The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: cdenley on May 28, 2009, 12:20:25 PM
-
What did you observe or read which was so convincing that you became so certain that the earth is flat that you make assumptions such as the existence of global conspiracies and ice walls to explain anything that contradicts FET? What would have to happen for you consider FET to be less plausible than RET? How many people must be involved in the RET conspiracy before it becomes unlikely?
-
Why do you create "why do you believe" topics where there are several of these threads already. Perhaps if you would lurk past page 1 and maybe use the search function for some of your questions, then your stay here will be a lot more pleasant than all of the abuse you are likely to get for asking questions that have already been asked many times before.
-
I have read other posts and the FAQ, and I still can't find anything that would convince me the world is flat, since all "evidence" seems to rely on other untested theories or faulty experiments. What I'm looking for is what made you guys believe in FET before you accepted all the supporting theories like the UA, ice wall, or conspiracies. The only experiments I have found which come close to hard evidence involve superior mirages and the assumption that light always travels in a straight line. So what made you a believer?
-
RE'ers are a known catalyst.
-
RE'ers are a known catalyst.
This^.
RE'ers are a known catalyst.
FE'ers are known as Idiots.
Actually, your comparison fails. He said that RErs are a known catalyst. This much is true. You said FErs are known as Idiots. This, besides being false, is not in the same context.
-
Nothing? Wasn't there a sound logical basis for FET before you accepted it as the most likely theory? Here are my theories for why you chose FET.
- delusion of grandeur: You want to believe that there is a massive and elaborate conspiracy (no matter how unlikely), but you are not fooled because you are enlightened. Basically, FET isn't much different from any other conspiracy theory.
- While you may be smart enough to understand some basic concepts of physics, you are very gullible and can be made to believe just about anything.
- You fully understand how absurd FET is, but want to see how many weak-minded visitors you can convert or win arguments with to prove your own intelligence or debating skills. Sort of like an intellectual bully.
-
I love how no one has given you an actual answer :-*
-
The answer is obvious to anyone who comes here with an open mind and does a bit of reading. The search function is a useful tool.
-
Reading the content here with an open mind.
-
Experimentation. Read ENaG.
-
Experimentation. Read ENaG.
Yes but who are the rats in this experiment.
-
Experimentation. Read ENaG.
Yes but who are the rats in this experiment.
Not every experiment requires rats.
-
I prefer fluffy bunnies for mine.
-
I have read plenty of posts with an open mind. I haven't found anything yet except experiments which can only be replicated in specific conditions because it involves a superior mirage, and of course untested hypotheses which were developed specifically to support the possibility that the earth is flat. What experiments suggest the earth is flat besides seeing over the horizon? I am all for considering all possibilities and investigating the unlikely, but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the earth is flat. Even if you ignore the "conspiracy", there is no reason to make that assumption.
-
The FAQ has a link to a free, online copy of Earth Not a Globe, which has experiments that prove the earth is flat.
-
The FAQ has a link to a free, online copy of Earth Not a Globe, which has experiments that prove the earth is flat.
Did Rowbotham do any experiments which prove the earth is flat which can be replicated consistently and don't rely on the assumption that light always travels in a straight line? I skimmed over some of it, but he loses all credibility for making that assumption. Are his experiments really the basis for your faith in FET?
-
The FAQ has a link to a free, online copy of Earth Not a Globe, which has experiments that prove the earth is flat.
Did Rowbotham do any experiments which prove the earth is flat which can be replicated consistently and don't rely on the assumption that light always travels in a straight line? I skimmed over some of it, but he loses all credibility for making that assumption. Are his experiments really the basis for your faith in FET?
Not the basis,just a part of my belief.
-
The FAQ has a link to a free, online copy of Earth Not a Globe, which has experiments that prove the earth is flat.
Did Rowbotham do any experiments which prove the earth is flat which can be replicated consistently and don't rely on the assumption that light always travels in a straight line? I skimmed over some of it, but he loses all credibility for making that assumption. Are his experiments really the basis for your faith in FET?
Not the basis,just a part of my belief.
Then I guess you didn't answer my original question. What made you believe in the first place? What is the basis? Is it science or blind faith?
-
The FAQ has a link to a free, online copy of Earth Not a Globe, which has experiments that prove the earth is flat.
Did Rowbotham do any experiments which prove the earth is flat which can be replicated consistently and don't rely on the assumption that light always travels in a straight line? I skimmed over some of it, but he loses all credibility for making that assumption. Are his experiments really the basis for your faith in FET?
Not the basis,just a part of my belief.
Then I guess you didn't answer my original question. What made you believe in the first place? What is the basis? Is it science or blind faith?
Reading the content here with an open mind.
-
The FAQ has a link to a free, online copy of Earth Not a Globe, which has experiments that prove the earth is flat.
Did Rowbotham do any experiments which prove the earth is flat which can be replicated consistently and don't rely on the assumption that light always travels in a straight line? I skimmed over some of it, but he loses all credibility for making that assumption. Are his experiments really the basis for your faith in FET?
Not the basis,just a part of my belief.
Then I guess you didn't answer my original question. What made you believe in the first place? What is the basis? Is it science or blind faith?
Reading the content here with an open mind.
Reading the content here with an open mind led you to the conclusion that the earth must be flat? What content exactly convinced you a flat earth was more likely than a round earth? Most content here seems to support the possibility of a flat earth and not the probability, so it should be simple to point out specifics. Was your mind as "open" when considering "round earth theory"?
-
You seriously haven't figured it out yet? Maybe you're asking the wrong question.
-
My Archimidean Point was really just how absurd the notion of a flying ball Earth seems, but I became more certain of its falsity by performing experimentation, reading carefully the associated literature and conducting other empirical observations. The fact that I started being harrassed by the Conspiracy on a number of occasions when I attempted to publicise my views confirmed my suspicions about their existence.
-
The fact that I started being harrassed by the Conspiracy...
This is highly relevant and interesting. Can you please elaborate ?
