The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 04:59:18 AM

Title: It looks that way
Post by: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 04:59:18 AM
Ok, I'll give it a shot...

According to the FAQ, the main reason flat earth proponents believe the earth is flat is that it "looks that way". I understand there are some (questionable) experiments to further back up the idea, but I'll assume these are merely supportive, and that the main reason flat earth proponents believe what they do is their personal observation.

So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point. If it did, then both theories would be equal on that particular point, weakening your theory. Hence you might want to present factual evidence to the rest of us, that, if, hypothetically speaking, the earth was round, it would actually look different to us than it does. Since you acknowledge gravity, you can't argue we'd fall off. Since the hypothetical assumption should also include the earth's large radius, by mathematical considerations it wouldn't look "bent" to us from down here. So what exactly would be the observable difference in this hypothetical world that cannot be reconciled with your actual observations?

Remember, bogus experiments will not answer this question, since this would mean you admit that from your personal observations, the earth "might as well be round" and that only those experiments show otherwise. So the flat earth theory would merely be a strong trust in the validity of a few bogus experiments, combined with a strong distrust in the validity of a much greater number of other experiments. This is obviously much weaker than a theory which claims to match universal personal observations while others don't. So choose wisely whether or not you take that step.

Of course you might take the position that your personal observations lead you to tend towards flatness, and that while a round earth would lead you to have the same observations, it seems more complex to you, and, denying all evidence to the contrary, you will stick to your personal impression.

Here's a few examples which illustrate this line of thinking:
- (About a person in a coma) He looks dead to me, so I'm going to assume he is and bury him until someone proves me otherwise. Breathing? Must be an inflating balloon in his chest, since, after all, I can see he's dead.
- (About an alleged serial killer) He looks guilty to me, so I'm going to assume he is and lock him up until someone proves me otherwise. The butler already admitted to it? He must be lying, since the defendant looks guilty.
- (About a person with internal bleeding) He looks healthy to me, so I'm going to deny him any medical treatment until someone proves me otherwise. X-ray? Must be fake, since, after all, I can see that he's healthy.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 08, 2011, 06:40:51 AM
You are trying to argue logic with people who claim to believe that the earth is flat.  What is wrong with this picture?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 06:45:49 AM
I was curious whether someone here manages to counter my argument while still remaining within the confines of logic, or whether all I'll get is avoidance and inconsistency.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 08, 2011, 06:53:52 AM
I am assuming that you have read past threads in order to come up with your question.  You need to feed them an opening in order to get a response.  Something like, "If the earth is accelerating upwards, then why does a helium balloon rise?  Is it accelerating faster than the Earth is accelerating?"  You have to give them wiggle room in order to get a response.  Otherwise, we are all preaching to the coir. 
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 07:09:13 AM
Ok, I'll give it a shot...

According to the FAQ, the main reason flat earth proponents believe the earth is flat is that it "looks that way". I understand there are some (questionable) experiments to further back up the idea, but I'll assume these are merely supportive, and that the main reason flat earth proponents believe what they do is their personal observation.

So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point. If it did, then both theories would be equal on that particular point, weakening your theory. Hence you might want to present factual evidence to the rest of us, that, if, hypothetically speaking, the earth was round, it would actually look different to us than it does. Since you acknowledge gravity, you can't argue we'd fall off. Since the hypothetical assumption should also include the earth's large radius, by mathematical considerations it wouldn't look "bent" to us from down here. So what exactly would be the observable difference in this hypothetical world that cannot be reconciled with your actual observations?

Remember, bogus experiments will not answer this question, since this would mean you admit that from your personal observations, the earth "might as well be round" and that only those experiments show otherwise. So the flat earth theory would merely be a strong trust in the validity of a few bogus experiments, combined with a strong distrust in the validity of a much greater number of other experiments. This is obviously much weaker than a theory which claims to match universal personal observations while others don't. So choose wisely whether or not you take that step.

Of course you might take the position that your personal observations lead you to tend towards flatness, and that while a round earth would lead you to have the same observations, it seems more complex to you, and, denying all evidence to the contrary, you will stick to your personal impression.

Here's a few examples which illustrate this line of thinking:
- (About a person in a coma) He looks dead to me, so I'm going to assume he is and bury him until someone proves me otherwise. Breathing? Must be an inflating balloon in his chest, since, after all, I can see he's dead.
- (About an alleged serial killer) He looks guilty to me, so I'm going to assume he is and lock him up until someone proves me otherwise. The butler already admitted to it? He must be lying, since the defendant looks guilty.
- (About a person with internal bleeding) He looks healthy to me, so I'm going to deny him any medical treatment until someone proves me otherwise. X-ray? Must be fake, since, after all, I can see that he's healthy.

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 08, 2011, 07:17:55 AM
As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

I just wish the FERs would refer people to something other than a text that was written before the internal combustion engine was invented. 

And, thanks for explaining why Zetetic science is false.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Quote
As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 08, 2011, 09:50:44 AM
As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

This specifically is the reason I come to this website. Pseudo science based on false assumptions only ever performed by two crackpots (SBR and Lady Blount) 150 years ago are ipso-facto proof of the shap of the earth. Then on top of that insanity: Every scientist before and since who have made experiments that stand up to peer review and scrutiny are wrong or part of the conspiracy. All known physics that perfectly predict observed events inside their scope of description are false, and oh yeah all pictures showing the shape of the earth to be round are faked.

Its laughable. I think this place should be called the "flat earth thought experiment". Then at least people know what they are getting into and then maybe instead of the constant pedantic bickering there could be a sense of unity trying to come up with plausible ways the  earth could be functional as a flat disc.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Thork on October 08, 2011, 09:57:21 AM
But the earth is a flat disc. ???
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 08, 2011, 10:42:33 AM
This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else.
Any normal person would question the scientific validity of experiments & writings by some nut who published a leaflet entitled "The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scriptures!!" which argued that the "Bible, alongside our senses, supported the idea that the earth was flat and immovable and this essential truth should not be set aside for a system based solely on human conjecture" (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flat_Earth_Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flat_Earth_Society))


Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 12:09:18 PM
Quote
As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?

