The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: jonathan41 on August 10, 2007, 07:08:54 AM

Title: Earths curve
Post by: jonathan41 on August 10, 2007, 07:08:54 AM
How come when you look out to sea on a clear day you can clearly sea the curve of the earth?.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on August 10, 2007, 07:10:39 AM
You can see a curve. As for why, because it appears that way.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: jonathan41 on August 10, 2007, 07:22:38 AM
Its because it is. Is that the best you can come up with.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on August 10, 2007, 07:26:45 AM
And we have another Criss Angel believer. Hooray!
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Mr. Ireland on August 10, 2007, 07:40:48 AM
And we have another Criss Angel believer. Hooray!

I like it when this comes up.  They never get it.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on August 10, 2007, 07:43:18 AM
I like it when this comes up.  They never get it.

I know, it's great!
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: The Communist on August 13, 2007, 10:24:03 AM
I am a Criss Angel Believer.  Balducci levitation and walking on frozen water is possible!
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on August 13, 2007, 01:00:29 PM
Show me a picture of such a thing, and I will show you a flat horizon.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: James on August 13, 2007, 10:37:56 PM
How come when you look out to sea on a clear day you can clearly sea the curve of the earth?.

You can't. In fact, you can't even see this mysterious curvature from a plane at 38000 feet (trust me, I've looked). Basically, if you think you can see the "curvature" from sea level you're delusional.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Jimmy Crackhorn on August 14, 2007, 12:26:19 AM
How come when you look out to sea on a clear day you can clearly sea the curve of the earth?.

You can't. In fact, you can't even see this mysterious curvature from a plane at 38000 feet (trust me, I've looked). Basically, if you think you can see the "curvature" from sea level you're delusional.
There are lots of witnesses and pictures that say otherwise. I'm not saying there's a curve, but it definitely appears that way.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on August 14, 2007, 12:29:10 AM
Appearances can be deceiving.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: skeptical scientist on August 14, 2007, 01:08:50 AM
Curvature at sea level is indeed a myth. Some people appear to see curvature while others do not, but in all cases taking a long straight object and holding it up to the horizon produces an exact match. I have, in fact, conducted this experiment myself (using Lake Michigan rather than an ocean, but Lake Michigan is large enough that the land on the far side is under the horizon, so it is as good as an ocean for the purposes of this experiment). The thread where I reported my results is here (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6553.msg76589;topicseen#msg76589).
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: James on August 14, 2007, 04:13:51 AM
Appearances can be deceiving.

Why are you conceding that there even is visible curvature at ground level? Direct evidence shows otherwise, as well as personal experience (just look at the horizon).
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on August 14, 2007, 08:05:08 AM
Who am I to say what he can or cannot see it? Just because I don't see something doesn't mean other people don't.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: skeptical scientist on August 14, 2007, 01:52:58 PM
On the other hand, you can show that if he does see it it's purely an optical illusion or psychological effect, as my photograph shows.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: black_man_down on August 14, 2007, 02:22:54 PM
Appearances can be deceiving.

That's what she said
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: TheAtheist on August 15, 2007, 09:48:30 AM
Appearances can be deceiving.

That's not the curvature of the earth. The curvature of the earth is not how much the horizon curves from left to right, it is the curve from say 100 miles away to 10 miles away.

When you look at a ship on the horizon that is sailing towards you, why can you see the ship's masts before you see the ship's hull?

And I still actually have not found any proof that the Earth is flat. I would like you to prove it. I went on the website and did not see any proof. It was all either circumstantial, things we just can't explain yet, and plain ignorance concerning several ideas in it.

The distance between the two poles is not enough to cause such a drastic change in temperature (about -30 F to 105 F) if the Sun is above the earth. Everywhere would be tropical if your ideas about the sun were correct.

We know the sun is very hot. Extremely hot in fact. It's powered by nuclear fusion. If the sun was 3000 miles away from the earth, within seconds your wonderful flat Earth would be disintigrated. If it's not powered by nuclear fusion, then what is the sun? How do you know the sun and moon are 32 miles in diameter?

Have you seen the wall at the edge of the earth?

Have you seen towers broadcasting "satellite" signals? There are no towers high enough to do this.

What are the seasons caused by?

How can space time be curved if the earth is flat?

If your effect of throwing a bit of light off the earth and watching what speed it travels at is zero, then how can the earth be constantly accelerating upward?



What are all the other stars?

Ask if you can take a flight over the south pole. Really. I want you to look over a map of flights and look for one that crosses the south pole. Better yet, get a 4 year training in NASA and learn its highest secrets. Then, take a shuttle flight into orbit.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on August 15, 2007, 09:50:14 AM
Show me a picture of such a thing, and I will show you a flat horizon.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on August 15, 2007, 09:56:26 AM
When you look at a ship on the horizon that is sailing towards you, why can you see the ship's masts before you see the ship's hull?

Perspective.

What would happen if you flew a plane off of the "wall of ice" at the edge of the earth?

Why would a plane be traveling that far in the first place? As for what would happen, that is unknown since no one has been out that far and come to talk about it.

Why is the Sun turned off about every 12 hours, if it is circling above the earth?

It isn't turned off.

The distance between the two poles is not enough to cause such a drastic change in temperature (about -30 F to 105 F) if the Sun is above the earth.

We know the sun is very hot. Extremely hot in fact. It's powered by nuclear fusion. If the sun was 3000 miles away from the earth, within seconds your wonderful flat Earth would be disintigrated.

If you're assuming the properties of the Sun are the same as the RE Sun, then of course you'd be right. And therein, the reason you're incorrect.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: TheAtheist on August 15, 2007, 10:08:22 AM

Perspective.

What would happen if you flew a plane off of the "wall of ice" at the edge of the earth?

Why would a plane be traveling that far in the first place? As for what would happen, that is unknown since no one has been out that far and come to talk about it.

Why is the Sun turned off about every 12 hours, if it is circling above the earth?

It isn't turned off.

The distance between the two poles is not enough to cause such a drastic change in temperature (about -30 F to 105 F) if the Sun is above the earth.

We know the sun is very hot. Extremely hot in fact. It's powered by nuclear fusion. If the sun was 3000 miles away from the earth, within seconds your wonderful flat Earth would be disintigrated.

If you're assuming the properties of the Sun are the same as the RE Sun, then of course you'd be right. And therein, the reason you're incorrect.

1. Please, explain.

2. Then why are there flights over it? If you are so confident about it, get on a flight with over a hundred other people on it. If you don't come back, well then it's flat (the pilot would turn around anyway if he knew waht he was doing). Go on the space shuttle.

People have been to the south pole. Unless they're all being blackmailed by the government, then ask them. Or, go there yourself:

http://polarexplorers.com/SPChamp.htm

3. How do you know what the properties of the FE sun are? If it's a spotlight effect, then how can it be a sphere? What IS the temperature of the FE sun? What is it made of?

