The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Parsifal on June 16, 2009, 11:23:15 PM
-
After seeing a hundred of these threads directed at FE believers, I would like to hear some answers as to why REers believe what they do.
-
To the best of my understanding and education, it agrees with the laws I was taught and those respected by the world's bodies of knowledge. I have a tertiary education in chemistry and currently studying a masters in engineering and the body of knowledge I've been exposed to agrees with a globular planet. The various theories of FE disagree with too many things to be considered plausible.
-
To the best of my understanding and education, it agrees with the laws I was taught and those respected by the world's bodies of knowledge. I have a tertiary education in chemistry and currently studying a masters in engineering and the body of knowledge I've been exposed to agrees with a globular planet. The various theories of FE disagree with too many things to be considered plausible.
So your reasoning is that you were taught it to be round, and taught scientific laws which are consistent with this model? You have done no personal investigation as to the true shape of the Earth, content with accepting your teachers' words?
-
To the best of my understanding and education, it agrees with the laws I was taught and those respected by the world's bodies of knowledge. I have a tertiary education in chemistry and currently studying a masters in engineering and the body of knowledge I've been exposed to agrees with a globular planet. The various theories of FE disagree with too many things to be considered plausible.
So your reasoning is that you were taught it to be round, and taught scientific laws which are consistent with this model? You have done no personal investigation as to the true shape of the Earth, content with accepting your teachers' words?
It's not simply a matter of being taught. You purport to be undergoing a teritary physics course and hence you should be aware that much of your education is solo research. Have I taken my chemistry and tried to perform physics experiements? Yes. Additionally my chemistry is sound enough to know when FE's theories are filled with nonsense.
In case you need your memory refreshed I replicated an experiment to restore a ship's hull using a telescope. This agrees 100% with the physics I had learned and disagreed 100% with the FE literature.
What have you done?
-
It's not simply a matter of being taught. You purport to be undergoing a teritary physics course and hence you should be aware that much of your education is solo research. Have I taken my chemistry and tried to perform physics experiements? Yes. Additionally my chemistry is sound enough to know when FE's theories are filled with nonsense.
In case you need your memory refreshed I replicated an experiment to restore a ship's hull using a telescope. This agrees 100% with the physics I had learned and disagreed 100% with the FE literature.
Is this your more complete answer, then?
What have you done?
I once broke my leg after jumping off a rock into a swimming pool (I didn't jump far enough and my leg hit the side). This is clear evidence that the Earth gained enough momentum while I was not in contact with it to fracture solid bone.
-
Troll some more? You are fully aware and I believe you have stated yourself, that in our frame of reference, it is impossible to detect whether we are accelerating toward the Earth or vice versa.
-
Troll some more? You are fully aware and I believe you have stated yourself, that in our frame of reference, it is impossible to detect whether we are accelerating toward the Earth or vice versa.
Even though I felt weightless while in the air, a sign of inertial motion?
-
I used to be a stout flat earth believer. I would tout my theories to people both willing and unwilling to hear them. I laughed at newton, scoffed at astronautics, and jeered anyone who did not see the truth. However, one fateful day I decided to use this interwebs I've heard so much about to seek out like-minded scholars such as myself. As luck would have it, my quest was fruitful and I stumbled upon The Flat Earth Society; Thor smiled upon me that day, for had found a repository of knowledge and a wealth of information as vast and deep as the pacific. I thought I would find a true home here, a place where people accepted me despite my overtly homosexual tendencies and progressive views on the shape of the earth. A through read of the FAQ confirmed this; excitement bubbled inside of me. It was really happening! Sadly though, after a few days of moar lurking, I began to understand some of the personalities of FES. Some I immediately fell in love with (Tom <3 ) but the vast majority both sickened and revolted me. Was this the company I was to keep? Hives broke out across my finely toned and perfectly tanned body; fear had a name and it was called TFES. I had a choice to make, live in disgust with my integrates intact or live in contentment only having a soft shell of self-delusion between me and the truth. I eventually chose the latter and thus renounced my position of a flat earther and began preaching the benefits of being a roundy (not to be confused with a fatty). That is the story of how I became a round earth believer. Was it the better choice? I ask myself this question every time I look out the window and see the great mirror in the sky reflecting warm and impassionate sunlight upon me. At least now though, I can sleep at night...
-
Pulling this thread back on topic, I believe the earth is a globe simply because I have observed it.
Flying at 37,000 feet, the curvature can be seen. Even looking out to sea from the beach I can see the curve (it's faint, but clearly there).
As I am currently studying Geology at degree level, it seems many processes wouldn't work on a FE (or I haven't seen an explanation for them yet). The RE theory has been accepted and verified for hundreds of years, and the evidence backing it up, for lack of a better term, pretty damn good.
-
Pulling this thread back on topic, I believe the earth is a globe simply because I have observed it.
Flying at 37,000 feet, the curvature can be seen.
No it can't.
Here's what a pilot has to say on the matter: (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17610.msg304936#msg304936)
"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world. I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation. I am also a licensed pilot. Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."
Even looking out to sea from the beach I can see the curve (it's faint, but clearly there).
Actually, it's not.
As I am currently studying Geology at degree level, it seems many processes wouldn't work on a FE (or I haven't seen an explanation for them yet).
Processes like what?
The RE theory has been accepted and verified for hundreds of years
Appeal to authority.
the evidence backing it up, for lack of a better term, pretty damn good.
There is no proper evidence which backs up the RE. Neither Aristotile, Galileo, Copernicus, or Newton followed the Scientific Method before coming to their conclusions. The Scientific Method is not even attempted.
-
Scientific method is not even attempted? That's a BIG claim your making there Tom and you are so unbelievably wrong.
"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world. I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation. I am also a licensed pilot. Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."
A PILOT MADE THAT QUOTE? A PILOT!? He is a freaking FE'er what do you expect him to say? SERIOUSLY do you think that because this quote says that no curvature is seen, that the thousands of other pilots think the same? dumbass, that was made by an FE'er of course he would say that. You have one source, I am sure you could ask other pilots and they would say different
-
Scientific method is not even attempted? That's a BIG claim your making there Tom and you are so unbelievably wrong.
Here's the Scientific Method:
(http://www.stingerbeescience.com/overview_scientific_method2.gif)
Now please show me where Newton puts his hypothesis of gravity as a force to the test. What about Aristotile, Copernicus, or Galileo? What about Einstein? Where does Einstein demonstrate his idea of bending space-time through experimentation?
A PILOT MADE THAT QUOTE? A PILOT!? He is a freaking FE'er what do you expect him to say? SERIOUSLY do you think that because this quote says that no curvature is seen, that the thousands of other pilots think the same? dumbass, that was made by an FE'er of course he would say that. You have one source, I am sure you could ask other pilots and they would say different
No pilot who has posted this forum has claimed to have seen curvature of this earth.
I have never seen a curvature in all my time at 45,000 feet.
-
I think the earth is round because I have seen photographs and video of it. The great conspiracy is too extraordinary to consider probable. We may have only a theoretical understanding of how gravitation works, but that is no reason to assume the earth must be flat and there is a great conspiracy to cover up this fact.
I have not yet found any experiments that support the earth being flat which can be recreated and consistently show the same results.
The model of our globular planet is used every day for navigation, and I have not yet heard of any inconsistencies where planes or ships run out of fuel in the middle of their trip because the distance they were traveling was twice as far as their globular earth model predicted. Nobody has ever encountered land masses that shouldn't be there.
Many people have traveled around Antarctica, and you can book a cruise there if you wish. Nobody has reported the land mass which they call Antarctica being to the north of the ship according to a compass. If it were the "ice wall" the trip would take much longer.
Nobody has been able to produce an accurate model for the movement of the stars in FET.
I have observed the horizon.
I have never seen any evidence to suggest the shape of our planet would be different from all other planets.
-
To Tom, RE geological processes (can't be bothered to disassemble that massive quoted post. One day I'll figure out how to do it properly...)
I'll admit, I haven't searched for a FE view on these.
- I cannot see how the big bang and the process of planet/star formation will create a round disc like object. However, it does explain why planets from as spherical objects.
- Plate tectonics close to the edge I can't see working either. If a plate is being moved away from the center of a FE, what would happen when it hits the edge? In a RE, as the earth is spherical, the plate would get subducted, but I cannot see what it would be subducted under.
- (I have no doubt there is an answer for this one) Seismic shadow zones.
- An FE pilot will only ever support the FE view, so will not come out and say he saw a curvature.
- The researchers you stated are from hundreds of years ago. Nowadays, scientists from various space organizations have tested Scientific Method, but no doubt you'll dismiss that as a conspiracy.
-
Here's the Scientific Method:
(http://www.stingerbeescience.com/overview_scientific_method2.gif)
Now please show me where Newton puts his hypothesis of gravity as a force to the test. What about Aristotile, Copernicus, or Galileo? What about Einstein? Where does Einstein demonstrate his idea of bending space-time through experimentation?
You know, I acctually laughed when I saw this picture. I thought about Flat Earthers, and how they come up with *cough* brilliant theories that are *cough* tested using the scientific method.
And just about that quote that the pilot said:
When I was in grade 8, we were learning about evolution, and then the teachers made the whole grade come and see some speaker talk about evolution. Little did the teachers know that the man was there to talk AGAINST evolution ::). Anyways I distinctly remember just how much I wanted to bash this guy. You know what one if his *cough* (I'm having a really bad cough right now, might be swine flu) arguments was? He gave us a list of about 20 names. All professors with Ph.Ds who did NOT believe in evolution. Unfortunately he failed to show the endless list of names of professors who believe in evolution. Had I decided to say that out loud, the man would've been baffled that his oh so great argument was destroyed by an 8th grader. I'm not saying I was a genius, everyone was thinking the same thing, I'm just saying that his argument was PATHETIC.
Do you see where I'm going with this? There are millions of pilots out there, you showed one out of a million that didn't *cough* see the curvature of the Earth ::). You failed to tell us about the millions of pilots who CAN testify that you can see the Earth's curvature from a high altitude plane. Try harder next time.
To answer the original post:
It's not that I choose to believe in the RET, it's that I choose NOT to believe in the FET. I've read a lot on this forum and there's one thing that remains constant with all FEers: they have no numbers. They have concepts, I'll give them that, but they have no equations, numbers, or PROOF. Everytime the issue of proof comes up, FEers either change the subject, start insulting REers saying that we have no proof *COUGH*, or just don't respond. Maybe if there was some proof in FET, it would hold together must better. Whenever REers present proof, you dismiss it as faked or part of the conspiracy. Well, if FEers are simply going to deny all proof supporting the RET, then there's nothing REers can really say, is there? Everyone on this forum act like university teachers, yet no tests, no numbers, and no supporting evidence is offered by FEers, only concepts and theories. I find that FEers haven't conducted nearly enough experiments in order to support their theory, and therefore instead of trying to proove that the FET is true, you only try to proove that the RET is not true - a very childish way of debating, for university teachers ::). The level of maturity in these forums matches that of high schoolers or adolescents like myself, and FEers are always trying to say that their theory is better or that the RET is lacking proof *cough*. I'm only in high school and I can obliterate some thoughtless concepts that FEers come up with, so what is to make me believe that you are all more than teenagers in high school? If your're better than a high schooler, do better than a high schooler. Come up with arguments that the world's greatest minds couldn't shred into peices in the blink of an eye.
-
And although some *cough* say that Occam's Razor is bullshit, there still is a nice philosophy behind it.
The FET is based on so many assumptions and guesses and incomplete theories that compared to the RET, it falls apart. It would appear the FEers don't even know the composition of the Sun yet! That's only one example of the holes in the FET, until these holes are filled in, the FET will only be an idea, nothing more.
-
No pilot who has posted this forum has claimed to have seen curvature of this earth.
Well in case you havent realised dumbass, he is not the only pilot in the world and surprise surprise not every pilot is a member of these forums. Thats very narrow minded of you.
Tell me where an FE theory fits that scientific method which you posted
-
Well in case you havent realised dumbass, he is not the only pilot in the world and surprise surprise not every pilot is a member of these forums. Thats very narrow minded of you.
They're the only pilots we have. And they say that curvature cannot be seen.
Tell me where an FE theory fits that scientific method which you posted
Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
-
Well in case you havent realised dumbass, he is not the only pilot in the world and surprise surprise not every pilot is a member of these forums. Thats very narrow minded of you.
They're the only pilots we have. And they say that curvature cannot be seen.
Negative proof fallacy, Tom? Tsk, tsk. You should know better than that.
-
I have several reasons for believing that the earth is round:
1. If you fly southward for a long enough time, you will end up in the same spot that you were in before: proof that circumnavigation is possible.
2. Modern cosmology implies that all planets formed will be round (or close to it). We have no reason to believe that earth is anything
other than a planet, so we reject this belief.
3. There is a horizon: a point in which the sky and the earth appear to be perpendicular to one another. This can only occur if there is
some curvature to the earth in the region in question. This phenomenon is known to occur all across the globe, therefore it is we
conclude that the earth is curved everywhere.
4. Sattelite evidence has shown that the earth is round, and several pictures even capture the earth at such an angle that its convexity
is evident.
And there's more too.
A flat earth agrees with all of the above phenomena, as well as with every other phenomenon that has ever been observed, as well as with the laws of science that are already present, as well as all experimental data that we have. Therefore there is no reason to reject the theory that the earth is flat.
-
A flat earth agrees with all of the above phenomena, as well as with every other phenomenon that has ever been observed, as well as with the laws of science that are already present, as well as all experimental data that we have. Therefore there is no reason to reject the theory that the earth is flat.
I agree. This is why I believe in FET.
-
RET just makes more sense than FET.
some things in FET that I have trouble believing:
1.Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2.the edge (can people be propelled upward by UA?)
3.the other side ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4.the "shadow object" or "antimoon" (srsly?)
5.the ice wall (look out or the guards will get'cha)
6.the Super-Ultra-Powered Conspiracy of Satanism (again, srsly?)
I could go on, but I'll save my energy/sanity.
-
RET just makes more sense than FET.
Why's that? Because you've been brainwashed to feel comfortable with it?
1.Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2.the edge (can people be propelled upward by UA?)
3.the other side ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4.the "shadow object" or "antimoon" (srsly?)
5.the ice wall (look out or the guards will get'cha)
6.the Super-Ultra-Powered Conspiracy of Satanism (again, srsly?)
Let's draw comparisons to RET, shall we?
1. Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2. The intergalactic medium (could people live without a source of gravitation?)
3. The inside ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4. "Gravitons" and "black holes" (srsly?)
5. Antarctica (look out or the 200 K winters will getcha)
6. The Super-Ultra-Powered Space Race (again, srsly?)
But we're getting off topic here. This thread is not about why you don't believe in FET, it's about why you do believe in RET.
-
RET just makes more sense than FET.
Why's that? Because you've been brainwashed to feel comfortable with it?
1.Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2.the edge (can people be propelled upward by UA?)
3.the other side ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4.the "shadow object" or "antimoon" (srsly?)
5.the ice wall (look out or the guards will get'cha)
6.the Super-Ultra-Powered Conspiracy of Satanism (again, srsly?)
Let's draw comparisons to RET, shall we?
1. Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2. The intergalactic medium (could people live without a source of gravitation?)
3. The inside ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4. "Gravitons" and "black holes" (srsly?)
5. Antarctica (look out or the 200 K winters will getcha)
6. The Super-Ultra-Powered Space Race (again, srsly?)
But we're getting off topic here. This thread is not about why you don't believe in FET, it's about why you do believe in RET.
RS:
Strange that you are pursuing an education from a area you believe is lies. Obviously you haven't spoken up. So you are just as willing to suck up the concepts as we are.
Drunk as I am. Suck my cock you fucking lying penguin. What university do you attend?
Yeah... its banworhty and worth it.
-
3. The inside ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
As in "What's inside the earth"?
Cos we do know what's inside. An inner core of solid metal, primarily Iron and Nickel, followed by an outer core of liquid Iron and Nickel, followed by the mantle, composed of Peridotite, then the Crust - Basaltic rock in the oceans and Granitic, Carbonaceous or Siliceous rock on the continents (broadly).
-
Personally I like the fact that the brain washing doesn't involve sky mirrors. Or shadow objects. Or anti moons. Or satellite dishes bobbing about in invisible bubbles. Or a global conspiracy that in the same stroke pervades every nook and cranny of society, yet only involves a few people.
Call me simple minded, I just like things plausible.
As opposed to the fabrication of "dark matter" to explain how the galaxy works, "dark energy" to explain the Universal expansion, "gravitons" because we just don't know why masses seem to move towards each other and "nuclear fusion" producing terawatts upon terawatts of power all over the Universe every second even though it has never been experimentally shown to be a sustainable source of energy?
As in "What's inside the earth"?
Cos we do know what's inside. An inner core of solid metal, primarily Iron and Nickel, followed by an outer core of liquid Iron and Nickel, followed by the mantle, composed of Peridotite, then the Crust - Basaltic rock in the oceans and Granitic, Carbonaceous or Siliceous rock on the continents (broadly).
That is a theory based on secondary evidence. Has anybody actually gone inside the Earth and made sure that this is correct, or are you just blindly accepting RE propaganda?
-
Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core. The mantle proper starts at 1,300 degrees C, way hotter than any drill can stand.
Besides, the evidence for the Peridotite mantle comes directly from observations. Basaltic magmas found all around the world suggest this. The continents being formed of Granitic, Carbonaceous and Siliceous rock is also observed - you're standing on the stuff.
As for the composition of the core, it has been determined by working out masses, and density, as well as studying meteorites that survive impact with the earth.
-
Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core. The mantle proper starts at 1,300 degrees C, way hotter than any drill can stand.
Besides, the evidence for the Peridotite mantle comes directly from observations. Basaltic magmas found all around the world suggest this. The continents being formed of Granitic, Carbonaceous and Siliceous rock is also observed - you're standing on the stuff.
As for the composition of the core, it has been determined by working out masses, and density, as well as studying meteorites that survive impact with the earth.
Uh, yes. None of this changes that nobody has ever been to the centre of the Earth. Now, let's return to this part of your argument:
Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core.
Why is this a valid excuse for having no direct evidence of the core in RET, but not for having no direct evidence of the base in FET?
-
Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core. The mantle proper starts at 1,300 degrees C, way hotter than any drill can stand.
Besides, the evidence for the Peridotite mantle comes directly from observations. Basaltic magmas found all around the world suggest this. The continents being formed of Granitic, Carbonaceous and Siliceous rock is also observed - you're standing on the stuff.
As for the composition of the core, it has been determined by working out masses, and density, as well as studying meteorites that survive impact with the earth.
Uh, yes. None of this changes that nobody has ever been to the centre of the Earth. Now, let's return to this part of your argument:
Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core.
Why is this a valid excuse for having no direct evidence of the core in RET, but not for having no direct evidence of the base in FET?
I never said it was an excuse either way. The point I make is that RE has at least had a stab and managed to get reasonable evidence to back up the claim. It's only a theory. It could well be wrong, but the odds aren't that great.
-
I never said it was an excuse either way. The point I make is that RE has at least had a stab and managed to get reasonable evidence to back up the claim. It's only a theory. It could well be wrong, but the odds aren't that great.
Now imagine there are two groups of scientists looking to get funding for an experiment. One of them presents their proposal as "assuming the Earth is round, we are trying to determine the nature of the core of the Earth". The other says "assuming the Earth is flat, we are trying to determine the nature of the underside of the Earth". Given the present day attitudes towards Flat Earth believers (as evidenced by nearly every RE noob on this website), who do you think will get the funding if it is a choice between those two only? Then tell me if you think it's any wonder RE has a more developed theory than FE.
-
I suppose if you could convince whoever is granting you money that it's appropriate to assume the Earth is flat, that you'd have a good shot at getting the funding. Especially since the nature of the core is fairly well understood, and the nature of the underside of the Earth is completely unknown to science.
-
I'm bored so I've decided to register and slug it out for shits and giggles with this.
Alright, let's start with a fact that anyone can see:
Readily observable astrological bodies, as seen through even rudimentary telescopes are round. Stars, planets, and moons observed in the sky are all round, for all intents and purposes.
"Now!" you might say, "They may all just be facing the correct direction and we can't observe the fact that they are flat!"
So, my answer?
The likelihood that every observable body in space is facing in precisely the correct direction to give the illusion that they are all round is, to be brutally frank, laughable. There are, in the readily-viewable stars with a basic telescope innumerable bodies viewed that are round. Using more advanced equipment at somewhere like an observatory (which I have had the privilege of doing) one can see entire clusters of round objects.
"What does this all mean?" a Flat Earth believe might ask, well it means that the Earth is accepted as an astrological body in space (unless, of course, you would like to say that 'propaganda' is supporting the idea of 'space) and thus is like its brethren in that it is...round.
-
Readily observable astrological bodies, as seen through even rudimentary telescopes are round. Stars, planets, and moons observed in the sky are all round, for all intents and purposes.
First, I've never been that fond of astrology, and I'm not sure what it has to do with the shape of the earth.
Second, if Apples, oranges, limes and limes are all round for intents and purposes, surely bananas can't exist.
-
Earth is accepted as an astrological body in space
I'm capricorn, whats your sign?
-
Pulling this thread back on topic, I believe the earth is a globe simply because I have observed it.
Flying at 37,000 feet, the curvature can be seen.
No it can't.
What caused the curvature that I saw then?
Even looking out to sea from the beach I can see the curve (it's faint, but clearly there).
Actually, it's not.
But I do see ships disappear over the horizon
The RE theory has been accepted and verified for hundreds of years
Appeal to authority.
Weight of evidence
the evidence backing it up, for lack of a better term, pretty damn good.
There is no proper evidence which backs up the RE. Neither Aristotile, Galileo, Copernicus, or Newton followed the Scientific Method before coming to their conclusions. The Scientific Method is not even attempted.
I rely on much more up to date evidence for RE than those four. Plenty of evidence from many space agencies, scientists, etc. Of course you will say that they are all in on the conspiracy and so therefore all their evidence is null and void. I can equally claim that Rowbotham et al were practical jokers and wrote their books for fun or that they had their own flat earth conspiracy determined to make people believe the earth is flat for their own purposes.
-
I could write why all reasons that made me believe in the RET and also post some evidences, but since any proof that suport RET is instantaneously dismissed as false or faked, I won?t bother.
Anyway, and even if I wanted believe in the FET I couldn?t, the FET goes again all basic principles of logic and common sense.
-
Readily observable astrological bodies, as seen through even rudimentary telescopes are round. Stars, planets, and moons observed in the sky are all round, for all intents and purposes.
First, I've never been that fond of astrology, and I'm not sure what it has to do with the shape of the earth.