They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 12:53:57 PM
Quote
They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.

Have you personally conducted one? If not, how do you know these people are not lying to you? What makes you think NASA, the government and countless scientists are lying to you, but Daniel Shenton and TB are telling the truth? Obviously they have an incentive to make up bogus results, just like you say NASA has an incentive to provide fake pictures. Do you have such a close personal relationship to them that you don't question anything they say? In that case it sounds more like a cult rather than a science-based community.

Or better yet, if the Bedford Level Experiments were proven to you personally to be false beyond any doubt and a new president of "The Flat Earth Society" did another experiment and it showed the earth was round (as unlikely as this may seem), would you change your mind and believe the earth is round? If yes, why on earth do you put so much trust in this organization? If no, the experiments are not really what makes you believe what you do, which makes you wonder what is. If you go back to "what it looks like", I point to my original post and rest my case.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: TGreenleaf on October 09, 2011, 05:14:10 AM
Since nobody answered, here's what a flat earth believer might counter:

Your argument is beside the point. We argue that the earth is flat, not that it is imperative for an informed person to choose that belief over others. Why we believe what we do is not the issue here. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and does not need to explain why he chooses them, as long as he can provide evidence in their favor. We personally are convinced that the earth is flat, and we have provided evidence to support our claim. We are not stating that this belief is unavoidable in light of the available information, since a global conspiracy has made sure that it is not. Our argument is that the earth is flat, not that everyone in their right mind ought to think so. If you think otherwise, we respect that. Show us your evidence and we will evaluate it.

Here's what I would respond:

Any discussion is only of value if the argument at hand has any chance of being resolved. While everyone has the option to defend their opinion, whatever that opinion may be, there are only two means of spreading an idea: To gain the trust of people and manipulate them into changing their beliefs, and to provide authentic evidence which would lead a reasonable person to change their mind about the relevant issue. Assuming you reject the notion that manipulation is the only means by which flat earth belief can spread, you may either state that you have no intention of educating anyone outside your group about your ideas, or that a reasonable, intelligent person would accept your evidence as convincing enough to subscribe to your beliefs. In the former case your organization would obviously be pointless, while in the latter case you do have to argue what you refuse to argue, namely that your beliefs are not just true but reasonable to hold for impartial subjects in light of all considerations.

Responses?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: squevil on October 09, 2011, 06:16:44 AM
Quote
As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?

They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.

no need to call everybody angry noobs if they dont agree with bulls***. TB claims to have done extraordinary feats that is all
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tausami on October 09, 2011, 07:45:55 AM
Quote
As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?

They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.

no need to call everybody angry noobs if they dont agree with bulls***. TB claims to have done extraordinary feats that is all

I'm don't call people angry noobs because they are RE'ers. I call RE'ers 'RE'ers'. Angry noobs are noobs who are angry, and that describes you.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: The Knowledge on October 09, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
But the earth is a flat disc. ???

Nonsense, it's a triangular prism. Prove otherwise.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Thork on October 09, 2011, 10:24:39 AM
But the earth is a flat disc. ???

Nonsense, it's a triangular prism. Prove otherwise.
Read Earth Not A Globe
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: TGreenleaf on October 09, 2011, 10:38:09 AM
Meh, you guys are no fun. I feel like I'm holding a speech in front of a bunch of pre-schoolers who forgot to take their Ritalin. Well, alright then, I'll leave you to your toys, fellas. So long.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Thork on October 09, 2011, 11:14:13 AM
Meh, you guys are no fun. I feel like I'm holding a speech in front of a bunch of pre-schoolers who forgot to take their Ritalin. Well, alright then, I'll leave you to your toys, fellas. So long.
Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Here, watch this and enjoy how flat earth is. Its a view from Everest (the best vantage point on earth at 30,000ft). So long. If you come back, come back with an OP that actually warrants debate. Then you may get one.

A view from Everest (http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html)
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Crustinator on October 09, 2011, 12:24:37 PM
So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point.

I once fell off a chair whilst studying gravity. The blow to my head temporarily caused me to assume the earth was round. Luckily a quick glance out of my window confirmed that it was flat. I have since recovered fully.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: TGreenleaf on October 09, 2011, 01:25:04 PM
Quote
Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Unless you state that the earth looks flat, but isn't necessarily flat, you missed the subject of debate. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the concept that reality and appearance do not always coincide, seeing as that the ability to grasp this divergence is one of the fundamental qualities of basic cognitive functioning. Read: If you think the earth must be flat because it looks that way, a critical part of your brain is probably missing.

Let's see if you understand this:
(Correct) The earth looks flat, so maybe it is flat.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may not be flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may be round.
(Correct) The earth does not look round, but it may be round.

Quote
I once fell off a chair whilst studying gravity. The blow to my head temporarily caused me to assume the earth was round. Luckily a quick glance out of my window confirmed that it was flat. I have since recovered fully.

That's a wonderful story. Why don't you draw a few pictures and show them to us? That would be very nice.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: momentia on October 09, 2011, 01:25:13 PM
Meh, you guys are no fun. I feel like I'm holding a speech in front of a bunch of pre-schoolers who forgot to take their Ritalin. Well, alright then, I'll leave you to your toys, fellas. So long.
Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Here, watch this and enjoy how flat earth is. Its a view from Everest (the best vantage point on earth at 30,000ft). So long. If you come back, come back with an OP that actually warrants debate. Then you may get one.