How is space time curved?

Have you seen any towers broadcasting "satellite" signals?

What are the seasons caused by?

If your effect of throwing a bit of light off the earth and watching what speed it travels at is zero, then how can the earth be constantly accelerating upward?

What are all the other stars in the universe?

Have you seen the wall at the edge of the earth?

How does the military monitor this wall?

And finally, prove the earth is flat. I'm not going to go buy a book to find out about it.

I respect your opinion but after I read the FAQ, which didn't prove your point, just explain away our arguments, I don't think it's possible to change your minds (other than the link I just gave you).
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2007, 10:08:26 AM
Quote
That's not the curvature of the earth. The curvature of the earth is not how much the horizon curves from left to right, it is the curve from say 100 miles away to 10 miles away.

I have never seen any curvature to the earth at sea level. I have also never seen curvature to the earth while on an international flight.

Quote
When you look at a ship on the horizon that is sailing towards you, why can you see the ship's masts before you see the ship's hull?

The effect is not as pronounced as you think. As a ship recedes from an observer it sinks into the sea about a quarter of the way obscuring part of the hull and then fades out completely as a result of the non-transparent atmosphere.

As for why the ship sinks a quarter of the way into the water; it's due to a collusion of the waves intersecting with the line of sight due to the horizon line being at eye level. On a day with choppy waves the boat will sink a quarter of the way down. On a day with calm seas the boat will not sink. It will fade out.

See Chapter 14 Section 1 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) of Earth Not a Globe for more information.

Quote
What would happen if you flew a plane off of the "wall of ice" at the edge of the earth?

If you flew a plane over the 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarctica (http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg) (Also known as the Ice Shelves) you would fly over a perpetual tundra of ice and snow. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

Quote
Why is the Sun turned off about every 12 hours, if it is circling above the earth?

The question, "how is it that the earth is not at all times illuminated all over its surface, seeing that the sun is always a few thousand miles above it?" may be answered as follows:--

First, if no atmosphere existed, no doubt the light of the sun would diffuse over the whole earth at once, and alternations of light and darkness could not exist.

Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by refraction bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the sun--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versā--the effect is a comparatively distinct disc of sun-light.

Quote
The distance between the two poles is not enough to cause such a drastic change in temperature (about -30 F to 105 F) if the Sun is above the earth.

Temperature variations across the Flat Earth are caused by the angle of the sun's rays.

(http://cseligman.com/text/sky/lightspread.jpg)

When sunlight shines from overhead (on left), one square foot of sunlight falls on one square foot of ground. When it shines at a shallow angle (on right), each square foot of sunlight spreads out over many feet of ground.

Quote
We know the sun is very hot. Extremely hot in fact. It's powered by nuclear fusion. If the sun was 3000 miles away from the earth, within seconds your wonderful flat Earth would be disintigrated.

Nuclear Fusion does not power the FE sun. The conclusion of Nuclear Fission powering the sun from Spectral Analysis is a fallacy. See Page 6 of Zetetic Cosmogony (http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=U_cfCQYRUg&sig=miyUTCM3A_JfibRqv66Q4xLpjEU#PPA6,M1).

Quote
And I still actually have not found any proof that the Earth is flat. I would like you to prove it. I went on the website and did not see any proof. It was all either circumstantial, things we just can't explain yet, and plain ignorance concerning several ideas in it.

You can find proof for the earth's flatness in Chapter 2 of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm).
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: TheAtheist on August 15, 2007, 10:15:40 AM
Just...read my post next time. And:

Prove the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on August 15, 2007, 10:27:24 AM
Prove the earth is flat.

I hope you realize the inherent flaw in your request.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2007, 10:34:56 AM
Quote
3. How do you know what the properties of the FE sun are?

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied the sun and its movements for over thirty years. His initial research is the basis for the sun's movements.

Quote
If it's a spotlight effect, then how can it be a sphere? What IS the temperature of the FE sun? What is it made of?

The sun is a sphere in Flat Earth Theory. It's light is spread outwards in all directions. Due to the atmosphere, the size of the sun, and its near proximity to the earth, the rays of the sun are limited to a spotlight.

The temperature of the sun is unknown. The composition of the sun is unknown. What powers it is unknown. Further research is needed for these variables. But what powers the sun is not that critical to Flat Earth Theory since with its near proximity to the earth, in order to heat up the environment, the sun may as well be powered by coal.

Quote
How is space time curved?

This question is irrelevant to the discussion. But as an interesting side note, former FES president Leo Ferarri is known for using the idea of space-time curvature being the cause of the Flat Earth appearing rounded from space.

Quote
What are the seasons caused by?

The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/digital_nomad/Flat-Earth.png)

Quote
If your effect of throwing a bit of light off the earth and watching what speed it travels at is zero, then how can the earth be constantly accelerating upward?

Incoherent question.

Quote
What are all the other stars in the universe?

Due to astronomical parallax on a plane surface, the stars are known to be small bright motes located about four thousand miles above the sea level of the earth. By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.

Quote
Have you seen the wall at the edge of the earth?

Plenty of people have seen the 150 foot high wall of ice at the edge of the known world (http://www.asoc.org/general/iceshelve.htm).

Quote
How does the military monitor this wall?

There is no military presence in Antarctica.

Quote
And finally, prove the earth is flat. I'm not going to go buy a book to find out about it.

The book is free, available online (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm).

Here's a derived experiment I preform regularly for house guests demonstrating the reality of the Flat Earth:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map (http://i14.tinypic.com/3z6fr0o.jpg).

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away. I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible. Even with the unaided naked eye (http://i9.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg) one can see the beaches along the opposite coast.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm). Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

Quote
And I still actually have not found any proof that the Earth is flat.

What proof do you have showing that the earth is round?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2007, 10:42:09 AM
Quote
If your effect of throwing a bit of light off the earth and watching what speed it travels at is zero, then how can the earth be constantly accelerating upward?
Quoted for...I don't know, ignorance, maybe?  Or out of just sheer amazement.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on August 15, 2007, 08:10:59 PM
Here's a derived experiment I preform regularly for house guests demonstrating the reality of the Flat Earth:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map (http://i14.tinypic.com/3z6fr0o.jpg).

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away. I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible. Even with the unaided naked eye (http://i9.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg) one can see the beaches along the opposite coast.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm). Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
...
TomB regularly lies. Please ignore any representations he makes without complete evidence. We've challenged him, for example, to document his "derived experiment", replete with a monetary incentive.

Also he misrepresents evidence, often lying about their context. He even misrepresented the photo of the bay in the above quote. Clearly, it's not taken at the bay level as required by the experiment.