-
My Archimidean Point was really just how absurd the notion of a flying ball Earth seems, but I became more certain of its falsity by performing experimentation, reading carefully the associated literature and conducting other empirical observations. The fact that I started being harrassed by the Conspiracy on a number of occasions when I attempted to publicise my views confirmed my suspicions about their existence.
Why would an orbiting globe be more absurd than a constantly accelerating disc? The earth is "flying" at a constant rate relative to the sun in RET, but in FET it is accelerating at a constant rate, which means it is approaching the speed of light. Which sounds more absurd? Since every other planet we can observe is round, why would it be absurd that earth is? What experiments of yours confirmed a flat earth?
-
You seriously haven't figured it out yet? Maybe you're asking the wrong question.
Why don't you try answering the question? I don't think you can without revealing that the basis for your belief in a flat earth is either incorrect or pure faith. I know you guys like to explain your elaborate, untested hypotheses which supports the possibility of a flat earth. However, I have yet to find any post which explains why a flat earth is most likely. My question is about probability, not possibility. I think you have been asking the wrong questions, which is why you drew your false conclusion.
-
Logic and common sense led me to believe that the Earth is flat. When you look out of the window you see that is flat. The concept of gravity makes no sense to me. It isn't even properly understood by RE science. But the idea of acceleration keeping us on the earth seems entirely more plausible. We've all experienced g-forces in a car, rollercoaster etc.
-
Logic and common sense led me to believe that the Earth is flat. When you look out of the window you see that is flat. The concept of gravity makes no sense to me. It isn't even properly understood by RE science. But the idea of acceleration keeping us on the earth seems entirely more plausible. We've all experienced g-forces in a car, rollercoaster etc.
A simple understanding of geometry would help you understand why the earth looks flat. If the RET circumference is correct, you would not be able to see enough of the earth from its surface to observe its curvature. What you see out your window cannot logically lead to the conclusion that the earth is flat. Because you don't understand why gravity exists, the earth must be flat and accelerating upwards for some unknown reason, therefore the earth must be flat? You're simply substituting one unknown for another.
-
Logic and common sense led me to believe that the Earth is flat. When you look out of the window you see that is flat. The concept of gravity makes no sense to me. It isn't even properly understood by RE science. But the idea of acceleration keeping us on the earth seems entirely more plausible. We've all experienced g-forces in a car, rollercoaster etc.
I see you are a "Windower". Trying to determining the shape of the earth from appearances at ground level is an invalid test. Common sense tells us that both shapes would yield the same test result.
Much much better test would be to look at the position and movement of the stars (according to time and location).
-
*yawn* any reading into my post history would reveal that I am very much not a "windower". I was just making a simple example.
Can you explain Gravity? Acceleration is a much more comprehensible and logical explanation.
-
*yawn* any reading into my post history would reveal that I am very much not a "windower". I was just making a simple example.
Can you explain Gravity? Acceleration is a much more comprehensible and logical explanation.
I wasn't asking for a simple example, I was asking how you came to the conclusion the earth must be flat.
The reason for gravitation (curvature of spacetime) is theoretical just as the reason for universal acceleration (dark energy?) is theoretical. They both give an explanation for why objects near earth's surface "fall". How is universal acceleration the "more comprehensible and logical explanation"?
-
Because what I feel when I don't float off the earths surface is the same feeling that I get when I accelerate in my car. Einstein himself that gravity is interchangable with acceleration. Apart from the fact that gravity is made up to explain why we don't fall off the earth if it's round; and acceleration is real.
-
Because what I feel when I don't float off the earths surface is the same feeling that I get when I accelerate in my car. Einstein himself that gravity is interchangable with acceleration. Apart from the fact that gravity is made up to explain why we don't fall off the earth if it's round; and acceleration is real.
Of course you feel acceleration relative to the earth. That is true according to FET and RET. What is your point? The question is why do you think a universal accelerator is a more likely cause for this acceleration than gravity? The universal accelerator is made up to explain why we don't fall off the earth if it's flat.
-
Because what I feel when I don't float off the earths surface is the same feeling that I get when I accelerate in my car. Einstein himself that gravity is interchangable with acceleration. Apart from the fact that gravity is made up to explain why we don't fall off the earth if it's round; and acceleration is real.
The exact true nature of gravity, matter, energy and the wider universe will never be fully explained. That is what real science is all about: There's always something new to be discovered beyond our current understanding.
The allusiveness of gravityation does not imply (nor is evidence for) a flat earth.
-
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. So I have no reason to believe my eyes are deceiving me, and continue to resist the bias that has turned many an otherwise reasonable and intelligent soul into a raving unwitting conspiracy agent insisting that the Earth is round on a web forum dedicated to FE ideals for no reason, I can imagine, other than the desire to be an instigator. The Conspiracy has trained you all well.
The terrible thing is, I was once one of you. I too came to this forum sure that the Earth was round with no concrete reason for it. It wasn't until I spent some time here that I saw the light of truth for what it was, saw how ridiculous and (frankly) sad it is to cling to such an unreasonable notion for no other reason than that that's what NASA, my teachers, my parents, the government, etc have always told me. I understand the desire to be led; after all, why think for yourself when you can have people in authority think for you? Life's easier that way, huh? But just the same it is my sincere hope that given time you, too, will come to the correct conclusions; however, my faith in humanity isn't strong enough for me to truly expect it of you. So continue living in miserable ignorance and enjoy making fun of those clearly far more enlightened than you.
-
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.
I witnessed the sinking ship effect recently. I believed what my eyes tell me to believe and concluded that the earth is round. So when sufficient evidence is presented to me that some other phenomenom is causing this effect I will become a FEr for life.
-
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.
I witnessed the sinking ship effect recently. I believed what my eyes tell me to believe and concluded that the earth is round. So when sufficient evidence is presented to me that some other phenomenom is causing this effect I will become a FEr for life.