Second, if Apples, oranges, limes and limes are all round for intents and purposes, surely bananas can't exist.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know that red herrings were an acceptable currency.
Analogies are not an acceptable form of debate, unless of course you want me to shred them to pieces for you. Then I'll gladly take it on.
If we're going to debate this then I'm going to strike back so you can quit criticizing my points with a weak rebuttle unless you want me to take you seriously and then I'll get really mean.
-
Robosteve, judging from your posts you come across as someone believing in the FET because you don't like thinking like the rest of us. Even though you might, at the back of your head or deep down inside believe the earth is round, that would make you think like the rest of the world, and you just can't stand that.
This is how I read you, label you, nothing personal.
And for the conspiracies, what would this website, the books published on the FET be without a flat earth? This is more like the conspiracy. Every idea has it's own benefits, this is just another one of those.
-
If there was a flat earth, wouldn't the sun appear to be getting smaller instead of going down? Not the entire earth can see the sun at one time, and I fail to see how that is plausible.
-
If there was a flat earth, wouldn't the sun appear to be getting smaller instead of going down? Not the entire earth can see the sun at one time, and I fail to see how that is plausible.
Why are you talking about a flat Earth? This thread is about why you believe in a round Earth.
-
If there was a flat earth, wouldn't the sun appear to be getting smaller instead of going down? Not the entire earth can see the sun at one time, and I fail to see how that is plausible.
Why are you talking about a flat Earth? This thread is about why you believe in a round Earth.
Because it's the reason I don't believe FE is plausible.
-
1. RE has predictive power and practical applications.
2. I can go outside at night and do simple observations of the stars and by those observations verify RE assertions.
-
Because it's the reason I don't believe FE is plausible.
And this has what to do with RET?
No not really. Dark matter is observed.
No it isn't. It's a hypothesis to explain why galaxies don't rotate the way we think they should.
-
Because it's the reason I don't believe FE is plausible.
And this has what to do with RET?
Process of elimination.
-
I believe the earth is a sphere due to evidence that is hard to ignore. For example, i have travalled in a plane around the circumference of the earth and i have lived to tell the tale (as you can see, i didn't fall into a bottomless abyss or disappear over the edge of a giant waterfall into outer space). Even though i travelled from east to west, it is also possible to travel north in a straight line until one reaches exactly the same place again.
Ive also seen photos taken of the earth from space, though im sure many people would say they are a hoax, just like man landing on the moon was all a giant hoax (though, who could be bothered to create a hoax that spans several decades??). And astronauts? I suppose they are simply part of international governments conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat and simply are told to say that it is round. Or maybe astronauts are normal human beings who have been in space and seen with their own eyes that the earth is a sphere? The International Space Station? How does that manage to circle the circumference of the earth if there is no spherical earth to circle? And what about other planets? are they round too, or is the earth just special and is the only blessed with being flat?
It isn't really a matter of believing in the earth being round, I don't really have a choice, it's more a matter of accepting the obvious, coming to terms with the facts, getting over it and finding a more believable theory to talk about (i suppose the FSS Flat Sun Society will be next)
-
I believe the earth is a sphere due to evidence that is hard to ignore. For example, i have travalled in a plane around the circumference of the earth and i have lived to tell the tale (as you can see, i didn't fall into a bottomless abyss or disappear over the edge of a giant waterfall into outer space). Even though i travelled from east to west, it is also possible to travel north in a straight line until one reaches exactly the same place again.
Ive also seen photos taken of the earth from space, though im sure many people would say they are a hoax, just like man landing on the moon was all a giant hoax (though, who could be bothered to create a hoax that spans several decades??). And astronauts? I suppose they are simply part of international governments conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat and simply are told to say that it is round. Or maybe astronauts are normal human beings who have been in space and seen with their own eyes that the earth is a sphere? The International Space Station? How does that manage to circle the circumference of the earth if there is no spherical earth to circle? And what about other planets? are they round too, or is the earth just special and is the only blessed with being flat?
It isn't really a matter of believing in the earth being round, I don't really have a choice, it's more a matter of accepting the obvious, coming to terms with the facts, getting over it and finding a more believable theory to talk about (i suppose the FSS Flat Sun Society will be next)
Well, Cristina, the problem with this is that they will direct you to the FAQ, or instruct you to "lurk moar," suggesting that all of these things have been covered. I've tried to explain that here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29916.msg727352#msg727352 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29916.msg727352#msg727352)
Best to just stick with the idea that you learned about the elements of a sound theory, and know that RE fits that.
-
Because all the evidence points to a round earth.
And no one has yet to show how this evidence is flawed. Therefore, if there is proof for a round earth, and no proof for any other shape, the earth is then most likely round.
-
It's hypothesized to exist. You can't show someone the door when it's not even confirmed.
-
Perhaps a journal or other such material to offer other than a random picture?
-
Excellent, so you aren't some random spouting something he doesn't know about.
However, the existence of dark matter doesn't throw a wrench into FE. Unfortunately, the universe is "expanding" and objects are gravitating regardless of the shape of the Earth.
-
I never said it was an excuse either way. The point I make is that RE has at least had a stab and managed to get reasonable evidence to back up the claim. It's only a theory. It could well be wrong, but the odds aren't that great.
Now imagine there are two groups of scientists looking to get funding for an experiment. One of them presents their proposal as "assuming the Earth is round, we are trying to determine the nature of the core of the Earth". The other says "assuming the Earth is flat, we are trying to determine the nature of the underside of the Earth". Given the present day attitudes towards Flat Earth believers (as evidenced by nearly every RE noob on this website), who do you think will get the funding if it is a choice between those two only? Then tell me if you think it's any wonder RE has a more developed theory than FE.
thats so fucking stupid. they say that about global warming as well. when you get you funding what do you do with it? you research more into it. duh you get the funding into your area. fuckn hell
-
I never said it was an excuse either way. The point I make is that RE has at least had a stab and managed to get reasonable evidence to back up the claim. It's only a theory. It could well be wrong, but the odds aren't that great.
Now imagine there are two groups of scientists looking to get funding for an experiment. One of them presents their proposal as "assuming the Earth is round, we are trying to determine the nature of the core of the Earth". The other says "assuming the Earth is flat, we are trying to determine the nature of the underside of the Earth". Given the present day attitudes towards Flat Earth believers (as evidenced by nearly every RE noob on this website), who do you think will get the funding if it is a choice between those two only? Then tell me if you think it's any wonder RE has a more developed theory than FE.
thats so fucking stupid. they say that about global warming as well. when you get you funding what do you do with it? you research more into it. duh you get the funding into your area. fuckn hell
ms edge, i'm going to have to ask you to please cut out the profanity in the serious discussion forums.
-
I never said it was an excuse either way. The point I make is that RE has at least had a stab and managed to get reasonable evidence to back up the claim. It's only a theory. It could well be wrong, but the odds aren't that great.
Now imagine there are two groups of scientists looking to get funding for an experiment. One of them presents their proposal as "assuming the Earth is round, we are trying to determine the nature of the core of the Earth". The other says "assuming the Earth is flat, we are trying to determine the nature of the underside of the Earth". Given the present day attitudes towards Flat Earth believers (as evidenced by nearly every RE noob on this website), who do you think will get the funding if it is a choice between those two only? Then tell me if you think it's any wonder RE has a more developed theory than FE.
thats so fucking stupid. they say that about global warming as well. when you get you funding what do you do with it? you research more into it. duh you get the funding into your area. fuckn hell
ms edge, i'm going to have to ask you to please cut out the profanity in the serious discussion forums.
after you deleted my thread cause you couldnt answer the question.
YOU are the conspiracy theory.
-
I never said it was an excuse either way. The point I make is that RE has at least had a stab and managed to get reasonable evidence to back up the claim. It's only a theory. It could well be wrong, but the odds aren't that great.
Now imagine there are two groups of scientists looking to get funding for an experiment. One of them presents their proposal as "assuming the Earth is round, we are trying to determine the nature of the core of the Earth". The other says "assuming the Earth is flat, we are trying to determine the nature of the underside of the Earth". Given the present day attitudes towards Flat Earth believers (as evidenced by nearly every RE noob on this website), who do you think will get the funding if it is a choice between those two only? Then tell me if you think it's any wonder RE has a more developed theory than FE.
thats so fucking stupid. they say that about global warming as well. when you get you funding what do you do with it? you research more into it. duh you get the funding into your area. fuckn hell
ms edge, i'm going to have to ask you to please cut out the profanity in the serious discussion forums.
after you deleted my thread cause you couldnt answer the question.
YOU are the conspiracy theory.
I didn't delete your thread.
-
It throws a spanner into Robos claim that dark matter is a fabrication.
Pretty much.
-
It throws a spanner into Robos claim that dark matter is a fabrication.
?
-
Process of elimination.
You've eliminated one possible Earthly shape. Now that we've established that you don't believe the Earth is flat, why do you believe that it is round?
(http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/images/darkmatter2-sm.jpg)
Uh, what exactly is this picture supposed to be showing me?
-
Because if the earth was truly falt and that we are going upward we would have collided with another planet by now...and also why havnt Aeroplanes been there...if the earth was truly flat someone would have been there by now...and the reason we dont fall off is because there is a little thing called GRAVITY!
here is more proof
Now that we have access to space, the easiest way to prove the Earth is spherical is to leave it and view it from a distance. Astronauts and space probes have done just that. Every picture of Earth ever taken shows only a circular shape, and the only geometric solid which looks like a circle from any direction is a sphere.
One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, however, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.
Answered by: Paul Walorski, B.A., Part-time Physics/Astronomy Instructor
This is a question that has been asked for many years, and there are some very intuitive, and some not-so-intuitive answers.
To start with... there's a horizon, meaning that the surface that one is observing from is not an infinite plane. On the clearest of days, the only restriction to one's range of sight is the horizon. There can be two explanations for this - one, that the Earth at some point just stops, as if you were looking off the edge of a table. The other is that the Earth is round. Hundreds of years ago, before the invention of the compass or sextant, precise navigation for ships was difficult, even with the stars. Ships that ventured past sight of land were often lost, and thus it was generally believed that the world simply *stopped* at the end of the horizon. With the invention of the compass, and improved map-making, people began to dare more, and with the return of Columbus from his trans-Atlantic voyage, the concept of the Earth as flat was shattered.
Further proof of the Earth being round came after the voyage of Columbus. When Newton discovered and measured the force of gravity, that number could then be tested anywhere the theory was known. Since the force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, it could be surmised that the Earth must be spherical. If the Earth were not round, whole hemispheres would have different atmospheric pressure and significantly different sea levels. Also, pictures taken of the Earth in the last 50 years have proved absolutely conclusively that the Earth is round. These are just the arguments that don't require much physics knowledge to explain, there are others that are more technical, but I think that the simplest arguments are the best.
Answered by: Frank DiBonaventuro, B.S., Physics grad, The Citadel, Air Force officer
There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.
You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.
But if you're not convinced, read on...
You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.
The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).
Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)
Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.
If I were a billionaire and physically fit, then proving to you the earth is round would be no problem. I can just take you with me on the space shuttle and we'll watch with our own eyes the earth from the orbiting International Space Station.
I have heard from astronauts that there is no experience comparable as watching the earth from above.
Today it is well known that the Earth is a sphere, or very close to one (its equator bulges out a bit because of the Earth's rotation). When Christopher Columbus proposed to reach India by sailing west from Spain, he too knew that the Earth was round. India was the source of precious spices and other rare goods, but reaching it by sailing east was difficult, because Africa blocked the way. On a round globe, however, it should also be possible to reach India by sailing west, and this Columbus proposed to do (he wasn't the first one to suggest this--see below).
Sometimes the claim is made that those who opposed Columbus thought the Earth was flat, but that wasn't the case at all. Even in ancient times sailors knew that the Earth was round and scientists not only suspected it was a sphere, but even estimated its size.
[IMAGE:What causes horizon]
If you stand on the seashore and watch a ship sailing away, it will gradually disappear from view. But the reason cannot be the distance: if a hill or tower are nearby, and you climb to the top after the ship has completely disappeared, it becomes visible again. Furthermore, if on the shore you watch carefully the way the ship disappears from view, you will notice that the hull vanishes first, while the masts and sails (or the bridge and smokestack) disappear last. It is as if the ship was dropping behind a hill, which in a way is exactly the case, the "hill" being the curve of the Earth's surface.
To find out how the distance to the horizon is calculated, click here
Eratosthenes, Posidonius and El Mamun
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) argued in his writings that the Earth was spherical, because of the circular shadow it cast on the Moon, during a lunar eclipse. Another reason was that some stars visible from Egypt are not seen further north The full quotation can be found here.
The Alexandria philosopher Eratosthenes went one step further and actually estimated how large the Earth was. He was told that on midsummer day (June 21) in the town of Syene in southern Egypt (today Aswan, near a huge dam on the river Nile) the noontime Sun was reflected in a deep well, meaning that it was right overhead, at zenith. Eratosthenes himself lived in Alexandria, near the river's mouth, north of Syene, about 5000 stadia north of Syene (the stadium, the size of a sports arena, was a unit of distance used by the Greeks). In Alexandria the Sun on the corresponding date did not quite reach zenith, and vertical objects still threw a short shadow. Eratosthenes established that the direction of the noon Sun differed from the zenith by an angle that was 1/50 of the circle, that is, 7. 2 degrees, and from that he estimated the circumference of the Earth to be 250,000 stadia.
Tidbit: Eratosthenes also headed the royal library in Alexandria, the greatest and most famous library in classical antiquity. Officially it was called "temple of the muses" or "museion," from which our modern "museum" is derived.
Other estimates of the size of the Earth followed. Some writers reported that the Greek Posidonius used the greatest height of the bright star Canopus above the horizon, as seen from Egypt and from the island of Rhodes further north (near the southwestern tip of Turkey). He obtained a similar value, a bit smaller. The Arab Khalif El Ma'mun, who ruled in Baghdad from 813 to 833, sent out two teams of surveyors to measure a north-south baseline and from it also obtained the radius of the Earth. Compared to the value known today, those estimates were pretty close to the mark.
The idea of sailing westward to India dates back to the early Romans. According to Dr. Irene Fischer, who studied this subject, the Roman writer Strabo, not long after Erathosthenes and Posidonius, reported their results and noted:
"if of the more recent measurements of the Earth, the one which makes the Earth smallest in circumference be introduced--I mean that of Posidonius who estimates its circumference at about 180,000 stadia, then. . . "
and he continues:
"Posidonius suspects that the length of the inhabited world, about 70,000 stadia, is half the entire circle on which it had been taken, so that if you sail from the west in a straight course, you will reach India within 70,000 stadia. "
Notice that Strabo--for unclear reasons--reduced the 250,000 Stadia of Eratosthenes to 180,000, and then stated that half of that distance came to just 70,000 stadia. Handling his numbers in that loose fashion, he could argue that India was not far to the west.
Columbus Again
All these results were known to the panel of experts which King Ferdinand appointed to examine the proposal made by Columbus. They turned Columbus down, because using the original value by Eratosthenes, they calculated how far India was to the west of Spain, and concluded that the distance was far too great.
[IMAGE: Columbus]
Christopher Columbus
Columbus had an estimate of his own. Some historians have proposed that he used an argument like Strabo's, but Dr. Fischer found his claim to be based on incorrect units of distance. Columbus used an erroneous estimate by Ptolemy (whom we meet again), who based it on a later definition of the stadium, and in estimating the size of the settled world he confused the Arab mile, used by El Ma'mun, with the Roman mile on which our own mile is based. All the same, his final estimate of the distance to India was close to Strabo's.
In the end Queen Isabella overruled the experts, and the rest is history. We may never know whether Columbus knowingly fudged his values to justify an expedition to explore the unknown, or actually believed India was not too far to the west of Spain. He certainly did call the inhabitants of the lands he discovered "Indians," a mislabeling which still persists.
But we do know that if the American continent had not existed, the experts would have been vindicated: Coumbus with his tiny ships could never have crossed an ocean as wide as the Atlantic and Pacific combined. In hindsight the exploration of the unknown may be justification enough!
As for the size of the Earth, it was accurately measured many times since (see item "geodesy" in an encyclopaedia), one notable effort being that of the French Academy of Sciences in the late 1700s. Their aim was to devise a new unit of distance, equal to one part in 10,000,000 of the distance from the pole to the equator (as Eratosthenes showed, it is enough to measure part of that distance). Nowadays that distance is known even more accurately, but the unit introduced by the French academy is still used as the standard of all distance measurements. It is called the meter.
-
First of all, I asked why you think the Earth is round, not for you to copy and paste a bunch of crap from a website that advocates that position. And second of all, cite your sources (http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae535.cfm).
-
Process of elimination.
You've eliminated one possible Earthly shape. Now that we've established that you don't believe the Earth is flat, why do you believe that it is round?
If I believe the earth isn't flat, and I don't see any possible way for it to be any shape that isn't discussed, then I have to believe it's a sphere.
-
Dark matter is observed.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
(http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/images/darkmatter2-sm.jpg)
Allow my boot to show you the door. Do call again.
I don't see it.
-
If I believe the earth isn't flat, and I don't see any possible way for it to be any shape that isn't discussed, then I have to believe it's a sphere.
Why?
-
First of all, I asked why you think the Earth is round, not for you to copy and paste a bunch of crap from a website that advocates that position. And second of all, cite your sources (http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae535.cfm).
It's actually quite simple: if you read through that short text and you possess a reasonable mind, then there are no reasons left to believe that the Earth is flat => he gave you some of the reasons why he believes the Earth is round.
Even better: it's no longer a matter of believing that it's round, it has become knowing for certain that it is round.
Now of course you'll retort with: have you yourself gone up and seen for yourself that it is actually round?
Answer: it's not necessary. The ample proof that can be found in any space observatory (of which I have visited a few) or even in any library all over the world is enough to convince any reasonable person.
Best regards,
P.S.: Speaking of sources... where is that paper on your "massive break through" concerning "the universal accelerator"? I believe you said it would be ready in April. It's almost July...
-
It's actually quite simple: if you read through that short text and you possess a reasonable mind, then there are no reasons left to believe that the Earth is flat => he gave you some of the reasons why he believes the Earth is round.
Why do you equate not believing the Earth is flat with believing it to be round? And I don't want to read a bunch of copypasta; if I wanted to read that I would have searched Google for "proof of round earth" instead of making this thread. I want to hear from REers, in their own words, why they believe the Earth to be round. That is to say, what has convinced them so strongly that it is round that they (for the most part) are unwilling to even consider the FE model.
Even better: it's no longer a matter of believing that it's round, it has become knowing for certain that it is round.
It is not possible to know anything for certain. To think we can and do is not only arrogant, but also narrow-minded.
Now of course you'll retort with: have you yourself gone up and seen for yourself that it is actually round?
Answer: it's not necessary. The ample proof that can be found in any space observatory (of which I have visited a few) or even in any library all over the world is enough to convince any reasonable person.
Libraries contain proof of a round Earth? Tell me, what observation can you make in a library that proves to you the Earth is round?
P.S.: Speaking of sources... where is that paper on your "massive break through" concerning "the universal accelerator"? I believe you said it would be ready in April. It's almost July...
I have already commented on this matter. I took a break from Flat Earth theory for a while during the course of the semester. It is now the winter break, and so I shall hopefully be able to get it completed before next semester.
-
Why do you equate not believing the Earth is flat with believing it to be round? And I don't want to read a bunch of copypasta; if I wanted to read that I would have searched Google for "proof of round earth" instead of making this thread. I want to hear from REers, in their own words, why they believe the Earth to be round. That is to say, what has convinced them so strongly that it is round that they (for the most part) are unwilling to even consider the FE model.
I really don't need anymore reasons to accept the "Round Earth world view" than the fact that a "Flat Earth world view" has been proven wrong millennia ago and is still being proven wrong on a daily basis.
How is it being proven wrong on a daily basis? By astronomers for instance, or by the regular launches of rockets and astronauts (here in Belgium we've got "our own" Frank De Winne; he's to stay in the International Space Station for half a year) into space and all the data (yes, including pictures (!)) they gather and send back to Earth, not to mention the several space probes that have been exploring our solar system for several decades now and have given us a massive amount of new knowledge about our own "little corner in space".
Oh, and how about the Hubble Telescope. Magnificent images of deep space the little gizmo has given us, images that clearly show us that the stars are not only 3100 miles away, but tens / thousands / millions / billions of light years.
Of course, the difference between you and me is: I believe that all of this is really happening, that astronomers are not idiots that can't even detect through their telescopes that the stars are only 3100 miles away and am fascinated by it / by their work, you believe that all of this is part of a huge charade / conspiracy that is meant to hide the true shape of the Earth from us.
It is not possible to know anything for certain. To think we can and do is not only arrogant, but also narrow-minded.
To think that we can't know anything for certain is nothing more than philosophical masturbation / prattle. And it's certainly not arrogant to say that some things (and actually quite many things) can be known for certain.
If pictures taken by space probes, of which many people have whitnessed the launch, show me that Earth is a globe, then I take the roudness (or "oblate spheroidness") of our home world as a fact that cannot be doubted any longer.
To question these facts just for the sake of questioning them or because you like a conspiracy-theory better, is useless - and arrogant - skepticism.
A simpler example: I know for certain that I have been born once upon a time and that eventually I will die.
I know for certain that the clothes I'm currently wearing have been made out of cotton and some polyester.
I know for certain that clouds have been formed by vaporization of maynly sea water.
And so on...
Again: to say that you can never know these things for certain is useless philosophical babbling in my oppinion. Yes, you may call me arrogant and narrow minded on this; so be it. I'm not going to waste my time on endlessly questioning and doubting everything I learn and see.
Sometimes you just have to accept things as facts, and move on. Like "the round Earth" for instance. Accept that science has proven the planet to be round, and move on with your life.
Libraries contain proof of a round Earth? Tell me, what observation can you make in a library that proves to you the Earth is round?
No observation.
Simply the reading of many books on cosmology and geography for instance, two of my biggest personal interest (next to my main one: history).
Or next to books, the viewing of many beautiful documentaries about our planet and about the cosmos. Give those a shot! It's defenitely worth a view!
So there you have it. Some of the reasons why I prefer the "round Earth world view" over "the flat Earth world view".
If you think those are lousy, narrow-minded reasons, then so be it. They are enough for me.
Regards,
-
Ordinarily, I would quote the various parts of your post and respond to them each in turn, but your post really seems to carry a single theme which I would like to respond to once. You seem to feel that secondary evidence - that is to say, pictures taken by NASA, books you read in the library, the labels on your clothing - constitute absolute proof of certain things. To be quite blunt, this makes you no less a sheep than fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible provides absolute proof of Creationism. Moreover, you have no place in a debate forum, and I will not be responding to any more of your posts as you clearly lack elementary debate skills.
