# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 06:45:37 PM

Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 06:45:37 PM
I'm tired of all nonsense.
I want proof, evidence, scientific support, of the FE theories.
Anything would be fine, just post away. As long as it is scientifically reliable.

Otherwise I will, sadly enough, have to believe the fact that you FE'ers believe in something that consists of nothing but made up assumptions - which seems to be the case so far.

If science is not on your side, then what is(?).
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 06:47:46 PM
2 words...

Thank you
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 06:55:11 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
2 words...

Thank you

I guess this topic will hit the bottom pretty fast.
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 18, 2006, 06:59:27 PM
most likely

whatever though, its worth a shot
Post by: Erasmus on June 18, 2006, 07:36:14 PM
See "Experiments demonstrating the true Form of Standing Water, and proving the Earth to be a Plane" (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm).  Here, the founder of the Flat Earth Society gives fifteen experiments whereby he measures the curvature of the surface of standing (not waving or turbulent) water, finding it to be nonexistent, indicating that the Earth is not round.

In particular, several of his experiments involved the visibility of two points close to the surface of the water and separated by six miles.  Over such a distance, the surface of the water should have dropped off 24' (by Rowbotham's calculations; 24.00076' by mine); in fact, he is still able to observe, through a telescope positioned 8" off the water's surface, objects only 5' above the surface.

Rowbotham's introduction includes a table for the curvature of the Earth (in modern parlance, curvature is a different quantity; his table shows the distance between a point P a distance X along a tangent line from the point of tangency, and the Earth's surface).  You may choose to disbelieve the contents of this table, but I have verified them for the first ten miles using basic trigonometry (the dropoff D is given by D = R * (1 - sec arctan X/R), where R is the Earth's radius).  The results of my computations are as follows:

at X = 1 mi., D = 8.00026"
at X = 2 mi., D = 32.00103"
at X = 3 mi., D = 72.00231" = 6.00019'
at X = 4 mi., D = 128.00409" = 10.66701'
at X = 5 mi., D = 200.00636" = 16.66720'
at X = 6 mi., D = 288.00911" = 24.00076'
at X = 7 mi., D = 392.01232" = 32.66769'
at X = 8 mi., D = 512.01597" = 42.66800'
at X = 9 mi., D = 648.02003" = 54.00167'
at X = 10 mi., D = 800.02449" = 66.66871'

If you believe this data (which you can easily verify yourself), then any one of Rowbotham's fifteen experiments should convince you that the Earth cannot be round.
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 07:42:31 PM
Sine I am not a physician, and a lousy mathematician, you might as well write your formulas in greek. Makes no difference to me. Get a physician to register here who may explain. :/

I would however be satisfied with more solid proof, such as images, videos, anything visual. I think that would suit pretty good, regarding that some people, Unimportant for example, says he can see that the Earth is round with his very eyes. Somehow I cannot. Anyways, according to him, as long as one can See something, that should be proof enough for one to believe it. I use this argument to justify my thirst for visual proof other than formulas (for formulas have I already seen plenty of already on this forum).
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 18, 2006, 07:49:38 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
I would however be satisfied with more solid proof, such as images, videos, anything visual.

If I were to show you a picture of a flat earth, would you believe the earth is flat? Or would you just say the picture is fake?
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 07:52:18 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Xargo"
I would however be satisfied with more solid proof, such as images, videos, anything visual.

If I were to show you a picture of a flat earth, would you believe the earth is flat? Or would you just say the picture is fake?

How could you have one since satellites don't exist? Or do they?
Stop arguing and send me a photo if you have one. Tangible proof. Scientific proof.
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 18, 2006, 07:54:57 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
How could you have one since satellites don't exist? Or do they?
Stop arguing and send me a photo if you have one.

I can't untill you answer the question.
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Xargo"
How could you have one since satellites don't exist? Or do they?
Stop arguing and send me a photo if you have one.

I can't untill you answer the question.

You mean you won't post a photograph unless I promises to believe it's true?
Send the damn photo, would you have one.
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 08:07:04 PM
Here's some proof on behalf of the RE theory:

Proof.
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 18, 2006, 08:07:51 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
You mean you won't post a photograph unless I promises to believe it's true?

Since you don't want to answer my question, I'll just post a link to a thread with a picture (Note: the sun and moon were added in later). Here you go. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2630)
Post by: Unimportant on June 18, 2006, 08:08:53 PM
Xargo: Post evidence that the earth is not round.

Erasmus: [Easily verifiable, observable, valid experiment suggesting earth is not round].

Xargo: That doesn't count.

-----------

Xargo, why is your response any different from those that you claim make FE'ers stupid and ignorant?
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Xargo"
You mean you won't post a photograph unless I promises to believe it's true?

Since you don't want to answer my question, I'll just post a link to a thread with a picture (Note: the sun and moon were added in later). Here you go. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2630)

I've seen it before.
That picture is not a photograph.
I asked kindly for a photograph. Have you none that could strengthen anything you say?
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 08:13:19 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Xargo: Post evidence that the earth is not round.

Erasmus: [Easily verifiable, observable, valid experiment suggesting earth is not round].

Xargo: That doesn't count.

-----------

Xargo, why is your response any different from those that you claim make FE'ers stupid and ignorant?

You're funny. :)
What I said was that I did not understand anything he wrote.
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 18, 2006, 08:13:30 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"

I've seen it before.
That picture is not a photograph.
I asked kindly for a photograph. Have you none that could strengthen anything you say?

I'm claiming that that is a photograph.
Post by: Unimportant on June 18, 2006, 08:15:52 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
Here's some proof on behalf of the RE theory:

Proof.

I read that entire page (did you?) and it offeres absolutely nothing that hasn't been discussed in depth on these forums. In fact, that page correctly goes into some depth regarding the fact that no scientific hypothesis - such as the flat earth - can be disproven, only proven unlikely.

Quote
That picture is not a photograph.
I asked kindly for a photograph. Have you none that could strengthen anything you say?

It looks like a photograph to me. Are you saying it's fake?
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 08:16:19 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

I'm claiming that that is a photograph.

Then who took this picture, and with what equipment? :)
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 18, 2006, 08:18:28 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
Then who took this picture, and with what equipment? :)

Astronauts.
A camera.
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 08:19:08 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Xargo"
Then who took this picture, and with what equipment? :)

Astronauts.
A camera.

I thought rockets haven't been properly developed yet in your world. :o
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 18, 2006, 08:21:53 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
I thought rockets haven't been properly developed yet in your world. :o

I don't recall ever making any such claims.

But his is irrelevant anyway. You wanted a picture. I gave you a picture. Now do you think the earth is flat?
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 08:25:13 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Xargo"
I thought rockets haven't been properly developed yet in your world. :o

I don't recall ever making any such claims.

But his is irrelevant anyway. You wanted a picture. I gave you a picture. Now do you think the earth is flat?

Why would I think the Earth is flat? I have exactly no reason.
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 18, 2006, 08:26:34 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
Why would I think the Earth is flat? I have exactly no reason.

Then why did you ask for a picture?
Post by: Unimportant on June 18, 2006, 08:28:20 PM
EP showed you a photograph which clearly proved the earth is flat. How can you deny photographic evidence?

I'll help you out; what we're looking for is for you to say "But that picture isn't real, it's computer generated" to which we will reply "So are all RE photographs."

In other words, if we can't use "photographic evidence", then neither can you.
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 08:32:56 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
EP showed you a photograph which clearly proved the earth is flat. How can you deny photographic evidence?

I'll help you out; what we're looking for is for you to say "But that picture isn't real, it's computer generated" to which we will reply "So are all RE photographs."

In other words, if we can't use "photographic evidence", then neither can you.

Well, since the background of the flat-earth on the image misses stars, it's either corrupted, generated, painted or fake... Also, the atmosphere is too clear. It's fake. Stop "acting" fools.

Anyways, this one pic, which is not good enough in any way, seems to be the only "evidence" you've got. Next.
Post by: Unimportant on June 18, 2006, 08:40:43 PM
There are no stars "under" the earth, so obviously they would not appear on this photograph.