A view from Everest (http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html)

If this was taken on everest, the highest point on earth, why are distant mountain peaks above the horizon?
(http://i54.tinypic.com/ip5js9.png)
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: The Knowledge on October 09, 2011, 04:43:48 PM
But the earth is a flat disc. ???

Nonsense, it's a triangular prism. Prove otherwise.
Read Earth Not A Globe

There's nothing in there that suggests it's not the top of a triangular prism. Where on earth do you get the idea it's a disc? Seen the edge, have you?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 04:47:43 PM
Quote
Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Unless you state that the earth looks flat, but isn't necessarily flat, you missed the subject of debate. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the concept that reality and appearance do not always coincide, seeing as that the ability to grasp this divergence is one of the fundamental qualities of basic cognitive functioning. Read: If you think the earth must be flat because it looks that way, a critical part of your brain is probably missing.

Let's see if you understand this:
(Correct) The earth looks flat, so maybe it is flat.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may not be flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may be round.
(Correct) The earth does not look round, but it may be round.

(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 09, 2011, 05:11:23 PM
(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round but that is pretty meaningless, as any body that big would look flat up close.
I fixed that for you. You're welcome.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: The Knowledge on October 09, 2011, 06:15:02 PM
When are people gonna stop using the argument that it looks flat? Here's more proof that it doesn't look flat.

(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd465/retknowledge/horizonclouds2.jpg)

Hmmm, looks like the base of the clouds is at a lower level than the ocean, which is closer to us. Looks like we're looking over a big old downward curve, don't it?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 06:33:30 PM
I don't see any clouds below the horizon.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: alex00 on October 09, 2011, 06:38:27 PM
I don't see any clouds below the horizon.
clean your glasses
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Particle Person on October 09, 2011, 06:41:09 PM
I don't see any clouds below the horizon.
clean your glasses

You do see clouds below the horizon?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: alex00 on October 09, 2011, 07:10:17 PM
I don't see any clouds below the horizon.
clean your glasses

You do see clouds below the horizon?
yes
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Particle Person on October 09, 2011, 07:13:05 PM
I don't see any clouds below the horizon.
clean your glasses

You do see clouds below the horizon?
yes

That is amazing. I presume you use your powers to aid the forces of good, not evil?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: markjo on October 09, 2011, 07:26:09 PM
Quote
Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Unless you state that the earth looks flat, but isn't necessarily flat, you missed the subject of debate. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the concept that reality and appearance do not always coincide, seeing as that the ability to grasp this divergence is one of the fundamental qualities of basic cognitive functioning. Read: If you think the earth must be flat because it looks that way, a critical part of your brain is probably missing.

Let's see if you understand this:
(Correct) The earth looks flat, so maybe it is flat.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may not be flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may be round.
(Correct) The earth does not look round, but it may be round.

(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round.

Except that the earth looking flat doesn't automatically exclude that possibility of the earth being round.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: momentia on October 09, 2011, 10:48:08 PM
Hey Thork, your Everest photo seems to indicate a round earth.
(http://i54.tinypic.com/o8v21d.png)

In this picture we can see two high mountain peaks. The closer one is Lhotse. The farther one is Kangchenjunga. Lhotse is 8,516 m high. Mount Everest (the camera height) is 8,848 m. The difference between these two heights is 332 meters.

Lets use some similar triangles.
Lhotse is 3.0 km away from the top of Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is 125 km away from Kangchenjunga.
332 m / 3km * 125km =13,800 meters.

This means that the, at the distance of Kangchenjunga from Mount Everest, on a flat earth, Lhotse should appear to be level with an altitude of 8,848-13,800 = -4950 meters at the distance of Kangchenjunga.
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2cxyc1k.jpg)

However, we see that Lhotse is about level with the top of Kangchenjunga (altitude 8,516 m). This cannot happen on a flat earth.

Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Moon squirter on October 09, 2011, 11:15:36 PM
(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round.

Well that would certainly break the ice at that tense first meeting of "her parents".
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 10, 2011, 12:28:12 AM
[...]
This cannot happen on a flat earth.
But of course it can!
Just a while ago you had an issue with the horizon being too high up on the picture. However, you couldn't figure out the (elementary, really) reason why.
Welp, here's the answer to both your questions: The camera wasn't aimed perfectly horizontally. The pictures were taken while looking down a bit.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Thork on October 10, 2011, 03:56:26 AM
Hey Thork, your Everest photo seems to indicate a round earth.
(http://i54.tinypic.com/o8v21d.png)

In this picture we can see two high mountain peaks. The closer one is Lhotse. The farther one is Kangchenjunga. Lhotse is 8,516 m high. Mount Everest (the camera height) is 8,848 m. The difference between these two heights is 332 meters.

Lets use some similar triangles.
Lhotse is 3.0 km away from the top of Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is 125 km away from Kangchenjunga.
332 m / 3km * 125km =13,800 meters.

This means that the, at the distance of Kangchenjunga from Mount Everest, on a flat earth, Lhotse should appear to be level with an altitude of 8,848-13,800 = -4950 meters at the distance of Kangchenjunga.
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2cxyc1k.jpg)

However, we see that Lhotse is about level with the top of Kangchenjunga (altitude 8,516 m). This cannot happen on a flat earth.


This is so wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. How did you dream this up? Are you saying the line of sight on a flat earth is less than that on a round earth. ? lol. Your diagram suggests so. Imagine if the earth curved. The mountain really would disappear and be lower. Are you saying the line of sight between two mountains at 8848 and 8516m is less than 125m on a flat earth? lol. On your diagram you suggest that the mountain on a flat earth would disappear under the horizon. ? Erm, no, that's what a round earth would do.

Here you have 2 mountains. In the photo they look roughly the same height.  and you are almost level too. 8848~8516. Well all is well. If the earth curved you would expect the far mountain to be much lower. I would like you to do a round earth version of your diagram and show using your laughable conclusions how having the surface bend away and drop even lower, that these mountains suddenly reappear level.

