The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Lunia on March 20, 2013, 04:05:33 PM

Title: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Lunia on March 20, 2013, 04:05:33 PM
I want to hear them all. What are the theories or facts that support a flat earth, and deny the possibility of a round earth? Anything that is backed up with either observable or calculated data, doesn't matter to me. Just as long as there's something to support it. Instead of info that 'disproves' the flat earth, what are the facts that disproves the round earth?

We can skip over the 'disappear over the horizon' and 'the horizon looks flat'. Those have become akin to beating a poor dead horse. Something new, that I haven't heard of yet.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 20, 2013, 06:04:31 PM
There isn't a unique proof as of yet that can be verifiable, just as there isn't one of a round rotating earth that can be verifiable, so it's stale mate and is best left to each persons preference until such a time as undeniable concrete proof is put forward either way that cannot be anything other than the truth.
If you can think of one, put it forward.
You've seen all the reasons for and against and it's still being argued, so I think that should tell you , me and everyone else that nothing is done and dusted and likely never will be...but there's always hope that some genius will come up with something that scuppers the rotating round earth theory.
The trouble is, there's so much magic made up for the round earth theory, I'm sure they would come up with another piece of magic to account for it.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Bollybill on March 20, 2013, 06:10:11 PM
There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 20, 2013, 06:13:49 PM
There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.
There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Foxy on March 20, 2013, 06:22:37 PM
There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.
There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

You can say that about yourself, but my own logic and common sense should tell me what you conclude?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: kevinagain on March 20, 2013, 06:37:23 PM
i have nothing to add at the moment, but i want this thread to appear in my show new replies to your posts listing.

SO LIKE NOBODY MOVE IT TO CN PLEASE

thank you.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: hoppy on March 20, 2013, 06:55:39 PM
I want to hear them all. What are the theories or facts that support a flat earth, and deny the possibility of a round earth? Anything that is backed up with either observable or calculated data, doesn't matter to me. Just as long as there's something to support it. Instead of info that 'disproves' the flat earth, what are the facts that disproves the round earth?

We can skip over the 'disappear over the horizon' and 'the horizon looks flat'. Those have become akin to beating a poor dead horse. Something new, that I haven't heard of yet.
Read this book.
           http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm)
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Dog on March 20, 2013, 08:20:17 PM
just as there isn't one of a round rotating earth that can be verifiable

Oh no there is, just because you don't believe in facts doesn't make it not true. At the end of the day most of us RE'rs don't care about your guys' magic flat earth because we already know the truth, i'm just here because I like to argue.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Lunia on March 20, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Read this book.
           http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm)

Thank you for the link. I'll take a look at it when I have time, and see what I can put my take on it.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: darknavyseal on March 21, 2013, 12:28:45 AM
There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.
There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.
-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.
-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.
-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.
-GPS.
-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)
-Ships dropping below horizons.
-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).
-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.
-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.
-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)


All of these "evidences" are merely things that support the very simple notion of gravity. They do not scream "ROUND EARTH!", but they do heavily support the idea of it.
In FE, one must say, bendy light, bendy light, smart bendy light, perspective (?), UA (?), glowing animals on the moon (??), global conspiracy involving millions of people....

which one sounds more logically sound?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Dog on March 21, 2013, 12:45:16 AM
There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.
There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.
-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.
-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.
-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.
-GPS.
-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)
-Ships dropping below horizons.
-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).
-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.
-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.
-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)


All of these "evidences" are merely things that support the very simple notion of gravity. They do not scream "ROUND EARTH!", but they do heavily support the idea of it.
In FE, one must say, bendy light, bendy light, smart bendy light, perspective (?), UA (?), glowing animals on the moon (??), global conspiracy involving millions of people....

which one sounds more logically sound?

Seriously. And they call RET magic and illogical? Really?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 21, 2013, 03:55:29 AM
There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.
There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.
-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.
-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.
-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.
-GPS.
-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)
-Ships dropping below horizons.
-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).
-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.
-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.
-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)


All of these "evidences" are merely things that support the very simple notion of gravity. They do not scream "ROUND EARTH!", but they do heavily support the idea of it.
In FE, one must say, bendy light, bendy light, smart bendy light, perspective (?), UA (?), glowing animals on the moon (??), global conspiracy involving millions of people....

which one sounds more logically sound?
As the OP says though. It's unique proofs needed. I have no qualms about some of the stuff you say and I'm not in a position to say they are wrong, as in "I know" just the same as I don't know about the flat earth in it's entirety and I have to go on my own thinking, which from what I have seen on answers given out so far, the flat earth in general makes a lot more sense but I don't go along with some of the explanations for certain things to do with it as there are different variations.