This is actually a compilation of a number of photographs, such that the atmosphere is removed and the continents are more plainly visible.

Quote
Anyways, this one pic, which is not good enough in any way, seems to be the only "evidence" you've got. Next.

Good enough for what? So far we've got an easily verified "scientific" experiment, and irrefutable photographic evidence, both suggesting the earth is flat. What more do you want?
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 08:43:39 PM
There is stars over the whole Universe.
What I want? I want proof.
Actually, it's 05:41 here in my country, and I've very much enjoyed to read all your humorous answers this night :)

Haven't had anything else to do than to fuck with you guys.. Dont take it personally..

Earth is round, and if it isnt, who gives a damn. Im going to bed, and tomorrow I'll start reading a new book.

Good night.  :!:
Post by: Erasmus on June 18, 2006, 08:50:18 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
Sine I am not a physician, and a lousy mathematician, you might as well write your formulas in greek. Makes no difference to me. Get a physician to register here who may explain. :/

I'm not a physician either, nor am I a formally trained physicist.  But you know, you did ask for scientific proof:

Quote
I want proof, evidence, scientific support, of the FE theories.
Anything would be fine, just post away. As long as it is scientifically reliable.

But okay, if it's not clear to you what I meant, then I'll explain:

If two objects are very close to the surface of a round Earth, but are far apart from one another (for example, two rowboats on a long, straight river), they should be obscured by the curvature of the Earth, right?  The water between them will act like a "hill".  REers bring this up all the time: it's the whole "ships on the horizon" thing.

What Samuel Rowbotham did was to compute exactly how "high" this hill of water should be.  Note that water is a good place to do the experiment because as long as it doesn't have any waves, it will be perfectly smooth and conform itself exactly to the curvature of the Earth, due to gravity.

Anyway, the exact values he calculated mean the following thing: imagine you put a very long, straight rod on the ground.  "Long" means "many miles long".  If the Earth were flat, then the rod would touch the ground the whole way.  If the Earth were round, the rod would only touch the ground at a single point (such a rod is idealized mathemetically as a "tangent" line).  Sure, the Round Earth curves very slowly, so you might not notice.  But as you get farther away from the point of tangency (the single point where the rod touches the ground) the ground will get further and further away from the rod; it will appear to be dropping away (if you imagine yourself as an ant or something walking along the rod).

Rowbotham gives a table describing how big this drop is, given how far along the rod you've gone.  I don't know how he got his values, but I got mine using simple trigonometry and the radius of the Earth given in Wikipedia, and our values were very close.

Here's how I got my formula: at the centre of the Earth, let the angle between the rod's point of tangency and your current position be, say, T.  Then the distance from the centre of the Earth to you is called the "secant of T", and the distance from you to the point of tangency is called the "tangent of T" (in both cases, the units are Earth radii; i.e. the Earth has radius 1).  If you are a distance X along the rod, then T = arctan(X).  "arctan(X)" is the angle whose tangent is X.  Therefore the distance from the centre of th Earth to you is sec T = sec arctan X.  To get the distance from you to the surface, we subtract off the distance from the surface to the centre, which is 1, to get: D = sec arctan X - 1.  I left the radius of the Earth in my formula, so that you can use whatever units you like (miles/feet/inches in the case of my and Rowbotham's tables).  I used a calculator to compute all the values by plugging in different values of X.

For references on the trigonometry I used, I recommend Wikipedia's article on the unit-circle definitions of the trigonometric functions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_function#Unit-circle_definitions).  In particular, look at the picture whose caption is "All of the trigonometric functions can be constructed geometrically in terms of a unit circle centred at O."

Anyway, Rowbotham found that the Earth did not curve enough to obscure his view of objects close to the surface when the calculations made using the RE model predicted they would be obscured.

If you're not clear on any particular points, feel free to ask and I'll try to clarify further.

On the issue of the proof being "mathematical": aside from having asked for scientific proof, how can you believe any "proof" that the Earth is round if you claim not to understanding the underlyng mathematics?  Pictures from space, for example, don't show an image that you cannot conclude to be anything other than a round Earth, since one thing you could conclude, for example, is that it is a faked photograph of the Earth.  You could also conclude that it is simply a restricted-field-of-view photograph of the flat Earth.  Basically, such things are not proof that the Earth is round; proof that the Earth is round should be in the form of a logically sound argument in the formal, rigorous language of mathematics, whose conclusion is that the Earth is round.  Only then can the proof be interpreted unambiguously.
Post by: Xargo on June 18, 2006, 08:58:52 PM
"If a man needs to cross a river, he'll bend whatever he needs to bend in achieving that goal"

I say this: You FE'ers are a minority. Before you tries and take on the science that rule this entire world, do not do so without 100% certainty. You may sit down in a cellar with a calculator, figuring out that the Earth is both square and triangular at the same time, but do not claim to be right before you have seen your visionless explanations with your own eyes.

Are you too cheap to go around the earth personally? People do it every day - every day, your theory about FE is proven wrong to each one of those people. Doesn't that make you feel bad? Sitting at home only believing something, gathering new hopes of explanations to your fantasies without exploring them by heart - where does that take you?

I won't argue further since we're only walking in circles anyways. You believe whatever you want to believe. Matrix has you anyways.  :idea:

add my msn if you still think theres something unsaid in between us. ._.
Post by: Erasmus on June 18, 2006, 09:37:42 PM
I'm sorry, but that was a pretty sad response.  You asked for scientific evidence, and when provided with it, decided that you were unwilling to understand scientific evidence.  When it was explained to your more clearly, you decided that we were going in circles -- even though we didn't say anything that had been said before.

I think you weren't interested in a rational discussion to begin with.  Really, you just wanted to belittle your opponents.  You didn't take the opportunity to learn what we were really saying (or you would never have made several of the statements you did in your last post), and you didn't take the opportunity to listen to our evidence.

I don't think there's anything left unsaid between us; you thought you would do all the talking, and we would be stunned into silence.  Well, it didn't happen.
Post by: rogue on June 18, 2006, 11:11:22 PM
How does that picture explain solar eclipses?(sp?)
Post by: FE is BS on June 19, 2006, 12:07:35 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
See "Experiments demonstrating the true Form of Standing Water, and proving the Earth to be a Plane" (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm).  Here, the founder of the Flat Earth Society gives fifteen experiments whereby he measures the curvature of the surface of standing (not waving or turbulent) water, finding it to be nonexistent, indicating that the Earth is not round.

In particular, several of his experiments involved the visibility of two points close to the surface of the water and separated by six miles.  Over such a distance, the surface of the water should have dropped off 24' (by Rowbotham's calculations; 24.00076' by mine); in fact, he is still able to observe, through a telescope positioned 8" off the water's surface, objects only 5' above the surface.

Rowbotham's introduction includes a table for the curvature of the Earth (in modern parlance, curvature is a different quantity; his table shows the distance between a point P a distance X along a tangent line from the point of tangency, and the Earth's surface).  You may choose to disbelieve the contents of this table, but I have verified them for the first ten miles using basic trigonometry (the dropoff D is given by D = R * (1 - sec arctan X/R), where R is the Earth's radius).  The results of my computations are as follows:

at X = 1 mi., D = 8.00026"
at X = 2 mi., D = 32.00103"
at X = 3 mi., D = 72.00231" = 6.00019'
at X = 4 mi., D = 128.00409" = 10.66701'
at X = 5 mi., D = 200.00636" = 16.66720'
at X = 6 mi., D = 288.00911" = 24.00076'
at X = 7 mi., D = 392.01232" = 32.66769'
at X = 8 mi., D = 512.01597" = 42.66800'
at X = 9 mi., D = 648.02003" = 54.00167'
at X = 10 mi., D = 800.02449" = 66.66871'

If you believe this data (which you can easily verify yourself), then any one of Rowbotham's fifteen experiments should convince you that the Earth cannot be round.