-
Ordinarily, I would quote the various parts of your post and respond to them each in turn, but your post really seems to carry a single theme which I would like to respond to once. You seem to feel that secondary evidence - that is to say, pictures taken by NASA, books you read in the library, the labels on your clothing - constitute absolute proof of certain things. To be quite blunt, this makes you no less a sheep than fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible provides absolute proof of Creationism. Moreover, you have no place in a debate forum, and I will not be responding to any more of your posts as you clearly lack elementary debate skills.
Some things are debatable, some things aren't... Ever since space flight became reality, "Flat Earth" stopped being debatable, unless of course you want to continue "debating" about a conspiracy. Where are "the debating skills" in that?
I do not need you to teach me debating skills or tell me what they are, or tell me that I lack them. Especially not if one of your "main debating skils" is attacking other people on spelling or grammar errors and calling people names, like you do on such a regular basis here on this "debate forum".
Me being a sheep? Perhaps... probably in the sciences that I have no master grade in then. I'm only a humble historian, with only little knowledge and understanding of physics and chemistry for instance. So at one point I have to decide to trust that scholars in physics and chemistry will explain their science to me as well as they can.
Same goes for cosmology and astronomy: at one point I have to decide to trust those who master the field of research far better than me.
You call that "being a sheep". I call it: trusting people, trusting honest scientist who try to explain thier field of research to me as well as they can. Of course it's necessary to carefully select the sources that I read (e.g.: just as I would never resort to Erich Von D?niken to learn the truth about who built the pyramids, I will never resort to the likes of Rowbotham to learn the truth about Earth's shape), but still, at one point it becomes a matter of trust in stead of continuing to uselessly question everything I learn and read.
As far as debating goes: start a debate with me on history, and I'll show you what a real debate is. Let me tell you, it will definitely not include "huge conspiracies" and attacking non native speakers on making mistakes against a foreign language.
Bring up your conspiracy, or "undetectable shadow object", or "dark energy field", or "electromagnetic universal accelerator", or ice wall or..., on any scientific congress about cosmology / astronomy and you'll very quickly know where the exit of auditorium is.
Regards,
P.S.: I have been to observatories here in Belgium myself and have actually watched through telescopes myself. I have seen a few of our planets with my very own eyes (Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) and guess what... they were not tiny globes orbiting the sun about 3000 miles above Earth... They were what I have always been taught they are.
Of course you can go on to say that I have been fooled by those running the observatory, but again: to me, that's useless skepticism.
(Edit: addition made to the 3rd paragraph of my post.)
-
Gulliver, is that you?
-
If I believe the earth isn't flat, and I don't see any possible way for it to be any shape that isn't discussed, then I have to believe it's a sphere.
Why?
If any other shape was possible, wouldn't it be argued (in a serious manner) by now?
-
Libraries contain proof of a round Earth? Tell me, what observation can you make in a library that proves to you the Earth is round?
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
For example.
-
If you'd bothered to read the thread instead of just jumping in with your valued post you would have seen the link I gave earlier.
I saw it. I then saw that it was a Let Me Google That For You link, and closed the tab before the animation had run to completion. If you want me to take you seriously, link directly to a source.
If any other shape was possible, wouldn't it be argued (in a serious manner) by now?
Why does it matter if any other shape is possible?
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
For example.
If that same library contained a copy of Earth: Not a Globe, would you convert to FE? Or do you only trust texts which support your personal belief?
-
RoboSteve, can i ask,
Why is it that RE'ers are expected, no, demanded to provide proof for our beliefs, when FE'ers are not?
Why are we to believe what you tell us, unless we can prove otherwise, when you have no proof of your own?
And when there is proof, solid evidence, eye witness accounts, physical proofs, they are immediately disregarded as being faked, yet "Ice Wall" and "Upwards Acceleration" are perfectly acceptable, with no proof whatsoever?
I appreciate that you started this thread to find out why RE'ers believe in what they believe in, however i would also appreciate it if you could answer my questions, instead of hitting out with some useless comment like "What does that have to do with RE? This thread is about RE"
Cheers
-
RoboSteve, can i ask,
Why is it that RE'ers are expected, no, demanded to provide proof for our beliefs, when FE'ers are not?
Why are we to believe what you tell us, unless we can prove otherwise, when you have no proof of your own?
And when there is proof, solid evidence, eye witness accounts, physical proofs, they are immediately disregarded as being faked, yet "Ice Wall" and "Upwards Acceleration" are perfectly acceptable, with no proof whatsoever?
I appreciate that you started this thread to find out why RE'ers believe in what they believe in, however i would also appreciate it if you could answer my questions, instead of hitting out with some useless comment like "What does that have to do with RE? This thread is about RE"
Cheers
If you want to ask a question about FET, by all means make a thread for it. I'm not demanding proof of RE in this thread, I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.
-
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
For example.
If that same library contained a copy of Earth: Not a Globe, would you convert to FE? Or do you only trust texts which support your personal belief?
Isn't that like asking if that same library contained a copy of the Koran, would you convert to Islam?
-
Isn't that like asking if that same library contained a copy of the Koran, would you convert to Islam?
Precisely. My point is that books do not constitute absolute proof, or even particularly compelling evidence, of anything.
-
I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.
Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site. She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round? Then how come there is a horizon? That's just stupid." That clinched if for me.
-
I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.
Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site. She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round? Then how come there is a horizon? That's just stupid." That clinched if for me.
That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is. We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility. Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.
-
I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.
Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site. She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round? Then how come there is a horizon? That's just stupid." That clinched if for me.
That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is. We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility. Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.
My daghter is extremely intelligent and asked her question based on her observations. I spend most of my surfing time on an atheist forum, and was thinking FE,ers were like creationists in that they have the answer and pound the facts to fit. whereas science lets the facts lead one to a conclusion and change the conclusion if necessary.
-
RoboSteve, can i ask,
Why is it that RE'ers are expected, no, demanded to provide proof for our beliefs, when FE'ers are not?
Why are we to believe what you tell us, unless we can prove otherwise, when you have no proof of your own?
And when there is proof, solid evidence, eye witness accounts, physical proofs, they are immediately disregarded as being faked, yet "Ice Wall" and "Upwards Acceleration" are perfectly acceptable, with no proof whatsoever?
I appreciate that you started this thread to find out why RE'ers believe in what they believe in, however i would also appreciate it if you could answer my questions, instead of hitting out with some useless comment like "What does that have to do with RE? This thread is about RE"
Cheers
If you want to ask a question about FET, by all means make a thread for it. I'm not demanding proof of RE in this thread, I am asking why you personally choose to believe in it.
So basically you're doing what i expected you to do, and avoiding the question.
If you're going to be so anal about people only discussing RE theory in your thread, i feel i should point out that you did create it in the "Flat Earth Questions and Clarification" section of the forum.
Are you unable to answer my question?
-
My daghter is extremely intelligent and asked her question based on her observations. I spend most of my surfing time on an atheist forum, and was thinking FE,ers were like creationists in that they have the answer and pound the facts to fit. whereas science lets the facts lead one to a conclusion and change the conclusion if necessary.
Susceptibility to indoctrination, particularly when it starts at birth, has very little to do with a person's level of intelligence. I'm sure you and your daghter are both very intelligent. I consider things scientifically too. The difference between me and the average globularist is that I like to consider all possibilities. It's the only way real scientific progress is made. It has yet to be scientifically proven that the Earth is flat. But ever since the ancient Greeks decided that a spherical Earth would be "harmonious" and the Catholic Church adopted that worldview globularist scientists have been scrambling to do exactly what you accuse us of doing: pounding the facts to fit.
-
That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is. We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility. Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.
I see that you are quite ignorant about the ways of teaching. They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think. Also, you can't raise anymore such obedient and unquestioningly serving children. Maybe in middle ages when kids were your property but now you canb't even spank your teenager without him going to police or something like that. They can think for themselves and know things, so, don't give us here your groundless opinions about people who are taught not to question things. Only thing I can see which is totally unquestionable is ENaG. And that is FE thing, so it seems to me that you are taught not to question things and not to open your mind to the possibility.
And you are misunderstanding something. People usually don't believe in round earth. They see that it is only possibility after learning about it and seeing how world works. If you can get over for example on your inconsistencies about world map and traveling times then maybe people may start to think that there is possibility to other shape but FE still fails totally to provide correct map.
-
Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site. She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round? Then how come there is a horizon? That's just stupid." That clinched if for me.
If we're accepting children's views as valid evidence, I suppose that makes Santa Claus real too?
So basically you're doing what i expected you to do, and avoiding the question.
If you're going to be so anal about people only discussing RE theory in your thread, i feel i should point out that you did create it in the "Flat Earth Questions and Clarification" section of the forum.
Are you unable to answer my question?
I feel that doing so would derail the thread. I would like to try to keep the discussion on-topic, and I will answer your question if you post it in a new thread.
They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think.
Who is "they"? Certainly not any education system I've ever known.
-
Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site. She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round? Then how come there is a horizon? That's just stupid." That clinched if for me.
If we're accepting children's views as valid evidence, I suppose that makes Santa Claus real too?
Where is the evidence for Santa Claus?
-
Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site. She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round? Then how come there is a horizon? That's just stupid." That clinched if for me.
If we're accepting children's views as valid evidence, I suppose that makes Santa Claus real too?
Where is the evidence for Santa Claus?
Children think he exists. This is valid evidence according to JeR.
-
They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think.
Who is "they"? Certainly not any education system I've ever known.
You know, every time you ask such kind of question about something that is implied(and you do that quite often) you make yourself seem like you have some kind of reading/understanding handicap. And if you don't know any teachers/education systems that teach children to think, question and have somewhat open minds then I must conclude that you are product of system which taught you to blindly and unquestioningly follow his model figures. Too bad that you are such blind believer.
-
That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is. We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility. Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.
I see that you are quite ignorant about the ways of teaching. They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think.
We are taught not to question the shape of the Earth as surely as we are taught not to question that 2+2=4 or that an invisible sky fairy is judging everything we do. It may be more subtle but it's there. And the sad fact is that most people simply don't even question it. They might ask "How do we know the world is round?" and be given the same globularist propaganda that's been handed out for centuries. They accept it because they're supposed to, not because they see the logic in it, because there is no logic in most of it.
-
That goes to show just how strong the bias toward belief in a round Earth is. We are taught not to question it from such a young age it's no wonder people are so unwilling to even open their minds to the possibility. Debating with a REer is a bit like debating with a Creationist in that respect.
I see that you are quite ignorant about the ways of teaching. They don't teach children to blindly believe in anything but they try to teach them to think and have open minds. Yes, they teach them facts like London is englands capital, 2+2=4, physic laws etc but they don't teach them unquestioningly and blindly to believe in something. They teach them to question things and to think.
We are taught not to question the shape of the Earth as surely as we are taught not to question that 2+2=4 or that an invisible sky fairy is judging everything we do. It may be more subtle but it's there. And the sad fact is that most people simply don't even question it. They might ask "How do we know the world is round?" and be given the same globularist propaganda that's been handed out for centuries. They accept it because they're supposed to, not because they see the logic in it, because there is no logic in most of it.
I agree that many things should be questioned, but some things are already been proved in the past.
I see no point using a lot of brain power asking the same question people have answered before.
We're not getting anywhere by doing so.
We should rather use our intelligence to find answers to questions that HAS NOT been fully answered yet.
This will eventually give us some progress. Don't you agree?
-
Besides the massive amounts of evidence (which apparently you don't want to hear about) and my own eyes, I told my 10-year-old daughter about this site. She said "Dad, there are people who believe the earth is not round? Then how come there is a horizon? That's just stupid." That clinched if for me.
If we're accepting children's views as valid evidence, I suppose that makes Santa Claus real too?
Where is the evidence for Santa Claus?
Children think he exists. This is valid evidence according to JeR.
That is a very intelectually dishonest statement. I would however trust my daughter's conclusions from her observations more than many here because she does not have pre-conceived notions or ulterior motives.
She figured out Santa on her own based on it being physically impossible to complete his x-mas eve mission. Sometimes you can figure out what the answer is by figuring out what the answer can not be.
-
We are taught not to question the shape of the Earth as surely as we are taught not to question that 2+2=4 or that an invisible sky fairy is judging everything we do.
You still don't get it. Or are you also the person who has taught not to question anything which teacher said to you? People are not taught to not question the shape of earth and that 2+2=4. They are shown that because of that and this we have concluded that earth is round and that 2+2=4 and if there is questions then you can ask them. And if your school teacher can't answer your question then there are others. So, drop your baseless accusations that children are taught unquestioningly and without any logical reason to believe that earth is round. And as svenanders said, we don't need to invent wheel every time when we need it. I guess you didn't invent vaccines, electricity, gasoline and so on for himself but you just use them?
-
Irrefutable and repeatedly available evidence in the form of directional electromagnetic radiation that circumnavigates the globe.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.0
-
We are taught not to question the shape of the Earth as surely as we are taught not to question that 2+2=4....
Were we all? If so, upon what evidence do you make this claim? If I told you the story of an eight-year-old in grade school who questioned why 1+1=2, and was subsequently shown the proof by a teacher who understood the importance of questioning things, would you believe me, or would you dismiss my story as mere fantasy? Granted, that young boy didn't understand the proof at the time, but he did search for it...
To respond to the OP: NASA has pictures and eyewitness accounts of a RE; FE theory has claims of conspiracy without evidence. In this respect, the RE approach is scientific, and the FE approach is not (at least, if I understand it correctly, it is not - correct me if I am wrong, FE'ers). One of the most important parts of scientific hypotheses and tests is falsifiability; those things which are not falsifiable cannot be approached in such a manner. While NASA pictures and eyewitness accounts are falsifiable, conspiracy theories (along with the "invisible sky fairy [that] is judging everything we do") are more or less not falsifiable. In addition, RET is complete enough that the pictures and accounts from NASA and the other space agencies are not at all far-fetched.
That being said, FET presents an intriguing case for a FE. It's not a complete case, though (see, for starters, my thread asking about the stars in the southern hemisphere).
FE theorists often use their perception of the earth up close as a good reason to postulate that the earth is flat, not realizing that by accepting what they have been taught about planes and refusing to question the perceptions that arise from what they have been taught, they are doing exactly what they (perhaps rightfully) claim REers are doing.
So, to summarize, I believe the earth is round because the evidence that I have seen points to it. As to things unexplained, I choose to believe in the existence of the gravitron (yes, one of the hypothetical aspects of physics) rather than an ever-accelerating earth because it is a better fit for what I have observed, what other people have observed, and the workings of the earth in general. Am I taking a leap of faith in believing the physical laws taught to me? Yes, but coupled with the fact that those laws are generally observable and always consistent, that leap of faith isn't so far fetched. To me, it's a little bit like walking out one's door in the morning and thinking, "The planet beneath my feet appears to fit what I have been taught and observed about flatness, and therefore, I will believe it is flat until proven otherwise."
Hope that makes sense; it's kind of late here, so my mind is not working properly, and this probably ended up being a long rant (I'll edit it tomorrow, maybe). Also, please note that I would not read a thing on this site if I were not interested in questioning those things I have been taught and observed.
-
To respond to the OP: NASA has pictures and eyewitness accounts of a RE; FE theory has claims of conspiracy without evidence. In this respect, the RE approach is scientific, and the FE approach is not (at least, if I understand it correctly, it is not - correct me if I am wrong, FE'ers). One of the most important parts of scientific hypotheses and tests is falsifiability; those things which are not falsifiable cannot be approached in such a manner. While NASA pictures and eyewitness accounts are falsifiable, conspiracy theories (along with the "invisible sky fairy [that] is judging everything we do") are more or less not falsifiable. In addition, RET is complete enough that the pictures and accounts from NASA and the other space agencies are not at all far-fetched.
That being said, FET presents an intriguing case for a FE. It's not a complete case, though (see, for starters, my thread asking about the stars in the southern hemisphere).
FE theorists often use their perception of the earth up close as a good reason to postulate that the earth is flat, not realizing that by accepting what they have been taught about planes and refusing to question the perceptions that arise from what they have been taught, they are doing exactly what they (perhaps rightfully) claim REers are doing.
So, to summarize, I believe the earth is round because the evidence that I have seen points to it. As to things unexplained, I choose to believe in the existence of the gravitron (yes, one of the hypothetical aspects of physics) rather than an ever-accelerating earth because it is a better fit for what I have observed, what other people have observed, and the workings of the earth in general. Am I taking a leap of faith in believing the physical laws taught to me? Yes, but coupled with the fact that those laws are generally observable and always consistent, that leap of faith isn't so far fetched. To me, it's a little bit like walking out one's door in the morning and thinking, "The planet beneath my feet appears to fit what I have been taught and observed about flatness, and therefore, I will believe it is flat until proven otherwise."
Hope that makes sense; it's kind of late here, so my mind is not working properly, and this probably ended up being a long rant (I'll edit it tomorrow, maybe). Also, please note that I would not read a thing on this site if I were not interested in questioning those things I have been taught and observed.
Another person who seems to feel that comparing RET to FET is relevant to the topic. Again, I'm not asking why you don't believe in a Flat Earth, I'm asking why you do believe in a Round Earth. Your belief in RET has nothing to do with FET, and you shouldn't need to resort to pointing out flaws in FET to justify your belief in RET. While it may be true that when only comparing these two theories, RET is the "better fit for what [is] observed", that doesn't make it the best possible fit for what is observed - which, really, is what you should be trying to justify.
-
Why exactly, should we have to justify it to you?
I believe in a round earth, because it makes sense. Any other "theory" presented to me thus far in life, appears to be severely flawed, so i believe the earth is round.
Coupled with the undeniable evidence provided to you in countless threads, which you deny, but like you rightly point out, that is a different matter altogether.
-
I believe the earth is round because I was taught so in school, and since the shape of the earth is not really of any consequence to me, I don't really bother to question the theory.
-
Why exactly, should we have to justify it to you?
Because I would like to know what makes REers so firmly believe in what they do. Most of them claim it is based on science and not faith, and so I am curious as to what science has convinced them so firmly that the Earth is round.
Any other "theory" presented to me thus far in life, appears to be severely flawed, so i believe the earth is round.
This makes no sense. You can't base your belief in one theory on the implausibility of its rivals.
-
I believe the earth is round because I was taught so in school, and since the shape of the earth is not really of any consequence to me, I don't really bother to question the theory.
Most schools still teach religious education, and the existence (or nonexistence) of God is of no consequence to most in today's world. Does this mean you believe in God?
-
Any other "theory" presented to me thus far in life, appears to be severely flawed, so i believe the earth is round.
This makes no sense. You can't base your belief in one theory on the implausibility of its rivals.
Of course i can.
I believe that Whales swim around in the ocean.
It's also possible that whales ride around on bikes. However, this seems somewhat implausible, which is why i believe they swim.
-
Of course i can.
I believe that Whales swim around in the ocean.
It's also possible that whales ride around on bikes. However, this seems somewhat implausible, which is why i believe they swim.
Whales do not ride bikes, therefore they swim? Cheetahs also do not ride bikes, I suppose they swim too?
-
No, cheetahs swimming across the serengeti is implausible.
-
No, cheetahs swimming across the serengeti is implausible.
Then your belief that whales swim is obviously not based on the fact that their riding bikes is implausible.
-
Please explain further, what you mean.
My belief that whales do not cycle is based upon the fact that it is implausible, ridiculous if you will.
Similarly, my belief that running or walking is the cheetah's mode of transport of choice, includes the fact that a cheetah swimming across the serengeti, or riding a bike, are both implausible. Whales swimming, and Cheetah's running makes sense.
Round Earth make sense.
-
I believe the earth is round because I was taught so in school, and since the shape of the earth is not really of any consequence to me, I don't really bother to question the theory.
Most schools still teach religious education, and the existence (or nonexistence) of God is of no consequence to most in today's world. Does this mean you believe in God?
The existence or nonexistence of God as seen in the Bible and various other religious texts is of consequence to me, because if this God is real, it has an impact on what happens to me after I die, and according to the aforementioned religious texts, based on the way I have so far lived my life, I will be sent to a place of eternal torture after I die. I don't believe in God, but if such a being were to exist, it would have far greater an effect on my life than the shape of the Earth.
-
My belief that whales do not cycle is based upon the fact that it is implausible, ridiculous if you will.
Yes, but that's not what you said. You said you believe they swim because it is implausible that they cycle.
Similarly, my belief that running or walking is the cheetah's mode of transport of choice, includes the fact that a cheetah swimming across the serengeti, or riding a bike, are both implausible.
Why does it matter? They are observed to run/walk, so what difference does it make whether swimming and cycling are plausible alternatives?
Whales swimming, and Cheetah's running makes sense.
Yes it does. So it is irrelevant whether or not any other mode of transport makes sense, as these are clearly their respective observed behaviours.
Round Earth make sense.
And this is where I must ask that you justify this statement, lest your posting in this thread be completely inconsequential.
-
LOL, you're a funny guy, you ever been told that? Probably not tbh.
Anyway, how do you know that cheetah's run in the wild? Have you seen video's? They could be faked you know?
I believe in RE, because i have observed it as such, through study of basic physics and maths, as well as countless video clips and photographs taken from altitude, and as far as space.
Now, naturally, you will tell me these are fakes, created by the conspiracy, as all evidence provided is declared false.
Which really only leaves the question "Can you prove the existence of a conspiracy"
Without an answer, it makes your entire existence on this forum completely inconsequential.
I have given you ample reasons for my belief in RE. That is what the thread asked for. Agree?
-
I believe in RE, because i have observed it as such, through study of basic physics and maths, as well as countless video clips and photographs taken from altitude, and as far as space.
Thank you.
I have given you ample reasons for my belief in RE. That is what the thread asked for. Agree?
Yes.
-
I believe in a round Earth because superior scientific minds to mine have concluded that a round Earth is more plausible than other rival theories. It's impossible as far as I'm concerned to learn and test every single scientific theory and idea for myself, so it's necessary to put trust into scientists who have earned it. When concerning the shape of the Earth I'm happy to follow the majority of scientific authority and conclude for myself that it's round. This level of naivety I believe is excusable when I also admit that as soon as a more credible and widely accepted theory comes along I will have an open mind and will happily embrace this new theory provided it makes more sense.
When I say "makes more sense" I think this comes with two criteria. The first is that it comes with more scientific proof and evidence than its predecessor, I leave it to the general scientific authorities to demonstrate their approval of the evidence rather than testing it for myself. The second is that the theory is free of pseudoscience. This means the theory answers more questions than its predecessor and doesn't give rise to more questions than it answers.