Oh, and anytime he asks for evidence for RE, just point him to the RE Primer. It's the consensus of the REers, complete with documented experiments proving that the Earth is a globe.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: James on August 16, 2007, 01:40:18 PM
TomB regularly lies. Please ignore any representations he makes without complete evidence. We've challenged him, for example, to document his "derived experiment", replete with a monetary incentive.

Will you give me and the SWEFES a monetary incentive for replicating our experiments and sending you the data? Seriously, we can use more patrons and funds.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on August 16, 2007, 05:23:00 PM
TomB regularly lies. Please ignore any representations he makes without complete evidence. We've challenged him, for example, to document his "derived experiment", replete with a monetary incentive.

Will you give me and the SWEFES a monetary incentive for replicating our experiments and sending you the data? Seriously, we can use more patrons and funds.
Sure. But you do recall that you already declined one such offer?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on August 19, 2007, 09:50:44 PM
Another victory for FE!!!
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2007, 10:46:18 PM
Narc, that's really getting old.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on August 19, 2007, 10:47:51 PM
Narc, that's really getting old.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were an RE'er...
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: James on August 21, 2007, 06:26:32 AM
Sure. But you do recall that you already declined one such offer?

When you offered me money AFTER I travelled to Antarctica and brought back proof of the Ice Wall. Don't try and twist the truth.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on August 21, 2007, 01:30:20 PM
Sure. But you do recall that you already declined one such offer?

When you offered me money AFTER I travelled to Antarctica and brought back proof of the Ice Wall. Don't try and twist the truth.
Nah, but thanks for the laugh. The offer involved travel to Africa as I recall. Oh, and you'll only get money from me AFTER completing the challenge.

Now who's putting their fingers in his ears? Goodness. You can do the experiment yourself with only a few weeks work and travel to  the Equator.

The trouble is, people in the real world can't just bip off to the Equator on a whim. I can't afford to spend several weeks not being paid. If you fancy sending me some money so that me and some other Flat Earthers can go off on a fun little adventure to Africa or whatever, be my guest.

You can read published reports in peer-reviews journals for just a few hundred dollars. You must really be desperate to resort to such denial.

You can read that the Earth is Round in peer-reviewed journals. Peer-reviewed doesn't mean "infallible and correct".

Tell you what: I'll pay you $250,000.00 when you return from the equator with scientifically verified results to support your innuendo that the peer-reviewed articles on the documented, verified observations of the RE-predicted variance by latitude of g are incorrect.

Until then, don't go around telling people that you haven't seen any evidence when it's readily available to you. If you question someone else's work, then get busy or shut up.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: James on August 22, 2007, 07:04:30 AM
Africa or Antarctica, the point is that you, an anonymous internet stranger, will only pay me money after doing something which costs a lot of money, which I don't have.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Whispeh on August 22, 2007, 09:10:15 AM

Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by refraction bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the sun--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versā--the effect is a comparatively distinct disc of sun-light.


(http://cseligman.com/text/sky/lightspread.jpg)
When sunlight shines from overhead (on left), one square foot of sunlight falls on one square foot of ground. When it shines at a shallow angle (on right), each square foot of sunlight spreads out over many feet of ground.


You say that the atmophere blocks out all light apart from verticle rays, then you say that the Temperature variations across the Flat Earth are caused by the angle of the sun's rays.

Which one of the above statements is true?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on August 22, 2007, 03:06:43 PM
Africa or Antarctica, the point is that you, an anonymous internet stranger, will only pay me money after doing something which costs a lot of money, which I don't have.
Wrong.

As I've offered you can have an ironclad contract with money in escrow waiting for your return. Since you know (not believe, and that's you word) that the result will prove you right, you have no risk. You have no excuse. Yes, you might actually have to take a second job or cut expenses for a while to afford the investment of the trip. We're being perfectly reasonable and responsible in supporting your claim. I wonder when you'll offer the same to opportunity to the REers.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Whispeh on August 23, 2007, 12:49:16 AM
Africa or Antarctica, the point is that you, an anonymous internet stranger, will only pay me money after doing something which costs a lot of money, which I don't have.
Wrong.

As I've offered you can have an ironclad contract with money in escrow waiting for your return. Since you know (not believe, and that's you word) that the result will prove you right, you have no risk. You have no excuse. Yes, you might actually have to take a second job or cut expenses for a while to afford the investment of the trip. We're being perfectly reasonable and responsible in supporting your claim. I wonder when you'll offer the same to opportunity to the REers.

I will add £5000 to this figure if you prove FE theory.

Edit: Spelling
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: James on August 23, 2007, 01:23:01 PM
I will add £5000 to this figure if you prove FE theory.

Edit: Spelling

The trouble is, "prove" in this context means "convice you", which will never happen because a) you're probably dead set in your beliefs and b) you'd lose money if you were wrong.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on August 23, 2007, 01:24:38 PM
The trouble is, "prove" in this context means "convice you", which will never happen because a) you're probably dead set in your beliefs and b) you'd lose money if you were wrong.

True story.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on August 23, 2007, 01:27:23 PM
I will add £5000 to this figure if you prove FE theory.

Edit: Spelling

The trouble is, "prove" in this context means "convice you", which will never happen because a) you're probably dead set in your beliefs and b) you'd lose money if you were wrong.
I've already offered to have an impartial judge with the right to disburse the escrowed funds, in the written and binding contract.

I await your next lame excuse.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Whispeh on August 23, 2007, 11:47:56 PM
Im not dead set in my ways lol, if I were, I would not be on this forum.  There are ways you can prove it.  Pictures / videos / impartial judge.
And as for losing money, well, I would gladly give 5k to see the pandemonium it would cause around the world.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 24, 2007, 12:37:20 AM
Africa or Antarctica, the point is that you, an anonymous internet stranger, will only pay me money after doing something which costs a lot of money, which I don't have.
Wrong.

As I've offered you can have an ironclad contract with money in escrow waiting for your return. Since you know (not believe, and that's you word) that the result will prove you right, you have no risk. You have no excuse.

He has no money.  This is really lame, Gulliver.  ::)

Well played, btw, Dogplatter. *thumbs up*
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: James on August 24, 2007, 12:11:14 PM
I've already offered to have an impartial judge with the right to disburse the escrowed funds, in the written and binding contract.

There are no impartial judges because everyone except us believes the world is round and has done since birth.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on August 24, 2007, 12:38:19 PM
I've already offered to have an impartial judge with the right to disburse the escrowed funds, in the written and binding contract.

There are no impartial judges because everyone except us believes the world is round and has done since birth.
Sure there are. The judge can review just the experiment's accuracy and validity, not its implications.