the major flaw with this "proof" is that it is trying to measure the arc over "standing water". that is impossible because i) sea water is never "standing", and any lake would be too small to account for interference  ii) interference of tides iii) it is complete crap, how can you verify the accuracy, validity and indeed precision of his data, he could have made it up to fit the formulars...
Post by: rogue on June 19, 2006, 12:22:41 AM
Although the data is slightly off, at 1 mile the curvature should be 7.98 inches, not over 8, it is relatively correct.  What he doesnt take into account is local geography.  Although theoretically all of this information is accurate it does not take into account tidal and geographical instances or even confirm that the ground that it was performed on was not off kilter from actual or rather overall curvature of the earth.
Post by: FE is BS on June 19, 2006, 12:24:40 AM
i'm gunna go out on a limb and say, the only way to prove the earth is flat is to perform your experiment in a swimming pool
Post by: FE is BS on June 19, 2006, 12:30:05 AM
and b.t.w. the AIM was to prove the EARTH was flat, not one particular section of it... indeed, there are sections of earth that would seem flat when viewed from space, thats why they call it a "geoid", its not a perfect sphere, so any region you perform this experiment would yield a different result...

thats why his accuracy is questionable
Post by: Unimportant on June 19, 2006, 01:13:00 AM
The average curvature of the surface of a body of water would not be affected by local geography.
Post by: Xargo on June 19, 2006, 03:58:20 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
I'm sorry, but that was a pretty sad response.  You asked for scientific evidence, and when provided with it, decided that you were unwilling to understand scientific evidence.  When it was explained to your more clearly, you decided that we were going in circles -- even though we didn't say anything that had been said before.

lol. No, i did not "choose" not to believe it. How could I believe something that I do not understand? I know nothing about complex maths, and this I'm quite sure I stated immediately.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

I think you weren't interested in a rational discussion to begin with.  Really, you just wanted to belittle your opponents.  You didn't take the opportunity to learn what we were really saying (or you would never have made several of the statements you did in your last post), and you didn't take the opportunity to listen to our evidence.

Did I? I though you did.
You have nothing to learn. What you have is one flawed mathimatical principal, and one computer-made picture. What evidence are you talking about then? :p

Quote from: "Erasmus"

I don't think there's anything left unsaid between us; you thought you would do all the talking, and we would be stunned into silence.  Well, it didn't happen.

No, I did not. I thought you would bring me actual rational proof instead of more stacks of mumbo-jumbo. Since this whole belief is nothing but mumbo-jumbo in the first place, maybe I was asking for too much.

And what happened to this thread?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2750
I find it quite interesting. Explain Dr's phenomanical discoveries without making things up this time.
Post by: Erasmus on June 19, 2006, 08:27:49 AM
Quote from: "FE is BS"
the major flaw with this "proof" is that it is trying to measure the arc over "standing water". that is impossible because i) sea water is never "standing", and any lake would be too small to account for interference

I'm glad to see you all read the article.  Rowbotham gives a detailed account of the geographical features of the river on which he's doing the experiment, as opposed to the lake or ocean.

As for the body being too small -- look at the numbers.  He did it over six miles of river.

Quote
ii) interference of tides

How exactly would tides interfere?  Tides don't flatten out water.

Quote
iii) it is complete crap, how can you verify the accuracy, validity and indeed precision of his data, he could have made it up to fit the formulars...

But of course, this is my favourite objection.  The canned response can be none other than, "Okay so you're saying he's part of a conspiracy to convince the world that it is flat.  Why would he lie about a thing like that?  What would the motive be?"
Post by: Erasmus on June 19, 2006, 08:43:24 AM
Quote from: "rogue"
Although the data is slightly off, at 1 mile the curvature should be 7.98 inches, not over 8,

You must've used a different number for the radius of the Earth than I did.  I used the mean radius of the Earth (6372.797 km, from Wikipedia) divided by the number of statute miles in a kilometer (1.609344 mi/km, also from Wikipedia) to get the radius in miles (3959.9).

Quote
What he doesnt take into account is local geography.

Actually, he does.

Also, actually, geographical features such as turns in the river could only serve to obstruct his view, not reveal features obstructed by the land.  Unless you want to try to claim that the water in the river will flow uphill -- but he gives a fairly detailed description of the river and its features.

Quote from: "Samuel Rowbotham"
In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and (except at the part referred to at page 16) passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary--often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists.

Quote
Although theoretically all of this information is accurate it does not take into account tidal and geographical instances

I'm still not sure what these influences are that keep getting referred to.  Are you saying that the tide might flatten out a 24-foot dropoff?

Quote
or even confirm that the ground that it was performed on was not off kilter from actual or rather overall curvature of the earth.

How would that have any effect on the surface of the water?  The surface of calm water takes a shape that simultaneously minimizes the surface area and gravitational potential energy (sorry Xargo).  In other words, if it were flat on a round Earth, the water at the ends (which would be higher up) would flow towards the middle to balance out and make it rounder.  Calm water ought to be convex regardless of the shape of the river bottom.
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 19, 2006, 10:17:30 AM
I'm sorry I had to sign off last night before I could explain the point I was trying to make Xargo.
What I was trying to get across was that pictures are worthless as a means of evidence. If I show you a picture, you'll just say it's fake, and if you show me a picture I'll just say it's fake. So you really don't have much of a choice, you have to use evidence like what Erasmus is using here.
Post by: DrQuak on June 19, 2006, 05:40:39 PM
hmm tthat book you linked erasmus is interesting, of course you'd have to verify it to believe it (and i'm not about to go stand in a canal for any length of time), although his diagrams were embellished a bit. I'm not sure if i trust his reading that were done by hand)

might be an idea to get a laser on the back of a boat and test it on the canal - could get accurate reading on it for the height.

although if the world were flat you could  simply go to the coast of normandy, and the coast of south england and do the same.

on lying something on the ground, having it touch/not touch the ground, it would probably bend from gravity - nvm trying to find a flat space to place it
Post by: Erasmus on June 20, 2006, 08:11:38 PM
Quote from: "DrQuak"
hmm tthat book you linked erasmus is interesting,

Glad to see you had a look at it... it's more than most people are willing to do.

Quote
of course you'd have to verify it to believe it (and i'm not about to go stand in a canal for any length of time),

Nor am I about to go up in space for any length of time, nor am I about to do the torsion balance experiment in my apartment, nor am I about to construct Foucault's Pendulum, etc...

Since neither of us is willing to attempt to reproduce the experimental results that the other puts forth, we can choose to accept either all of them or none of them.  Considering they appear to be contradictory, perhaps we should accept none of them.

Quote
although his diagrams were embellished a bit.

For clarity only, unless you have a more specific complaint.  Look through any physics text and find me an "unembellished" diagram, where I'm thinking that by "embellished" you mean "not very realistic."

Quote
I'm not sure if i trust his reading that were done by hand)might be an idea to get a laser on the back of a boat and test it on the canal - could get accurate reading on it for the height.

His margins for error were reasonable huge.  He basically claimed that from "a few inches", he could see objects six miles away that were "a couple of feet" off the ground.  The ground, however, should, were the Earth flat, have dropped twenty-four feet, which is an order of magnitude greater that his measurements.  So if there was any error, it would surely be dwarfed by the Earth's curvature.

Quote
although if the world were flat you could  simply go to the coast of normandy, and the coast of south england and do the same.

The problem with that is that FEers have an alternate explanation for why you can't see arbitrarily far.
Post by: FlatAnus on June 21, 2006, 06:19:02 AM
how did humans make the first mathamatically true flat surface?
Post by: FlatAnus on June 21, 2006, 07:05:33 AM
but these guys don't believe in scientific proof. They believe scientists are "wierd" people who have nothing to do with creating technology and touch peoples genitalia too much.
Post by: crunchybear on June 21, 2006, 08:10:26 AM
Quote from: "Xargo"
I'm tired of all nonsense.
I want proof, evidence, scientific support, of the FE theories.
Anything would be fine, just post away. As long as it is scientifically reliable.

Otherwise I will, sadly enough, have to believe the fact that you FE'ers believe in something that consists of nothing but made up assumptions - which seems to be the case so far.

