The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: preco on September 09, 2009, 07:45:10 AM
-
Let's see if I can help you FEers realise the truth, that you so desperately seek.
Firstly, let's totally disregard all of the RE science & proof & look at this from an FE perspective.
From the countless posts & FAQ* it is painfully clear that most FE belief is based upon 1. Observation of the surrounding world (which appears flat) & the experiments performed by Row Row your Botham.
Now, the funny thing is that there are just as many posts by most FEers claiming that the curvature of the Earth in a RE world is not visible from anyhwhere on Earth, be it at 30,000ft or ground level.
Thus by their own admission, their assumption that the world is flat due to it's appearance is null & void because of their admissions that it would not look any different if it was a sphere.
Next, the majority of experiments performed by Rowbotham were to try & detect curvature over a distance of approx 6 - 10 miles which is obviously well within the visual limits of any horizon.
Thus, these experiments are null & void as once again, according to the majority of FEers curvature would not detectable over these distances, even if the Earth was a sphere.
Therefore with the main reasons for believing in FE being fully contradicted by those very people believing in it, there can be no valid reason for continuing the belief.
MYTH BUSTED!!!
*Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"
A: Well, it looks that way up close. In our local frame of reference, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.
-
Row Row your Botham.
Heh. Clever.
-
Row Row your Botham.
Heh. Clever.
We need to sticky this thread.
-
of course it will look flat up close, go get a normall size football "soccer ball for yanks" put it close to ur head, ohhh what,,,, it looks flat
-
of course it will look flat up close, go get a normall size football "soccer ball for yanks" put it close to ur head, ohhh what,,,, it looks flat
Hehehe. Normall.
But no, it doesn't, not to me anyway. Besides, it's beyond the point as there have been experiments that prove conclusively that the earth is flat.
-
of course it will look flat up close, go get a normall size football "soccer ball for yanks" put it close to ur head, ohhh what,,,, it looks flat
Hehehe. Normall.
But no, it doesn't, not to me anyway. Besides, it's beyond the point as there have been experiments that prove conclusively that the earth is flat.
This troll bait stinks. Get me some fresh stuff.
-
of course it will look flat up close, go get a normall size football "soccer ball for yanks" put it close to ur head, ohhh what,,,, it looks flat
Hehehe. Normall.
But no, it doesn't, not to me anyway. Besides, it's beyond the point as there have been experiments that prove conclusively that the earth is flat.
This troll bait stinks. Get me some fresh stuff.
Why would I want fresh troll bait? I threw it in the trash and the trolls can kindly follow!
-
I know the FES would like to bury this thread, so.....Bump.
-
I know the FES would like to bury this thread, so.....Bump.
Don't get your hopes up. FE theory is just full of bad contradictions as you point out.
-
I know the FES would like to bury this thread, so.....Bump.
So no one on either side happens to post anything for about 14 hours and you think we're intentionally trying to "bury" it?
-
Let's see if I can help you FEers realise the truth, that you so desperately seek.
Firstly, let's totally disregard all of the RE science & proof & look at this from an FE perspective.
From the countless posts & FAQ* it is painfully clear that most FE belief is based upon 1. Observation of the surrounding world (which appears flat) & the experiments performed by Row Row your Botham.
Now, the funny thing is that there are just as many posts by most FEers claiming that the curvature of the Earth in a RE world is not visible from anyhwhere on Earth, be it at 30,000ft or ground level.
Thus by their own admission, their assumption that the world is flat due to it's appearance is null & void because of their admissions that it would not look any different if it was a sphere.
The main difference is based in how we conduct our experiments. We gather data indiscriminately, hopefully ;), and then come to a conclusion. Since the data appears to show a flat earth, we come to that conclusion until we see otherwise.
Next, the majority of experiments performed by Rowbotham were to try & detect curvature over a distance of approx 6 - 10 miles which is obviously well within the visual limits of any horizon.
The math for a round earth seems to say there would be a visual drop over that space.
Thus, these experiments are null & void as once again, according to the majority of FEers curvature would not detectable over these distances, even if the Earth was a sphere.
Therefore with the main reasons for believing in FE being fully contradicted by those very people believing in it, there can be no valid reason for continuing the belief.
MYTH BUSTED!!!