Hey, it's your prerogative to automatically come to the conclusion that the reason a ship appears to disappear over the flat horizon is that the Earth is round. That's where your indoctrination has led you. I will continue believing the far more reasonable alternative that the surface is every bit as flat as it appears and the light itself is bending.
-
To me it seems much more logical to explain something with a phenomena (acceleration) that is not made up; even though the theory behind it may, still, just be a theory. It also perfectly explains the effect that is present, just as gravity appears to. With all the evidence I have read on this site, I believe that the earth is flat; it's not necessarily the incompetence of "gravity" which has swayed me towards becoming a FEer, it was just the first thing that made me start to doubt the consensus that the earth was round.
Because what I feel when I don't float off the earths surface is the same feeling that I get when I accelerate in my car. Einstein himself that gravity is interchangable with acceleration. Apart from the fact that gravity is made up to explain why we don't fall off the earth if it's round; and acceleration is real.
The exact true nature of gravity, matter, energy and the wider universe will never be fully explained. That is what real science is all about: There's always something new to be discovered beyond our current understanding.
The allusiveness of gravityation does not imply (nor is evidence for) a flat earth.
Therefore it is also not evidence by which you can disprove the flat earth either.
-
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.
I witnessed the sinking ship effect recently. I believed what my eyes tell me to believe and concluded that the earth is round. So when sufficient evidence is presented to me that some other phenomenom is causing this effect I will become a FEr for life.
Hey, it's your prerogative to automatically come to the conclusion that the reason a ship appears to disappear over the flat horizon is that the Earth is round. That's where your indoctrination has led you. I will continue believing the far more reasonable alternative that the surface is every bit as flat as it appears and the light itself is bending.
And your indoctrination has led you to believe that the only explanation is bendy light, rather than, say the far more reasonable conclusion that the earth is curved. See where Im going with this? Both of us are convinced that our explanations are the correct ones. You have set yourself up in an unattackable position. The earth appears flat, therefore it is flat. Any observations to the contrary are indoctrination or can be explained away by some mechanism or the other.
-
I'm pretty sure that's the stance of most REers on this forum as well though I'm afraid. Just we know we're correct.
-
I'm pretty sure that's the stance of most REers on this forum as well though I'm afraid. Just we know we're correct.
Im not denying that in the slightest. I admit right here and now that its possible that light does bend and produce the sinking ship effect. But you must also admit that its possible that light doesnt bend and the earth is in fact round.
-
I'm pretty sure that's the stance of most REers on this forum as well though I'm afraid. Just we know we're correct.
Im not denying that in the slightest. I admit right here and now that its possible that light does bend and produce the sinking ship effect. But you must also admit that its possible that light doesnt bend and the earth is in fact round.
Right, and until I see sufficient evidence that this is the case I will continue believing that the Earth is as it appears.
-
I'm pretty sure that's the stance of most REers on this forum as well though I'm afraid. Just we know we're correct.
Im not denying that in the slightest. I admit right here and now that its possible that light does bend and produce the sinking ship effect. But you must also admit that its possible that light doesnt bend and the earth is in fact round.
Right, and until I see sufficient evidence that this is the case I will continue believing that the Earth is as it appears.
And until I see sufficient evidence that light does bend I will continue to believe that the earth is as it appears to me.
So, back to square one. Next round. You begin by accusing me that I have been indoctrinated.
Carry on.
edit: Stupid mistake.
-
I'm pretty sure that's the stance of most REers on this forum as well though I'm afraid. Just we know we're correct.
Im not denying that in the slightest. I admit right here and now that its possible that light does bend and produce the sinking ship effect. But you must also admit that its possible that light doesnt bend and the earth is in fact round.
Right, and until I see sufficient evidence that this is the case I will continue believing that the Earth is as it appears.
And until I see sufficient evidence that light doesnt bend I will continue to believe that the earth is as it appears to me.
So, back to square one. Next round. You begin by accusing me that I have been indoctrinated.
Carry on.
To what purpose? You're entitled to your opinion. I guess my point is the shape of the Earth is really subjective. It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence. Unless there's reason to be 100% sure the Earth is round, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually flat. So that's my stance.
Like many long-standing arguments this one seems to come down to an argument of what one considers valid evidence...
-
To what purpose? You're entitled to your opinion. I guess my point is the shape of the Earth is really subjective. It's based entirely on how you perceive the evidence. Unless there's reason to be 100% sure the Earth is round, there's no reason for me to not go with my senses and assume it's actually flat. So that's my stance.
Like many long-standing arguments this one seems to come down to an argument of what one considers valid evidence...
Even I am not 100% sure that the earth is round. I think its pretty damn unlikely that NASA is lying, but, they could be. I admit that before I came to this site I never, ever questioned what I was told regarding the shape of the earth. It was just a classic ad populum fallacy with some pretty pictures, and I swallowed it down. This site made me actually pay attention to what I can observe. My own observations led me to the conclusion that the earth is round, so thats my stance. Youre right though, its all about how one interprets the evidence. I cant know for sure that the earth is definitely round, its just my opinion.
-
It's amazing what the concept of a Flat earth can do to your out look on life. Ever since I set foot/eyes/ears upon the nature of this site I've never really been able to look at evidence (and the world) in the same way.
Mainly because I now conceive it to be flat instead of a sphere!
-
Mainly because I now conceive it to be flat instead of a sphere!
Hallelujah! ;D
-
It's pretty cool when you realise that the Earth is falling upwards and change your worldview accordingly. Our natural language is very misleading in this respect, and I often feel like wincing when I have to refer to something "falling" to the ground in conversation.
-
There's a lot of those, like "hemisphere" or using the term globe as a synonym for the Earth. When it's built into our language the way it has been it takes an act of will to even consider rejecting it.
-
There's a lot of those, like "hemisphere" or using the term globe as a synonym for the Earth. When it's built into our language the way it has been it takes an act of will to even consider rejecting it.