If science is not on your side, then what is(?).

im guessing a great deal of crack and an F in science sence the 2nd grade
Post by: Xargo on June 22, 2006, 02:27:55 PM
Yep. And everytime you tries to talk some sense into them, they just announce you stupid, part of the conspiracy or unable to understand.

Or, "Don't step on my ground!", as any good conservatist would say. "Let me believe what I believe and leave me alone!". Like a three year old baby. :)
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 02:33:11 PM
Quote from: "crunchybear"
im guessing a great deal of crack and an F in science sence the 2nd grade

Many, if not most, of the active FE posters have rather extensive backgrouns in the physical sciences; certainly moreso than the average RE poster.
Post by: Mr.T on June 22, 2006, 02:50:13 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
EP showed you a photograph which clearly proved the earth is flat. How can you deny photographic evidence?

Then how can you deny this?:

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

You can't just say "Ha! I've got a picture, you must be wrong!"
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 02:52:10 PM
Maybe I can put this in words you will understand:

In regards to your sphere earth pictures;
(http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/6894/shopped7sd.jpg)
Post by: Mr.T on June 22, 2006, 02:52:49 PM
And so does yours.

Why go so low to just insult my intelligence without making an intelligent post yourself?
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 02:55:57 PM
I'm sorry, but you must understand; it is pretty much standard fare for every new member to do a google image search for "EARTH", link a few alleged space photos, and say "HA! GOT YOU!"

Yes, our FE diagram is computer generated.
Likewise, FE'ers think all photographs showing the round earth from space are computer generated, or otherwise faked/forged.

In other words, posting photographs of the earth from space are not valid evidence within the context of this dicussion.
Post by: Mr.T on June 22, 2006, 02:57:23 PM
That's what I said if you paid attention.

A picture of the flat earth was posted. Someone said that you can not deny this proof. I said that's just like saying "Here, I'm going to post this picture of the Earth, so you can't deny it's round."
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 03:00:17 PM
Ok then, it looks like we were both making the same point.

I figured that, since the first two pages of this thread were dedicated almost exclusively to making that point, it did not need further elaboration here, by you. Trust me, FE'ers are more than aware of the bar on photographic evidence of that nature.
Post by: FungusMcUncle on June 22, 2006, 05:06:12 PM
Unimportant wrote: Many, if not most, of the active FE posters have rather extensive backgrouns in the physical sciences; certainly moreso than the average RE poster.

What the fuck would you know buddy. I guess your psychic too hey?
Post by: 6strings on June 22, 2006, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: "FungusMcUncle"
Unimportant wrote: Many, if not most, of the active FE posters have rather extensive backgrouns in the physical sciences; certainly moreso than the average RE poster.

What the fuck would you know buddy. I guess your psychic too hey?

I assume he was going by post content...silly him, right?
Post by: Flat4nus on June 22, 2006, 05:55:03 PM
Yeh what a dumbass. I'm guessing he probably is part of a group of scientists/academics having a good laugh over all this...
Myself? University level physics, Biology and some chemistry classes....
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 06:01:05 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
In other words, posting photographs of the earth from space are not valid evidence within the context of this dicussion.

Oh, how convenient. The RE's have a piece of un-deniable evidence, but the FE's simply choose to say it's not reliable. Wake up fuck heads. At least we can produce photos, hundreds of them. You guys have ONE picture which you agree is only a diagram.
Post by: 6strings on June 22, 2006, 06:07:52 PM
Quote
Oh, how convenient. The RE's have a piece of un-deniable evidence, but the FE's simply choose to say it's not reliable. Wake up fuck heads. At least we can produce photos, hundreds of them. You guys have ONE picture which you agree is only a diagram.

Yes, it's almost as if some agency or another is actively trying to propogate the belief that the earth is a sphere...
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 06:10:41 PM
These pictures come from different bodies from all around the world. Tell ya what, if they are that good, why are you guys so bad. Surely, shouldn't you guys have raised some cash to take some more photos to proove your theory.

This is beyond stupid it's comical. There is a good reason these organisation wish to convince us the world is a sphere.... IT IS!
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 06:16:51 PM
Quote from: "Flat4nus"
Yeh what a dumbass. I'm guessing he probably is part of a group of scientists/academics having a good laugh over all this...
Myself? University level physics, Biology and some chemistry classes....

And even with such a limited resume you're far better than most RE'ers. See what I mean?
Post by: 6strings on June 22, 2006, 06:19:08 PM
Quote
These pictures come from different bodies from all around the world.

Ah, silly me.  I didn't realize that a world wide conspiracy would fail to provide pictures from all around the world.

Quote
Tell ya what, if they are that good, why are you guys so bad.

Is this a question or a statement?  I can't tell...

Quote
Surely, shouldn't you guys have raised some cash to take some more photos to proove your theory.

We are chronically underfunded, and working against a conspiracy that works endlessly against us and has nearly infinite resources, so no, we don't have the cash.
Post by: Flat4nus on June 22, 2006, 06:20:18 PM
I impose no limits on myself, my understanding, my perception. I remain open minded to possibilities. Who are you to say my resume is "limited"?
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 06:23:33 PM
I define a resume as a summarization of accomplishments and qualifications; in your case and pertaining to the physical sciences, your accomplishments are limited to some university physics and a couple chemistry and biology classes.

I made a point of saying that, even with that relatively short list, you are far more learned than the average poster who argues on behalf of RE.

So if you're the cream, imagine the rest of the crop.
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 06:38:47 PM
Quote from: "6strings"
Is this a question or a statement?  I can't tell...

OK, you made your point. I've been getting lazy on the question marks. It's a question.

Quote from: "6strings"
We are chronically underfunded, and working against a conspiracy that works endlessly against us and has nearly infinite resources, so no, we don't have the cash.

I'm willing to guess that is because you do not have the following of the RE's. Why do you think that is? Actually, don't answer that, I know what your answer will be..... I know, I know, It's a Conspiracy!! Once again, how convenient.

Did you guys ever stop to think that maybe there is no conspiracy? Maybe you're just wrong.
Post by: 6strings on June 22, 2006, 06:40:32 PM
Quote
Did you guys ever stop to think that maybe there is no conspiracy? Maybe you're just wrong.

I did, once, but then I went for a walk in Manitoba and realized that the earth is flat.
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 06:43:02 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Did you guys ever stop to think that maybe there is no conspiracy? Maybe you're just wrong.

you see telling them they're wrong will convince no one, instead you should try to use concrete math and scientific evidence to back your points.
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 07:07:25 PM
There have been countless amounts of factual mathematical and scientific evidence given on this forum, not to mention the physical evidence in the way of photos and personal encounters. They still refuse to accept this. That's the point. It doesn't matter what you present, the FE's will not believe it. You could take them up in a rocket and show them for themselves and they would probably make up some crap like "the windows are shaped to make it look that way" or "we really must have flown into a studio, not into space".

They are convinced that they are right and NOTHING will change their mind, regardless how compelling and obvious.
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 07:09:59 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
There have been countless amounts of factual mathematical and scientific evidence given on this forum, not to mention the physical evidence in the way of photos and personal encounters. They still refuse to accept this. That's the point. It doesn't matter what you present, the FE's will not believe it. You could take them up in a rocket and show them for themselves and they would probably make up some crap like "the windows are shaped to make it look that way" or "we really must have flown into a studio, not into space".

They are convinced that they are right and NOTHING will change their mind, regardless how compelling and obvious.

that's why it's fun, to see how much accepted science and math they can acutally refute before it becomes pointless to argue.  :D
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 07:19:26 PM
The interesting thing is that very, very few discussions ever get to the "accepted science and math refutation" stage. I would say 90% of threads involve an RE'er making an unsubstantial claim and immediately declaring victory. Sometimes they even skip the unsubstantial claim phase and go straight to declaring victory, claiming that, if they did bother to make a claim, the FE response would be unsatisfactory, so it is more efficient to just skip the discussion part altogether and skip straight to the "I'm right you're wrong."