You only helped prove the earth is flat. A round earth should have mountains much lower in the distance or obscured by its roundness. As you can see, this is not the case. Ergo, you can see with your eyes ... earth is flat. No tricks, no conspiracy just your eyes wondering why those mountains are the roughly the same height. Only on a flat earth.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: squevil on October 10, 2011, 04:19:38 AM
Quote
As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?

They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.

no need to call everybody angry noobs if they dont agree with bulls***. TB claims to have done extraordinary feats that is all

I'm don't call people angry noobs because they are RE'ers. I call RE'ers 'RE'ers'. Angry noobs are noobs who are angry, and that describes you.

infact i have subscribed to this forum for 9 days longer than you making us both new people in that case. however i dont make 1000s of low content posts. you are showing this here comunity that even when the facts are laid out you still can see what something is.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: OU812 on October 10, 2011, 05:06:12 AM
A view from Everest (http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html)

Magnificent view. Thanks for the link. Question.

How have you verified that these pictures are genuine? I mean, you reject any pictures that would challenge your views about the Earth's shape, but question nothing about pictures that would seem to confirm your views.

"Bendy" light, never observed to occur outside of a strong gravitational field, is an inference from the observation that the Earth looks flat.

A spherical Earth, until we had direct personal observation and photographic evidence, was an inference of, among others, the coriolis effect and angle of incoming sunlight.

Why is one inference preferable over another?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: OU812 on October 10, 2011, 05:18:16 AM
"The Earth is flat because it looks flat."
"Therefore, any observation that either suggests or proves the Earth is not flat must be explained by a highly intricate unobserved and unobservable mechanism."

This image changes when I move my eyes because it looks like it changes when I move my eyes.
(http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/rotsnake.gif)
Therefore, the computer can detect the movements of my eyes and changes this image when I do so.

The bars in this image are not parallel because they look like they are not parallel.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vTSkUJ7ef_A/TZaMpF8U0xI/AAAAAAAAB8c/_NGEa5a3pz8/s1600/Parallel+Bars.png)
Therefore, the computer can detect when I measure a vertical distance in this picture and it will change the entire picture so that the part that I am measuring is always the same vertical size.

Because my eyes always show me what is real.

Couldn't find the white plane with evenly-spaced small black sqaures. There seem to be gray areas between the corners of the black sqaures.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Ski on October 10, 2011, 08:11:33 AM
The bars do look parallel. The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is. Some things will trick your eyes/mind. Are you suggesting the earth is designed in such a fashion? To what purpose?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 10, 2011, 08:27:48 AM
The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is.
Perhaps it's a visual representation of celestial gears theory.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: markjo on October 10, 2011, 11:11:27 AM
The bars do look parallel. The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is. Some things will trick your eyes/mind. Are you suggesting the earth is designed in such a fashion? To what purpose?

I believe that the purpose is to emphasize the fact that your senses cannot always be trusted to give you accurate information about your environment.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: The Knowledge on October 10, 2011, 01:09:22 PM

"Bendy" light, never observed to occur outside of a strong gravitational field, is an inference from the observation that the Earth looks flat.


Incorrect, the now-discredited bendy light was a feeble attempt to explain why the earth DOESN'T look flat, in other words why objects on the horizon appear to be on a big downward curve and then disappear over the edge. It's quite entertaining to see FE'ers claiming the earth looks flat in one thread then pretending to believe in bendy light in another, in blithe ignorance of how these two assertions contradict each other.
Anyway, bendy light died a death, but the objects still disappear over the horizon.  ;)
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: squevil on October 10, 2011, 01:21:28 PM
The bars do look parallel. The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is. Some things will trick your eyes/mind. Are you suggesting the earth is designed in such a fashion? To what purpose?

I believe that the purpose is to emphasize the fact that your senses cannot always be trusted to give you accurate information about your environment.

or to put simply. what you see isnt always what you get. its tragic that it was obvious to you

as you added a cool illusion id like to share this one. i had never seen one like this before and it blew me away when i first saw it.
(its not a scare video)
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Nolhekh on October 10, 2011, 02:15:13 PM
Quote
Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Unless you state that the earth looks flat, but isn't necessarily flat, you missed the subject of debate. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the concept that reality and appearance do not always coincide, seeing as that the ability to grasp this divergence is one of the fundamental qualities of basic cognitive functioning. Read: If you think the earth must be flat because it looks that way, a critical part of your brain is probably missing.

Let's see if you understand this:
(Correct) The earth looks flat, so maybe it is flat.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may not be flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may be round.
(Correct) The earth does not look round, but it may be round.

(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round.

Thanks for clarifying part of TGreenleaf point.  What you said is essentially this:

(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Nolhekh on October 10, 2011, 02:22:11 PM
This is a dome.  It looks pretty flat.  It even fooled Roundy.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/5xsubsurfroundearth.jpg)
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: momentia on October 10, 2011, 02:41:18 PM
Hey Thork, your Everest photo seems to indicate a round earth.
(http://i54.tinypic.com/o8v21d.png)

In this picture we can see two high mountain peaks. The closer one is Lhotse. The farther one is Kangchenjunga. Lhotse is 8,516 m high. Mount Everest (the camera height) is 8,848 m. The difference between these two heights is 332 meters.

Lets use some similar triangles.
Lhotse is 3.0 km away from the top of Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is 125 km away from Kangchenjunga.
332 m / 3km * 125km =13,800 meters.

This means that the, at the distance of Kangchenjunga from Mount Everest, on a flat earth, Lhotse should appear to be level with an altitude of 8,848-13,800 = -4950 meters at the distance of Kangchenjunga.
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2cxyc1k.jpg)

However, we see that Lhotse is about level with the top of Kangchenjunga (altitude 8,516 m). This cannot happen on a flat earth.