Oh, and "since birth" is quite a hyperbole, but then what should I expect from someone who believes that the Coulomb Force can hold up the Sun and the Moon?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on August 24, 2007, 08:24:20 PM
I've already offered to have an impartial judge with the right to disburse the escrowed funds, in the written and binding contract.

There are no impartial judges because everyone except us believes the world is round and has done since birth.
Sure there are. The judge can review just the experiment's accuracy and validity, not its implications.

Oh, and "since birth" is quite a hyperbole, but then what should I expect from someone who believes that the Coulomb Force can hold up the Sun and the Moon?
And by sun and moon you mean to metal disks.  One of which just happened to catch fire. 
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: legault25 on August 31, 2007, 06:15:28 AM
Quote
Have you seen the wall at the edge of the earth?

Plenty of people have seen the 150 foot high wall of ice at the edge of the known world (http://www.asoc.org/general/iceshelve.htm).

Well, that link is a link to a page on ice shelves. Of course those exist. I think he wants to know about the actual ice wall itself. People have walked all over the ice shelves. How about the wall that no one can walk over? Because I'm sure you can find people who have walked on the ice shelves.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: roundearth4lyf on August 31, 2007, 08:55:14 PM
look in the background, this is real life evidence that the ice wall is real, it converted me to believe in a flat earth

http://www.maximummovies.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/Ice-Age-2.jpg (http://www.maximummovies.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/Ice-Age-2.jpg)

Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: big mick000 on August 31, 2007, 10:05:28 PM
there are too many everyday things that couldn't be if the planet was flat. why is every other planet in the solar system rund if earth is flat? huh? all crap. there may be some arguments for the planet being flat, but there are too many more to back the earth being spherical.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Jimmy Crackhorn on August 31, 2007, 10:08:13 PM
there are too many everyday things that couldn't be if the planet was flat. why is every other planet in the solar system rund if earth is flat? huh? all crap. there may be some arguments for the planet being flat, but there are too many more to back the earth being spherical.
Simple. Other planets are not the Earth. But you already know this because you claim to live in Australia. You're part of the conspiracy! GET AWAY YOU LIAR!
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: roundearth4lyf on August 31, 2007, 11:26:14 PM
remember $100 is worth something to some people jimmy crackhorn
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: kurt on September 02, 2007, 10:02:07 PM
The horizon can play tricks on you. You say it looks:
                ____
              /        \

but if you can make it look like:

              \ ____ /

if you look at it that way.


It's all what your brain wants to see. That's how a lot of mirages and illusions occur.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Mr. Ireland on September 03, 2007, 06:22:12 AM
The horizon can play tricks on you. You say it looks:
                ____
              /        \

but if you can make it look like:

              \ ____ /

if you look at it that way.


It's all what your brain wants to see. That's how a lot of mirages and illusions occur.

Agreed.  I've looked at some 'curvature on the ocean' pics, and I've seen it bulge up in the middle, down in the middle, and flat all in the same pic.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Sykishi on September 03, 2007, 09:53:10 AM
For one, all of these facts are based on saying that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.Any one who truly believes this should go jump into a active volcano.If the earth is flat what keeps it a secret? whats the big deal if it is? thats the thing ITS NOT its round because A sphere is the energey effecient shap not a flat table with rocks, what is this a dungens and dragons table you fucking morons. grow up and stop being conspiracy theroists looking for a place to fit in. i am disgusted with your stupidity.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Mr. Ireland on September 03, 2007, 10:04:59 AM
i am disgusted with your stupidity.

Here here.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: James on September 05, 2007, 04:34:25 AM
there are too many everyday things that couldn't be if the planet was flat. why is every other planet in the solar system rund if earth is flat? huh? all crap. there may be some arguments for the planet being flat, but there are too many more to back the earth being spherical.

They're flat as well.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on September 05, 2007, 04:55:26 AM
Are they?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on September 05, 2007, 08:57:48 PM
there are too many everyday things that couldn't be if the planet was flat. why is every other planet in the solar system rund if earth is flat? huh? all crap. there may be some arguments for the planet being flat, but there are too many more to back the earth being spherical.

They're flat as well.
Do explain the phases of the Moon, Venus, and Mercury.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 05, 2007, 09:07:36 PM
there are too many everyday things that couldn't be if the planet was flat. why is every other planet in the solar system rund if earth is flat? huh? all crap. there may be some arguments for the planet being flat, but there are too many more to back the earth being spherical.

They're flat as well.
Wait, wait, wait Dogplatter. You can watch the rotation of any planet with a telescope. How does afterburn change this?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 05, 2007, 10:04:07 PM
Wait, wait, wait Dogplatter. You can watch the rotation of any planet with a telescope. How does afterburn change this?

How does the Earth's rotation fit into this?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 05, 2007, 10:05:48 PM
Wait, wait, wait Dogplatter. You can watch the rotation of any planet with a telescope. How does afterburn change this?

How does the Earth's rotation fit into this?
Earth's? I'm talking about other planets.  ???
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: DA_PROPHET(SPELLIN) on September 13, 2007, 08:10:22 AM
THIS IS WHY 

(http://www.astro.su.se/swesolsyst/jorden.jpg) 
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Mr. Ireland on September 13, 2007, 08:33:48 AM
THIS IS WHY 

(http://www.astro.su.se/swesolsyst/jorden.jpg) 


Fail.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 15, 2007, 02:23:10 AM
Ah, the famous "blue marble" image.   ::)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on September 15, 2007, 06:31:32 PM
Ah, the famous "blue marble" image.   ::)
Try again. 
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Mr. Ireland on September 16, 2007, 07:39:12 AM
Ah, the famous "blue marble" image.   ::)
Try again. 

The 'It's still worthless sok and no one cares' image.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on September 16, 2007, 09:02:25 AM
Ah, the famous "blue marble" image.   ::)
Try again. 

The 'It's still worthless sok and no one cares' image.
Ok
Blue marble
(http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/rsd/bluemarble/BlueMarble1Kx1K.jpg)
Not blue marble
THIS IS WHY 

(http://www.astro.su.se/swesolsyst/jorden.jpg) 

Any question on why I posted "try again"?   
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 16, 2007, 11:41:59 AM
Ah, the famous "blue marble" image.   ::)
Try again. 

The 'It's still worthless sok and no one cares' image.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on September 16, 2007, 02:11:02 PM
Ah, the famous "blue marble" image.   ::)
Try again. 

The 'It's still worthless sok and no one cares' image.
Its not my fault you need your eyes checked. 
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on September 16, 2007, 02:14:17 PM
Chill Winston
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on September 16, 2007, 03:29:33 PM
Ah, the famous "blue marble" image.   ::)
Try again. 

The 'It's still worthless sok and no one cares' image.
Its not my fault you need your eyes checked. 