One could just as easily say the same for the Round earth, assuming you were correct in your statements.
*Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"
A: Well, it looks that way up close. In our local frame of reference, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.
-
The main difference is based in how we conduct our experiments. We gather data indiscriminately, hopefully ;), and then come to a conclusion. Since the data appears to show a flat earth, we come to that conclusion until we see otherwise.
And that is your main problem. For data to be useful, you must gather it systematically and rigorously. Remember the mantra of GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. Indiscriminate data yields indiscriminate results.
-
We gather data indiscriminately, hopefully ;), and then come to a conclusion.
Therein lies the problem.
Since the data appears to show a flat earth, we come to that conclusion until we see otherwise.
There's no meaningful data that shows a flat earth. Not even Rowbotham. :( *hugs*
-
Let's see if I can help you FEers realise the truth, that you so desperately seek.
Firstly, let's totally disregard all of the RE science & proof & look at this from an FE perspective.
From the countless posts & FAQ* it is painfully clear that most FE belief is based upon 1. Observation of the surrounding world (which appears flat) & the experiments performed by Row Row your Botham.
Now, the funny thing is that there are just as many posts by most FEers claiming that the curvature of the Earth in a RE world is not visible from anyhwhere on Earth, be it at 30,000ft or ground level.
Thus by their own admission, their assumption that the world is flat due to it's appearance is null & void because of their admissions that it would not look any different if it was a sphere.
The main difference is based in how we conduct our experiments. We gather data indiscriminately, hopefully ;), and then come to a conclusion. Since the data appears to show a flat earth, we come to that conclusion until we see otherwise.
The main difference in what?
Sorry, it's a nice little babble, that FEers are very good at, but it doesn't answer why you all contradict yourselves
Next, the majority of experiments performed by Rowbotham were to try & detect curvature over a distance of approx 6 - 10 miles which is obviously well within the visual limits of any horizon.
The math for a round earth seems to say there would be a visual drop over that space.
The majority of your brethren disagree, including your guru Tom Bishop.
Thus, these experiments are null & void as once again, according to the majority of FEers curvature would not detectable over these distances, even if the Earth was a sphere.
Therefore with the main reasons for believing in FE being fully contradicted by those very people believing in it, there can be no valid reason for continuing the belief.
MYTH BUSTED!!!
One could just as easily say the same for the Round earth, assuming you were correct in your statements.
Except that with the arguments for a RE, there are not the basic contradictions that occur with the arguments for a FE.
-
FE just got owned
-
Come on guys. I know it must be upsetting to be shown the truth that you never knew, but surely at least Tom Bishop must be able apply his unique brand of logic to come up with something for our amusement.
-
SIMPLE SOLUTION!
1, Buy a Compass. 2, buy aeroplane tickets that would hypethetically take you round the earth if it is round. 3 Keep an eye on your compass to ensure you are travelling in roughly the same direction consistantly. 4 See what Happens. if you find the edge then the earth is flat.
If you end up where you started its round.
-
SIMPLE SOLUTION!
1, Buy a Compass. 2, buy aeroplane tickets that would hypethetically take you round the earth if it is round. 3 Keep an eye on your compass to ensure you are travelling in roughly the same direction consistantly. 4 See what Happens. if you find the edge then the earth is flat.
If you end up where you started its round.
Flat earthers are too scared to do this, they will think it's the apocalypse (and probably jump out of the plane) if they find out the Earth is round.
-
Circumnavigation is quite possible in FET. Posts like this are the reasons people get fed up and finally just tell you to read the damn FAQ.
-
Circumnavigation is quite possible in FET. Posts like this are the reasons people get fed up and finally just tell you to read the damn FAQ.
Hey dopey, read my response in the other thread.
-
MYTH BUSTED!!!
This myth was busted a long time ago, but like alligators in the sewers, some people prefer fantasy over reality.
-
Let's see if I can help you FEers realise the truth, that you so desperately seek.
Firstly, let's totally disregard all of the RE science & proof & look at this from an FE perspective.
From the countless posts & FAQ* it is painfully clear that most FE belief is based upon 1. Observation of the surrounding world (which appears flat) & the experiments performed by Row Row your Botham.