Then again, the earth is a planet :P
-
There's a lot of those, like "hemisphere" or using the term globe as a synonym for the Earth. When it's built into our language the way it has been it takes an act of will to even consider rejecting it.
Yeah, I always use inner/outer hemiplane, atmolayer, etc. Most people don't bat an eyelid when you use the word 'atmolayer' in everyday conversation.
-
Im not denying that in the slightest. I admit right here and now that its possible that light does bend and produce the sinking ship effect. But you must also admit that its possible that light doesnt bend and the earth is in fact round.
Light does bend, but it doesn't produce a shinking ship effect. A superior mirage can actually allow you to see over the horizon, and sometimes things appear to float over the horizon. We know light doesn't always travel straight. I see highway mirages all the time in the middle of summer. This is how Rowbotham's experiments probably worked at the time, and can be replicated with the correct conditions.
-
To me it seems much more logical to explain something with a phenomena (acceleration) that is not made up; even though the theory behind it may, still, just be a theory. It also perfectly explains the effect that is present, just as gravity appears to. With all the evidence I have read on this site, I believe that the earth is flat; it's not necessarily the incompetence of "gravity" which has swayed me towards becoming a FEer, it was just the first thing that made me start to doubt the consensus that the earth was round.
Acceleration isn't an alternative to gravitation. In fact acceleration can be caused by gravitation. The question is what causes our acceleration relative to earth when our feet are not on the ground? Is it because objects with mass attract each other (gravitation), or is there some mysterious force accelerating the earth (universal acceleration)? Acceleration isn't made up, but the force which causes the earth to accelerate in FET is. How is that more plausible than gravity?
It is good to be skeptical of universally accepted ideas such as a round earth, but you still have to consider all possibilities objectively. Neither theory is perfect, but you need to look at the probability for each theory to be true. The necessity of the elaborate conspiracy to make FET possible certainly gives RET the advantage. Logically, FET would need some very strong evidence to make it the more likely theory.
-
Tell me, why cant I see the sun at night? Since according to your theory, the earth is flat and therefore both the moon and sun should be viewable 24/7. Also, could you explain me; How comes that during summertime, the sun wont set for 73 days in row in the northern Finland? And also explain me why the Aurora Borealis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_borealis )appear? I have seen the Aurora Borealis in real aswell, not only through TV's or whatsoever.
-
Tell me, why cant I see the sun at night? Since according to your theory, the earth is flat and therefore both the moon and sun should be viewable 24/7. Also, could you explain me; How comes that during summertime, the sun wont set for 73 days in row in the northern Finland? And also explain me why the Aurora Borealis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_borealis )appear? I have seen the Aurora Borealis in real aswell, not only through TV's or whatsoever.
Please don't hijack my thread.
-
Oh sorry I'll make a separated thread then.
-
Hi guys! I'm new here...in all honesty, I really did not have any idea that people still adhere to this theory. Primarily because of what is taught to us in school. I am not closing my mind to such theories (because anything new and can trigger new discussions) in fact I find it interesting. I'm looking forward to learning new stuff here... :)
-
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. So I have no reason to believe my eyes are deceiving me, and continue to resist the bias that has turned many an otherwise reasonable and intelligent soul into a raving unwitting conspiracy agent insisting that the Earth is round on a web forum dedicated to FE ideals for no reason, I can imagine, other than the desire to be an instigator. The Conspiracy has trained you all well.
The terrible thing is, I was once one of you. I too came to this forum sure that the Earth was round with no concrete reason for it. It wasn't until I spent some time here that I saw the light of truth for what it was, saw how ridiculous and (frankly) sad it is to cling to such an unreasonable notion for no other reason than that that's what NASA, my teachers, my parents, the government, etc have always told me. I understand the desire to be led; after all, why think for yourself when you can have people in authority think for you? Life's easier that way, huh? But just the same it is my sincere hope that given time you, too, will come to the correct conclusions; however, my faith in humanity isn't strong enough for me to truly expect it of you. So continue living in miserable ignorance and enjoy making fun of those clearly far more enlightened than you.
I've just read your interesting reply. You have made many points, so I will try to address each point in turn:
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.
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).
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.
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.
So I have no reason to believe my eyes are deceiving me, and continue to resist the bias that has turned many an otherwise reasonable and intelligent soul into a raving unwitting conspiracy agent insisting that the Earth is round on a web forum dedicated to FE ideals for no reason, I can imagine, other than the desire to be an instigator. The Conspiracy has trained you all well.
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).
The terrible thing is, I was once one of you. I too came to this forum sure that the Earth was round with no concrete reason for it. It wasn't until I spent some time here that I saw the light of truth for what it was, saw how ridiculous and (frankly) sad it is to cling to such an unreasonable notion for no other reason than that that's what NASA, my teachers, my parents, the government, etc have always told me. I understand the desire to be led; after all, why think for yourself when you can have people in authority think for you? Life's easier that way, huh? But just the same it is my sincere hope that given time you, too, will come to the correct conclusions; however, my faith in humanity isn't strong enough for me to truly expect it of you. So continue living in miserable ignorance and enjoy making fun of those clearly far more enlightened than you.
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.
-
Hi guys! I'm new here...in all honesty, I really did not have any idea that people still adhere to this theory. Primarily because of what is taught to us in school. I am not closing my mind to such theories (because anything new and can trigger new discussions) in fact I find it interesting. I'm looking forward to learning new stuff here... :)
Great! Welcome to the forums. Sounds like you have just the right attitude.
-
Just about the right attitude to let yourself get brainwashed by the FE theorsists bullcrap theories that are based on nothing else but failed expreiments from the 1800's and personal experience.
Tip: Do not let the friendly looking attitude of the FE theorists lure you into the FE world.
And I do not mean to offend anyone, just stating the facts as I see them.
Annnddd also, welcome aboard.
-
HAHAHA
-
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).
Why not? Can I not use the fact that an apple looks red as a starting point for the hypothesis that an apple is indeed red?
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.
I don't mind people questioning my beliefs. What gave you the idea that I do?