Similarly, it's not his fault that you need your brain checked.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on September 16, 2007, 03:36:28 PM
Ah, the famous "blue marble" image.   ::)
Try again. 

The 'It's still worthless sok and no one cares' image.
Its not my fault you need your eyes checked. 

Similarly, it's not his fault that you need your brain checked.

~D-Draw

O man the 12 year old is dissing me again.  What ever will I do?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on September 16, 2007, 03:40:38 PM
O man the 12 year old is dissing me again.  What ever will I do?

O man. Ad hominem attacks destroy meeeeeee...


I'll go cry now.


On second thought, I'll probably just get back to actually debating.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Pqqu on September 16, 2007, 05:12:17 PM
THIS IS WHY 

(http://www.astro.su.se/swesolsyst/jorden.jpg) 


(http://cartoonscartoons.tripod.com/cartoonphotospanish/dexterslab.jpg)

Yes, the most printed picture in the history of humanity is obviously fake.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on September 16, 2007, 05:35:58 PM
O man the 12 year old is dissing me again.  What ever will I do?

O man. Ad hominem attacks destroy meeeeeee...


I'll go cry now.


On second thought, I'll probably just get back to actually debating.

~D-Draw
Discounting the fact that you clearly attacked me.
Whats it called when you attack someone thats right? 
He called a picture that is not the blue marble picture the blue marble picture.  I pointed it out and now I'm in the wrong.  Go figure.   
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on September 16, 2007, 05:38:14 PM
That's definitely a blue marble. Also, I never said I wasn't hypocritical.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 16, 2007, 05:42:52 PM
That's definitely a blue marble. Also, I never said I wasn't hypocritical.

~D-Draw

um excuse me that is clearly not a blue marble

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Link2086/blue-marble2.jpg)

now that is a blue marble

hey want to trade marbles

i have a blue one
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on September 16, 2007, 05:56:20 PM
That's definitely a blue marble. Also, I never said I wasn't hypocritical.

~D-Draw

The picture is from Apollo 17.  It is not the blue marble picture.  They do not even come close to looking the same. 
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 16, 2007, 06:00:29 PM
That's definitely a blue marble. Also, I never said I wasn't hypocritical.

~D-Draw

The picture is from Apollo 17.  It is not the blue marble picture.  They do not even come close to looking the same. 

um hello guys I already posted the blue marble picture

jeez get with the program :|
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 16, 2007, 06:15:21 PM
PROOF THAT A FLAT EARTH IS NOT POSSIBLE DUE TO LOSSES FROM COMPRESSION:

(http://i9.tinypic.com/4zuw9p1.jpg)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Joy on September 16, 2007, 06:17:33 PM
Is this a blue marble?

(http://www.solstation.com/stars/earth2.jpg)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: InbredPsychosis on September 16, 2007, 06:18:26 PM
Where is the ice walls on the right and left sides of the image? Do you expect me to believe that's real?

More importantly, you couldn't take a picture like that. You can't get that high up.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Joy on September 16, 2007, 06:19:24 PM
Where is the ice walls on the right and left sides of the image? Do you expect me to believe that's real?

More importantly, you couldn't take a picture like that. You can't get that high up.
They're there, you just can't see them because the Government editted them out.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on September 16, 2007, 06:24:26 PM
Is this a blue marble?

(http://www.solstation.com/stars/earth2.jpg)

Looks like it. 
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Joy on September 16, 2007, 06:28:14 PM
Is this a blue marble?

(http://www.solstation.com/stars/earth2.jpg)

Looks like it. 
Thanks. What about this little guy?

(http://www.geocities.com/dfloyd84/dnd/zebes.gif)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 16, 2007, 06:28:47 PM
Is this a blue marble?

(http://www.solstation.com/stars/earth2.jpg)
No, this is Patrick.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: TheEngineer on September 16, 2007, 09:31:02 PM
Where is the ice walls on the right and left sides of the image?
That's not the shape of the flat Earth.

Quote
More importantly, you couldn't take a picture like that. You can't get that high up.
Why not?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: InbredPsychosis on September 16, 2007, 11:16:25 PM
That's not the shape of the flat Earth.
What is? More importantly, how do you know?

Quote
Why not?

SATELLITES DON'T EXIST. NASA is a conspiracy, my friend. A conspiracy...You couldn't take a shot like that from a PLANE.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 16, 2007, 11:17:07 PM
You can from a strattelite.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: TheEngineer on September 17, 2007, 12:30:14 AM
That's not the shape of the flat Earth.
What is? More importantly, how do you know?
The FE is a disk.  I know because it is my purpose to know.

Quote
Quote
Why not?
SATELLITES DON'T EXIST. NASA is a conspiracy, my friend. A conspiracy...You couldn't take a shot like that from a PLANE.
Just because sustained space flight is not possible does not mean you can't get up there.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on September 17, 2007, 01:17:03 AM
That's definitely a blue marble. Also, I never said I wasn't hypocritical.

~D-Draw

um excuse me that is clearly not a blue marble

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Link2086/blue-marble2.jpg)

now that is a blue marble

hey want to trade marbles

i have a blue one

I'll trade, I got a green one
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on September 17, 2007, 09:53:01 AM
You can from a strattelite.
hahahahahaha

Now I know why you spam instead of post in legitimate topics.   
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: InbredPsychosis on September 17, 2007, 11:26:41 AM
The FE is a disk.  I know because it is my purpose to know.

Yeah there is no way this site isn't a joke.

Quote
Just because sustained space flight is not possible does not mean you can't get up there.

So what makes the flat Earth pictures real (which by the way I haven't seen any), but the round Earth pictures fake?...Nevermind. Don't even bother answering that question.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: ash bash on September 17, 2007, 12:09:44 PM
pictures are not evidence on this forum. how convenient that we can get pics of a RE but you cant get pics of a FE. hmm......
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 17, 2007, 12:12:33 PM
pictures are not evidence on this forum. how convenient that we can get pics of a RE but you cant get pics of a FE. hmm......

Just because it is easier to be handed false knowledge doesn't mean it's true.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: ash bash on September 17, 2007, 12:13:50 PM
show me a photo of a FE then
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 17, 2007, 12:23:15 PM
show me a photo of a FE then

you: I believe anything people tell me
me: So you believe whatever knowledge is easiest to find?
you: yes


Okay, since the point is missed on you. Here is one of millions of photographs of a flat earth.

(http://www.town.fort-smith.nt.ca/tngallery/images/Salt%20Plains%20summer_jpg.jpg)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 12:26:44 PM
pictures are not evidence on this forum. how convenient that we can get pics of a RE but you cant get pics of a FE. hmm......

Just because it is easier to be handed false knowledge doesn't mean it's true.

Maybe it's just me, but I would think that he could say the same to you. It's a hell of a lot easier to say "everything's just a conspiracy so you can't prove anything," and that certainly doesn't make it true.