This is so wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. How did you dream this up? Are you saying the line of sight on a flat earth is less than that on a round earth. ? lol. Your diagram suggests so. Imagine if the earth curved. The mountain really would disappear and be lower. Are you saying the line of sight between two mountains at 8848 and 8516m is less than 125m on a flat earth? lol. On your diagram you suggest that the mountain on a flat earth would disappear under the horizon. ? Erm, no, that's what a round earth would do.

You seem to be critiquing the methodology, which is just fine. However, I did make a big mistake. The closer mountain is Makalu, (NOT Lhotse), which is 19.5 km away from everest and is 367 m lower than mount everest, at 8,481 m.

This means that the altitude level with apparently level with the top of Makalu at the distance of Kanchenjunga on a flat earth is:

367 m / 19.5km * 125km = 2.35 km lower than the height of everest, or 2.09 km lower than the height of Kanchenjunga.
Again, the methodology is just similar triangles, nothing wrong with it.

On a round earth, Kanchenjunga would appear to be lower than it would be on a flat earth. It would be lower by 1/2*d2/R = 1/2*1252/6380 = 1.22 km

This means that Makalu would appear to be level with a point .87 km lower than the summit on Kanchenjunga.

I will know draw your attention to Jannu (yes it's Jannu, you can check), the first peak a little bit to the right of Kanchenjunga. Its altitude is 7710 m and is 115 km away from everest.

Using the same methodology as above, Makalu should appear to be level with a point at Jannu 7710 - (8848-367*115/19.5) = 1030 meters lower than Jannu on a flat earth.
On a round earth, Makalu should appear to be level with a point 1000(1/2*1152/6380) - 1030 = -6 meters below Janna. I.e. The two should be just level.
The top of Makalu is about level with Jannu, indicating a round earth.

Since the difference between the top of Kanchenjunga and Jannu is under a 1000 meters (870), we can say that 1000 meters is a visible difference in height at 115 km.

The top of Makalu is clearly about lined up with the top of Jannu rather than a point on Jannu 1000 meters below the summit, indicating that the earth is round

Edit:
This picture demonstrates the Makalu appears about level with Jannu, as RE predicts. If the earth were flat, Makalu would appear be well under Jannu.
(http://i54.tinypic.com/1qfneh.jpg)
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: momentia on October 10, 2011, 08:07:41 PM
Need to change the RE estimate. When I calculated the triangle for Lhotse (I thought Makalu was Lhotse, derp), curvature didn't matter when calculating the difference between the height of Lhotse and Everest, since it was 3 km away. However, Makalu is 15 km away, so would appear lower than Everest by an additional 1000/2*152/6380 = 17.6 meters. this means that the apparent RE altitude that Makalu would be level with on Jannu would be 17.6*115/15 = 135 m lower than I stated. Makalu should appear about 140 meters lower than the summit of Jannu (at the distance of Jannu).

As well, it should appear .87+.146 = 1.02 km below Kangchenjunga's summit on Kangchenjunga, not .87 km.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: OU812 on October 11, 2011, 01:35:38 AM
The bars do look parallel. The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is. Some things will trick your eyes/mind. Are you suggesting the earth is designed in such a fashion? To what purpose?

And I thought you were one of the cleverer ones. Perhaps you are, and that's even more frightening.

WHAT. YOU. SEE. IS. NOT. ALWAYS. WHAT. IS. REALITY.

The Earth looks flat. But it isn't.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: CuriousAngel on October 13, 2011, 12:45:48 PM
Ok, I'll give it a shot...

According to the FAQ, the main reason flat earth proponents believe the earth is flat is that it "looks that way". I understand there are some (questionable) experiments to further back up the idea, but I'll assume these are merely supportive, and that the main reason flat earth proponents believe what they do is their personal observation.

So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point. If it did, then both theories would be equal on that particular point, weakening your theory. Hence you might want to present factual evidence to the rest of us, that, if, hypothetically speaking, the earth was round, it would actually look different to us than it does. Since you acknowledge gravity, you can't argue we'd fall off. Since the hypothetical assumption should also include the earth's large radius, by mathematical considerations it wouldn't look "bent" to us from down here. So what exactly would be the observable difference in this hypothetical world that cannot be reconciled with your actual observations?

Remember, bogus experiments will not answer this question, since this would mean you admit that from your personal observations, the earth "might as well be round" and that only those experiments show otherwise. So the flat earth theory would merely be a strong trust in the validity of a few bogus experiments, combined with a strong distrust in the validity of a much greater number of other experiments. This is obviously much weaker than a theory which claims to match universal personal observations while others don't. So choose wisely whether or not you take that step.

Of course you might take the position that your personal observations lead you to tend towards flatness, and that while a round earth would lead you to have the same observations, it seems more complex to you, and, denying all evidence to the contrary, you will stick to your personal impression.

Here's a few examples which illustrate this line of thinking:
- (About a person in a coma) He looks dead to me, so I'm going to assume he is and bury him until someone proves me otherwise. Breathing? Must be an inflating balloon in his chest, since, after all, I can see he's dead.
- (About an alleged serial killer) He looks guilty to me, so I'm going to assume he is and lock him up until someone proves me otherwise. The butler already admitted to it? He must be lying, since the defendant looks guilty.
- (About a person with internal bleeding) He looks healthy to me, so I'm going to deny him any medical treatment until someone proves me otherwise. X-ray? Must be fake, since, after all, I can see that he's healthy.