If some of the RE posters spent half as much time coming up with evidence to support RE as they did patting themselves on the back, they might have more reason to pat themselves on the back.
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 07:23:54 PM
Quote from: "Desu"
that's why it's fun, to see how much accepted science and math they can acutally refute before it becomes pointless to argue.  :D

I won't argue with that!!!
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 07:25:25 PM
No, what's funny is that you fail to realise that when a minority group is against the majority, it is up to them to proove the majority wrong, not the other way around.
Post by: Desu on June 22, 2006, 07:26:27 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
I define a resume as a summarization of accomplishments and qualifications; in your case and pertaining to the physical sciences, your accomplishments are limited to some university physics and a couple chemistry and biology classes.

I made a point of saying that, even with that relatively short list, you are far more learned than the average poster who argues on behalf of RE.

So if you're the cream, imagine the rest of the crop.

you have to consider the type of people that find this site, it was linked on places like fark and somethingawful, those websites' userbases consist of largely idiots with herd mentallity. Another point; Since more people believe the Earth is round, naturally there will be a larger cut of idiotic individuals in the group.
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 07:31:45 PM
Quote from: "Desu"
you have to consider the type of people that find this site, it was linked on places like fark and somethingawful, those websites' userbases consist of largely idiots with herd mentallity. Another point; Since more people believe the Earth is round, naturally there will be a larger cut of idiotic individuals in the group.

I couldn't agree more.

Quote
No, what's funny is that you fail to realise that when a minority group is against the majority, it is up to them to proove the majority wrong, not the other way around.

If this were a round earth forum that would be true. If we marched on city hall claiming the earth was flat, then you're right, the burden of proof woulc be on the flat earth'ers. That, however, is not the case; you came to our forum, so if you want to challenge our beliefs, the burden of proof is on you.

After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.
Post by: RenaissanceMan on June 22, 2006, 07:37:41 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "Desu"
you have to consider the type of people that find this site, it was linked on places like fark and somethingawful, those websites' userbases consist of largely idiots with herd mentallity. Another point; Since more people believe the Earth is round, naturally there will be a larger cut of idiotic individuals in the group.

I couldn't agree more.

Quote
No, what's funny is that you fail to realise that when a minority group is against the majority, it is up to them to proove the majority wrong, not the other way around.

If this were a round earth forum that would be true. If we marched on city hall claiming the earth was flat, then you're right, the burden of proof woulc be on the flat earth'ers. That, however, is not the case; you came to our forum, so if you want to challenge our beliefs, the burden of proof is on you.

After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

And fail to prove it you do... and spectacularly. I've put in many observations just today that demonstrate how stunningly wrong your FE model is... and yet they're ignored. It's starting to become clear that the primary motivations for your FE model are religious rather than scientific.
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 07:38:30 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

So do it!
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 22, 2006, 07:46:08 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

So do it!

I think he meant "only to defend FE". Seeing as to how nothing can actually be proven. Things can only be not disproven.
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 07:55:39 PM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
It's starting to become clear that the primary motivations for your FE model are religious rather than scientific.

Explain where on this forum you find religious motivation.

And indeed, I meant to say "to prove the plausability of a flat earth model". I said as much in another thread, but it slipped my mind here.
Post by: jiffy on June 22, 2006, 07:55:52 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "jiffy"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

So do it!

I think he meant "only to defend FE". Seeing as to how nothing can actually be proven. Things can only be not disproven.

I'm sure he did, but as you said, you can only disprove. In order to disprove, you need to apply various "proofs" (eg. facts). If these facts are not accepted, your disproof and therefore, proof is null and void.

Moral: Neither will accept eachothers facts, so the discussion has no point other than entertainment value.
Post by: Unimportant on June 22, 2006, 07:59:56 PM
Quote from: "jiffy"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "jiffy"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

So do it!

I think he meant "only to defend FE". Seeing as to how nothing can actually be proven. Things can only be not disproven.

I'm sure he did, but as you said, you can only disprove. In order to disprove, you need to apply various "proofs" (eg. facts). If these facts are not accepted, your disproof and therefore, proof is null and void.

Moral: Neither will accept eachothers facts, so the discussion has no point other than entertainment value.

Yep.

He did say, "Not disprove", though. It's actually pretty commonly accepted that no hypothesis can ever be disproven, only proven unlikely. That's what you RE'ers are (usually) here to do; try your best to prove FE unlikely.
Post by: RenaissanceMan on June 22, 2006, 08:20:19 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
It's starting to become clear that the primary motivations for your FE model are religious rather than scientific.

Explain where on this forum you find religious motivation.

And indeed, I meant to say "to prove the plausability of a flat earth model". I said as much in another thread, but it slipped my mind here.

You're kidding right? Go down to the "Other Alternative Science" or "Flat Earth Believers" and read that stuff... the religious motivations are off the hook.

Not that I think YOU are using religion as a motivation. I don't believe you believe in a flat earth at all. Why you would defend or argue for that position is a mystery.
Post by: f1474nu5 on June 22, 2006, 09:08:15 PM
prove whatever is TRUE.
Post by: Xargo on June 23, 2006, 03:00:01 AM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Things can only be not disproven.

That's a stupid statement. You mean, as long as something cannot be proven wrong, then it could as well be true. Reality is different.

Quote from: "f1474nu5"
prove whatever is TRUE.

Edit: You come up with a theory, then proves it. That's what makes science. Science is not coming up with a theory, and claim it to be a 100% correct without any evidence or proof (no, the Bible does not count), with the only argument that it "Can't be disproven".
Post by: FE is BS on June 23, 2006, 03:56:53 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"

I'm glad to see you all read the article.  Rowbotham gives a detailed account of the geographical features of the river on which he's doing the experiment, as opposed to the lake or ocean.

As for the body being too small -- look at the numbers.  He did it over six miles of river.

you do realise that a river effects the slope of the surrounding landscape?
Post by: Erasmus on June 23, 2006, 11:17:57 AM
Quote from: "FE is BS"
you do realise that a river effects the slope of the surrounding landscape?

Sure.  I also recognize that it affects the economy of the surrounding region.  In what relevant way does it affect the slope?
Post by: Erasmus on June 23, 2006, 11:24:41 AM
Quote from: "Xargo"
Science is not coming up with a theory, and claim it to be a 100% correct without any evidence or proof

Yes, thanks for getting us back on topic.  I've provided a proof.  Do you have any particular criticism you'd like to make of it?
Post by: RenaissanceMan on June 23, 2006, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Xargo"
Science is not coming up with a theory, and claim it to be a 100% correct without any evidence or proof

Yes, thanks for getting us back on topic.  I've provided a proof.  Do you have any particular criticism you'd like to make of it?

You mean Rowbotham's 'research'? That is your proof?

This guy's theories were so bad he had to throw away the scientific method and invent a new system... the "Zetetic Astronomy" where he postulated that the Sun and Moon were only 32 miles in dameter and 'orbited' the Earth at the equator at an altitude of 3000 feet. Sound familiar?

What he COULD do was debate. He was able to use his mastery of the english language to crush people in a verbal challenge. Tragically, debate skills don't define science.... and his lunacy was discarded in favor of REAL science...

So, no. I don't accept anything he did without peer review and repeated results.
Post by: Erasmus on June 23, 2006, 05:49:42 PM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
This guy's theories were so bad he had to throw away the scientific method and invent a new system...

I know I've asked this before, but do you have some specific complaint about the particular set of experiments I made reference to?
Post by: RenaissanceMan on June 23, 2006, 05:59:34 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
This guy's theories were so bad he had to throw away the scientific method and invent a new system...

I know I've asked this before, but do you have some specific complaint about the particular set of experiments I made reference to?

Other than they sound unreasonable and were postulated by a guy whose only scientific ability was to out talk people?

Sure! His experiments ... just... look... fake.... WHERE have you ever seen a river with two bridges 6 miles apart where you had a perfect line of sight between them? I don't know about you? But except on the great salt lake in Utah, I don't think I've ever seen even 3 miles across 'flat' land... water or no water. Heck, not even in KANSAS can you see that far. There is always something in the way.