I'll give a demonstration to this second criteria based on the FET vs RET debate. As a round Earther I'm sceptical when given the idea that the Earth is flat, but for arguments sake let's say I actually trusted the proof of the flat Earth and believed they had been tested by credible sources. Now I would look at both theories to find the following:
RET - This theory is based on gravity, gravity explains why we stick to the Earths surface, it explains celestial objects and their characteristics. It explains day and night, how the Earth and other celestial bodies can form in outer space and why we get seasons as well as explaining many phenomenon we otherwise couldn't explain. The only question this theory rises is "what is gravity?"
FET - This theory is based on universal acceleration, this explains why we stick to the Earths surface. It also explains why the Earth may appear to be flat from the perspective of a human. This theory raises many questions including "why do we get night and day time?", "how does the atmosphere and ocean stay on the Earth?", "how did the Earth and all other celestial objects form?" as well as many more. These questions cannot be explained without a number of assumptions and guesses and therefore this theory is dependant on a long line of baby theories, which also happen to give rise to more questions than they answer.
When looked at in this perspective I hope it's clear why I stick with the round Earth theory.
-
...So, to summarize, I believe the earth is round because the evidence that I have seen points to it...
Another person who seems to feel that comparing RET to FET is relevant to the topic. Again, I'm not asking why you don't believe in a Flat Earth, I'm asking why you do believe in a Round Earth. Your belief in RET has nothing to do with FET, and you shouldn't need to resort to pointing out flaws in FET to justify your belief in RET. While it may be true that when only comparing these two theories, RET is the "better fit for what [is] observed", that doesn't make it the best possible fit for what is observed - which, really, is what you should be trying to justify.
This is the FET forum; comparing belief in RET to belief in FET is very relevant to the topic. It is first necessary to provide comparisons that FEers will understands (as some have a tendency to only read part of a post, like most REers on this forum), and second to say that I have considered FET (the subject of this particular forum, and the whole reason we're having this discussion in the first place), decided it doesn't work, and will continue to adhere to the theory I think fits the evidence. I know of no other theories regarding the earth's shape, and really have no need to develop one of my own, as RET provides a more-than-ample fit; if you know of any other sound theories, I'd be happy to look at them.
-
so, if the Earth is flat, how deep is the crust? we have drilled down miles and havent yet come out at the other end, if the earth is FLAT then it shouldnt be too deep, well not as deep as it is being a round earth, please elaborate with your thoughts
-
so, if the Earth is flat, how deep is the crust? we have drilled down miles and havent yet come out at the other end, if the earth is FLAT then it shouldnt be too deep, well not as deep as it is being a round earth, please elaborate with your thoughts
How do you justify your contention that a flat Earth shouldn't be very deep? It can be infinitely deep and still flat, if the top surface is flat.
-
After seeing a hundred of these threads directed at FE believers, I would like to hear some answers as to why REers believe what they do.
Seriously, I simply do not believe in massive conspiracy theories with no direct evidence to support them. It's not necessarily a matter of simply believing what I am told without question, it's more about the difficulty that I believe would be required to orchestrate such a lie.
-
When looked at in this perspective I hope it's clear why I stick with the round Earth theory.
No, it isn't. It's only clear why you think it is preferable to Flat Earth Theory, which for the umpteenth time is not what this thread is about.
I know of no other theories regarding the earth's shape, and really have no need to develop one of my own, as RET provides a more-than-ample fit; if you know of any other sound theories, I'd be happy to look at them.
This does not do anything to explain your belief in RET; only your lack of belief in any other theory. What I am after is a coherent post explaining your reasons for believing in RET without resorting to listing the flaws in opposing theories which really have nothing to do with RET.
Seriously, I simply do not believe in massive conspiracy theories with no direct evidence to support them. It's not necessarily a matter of simply believing what I am told without question, it's more about the difficulty that I believe would be required to orchestrate such a lie.
And where is the logical connection from this to a belief that the Earth is round?
-
Seriously, I simply do not believe in massive conspiracy theories with no direct evidence to support them. It's not necessarily a matter of simply believing what I am told without question, it's more about the difficulty that I believe would be required to orchestrate such a lie.
And where is the logical connection from this to a belief that the Earth is round?
You seem to be a man of reason. You can't really query a RE believer as it complies to the scientific method. However FET has holes in it which it fills with highly unscientific ideas (conspiracy & philisophical scepticism) and falls down to Occam's Razor.
There is much science supporting a RE whereas there is almost nothing to support a flat earth. Surely the logical approach would deem a RE far more reasonable & a logical conclusion than a FE. This is generally why people believe in a round earth.
-
When looked at in this perspective I hope it's clear why I stick with the round Earth theory.
No, it isn't. It's only clear why you think it is preferable to Flat Earth Theory, which for the umpteenth time is not what this thread is about.
FET vs RET was only an example of two conflicting ideas and how I'd go about favouring one. My post wasn't focused on how I compare the two theories in particular. If my post doesn't satisfy you then I'm not really sure what it is you're interested in, other than perhaps a short reply on the lines of "I believe what I'm told". I'd be very disappointed if this whole thread was a cheap attempt at labelling round Earthers as close minded and I must say I'd expect more from someone so egoistic over their intelligence.
-
because when you watch a ship with a tall mast sail into the horizon, the hull disappears first. eventually, just the tip of the mast is showing. How else can this be possible?
-
because when you watch a ship with a tall mast sail into the horizon, the hull disappears first. eventually, just the tip of the mast is showing. How else can this be possible?
You can read about it in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, a link to which can be found in my signature.
-
because when you watch a ship with a tall mast sail into the horizon, the hull disappears first. eventually, just the tip of the mast is showing. How else can this be possible?
You cab read about it in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, a link to which can be found in my signature.
what chapter? Im not reading through 400 pages to find this
-
because when you watch a ship with a tall mast sail into the horizon, the hull disappears first. eventually, just the tip of the mast is showing. How else can this be possible?
You cab read about it in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, a link to which can be found in my signature.
Don't listen to TB on this point. Already refuted here http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0)
-
what chapter? Im not reading through 400 pages to find this
Start with Chapter 14.
-
what chapter? Im not reading through 400 pages to find this
Start with Chapter 14.
From the link you have provided, there is no Chapter 14 in Earth Not a Globe. There is a Section 14. Is that what you mean? Isn't Section 14 where he pulls all his 'research' together to reach the wrong conclusion?
Section 13 deals with 'Perspective on the Sea'.
-
what chapter? Im not reading through 400 pages to find this
Start with Chapter 14.
From the link you have provided, there is no Chapter 14 in Earth Not a Globe. There is a Section 14. Is that what you mean? Isn't Section 14 where he pulls all his 'research' together to reach the wrong conclusion?
Section 13 deals with 'Perspective on the Sea'.
http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/cb3b280c-53ab-4268-9eea-d45f522262e2
-
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg152/Hugh_Jar/ENAG.jpg)
-
Read more. Post less.
-
You seem to be a man of reason. You can't really query a RE believer as it complies to the scientific method. However FET has holes in it which it fills with highly unscientific ideas (conspiracy & philisophical scepticism) and falls down to Occam's Razor.
None of these sentences seem to carry a great deal of relevance to the thread, or to each other. Furthermore, most of this paragraph does not make any sense.
There is much science supporting a RE whereas there is almost nothing to support a flat earth. Surely the logical approach would deem a RE far more reasonable & a logical conclusion than a FE. This is generally why people believe in a round earth.
Again, there is no logical flow to your concluding sentence from the balance of the paragraph. While it may be true - to the minds of some - that RET is far more reasonable than FET, why should this mean that you believe the Earth to be round? "More reasonable" is comparative and does not equate to, nor does it suggest, the superlative "most reasonable".
FET vs RET was only an example of two conflicting ideas and how I'd go about favouring one. My post wasn't focused on how I compare the two theories in particular. If my post doesn't satisfy you then I'm not really sure what it is you're interested in, other than perhaps a short reply on the lines of "I believe what I'm told". I'd be very disappointed if this whole thread was a cheap attempt at labelling round Earthers as close minded and I must say I'd expect more from someone so egoistic over their intelligence.
I'd like you to explain what it is about RET that makes it such a convincing theory without distracting from the topic at hand by listing flaws in FET.
-
You seem to be a man of reason. You can't really query a RE believer as it complies to the scientific method. However FET has holes in it which it fills with highly unscientific ideas (conspiracy & philisophical scepticism) and falls down to Occam's Razor.
None of these sentences seem to carry a great deal of relevance to the thread, or to each other. Furthermore, most of this paragraph does not make any sense.
There is much science supporting a RE whereas there is almost nothing to support a flat earth. Surely the logical approach would deem a RE far more reasonable & a logical conclusion than a FE. This is generally why people believe in a round earth.
Again, there is no logical flow to your concluding sentence from the balance of the paragraph. While it may be true - to the minds of some - that RET is far more reasonable than FET, why should this mean that you believe the Earth to be round? "More reasonable" is comparative and does not equate to, nor does it suggest, the superlative "most reasonable".
A round earth doesn't fall down to Occam's Razor.
There is much, much more science supporting a round earth.
What more do you need to know? It'd be like asking why someone doesn't believe in unicorns.
-
There is much, much more science supporting a round earth.
More science than what? I'm not asking you to compare RET to anything, I'm asking what justifies your belief in it.
-
There is much, much more science supporting a round earth.
More science than what? I'm not asking you to compare RET to anything, I'm asking what justifies your belief in it.
There is much, much more science supporting a round earth than any other shape.
And again, a rational man who understands science cannot logically argue that the shape of the earth is anything other than round.
-
There is much, much more science supporting a round earth than any other shape.
Even assuming that to be true for the sake of argument, why should you believe the Earth is round? A long time ago, there was much more science supporting the Ptolemaic model of the Universe than any other. How can you be sure that we aren't just as wrong now?
And again, a rational man who understands science cannot logically argue that the shape of the earth is anything other than round.
I am a rational man, I understand science, and I have spent the past year arguing for FET on these boards. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't make them lesser than you.
-
There is much, much more science supporting a round earth than any other shape.
Even assuming that to be true for the sake of argument, why should you believe the Earth is round?
And again, a rational man who understands science cannot logically argue that the shape of the earth is anything other than round.
I am a rational man, I understand science, and I have spent the past year arguing for FET on these boards. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't make them lesser than you.
All scientists understand Occam's Razor, the need for a hypothesis and evidence.
All philosophers understand the pointlessness of scepticism and the infinite regression of absurdity it creates as highlighted by Wittgenstein.
Sure, question the science in front of you, but from a logical point of view.
As I have said, a person, both scientist and philosopher, cannot logically believe or argue for a Flat Earth due to:
a)the absurd ideas for it to work
b)the evidence there is for a round earth.
This is why people believe in a round earth.
Plus I never said anyone was lesser than someone else. Let's keep in impersonal.
-
All scientists understand Occam's Razor, the need for a hypothesis and evidence.
All philosophers understand the pointlessness of scepticism and the infinite regression of absurdity it creates as highlighted by Wittgenstein.
Sure, question the science in front of you, but from a logical point of view.
As I have said, a person, both scientist and philosopher, cannot logically believe or argue for a Flat Earth due to:
a)the absurd ideas for it to work
b)the evidence there is for a round earth.
This is why people believe in a round earth.
So we're back to "people believe in a Round Earth because they don't believe in a Flat Earth"? We really aren't getting anywhere in this discussion, are we?
Plus I never said anyone was lesser than someone else. Let's keep in impersonal.
This:
And again, a rational man who understands science cannot logically argue that the shape of the earth is anything other than round.
implies that anyone who does argue for FET is either irrational or does not understand science.
-
All scientists understand Occam's Razor, the need for a hypothesis and evidence.
All philosophers understand the pointlessness of scepticism and the infinite regression of absurdity it creates as highlighted by Wittgenstein.
Sure, question the science in front of you, but from a logical point of view.
As I have said, a person, both scientist and philosopher, cannot logically believe or argue for a Flat Earth due to:
a)the absurd ideas for it to work
b)the evidence there is for a round earth.
This is why people believe in a round earth.
So we're back to "people believe in a Round Earth because they don't believe in a Flat Earth"? We really aren't getting anywhere in this discussion, are we?
You must have missed out on the bold type I added.
Plus I never said anyone was lesser than someone else. Let's keep in impersonal.
This:
And again, a rational man who understands science cannot logically argue that the shape of the earth is anything other than round.
implies that anyone who does argue for FET is either irrational or does not understand science.
And that is still does not say anything about him thinking less of you. I would say he thinks that you are wrong and need to be thought most likely. Does a school teacher think less of his/her students because they do not know something he/she does?
-
You must have missed out on the bold type I added.
No, I didn't. He was listing that as a reason for not believing in FET, not for believing in RET.
And that is still does not say anything about him thinking less of you. I would say he thinks that you are wrong and need to be thought most likely.
And in doing so, he makes an assumption about me which is blatantly false because he is too narrow-minded to comprehend the fact that an educated person might disagree with him.
-
So we're back to "people believe in a Round Earth because they don't believe in a Flat Earth"? We really aren't getting anywhere in this discussion, are we?
If you say "people" then there are not one person in any town available who is willing to take up the task and teach and explain the theory, mechanics and physics of Flat Earth to the "people". Yes, there are some communities as some have mentioned but they stay for himself and don't go for city halls and governments for asking to take under the consideration to teach alternative theory of the shape of the earth on schools. They even don't do big events with speakers and lectures(as some religious sects and creationists do) where people can ask questions and get explanations. So, the answer is that there just isn't any alternative theory available which anyone can explain to the people.
-
So, the answer is that there just isn't any alternative theory which anyone can explain to the people available.
No, that isn't an answer. Why is the lack of an alternative theory justification for belief in RET?
-
So, the answer is that there just isn't any alternative theory which anyone can explain to the people available.
No, that isn't an answer. Why is the lack of an alternative theory justification for belief in RET?
That is one answer. If you want slightly different opinion then people just don't have any reason to doubt that the earth isn't round. They are offered history and explanations in other sciences and it is all logical and makes sense. So, they just don't have reason to doubt and not one person offers them another choice. It still goes down to this that they have not any other reasonable theory.
I guess I can ask that do you believe that there are one Sun or new Sun every new day? Some ancient people believed that Sun dies every evening and is born again in every morning. If you believe that there is one Sun then what is the reason the you don't believe that there is multitude of Suns...
-
That is one answer. If you want slightly different opinion then people just don't have any reason to doubt that the earth isn't round. They are offered history and explanations in other sciences and it is all logical and makes sense. So, they just don't have reason to doubt and not one person offers them another choice. It still goes down to this that they have not any other reasonable theory.
So basically it comes down to them blindly accepting what they have been told?
I guess I can ask that do you believe that there are one Sun or new Sun every new day? Some ancient people believed that Sun dies every evening and is born again in every morning. If you believe that there is one Sun then what is the reason the you don't believe that there is multitude of Suns...
I believe there is one Sun, partly because I accept the law of conservation of mass-energy, and partly because I have been to various places around the world and experienced jet lag for myself, which is evidence that when the Sun sets in one location it is still visible in many others.
-
FET vs RET was only an example of two conflicting ideas and how I'd go about favouring one. My post wasn't focused on how I compare the two theories in particular. If my post doesn't satisfy you then I'm not really sure what it is you're interested in, other than perhaps a short reply on the lines of "I believe what I'm told". I'd be very disappointed if this whole thread was a cheap attempt at labelling round Earthers as close minded and I must say I'd expect more from someone so egoistic over their intelligence.
I'd like you to explain what it is about RET that makes it such a convincing theory without distracting from the topic at hand by listing flaws in FET.
Again, here's what was in my first post:
I believe in a round Earth because superior scientific minds to mine have concluded that a round Earth is more plausible than other rival theories. It's impossible as far as I'm concerned to learn and test every single scientific theory and idea for myself, so it's necessary to put trust into scientists who have earned it. When concerning the shape of the Earth I'm happy to follow the majority of scientific authority and conclude for myself that it's round. This level of naivety I believe is excusable when I also admit that as soon as a more credible and widely accepted theory comes along I will have an open mind and will happily embrace this new theory provided it makes more sense.
When I say "makes more sense" I think this comes with two criteria. The first is that it comes with more scientific proof and evidence than its predecessor, I leave it to the general scientific authorities to demonstrate their approval of the evidence rather than testing it for myself. The second is that the theory is free of pseudoscience. This means the theory answers more questions than its predecessor and doesn't give rise to more questions than it answers.
-
I believe there is one Sun, partly because I accept the law of conservation of mass-energy, and partly because I have been to various places around the world and experienced jet lag for myself, which is evidence that when the Sun sets in one location it is still visible in many others.
This isn't the answer. The sun still set's and rises whenever you go and that means that there is time period where you don't see the Sun and in that time who knows what happens to the Sun. Yes, others say that they see the Sun in other places but they may lie to you and there may be the conspiracy to hide the fact that Sun is destroyed every night and rebuilt again.
So basically it comes down to them blindly accepting what they have been told?
No, it basically comes down to this that people are explained and shown that the earth is round. And not one person shows them otherwise. There isn't blind acceptance anywhere.
-
You must have missed out on the bold type I added.
No, I didn't. He was listing that as a reason for not believing in FET, not for believing in RET.
And that is still does not say anything about him thinking less of you. I would say he thinks that you are wrong and need to be thought most likely.
And in doing so, he makes an assumption about me which is blatantly false because he is too narrow-minded to comprehend the fact that an educated person might disagree with him.
Robosteve back up a second.
Let's go over this:
1)There is a lot of evidence for a Round Earth.
2)There is very little evidence for a Flat Earth.
Sorry, but when there is more evidence for a certain shape e.g. that the earth is round, it is logical to then believe the earth is round.
AT NO POINT IS THE EARTH SEEN AS A DEFAULT SHAPE E.G. FLAT
Evidence for a round earth is evidence to believe the earth is round & evidence that the earth is not flat. Kind of obvious.
And again, you have yet to show how a scientist or philosopher can believe in a flat earth.
I'm not saying "All FE believers are (insert derogatory comment)", I'm saying they don't fully grasp the scientific method e.g. Hypothesis, -> evidence -> conclusion.
-
You must have missed out on the bold type I added.
No, I didn't. He was listing that as a reason for not believing in FET, not for believing in RET.
And that is still does not say anything about him thinking less of you. I would say he thinks that you are wrong and need to be thought most likely.
And in doing so, he makes an assumption about me which is blatantly false because he is too narrow-minded to comprehend the fact that an educated person might disagree with him.
Robosteve back up a second.
Let's go over this:
1)There is a lot of evidence for a Round Earth.
2)There is very little evidence for a Flat Earth.
Sorry, but when there is more evidence for a certain shape e.g. that the earth is round, it is logical to then believe the earth is round.
AT NO POINT IS THE EARTH SEEN AS A DEFAULT SHAPE E.G. FLAT
Evidence for a round earth is evidence to believe the earth is round & evidence that the earth is not flat. Kind of obvious.
And again, you have yet to show how a scientist or philosopher can believe in a flat earth.
I'm not saying "All FE believers are (insert derogatory comment)", I'm saying they don't fully grasp the scientific method e.g. Hypothesis, -> evidence -> conclusion.
I agree on this. I haven't seen one claim from the FE'ers where they have followed the scientific method to come to their conclusions.
mazty88: Regarding you example of how the scientific method is done, isn't it also necessary to repeat the experiment before we conclude?
-
You must have missed out on the bold type I added.
No, I didn't. He was listing that as a reason for not believing in FET, not for believing in RET.
And that is still does not say anything about him thinking less of you. I would say he thinks that you are wrong and need to be thought most likely.
And in doing so, he makes an assumption about me which is blatantly false because he is too narrow-minded to comprehend the fact that an educated person might disagree with him.
Robosteve back up a second.
Let's go over this:
1)There is a lot of evidence for a Round Earth.
2)There is very little evidence for a Flat Earth.
Sorry, but when there is more evidence for a certain shape e.g. that the earth is round, it is logical to then believe the earth is round.
AT NO POINT IS THE EARTH SEEN AS A DEFAULT SHAPE E.G. FLAT
Evidence for a round earth is evidence to believe the earth is round & evidence that the earth is not flat. Kind of obvious.
And again, you have yet to show how a scientist or philosopher can believe in a flat earth.
I'm not saying "All FE believers are (insert derogatory comment)", I'm saying they don't fully grasp the scientific method e.g. Hypothesis, -> evidence -> conclusion.
I agree on this. I haven't seen one claim from the FE'ers where they have followed the scientific method to come to their conclusions.
mazty88: Regarding you example of how the scientific method is done, isn't it also necessary to repeat the experiment before we conclude?
Yep, or have a control of some sort depending on the experiment.
Certain significance tests can also help in verifying the importance of results.
-
Seriously, I simply do not believe in massive conspiracy theories with no direct evidence to support them. It's not necessarily a matter of simply believing what I am told without question, it's more about the difficulty that I believe would be required to orchestrate such a lie.
And where is the logical connection from this to a belief that the Earth is round?
I take their word for it, look I admit that it is just belief, and that in itself is not logical or rational. My above post was merely a justification for the belief.
I do not have direct evidence that the earth is round, however there is plenty of observable evidence that it is not flat.
-
Again, here's what was in my first post:
I believe in a round Earth because superior scientific minds to mine have concluded that a round Earth is more plausible than other rival theories. It's impossible as far as I'm concerned to learn and test every single scientific theory and idea for myself, so it's necessary to put trust into scientists who have earned it. When concerning the shape of the Earth I'm happy to follow the majority of scientific authority and conclude for myself that it's round. This level of naivety I believe is excusable when I also admit that as soon as a more credible and widely accepted theory comes along I will have an open mind and will happily embrace this new theory provided it makes more sense.
When I say "makes more sense" I think this comes with two criteria. The first is that it comes with more scientific proof and evidence than its predecessor, I leave it to the general scientific authorities to demonstrate their approval of the evidence rather than testing it for myself. The second is that the theory is free of pseudoscience. This means the theory answers more questions than its predecessor and doesn't give rise to more questions than it answers.
I read your post. All I see is you comparing it to rival theories, without giving any reason for what makes you believe in it.
This isn't the answer. The sun still set's and rises whenever you go and that means that there is time period where you don't see the Sun and in that time who knows what happens to the Sun. Yes, others say that they see the Sun in other places but they may lie to you and there may be the conspiracy to hide the fact that Sun is destroyed every night and rebuilt again.
Yes, I know there is that possibility. But having personally experienced jet lag significantly, I am inclined to believe that there is only one Sun.
No, it basically comes down to this that people are explained and shown that the earth is round. And not one person shows them otherwise. There isn't blind acceptance anywhere.
Really? I've never been shown that the Earth is round.
Robosteve back up a second.
Let's go over this:
1)There is a lot of evidence for a Round Earth.