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

If he's tired of explaining why to everyone, then maybe he should have put that in the FAQ to begin with instead of saying, "The Earth is flat because it looks flat". That's hugely misleading if you actually have evidence backing up FET. If you think people won't understand the real explanation, then that's foolish of you to assume ignorance on the part of your readers.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: CuriousAngel on October 13, 2011, 12:59:11 PM
Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Thork on October 13, 2011, 01:35:55 PM
Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.
It does.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: The Knowledge on October 13, 2011, 01:41:10 PM
Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.
It does.

The Bedford Level results conflict with Rowbotham's own perspective theory. How do you explain this discrepancy within ENAG? Rowbotham doesn't.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: rin112 on October 13, 2011, 02:50:00 PM
Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.
It does.
It also proves that the Earth is round and concave.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tausami on October 13, 2011, 04:57:42 PM
Ok, I'll give it a shot...

According to the FAQ, the main reason flat earth proponents believe the earth is flat is that it "looks that way". I understand there are some (questionable) experiments to further back up the idea, but I'll assume these are merely supportive, and that the main reason flat earth proponents believe what they do is their personal observation.

So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point. If it did, then both theories would be equal on that particular point, weakening your theory. Hence you might want to present factual evidence to the rest of us, that, if, hypothetically speaking, the earth was round, it would actually look different to us than it does. Since you acknowledge gravity, you can't argue we'd fall off. Since the hypothetical assumption should also include the earth's large radius, by mathematical considerations it wouldn't look "bent" to us from down here. So what exactly would be the observable difference in this hypothetical world that cannot be reconciled with your actual observations?

Remember, bogus experiments will not answer this question, since this would mean you admit that from your personal observations, the earth "might as well be round" and that only those experiments show otherwise. So the flat earth theory would merely be a strong trust in the validity of a few bogus experiments, combined with a strong distrust in the validity of a much greater number of other experiments. This is obviously much weaker than a theory which claims to match universal personal observations while others don't. So choose wisely whether or not you take that step.

Of course you might take the position that your personal observations lead you to tend towards flatness, and that while a round earth would lead you to have the same observations, it seems more complex to you, and, denying all evidence to the contrary, you will stick to your personal impression.

Here's a few examples which illustrate this line of thinking:
- (About a person in a coma) He looks dead to me, so I'm going to assume he is and bury him until someone proves me otherwise. Breathing? Must be an inflating balloon in his chest, since, after all, I can see he's dead.
- (About an alleged serial killer) He looks guilty to me, so I'm going to assume he is and lock him up until someone proves me otherwise. The butler already admitted to it? He must be lying, since the defendant looks guilty.
- (About a person with internal bleeding) He looks healthy to me, so I'm going to deny him any medical treatment until someone proves me otherwise. X-ray? Must be fake, since, after all, I can see that he's healthy.

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

If he's tired of explaining why to everyone, then maybe he should have put that in the FAQ to begin with instead of saying, "The Earth is flat because it looks flat". That's hugely misleading if you actually have evidence backing up FET. If you think people won't understand the real explanation, then that's foolish of you to assume ignorance on the part of your readers.

We're working on that right now.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2011, 06:53:09 PM
Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.
It does.

The Bedford Level results conflict with Rowbotham's own perspective theory. How do you explain this discrepancy within ENAG? Rowbotham doesn't.

How does it conflict with Rowbotham's explanation of perspective? In his explanation the perspective effect can be reversed with a telescope. Half-sunken ships can be restored by looking at them through a telescope, as numerous accounts attest (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Sinking_Ship_Effect).

The Bedford Level experiment was done through a telescope, so it's appropriate that the earth was seen to be flat.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 19, 2011, 07:28:28 AM
In his explanation the perspective effect can be reversed with a telescope. Half-sunken ships can be restored by looking at them through a telescope, as numerous accounts attest (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Sinking_Ship_Effect).
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps? Or maybe a link to something other than the FES Wiki. If NASA, etc can't be referenced due to their obvious part in THE CONSPIRACY, then surely you can't expect the FES Wiki to be considered unbiased?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 19, 2011, 09:15:50 AM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.

Or maybe a link to something other than the FES Wiki. If NASA, etc can't be referenced due to their obvious part in THE CONSPIRACY, then surely you can't expect the FES Wiki to be considered unbiased?
What? NASA is referenced pretty much constantly, and to support the arguments of both sides.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2011, 11:14:41 AM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.
Any world record holder can tell you that it some truths can and do have expiration dates.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 19, 2011, 12:16:41 PM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.
I'm simply pointing out that if this is the "truth", then this phenomenon should be noticed all the time, yet it isn't. A few sketchy accounts in a book that's over a hundred years old can hardly be considered a perfect source of "truth".
Or maybe a link to something other than the FES Wiki. If NASA, etc can't be referenced due to their obvious part in THE CONSPIRACY, then surely you can't expect the FES Wiki to be considered unbiased?
What? NASA is referenced pretty much constantly, and to support the arguments of both sides.
I must have missed all of the NASA photos and footage showing the flat earth in all its glory. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a link.

All photos and videos from NASA that show that the earth is round are claimed to have been faked to support THE CONSPIRACY.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 19, 2011, 04:01:33 PM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.
Any world record holder can tell you that it some truths can and do have expiration dates.

If Mark runs a mile in 3 minutes 45 seconds today, and if Steve runs a mile in 3 minutes 44 seconds tomorrow, Mark's score is still true.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 04:06:37 PM
Less cherry-picking of the posts, more facts?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2011, 07:13:55 PM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.
Any world record holder can tell you that it some truths can and do have expiration dates.

If Mark runs a mile in 3 minutes 45 seconds today, and if Steve runs a mile in 3 minutes 44 seconds tomorrow, Mark's score is still true.

If Tom is the fastest runner in the world today and if Sarah beats Tom's fastest time tomorrow, then Tom is no longer the fastest runner in the world.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 19, 2011, 07:19:59 PM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.
Any world record holder can tell you that it some truths can and do have expiration dates.