Now, the funny thing is that there are just as many posts by most FEers claiming that the curvature of the Earth in a RE world is not visible from anyhwhere on Earth, be it at 30,000ft or ground level.
Thus by their own admission, their assumption that the world is flat due to it's appearance is null & void because of their admissions that it would not look any different if it was a sphere.
The main difference is based in how we conduct our experiments. We gather data indiscriminately, hopefully ;), and then come to a conclusion. Since the data appears to show a flat earth, we come to that conclusion until we see otherwise.
Next, the majority of experiments performed by Rowbotham were to try & detect curvature over a distance of approx 6 - 10 miles which is obviously well within the visual limits of any horizon.
The math for a round earth seems to say there would be a visual drop over that space.
Thus, these experiments are null & void as once again, according to the majority of FEers curvature would not detectable over these distances, even if the Earth was a sphere.
Therefore with the main reasons for believing in FE being fully contradicted by those very people believing in it, there can be no valid reason for continuing the belief.
MYTH BUSTED!!!
One could just as easily say the same for the Round earth, assuming you were correct in your statements.
*Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"
A: Well, it looks that way up close. In our local frame of reference, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.
So you're using the opposite of the scientific method. Come up with the conclusion first, then see what facts and evidence you can use to support it.
-
So you're using the opposite of the scientific method. Come up with the conclusion first, then see what facts and evidence you can use to support it.
I can see that you're new here.
-
Hey FE dudes,
I realise to acknowledge this thread is to acknowledge defeat & thus the death of FET & this site, therefore I will not make any more mention of it.
Also, in the face of this it is pointless arguing any of the other points in the other threads, so I will say goodbye & let this thread slowly sink into the sunset.
It has been fun!
-
preco, here are the facts of life for you:
From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=122D5519C959F390&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gatehouse&s_site=HSHH&p_product=HSHH ((you can also find it on their site, on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)
'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'
Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.
'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.
According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.
Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.
THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.
THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.
h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS
h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS
h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS
h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS
h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS
h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS
The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.
NO curvature across lake Ontario:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg722674#msg722674
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg719893#msg719893
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg718436#msg718436
NO curvature from Port Credit to Toronto:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg722741#msg722741
NO curvature from Etobicoke to Toronto:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1090
And the very best proof, no curvature over distances of 600-1000 km (Lake Baikal/Irkutsk) and over a distance of 7000 km (London - Tunguska; curvature of 936 km, with a visual obstacle of 7436 km):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142
And you know already what is going over the Strait of Gibraltar, over the English Channel...
-
preco, here are the facts of life for you:
From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.
Levee, what makes you believe that any of a number of atmospheric refractive phenomena could not reasonably explain those observations. Temperature gradients and inversions are common over large bodies of water and could easily account for many such sightings.
-
preco, here are the facts of life for you:
From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=122D5519C959F390&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gatehouse&s_site=HSHH&p_product=HSHH ((you can also find it on their site, on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)
It's strange that you are forced to refer to individual dates and places for these observations, don't you think?
Shouldn't they be happening everywhere all the time?
-
preco, here are the facts of life for you:
From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=122D5519C959F390&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gatehouse&s_site=HSHH&p_product=HSHH ((you can also find it on their site, on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)
'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'
Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.
'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.
According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.
Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.
THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.
THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.
h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS
h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS
h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS
h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS
h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS
h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS
The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.
NO curvature across lake Ontario:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg722674#msg722674
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg719893#msg719893
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg718436#msg718436
NO curvature from Port Credit to Toronto:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg722741#msg722741
NO curvature from Etobicoke to Toronto:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1090
And the very best proof, no curvature over distances of 600-1000 km (Lake Baikal/Irkutsk) and over a distance of 7000 km (London - Tunguska; curvature of 936 km, with a visual obstacle of 7436 km):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142
And you know already what is going over the Strait of Gibraltar, over the English Channel...
So why don't you try holding the camera an inch above the water this time, instead of 6 feet above it? See what happens then.
-
preco, here are the facts of life for you:
From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.
Levee, what makes you believe that any of a number of atmospheric refractive phenomena could not reasonably explain those observations. Temperature gradients and inversions are common over large bodies of water and could easily account for many such sightings.
markjo, is this supposed to be a joke? Have we not gone through this already? I explained that atmospheric reffraction can only account for some meters over a 50 km distance, or for some tens of meters given a few hundred km distance. Did you read my message?