I need to see COLLABORATING research to even start to believe this guy... Oh! YOu guys believel him! The burden of proof is on YOU to repeat this guy's 'experiments' and verify his data. That's how science works. Now ... if this guy had peer reviews and his findings were independantly verified? I'd think differently.

Get to it!
Post by: Erasmus on June 23, 2006, 06:07:52 PM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Other than they sound unreasonable and were postulated by a guy whose only scientific ability was to out talk people?

I'm not sure but I'm guessing you didn't check his CV before making that claim.

Quote
Sure! His experiments ... just... look... fake....

.... that's all you've got?

Quote
WHERE have you ever seen a river with two bridges 6 miles apart where you had a perfect line of sight between them?

Well there's this place in England where they built this canal.  Some guy named Samuel Rowbotham did some experiments on it, IIRC.

Quote
I don't think I've ever seen even 3 miles across 'flat' land... water or no water.

On a round Earth, barring obstacles, from an elevation of two meters above sea level you should be able to see 10 km of ground.

Quote
The burden of proof is on YOU to repeat this guy's 'experiments' and verify his data.

I don't see what the point is, since you can't find any flaws in his results.  And no, that's not how science works.  People try to refute each other's hypotheses all the time.
Post by: RenaissanceMan on June 23, 2006, 06:13:15 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Other than they sound unreasonable and were postulated by a guy whose only scientific ability was to out talk people?

I'm not sure but I'm guessing you didn't check his CV before making that claim.

Quote
Sure! His experiments ... just... look... fake....

.... that's all you've got?

Quote
WHERE have you ever seen a river with two bridges 6 miles apart where you had a perfect line of sight between them?

Well there's this place in England where they built this canal.  Some guy named Samuel Rowbotham did some experiments on it, IIRC.

Quote
I don't think I've ever seen even 3 miles across 'flat' land... water or no water.

On a round Earth, barring obstacles, from an elevation of two meters above sea level you should be able to see 10 km of ground.

Quote
The burden of proof is on YOU to repeat this guy's 'experiments' and verify his data.

I don't see what the point is, since you can't find any flaws in his results.  And no, that's not how science works.  People try to refute each other's hypotheses all the time.

LOL, yes... I know what a CV is. Nice try. His problem wasn't education... it was religion. His adherence to biblical dogma superceded his scientific impartiality.

And that IS how science works, you need peer review and independant verification. If you're so sure his findings are accurate... go there yourself and repeat his experiments.
Post by: Unimportant on June 23, 2006, 08:42:53 PM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
If you're so sure his findings are accurate... go there yourself and repeat his experiments.

But then you'll just say the same thing about Erasmus' results...
Post by: RenaissanceMan on June 23, 2006, 09:02:25 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
If you're so sure his findings are accurate... go there yourself and repeat his experiments.

But then you'll just say the same thing about Erasmus' results...

Why, will his be just as questionable?
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 01:54:50 AM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Why, will his be just as questionable?

Presumably they will be, since the only reason you've so far provided for his results' questionability is that others have not repeated his experiment.  Once I do it, nobody will have repeated mine.

Of course, if you have a more concrete reason that they are questionable, I'm interested to hear type.

It may interest you to know that he repeated his experiment over a period of several years and got the same results.
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 03:54:23 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Xargo"
Science is not coming up with a theory, and claim it to be a 100% correct without any evidence or proof

Yes, thanks for getting us back on topic.  I've provided a proof.  Do you have any particular criticism you'd like to make of it?

Heh. Really: Heh.

I asked for proof, and what I got was one formula and one lame-ass-picture. Now, I am not of the opinion that the earth's shape can be concluded using only one stand-alone math formula. -_-

And for that matter, you've got one formula. One! RE "theory" has more than hundreds. Your proof is not proof, but could become if you'd provided more substantial info. One crazy scientists' formula is not "proof" enough. Ffs. Wtf. Lol.

Edit: And stop marking words.
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 10:31:51 AM
Quote from: "Xargo"
I asked for proof, and what I got was one formula and one lame-ass-picture. Now, I am not of the opinion that the earth's shape can be concluded using only one stand-alone math formula. -_-

Whatever.  Your fear of mathematical formulas doesn't make the proof any less valid.  The "formula" isn't the proof anyway, it's just a description of how much the round Earth curves.  I.e. it's not a "formula I've got" -- it's one of your formulas, as a matter of fact.  The proof is the result of the experiment -- the fact that he could see farther than he should have been able to on a round Earth.

Quote
And for that matter, you've got one formula. One! RE "theory" has more than hundreds.

Like I said, the only formula used is an "RE formula".  It really seems to me that a person who described himself as being totally unfamiliar with math is in no position to pass judgements on anybody else's use of it.

Quote
Edit: And stop marking words.

.... I don't know what that means.
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 11:51:37 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Whatever.  Your fear of mathematical formulas doesn't make the proof any less valid.  The "formula" isn't the proof anyway, it's just a description of how much the round Earth curves.  I.e. it's not a "formula I've got" -- it's one of your formulas, as a matter of fact.  The proof is the result of the experiment -- the fact that he could see farther than he should have been able to on a round Earth.

My formulas? :)
I did not question the formula, I'm sure it's real thought throuh. I'm questioning your lack of proof, because over-all you've only managed to squeeze up one, questionable formula. What else? Nothing! You have a belief that the Earth is round, but no reason to believe it.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote
And for that matter, you've got one formula. One! RE "theory" has more than hundreds.

Like I said, the only formula used is an "RE formula".  It really seems to me that a person who described himself as being totally unfamiliar with math is in no position to pass judgements on anybody else's use of it.

Still not the point. I do not question the formula, and I never have(!), I question your lack of proof or evidence. On what do you rely your belief? One mathematic formula? Come on.[/i]
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 12:40:54 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
My formulas? :)

By "you" I mean "the community of REers".

Quote
I did not question the formula, ... you've only managed to squeeze up one, questionable formula.

Well, is it questionable, or isn't it?

And try to realize that the formula isn't a statement of the flatness of the Earth.  It's a statement of the roundness of the Earth.

Quote
You have a belief that the Earth is round, but no reason to believe it.

*suppresses infantile urge to pounce on this slip*

Quote
Still not the point. I do not question the formula, and I never have(!), I question your lack of proof or evidence. On what do you rely your belief? One mathematic formula? Come on.[/i]

Okay, got it, you believe the formula is true.

That said, I don't not base "my belief" (in a flat Earth) on this formula.  I base it on the fact that the formula was proven wrong.  The argument goes like this:

(1) If the Earth is approximately a sphere with a radius of such-and-such, such-and-such a formula must describe the curvature of the Earth.

(2) The aforementioned formula does not describe the curvature of the Earth.

(3) Therefore, the Earth cannot be a sphere as we suppose it to be.

Really, it's a pretty straightforward argument.
Post by: PlanetsAreRoundlolz on June 24, 2006, 02:46:38 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Xargo"
My formulas? :)

By "you" I mean "the community of REers".

Quote
I did not question the formula, ... you've only managed to squeeze up one, questionable formula.

Well, is it questionable, or isn't it?

And try to realize that the formula isn't a statement of the flatness of the Earth.  It's a statement of the roundness of the Earth.

Quote
You have a belief that the Earth is round, but no reason to believe it.

*suppresses infantile urge to pounce on this slip*

Quote
Still not the point. I do not question the formula, and I never have(!), I question your lack of proof or evidence. On what do you rely your belief? One mathematic formula? Come on.[/i]

Okay, got it, you believe the formula is true.

That said, I don't not base "my belief" (in a flat Earth) on this formula.  I base it on the fact that the formula was proven wrong.  The argument goes like this:

(1) If the Earth is approximately a sphere with a radius of such-and-such, such-and-such a formula must describe the curvature of the Earth.

(2) The aforementioned formula does not describe the curvature of the Earth.

(3) Therefore, the Earth cannot be a sphere as we suppose it to be.

Really, it's a pretty straightforward argument.