2)There is very little evidence for a Flat Earth.
Sorry, but when there is more evidence for a certain shape e.g. that the earth is round, it is logical to then believe the earth is round.
Why? All you are saying is that RET is preferable to FET, and not that it has any plausibility on its own. I'm sorry, but when you have to resort to pointing out flaws in other theories to justify your own, there isn't enough evidence to justify it properly.
AT NO POINT IS THE EARTH SEEN AS A DEFAULT SHAPE E.G. FLAT
That's funny, because you seem to be assuming the Earth to be round by default.
Evidence for a round earth is evidence to believe the earth is round & evidence that the earth is not flat. Kind of obvious.
Then why are you talking about it as a reason why you don't believe in FET, when that is not what I am asking?
And again, you have yet to show how a scientist or philosopher can believe in a flat earth.
Because if a person were a scientist or philosopher, and believed in a Flat Earth, then that scientist or philosopher would believe in a Flat Earth. Regardless, that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, as we are debating the inherent value of RET.
I'm not saying "All FE believers are (insert derogatory comment)", I'm saying they don't fully grasp the scientific method e.g. Hypothesis, -> evidence -> conclusion.
I grasp the scientific method very well, thanks, and therefore consider it derogatory that you make such a sweeping statement about all FEers.
I take their word for it, look I admit that it is just belief, and that in itself is not logical or rational.
Thank you.
-
Robosteve back up a second.
Let's go over this:
1)There is a lot of evidence for a Round Earth.
2)There is very little evidence for a Flat Earth.
Sorry, but when there is more evidence for a certain shape e.g. that the earth is round, it is logical to then believe the earth is round.
Why? All you are saying is that RET is preferable to FET, and not that it has any plausibility on its own. I'm sorry, but when you have to resort to pointing out flaws in other theories to justify your own, there isn't enough evidence to justify it properly.
AT NO POINT IS THE EARTH SEEN AS A DEFAULT SHAPE E.G. FLAT
That's funny, because you seem to be assuming the Earth to be round by default.
Evidence for a round earth is evidence to believe the earth is round & evidence that the earth is not flat. Kind of obvious.
Then why are you talking about it as a reason why you don't believe in FET, when that is not what I am asking?
And again, you have yet to show how a scientist or philosopher can believe in a flat earth.
Because if a person were a scientist or philosopher, and believed in a Flat Earth, then that scientist or philosopher would believe in a Flat Earth. Regardless, that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, as we are debating the inherent value of RET.
I'm not saying "All FE believers are (insert derogatory comment)", I'm saying they don't fully grasp the scientific method e.g. Hypothesis, -> evidence -> conclusion.
I grasp the scientific method very well, thanks, and therefore consider it derogatory that you make such a sweeping statement about all FEers.
Right you are on the verge of trolling. Let me explain:
Me: "1)There is a lot of evidence for a Round Earth."
Me: "AT NO POINT IS THE EARTH SEEN AS A DEFAULT SHAPE E.G. FLAT "
You:"That's funny, because you seem to be assuming the Earth to be round by default."
How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Really?
There is evidence for a round earth.
There is more evidence for a round earth than there is a flat earth.
HOW IS THAT SAYING "THE EARTH IS ROUND BY DEFAULT".
Evidence is proof, not speculation or assuming ANYTHING.
You have yet to show how it is scientific to believe a theory which has little to no evidence for it, while there is another theory which has vasts amounts of confirmed/significant evidence.
There is not a single Flat Earth theory which follows the scientific approach of hypothesis -> evidence -> conclusion.
E.g. the idea that dinosaurs sailed boats. It was just an overblown hypothesis to account for the location of skeletons. There was no evidence other than "it has to be that, otherwise FET has problems."
You are free to consider the statement derogatory even though it is not meant in an offensive way.
Again, you have yet to show how it is scientific, or even logical, to believe a theory which has little to no evidence for it, while there is a contrasting theory which has a vast amount of confirmed/significant evidence for it.
-
Right you are on the verge of trolling. Let me explain:
Me: "1)There is a lot of evidence for a Round Earth."
Me: "AT NO POINT IS THE EARTH SEEN AS A DEFAULT SHAPE E.G. FLAT "
You:"That's funny, because you seem to be assuming the Earth to be round by default."
How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Really?
There is evidence for a round earth. There is evidence that the earth is round & not flat.
HOW IS THAT SAYING "THE EARTH IS ROUND BY DEFAULT".
Evidence is proof, not speculation or assuming ANYTHING.
And yet you seem to have a lot of trouble articulating what exactly this evidence is.
You have yet to show how it is scientific to believe a theory which has little to no evidence for it, while there is another theory which has vasts amounts of confirmed/significant evidence.
It's not. Belief is not scientific at all, regardless of what you believe in.
There is not a single Flat Earth theory which follows the scientific approach of hypothesis -> evidence -> conclusion.
E.g. the idea that dinosaurs sailed boats. It was just an overblown hypothesis to account for the location of skeletons. There was no evidence other than "it has to be that, otherwise FET has problems."
You are free to consider the statement derogatory even though it is not meant in an offensive way.
Again, you have yet to show how it is scientific, or even logical, to believe a theory which has little to no evidence for it, while there is a contrasting theory which has a vast amount of confirmed/significant evidence for it.
I don't have to show this. It isn't even on topic.
-
Right you are on the verge of trolling. Let me explain:
Me: "1)There is a lot of evidence for a Round Earth."
Me: "AT NO POINT IS THE EARTH SEEN AS A DEFAULT SHAPE E.G. FLAT "
You:"That's funny, because you seem to be assuming the Earth to be round by default."
How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Really?
There is evidence for a round earth. There is evidence that the earth is round & not flat.
HOW IS THAT SAYING "THE EARTH IS ROUND BY DEFAULT".
Evidence is proof, not speculation or assuming ANYTHING.
And yet you seem to have a lot of trouble articulating what exactly this evidence is.
You have yet to show how it is scientific to believe a theory which has little to no evidence for it, while there is another theory which has vasts amounts of confirmed/significant evidence.
It's not. Belief is not scientific at all, regardless of what you believe in.
There is not a single Flat Earth theory which follows the scientific approach of hypothesis -> evidence -> conclusion.
E.g. the idea that dinosaurs sailed boats. It was just an overblown hypothesis to account for the location of skeletons. There was no evidence other than "it has to be that, otherwise FET has problems."
You are free to consider the statement derogatory even though it is not meant in an offensive way.
Again, you have yet to show how it is scientific, or even logical, to believe a theory which has little to no evidence for it, while there is a contrasting theory which has a vast amount of confirmed/significant evidence for it.
I don't have to show this. It isn't even on topic.
Evidence for a round earth:
Satellites (image resolution etc)
Flight times
Navigation charts
Surveying techniques
Now, can you scientifically show how those pieces of evidence are incorrect? This is the real test to see how much of the scientific method you understand.
You are getting to worked up on wording: You have yet to show how it is logical to accept a theory which has little to no evidence for it, while there is another theory which has a vast amount of confirmed/significant evidence.
And the final point is on topic. The topic is "Why do you believe in a round earth?"
It is reasonable to respond to this by saying "1)There is evidence for it, 2)There is no other theory which seems logical to subscribe to, as all other theories are lacking evidence & proof."
-
Evidence for a round earth:
Satellites (image resolution etc)
Flight times
Navigation charts
Surveying techniques
Thank you. This is what the OP was asking for.
-
This isn't the answer. The sun still set's and rises whenever you go and that means that there is time period where you don't see the Sun and in that time who knows what happens to the Sun. Yes, others say that they see the Sun in other places but they may lie to you and there may be the conspiracy to hide the fact that Sun is destroyed every night and rebuilt again.
Yes, I know there is that possibility. But having personally experienced jet lag significantly, I am inclined to believe that there is only one Sun.
I can argue that jet lag isn't about the sun but about the time. You just don't sleep at the the time as you used to be. So no real argument for you about Sun and as I see it you just believe in one Sun because anyone hasn't offered you another plausible theory.
No, it basically comes down to this that people are explained and shown that the earth is round. And not one person shows them otherwise. There isn't blind acceptance anywhere.
Really? I've never been shown that the Earth is round.
We don't talk about you. We talk about other people. And as they believe that earth is round then they have been shown that it is and anyone hasn't shown them that earth is flat.
-
We don't talk about you. We talk about other people. And as they believe that earth is round then they have been shown that it is and anyone hasn't shown them that earth is flat.
Anyone who has walked outside their home and observed the world around them knows that the earth is flat.
-
I can argue that jet lag isn't about the sun but about the time. You just don't sleep at the the time as you used to be. So no real argument for you about Sun and as I see it you just believe in one Sun because anyone hasn't offered you another plausible theory.
What? The reason for not sleeping at the same time is because the Sun is in the sky at different times; having witnessed this first hand provides significant enough evidence for me to justify a belief in a singular Sun to myself.
We don't talk about you. We talk about other people. And as they believe that earth is round then they have been shown that it is and anyone hasn't shown them that earth is flat.
I'd be very interested to know how exactly they are "shown" that the Earth is round.
-
I can argue that jet lag isn't about the sun but about the time. You just don't sleep at the the time as you used to be. So no real argument for you about Sun and as I see it you just believe in one Sun because anyone hasn't offered you another plausible theory.
What? The reason for not sleeping at the same time is because the Sun is in the sky at different times; having witnessed this first hand provides significant enough evidence for me to justify a belief in a singular Sun to myself.
You can't bring your experience and logic in here. I have experienced ship disappearing behind horizon, clouds which bottoms were illuminated, sunsets and sunrises, different set of stars in southern and northern hemisphere, circular shadow on moon at lunar eclipse and so on. All which are explained perfectly by earth being round. So, if other people must somehow doubt about earth being round without any reasonable explanations for these phenomenons(and I didn't mention the correct map with what you can really go somewhere and you actually arrive where you go) then why don't you doubt the existence of one Sun even when there aren't any other plausible hypothesis? As all of you have shown us then personal experience counts for nothing.
I'd be very interested to know how exactly they are "shown" that the Earth is round.
Same things apply here as I wrote above.
Anyone who has walked outside their home and observed the world around them knows that the earth is flat.
Not any person whom I asked haven't known that. And they all walk outside. And all they can observe is relatively small piece of ground. So, your claim is totally baseless.
-
Not any person whom I asked haven't known that.
Everyone knows that the earth is flat. They just believe that it's round.
Open your eyes and look around you. Then read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
-
Everyone knows that the earth is flat. They just believe that it's round.
Open your eyes and look around you. Then read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
sooo you are basing your entire evidence on 1 book written many years ago that says, against all probability that the earth is flat?
-
Everyone knows that the earth is flat. They just believe that it's round.
Open your eyes and look around you. Then read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
sooo you are basing your entire evidence on 1 book written many years ago that says, against all probability that the earth is flat?
You can find a copy of Earth Not a Globe in my signature link. It's also available through Kessinger.
ISBN: 978-0766149458
-
Everyone knows that the earth is flat. They just believe that it's round.
Everyone may know that the small piece of ground below their feet is flat but not one person knows that the entire earth is flat. That is 100% sure because in FE world there is no way to observe the earth in its entirety. Your claim is outrageous, absolutely without any basis and without any statistical data(that means you haven't done survey about that if anyone knows or believes that earth is flat).
-
We don't talk about you. We talk about other people. And as they believe that earth is round then they have been shown that it is and anyone hasn't shown them that earth is flat.
Anyone who has walked outside their home and observed the world around them knows that the earth is flat.
SO you then believe that a pen in water bends?
If you don't you are a hypocrite.
-
We don't talk about you. We talk about other people. And as they believe that earth is round then they have been shown that it is and anyone hasn't shown them that earth is flat.
Anyone who has walked outside their home and observed the world around them knows that the earth is flat.
SO you then believe that a pen in water bends?
If you don't you are a hypocrite.
A pen feels straight in water, though it appears to bend. This is also a form of observation.
-
We don't talk about you. We talk about other people. And as they believe that earth is round then they have been shown that it is and anyone hasn't shown them that earth is flat.
Anyone who has walked outside their home and observed the world around them knows that the earth is flat.
SO you then believe that a pen in water bends?
If you don't you are a hypocrite.
A pen feels straight in water, though it appears to bend. This is also a form of observation.
How do you know the water doesn't magically bend your fingers?
Point is, anyone who says the pen bends, and yet the earth is flat, is nothing short of a hypocrite as they trust physics on one and not the other.
Anyone who just says "The earth is flat because it looks like it" should be shot on the basis that they are retarding humanity. Clearly the earth isn't flat because you CAN OBSERVE the horizon. You can OBSERVE how the measurements of surveying doesn't work over a distance due to curvature. You can observe by reading the calculations showing the earth has an orbit.
-
Not any person whom I asked haven't known that.
Everyone knows I'm a troll. They just believe I'm stubborn.
Fix'd for you.
-
I have experienced ship disappearing behind horizon, clouds which bottoms were illuminated, sunsets and sunrises, different set of stars in southern and northern hemisphere, circular shadow on moon at lunar eclipse and so on. All which are explained perfectly by earth being round.
Thank you, this is the answer the OP was requesting. There was no need to pad any of it out with comparisons to FET.
-
Not any person whom I asked haven't known that.
Everyone knows I'm a troll. They just believe I'm stubborn.
Fix'd for you.
Mazty, please keep this kind of crap out of the discussion forums.
-
My second attempt to answer the question "why I believe the earth is round." Hopefully it won't get deleted this time.
I believe the earth is round because:
1. This is the most plausible explanation for why the sun and moon both appear to rise daily from below the horizon, travel in an arc across the sky at constant angular velocity without changing appreciably in apparent diameter and then sink below the opposite horizon, without having to invent implausible and undemonstrable hypotheses such as bendy light and weird "perspective" effects or sun and moon as spotlights in order to justify claims that this appearance is merely some kind of illusion.
2. It is by far the simplest and most (in fact the only one I can think of) plausible explanation for how there can be both a north and south celestial pole, each of which can be observed only from either north or south of the equator respectively and around which all the observable stars appear to rotate (half around one and the other half around the other, or in other words, seeming to form the opposite ends of an axis around which all the observable stars appear to rotate).
3. It is by far the simplest and most plausible explanation for the observation that the angular distance above the northern or southern horizon of these celestial poles changes linearly with distance as we move due north or south.
4. For centuries, mariners have successfully used celestial navigation, which absolutely depends on RET being correct, to find their way across the earth's surface.
I could easily make a much longer list, but this will suffice for now.
-
I know the Earth is round, because I have seen pictures. Before FEers flame me for this, please accept that I do not believe the conspiracy - FEers believe what you want if it makes you happy or gives you something to do that you feel is worth doing. But to me a round Earth makes the most sense. I can't see distant countries from atop the mountains around my home, simply because they are beyond and 'below' the distant horizon. Satellites, lunar eclipses, sunrises and sunsets, planetary movements, I have seen simulated in 3D models and can accurately predict where and when each will occur for many distant dates. I was taught maths, physics, biology, chemistry and other things by people who have spent their lives dedicated to said subjects, and they passed on their knowledge to me and others, teaching as how to use these subjects to analyse the worlds around us. I trust that these people are granting me legitimate knowledge on how the world works, and in the case of physics and astronomy, I have sometimes pursued the subject further.
I'm not saying RE knows everything about the Universe - I don't know if gravitons actually exist, or dark matter, or a hundred other things, but science is a work in progress, I'm not going to question everything just because certain aspects of the physical world cant be described in 100% detail.
And it is tripe like this:
Not any person whom I asked haven't known that.
Everyone knows that the earth is flat. They just believe that it's round.
Open your eyes and look around you. Then read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
that really ticks me off. How can you possibly presume to know what people think Bishop? I don't believe the Earth is round I know it is. If you know that the Earth is flat, that's your right.
-
I believe the Earth is round because:
1. I always have. It was taught to me in school. (but don't use the genetic fallacy against me)
2. I have not seen any legitimate contradictory evidence but am intrigued by the possibility of such evidence.
3. FET is totally ad hoc. The claims made are only made to support a preconceived conclusion, not independently.
4. I have seen a lunar eclipse. The shadow was round, and the only explanation for that round shadow is that the Earth made it. The sun was on the other side of the Earth at the time, and so the shadow of the Earth was cast on the moon. The sun had to be on the other side of the Earth, because the sun had set several hours prior to the moon's eclipse fiasco. (simple extrapolation of a circular path)
5. I think it's more likely that God made a world with my worldview than than a world where he had to deceive us with round shadows on the moon during eclipses cast by an object of a different composition than the rest of the matter of the universe (i.e. a nonexistent object) just to convince 99% of the world of a false round Earth.
-
SO you then believe that a pen in water bends?
If you don't you are a hypocrite.
At least one REer understands the observation thing. Now go tell your buddies to stop using a curved horizon as proof of a round Earth.
-
They're the only pilots we have. And they say that curvature cannot be seen.
Why are you using the plural form, when only one "pilot" has posted this. Also, the person mentioned merely has a pilots license, and is not a pilot by trade.
Also, how do you explain these?
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/curvature.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/curvature2.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/curvature3.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/curvature5.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/Curv1.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/curve3.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/3.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/2.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/1.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/Curve4.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/Curve5.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/Curve7.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/new1.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/Curve8.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu240/dustinst22/new2.jpg)
-
the picture of the plane's wing suggests a curve... i've seen this curve before - on my frisbee. BAM!
-
I updated a few more pics :)
-
First you need to show that (in this case, curved horizon) there is some kind of change in media causing the observation to differ from reality.
Well, there is the whole atmosphere thing. Plus, a change in medium isn't the only way to produce an illusion.
-
Even assuming that to be true for the sake of argument, why should you believe the Earth is round? A long time ago, there was much more science supporting the Ptolemaic model of the Universe than any other. How can you be sure that we aren't just as wrong now?
Well, the Ptolemaic model also supported a round Earth.
-
Why are you using the plural form, when only one "pilot" has posted this. Also, the person mentioned merely has a pilots license, and is not a pilot by trade.
Also, how do you explain these?
It's called barrel roll.
-
It's called barrel roll.
? Can you elaborate? I thought a barrel roll is when an object makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis.
Shrug.
-
Why are you using the plural form, when only one "pilot" has posted this. Also, the person mentioned merely has a pilots license, and is not a pilot by trade.
Also, how do you explain these?
It's called barrel roll.
No Tom. It's called barrel distortion. ::)
-
How about Day and Night? Do you seriously believe someone pulls a switch each morning and night? And the seasons? Those explanations of varying sun rotations and the equator just don't work. C'mon think a little!!
-
After seeing a hundred of these threads directed at FE believers, I would like to hear some answers as to why REers believe what they do.
How about logic? ....................I doubt you have the slightest idea of the concept!
-
How about Day and Night? Do you seriously believe someone pulls a switch each morning and night? And the seasons? Those explanations of varying sun rotations and the equator just don't work. C'mon think a little!!
I know you'll hate me for saying FAQ, but FAQ.
-
I don't understand how flat earthers (cant believe I joined this forum... but anyway) explain how when I go down to the beach and look at the horizon it makes a curve shape? This is also observed when I have flown in a plane. How do FE explain how it doesn't take as long as it should for me to get from Australia to other 'southern hemisphere' country on the other side of the so called FE say for example south america...
Also I wanted to know how FE (these abreviations are hilarious) peoples friends and family members feel about their beliefs if they know about them since I have never met a FE believer in real life and imagine they would get lots of flak.
-
I don't understand how flat earthers (cant believe I joined this forum... but anyway) explain how when I go down to the beach and look at the horizon it makes a curve shape? This is also observed when I have flown in a plane. How do FE explain how it doesn't take as long as it should for me to get from Australia to other 'southern hemisphere' country on the other side of the so called FE say for example south america...
Also I wanted to know how FE (these abreviations are hilarious) peoples friends and family members feel about their beliefs if they know about them since I have never met a FE believer in real life and imagine they would get lots of flak.
I agree dude , I cant believe I joined this forum either, but I couldn't resist asking some questions. I'm beginning to think these peeps are like the spiked hairdo guy you see walking down the street, it's all just to get attention and get a rise out of others, None of them can really answer any questions, it's a farce! LMAO!!
-
I don't understand how flat earthers (cant believe I joined this forum... but anyway) explain how when I go down to the beach and look at the horizon it makes a curve shape? This is also observed when I have flown in a plane.
Unless you have flown via concorde or in high-altitude military jets, you cannot possibly have seen the curvature of the Earth. Even if the Earth was round, you would have to be at an altitude way above that used by commercial airliners today to observe the Earth's curvature. I think 60,000 feet is the approximate figure given, but I'm not sure.
Needless to say, that means you definitely cannot observe said curvature from the beach. That's not just the viewpoint of Flat Earth Theory; RE scientists will tell you the same thing.
-
I know the earth is Round because:
1.- I flew a Jetfighter in southamerica, near to 60.000 fts, and saw the earth curvature. (4th group-IV Brigade FACh- In Punta Arenas-Chile) this city is the more austral in the world. near to Antartica.
2.- Live in the most large country (north to south) in the world, and traveled accross in car, From Arica to Chiloe- In Plane (Comercial and Military) From Arica (north) to Antartica (South) more than 6.000 km from North to south (and I saw the time and other stuff that can be prove and demostrated by RE maps).
3.- Your map is less than accurate in show the real size of Argentina and Chile (that's is so important) Earth is not only the north hemisphere, so you are wrong there. Show an accurate FE map what can prove the real distance that I know by empiric experience of southamerica.
-
Needless to say, that means you definitely cannot observe said curvature from the beach. That's not just the viewpoint of Flat Earth Theory; RE scientists will tell you the same thing.
I have photos, other people have posted photos on here from the beach but you guys have a non scientific explanation for everything anyway.
I wish I could put someone like Stephen Hawking in my place to refute everything you guys say. :-\
-
I know the earth is Round because:
1.- I flew a Jetfighter in southamerica, near to 60.000 fts, and saw the earth curvature. (4th group-IV Brigade FACh- In Punta Arenas-Chile) this city is the more austral in the world. near to Antartica.
I too have flown in Jet Fighters. It's a good thing unsubstantiated claims on the internet don't count for much on the internet- otherwise every employee in the history of NASA would have posted here.
2.- Live in the most large country (north to south) in the world, and traveled accross in car, From Arica to Chiloe- In Plane (Comercial and Military) From Arica (north) to Antartica (South) more than 6.000 km from North to south (and I saw the time and other stuff that can be prove and demostrated by RE maps).
3.- Your map is less than accurate in show the real size of Argentina and Chile (that's is so important) Earth is not only the north hemisphere, so you are wrong there. Show an accurate FE map what can prove the real distance that I know by empiric experience of southamerica.