The curvature itself over Lake Michigan measures 321 meters, if we substract the 183 meters of the tallest Milwaukee building, we get about 140 of missing height which cannot be accounted for no matter what temperature gradient you bring into question.
Now, the actual visual obstacle measures at least 900 meters; there is no way to account for the missing 720 meters.
The best a round earth supporter can hope for is called the Ice Blink, the optical reflexion phenomenon, a very diffuse, unclear image, under very very special conditions, given a low layer of clouds (some hundred of meters): http://www.flickr.com/photos/deadlyphoto/382216932/
This meteorological condition does not apply to lake Michigan; the buildings of three communities cannot be seen from 128 km distance, as a reflected image from a cloud, please come to your senses my friends.
-
Levee, what makes you believe that any of a number of atmospheric refractive phenomena could not reasonably explain those observations. Temperature gradients and inversions are common over large bodies of water and could easily account for many such sightings.
markjo, is this supposed to be a joke? Have we not gone through this already? I explained that atmospheric reffraction can only account for some meters over a 50 km distance, or for some tens of meters given a few hundred km distance. Did you read my message?
The amount of distance that refraction can account for depends on the temperature gradient. The greater the gradient, the greater the refraction, the greater the distance accounted for. Since large bodies of standing water (such as a lake) can soak up a lot of heat, I don't see why significant temperature gradients can't occur causing significant amounts of refraction.
-
:( I went to new jersey and looked east over the coast. I didn't see any land across the atlantic at all! :(
-
preco, here are the facts of life for you:
From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=122D5519C959F390&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gatehouse&s_site=HSHH&p_product=HSHH ((you can also find it on their site, on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)
'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'
Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.
'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.
According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.
Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.
THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.
THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.
h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS
h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS
h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS
h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS
h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS
h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS
The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.
NO curvature across lake Ontario:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg722674#msg722674
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg719893#msg719893
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg718436#msg718436
NO curvature from Port Credit to Toronto:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg722741#msg722741
NO curvature from Etobicoke to Toronto:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1090
And the very best proof, no curvature over distances of 600-1000 km (Lake Baikal/Irkutsk) and over a distance of 7000 km (London - Tunguska; curvature of 936 km, with a visual obstacle of 7436 km):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142
And you know already what is going over the Strait of Gibraltar, over the English Channel...
I knew it! 16 days of nothing from the FEers & then this clown posts after I sign off.
God, where do you start with that impressive load of crap?
Well I guess the glaringly obvious first point is, it still doesn't address the op. You should learn to read before you learn to copy & paste!
Probably just as obvious is the fact that FES doesn't permit photos as evidence. To accept your photos means you have to accept photos from planes showing curvature.
All that aside, those photos don't show anything as there is no information on the photographer's height above sea level compared to the subject. Unless the camera lens is at water level (which it clearly isn't), allowing for wave height (which isn't much in those photos), there is no point even looking at your figures.
And to claim as you do with one of photos that you can distinguish that there is not even a 1cm drop is just laughable.
Now if there are really no serious attempts at addressing the FATAL FLAWS OF FE !!!!!!! I will again take my leave.
-
Not to mention that one of the photos, (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3089/2379255560_d357df6305_o.jpg), shows a very intense fata morgana along the horizon, which means that, regardless of your FET/RET position, there is obviously some kind of atmospheric refraction occurring which hasn't been accounted for.
-
Next, the majority of experiments performed by Rowbotham were to try & detect curvature over a distance of approx 6 - 10 miles which is obviously well within the visual limits of any horizon.
The math for a round earth seems to say there would be a visual drop over that space.
[/quote]
the math says that for a round earth there would be a 6 ft drop over 6 miles of the horizon. if you can visually judge that, id be very impressed.
-
the math says that for a round earth there would be a 6 ft drop over 6 miles of the horizon. if you can visually judge that, id be very impressed.
Oh but you can dazed...unless your one of them that denies everything just for the heck of it. ;)
6 miles is actually very limited distance if you were to overlook the horizon (ex. the atlantic or pacific) and the curvature is easily seen. However as one debater stated; would the curvature flip if we were to stare at it upside down?