The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: shades on September 16, 2009, 12:51:01 PM
-
Why did FET get created? What is wrong with RET? Are there inconsistencies? Are there flaws?
I don't want blanket statements here like: "RET is wrong because the earth is flat." Or "It makes you make stupid assumptions that don't make sense."
I want actual evidence that suggests RET is incorrect.
-
The last time I looked across the dry Texas plains, the earth appeared flat. Have you ever looked across the plains and noticed curvature?
-
The last time I looked across the dry Texas plains, the earth appeared flat. Have you ever looked across the plains and noticed curvature?
Last time I looked up at the surrounding mountains from the valley I was standing in, the earth looked concave: therefore, it is concave.
Try harder Kathleen. Simply putting your eye close to a big ball will demonstrate how the closer you are to a gigantic curve the flatter it looks.
-
The last time I looked across the dry Texas plains, the earth appeared flat. Have you ever looked across the plains and noticed curvature?
Actually yes, but it so faint that you probably won't see it, purely because you won't let yourself see it.
-
Come on, Kat. You know just as well as anyone else that you won't see curvature like that.
-
Last time I looked up at the surrounding mountains from the valley I was standing in, the earth looked concave: therefore, it is concave.
Mountains and valleys are, by definition, aberrations in terrain. You fail.
-
The last time I looked across the dry Texas plains, the earth appeared flat. Have you ever looked across the plains and noticed curvature?
Last time I looked up at the surrounding mountains from the valley I was standing in, the earth looked concave: therefore, it is concave.
Try harder Kathleen. Simply putting your eye close to a big ball will demonstrate how the closer you are to a gigantic curve the flatter it looks.
Exactly, land will appear flat, and seeing as it is a curve you won't see curvature on a plain, even if you can see 12 miles out, because the ground will go down, and at that distance trees/cacti would not bee too visible.
Plus land is a bad medium for showing the earth is round or flat because the ground can deviate and we won't know. Water can still deviate but usually nowhere near as much as land can, and it will be noticeable. That's why textbooks never use a car appearing as an example of a round earth, they always used a ship in water.
-
The last time I looked across the dry Texas plains, the earth appeared flat. Have you ever looked across the plains and noticed curvature?
Just out of curiosity, just how much curvature would you expect to see if you were standing on a sphere about 7900 miles in diameter?
-
Last time I looked up at the surrounding mountains from the valley I was standing in, the earth looked concave: therefore, it is concave.
Mountains and valleys are, by definition, aberrations in terrain. You fail.
A plain is, by definition, an aberration in terrain as the majority of terrain is less flat than it.
You fail. And you fail twice at not being able to spot a deliberately silly illustrative example.
-
A plain is, by definition, an aberration in terrain as the majority of terrain is less flat than it.
So we both agree that the earth is relatively flat?
-
A plain is, by definition, an aberration in terrain as the majority of terrain is less flat than it.
So we both agree that the earth is relatively flat?
Congratulations you can twist someone's words to try to make it seem like they agree with you. He was saying that plains are flat surfaces and though the surrounding areas of that plain may be relatively flat they are bumpier than the plain. He was saying that flat plains are a change from the normal terrain. I would have assumed that would be easy to understand.
-
So we both agree that the earth is relatively flat?
-
I believe that is considered spamming, as you have already said that statement, and i'm sure he hasn't had a chance to read it. I doubt my posting will get in his way of reading it.
-
So we both agree that a small part of the earths surface is relatively flat?
Good work though :thumbs up:
-
I believe that is considered spamming, as you have already said that statement, and i'm sure he hasn't had a chance to read it. I doubt my posting will get in his way of reading it.
It was for your sake that I reposted it. I assumed you missed our exchange because you posted the same thing he did.
Do you not agree that the earth is relatively flat?
-
I believe that is considered spamming, as you have already said that statement, and i'm sure he hasn't had a chance to read it. I doubt my posting will get in his way of reading it.
It was for your sake that I reposted it. I assumed you missed our exchange because you posted the same thing he did.
Do you not agree that the earth is relatively flat?
No i saw your exchange, and i did not say what he said. I was saying that plains are change in the normal terrain, or as he said an aberration. He was not saying that the entire earth is flat, he was not saying the entire earth is relatively flat, he was saying the surroundings of plains are flat-ish but are still bumpy, where as plains are flatter than the surroundings. However, if you had a plain that extended 6-12 miles it would look flat from your point of view, however you could easily do tests to show it is not really flat, and it is only because the sphere we are on is so big. Actually it's not a sphere per se, it's sphere-ish, to say it is a perfect sphere would be foolish.
-
Loki 1, Proleg nil.
New balls please.
-
Why did FET get created? What is wrong with RET? Are there inconsistencies? Are there flaws?
I don't want blanket statements here like: "RET is wrong because the earth is flat." Or "It makes you make stupid assumptions that don't make sense."
I want actual evidence that suggests RET is incorrect.
The thing about FET is that its more "this can work too" than "this (RET) doesn't work"
-
The thing about FET is that its more "this can work too" than "this (RET) doesn't work"
I'm encouraged that you might be on the verge of an epiphany.
-
The thing about FET is that its more "this can work too" than "this (RET) doesn't work"
I'm encouraged that you might be on the verge of an epiphany.
Really? Is there actually hope for Areweonfiya?
I like to think there is a little bit of hope for everyone on this flat earth of ours.
-
The thing about FET is that its more "this can work too" than "this (RET) doesn't work"
I'm encouraged that you might be on the verge of an epiphany.