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.
So it's a mistake to judge the shape of the Earth based on what I see of the Earth, and more sensible to judge the shape of the Earth based on the heavens above? I'd like you to support your outlandish claim that indirect evidence is in any way more reliable than direct evidence.
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).
Not at all. I know better than to take anything I read on an internet forum personally. You can't deny though that whatever the true shape of the Earth it's ingrained from an early age into our minds that it is round. I'm just saying that there's such a strong bias toward roundness that it's practically inconceivable to any person to even consider that it might be flat, and I think that fact if nothing else is proven daily on this website.
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.
I mean no disrespect in calling your ignorance miserable. You might even feel uplifted or empowered by your ignorance for all I know. I'm not here to judge.
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.
-
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"? Nothing? Then why do you keep saying that?
-
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"?
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.
-
So I'll go with my senses as they rarely fail me in day-to-day life.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/2nq74gy.jpg)
-
So I'll go with my senses as they rarely fail me in day-to-day life.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/2nq74gy.jpg)
Do your senses fail you regularly in day-to-day life Markjo? How sad. :(
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
Just because it appears flat, doesn't mean it is.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
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.
-
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?
I'm not saying that the earth appears round from where I am standing. I'm saying that a round earth
will appear flat at ground level considering the size. Like if an bedbug was walking on a basketball, the surface will
look flat from its point of view.
-
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.
That is the reason you cannot trust your senses to determine the shape of the earth at ground level.
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).
-
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.
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.
-
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.
But how do I know that the whole I see isn't distorted somehow?
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.
Not true. There's light and atmosphere and who knows what else getting in the way of my view.
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).
I again say that it seems backwards to base my opinion of the shape of the Earth on objects that hover anywhere from a few thousand (according to FE) to billions and trillions (according to RE) of miles above the surface of the Earth, rather than on the thing I am judging (that is, the surface of the Earth) itself.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Interesting. And how have RE scientists done this exactly, to determine with such certainty that the Earth is round?
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.
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.
-
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.
I've seen a great deal of supposed evidence that the Earth is round, but on close scrutiny none of it actually proves the proposition.
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?
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. Since it goes against my own direct and immediate observation I choose to reject it. So far nobody in this thread has offered sufficient reason for me to trust the view from far above more than my own direct and immediate observation. You seem to think the one is inherently a more reliable indicator than the other but you still haven't supported that conclusion.
To reiterate my original premise, when I see sufficient evidence that my eyes are deceiving me, I will change my opinion.
-
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. Your comparison is flawed because you can see an entire basketball but you cannot see the entire earth. 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.
-
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.
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.
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.
I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. I'm not believing what I fancy, I'm believing what I directly observe.
-
What should you see out your window if the earth is a sphere with a 24,902 mile circumference?
-
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.
I understand scale just fine; read my first post in this thread.
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.
Ooh, a thought experiment, that proves everything. ::)
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.
Which is irrelevant to my point.
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.
Yes, you've said that before, I'd just like to see it supported.
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.
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?
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.
I've stood on many arbitrary spots on the Earth and drawn the same conclusion.
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?
Maybe I glossed over it because I already addressed it in my first post in this thread. Reread it.
Who said your eyes are deceiving you?
Well, you are. You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.
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.
And when this is actually proven, rather than merely stated over and over again, I will change my opinion.
-
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. :D) 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.
Well it is one of the problems we're working on. 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.
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.
And again, you haven't given me sufficient reason to not decide that my direct and immediate observation is sufficient.
-
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.
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 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.
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.
Again, just saying that doesn't make it true. Given that the curvature isn't visible from anything less than a great distance it's not unreasonable to suggest that more conclusive evidence is necessary to overturn a hypothesis that is based on direct, immediate observation.
-
I understand scale just fine; read my first post in this thread.
I did. What's your point?
Ooh, a thought experiment, that proves everything. ::)
You claimed my analogy to be "flawed", so I corrected the flaw.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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?
-
I understand scale just fine; read my first post in this thread.
I did. What's your point?
Um, that I understand scale just fine.
Ooh, a thought experiment, that proves everything. ::)
You claimed my analogy to be "flawed", so I corrected the flaw.
And at the same time demonstrated why it was flawed. Thank you.
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?
It's not based on my own personal observation. It's just another abstraction, made to fit your hypothesis.
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.
Actually I have and I can tell you I had no problem discerning its overall shape, even when I was right next to it. Again you make a point that only supports my hypothesis.
You haven't provided any examples that prove that the view from far above is a more reliable indicator than the view from up close. I would go so far as to suggest that the problem itself is so unique that proof by examples just don't cut it, unless you can provide an analogy on the same scale as what we're talking about (you haven't yet).
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.
So I'm not seeing an object if I'm just observing a part of it? I can't tell anything about an object unless I'm considering it in its entirety?
Does that mean you also reject quantum mechanics?
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.
Again, irrelevant to my point. I see the Earth is flat; I demand sufficient evidence that I'm incorrect. I haven't seen it. Therefore I trust my observation that the Earth is flat.
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.
I'm surprised you missed it. It was right at the beginning of the post. The explanation is there; frankly I don't understand what you want me to diagram.
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.
The one is synonymous with the other.
This is what should be expected when seeing a round earth from its surface.
No doubt. Now prove that the Earth is actually round based on this statement.
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.
If you'd pay attention, I'm not claiming that anything that has been brought up has been fake. I'm a bit insulted because I've actually gone to great lengths to not blame images from above as part of the Conspiracy in this thread. Please don't attack strawmen if you want to be taken seriously.
-
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:
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:
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?
Why, for the same reason you claim the curvature of the Earth is too minute to see. It's a matter of scale.
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".
I'm sorry, but you fail at logic. When I say the Earth is flat I'm not saying that all such bodies are flat, I'm just talking about the one such body I am able to observe. So it's an erroneous analogy; you're using individual examples of a group to confirm your assertion about individual parts of a whole, and they are different things. By your logic the more individual parts of the Earth I observe to be flat the more assured I should be that the Earth is actually flat. I'm amazed at how often the REers in this thread have inadvertantly supported my statements.