If Mark runs a mile in 3 minutes 45 seconds today, and if Steve runs a mile in 3 minutes 44 seconds tomorrow, Mark's score is still true.

If Tom is the fastest runner in the world today and if Sarah Simon beats Tom's fastest time tomorrow, then Tom is no longer the fastest runner in the world.
Fixed that for you.
As if a girl could run faster... ;D
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tausami on October 19, 2011, 07:21:55 PM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.
Any world record holder can tell you that it some truths can and do have expiration dates.

If Mark runs a mile in 3 minutes 45 seconds today, and if Steve runs a mile in 3 minutes 44 seconds tomorrow, Mark's score is still true.

If Tom is the fastest runner in the world today and if Sarah Simon beats Tom's fastest time tomorrow, then Tom is no longer the fastest runner in the world.
Fixed that for you.
As if a girl could run faster... ;D

Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2011, 07:32:06 PM
Quote
If Tom is the fastest runner in the world today and if Sarah Simon beats Tom's fastest time tomorrow, then Tom is no longer the fastest runner in the world.
Fixed that for you.
As if a girl could run faster... ;D

Have you ever seen Tom run?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 20, 2011, 01:55:05 AM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.
Any world record holder can tell you that it some truths can and do have expiration dates.

If Mark runs a mile in 3 minutes 45 seconds today, and if Steve runs a mile in 3 minutes 44 seconds tomorrow, Mark's score is still true.

If Tom is the fastest runner in the world today and if Sarah beats Tom's fastest time tomorrow, then Tom is no longer the fastest runner in the world.
This would not change any universal truths though. Damn REers with their bendy truth theories.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 20, 2011, 05:19:17 AM
Quote
If Tom is the fastest runner in the world today and if Sarah Simon beats Tom's fastest time tomorrow, then Tom is no longer the fastest runner in the world.
Fixed that for you.
As if a girl could run faster... ;D

Have you ever seen Tom run?
If you mean Tom Bishop, then he runs pretty quickly when his trolling and circular reasoning comes under fire.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 20, 2011, 05:25:35 AM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.
Any world record holder can tell you that it some truths can and do have expiration dates.

If Mark runs a mile in 3 minutes 45 seconds today, and if Steve runs a mile in 3 minutes 44 seconds tomorrow, Mark's score is still true.

If Tom is the fastest runner in the world today and if Sarah Simon beats Tom's fastest time tomorrow, then Tom is no longer the fastest runner in the world.
Fixed that for you.
As if a girl could run faster... ;D

Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
How many sprinting world records are held by women? Do the Olympics, etc. discriminate or is it that women being, on average, slower than men is indisputable? How is this discrimination?

Is there anything in life more annoying than the kind of rubbish you have just spouted? If mods want to get annoyed, do they need you to correct me first? Are you some kind of pre-mod correctional officer?

Or are you the type of weirdo who gets offended for other people? In which case:
Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
"Don't laugh at girls, I know a girl. Honest I do..."
Fixed.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: markjo on October 20, 2011, 06:20:02 AM
How many sprinting world records are held by women? Do the Olympics, etc. discriminate or is it that women being, on average, slower than men is indisputable? How is this discrimination?

What part of "what if" don't you get?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 20, 2011, 08:00:14 AM
Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
How many sprinting world records are held by women? Do the Olympics, etc. discriminate or is it that women being, on average, slower than men is indisputable? How is this discrimination?

What part of "what if" don't you get?
"What if" you read the post that I was responding to, in bold for your convenience?

Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 20, 2011, 08:09:23 AM
NASA is referenced pretty much constantly, and to support the arguments of both sides.
I must have missed all of the NASA photos and footage showing the flat earth in all its glory. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a link.

All photos and videos from NASA that show that the earth is round are claimed to have been faked to support THE CONSPIRACY.
Still waiting for NASA proof of a flat earth.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: markjo on October 20, 2011, 09:07:41 AM
Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
How many sprinting world records are held by women? Do the Olympics, etc. discriminate or is it that women being, on average, slower than men is indisputable? How is this discrimination?

What part of "what if" don't you get?
"What if" you read the post that I was responding to, in bold for your convenience?

The post that you were responding to was directly related to your "fixing" my "what if" post.  Now let it go.  I intentionally had a woman beating Tom. 
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 20, 2011, 10:18:07 AM
Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
How many sprinting world records are held by women? Do the Olympics, etc. discriminate or is it that women being, on average, slower than men is indisputable? How is this discrimination?

What part of "what if" don't you get?
"What if" you read the post that I was responding to, in bold for your convenience?

The post that you were responding to was directly related to your "fixing" my "what if" post.  Now let it go.  I intentionally had a woman beating Tom.
Let what go? You keep responding to this as if I disagreed with you somewhere along the way.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tausami on October 20, 2011, 12:23:38 PM
Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?
Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.
Any world record holder can tell you that it some truths can and do have expiration dates.

If Mark runs a mile in 3 minutes 45 seconds today, and if Steve runs a mile in 3 minutes 44 seconds tomorrow, Mark's score is still true.

If Tom is the fastest runner in the world today and if Sarah Simon beats Tom's fastest time tomorrow, then Tom is no longer the fastest runner in the world.
Fixed that for you.
As if a girl could run faster... ;D

Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
How many sprinting world records are held by women? Do the Olympics, etc. discriminate or is it that women being, on average, slower than men is indisputable? How is this discrimination?

Is there anything in life more annoying than the kind of rubbish you have just spouted? If mods want to get annoyed, do they need you to correct me first? Are you some kind of pre-mod correctional officer?

Or are you the type of weirdo who gets offended for other people? In which case:
Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
"Don't laugh at girls, I know a girl. Honest I do..."
Fixed.

