as we are taught not to question that 2+2=4 or that an invisible sky fairy is judging everything we do.  It may be more subtle but it's there.  And the sad fact is that most people simply don't even question it.  They might ask "How do we know the world is round?" and be given the same globularist propaganda that's been handed out for centuries.  They accept it because they're supposed to, not because they see the logic in it, because there is no logic in most of it.

Quote from: zork on July 03, 2009, 12:11:04 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 02, 2009, 02:12:53 PM

That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is.  We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility.  Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.

 I see that you are quite ignorant about the ways of teaching. They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think.

We are taught not to question the shape of the Earth as surely as we are taught not to question that 2+2=4 or that an invisible sky fairy is judging everything we do.  It may be more subtle but it's there.  And the sad fact is that most people simply don't even question it.  They might ask "How do we know the world is round?" and be given the same globularist propaganda that's been handed out for centuries.  They accept it because they're supposed to, not because they see the logic in it, because there is no logic in most of it.

I agree that many things should be questioned, but some things are already been proved in the past.
I see no point using a lot of brain power asking the same question people have answered before.
We're not getting anywhere by doing so.
We should rather use our intelligence to find answers to questions that HAS NOT been fully answered yet.
This will eventually give us some progress. Don't you agree?

Quote from: svenanders on July 03, 2009, 03:13:08 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on July 03, 2009, 02:54:18 AM

Quote from: JeR on July 02, 2009, 01:27:37 PM

Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site.  She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round?  Then how come there is a horizon?  That's just stupid."  That clinched if for me.

If we're accepting children's views as valid evidence, I suppose that makes Santa Claus real too?

Where is the evidence for Santa Claus?

Children think he exists. This is valid evidence according to JeR.

That is a very intelectually dishonest statement.  I would however trust my daughter's conclusions from her observations more than many here because she does not have pre-conceived notions or ulterior motives.

She figured out Santa on her own based on it being physically impossible to complete his x-mas eve mission.  Sometimes you can figure out what the answer is by figuring out what the answer can not be.

We are taught not to question the shape of the Earth as surely as we are taught not to question that 2+2=4 or that an invisible sky fairy is judging everything we do. 

You still don't get it. Or are you also the person who has taught not to question anything which teacher said to you? People are not taught to not question the shape of earth and that 2+2=4. They are shown that because of that and this we have concluded that earth is round and that 2+2=4 and if there is questions then you can ask them. And if your school teacher can't answer your question then there are others. So, drop your baseless accusations that children are taught unquestioningly and without any logical reason to believe that earth is round. And as svenanders said, we don't need to invent wheel every time when we need it. I guess you didn't invent vaccines, electricity, gasoline and so on for himself but you just use them?

Irrefutable and repeatedly available evidence in the form of directional electromagnetic radiation that circumnavigates the globe.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.0