Nearly every "theory" on this site is horribly inaccurate and is the result of a burden of proof fallacy--A is to be preferred to B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 12:32:47 PM
Nearly every "theory" on this site is horribly inaccurate and is the result of a burden of proof fallacy--A is to be preferred to B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.

Burden of proof is not a fallacy. Changing or shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. FET hasn't done that. FET starts with a belief and tries to fill in the holes to make it true.

RE, however, consistently uses fallacies. Appeal to authority and proof by assertion being the most common.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 12:36:57 PM
show me a photo of a FE then

you: I believe anything people tell me
me: So you believe whatever knowledge is easiest to find?
you: yes


Okay, since the point is missed on you. Here is one of millions of photographs of a flat earth.

...
No. That's not a photographic evidence of a flat earth.

No. That the evidence for RE is overwhelming, readily available, and easily reproduced for yourself does not favor FE--in the least. Good stalking horse though.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 17, 2007, 12:38:10 PM
Burden of proof is not a fallacy. Changing or shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. FET hasn't done that. FET starts with a belief and tries to fill in the holes to make it true.

RE, however, consistently uses fallacies. Appeal to authority and proof by assertion being the most common.

You forgot the  ::). It wins all and RE'ers have no dignity about limiting its usage.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 12:41:18 PM
Nearly every "theory" on this site is horribly inaccurate and is the result of a burden of proof fallacy--A is to be preferred to B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.

Burden of proof is not a fallacy. Changing or shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. FET hasn't done that. FET starts with a belief and tries to fill in the holes to make it true.

RE, however, consistently uses fallacies. Appeal to authority and proof by assertion being the most common.
I challenge you to show any quote where an REer committed an appeal to authority fallacy. Let's agree that the farther back in time you have to go, the less convincing your challenge to REers is.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 12:44:35 PM
I challenge you to show any quote where an REer committed an appeal to authority fallacy. Let's agree that the farther back in time you have to go, the less convincing your challenge to REers is.

It's more so apparent with newcomers than with the regular REers. As you say, I'd have to go back in time for those. Appeals to authority are far less common among REers that have been here for awhile.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 12:46:36 PM
Oh, and just FYI?
There's something called the "balance of probabilities." Ever heard of it? It's the lowest level of proof required, which is above 50% chance of it being true. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.

While it's literally impossible to deny anything if you care to argue about it, the fact is that we don't rely on methods like that--we rely on probability. So it's certainly possible that gravity doesn't exist, the earth is flat, and any number of other theories are true. However, when you throw Occam's Razor into the mix (the simplest solution is generally the best one), it becomes obvious that the explanation given by science--which has been repeatedly verified by sources the world over--is far more compatible with the Razor than any other explanation. Sure, it's possible that every government in the world has been involved in a massive conspiracy for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's just not very likely at all.

Furthermore, the "Round Earth Theorists" have provided far more evidence to support their claims than any "Flat Earth Theorist" has. Burden of proof means that if you're going to suggest a theory or state a claim, you must provide concrete evidence to support it. Merely claiming "well you can't disprove it" is not sufficient, for obvious reasons. Case A is not proven simply because Case 'Not A' cannot be proven. "A is true because Not A is false" simply doesn't cut it. The sky is green because it is not red. Ludicrous, correct? However, that's the same type of logic being used in "The Earth is flat because you can't definitively prove it is round."

And once again, Occam's Razor:

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

"enteties should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

When competing theories are equal in other respects, the Razor says to select the theory that relies on the fewest assumptions and fewest postulates. A global conspiracy and thousands of people guarding a gigantic ice wall certainly relies on far more assumptions and postulates than "the Earth is round; here are pictures and data collected from experiments and observational studies to support this claim."

And finally, the less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires. Considering the fact that several "Flat Earth Theorists" have admitted that they believe that the moon and other celestial bodies are indeed round, I find it odd that one planet would be indescribably flat and rely on completely different mechanical laws and properties than its neighbors. That is certainly less reasonable than the Earth being similar to neighboring celestial bodies--and therefore, requires a much higher level of proof. A fantastic example of this is cold fusion. It is currently not accepted as possible, simply because its veracity would call into conflict many other tested and accepted theories of nuclear physics.

:)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 12:47:22 PM
I challenge you to show any quote where an REer committed an appeal to authority fallacy. Let's agree that the farther back in time you have to go, the less convincing your challenge to REers is.

It's more so apparent with newcomers than with the regular REers. As you say, I'd have to go back in time for those. Appeals to authority are far less common among REers that have been here for awhile.
So you can't answer the challenge then? Thought so.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 17, 2007, 12:47:51 PM
Nearly every "theory" on this site is horribly inaccurate and is the result of a burden of proof fallacy--A is to be preferred to B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.

Burden of proof is not a fallacy. Changing or shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. FET hasn't done that. FET starts with a belief and tries to fill in the holes to make it true.

RE, however, consistently uses fallacies. Appeal to authority and proof by assertion being the most common.
I challenge you to show any quote where an REer committed an appeal to authority fallacy. Let's agree that the farther back in time you have to go, the less convincing your challenge to REers is.



I'll do it, took me no time to find one.
If indeed exist this so called 'ice wall', is there any proof ? Picture ,people who touched it or smtg ? How could they hide such thing from 6 billion people ?

Provided the earth is flat ,how come nobody dug through it ?


Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 17, 2007, 12:49:38 PM
Oh, and just FYI?
There's something called the "balance of probabilities." Ever heard of it? It's the lowest level of proof required, which is above 50% chance of it being true. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.

While it's literally impossible to deny anything if you care to argue about it, the fact is that we don't rely on methods like that--we rely on probability. So it's certainly possible that gravity doesn't exist, the earth is flat, and any number of other theories are true. However, when you throw Occam's Razor into the mix (the simplest solution is generally the best one), it becomes obvious that the explanation given by science--which has been repeatedly verified by sources the world over--is far more compatible with the Razor than any other explanation. Sure, it's possible that every government in the world has been involved in a massive conspiracy for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's just not very likely at all.

Furthermore, the "Round Earth Theorists" have provided far more evidence to support their claims than any "Flat Earth Theorist" has. Burden of proof means that if you're going to suggest a theory or state a claim, you must provide concrete evidence to support it. Merely claiming "well you can't disprove it" is not sufficient, for obvious reasons. Case A is not proven simply because Case 'Not A' cannot be proven. "A is true because Not A is false" simply doesn't cut it. The sky is green because it is not red. Ludicrous, correct? However, that's the same type of logic being used in "The Earth is flat because you can't definitively prove it is round."