The current FE map is only an approximation, and many here believe some of the details on that map are fundamentally wrong. For example, a ot of us think the earth may in fact look something like this:
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072ba965_0020000201752_00_600.jpg)
All of these maps are based on RET projections, so some degree of distortion is to be expected.
-
Dear Robotic Steve and all others to whom it may concern,
I believe the earth is round because of the logical weight of evidence from respectable scientists and science agencies, not the tinpot tinkerings of some unknown theorist in his garden shed
-
Professor, is that a list of your qualifications under your avatar there?
-
Why yes it is
-
Odd, you'd think someone with a Bachelors Degree in Science would know the acronym is BSc, not BsC.
Stop bullsh*tting why don't you.
-
. . . and CCSA = Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
You've been popping too many pills mate! :D
-
. . . and CCSA = Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
You've been popping too many pills mate! :D
CCSA (Certification in Control Self Assessment) Its an accounting thing, you wouldnt understand
-
You ignored my point.
Also, surely a distinguished academic such as yourself will have published some papers over the years. Strange that when i google you, there are no matches. None at all.
Do you have a link to your homepage at Oxford University so i can peruse the research you've been working on?
No? Thought not.
-
CCSA (Certification in Control Self Assessment) Its an accounting thing, you wouldnt understand
Oh but I would!
Did you know that there are only 3 types of accountant?
-
Guys, let's keep discussion of the prof's 'qualifications' out of the serious boards.
-
I know the earth is Round because:
1.- I flew a Jetfighter in southamerica, near to 60.000 fts, and saw the earth curvature. (4th group-IV Brigade FACh- In Punta Arenas-Chile) this city is the more austral in the world. near to Antartica.
I too have flown in Jet Fighters. It's a good thing unsubstantiated claims on the internet don't count for much on the internet- otherwise every employee in the history of NASA would have posted here.
That doesn't mean that you were at the top fo ceiling flying on a jet fighter. I was a pilot of "CHILEAN AIR FORCE", I did things on my jet that you couldn't do as civilian. I don't care about NASA, Chile is an independent goverment that doesn't have business with NASA nor another space agency. Visit Chile and Chilean Antartic territory. Chile have Continental territory, Antartic territory and insular territory. don't believe in my word, don't care really, but answer me the things I say about the FE Map.
2.- Live in the most large country (north to south) in the world, and traveled accross in car, From Arica to Chiloe- In Plane (Comercial and Military) From Arica (north) to Antartica (South) more than 6.000 km from North to south (and I saw the time and other stuff that can be prove and demostrated by RE maps).
3.- Your map is less than accurate in show the real size of Argentina and Chile (that's is so important) Earth is not only the north hemisphere, so you are wrong there. Show an accurate FE map what can prove the real distance that I know by empiric experience of southamerica.
The current FE map is only an approximation, and many here believe some of the details on that map are fundamentally wrong. For example, a ot of us think the earth may in fact look something like this:
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072ba965_0020000201752_00_600.jpg)
All of these maps are based on RET projections, so some degree of distortion is to be expected.
Once again, your map is wrong, Southamerica in this new map is much longer and so thin, Chile in this new map is longer than Africa, so was to be 8.000 km long, 4.000 km longer than continental Chile territory. And the distance between Lima and Rio de Janeiro has to be a few hundred miles, not the 3.700 km that I know.
Please stop deforming my continent and my country, my house suffers with the modifications.
...so some degree of distortion is to be expected.????
Is so wrong and distorted.
-
I know the earth is Round because:
1.- I flew a Jetfighter in southamerica, near to 60.000 fts, and saw the earth curvature. (4th group-IV Brigade FACh- In Punta Arenas-Chile) this city is the more austral in the world. near to Antartica.
I too have flown in Jet Fighters. It's a good thing unsubstantiated claims on the internet don't count for much on the internet- otherwise every employee in the history of NASA would have posted here.
That doesn't mean that you were at the top fo ceiling flying on a jet fighter. I was a pilot, I did things on my jet that you can't imagine. I don't care about NASA, Chile is an independent goverment.
Oh, I've flown the U-2. It goes very high, I can assure you. Lucky I don't have to back any of this up, eh?
Once again, your map is wrong, Southamerica in this new map is much longer and so thin, Chile in this new map is longer than Africa, so was to be 8.000 km long, 4.000 km longer than continental Chile territory. And the distance between Lima and Rio de Janeiro has to be a few hundred miles, no the 3.700 km that I know.
Please stop deforming my continent and my country, my house suffers with the modifications.
...so some degree of distortion is to be expected.????
Is so wrong and distorted.
It is only meant to be an approximation. Relax, I'm not here to deform your country. These maps are based on RE projections, so they don't actually match the Flat Earth as it really is.
-
I know the earth is Round because:
1.- I flew a Jetfighter in southamerica, near to 60.000 fts, and saw the earth curvature. (4th group-IV Brigade FACh- In Punta Arenas-Chile) this city is the more austral in the world. near to Antartica.
I too have flown in Jet Fighters. It's a good thing unsubstantiated claims on the internet don't count for much on the internet- otherwise every employee in the history of NASA would have posted here.
That doesn't mean that you were at the top fo ceiling flying on a jet fighter. I was a pilot, I did things on my jet that you can't imagine. I don't care about NASA, Chile is an independent goverment.
Oh, I've flown the U-2. It goes very high, I can assure you. Lucky I don't have to back any of this up, eh?
I know by a simple thing that you never flew on a Lockheed U2... at 21000 km above the earth. you would have changed your thoughts about FE. Is a fact.
Once again, your map is wrong, Southamerica in this new map is much longer and so thin, Chile in this new map is longer than Africa, so was to be 8.000 km long, 4.000 km longer than continental Chile territory. And the distance between Lima and Rio de Janeiro has to be a few hundred miles, no the 3.700 km that I know.
Please stop deforming my continent and my country, my house suffers with the modifications.
...so some degree of distortion is to be expected.????
Is so wrong and distorted.
It is only meant to be an approximation. Relax, I'm not here to deform your country. These maps are based on RE projections, so they don't actually match the Flat Earth as it really is.
RE have one unified map... FE have as many maps as theorys... I saw 4 different FE maps, no one show an accurate Southamerica.
-
I know by a simple thing that you never flew on a Lockheed U2... at 21000 km above the earth. you would have changed your thoughts about FE. Is a fact.
...
RE have and only and unified map... FE have as many maps as theorys... I saw 4 different FE maps, no one show an accurate Southamerica.
My point is that we have literally had hundreds, possibly thousands of people come here and tell us they work for NASA, or they were in the SAS, etc etc. Just claiming something doesn't mean everyone's going to believe you.
As for this apparent sore point you have about the representation of South America in these maps, all I can say is I hope you'll get over it and recognise that we are limited in what we can do. Secondly, I hate to break it to you, but all non-globe RE maps also distort South America, only in a different way. Finally, as for there being only one 'RE map', that simply isn't true. Here are just a few different kinds of RE maps:
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/education/voices/img/Map_of_World_tn.gif
http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/x/7/xx-150.gif
http://www.telescopes-astronomy.com.au/world_map_wallpaper2.jpg
http://www.freeworldmaps.net/world.jpg
http://www.tf3yh.net/myndir/TF_Azimuthal.gif
-
I know by a simple thing that you never flew on a Lockheed U2... at 21000 km above the earth. you would have changed your thoughts about FE. Is a fact.
...
RE have and only and unified map... FE have as many maps as theorys... I saw 4 different FE maps, no one show an accurate Southamerica.
My point is that we have literally had hundreds, possibly thousands of people come here and tell us they work for NASA, or they were in the SAS, etc etc. Just claiming something doesn't mean everyone's going to believe you.
As for this apparent sore point you have about the representation of South America in these maps, all I can say is I hope you'll get over it and recognise that we are limited in what we can do. Secondly, I hate to break it to you, but all non-globe RE maps also distort South America, only in a different way. Finally, as for there being only one 'RE map', that simply isn't true. Here are just a few different kinds of RE maps:
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/education/voices/img/Map_of_World_tn.gif
http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/x/7/xx-150.gif
http://www.telescopes-astronomy.com.au/world_map_wallpaper2.jpg
http://www.freeworldmaps.net/world.jpg
http://www.tf3yh.net/myndir/TF_Azimuthal.gif
those are representations of earth imaginary lines...
I mean this:
And only and unified conception of earth...
How beautiful and exact representation of my Southamerica and Chile dimensions.
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4191174/2/istockphoto_4191174-globe-south-america.jpg)
(http://media.maps.com/magellan/Images/po00005_c.jpg)
(http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/15463/wm/pd1104491.jpg)
(http://www.maps-world.net/map/globe-south-america.jpg)
PS: And the distance between Puerto Williams and Antartica in this globe earth, also is accurate. In your FE Map not.
-
I know why i think it, flying at 70000 feet, clear to the eye. Ok ok so this could be faked? Then hundreds of thousands of other images will also be faked? sure thing!:
If it were a conspiracy it would be on an immeasurable scale involving thousands of scientists and government personnel. Put simply, it's impossible. Twats.
Unless you have flown via concorde or in high-altitude military jets, you cannot possibly have seen the curvature of the Earth. Even if the Earth was round, you would have to be at an altitude way above that used by commercial airliners today to observe the Earth's curvature. I think 60,000 feet is the approximate figure given, but I'm not sure.
Needless to say, that means you definitely cannot observe said curvature from the beach. That's not just the viewpoint of Flat Earth Theory; RE scientists will tell you the same thing.
Simplistic observation. You fail at it. Ever watched a sailing ship as it goes directly out towards the horizon? The ship line slowly dissapears until only the sails can be seen. It's something that has been observed for hundreds of years. Even taking a strong telescope and watching it, it still happens, so it can't be down to distance and the ship looking smaller.
-
those are representations of earth imaginary lines...
I mean this:
And only and unified conception of earth...
How beautiful and exact representation of my Southamerica and Chile dimensions.
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4191174/2/istockphoto_4191174-globe-south-america.jpg)
PS: And the distance between Puerto Williams and Antartica in this globe earth, also is accurate. In your FE Map not.
Well it's funny you should use that image, because it clearly does distort how South America is supposed to look on a globe. That map clearly makes SA bigger than it is. As a comparison:
(http://www.landkarten.aridocean.com/thumbs/hemisouthamerica_relief_natural_thumb.jpg)
-
those are representations of earth imaginary lines...
I mean this:
And only and unified conception of earth...
How beautiful and exact representation of my Southamerica and Chile dimensions.
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4191174/2/istockphoto_4191174-globe-south-america.jpg)
PS: And the distance between Puerto Williams and Antartica in this globe earth, also is accurate. In your FE Map not.
Well it's funny you should use that image, because it clearly does distort how South America is supposed to look on a globe. That map clearly makes SA bigger than it is. As a comparison:
(http://www.landkarten.aridocean.com/thumbs/hemisouthamerica_relief_natural_thumb.jpg)
I use it only as reference, I find it nice and clean... but the difference between the one I use and that you use is minimal... the difference between your FE map, and the other FE maps are huge.
Now answer to Overdriven.
-
After reading through the FAQ just to see what bull crap you FE people use to support your theories, it makes me howl with laughter. There are so many glaring holes in the theory, even in the FAQ that it would be impossible to address them all in a full day. The explanation for why circumnavigation of the earth is still possible was a particular favourite of mine. It just goes to show that the people who right this crap haven't really done much long distance travelling on foot, bike or car using only a map and compass.
-
After reading through the FAQ just to see what bull crap you FE people use to support your theories, it makes me howl with laughter. There are so many glaring holes in the theory, even in the FAQ that it would be impossible to address them all in a full day. The explanation for why circumnavigation of the earth is still possible was a particular favourite of mine. It just goes to show that the people who right this crap haven't really done much long distance travelling on foot, bike or car using only a map and compass.
Thanks for adding something to the discussion. Oh wait, you didn't.
-
Since nobody replied to my post on page 1, I'll answer this again:
I believe the Earth is round because of this:
(http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh303/artemisliero/earth_1_apollo17.gif)
(http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh303/artemisliero/lune07.jpg)
http://earth.google.com/ (http://earth.google.com/)
http://www.gps.gov/ (http://www.gps.gov/)
-
I flew yesterday and the pilot said we went as high as 20,000 feet. I tried looking for curvature but there was lots of clouds and also at that height the curve would be so slight that it wouldn't be obvious to the naked eye. It did look ever so slightly rounded though. :D
-
If RE was made up by NASA for whatever bs reasons people here think, it sure works out real well scientifically. The idea that heavy objects create gravitational fields there-by forming clusters of rock/gas/ice into round objects that orbit each-other and that the earths rotation creates sunsets/sunrises and the time zones is far simpler than the idea that the earth is flat (with fuck knows what on the otherside..) the moon and sun are "spotlights" with a movement which no one has ever (rationally) made sense of) and that sunrise/sunsets aren't real they just "appear" so. None of which anybody on here has ever shown any explanation of.
I mean, come on, if somebody puts together a real theory, maybe it could garner some respect, but at this point it's not even worth acknowledging scientifically, I mean. The 'Flat Earth Society" webpage is just a forum, there's nowhere that even shows how this purported flat-earth is meant to work.
-
well if any FE'ers are scientist and truly believe earth is flat than they would make a science journal, instead trying convince other people earth is flat through some forum board
-
Truthfully, I believe it because I was told, and I know that's your main arguement. But here's the thing, your theories don't make any more sense than the things proving the earth is round. I just think that a flat earth with big ice walls is a load of you know what.
-
Readily observable astrological bodies, as seen through even rudimentary telescopes are round. Stars, planets, and moons observed in the sky are all round, for all intents and purposes.
Second, if Apples, oranges, limes and limes are all round for intents and purposes, surely bananas can't exist.
No, bananas can exist. Apple-shaped bananas on the other hand can't exist.
-
If there was a flat earth, wouldn't the sun appear to be getting smaller instead of going down? Not the entire earth can see the sun at one time, and I fail to see how that is plausible.
Why are you talking about a flat Earth? This thread is about why you believe in a round Earth.
Yes, because you and other FE'ers NEVER change topic mid-thread...
-
Ordinarily, I would quote the various parts of your post and respond to them each in turn, but your post really seems to carry a single theme which I would like to respond to once. You seem to feel that secondary evidence - that is to say, pictures taken by NASA, books you read in the library, the labels on your clothing - constitute absolute proof of certain things. To be quite blunt, this makes you no less a sheep than fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible provides absolute proof of Creationism. Moreover, you have no place in a debate forum, and I will not be responding to any more of your posts as you clearly lack elementary debate skills.
Some things are debatable, some things aren't... Ever since space flight became reality, "Flat Earth" stopped being debatable, unless of course you want to continue "debating" about a conspiracy. Where are "the debating skills" in that?
I do not need you to teach me debating skills or tell me what they are, or tell me that I lack them. Especially not if one of your "main debating skils" is attacking other people on spelling or grammar errors and calling people names, like you do on such a regular basis here on this "debate forum".
Me being a sheep? Perhaps... probably in the sciences that I have no master grade in then. I'm only a humble historian, with only little knowledge and understanding of physics and chemistry for instance. So at one point I have to decide to trust that scholars in physics and chemistry will explain their science to me as well as they can.
Same goes for cosmology and astronomy: at one point I have to decide to trust those who master the field of research far better than me.
You call that "being a sheep". I call it: trusting people, trusting honest scientist who try to explain thier field of research to me as well as they can. Of course it's necessary to carefully select the sources that I read (e.g.: just as I would never resort to Erich Von D?niken to learn the truth about who built the pyramids, I will never resort to the likes of Rowbotham to learn the truth about Earth's shape), but still, at one point it becomes a matter of trust in stead of continuing to uselessly question everything I learn and read.
As far as debating goes: start a debate with me on history, and I'll show you what a real debate is. Let me tell you, it will definitely not include "huge conspiracies" and attacking non native speakers on making mistakes against a foreign language.
Bring up your conspiracy, or "undetectable shadow object", or "dark energy field", or "electromagnetic universal accelerator", or ice wall or..., on any scientific congress about cosmology / astronomy and you'll very quickly know where the exit of auditorium is.
Regards,
P.S.: I have been to observatories here in Belgium myself and have actually watched through telescopes myself. I have seen a few of our planets with my very own eyes (Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) and guess what... they were not tiny globes orbiting the sun about 3000 miles above Earth... They were what I have always been taught they are.
Of course you can go on to say that I have been fooled by those running the observatory, but again: to me, that's useless skepticism.
(Edit: addition made to the 3rd paragraph of my post.)
Excellent post, my friend.
-
the RET makes a lot more sense and is way more understandable. It's all physics you can observe for yourself.
Lets take a real life example:
Son: What causes a solar eclipse?
Dad: Well, the moon moves in front of the sun.
OR
Son: What causes a solar eclipse?
Dad: Well, theres an antimoon up there, like a shadow object, and blocks the sun's spotlight, etc.
-
Scientific method is not even attempted? That's a BIG claim your making there Tom and you are so unbelievably wrong.
Here's the Scientific Method:
(http://www.stingerbeescience.com/overview_scientific_method2.gif)
Now please show me where Newton puts his hypothesis of gravity as a force to the test. What about Aristotile, Copernicus, or Galileo? What about Einstein? Where does Einstein demonstrate his idea of bending space-time through experimentation?
A PILOT MADE THAT QUOTE? A PILOT!? He is a freaking FE'er what do you expect him to say? SERIOUSLY do you think that because this quote says that no curvature is seen, that the thousands of other pilots think the same? dumbass, that was made by an FE'er of course he would say that. You have one source, I am sure you could ask other pilots and they would say different
No pilot who has posted this forum has claimed to have seen curvature of this earth.
I have never seen a curvature in all my time at 45,000 feet.
Tom, I'm not sure if you know this, but even the best commercial planes aren't allowed to fly at 45000 feet. I think I may find it hard to believe anything else to say now that you have lied through your keyboard.
-
Here's the Scientific Method:
(http://www.stingerbeescience.com/overview_scientific_method2.gif)
Now please show me where Newton puts his hypothesis of gravity as a force to the test. What about Aristotile, Copernicus, or Galileo? What about Einstein? Where does Einstein demonstrate his idea of bending space-time through experimentation?
You know, I acctually laughed when I saw this picture. I thought about Flat Earthers, and how they come up with *cough* brilliant theories that are *cough* tested using the scientific method.
And just about that quote that the pilot said:
When I was in grade 8, we were learning about evolution, and then the teachers made the whole grade come and see some speaker talk about evolution. Little did the teachers know that the man was there to talk AGAINST evolution ::). Anyways I distinctly remember just how much I wanted to bash this guy. You know what one if his *cough* (I'm having a really bad cough right now, might be swine flu) arguments was? He gave us a list of about 20 names. All professors with Ph.Ds who did NOT believe in evolution. Unfortunately he failed to show the endless list of names of professors who believe in evolution. Had I decided to say that out loud, the man would've been baffled that his oh so great argument was destroyed by an 8th grader. I'm not saying I was a genius, everyone was thinking the same thing, I'm just saying that his argument was PATHETIC.
Do you see where I'm going with this? There are millions of pilots out there, you showed one out of a million that didn't *cough* see the curvature of the Earth ::). You failed to tell us about the millions of pilots who CAN testify that you can see the Earth's curvature from a high altitude plane. Try harder next time.
To answer the original post:
It's not that I choose to believe in the RET, it's that I choose NOT to believe in the FET. I've read a lot on this forum and there's one thing that remains constant with all FEers: they have no numbers. They have concepts, I'll give them that, but they have no equations, numbers, or PROOF. Everytime the issue of proof comes up, FEers either change the subject, start insulting REers saying that we have no proof *COUGH*, or just don't respond. Maybe if there was some proof in FET, it would hold together must better. Whenever REers present proof, you dismiss it as faked or part of the conspiracy. Well, if FEers are simply going to deny all proof supporting the RET, then there's nothing REers can really say, is there? Everyone on this forum act like university teachers, yet no tests, no numbers, and no supporting evidence is offered by FEers, only concepts and theories. I find that FEers haven't conducted nearly enough experiments in order to support their theory, and therefore instead of trying to proove that the FET is true, you only try to proove that the RET is not true - a very childish way of debating, for university teachers ::). The level of maturity in these forums matches that of high schoolers or adolescents like myself, and FEers are always trying to say that their theory is better or that the RET is lacking proof *cough*. I'm only in high school and I can obliterate some thoughtless concepts that FEers come up with, so what is to make me believe that you are all more than teenagers in high school? If your're better than a high schooler, do better than a high schooler. Come up with arguments that the world's greatest minds couldn't shred into peices in the blink of an eye.
well put. If only all FEers would read this.
-
Yes, nobody cared to respond to this, to nobody's suprise.
-
the RET makes a lot more sense and is way more understandable. It's all physics you can observe for yourself.
Lets take a real life example:
Son: What causes a solar eclipse?
Dad: Well, the moon moves in front of the sun.
OR
Son: What causes a solar eclipse?
Dad: Well, theres an antimoon up there, like a shadow object, and blocks the sun's spotlight, etc.
It's easy to see when the sun goes down- it's not a 'spotlight' ball that gradually moves away until it disappears, it's clearly disappearing below the horizon because the earth is moving around the sun and it's a globe. ::)
-
It makes more sense to me to believe that the earth is a globe. I have seen more proof that we live on a globe than on a flat plane- if I were to see irrefutable proof that the earth was flat, I would renounce my indoctrinated RE ways. I have yet to see any.
-
It makes more sense to me to believe that the earth is a globe. I have seen more proof that we live on a globe than on a flat plane- if I were to see irrefutable proof that the earth was flat, I would renounce my indoctrinated RE ways. I have yet to see any.
There isn't really any need for irrefutable proof. Some may consider looking in FET if there is just some logical explanations for things and you can use current science, not develop new science every time you want to explain phenomenon.
-
the fact that make me laugh all the time, is that they claim we have no proof that the earth is round. There are tons of pictures, videos, space missions that prove this. But dunno why this proofs are not valid. They have no proof at all for anything they claim, but they are right for some reason that my poor mind cannot reach.
-
the fact that make me laugh all the time, is that they claim we have no proof that the earth is round. There are tons of pictures, videos, space missions that prove this. But dunno why this proofs are not valid. They have no proof at all for anything they claim, but they are right for some reason that my poor mind cannot reach.
That's because FEer already know that the Earth is round, but they like argueing that it's flat. So they spend more time trying to say that whatever proof we have isn't valid, rather than trying to find proof that the Earth is flat. Why? Because they already know it's round.
-
That was a very convincing point.
-
It didn't convince me.
-
It didn't convince me.
That's because your're one of those people, but you don't want to admit it - even to yourself.