Hey you're a flat earther, right? Since none of the others have, can you answer my question?
Note I'm not demanding you answer my question, therefore not being an entitled brat. You don't have to.
-
I meant that YOU believe fet works, but you fail to actually DISPROVE round earth. It's like this
You say an atom is somthing that consists of electrons protons neutrons ect ect.
I say I think atoms are made of magic sugar and i will conduct experiments to prove my point, but i pay no regard to the theory at hand, I simply say this works instead of that.
-
The earth has been proven to be flat, therefore it is not a sphere. In proving FET we disprove RET by simple logic.
-
The earth has been proven to be flat, therefore it is not a sphere. In proving FET we disprove RET by simple logic.
You have no idea what constitutes proof in the scientific community.
-
You have no idea what constitutes proof in the scientific community.
Then what does constitute proof in the scientific community?
-
You have no idea what constitutes proof in the scientific community.
Then what does constitute proof in the scientific community?
Anything that doesn't have the words "Earth not a globe" or "Samuel Rowbotham" in it.
No Srsly.
-
You have no idea what constitutes proof in the scientific community.
Then what does constitute proof in the scientific community?
See, you just admitted it right there.
-
*facepalm*
-
The earth has been proven to be flat, therefore it is not a sphere. In proving FET we disprove RET by simple logic.
Name anything other than the works of Rowbottom (which you yourself have stated are irrelevant to your belief) which proves (and I mean proves as in negates the possibility of roundness also being true) that the earth is flat.
-
The earth has been proven to be flat, therefore it is not a sphere. In proving FET we disprove RET by simple logic.
Name anything other than the works of Rowbottom (which you yourself have stated are irrelevant to your belief) which proves (and I mean proves as in negates the possibility of roundness also being true) that the earth is flat.
He already did by looking out his window and jumping off his chair.
-
The earth has been proven to be flat, therefore it is not a sphere. In proving FET we disprove RET by simple logic.
Name anything other than the works of Rowbottom (which you yourself have stated are irrelevant to your belief) which proves (and I mean proves as in negates the possibility of roundness also being true) that the earth is flat.
He already did by looking out his window and jumping off his chair.
Scientific breakthrough!
-
You have no idea what constitutes proof in the scientific community.
Then what does constitute proof in the scientific community?
See, you just admitted it right there.
Not so, dear. I asked *you* what *you* think constitutes proof. Go on.
-
Name anything other than the works of Rowbottom (which you yourself have stated are irrelevant to your belief) which proves (and I mean proves as in negates the possibility of roundness also being true) that the earth is flat.
Please show me the post where I said that the works of Rowbotham were irrelevant to my belief. You are taking things way out of context.
-
Name anything other than the works of Rowbottom (which you yourself have stated are irrelevant to your belief) which proves (and I mean proves as in negates the possibility of roundness also being true) that the earth is flat.
Please show me the post where I said that the works of Rowbotham were irrelevant to my belief. You are taking things way out of context.
In the Questioning The Holy Book thread you state that even if Rowbottom had not written his book, or if he had subsequently written another book refuting his earlier data and admitting he was wrong all along, you would still believe the earth was flat. Therefore, Rowbottom's findings are of no relevance to your belief as if they were different, your belief would still be the same.
-
In the Questioning The Holy Book thread you state that even if Rowbottom had not written his book, or if he had subsequently written another book refuting his earlier data and admitting he was wrong all along, you would still believe the earth was flat. Therefore, Rowbottom's findings are of no relevance to your belief as if they were different, your belief would still be the same.
This is not what I said at all. I said that if Rowbotham (not Rowbottom, by the way) hadn't written his book, but all evidence still pointed to a flat earth, I would still believe it were flat, however Rowbotham's book is quite relevant because it provides proof that the earth is flat.
If the earth were a sphere, and a book were written proving this, I would believe it were a sphere, but it's not.
-
In the Questioning The Holy Book thread you state that even if Rowbottom had not written his book, or if he had subsequently written another book refuting his earlier data and admitting he was wrong all along, you would still believe the earth was flat. Therefore, Rowbottom's findings are of no relevance to your belief as if they were different, your belief would still be the same.
This is not what I said at all. I said that if Rowbotham (not Rowbottom, by the way) hadn't written his book, but all evidence still pointed to a flat earth, I would still believe it were flat, however Rowbotham's book is quite relevant because it provides proof that the earth is flat.
If the earth were a sphere, and a book were written proving this, I would believe it were a sphere, but it's not.
No, it provides proof that someone doesn't know how to perform experiments correctly, and is an overall idiot.
-
Ignoring the waffle above me, and straight to the TS's question, there is relatively little that could be taken as proof that RET is wrong.
The structure of the earth has never been observed, our evidence for it comes from seismics and our best guess as to what would create the results we see. Of course, this is also backed up by things like magnetic fields, tectonics, and volcanoes, so it looks like we were right.
There are a couple of gravity anomalies, one in Siberia, which we only have theories as to why it happens. But, FE doesn't really explain that any better (and I can't remember the RE theory).
Thing is, RET is pretty damn good, no gaping holes anywhere. Well, nothing that sends people (well, geologists/geographers/environmental scientists) off debating the shape of the earth.
-
The earth has been proven to be flat, therefore it is not a sphere. In proving FET we disprove RET by simple logic.
Well in science things don't work like this. Actually I think the process would be to dsiprove somthing first and THAN prove something else ie an alternate solution.
Also, there is no evidence for a flat Earth.