And once again, Occam's Razor:

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

"enteties should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

When competing theories are equal in other respects, the Razor says to select the theory that relies on the fewest assumptions and fewest postulates. A global conspiracy and thousands of people guarding a gigantic ice wall certainly relies on far more assumptions and postulates than "the Earth is round; here are pictures and data collected from experiments and observational studies to support this claim."

And finally, the less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires. Considering the fact that several "Flat Earth Theorists" have admitted that they believe that the moon and other celestial bodies are indeed round, I find it odd that one planet would be indescribably flat and rely on completely different mechanical laws and properties than its neighbors. That is certainly less reasonable than the Earth being similar to neighboring celestial bodies--and therefore, requires a much higher level of proof. A fantastic example of this is cold fusion. It is currently not accepted as possible, simply because its veracity would call into conflict many other tested and accepted theories of nuclear physics.

:)


Perhaps you can share a quantifiable measurement of probability that the earth is round or flat?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 12:51:20 PM
Oh, and just FYI?
There's something called the "balance of probabilities." Ever heard of it? It's the lowest level of proof required, which is above 50% chance of it being true. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.

People bring up Occam all the time. We aren't arguing probabilities here though, so it's irrelevant.

So you can't answer the challenge then? Thought so.

Oh, I definitely can. If you want me to pull out every appeal from some random spammer, I could, but I figured you'd know that they exist instead of making me do work to prove something that's already apparent.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 12:52:35 PM

I'll do it, took me no time to find one.
If indeed exist this so called 'ice wall', is there any proof ? Picture ,people who touched it or smtg ? How could they hide such thing from 6 billion people ?

Provided the earth is flat ,how come nobody dug through it ?


I think you're confused.
There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only comes into play when one claims that the authority's assertion is true because the authority is infallible.

Furthermore, how is that regarding an authority's assertion to begin with? There is no claim that the government is telling the truth because they are right or in a position of authority. The poster is simply questioning the veracity of the claim that the government has lied to six billion people successfully for hundreds of years.  :)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 12:53:59 PM
Nearly every "theory" on this site is horribly inaccurate and is the result of a burden of proof fallacy--A is to be preferred to B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.

Burden of proof is not a fallacy. Changing or shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. FET hasn't done that. FET starts with a belief and tries to fill in the holes to make it true.

RE, however, consistently uses fallacies. Appeal to authority and proof by assertion being the most common.
I challenge you to show any quote where an REer committed an appeal to authority fallacy. Let's agree that the farther back in time you have to go, the less convincing your challenge to REers is.



I'll do it, took me no time to find one.
If indeed exist this so called 'ice wall', is there any proof ? Picture ,people who touched it or smtg ? How could they hide such thing from 6 billion people ?

Provided the earth is flat ,how come nobody dug through it ?


Wrong. There's no appeal to authority fallacy in that quote. You fail.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 01:00:45 PM
Quote
Perhaps you can share a quantifiable measurement of probability that the earth is round or flat?

Excuse me? Did you bother reading my previous post, or did you just skip to the "reply" button once you saw the word "probability"? The burden of proof does not fall on me, as I am not presenting a claim contrary to accepted belief and scientific fact. It's your job to present proof that the earth is flat, not my job to prove that it is indeed round. Do a little more reading before you come back with a snide remark that doesn't fit the situation. :)

Quote
People bring up Occam all the time. We aren't arguing probabilities here though, so it's irrelevant.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we weren't arguing probabilities. In that case, I present my completely logical theory: The Earth is actually shaped like a giant kumquat.
Prove me wrong. I'll give you half an hour. At 4:30PM Eastern, 3:30 Central, 2:30 Mountain, and 1:30 Pacific time, I expect to be disproved, or I'll take that as a concession that we are in fact arguing probabilities and I was correct. :)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 01:32:25 PM
Guess that means we were arguing probability after all. :)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: InbredPsychosis on September 17, 2007, 01:40:24 PM
These guys are ninjas. They are dodging and evading everything.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 01:53:37 PM
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we weren't arguing probabilities.

I know.

The Earth is actually shaped like a giant kumquat.

Could be.

Probabilistically, based on the information we have, it's more probable that the Earth is spherical. But like I said, we aren't arguing that.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 02:00:41 PM
The Earth is actually shaped like a giant kumquat.

Could be.

Probabilistically, based on the information we have, it's more probable that the Earth is spherical. But like I said, we aren't arguing that.

No, you're wrong. The Earth is shaped like a kumquat. The information you have has been forged by the Spanish Inquisition. Information before the Inquisition was wiped out and replaced with the Inquisition's material, which is currently accepted by Flat Earth Theorists as true. However, it's all a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 02:06:34 PM
The Earth is shaped like a kumquat. The information you have has been forged by the Spanish Inquisition. Information before the Inquisition was wiped out and replaced with the Inquisition's material, which is currently accepted by Flat Earth Theorists as true. However, it's all a conspiracy.

Like I said, could be.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 02:10:28 PM
The Earth is shaped like a kumquat. The information you have has been forged by the Spanish Inquisition. Information before the Inquisition was wiped out and replaced with the Inquisition's material, which is currently accepted by Flat Earth Theorists as true. However, it's all a conspiracy.

Like I said, could be.

"Could be" implies that it is possible. And that means it's probable. But we're not discussing probability! :o

Also, no. Not "could be," but "is." Clearly you've been deluded by the Inquisition into the false belief that the Earth could possibly be any other shape.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 02:13:20 PM
"Could be" implies that it is possible. And that means it's probable. But we're not discussing probability! :o

ROFL. Possibility does not equate to probability.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 17, 2007, 02:15:36 PM
Woot, everyone is probably going to empty their bank accounts and send their virgin daughters to my home holding their life savings.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 02:32:24 PM
"Could be" implies that it is possible. And that means it's probable. But we're not discussing probability! :o

ROFL. Possibility does not equate to probability.

Possible means that a probability exists. :)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 02:37:13 PM
Something that is probable, means that it's percentage is high. You said because it's possible, it's probable. That is not true.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 02:39:20 PM
Something that is probable, means that it's percentage is high. You said because it's possible, it's probable. That is not true.

By probable, I meant that a probability exists. Although I believe you misinterpreted my statement, it's possible that I did not word it correctly. Kiss and make up? ;)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 02:40:39 PM
By probable, I meant that a probability exists. Although I believe you misinterpreted my statement, it's possible that I did not word it correctly. Kiss and make up? ;)

That's fine. A probability exists for everything really. That's where plausibility comes in.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 02:41:48 PM
By probable, I meant that a probability exists. Although I believe you misinterpreted my statement, it's possible that I did not word it correctly. Kiss and make up? ;)

That's fine. A probability exists for everything really. That's where plausibility comes in.