-
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:
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:
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?
Why, for the same reason you claim the curvature of the Earth is too minute to see. It's a matter of scale.
So given that FE and RE both predict the same view from ground level, what reasons do you have for supporting one over the other?
Also I have to take issue with this quote:
You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.
But youre eyes arent telling you thats its flat. You just admitted that there is curvature but you cant see it. Yet you insist that youre eyes arent decieving you.
-
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:
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:
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?
Why, for the same reason you claim the curvature of the Earth is too minute to see. It's a matter of scale.
So given that FE and RE both predict the same view from ground level, what reasons do you have for supporting one over the other?
The fact that I haven't seen sufficient evidence that the Earth is round.
Also I have to take issue with this quote:
You're saying the Earth is round despite my eyes telling me it's flat.
But youre eyes arent telling you thats its flat. You just admitted that there is curvature but you cant see it. Yet you insist that youre eyes arent decieving you.
Well, my eyes do tell me it's flat. And I'm "insisting" no such thing. I've stated many times that I'm open to the possibility that the Earth is round. I just haven't seen sufficient evidence that this is so.
-
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:
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:
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?
Why, for the same reason you claim the curvature of the Earth is too minute to see. It's a matter of scale.
So given that FE and RE both predict the same view from ground level, what reasons do you have for supporting one over the other?
The fact that I haven't seen sufficient evidence that the Earth is round
And I havent seen sufficient evidence that the earth is flat. Here we go again.
I'll put my evidence on the table then. NASA. There, I said it. You want to cry conspiracy? Go right ahead then. Say the photos/videos/satellite sightings are all faked. What evidence do you have that there is a conspiracy?
I'll answer for you: Because the earth is flat, so they must be lying. Yet you say:
I've stated many times that I'm open to the possibility that the Earth is round. I just haven't seen sufficient evidence that this is so.
Youre not really open to the possibilty then are you? Like I said earlier youre in an unattackable position. Youve decided in advance that because the earth appears flat (even though it actually appears slightly curved), then it is flat. I show you some possible evidence that it isnt (stuff from NASA) and you say it must be faked, because the earth is flat.
Heres a simple question then. What "sufficient evidence" is needed? I'll give you that photos/videos dont prove it either way. OK, what do you want?
-
The earth appears flat from out location. The burden of proof is on RE to prove themselves right.
-
Um, that I understand scale just fine.
Which was demonstrated in what way?
And at the same time demonstrated why it was flawed. Thank you.
It demonstrated how your logic was flawed.
It's not based on my own personal observation. It's just another abstraction, made to fit your hypothesis.
You can go get a microscope and a basketball if you wish. Then it would be your own personal observation, and not just another abstraction.
Actually I have and I can tell you I had no problem discerning its overall shape, even when I was right next to it. Again you make a point that only supports my hypothesis.
Then you must have been looking at some pretty plain skyscrapers. I just walked past the Sears Tower (Willis Tower) a few months ago. Standing next to it, you can't see the distinct shape or the needles. It just looks like any other skyscraper.
You haven't provided any examples that prove that the view from far above is a more reliable indicator than the view from up close. I would go so far as to suggest that the problem itself is so unique that proof by examples just don't cut it, unless you can provide an analogy on the same scale as what we're talking about (you haven't yet).
The thing about scale is you just have to have the same ratio. I already provided an example with a smaller scale involving objects you are capable of seeing the entirety of. It's also simple geometry. Even from an altitude of 1km, the horizon would only have a 1.6 degree curve. That would not result in a distinct curvature between you and the horizon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon
So I'm not seeing an object if I'm just observing a part of it? I can't tell anything about an object unless I'm considering it in its entirety?
If you're seeing very little of an object, you can tell very little about an object's shape based on what you see.
Again, irrelevant to my point. I see the Earth is flat; I demand sufficient evidence that I'm incorrect. I haven't seen it. Therefore I trust my observation that the Earth is flat.
You don't see the earth in its entirety, so how can you "see the earth is flat"?
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'm surprised you missed it. It was right at the beginning of the post. The explanation is there; frankly I don't understand what you want me to diagram.
You say the earth is flat because it looks flat, and in RET, it is some kind of an illusion. That is not the case. Geometry says there would be no significant curvature while observing a giant sphere from it's surface. There is no illusion, and there is no reason to assume the earth is flat based on what you see out your window. You can't say the earth must be flat because you don't notice any curvature. You know that because of the size of the earth, any curvature wouldn't be apparent, so you can't draw any conclusions based on your limited observations (due to gravitation or upward acceleration or whatever you want to call it). If what you see is incompatible with earth being a sphere with a 24,902 mile circumference without some sort of illusion or deception as you suggest, then explain and diagram.
The one is synonymous with the other.
No. Your eyes see a flat surface. Your mind should tell you this flat surface may have a very slight curvature which you are not capable of noticing, but it is possible that it is part of of very,very large sphere. Your mind is failing you, not your eyes.
No doubt. Now prove that the Earth is actually round based on this statement.
I'm not trying to prove the earth is round. I'm trying to understand why you think FET is the most logical assumption when your observations contradict neither theory, and there is no evidence to suggest the earth is actually flat.
If you'd pay attention, I'm not claiming that anything that has been brought up has been fake. I'm a bit insulted because I've actually gone to great lengths to not blame images from above as part of the Conspiracy in this thread. Please don't attack strawmen if you want to be taken seriously.
If you've never seen photographs of the earth from space, then you must be living in a cave somewhere. You said you used to believe the earth was round because that's what NASA, your school, and your government led you to believe. It is a reasonable assumption that during that leading you were shown photographs of earth. If you've seen these photographs, but you don't believe the earth is round, then you obviously agree with all the other FET'ers in thinking they were faked. How do you explain this photo if it wasn't faked?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=885
-
The earth appears flat from out location. The burden of proof is on RE to prove themselves right.