Have you even taken gravity into account? =/
Post by: Unimportant on June 24, 2006, 02:51:40 PM
Yes, since gravity is what would cause the uniform curvature of the still-standing water of the canal.
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 02:53:43 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Yes, since gravity is what would cause the uniform curvature of the still-standing water of the canal.

Exactly.... what were you thinking of, RenaissanceMan?
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 04:09:03 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote
I did not question the formula, ... you've only managed to squeeze up one, questionable formula.

Well, is it questionable, or isn't it?

Of course it's questionable. That does not mean I question it. I would be a fool to do so, wouldn't I? I suck at math, you know. :| Think I told you earlier.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote
You have a belief that the Earth is round, but no reason to believe it.

*suppresses infantile urge to pounce on this slip*

You caught me there. :(

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote
Still not the point. I do not question the formula, and I never have(!), I question your lack of proof or evidence. On what do you rely your belief? One mathematic formula? Come on.[/i]

Okay, got it, you believe the formula is true.

Well, since I can't really oppose it, I guess I'm neutral.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

That said, I don't not base "my belief" (in a flat Earth) on this formula.

Ok, so what do you base it on? You're an intelligent guy, so I'd love to hear your reasons.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2943
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 04:24:29 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
Ok, so what do you base it on? You're an intelligent guy, so I'd love to hear your reasons.

Well, clearly Samuel Rowbotham based it on his experiments.  So far we've gone several pages without actually mentioning any flaws with the experiments, which leads me to believe that the readers either accept them as proof that the Earth cannot be round, or weren't really interested in proof in the first place.

Quote

I have already posted all that I feel I have to contribute to that thread.
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 04:27:26 PM
You have not answered accordingly. Drop your precious formula - unless that is truly all you've got to base your belief on - and then, provide an explanation for why you support the FE theory.
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 04:35:44 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"

How so?

Quote

Why?  What you seem to be missing is that it's a formula that must describe the world correctly if the the world is round.
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"

Why?  What you seem to be missing is that it's a formula that must describe the world correctly if the the world is round.

I cannot debate on the authentity of this formula, and I won't/don't/can't. I accept your use of the formula as one of your proofs that the Earth is flat. Ok? I don't even understand why you're so focused on that formula anyways? Sure, it's an "RE formula", but can be used as a proof to support FE theory. Gotcha. Move on ffs.
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
I cannot debate on the authentity of this formula, and I won't/don't/can't. I accept your use of the formula as one of your proofs that the Earth is flat. Ok? I don't even understand why you're so focused on that formula anyways? Sure, it's an "RE formula", but can be used as a proof to support FE theory. Gotcha. Move on ffs.

Umm... okay.  I'm only focused on it insofar as you keep saying you won't criticize it, but then ask me not to use it in arguments, for no particular reason.

Moving on, I have fulfilled the request made in the first post of this thread.
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 04:49:31 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Xargo"
I cannot debate on the authentity of this formula, and I won't/don't/can't. I accept your use of the formula as one of your proofs that the Earth is flat. Ok? I don't even understand why you're so focused on that formula anyways? Sure, it's an "RE formula", but can be used as a proof to support FE theory. Gotcha. Move on ffs.

Umm... okay.  I'm only focused on it insofar as you keep saying you won't criticize it, but then ask me not to use it in arguments, for no particular reason.

Moving on, I have fulfilled the request made in the first post of this thread.

Me: "I suck at math and can't debate the formula"
Erasmus: "zomg this and this @ the formula!"
Me: "I can't tell, but I accept that you use it as a proof for the theory. That's one proof in the bag."
Erasmus: "wtf forgetting da formula??!"
Me: "Yes. It's a proof. One proof. Move on."
Erasmus: "no! Im done here!"

Answer my question. Did that formula turn you into a FE or was it something else/more?
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 04:50:46 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
Me: "I suck at math and can't debate the formula"
Erasmus: "zomg this and this @ the formula!"
Me: "I can't tell, but I accept that you use it as a proof for the theory. That's one proof in the bag."
Erasmus: "wtf forgetting da formula??!"
Me: "Yes. It's a proof. One proof. Move on."
Erasmus: "no! Im done here!"

Hahahaha

Quote
Answer my question. Did that formula turn you into a FE or was it something else/more?

No.
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote
Answer my question. Did that formula turn you into a FE or was it something else/more?

No.

Man, must've mustered all of your powers to squeeze out that tiny "No". I don't even know what that "No" was for. You don't want to answer my question? Did that formula NOT turn you into an FE'er? Or was it only that formula and nothing else/more that turned you into one?

Sigh. Words.
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
Man, must've mustered all of your powers to squeeze out that tiny "No".

Yeah I thought you'd be impressed.

Quote
I don't even know what that "No" was for.

You said, "X or Y?" and I said, "No."

Like, "Coffee or tea?"  "No."

Quote
Did that formula NOT turn you into an FE'er?

Yes, that formula did not turn me into an FEer.... do you mean, like, the way the ooze turned them into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 05:07:04 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Xargo"
Man, must've mustered all of your powers to squeeze out that tiny "No".

Yeah I thought you'd be impressed.

Yep. Sure took me by surprise.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote
I don't even know what that "No" was for.

You said, "X or Y?" and I said, "No."

Like, "Coffee or tea?"  "No."

So you have no reason to believe in the flat earth theory then?

I've discovered that it's frustratingly difficult to receive one single straight answer from any FE. "Why do you believe in your theory?". Either no answer, or wordmarking, or change of subject. Quite interesting relly. Keeps me running.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote
Did that formula NOT turn you into an FE'er?

Yes, that formula did not turn me into an FEer.... do you mean, like, the way the ooze turned them into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

No, like effect and reaction.
Post by: Unimportant on June 24, 2006, 05:11:00 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
So you have no reason to believe in the flat earth theory then?

I've discovered that it's frustratingly difficult to receive one single straight answer from any FE. "Why do you believe in your theory?". Either no answer, or wordmarking, or change of subject. Quite interesting relly. Keeps me running.

I think you're missing the most obvious answer; that is, he's not an FE'er.

And so, not being an FE'er, it is only natural that he has no reasons for being an FE'er.

(Sorry Erasmus if I ruined your fun.)
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 05:12:43 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
(Sorry Erasmus if I ruined your fun.)

You ruined my fun. :/

So, Unimportant, what made you into a FE believer? :)
Post by: Unimportant on June 24, 2006, 05:16:13 PM
Frankly, the prospect of being associated with the common RE'er was to terrifying to me that I had no choice but to adapt my beliefs.
Post by: Xargo on June 24, 2006, 05:18:17 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Frankly, the prospect of being associated with the common RE'er was to terrifying to me that I had no choice but to adapt my beliefs.

I'm too tired for this type of crap-talk right now. It's sad that  you can't post one single serious answer to any serious question without adding irony or cynicism with it.
Post by: Unimportant on June 24, 2006, 05:22:18 PM
Don't take offense; have you seen some of the questions the other RE'ers ask? Pretty silly stuff.
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 24, 2006, 06:08:24 PM
Ill admit, some RE'ers post some dumb stuff, but you also have to admit, some FE'ers go out of their way to post dumb responses
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 06:12:15 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Ill admit, some RE'ers post some dumb stuff, but you also have to admit, some FE'ers go out of their way to post dumb responses

No, we don't have to admit that.  Our responses are broken down into a few categories:

1)  We don't know the answer to that (the FE model is incomplete).

2)  That falls under "stuff we don't consider to be evidence".

3)  It's exactly the same as it is in the RE model.

Which of these is a dumb response?
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 24, 2006, 06:15:01 PM
The penguins are genetically created and dinosaurs had powertools type of answer, all those that you mentioned are, acceptable, but frustrating
Post by: Erasmus on June 24, 2006, 06:17:26 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
The penguins are genetically created and dinosaurs had powertools type of answer, all those that you mentioned are, acceptable, but frustrating

If you get to count FEers' joking responses, then I get to count REers' overwhelming barrages of mindless insults and plain old gibberish.