Which was my point to begin with, which you apparently didn't agree on. :\

Also, I'm supporting my previous argument with this scientific chart.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Link2086/ThisIsEarth.png)
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 02:46:56 PM
Which was my point to begin with, which you apparently didn't agree on. :\

You invoked Occam, and I said we aren't arguing probabilities. Both RE and FE have probabilities. RE is more probable than FE, clearly. But we still aren't arguing the probabilities of them. If anything, we are discussing under what conditions the FE would be true.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 02:54:50 PM
Which was my point to begin with, which you apparently didn't agree on. :\

You invoked Occam, and I said we aren't arguing probabilities. Both RE and FE have probabilities. RE is more probable than FE, clearly. But we still aren't arguing the probabilities of them. If anything, we are discussing under what conditions the FE would be true.

However, Occam's Razor applies to burden of proof. It is the job of FE theorists to provide proof for their theory; not for RE theorists to disprove the FE theory. The Razor was just another example to try and clarify this.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2007, 03:25:33 PM
However, Occam's Razor applies to burden of proof. It is the job of FE theorists to provide proof for their theory; not for RE theorists to disprove the FE theory. The Razor was just another example to try and clarify this.

Well, that will only bring about philosophical debate. In the end, neither side can actually be victorious. The burden of proof is on the FE, definitely, but nothing will come of it.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Username on September 17, 2007, 05:02:06 PM
Which was my point to begin with, which you apparently didn't agree on. :\

You invoked Occam, and I said we aren't arguing probabilities. Both RE and FE have probabilities. RE is more probable than FE, clearly. But we still aren't arguing the probabilities of them. If anything, we are discussing under what conditions the FE would be true.

However, Occam's Razor applies to burden of proof. It is the job of FE theorists to provide proof for their theory; not for RE theorists to disprove the FE theory. The Razor was just another example to try and clarify this.

Well, one, Occam's Razor is nice and all, but really it means nothing.  Its just a principle that can be ignored - its really has no basis other than it sounds good and is useful because it makes things easier - not necessarily more correct.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2007, 08:03:01 PM
You can from a strattelite.
hahahahahaha

Now I know why you spam instead of post in legitimate topics.   

 :D

You're my hero, sokarul.  <3
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: sokarul on September 17, 2007, 09:22:47 PM
You can from a strattelite.
hahahahahaha

Now I know why you spam instead of post in legitimate topics.   

 :D

You're my hero, sokarul.  <3

That post was a joke right?  I mean a stratellite can't even come close tot he distance away needed.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2007, 09:23:56 PM
Yes, sokarul, the post was a joke.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 17, 2007, 09:38:39 PM
Quote
Well, that will only bring about philosophical debate. In the end, neither side can actually be victorious. The burden of proof is on the FE, definitely, but nothing will come of it.

Every single person on earth sees a Flat Earth every day of their life.

Ergo, the burden of proof is on the Round Earthers to prove their hypothetical model of the earth.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 09:47:15 PM
Well, that will only bring about philosophical debate. In the end, neither side can actually be victorious. The burden of proof is on the FE, definitely, but nothing will come of it.

Every single person on earth sees a Flat Earth every day of their life.

Ergo, the burden of proof is on the Round Earthers to prove their hypothetical model of the earth.
Burden met: Read The RE Primer. Experiment #0001 shows that seeing the small section of the Earth's surface as relatively flat is consistent with RE.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: InbredPsychosis on September 17, 2007, 09:53:23 PM
Every single person on earth sees a Flat Earth every day of their life.

That's all one is capable of seeing. The Earth is so big that from standing on the ground looking out at it, you only see flat. Anyone with an open mind would of course know that just because you SEE it as flat doesn't mean it is. A different perspective can change everything. We should fly you to the moon.

The "FLY TOM TO THE MOON FOUNDATION". It should only cost about 29,000,000 dollars, depending on going rates. I think we should ask Diego or whatever his name is for a generous donation. He seems to be very wealthy considering he has plans to dig through the Earth.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Pope Zera on September 17, 2007, 11:03:23 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Link2086/ThisIsEarth.png)

I'm making this my wallpaper.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: TheEngineer on September 17, 2007, 11:20:21 PM
That manatee is the greatest thing to ever grace the interwebs.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Raging Viceroy on September 18, 2007, 06:45:51 PM
That manatee is the greatest thing to ever grace the interwebs.

How you can't prefer the moon is baffling.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 19, 2007, 08:28:07 AM
As the official flat earth society spokesman, I am obliged to inform you all that that map is an incorrect depiction of the flat earth model.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Raging Viceroy on September 19, 2007, 09:02:25 AM
As the official flat earth society spokesman, I am obliged to inform you all that that map is an incorrect depiction of the flat earth model.

Yeah, Mephistopheles should be in the upper-left corner.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Brain Hertz on September 19, 2007, 01:33:05 PM
How come when you look out to sea on a clear day you can clearly sea the curve of the earth?.

did this get answered somewhere and I missed it? Just checking...
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 19, 2007, 02:06:25 PM
How come when you look out to sea on a clear day you can clearly sea the curve of the earth?.

did this get answered somewhere and I missed it? Just checking...

Yes, you cannot see the curve of the earth below 60,000 feet.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Brain Hertz on September 19, 2007, 02:20:25 PM
How come when you look out to sea on a clear day you can clearly sea the curve of the earth?.

did this get answered somewhere and I missed it? Just checking...

Yes, you cannot see the curve of the earth below 60,000 feet.

Sure you can. Suppose you're in a boat in the middle of the Pacific, looking out all around you. What is it that you see?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 19, 2007, 02:25:36 PM
A giant plane that fades off in the distance.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Brain Hertz on September 19, 2007, 02:26:18 PM
A giant plane that fades off in the distance.

You don't see a horizon?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Brain Hertz on September 19, 2007, 03:34:32 PM
<crickets>
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 19, 2007, 03:35:21 PM
... I see a flat horizon. Please provide a picture demonstrating the curve of the earth's horizon at that altitude.
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Brain Hertz on September 19, 2007, 03:43:01 PM
... I see a flat horizon. Please provide a picture demonstrating the curve of the earth's horizon at that altitude.

I wasn't suggesting that you would see anything other than a flat horizon. It is precisely that horizon which show the curvature of the Earth. Why else would you see a horizon at all?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: narcberry on September 19, 2007, 03:43:52 PM
You're seeing a planar conic, how does that translate to a spherical conic?
Title: Re: Earths curve
Post by: Brain Hertz on September 19, 2007, 03:51:49 PM
You're seeing a planar conic, how does that translate to a spherical conic?

If the surface is flat, why does there exist a point at a finite distance beyond which I cannot see the surface (or another boat sitting on it)? The existence of a horizon necessarily implies curvature of the surface on an axis directed from the observer towards the horizon.