Are you suggesting the earth's appearance from the surface is evidence that the earth isn't round? Considering the size of the earth, your observations wouldn't suggest one theory over the other. What kind of proof are you expecting?
-
The earth appears flat from out location. The burden of proof is on RE to prove themselves right.
Are you suggesting the earth's appearance from the surface is evidence that the earth isn't round? Considering the size of the earth, your observations wouldn't suggest one theory over the other. What kind of proof are you expecting?
The earth appears flat from our location. RE is suggesting something contrary. The burden of proof is on the RET.
-
The earth appears flat from our location. RE is suggesting something contrary. The burden of proof is on the RET.
RET does not contradict your observation. In fact, geometry shows that on a round earth, there would be very little curvature between you and the horizon, so it would appear flat.
-
Um, that I understand scale just fine.
Which was demonstrated in what way?
See the quote from that post that was in the post you're quoting here.
And at the same time demonstrated why it was flawed. Thank you.
It demonstrated how your logic was flawed.
Not in the least.
It's not based on my own personal observation. It's just another abstraction, made to fit your hypothesis.
You can go get a microscope and a basketball if you wish. Then it would be your own personal observation, and not just another abstraction.
Unfortunately it would prove nothing about the shape of the Earth.
Actually I have and I can tell you I had no problem discerning its overall shape, even when I was right next to it. Again you make a point that only supports my hypothesis.
Then you must have been looking at some pretty plain skyscrapers. I just walked past the Sears Tower (Willis Tower) a few months ago. Standing next to it, you can't see the distinct shape or the needles. It just looks like any other skyscraper.
Oh, I thought you were talking about the overall shape, which I can discern just fine at the base of the Sears Tower. Of course you can't see every little detail but even if you could what would it prove about the shape of the Earth?
You haven't provided any examples that prove that the view from far above is a more reliable indicator than the view from up close. I would go so far as to suggest that the problem itself is so unique that proof by examples just don't cut it, unless you can provide an analogy on the same scale as what we're talking about (you haven't yet).
The thing about scale is you just have to have the same ratio. I already provided an example with a smaller scale involving objects you are capable of seeing the entirety of.
Your example completely ignores the fact that at large scales such as what we're talking about with the shape of the Earth there's that phenomenal distance between the observer and the Earth. Looking at a basketball with it right in front of my face doesn't even begin to compare. I'm sorry, but again I'm not denying that if I were a tiny ant on the surface of a basketball it would look flat. I don't deny the points you make about scale. They are just irrelevant to my overall point, which is that there's no inherent reason to trust the view from afar more than from up close. When you're ready to drop this crap about scale and talk about why that should be the case please let me know.
If you'd pay attention, I'm not claiming that anything that has been brought up has been fake. I'm a bit insulted because I've actually gone to great lengths to not blame images from above as part of the Conspiracy in this thread. Please don't attack strawmen if you want to be taken seriously.
If you've never seen photographs of the earth from space, then you must be living in a cave somewhere. You said you used to believe the earth was round because that's what NASA, your school, and your government led you to believe. It is a reasonable assumption that during that leading you were shown photographs of earth. If you've seen these photographs, but you don't believe the earth is round, then you obviously agree with all the other FET'ers in thinking they were faked. How do you explain this photo if it wasn't faked?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=885
Well I was trying to avoid controversy by bringing up the Conspiracy in this thread but if you're going to force it down my throat anyway, yes, I believe that picture was faked. Can we get back on topic now?
-
Unfortunately it would prove nothing about the shape of the Earth.
It wasn't supposed to.
Oh, I thought you were talking about the overall shape, which I can discern just fine at the base of the Sears Tower. Of course you can't see every little detail but even if you could what would it prove about the shape of the Earth?
Standing next to it, it looks like it could very well be a rectangle. I couldn't even recognize it as being the sears tower. It has a very distinct shape. That example shows that the immediate view you have of an object isn't always the best for determining its shape, especially when you can't see the entire shape.
Your example completely ignores the fact that at large scales such as what we're talking about with the shape of the Earth there's that phenomenal distance between the observer and the Earth. Looking at a basketball with it right in front of my face doesn't even begin to compare. I'm sorry, but again I'm not denying that if I were a tiny ant on the surface of a basketball it would look flat. I don't deny the points you make about scale. They are just irrelevant to my overall point, which is that there's no inherent reason to trust the view from afar more than from up close. When you're ready to drop this crap about scale and talk about why that should be the case please let me know.
Once again, it is about ratio. The distance between you and the object should be relative to the size of the object. It's not about "trusting" your view, its about actually having a view of the object. You can't see the earth's shape unless your view of it is as good as your view of the hypothetical basketball. When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.
Well I was trying to avoid controversy by bringing up the Conspiracy in this thread but if you're going to force it down my throat anyway, yes, I believe that picture was faked. Can we get back on topic now?
Why did you go out of your way to point out you never questioned the authenticity of photos in this thread when my assumption was clearly correct? As far as the topic goes, I think I got my answer. There is no logical reason to assume the earth is flat, you just want to believe.
-
When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.
It's logical because it's based on personal experience. I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.
-
When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.
It's logical because it's based on personal experience. I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.
So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?
I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.
Wouldn't you agree?
-
When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.
It's logical because it's based on personal experience. I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.
So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?
I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.
Wouldn't you agree?
Well, no. It's like Plato's allegory of the cave. You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything. At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify. I leave plenty of room for error. I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm a bit skeptical. I think you need to be, in this day and age.
-
When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.
It's logical because it's based on personal experience. I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.
So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?
I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.
Wouldn't you agree?
Well, no. It's like Plato's allegory of the cave. You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything. At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify. I leave plenty of room for error. I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm a bit skeptical. I think you need to be, in this day and age.
Do you think you got all the answers?
-
When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.
It's logical because it's based on personal experience. I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.
So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?
I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.