-
Let's pretend I could buy that all astronomers for the last hundred years have forgotten to do their homework. In other words, appealing to their authority is meaningless because for all I know they're just repeating what someone else told them without even bothering to check the results. Even then, the so-called conspiracy is just too much. It would take too many people (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30855.0), there are too many photos and too much film and video, it's supposedly been going on for too long, and it's all too perfect for creatures as flawed as humans to even dream of pulling off successfully.
-
I was talking about the big spammy post that got deleted.
It was a joke.
-
Because the maps work!
-
Because the maps work!
Yes! It is for sure that no professional surveyor or geodicist involved surveying and mapping out large tracts of land has any doubt whatsoever that the earth is round. Many thousands of such professionals confront that undeniable fact every single day they are engaged in their work. They know better than anybody that failure to acknowledge and take into account the roundness of the earth invariably leads to unacceptably large errors, especially when surveying large geographic regions. I guarantee that if those FE'ers who claim to have "proved" the flatness of the earth by conducting their own experiments did those experiments in the presence of one of these professionals, said professionals would very quickly discover and point out glaring flaws in their methodology or conclusions or both. Someone else (I forgot who, it might even have been you) posted a very interesting and informative link to a book that explains geodesy and how it proves beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is, in fact, round. Here is that link again for anyone who is interested.
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Geodesy4Layman/toc.htm (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Geodesy4Layman/toc.htm).
-
I went to America 6 weeks ago, in an aircraft traveling a good few miles up, and i never saw no ice wall or a continuation of the horizon into what looked an ice wall.
-
I went to America 6 weeks ago, in an aircraft traveling a good few miles up, and i never saw no ice wall or a continuation of the horizon into what looked an ice wall.
Nobody has seen the ice wall, yet FE'rs still believe in its existence.
-
You mean like God?
Only there is more evidence that God exists.
-
Because the maps work!
Because I've seen pictures, and this loony conspiracy theory involves too many people to keep quiet.
Because I've flown in a plane
Because I'm educated
Because I've seen a lunar eclipse.
I understand that the foundation for the entire FET is that Rowbotham and Lady Blount performed the Bedford Level and got Flat earth results, while since then people who have performed it have gotten round earth results.
Every scientist in the world who is qualified to make judgments on the shape of the world, believes it is round. I don't believe they are ALL in on the conspiracy.
I've seen a ship sink below the horizon (no, it is not some silly perspective law designed solely to explain away the phenomena)
-
It's not simply a matter of being taught. You purport to be undergoing a teritary physics course and hence you should be aware that much of your education is solo research. Have I taken my chemistry and tried to perform physics experiements? Yes. Additionally my chemistry is sound enough to know when FE's theories are filled with nonsense.
In case you need your memory refreshed I replicated an experiment to restore a ship's hull using a telescope. This agrees 100% with the physics I had learned and disagreed 100% with the FE literature.
Is this your more complete answer, then?
What have you done?
I once broke my leg after jumping off a rock into a swimming pool (I didn't jump far enough and my leg hit the side). This is clear evidence that the Earth gained enough momentum while I was not in contact with it to fracture solid bone.
Or that force times mass equals acceleration. I mean, it's not like we have tools to measure that...oh wait we do. Also, by your logic I propose that there is a great conspiracy regarding tungsten light bulbs. See, they frost over the bulb so you can't see the Dark Suckers. Dark Suckers are small fairies that rather than emit light, suck darkness up until they eventually die of old age with a load "pop" sound. Also, they're invisible when not activated by Electro Gnomes, the tiny gnomes who live in your wall socket, so if you break open a bulb you'll just see what "appears" to be bits of tungsten.
DON'T BELIEVE THE LIE
-
Just thought some people would be interested to know that the earth is in fact an oblate sphereoid, ie it is slightly flattened at the top and bottom. Oh and btw anyone who has ever read aristotle, plato or socretes will know that people have always known the eath to be spherical, all the way back to the ancient Greeks and Persians.
-
Just thought some people would be interested to know that the earth is in fact an oblate sphereoid, ie it is slightly flattened at the top and bottom. Oh and btw abyone who has ever read aristotle, plato or socretes will know that people have always known the eath to be spherical, all the way back to the ancient Greeks and Persians.
Yup, that's why navigation tools have worked for so long. All of the accurate ones account for the curvature/size of the earth. So unless it's a coincidence that they are accurate enough to prevent accidental crashes into the "ice wall", a quick analysis shows in favor of round earth, again.
-
I was into astronomy from an early age. I spent many nights as a teenager at the local observatory. It was an old telescope, but we had a heater, a toaster, and enough warm soup to keep the cold away.
Looking for comets. Looking for moons. logging stars etc etc. Youthful enthusiasm for knowledge. Inspiring mentors.
I was amazed as the results from skylab filtered back. Here we were with these incredible observations of an ordinary star.
The Sun.
That got me interested in astrophysics and studying the inner workings of the massive fusion reactor (the sun). To be honest the maths was pretty hard.
I also worked for a telecommunications company with satellites for a while.
I never believed the the earth was round anymore than I believed the sun was warm, or water was wet.
It is a fact I have been dealing with my entire life. If it was not a fact, I would have noticed.
Just By the way, I was not going to say so, but the Flat Earthers who deny satellites existing are insulting to the incredibly hard work and creative thinking of hundreds of thousands of people, that has produced the greatest achievement by the human race (the space programs).
If you truly believe the space programs are a conspiracy, you are insane, or at least clinically paranoid.
You also have a fundamentally limited imagination.
Let me know how your shoehorning a new theory of squishy light and wonky bullshit directly contradicts less than 5 laws of nature and I'll come back and laugh at you some more.
Two silver bullets that FErs have no comeback for .....
1) Parralax (the method not Rowbotham)
2) The work of La Condamine (look him up)
Thanks for listening :)
-
2) The work of La Condamine (look him up)
Why is a La Condamine special? FE throws to the trash bin all the cartographers and surveyors work starting from middle-ages where they started using triangulation and calculating circumference of the earth. Willebrord Snell, Jean Picard, Cassini family, Jean Joseph Tranchot, Karl von M?ffling, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve and many more.
-
2) The work of La Condamine (look him up)
Why is a La Condamine special? FE throws to the trash bin all the cartographers and surveyors work starting from middle-ages where they started using triangulation and calculating circumference of the earth. Willebrord Snell, Jean Picard, Cassini family, Jean Joseph Tranchot, Karl von M?ffling, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve and many more.
You are quite right.
All those people you have mentioned (I don't actually know them all - but shall now *AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THIS IS A REALLY COOL SITE *).
Quick intro of Charles Marie La Condamine (not particularly better than many others, but brilliant, lucky and in the right place at the right time. Went from France to Ecuador on an amazing 8 year journey.
The task was to measure the length of a degree of latitude at the equator (via triangulation - HUGE task), and prove the shape of the earth (a degree of lattitude at the equator is longer than one in France and therefore the earth is not a perfect sphere, but shaped more like a grapefruit (queue the out of context bleating by FEers).
Along the way he discovered (for Europe) rubber (thats a biggie)
also quinine (at least how to get proper red quinine) the number of lives he saved with this is huge.
He also worked on the standardisation of metrics, and the definition of a metre (probably his most influential work).
Two of his compatriates died horrible deaths along the way.
But you are right - he fades into a sea of talented hard working humans who have step by tiny step led us to the brilliant tapestry of understanding we have of the universe today.
-
Robosteve, when you asked RE'ers to tell you why they believe the earth is round, did you mean to include the RE'ers on this forum who are "devil's advocates" and only pretending to believe the earth is flat for the sake of carrying on the debate? I would like to hear why the fake FE'ers on this board actually believe the earth is round, and why, despite their true convictions, they reinforce what they must surely regard as the real FE'ers delusional convictions by arguing in favor of FET.
-
I've sailed the seven seas(not literally) and never seen an ice wall, been this way and that way, and in no way, sense or form, does my logic tell me that it could be a flat surface.
Too many questions unanswered and too many variables that don't fit.
-
Because a flat distance across the US would be smaller than the curved RE distance actually is, unless you plan on adding land.
Actually, I can't truthfully say that, since there isn't a FE map.
Because I plan on launching a weatherballoon and making a video of the nearly 20 mile up flight and descent. It doesn't matter if FEers see curvature, anyway, because they'll say "bendy light" or "photoshop". Or the "conspiracy" is hacking their brain, Ghost in the Shell style.
-
Has anyone here personally been to space and has been in orbit around the earth? I have. Here's a photo of the earth, taken from the moon in the 60's. And you still believe the earth is flat? This is disrespectful and archaic that this page exists.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/earth-1.jpg
-
I don't think it. I know it! Booyaa!! /hi5
-
Has anyone here personally been to space and has been in orbit around the earth? I have. Here's a photo of the earth, taken from the moon in the 60's. And you still believe the earth is flat? This is disrespectful and archaic that this page exists.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/earth-1.jpg
Welcome to FES. Expect to be banned for "being part of the conspiracy".
Kasroa Is Gone o/\o SupahLovah (Making all hella highfives.)
-
Has anyone here personally been to space and has been in orbit around the earth? I have. Here's a photo of the earth, taken from the moon in the 60's. And you still believe the earth is flat? This is disrespectful and archaic that this page exists.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/earth-1.jpg
What's disrespectful is you not honouring our freedom of speech.
-
I trust that the scientific community on a whole is honest and are performing real experiments with results I can trust. When I'm told NASA sent astronauts into space and they photographed the Earth, or that we've developed satellites and use them for cellphones and GPS, or that all objects attract each other, I assume that honest scientists have tested this and been satisfied by the results.
I'm in this forum because I feel that if I blindly accept the world is round because people I accept as authorities tell me it is, then I'm not using my brain any more than a Creationist. I want to challenge my belief that the Earth is round by seriously considering alternatives.
-
-you can see the curve of the earth in africa or on the oceon
-air planes fly
-when i drop a ball, it falls down and hits the ground, this can fit with gravity and with upwards acceleration
-when i throw a ball in the air (upwards), the calculations will point out that it's impossible for the acceleration to fit, while the gravity still fits
-The pictures of the earth
-The space shuttles flying around our earth in space
-The fact that we can sail around the world
and so on
-
-you can see the curve of the earth in africa or on the oceon
-air planes fly
-when i drop a ball, it falls down and hits the ground, this can fit with gravity and with upwards acceleration
-when i throw a ball in the air (upwards), the calculations will point out that it's impossible for the acceleration to fit, while the gravity still fits
-The pictures of the earth
-The space shuttles flying around our earth in space
-The fact that we can sail around the world
and so on
Please read the FAQ, and educate yourself with respect to the equivalence principle.
-
-when i throw a ball in the air (upwards), the calculations will point out that it's impossible for the acceleration to fit, while the gravity still fits
Wrong. Please look up the Equivalence Principle. From our reference frame gravity and acceleration would be indistinguishable.
-
ok, now go show me that the other ones are wrong...
and items that go near lightspeed are gaining in masses
atoms do it, the earth is made of atoms, the earth would grow in masses to
or do you now say that the earth isn't made of atoms?
-
ok, now go show me that the other ones are wrong...
and items that go near lightspeed are gaining in masses
atoms do it, the earth is made of atoms, the earth would grow in masses to
or do you now say that the earth isn't made of atoms?
The Earth is stationary with respect to you; its mass is constant.
-
then it's not nearing light speed, that meens that it's not constant accelerating, which means your theory of 'upwards acceleration' is wrong
oh by the way, lots of people actually pay million to go to space as 'vacation', are you saying that nasa actually sends them to africa and asks them not to say that it's all a fraude? :s
-
then it's not nearing light speed, that meens that it's not constant accelerating, which means your theory of 'upwards acceleration' is wrong
It's stationary relative to you because you are accelerating with it.
oh by the way, lots of people actually pay million to go to space as 'vacation', are you saying that nasa actually sends them to africa and asks them not to say that it's all a fraude? :s
Why would they send them to Africa? Parabolic trajectories are perfectly compatible with Flat Earth Theory, which is what most "space tourists" have done.
-
-when i throw a ball in the air (upwards), the calculations will point out that it's impossible for the acceleration to fit, while the gravity still fits
Wrong. Please look up the Equivalence Principle. From our reference frame gravity and acceleration would be indistinguishable.
But the equivalence principle cannot be applied to the (flat) earth as a whole, since gravity varies according to altitude and geographic location.
-
But the equivalence principle cannot be applied to the (flat) earth as a whole, since gravity varies according to altitude and geographic location.
Allegedly.
-
But the equivalence principle cannot be applied to the (flat) earth as a whole, since gravity varies according to altitude and geographic location.
Allegedly.
Not really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity
There's plenty of cites in that article.
Here's an interesting link describing how gravity variations are an integral and necessary part of geophysical exploration.
http://galitzin.mines.edu/INTROGP/notes_template.jsp?url=GRAV%2FNOTES%2Fgravforce.html&page=Gravity%3A%20Notes%3A%20Gravitational%20Force
If you want more, google is your friend.
-
then it's not nearing light speed, that meens that it's not constant accelerating, which means your theory of 'upwards acceleration' is wrong
1. It's stationary relative to you because you are accelerating with it.
oh by the way, lots of people actually pay million to go to space as 'vacation', are you saying that nasa actually sends them to africa and asks them not to say that it's all a fraude? :s
2. Why would they send them to Africa? Parabolic trajectories are perfectly compatible with Flat Earth Theory, which is what most "space tourists" have done.
1. That's not the point, if we are accelerating like that, we would gain incredibly in mass
2. MOST, nice said, not everybody, quite some stay for quite a while in space, nouf said
-
1. That's not the point, if we are accelerating like that, we would gain incredibly in mass
Only relative to an inertial observer. Do you understand special relativity at all?
2. MOST, nice said, not everybody, quite some stay for quite a while in space, nouf said
Well, they claim to.
-
Well, they claim to.
Hello Mr. Conspiracy Sorry for keeping you waiting.
-
Well, they claim to.
Hello Mr. Conspiracy Sorry for keeping you waiting.
How can you prove that that was filmed in orbit, and not in a parabolic trajectory?
-
because it takes 2.5 minutes
1. That's not the point, if we are accelerating like that, we would gain incredibly in mass
Only relative to an inertial observer. Do you understand special relativity at all?
made my day
-
because it takes 2.5 minutes
And what is stopping a spacecraft from travelling in a parabolic path for 2.5 minutes?
1. That's not the point, if we are accelerating like that, we would gain incredibly in mass
Only relative to an inertial observer. Do you understand special relativity at all?
made my day
I'll take that as a "no".
-
How can you prove that that was filmed in orbit, and not in a parabolic trajectory?
Because parabolic trajectory gives less than a minute of "zero-g". That video, and all these...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Richard+Garriott+Space+Video+Blog&search_type=&aq=f
...are much longer than the maximum time achievable by parabolic trajectory.
-
Because parabolic trajectory gives less than a minute of "zero-g". That video, and all these...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Richard+Garriott+Space+Video+Blog&search_type=&aq=f
...are much longer than the maximum time achievable by parabolic trajectory.
Can you provide a source, or any sort of reason, as to why it is not possible to fly in a parabolic trajectory for more than one minute?
-
because it takes 2.5 minutes
And what is stopping a spacecraft from travelling in a parabolic path for 2.5 minutes?
1. That's not the point, if we are accelerating like that, we would gain incredibly in mass
Only relative to an inertial observer. Do you understand special relativity at all?
made my day
I'll take that as a "no".
lightspeed is lightspeed, and the accelleration of earth is a constant
if it goes 9.81m/s? faster every second, then we would reach lightspeed in 303581039.76 seconds
that's 354 days
give it up, your upwards acceleration is a big mistake
-------
parsifal, if you would go study physics, you would know.
i saw it on tv why it wasn't possible, can't explain it however.
Why do you keep saying 'do you have proof'?
people actually DO sail around the world, for example, my brothers best friend will return in a few months, for the record.
-
lightspeed is lightspeed, and the accelleration of earth is a constant
if it goes 9.81m/s? faster every second, then we would reach lightspeed in 303581039.76 seconds
that's 354 days
give it up, your upwards acceleration is a big mistake
Again, you don't understand special relativity. You cannot apply classical mechanics when relativistic speeds are involved.
parsifal, if you would go study physics, you would know.
i saw it on tv why it wasn't possible, can't explain it however.
What sort of study are we talking about here? I'd really like to further my education, so if you could give me any pointers as to the sort of course I might be able to take to enlighten myself, I'd love to hear them.
Why do you keep saying 'do you have proof'?
people actually DO sail around the world, for example, my brothers best friend will return in a few months, for the record.
And my brother's best friend has been to Jupiter. See how this works if we don't need to provide proof?
-
lightspeed is lightspeed, and the accelleration of earth is a constant
if it goes 9.81m/s? faster every second, then we would reach lightspeed in 303581039.76 seconds
that's 354 days
give it up, your upwards acceleration is a big mistake
Again, you don't understand special relativity. You cannot apply classical mechanics when relativistic speeds are involved.
parsifal, if you would go study physics, you would know.
i saw it on tv why it wasn't possible, can't explain it however.
What sort of study are we talking about here? I'd really like to further my education, so if you could give me any pointers as to the sort of course I might be able to take to enlighten myself, I'd love to hear them.
Why do you keep saying 'do you have proof'?
people actually DO sail around the world, for example, my brothers best friend will return in a few months, for the record.
And my brother's best friend has been to Jupiter. See how this works if we don't need to provide proof?
Remember this man doesn't understand how atoms work, yet claims knowledge of relativity.
-
Can you provide a source, or any sort of reason, as to why it is not possible to fly in a parabolic trajectory for more than one minute?
There's some very simple maths that explains why.
As a physics student you should be able to figure it out. Let me know if you can't.
-
There's some very simple maths that explains why.
As a physics student you should be able to figure it out. Let me know if you can't.
Parabolas are infinite in length. Therefore, if the Earth is flat and infinite, the only limit on the amount of time a craft can spend in a parabolic trajectory in a vacuum and still come back down to Earth is its initial kinetic energy.
-
There's some very simple maths that explains why.
As a physics student you should be able to figure it out. Let me know if you can't.
Parabolas are infinite in length. Therefore, if the Earth is flat and infinite, the only limit on the amount of time a craft can spend in a parabolic trajectory in a vacuum and still come back down to Earth is its initial kinetic energy.
Troll.
-
lightspeed is lightspeed, and the accelleration of earth is a constant
if it goes 9.81m/s? faster every second, then we would reach lightspeed in 303581039.76 seconds
that's 354 days
give it up, your upwards acceleration is a big mistake
1. Again, you don't understand special relativity. You cannot apply classical mechanics when relativistic speeds are involved.
parsifal, if you would go study physics, you would know.
i saw it on tv why it wasn't possible, can't explain it however.
2. What sort of study are we talking about here? I'd really like to further my education, so if you could give me any pointers as to the sort of course I might be able to take to enlighten myself, I'd love to hear them.
Why do you keep saying 'do you have proof'?
people actually DO sail around the world, for example, my brothers best friend will return in a few months, for the record.
3.And my brother's best friend has been to Jupiter. See how this works if we don't need to provide proof?
1.I think you are messing up 'rest' and movement with 'relitive speeds'...
If you send a lightbeam to a place 300.000 km further then here, it will take 1 second to get there
that means light goes at a movement of 300.000km/s
The acceleration (acceleration isn't relative), is 9.81m/s?
so therefor t = v/a
t = (300.000hm/s) / (9,81m/s?)
and then you come to 340 and a bit days
sure speed can be seen relative, but an endless acceleration isn't relative and that's it
2. basic physics would be a good start for you
3. seeing that he has a daily blog with pictures, i can quite follow him
if you want to be certain that your earth is flat, then take a boat and sail from america to the west, guess what? you'll reach land! (and it's not made of ice)
-
There's some very simple maths that explains why.
As a physics student you should be able to figure it out. Let me know if you can't.
Parabolas are infinite in length. Therefore, if the Earth is flat and infinite, the only limit on the amount of time a craft can spend in a parabolic trajectory in a vacuum and still come back down to Earth is its initial kinetic energy.
few points:
1. you are only at 'zero-g' when the plane goes down again
2. a plane can't always goes up (because as you so beautiful said it, it must have infinite energy to get at infinite hight)
3. plane going down, earth going up, so it certainly isn't infinite
o yes, note to you, sure parabolas are infinite, at least they are on graphics
but i'm QUITE sure that you'll reach the ground after a while :)
-
1.I think you are messing up 'rest' and movement with 'relitive speeds'...
If you send a lightbeam to a place 300.000 km further then here, it will take 1 second to get there
that means light goes at a movement of 300.000km/s
The acceleration (acceleration isn't relative), is 9.81m/s?
so therefor t = v/a
t = (300.000hm/s) / (9,81m/s?)
and then you come to 340 and a bit days
sure speed can be seen relative, but an endless acceleration isn't relative and that's it
You need to be very careful when applying the equation v = u + at in relativistic situations. Neither acceleration nor time is constant for all observers, and you are attempting to use the acceleration as measured on Earth to calculate elapsed time for an inertial observer. In other words, you are applying classical mechanics to a relativistic problem. The problem is not Flat Earth Theory, but your misapplication of that equation.
2. basic physics would be a good start for you
Perhaps you should let my second year electrodynamics lecturer know that I'm in the wrong course, then.
3. seeing that he has a daily blog with pictures, i can quite follow him
if you want to be certain that your earth is flat, then take a boat and sail from america to the west, guess what? you'll reach land! (and it's not made of ice)
Please read the FAQ. Such a journey is perfectly compatible with Flat Earth Theory.
1. you are only at 'zero-g' when the plane goes down again
Uh, no, you can experience weightlessness when the plane is going up as long as you are following a parabolic path (relative to the Earth; you'd actually be travelling in a straight line according to an inertial observer).
2. a plane can't always goes up (because as you so beautiful said it, it must have infinite energy to get at infinite hight)
I'm aware of that.
3. plane going down, earth going up, so it certainly isn't infinite
o yes, note to you, sure parabolas are infinite, at least they are on graphics
but i'm QUITE sure that you'll reach the ground after a while :)
I'm aware of that. My point was that the only limiting factor is the energy of the craft, and not the parabolic trajectory itself.
-
Parsifal, don't you remember that we banned you from participating in discussions about aviation due to your gross ignorance of the entire subject?
-
Parsifal, don't you remember that we banned you from participating in discussions about aviation due to your gross ignorance of the entire subject?
This discussion is about spaceflight, not aviation.
-
Parsifal, don't you remember that we banned you from participating in discussions about aviation due to your gross ignorance of the entire subject?
This discussion is about spaceflight, not aviation.