There's no comparison.
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 24, 2006, 06:19:57 PM
Stupid is Stupid

and the amazing RE:FE ratio speaks to that anyway
Post by: Xargo on June 25, 2006, 03:17:06 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"

Which of these is a dumb response?

As you follow a pattern of answers, you might as well script  this forum to post them automatically to RE'ers questions.
Post by: FE is BS on June 25, 2006, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "FE is BS"
you do realise that a river effects the slope of the surrounding landscape?

Sure.  I also recognize that it affects the economy of the surrounding region.  In what relevant way does it affect the slope?

<sigh> for starters, if he performed the experiment on an area with any slope, he would be able to see further

rivers tend to slope towards their mouths
Post by: Erasmus on June 25, 2006, 09:37:58 AM
Quote from: "Xargo"
As you follow a pattern of answers, you might as well script  this forum to post them automatically to RE'ers questions.

Wow, that's an awesome idea.... the script should be really easy to write since it need accept nary a few inputs....
Post by: Erasmus on June 25, 2006, 09:40:34 AM
Quote from: "FE is BS"
<sigh> for starters, if he performed the experiment on an area with any slope, he would be able to see further

rivers tend to slope towards their mouths

Yes, they do, but this river was described as unusually still, which would make it unlikely that the bed had more than the slightest of slopes.

Also, just because the riverbed slopes, doesn't mean that the surface won't, on a round Earth, be convex in a manner predicted by the curvature of the Earth.  I.e. it won't flatten out the surface and enable you to see any farther.  At least, it won't flatten out a twenty-four foot drop.
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 09:58:27 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"

If you get to count FEers' joking responses, then I get to count REers' overwhelming barrages of mindless insults and plain old gibberish.

I wasn't joking when I put forward that penguins did not evolve like other animals.

And the "powertools" statement was only half a joke - I was honestly trying to posit that dinosaurs were more advanced than we give them credit for.
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 25, 2006, 10:57:31 AM
it really doesnt matter to me if the were more or less advanced than we give them credit for, to claim they were completely modernized is idiotic, because to have modernization you need to have civilization, including written language, societies, and like it or not, war... there would be fossil evidence of that, and beside, to even start that claim, you would have to make the assertion that all the species were working together, an insane concept, since prey will never work with predator, as they will run at the first sign
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 12:26:26 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
it really doesnt matter to me if the were more or less advanced than we give them credit for, to claim they were completely modernized is idiotic, because to have modernization you need to have civilization, including written language, societies, and like it or not, war... there would be fossil evidence of that, and beside, to even start that claim, you would have to make the assertion that all the species were working together, an insane concept, since prey will never work with predator, as they will run at the first sign

You don't have to be completely modernized to build a damn boat or two! Humans have been building boats since prehistory, and back then we didn't have written language, societies, or war (at least not on any sort of significant scale).
Post by: Erasmus on June 25, 2006, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
You don't have to be completely modernized to build a damn boat or two! Humans have been building boats since prehistory, and back then we didn't have written language, societies, or war (at least not on any sort of significant scale).

We did have societies and war to a historically recordable extent.

Also, you need some sort of tools to build boats.
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 25, 2006, 12:33:10 PM
and once again dogplatter, the sheer magnitude of fossils shows that "a damn boat or two" woudlnt do it
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 12:43:52 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
and once again dogplatter, the sheer magnitude of fossils shows that "a damn boat or two" woudlnt do it

We've been through this several times, man.

Important point 1: Boats can be used over and over again. If a single boat can carry a crew of 10 dinosaurs and an intercontinental voyage takes 6 months, it only takes a century for 1000 dinosaurs to make the trip. If 10 boats existed, 10000 dinosaurs could make the trip in that same century. If 100 boats existed, 100000 dinosaurs could make the trip.

Important point 2: The number of dinosaurs existing at one time isn't static. If, for example, 100 dinosaurs started a colony in an area where no other dinosaurs exist to compete with them, they can breed heavily and the colony would grow almost exponentially in size.
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 12:47:33 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"

Also, you need some sort of tools to build boats.

We have no justifiable reason to suspect dinosaurs were not, at some point, capable of using tools. Let's not forget that the dinosaurs existed for much longer than people have.
Post by: CrimsonKing on June 25, 2006, 12:50:10 PM
except that we have no evidence of them using tools, where as we have makeshift tools made by early homo erectus and homo neandrathal
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 01:11:30 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
except that we have no evidence of them using tools, where as we have makeshift tools made by early homo erectus and homo neandrathal

Dinosaur tool use would have been much less widespread than humanoid tool use.

Homo Erectus and buddies used tools for all sorts of stuff - skinning animals, killing animals, etc. Dinosaurs had teeth and claws for all that - all they needed tools for was to build boats.
Post by: Xargo on June 25, 2006, 01:16:33 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "Erasmus"

Also, you need some sort of tools to build boats.

We have no justifiable reason to suspect dinosaurs were not, at some point, capable of using tools. Let's not forget that the dinosaurs existed for much longer than people have.

Maybe you are not aware of the brain size of dinosaurs?
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 01:19:29 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"

Maybe you are not aware of the brain size of dinosaurs?

I am aware that the brain size of dinosaurs in proportion to their bodies was very small, but I'm also aware that otter and bird brains are way small, and that both of these animals use tools.
Post by: The_Earth_Is_Round! on June 25, 2006, 01:21:40 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "Xargo"

Maybe you are not aware of the brain size of dinosaurs?

I am aware that the brain size of dinosaurs in proportion to their bodies was very small, but I'm also aware that otter and bird brains are way small, and that both of these animals use tools.

What tools do birds use?
Post by: Xargo on June 25, 2006, 01:22:58 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "Xargo"

Maybe you are not aware of the brain size of dinosaurs?

I am aware that the brain size of dinosaurs in proportion to their bodies was very small, but I'm also aware that otter and bird brains are way small, and that both of these animals use tools.

Cracking an oyster against a stone and building a boat with sophisticated tools is not really the same thing.
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 01:24:48 PM
Quote from: "The_Earth_Is_Round!"

What tools do birds use?

http://dml.cmnh.org/1997Jul/msg00583.html

http://www.jcrows.com/crow.html

Quote
Hunt's report suggests that the tool-making and tool-using behavior of crows rivals that of Homo erectus, although the issues, Boesch notes, "are not straightforward." He argues that chimpanzees have shown a level of tool manufacture and use comparable to that described by Hunt.

If crows and chimps can use tools that rival that of early humans, why couldn't dinosaurs?
Post by: Duke on June 25, 2006, 01:26:50 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
I'm also aware that bird brains are way small, and that both of these animals use tools.

(http://files.hardwarebg.com/ftp/gtzvetkov/hwbg.smilies/misc.php_files/bowdown.gif)
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 01:28:00 PM
Quote from: "Duke"

(http://files.hardwarebg.com/ftp/gtzvetkov/hwbg.smilies/misc.php_files/bowdown.gif)

You changed my post! I said otter and bird brains.
Post by: Xargo on June 25, 2006, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
If crows and chimps can use tools that rival that of early humans, why couldn't dinosaurs?

Because of their extremely low IQ and their body shapes. They didn't have fingers, for example. :p
Post by: James on June 25, 2006, 01:30:14 PM
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
If crows and chimps can use tools that rival that of early humans, why couldn't dinosaurs?

Because of their extremely low IQ and their body shapes. They didn't have fingers, for example. :p

Nor do crows!
Post by: Xargo on June 25, 2006, 01:31:53 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
If crows and chimps can use tools that rival that of early humans, why couldn't dinosaurs?

Because of their extremely low IQ and their body shapes. They didn't have fingers, for example. :p

Nor do crows!

Nor worms. And they poop doors for their holes.
Maybe they existed with the dinosaurs and made poop-boats for them?
Prove me wrong.
Post by: Duke on June 25, 2006, 01:58:55 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
You changed my post! I said otter and bird brains.

Yes, I did! I wasn't sure about the otter, cause I don't know much about them but birds...that was very...