Wouldn't you agree?
Well, no. It's like Plato's allegory of the cave. You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything. At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify. I leave plenty of room for error. I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm a bit skeptical. I think you need to be, in this day and age.
Do you think you got all the answers?
Of course not.
-
When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.
It's logical because it's based on personal experience. I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.
So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?
I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.
Wouldn't you agree?
Well, no. It's like Plato's allegory of the cave. You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything. At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify. I leave plenty of room for error. I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm a bit skeptical. I think you need to be, in this day and age.
Do you think you got all the answers?
Of course not.
Do you then agree that the shape of the earth could be something other then flat,
when looking only at a fraction of it?
Considering that the earth is proven to be quite big compared to a human.
-
When you're ready to drop this crap about illusions, trust, and obstructions and tell me why assuming the earth is flat is logical, let me know.
It's logical because it's based on personal experience. I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.
So what you're basically is saying is everything but personal experience can't be trusted?
I agree that it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience, but I also find
it illogical to assume a shape of a thing when you only observe a fraction of it.
Wouldn't you agree?
Well, no. It's like Plato's allegory of the cave. You can think you have all the answers but a look at the wider picture can prove you wrong about everything. At least I base my assumption on something I can personally verify. I leave plenty of room for error. I just want irrefutable proof that I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm a bit skeptical. I think you need to be, in this day and age.
Do you think you got all the answers?
Of course not.
Do you then agree that the shape of the earth could be something other then flat,
when looking only at a fraction of it?
Considering that the earth is proven to be quite big compared to a human.
I've never denied it.
-
It's logical because it's based on personal experience. I think it's illogical to put all your faith in second-hand experience.
Except we already established that your personal experience doesn't contradict RET or FET, so why do you assume FET is correct until you are shown proof which cannot exist since you claim any proof to be fraudulent.
-
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?
Thankyou for your time.
[/quote]
How is that even an argument?
-
Yes this would be correct. And it is what I am saying. This is why the view from far above the Earth is more reliable than your "direct and immediate" observations, and answers your question "on what grounds"...
Great. But from aeroplanes it looks flat, too!
-
But from aeroplanes it looks flat, too!
No. The horizon still looks flat. But bizarrely, the higher up you go the further away the (flat) horizon is.
So what? When you go up a tall building, you can see further than if you were on the ground. How is this relevant? This is extensively explained in other threads. Look them up.
-
Yes this would be correct. And it is what I am saying. This is why the view from far above the Earth is more reliable than your "direct and immediate" observations, and answers your question "on what grounds"...
Great. But from aeroplanes it looks flat, too!
You're not going high enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon
-
But from aeroplanes it looks flat, too!
No. The horizon still looks flat. But bizarrely, the higher up you go the further away the (flat) horizon is.
Rookie error. The atmolayer is thinner at higher altitudes, and the thickness of the atmolayer is a limiting factor in distance of visibility.
-
You don't get it - it's a rookie error because it's commonly made by clueless globularists. You haven't been around long enough to watch us repeatedly debunk it as a criticism.
Your response is nonsense. At a certain point, reduction of transparency by the compounded imperfection over a long stretch of air renders vision impossible. When the air is thinner, this point is further from the the point of observation. Even globularists (sensible ones) are aware of the fact that the air becomes thinner the higher you go.
-
You don't get it - it's a rookie error because it's commonly made by clueless globularists. You haven't been around long enough to watch us repeatedly debunk it as a criticism.
Your response is nonsense. At a certain point, reduction of transparency by the compounded imperfection over a long stretch of air renders vision impossible. When the air is thinner, this point is further from the the point of observation. Even globularists (sensible ones) are aware of the fact that the air becomes thinner the higher you go.
The problem is that if the horizon was the result of the air's opacity, then there wouldn't be a horizon because visibility would gradually fade. However, when you can see the horizon, it stops at a particular point. From a higher elevation, this point is further away. This can't be explained by your visibility theory.
-
You don't get it - it's a rookie error because it's commonly made by clueless globularists. You haven't been around long enough to watch us repeatedly debunk it as a criticism.
Your response is nonsense. At a certain point, reduction of transparency by the compounded imperfection over a long stretch of air renders vision impossible. When the air is thinner, this point is further from the the point of observation. Even globularists (sensible ones) are aware of the fact that the air becomes thinner the higher you go.
The problem is that if the horizon was the result of the air's opacity, then there wouldn't be a horizon because visibility would gradually fade. However, when you can see the horizon, it stops at a particular point. From a higher elevation, this point is further away. This can't be explained by your visibility theory.
Actually, his theory explains that perfectly.
-
Actually, his theory explains that perfectly.
Then please elaborate how imperfections in air can cause a sudden end of visibility at a specific point.
-
If curvature rather than air quality is a limiting factor on distance of visibility, why is it that I can see further on a clear day? Does the curvature of the Earth contract and relax depending on how foggy it is?
-
No. Y'see what you've done there is deliberately confuse "curvature" with "air quality".
Let me explain.
Fog is a mixture of water droplets and other impurities suspended in the air which make it difficult to see. It's a bit like being in a cloud! When there is a large amount of fog in the air we sometimes call it "foggy". The "horizon" is the apparant boundary which limits the furthest you can see. At sea level this is about 5km. When it is "foggy" (water droplets) this sometimes means we cannot see all the way to the "horizon".
So air quality is the limiting factor. Got it.
-
No. Y'see what you've done there is deliberately confuse "curvature" with "air quality".
Let me explain.
Fog is a mixture of water droplets and other impurities suspended in the air which make it difficult to see. It's a bit like being in a cloud! When there is a large amount of fog in the air we sometimes call it "foggy". The "horizon" is the apparant boundary which limits the furthest you can see. At sea level this is about 5km. When it is "foggy" (water droplets) this sometimes means we cannot see all the way to the "horizon".
So air quality is the limiting factor. Got it.
Air quality is a limiting factor. Air quality is not the only limiting factor.