You were talking about planes too. I saw you. Don't make me have to post quotes.
-
You were talking about planes too. I saw you. Don't make me have to post quotes.
Oh, so I did. I stand corrected. In my defense, it is nearly four o'clock in the morning and I'm not properly remembering everything that I've typed.
-
When you are moving up, it's 2g, tyvm
-
When you are moving up, it's 2g, tyvm
Would you mind giving this statement some sort of context? I gave six replies to your last post, and this doesn't seem to sensibly apply to any one of them.
-
1.I think you are messing up 'rest' and movement with 'relitive speeds'...
If you send a lightbeam to a place 300.000 km further then here, it will take 1 second to get there
that means light goes at a movement of 300.000km/s
The acceleration (acceleration isn't relative), is 9.81m/s?
so therefor t = v/a
t = (300.000hm/s) / (9,81m/s?)
and then you come to 340 and a bit days
sure speed can be seen relative, but an endless acceleration isn't relative and that's it
You need to be very careful when applying the equation v = u + at in relativistic situations. Neither acceleration nor time is constant for all observers, and you are attempting to use the acceleration as measured on Earth to calculate elapsed time for an inertial observer. In other words, you are applying classical mechanics to a relativistic problem. The problem is not Flat Earth Theory, but your misapplication of that equation.
-----
ok.. light speed measured on earth: 300.000 km/s
when they tried to bring atoms to that speed, they grew in masses
right, ok?.
2. basic physics would be a good start for you
Perhaps you should let my second year electrodynamics lecturer know that I'm in the wrong course, then.
------
you got that grade and still think the earth is flat? oh well
How can you have believed all that if you think the basics in it are wrong?
3. seeing that he has a daily blog with pictures, i can quite follow him
if you want to be certain that your earth is flat, then take a boat and sail from america to the west, guess what? you'll reach land! (and it's not made of ice)
Please read the FAQ. Such a journey is perfectly compatible with Flat Earth Theory.
Not when going in a straight line.
1. you are only at 'zero-g' when the plane goes down again
Uh, no, you can experience weightlessness when the plane is going up as long as you are following a parabolic path (relative to the Earth; you'd actually be travelling in a straight line according to an inertial observer).
------
uh, no, you are under a force of 2g (there goes your upwards acceleration AGAIN) when going up and you are at 0g when going down
3. plane going down, earth going up, so it certainly isn't infinite
o yes, note to you, sure parabolas are infinite, at least they are on graphics
but i'm QUITE sure that you'll reach the ground after a while :)
I'm aware of that. My point was that the only limiting factor is the energy of the craft, and not the parabolic trajectory itself.
-----
And that energy is quite limited to be honest
-
ok.. light speed measured on earth: 300.000 km/s
when they tried to bring atoms to that speed, they grew in masses
right, ok?.
As observed by the scientists watching them, yes.
you got that grade and still think the earth is flat? oh well
How can you have believed all that if you think the basics in it are wrong?
Where did I say that I believe the basics are wrong?
Not when going in a straight line.
It doesn't work in a straight line in RET, either.
uh, no, you are under a force of 2g (there goes your upwards acceleration AGAIN) when going up and you are at 0g when going down
As long as the parabola is curving downwards, you can still be moving upwards and feel weightlessness. You are thinking of a parabola with upward concavity, which is very different.
And that energy is quite limited to be honest
It is. Can you show that it is so limited that you could not possibly make a two-and-a-half minute video while on a parabolic trajectory?
-
Parabolas are infinite in length. Therefore, if the Earth is flat and infinite, the only limit on the amount of time a craft can spend in a parabolic trajectory in a vacuum and still come back down to Earth is its initial kinetic energy.
If the earth is flat and infinite, then it's possible to take many parabolic trajectories. Just like in the RE. So lets throw that one out as irrelevant.
It's initial kinetic energy has a lot to do with it, as do flight ceilings and floors for the planes.
If you want a longer zero g flight then you need more energy and more ceiling.
Given that some of those ISS videos are several minutes long (uncut), and given that there is no known technology (let's not get into what the conspiracy has huh?) that could produce a parabolic trajectory for this time, it's pretty hard for you to work any kind of defence here.
-
ok.. light speed measured on earth: 300.000 km/s
when they tried to bring atoms to that speed, they grew in masses
right, ok?.
As observed by the scientists watching them, yes.
you got that grade and still think the earth is flat? oh well
How can you have believed all that if you think the basics in it are wrong?
Where did I say that I believe the basics are wrong?
Not when going in a straight line.
It doesn't work in a straight line in RET, either.
And that energy is quite limited to be honest
It is. Can you show that it is so limited that you could not possibly make a two-and-a-half minute video while on a parabolic trajectory?
read everything, ok
you got height H, which is about 12.000m, if you go higher, your engins will freeze.
your parabole goes from 0->12.000m, then it goes down in freefall, for safety, let's take 11500m
6000m in freefall takes: (quick calculation):
h = a.t?/2
sqrt( 23000/9,81) = t (in seconds)
48.4s = t
even there it's still not over the minute
0g in parabolic flights only take 15-20 second if i'm not mistake,
so those video's longer then 2 minutes must be taken in space
-
It is the mysterious that drives us - where do we go when we die? How big is the Earth? How deep is it? If you dig down deep enough, do you come out on the other side? Are we alone?
We still do not know what electricity is - albeit we know how to use it (the motor).
Some people believe the Earth is hollow, some people believe visitors from other worlds frequent the world.
As long as we wonder and seek truth, light shall prevail.
-
some people believe visitors from other worlds frequent the world.
That's because 14% of humans have seen UFOs/aliens. 0% of humans have seen a flat Earth.
-
It is the mysterious that drives us - where do we go when we die? How big is the Earth? How deep is it? If you dig down deep enough, do you come out on the other side? Are we alone?
We still do not know what electricity is - albeit we know how to use it (the motor).
Some people believe the Earth is hollow, some people believe visitors from other worlds frequent the world.
As long as we wonder and seek truth, light shall prevail.
when you die, it's the same before you were born: nothing
how big is the earth? 1.0832073 ? 10^12 km3
how deep is it? that's 2 times the radius: 12 756,274 km
If you dig down deep enough, do you come out on the other side? nop, you'll melt from the heat
Are we alone? probably not
We still do not know what electricity is: electricity are the electrons of the atoms moving in the oposit direction of the powerligne
electrons are little masses of pure energy
Some people believe the Earth is hollow: not true
As long as we wonder and seek truth, light shall prevail.: true
-
We still do not know what electricity is: electricity are the electrons of the atoms moving in the oposit direction of the powerligne
Not always.
electrons are little masses of pure energy
What does this even mean? If you mean that electrons have mass and energy, then congratulations Einstein, you've identified two of their three most basic properties. Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about something as being "pure energy", because it implies that you can somehow obtain impure energy.
Some people believe the Earth is hollow: not true
How do you know? Have you asked everybody in the world whether or not they believe the Earth to be hollow?
-
What does this even mean? If you mean that electrons have mass and energy, then congratulations Einstein, you've identified two of their three most basic properties. Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about something as being "pure energy", because it implies that you can somehow obtain impure energy.
Instead of mocking and fixing syntax you could use that incredible intellect of yours to help people out.
-
I carried out the canal experiment and it showed there to be a curve.
-
What does this even mean? If you mean that electrons have mass and energy, then congratulations Einstein, you've identified two of their three most basic properties. Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about something as being "pure energy", because it implies that you can somehow obtain impure energy.
Instead of mocking and fixing syntax you could use that incredible intellect of yours to help people out.
I'm not going to help people out who act like they know it all. And anyway, I am sincerely interested to know what he meant by "electrons are little masses of pure energy", because it doesn't seem to say a great deal.
-
I'm not going to help people out who act like they know it all.
You, me, pot, kettle, etc.
-
I'm not going to help people out who act like they know it all. And anyway, I am sincerely interested to know what he meant by "electrons are little masses of pure energy", because it doesn't seem to say a great deal.
You already know quite a bit (I hope) about the nature of electrons.
Why don't you tell him what you know instead of bating?
-
You already know quite a bit (I hope) about the nature of electrons.
Why don't you tell him what you know instead of bating?
Because he didn't ask.
I'm still curious to know what he meant by "electrons are little masses of pure energy". There's a chance he knows more than he seems to and just didn't phrase it very well.
-
You already know quite a bit (I hope) about the nature of electrons.
Why don't you tell him what you know instead of bating?
Because he didn't ask.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't volunteer information. This isn't the 5th grade. If you know something spit it out.
-
That doesn't mean you shouldn't volunteer information. This isn't the 5th grade. If you know something spit it out.
So I'm supposed to type out everything I know about electrons because somebody posts a sentence with the word "electron" in it that doesn't make any sense?
-
That doesn't mean you shouldn't volunteer information. This isn't the 5th grade. If you know something spit it out.
So I'm supposed to type out everything I know about electrons because somebody posts a sentence with the word "electron" in it that doesn't make any sense?
Not everything. Just a brief summary of what you do know with regards to electrons, mass and energy. If you can make the effort to type out a dismissal then you can also give us a little peek into that brilliant mind.
-
Not everything. Just a brief summary of what you do know with regards to electrons, mass and energy. If you can make the effort to type out a dismissal then you can also give us a little peek into that brilliant mind.
Electrons have mass and they also have energy. Better?
-
Electrons have mass and they also have energy. Better?
Not particularly. I was hoping for something more from someone who chided another poster for making largely the same (although badly worded) observation.
-
Not particularly. I was hoping for something more from someone who chided another poster for making largely the same (although badly worded) observation.
Then you will be disappointed. Unless you ask a more specific question, I cannot help you.
-
Not particularly. I was hoping for something more from someone who chided another poster for making largely the same (although badly worded) observation.
Then you will be disappointed. Unless you ask a more specific question, I cannot help you.
Oh well. It's just that, well you know, that kind of posting makes you look like a finger pointer, that's all. You can only highlight the deficiencies without promoting anything over and above the original mistake.
Oh well.
-
Oh well. It's just that, well you know, that kind of posting makes you look like a finger pointer, that's all. You can only highlight the deficiencies without promoting anything over and above the original mistake.
I can't know if there was a mistake until I know what he intended to say.
-
I can't know if there was a mistake until I know what he intended to say.
You don't need to know if there's a mistake. Just tell us what you know about the subject. It makes reading posts interesting. Kind of like "oh he's really moved this debate forward with this post". See?
-
You don't need to know if there's a mistake. Just tell us what you know about the subject. It makes reading posts interesting. Kind of like "oh he's really moved this debate forward with this post". See?
I wasn't aware there was any sort of debate going on in this thread.
-
I wasn't aware there was any sort of debate going on in this thread.
Without further details I can only score this up as some kind of myopia.
Until it's fixed I suggest you refrain from posting further.
-
Primarily, because that's what I was taught,
and arguing about being a sheep is non-sequiter,
the government teaches us that cancer kills people, yes?
and every bit of literature and personal experience
has backed up this claim. such as gravity, magnetic field of
the earth, flight paths, seasons, etc.
BUT all of this can be and of course has been refuted by the FET.
And most of your arguments are at least possible due to the fact that
locally a sphere resembles a disk, so FET will make sense as long as
numerical evidence is not shown.
The point where I see FET break down is in the fundamental differences
between a sphere and a disk. This difference lies not in the properties of
geology and astronomy, but in topology: all of the vectors normal (perpendicular) to a disk are
parallel and all of the vectors normal to a sphere are radial. therefore, you can prove the normal
vectors to be non perpendicular, you can show that the earth is a sphere.
you can show this, by computing surface integrals, or surface vectors, because the cross-product of which
will give you the normal vector. now, according to FET, these normal vectors should be identical, so therefore
arbitrary surface integrals should be the same.
but they are not equal at all, as you cannot see america from Everest.
-
We still do not know what electricity is: electricity are the electrons of the atoms moving in the oposit direction of the powerligne
1.Not always.
electrons are little masses of pure energy
2. What does this even mean? If you mean that electrons have mass and energy, then congratulations Einstein, you've identified two of their three most basic properties. Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about something as being "pure energy", because it implies that you can somehow obtain impure energy.
Some people believe the Earth is hollow: not true
3. How do you know? Have you asked everybody in the world whether or not they believe the Earth to be hollow?
1. ok, when not (could be that i'm wrong, but so far i know, i haven't met an other situation)
2. ok: an article is one of the smallest elementary particles, it has a negative charge and as far as we know, it doesn't exist out of anything 'smaller' (or however you say it in english)
or:
An electron is a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It has no known substructure and is believed to be a point particle.[2] An electron has a mass that is approximately 1836 times less than that of the proton.[8] The intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of the electron is a half integer value of 1/2, which means that it is a fermion. The anti-particle of the electron is called the positron, which is identical to the electron except that it carries electrical and other charges of the opposite sign. When an electron collides with a positron, they annihilate, producing a pair (or more) of gamma ray photons. Electrons, which belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family,[9] participate in gravitational, electromagnetic and weak interactions.[10] Electrons have quantum mechanical properties of both a particle and a wave, so they can collide with other particles and be diffracted like light. Since an electron is a fermion, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, a property known as the Pauli exclusion principle.[9]
The concept of an indivisible amount of electric charge was theorized to explain the chemical properties of atoms, beginning in 1838 by British natural philosopher Richard Laming;[4] the name electron was introduced for this charge in 1894 by Irish physicist George Johnstone Stoney. The electron was identified as a particle in 1897 by J. J. Thomson and his team of British physicists.[6][11]
In many physical phenomena, such as electricity, magnetism, and thermal conductivity, electrons play an essential role. An electron generates a magnetic field while moving, and it is deflected by external magnetic fields. When an electron is accelerated, it can absorb or radiate energy in the form of photons. Electrons, together with atomic nuclei made of protons and neutrons, make up atoms. However, electrons contribute less than 0.06% to an atom's total mass. The attractive Coulomb force between an electron and a proton causes electrons to be bound into atoms. The exchange or sharing of the electrons between two or more atoms is the main cause of chemical bonding.[12]
According to theory, most of the electrons in the universe were created in the big bang, but may also be created through beta decay of Radioactive isotopes and in high-energy collisions, for instance, when cosmic rays enter the atmosphere. Electrons may be destroyed through annihilation with positrons, or may be absorbed during nucleosynthesis in stars. Laboratory instruments are capable of containing and observing individual electrons as well as electron plasma, whereas dedicated telescopes can detect electron plasma in the outer space. Electrons have many applications, including welding, cathode ray tubes, electron microscopes, radiation therapy, lasers and particle accelerators.
now happy?
3. dude, honestly, i mean that the earth isn't hollow...
-
1. ok, when not (could be that i'm wrong, but so far i know, i haven't met an other situation)
Consider, for instance, an electric current within an aqueous solution of sodium chloride. The charge carriers are sodium and chloride ions, not electrons.
2. ok: an article is one of the smallest elementary particles, it has a negative charge and as far as we know, it doesn't exist out of anything 'smaller'
Okay, so you were trying to say that an electron is a fundamental particle. Thanks for the clarification.
3. dude, honestly, i mean that the earth isn't hollow...
Okay, but that's very different from people not believing that the Earth is hollow.
-
Some people believe the Earth is hollow: not true
3. How do you know? Have you asked everybody in the world whether or not they believe the Earth to be hollow?
3. dude, honestly, i mean that the earth isn't hollow...
Robosteve takes great pleasure in identifying syntactical errors of logic.
So while it may be true that the earth is not hollow it doesn't prevent anyone believing that the earth is hollow.
See?
-
ok, when not (could be that i'm wrong, but so far i know, i haven't met an other situation)
1.Consider, for instance, an electric current within an aqueous solution of sodium chloride. The charge carriers are sodium and chloride ions, not electrons.
ok: an article is one of the smallest elementary particles, it has a negative charge and as far as we know, it doesn't exist out of anything 'smaller'
2. Okay, so you were trying to say that an electron is a fundamental particle. Thanks for the clarification.
dude, honestly, i mean that the earth isn't hollow...
3.Okay, but that's very different from people not believing that the Earth is hollow.
1. there is still a difference between charge difference and electricity
are you sure that there is an electric ligne?
2. the guy said 'we don't know what electricity is', i explained that we actually do know what it is and i explained what i was: electrons
3. i never said that there were no people that believe the world is hollow
i only pointed out that the earth isn't hollow
-
1. there is still a difference between charge difference and electricity
are you sure that there is an electric ligne?
An electric current is a net movement of electric charge. If you apply a voltage across an aqueous solution of sodium chloride, which has finite resistance, then in accordance with Ohm's law you will observe an electric current.
2. the guy said 'we don't know what electricity is', i explained that we actually do know what it is and i explained what i was: electrons
I realise what you were saying now, you just said it badly at the time. I was just clarifying. :)
3. i never said that there were no people that believe the world is hollow
i only pointed out that the earth isn't hollow
Again, I realise what you were saying now, but it's not what I thought you were saying at first.
-
there is still a difference between charge difference and electricity
are you sure that there is an electric ligne?
1.An electric current is a net movement of electric charge. If you apply a voltage across an aqueous solution of sodium chloride, which has finite resistance, then in accordance with Ohm's law you will observe an electric current.
the guy said 'we don't know what electricity is', i explained that we actually do know what it is and i explained what i was: electrons
2.I realise what you were saying now, you just said it badly at the time. I was just clarifying. :)
i never said that there were no people that believe the world is hollow
i only pointed out that the earth isn't hollow
3.Again, I realise what you were saying now, but it's not what I thought you were saying at first.
1. hmm, i know that form the charge difference (=volt), but i thought that cause of this voltage difference, the electrons will move in the direction to equalise the volt difference (only if the matery is good.... (opisite from isolation)), anyway, the oposite direction of the direction of your electrons is your powertrail (confusing to explain it in english :()
2.tbh, it didn't sound confusing at all at that point :p, but i can understand that 3. sounds confusing
-
1. hmm, i know that form the charge difference (=volt), but i thought that cause of this voltage difference, the electrons will move in the direction to equalise the volt difference (only if the matery is good.... (opisite from isolation)), anyway, the oposite direction of the direction of your electrons is your powertrail (confusing to explain it in english :()
Well, let's try discussing it using mathematics then. Ohm's law says that:
V = IR
Therefore, if V ≠ 0 and R ≠ ∞, we know that I ≠ 0. So any voltage across a sodium chloride solution will create a current within it, because it doesn't have infinite resistance.
-
1. hmm, i know that form the charge difference (=volt), but i thought that cause of this voltage difference, the electrons will move in the direction to equalise the volt difference (only if the matery is good.... (opisite from isolation)), anyway, the oposite direction of the direction of your electrons is your powertrail (confusing to explain it in english :()
Well, let's try discussing it using mathematics then. Ohm's law says that:
V = IR
Therefore, if V ≠ 0 and R ≠ ∞, we know that I ≠ 0. So any voltage across a sodium chloride solution will create a current within it, because it doesn't have infinite resistance.
well, that makes it certain that there is a electric ligne, but that doesn't prove that the electric ligne itself doesn't exist out of electrons
this would be so much easier for me if this was dutch :(
-
well, that makes it certain that there is a electric ligne, but that doesn't prove that the electric ligne itself doesn't exist out of electrons
this would be so much easier for me if this was dutch :(
We know that the electric current isn't carried by electrons because of the type of chemical bonding in the substance. In metals, there are plenty of electrons which are free to move, which is why they carry the current. In ionic solutions, all of the electrons are bound into orbitals within the ions, so they can't move on their own. However, the ions can move on their own, so the current is carried by positive sodium ions and negative chloride ions, if the solution is one of sodium chloride.
-
Guys, come on.
electric current is the movement of the electric field, not the particles.
-
Guys, come on.
electric current is the movement of the electric field, not the particles.
Please stop posting about things you don't understand.
-
I believe in a round Earth because I have seen the curvature. Some of you FEers really need to climb a hill more often.
-
Guys, come on.
electric current is the movement of the electric field, not the particles.
ok, i felt quite ashemed when parsifal explained me from the ions, but you must feel far worse :(
-
Firstly sorry for resurrecting an old(ish) thread. But I'm new to the forum and this seemed like a good thread to make my first post and introduce myself. So I'm a software engineer from England, so I'll be the first to admit I only have a rudimentary understanding of physics and I may well be picked up on errors in future posts.
Anyhow my reasons for believing the Earth is round:
1) When I was eight I had a friend who flew from London to NY on Concorde, when he got back he told me he'd "been into space" I didn't believe him so he showed me a photo he took out of the window of Concorde. I could clearly see the curvature of the earth. (I do realise now that I'm no longer 8 years old, he hadn't been to space, just very high up in the atmosphere).
2) I've used the Vincenty formula to work out the distance from Nottingham to London I then used the odometer in my car to measure the distance and found the results to be similar enough (Vincenty formula works out straight line distance, road distance was slightly further due to there being no road from my front door in a straight line to London), if the earth was flat the odometer would have recorded a greater variance.
3) I've seen ships disappear over the horizon, I've seen Tom's rebuttal is to read the literature on this 'illusion' so I did and saw a major flaw straight away. it correctly stated that smaller distinguishable parts of a whole disappear first when getting further away. Which is why the hull disappears first. But wait, the hulls on all the ships I've ever seen are a damn sight bigger than their superstructures. I've seen the smaller part of a whole disappearing first in other circumstances such as on the range the head of the target disappears before the body, hang on a sec that's the top and my eye level was below it??!!??!!.
4) I've seen plenty of videos and photos of the Earth as observed from space / high alt. If the Earth isn't round these must be fake, therefore my eight year old school friend must have been a forger and/or a liar.
-
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society forums! Hope you enjoy your stay. :)
-
Guys, come on.
electric current is the movement of the electric field, not the particles.
ok, i felt quite ashemed when parsifal explained me from the ions, but you must feel far worse :(
im in 8th grade, and in my understanding, electricity is the movement of electrons
and also i know that in a solution full of ions, (plasma or ionized gas or acid solution) the electrons may move around freely (in a sense to some extent)
and i believe the earth is round because i can see a horizone LINE, if it was flat, i would see a horizon POINT right? due to objects getting smaller and smaller converging to a POINT.
also i have seen pictures of earth from the moon, and the earth is round
and you can circumnavigate the earth
and the earth casts a CIRCULAR SHADOW on the moon
-
im in 8th grade
Your mother must be proud.
-
No wonder, when her kid is smarter than a bunch of self-proclaimed scientists.
-
im in 8th grade
Your mother must be proud.
I kinda doubt yours is...
-
im in 8th grade
Your mother must be proud.
I kinda doubt yours is...
Parsifals mommy probably doesn't know he's trolling on a site believing in a flat earth. In real life, he's a round earth believer and he himself have said that before on this forum.