I'm not a mod.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Thork on October 20, 2011, 12:53:40 PM
This is a dome.  It looks pretty flat.  It even fooled Roundy.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/5xsubsurfroundearth.jpg)
Its not a dome. Its two rectangles of pixels. It is nothing like a dome. Its a rectangle of dark blue pixels on the bottom. Some light blue ones on the top. Your computer has approximated the shape you originally specified, based on its programming. Once you zoomed in, it no longer was a dome. The computer approximated and redrew a shape.  Earth is not re-approximated. There is no processing that happens as you get closer to it. No lack of information or resolution due to hardware limitations. The earth is flat, and zoom out and it stays looking flat. Looking at earth is not like looking at computer models. Earth isn't pixelated. Its not redrawn by a processor and graphics card as you change altitude. It wasn't programmed by a man.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 20, 2011, 01:59:07 PM
I'm not a mod.
OMGReally?!?!
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Tausami on October 20, 2011, 02:47:02 PM
I'm not a mod.
OMGReally?!?!

A bit too thick. You'll want it to be more subtle, and with more complex flavors.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: squevil on October 20, 2011, 03:31:21 PM
This is a dome.  It looks pretty flat.  It even fooled Roundy.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/5xsubsurfroundearth.jpg)
Its not a dome. Its two rectangles of pixels. It is nothing like a dome. Its a rectangle of dark blue pixels on the bottom. Some light blue ones on the top. Your computer has approximated the shape you originally specified, based on its programming. Once you zoomed in, it no longer was a dome. The computer approximated and redrew a shape.  Earth is not re-approximated. There is no processing that happens as you get closer to it. No lack of information or resolution due to hardware limitations. The earth is flat, and zoom out and it stays looking flat. Looking at earth is not like looking at computer models. Earth isn't pixelated. Its not redrawn by a processor and graphics card as you change altitude. It wasn't programmed by a man.

this is pure denial.if you subscribe to FET or not its easy to imagine that a giant sphere would appear flat. a smooth surface appears flat, but if you were shrunk to the size of an atom you would be stood amung hills and mountains
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Nolhekh on October 20, 2011, 06:53:38 PM
This is a dome.  It looks pretty flat.  It even fooled Roundy.
[IMG]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/5xsubsurfroundearth.jpg[/im]
Its not a dome. Its two rectangles of pixels. It is nothing like a dome. Its a rectangle of dark blue pixels on the bottom. Some light blue ones on the top. Your computer has approximated the shape you originally specified, based on its programming. Once you zoomed in, it no longer was a dome. The computer approximated and redrew a shape.  Citation needed
Why should the computer approximate and redraw anything?  What makes you think a bunch of programmers are going to make a computer suddenly start using a different set of code just because you zoom into a sphere?  At what point does my dome cease to be curved?  No one models a floor with a sphere, it takes too many unnecessary polygons.  It's stupid to need to make the computer do anything fancy for a scene no one makes. 
Quote
Earth is not re-approximated. There is no processing that happens as you get closer to it. No lack of information or resolution due to hardware limitations.
 
My machine performed just as slowly rendering that image as it did rendering the whole sphere.  I'm not sure what you mean by hardware limitations.
Quote
The earth is flat, and zoom out and it stays looking flat.Citation needed Looking at earth is not like looking at computer models. Earth isn't pixelated. Its not redrawn by a processor and graphics card as you change altitude. It wasn't programmed by a man.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 21, 2011, 01:10:20 AM
Don't be sexist. The mods have serious issues with discrimination.
If mods want to get annoyed, do they need you to correct me first? Are you some kind of pre-mod correctional officer?
I'm not a mod.
Where did I suggest you are a mod?
Also, you still didn't back up or retract your accusations of sexism & discrimination. Do the mods have no problems with libel?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 21, 2011, 07:04:02 AM
Also, you still didn't back up or retract your accusations of sexism & discrimination. Do the mods have no problems with libel?
The mods have no problems with libel, nor sexism/discrimination. The only thing you can't do is use a single derogatory word referring to dark-skinned people.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: Thork on October 21, 2011, 07:16:25 AM
Also, you still didn't back up or retract your accusations of sexism & discrimination. Do the mods have no problems with libel?
The mods have no problems with libel, nor sexism/discrimination. The only thing you can't do is use a single derogatory word referring to dark-skinned people.

Nor may you refer to a particularly offensive citrus fruit. So frowned upon is naming those yellow blighters, the forum is hard coded to prevent you doing so. Daniel has a few peculiarities. Ni**ers and lem*ns upset him. Just those two things. Everything else is fine.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 21, 2011, 07:33:06 AM
Also, you still didn't back up or retract your accusations of sexism & discrimination. Do the mods have no problems with libel?
The mods have no problems with libel, nor sexism/discrimination. The only thing you can't do is use a single derogatory word referring to dark-skinned people.
From a PM:
Quote
flat_earth_really?,

You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members. Please cease these activities and abide by the forum rules otherwise we will take further action.

Regards,
I called nobody any derogatory racist remarks so I guess they take issue with more than just that.
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 21, 2011, 09:15:15 AM
From a PM:
Quote
flat_earth_really?,

You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members. Please cease these activities and abide by the forum rules otherwise we will take further action.

Regards,
I called nobody any derogatory racist remarks so I guess they take issue with more than just that.
Oh, yeah, they do random shit too. Did the message say which mod it was?
Title: Re: It looks that way
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 21, 2011, 05:04:19 PM
From a PM:
Quote
flat_earth_really?,

You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members. Please cease these activities and abide by the forum rules otherwise we will take further action.

Regards,
I called nobody any derogatory racist remarks so I guess they take issue with more than just that.
Oh, yeah, they do random shit too. Did the message say which mod it was?
Yes they gave their name. My intent wasn't to complain about any particular mods, though, only to highlight the fact that  the 'n' word isn't the only insult they take offense to.