In the rotating globe model, there is only one outlook, as it's an accepted fact model which requires no scrutinisation as far as people who go along with it, go.

If a car moves, it can move by magnetic force, hamster power,water wave power, Sun radiation heat power, blah blah, but the only clues to how it all works is by looking at it and lifting the bonnet then looking at the engine, then seeing a fuel cap at the side and from there you can start to get a small idea of how it manages to run, then taking it apart and mapping out what's what, you can figure our it's fuel and how that fuel makes it run and how the parts allow it to happen.

What I'm getting at is, this cannot be observed as a truth by looking at it from a telescope, you need to be around it to see how it fully works.
The universe is no different and there's some very good guesses, or theories but none of them could be completely correct.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 21, 2013, 03:56:16 AM
There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.
There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.
-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.
-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.
-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.
-GPS.
-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)
-Ships dropping below horizons.
-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).
-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.
-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.
-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)


All of these "evidences" are merely things that support the very simple notion of gravity. They do not scream "ROUND EARTH!", but they do heavily support the idea of it.
In FE, one must say, bendy light, bendy light, smart bendy light, perspective (?), UA (?), glowing animals on the moon (??), global conspiracy involving millions of people....

which one sounds more logically sound?

Seriously. And they call RET magic and illogical? Really?
Ditto, though, as the rotating globe required, (in my opinion) a whole lot of magic to work.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 06:38:45 AM
Quote
-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.

See the Bi-Polar model: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents)

Quote
-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.

See the Bi-Polar model: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents)

Quote
-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.

This happens in the classic model.

Quote
-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.

Do you mean like how Greenland is larger than Africa in your Mercator maps, yet people still manage to use it to navigate?

Quote
-GPS.

LORAN (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,53704.msg1317548.html#msg1317548)

Quote
-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun)

Quote
-Ships dropping below horizons.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sinking_Ship_Effect (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sinking_Ship_Effect)

Quote
-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).

Stratellites

Quote
-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.

The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat. Aristotile was able to predict cosmological events and he didn't even believe the earth rotated around the sun.

Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.

Quote
-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.

The stars look like small specs in the sky. They do not look like giant things light years away.

Quote
-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)

It's also always day somewhere in the classical and bi-polar models.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Homesick Martian on March 21, 2013, 10:08:31 AM
Quote
The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat. Aristotile was able to predict cosmological events and he didn't even believe the earth rotated around the sun.

Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.

The ancient babylonians couldn't predict much and not accurately at all until the middle of the 1st millenium BC, when they realized that earth must be curved. This is contrary to common belief, but for the longer part of their history babylonian astronomy was very primitive. They didn't even try to get their math in perfect harmony with the observed data. If, for example, a planet arrived over the horizon sooner than expected, they didn't conclude, that there was a flaw in their conceptions, but simply saw it as a bad omen. Since the planets were gods, they could actually come and go as they pleased, and it was out of grace, that they obbeyed to their eclyptical paths to keep the cosmos running.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 10:48:35 AM
Quote
The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat. Aristotile was able to predict cosmological events and he didn't even believe the earth rotated around the sun.

Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.

The ancient babylonians couldn't predict much and not accurately at all until the middle of the 1st millenium BC, when they realized that earth must be curved. This is contrary to common belief, but for the longer part of their history babylonian astronomy was very primitive. They didn't even try to get their math in perfect harmony with the observed data. If, for example, a planet arrived over the horizon sooner than expected, they didn't conclude, that there was a flaw in their conceptions, but simply saw it as a bad omen. Since the planets were gods, they could actually come and go as they pleased, and it was out of grace, that they obbeyed to their eclyptical paths to keep the cosmos running.

Source?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Homesick Martian on March 21, 2013, 11:44:01 AM
Quote
The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat. Aristotile was able to predict cosmological events and he didn't even believe the earth rotated around the sun.

Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.

The ancient babylonians couldn't predict much and not accurately at all until the middle of the 1st millenium BC, when they realized that earth must be curved. This is contrary to common belief, but for the longer part of their history babylonian astronomy was very primitive. They didn't even try to get their math in perfect harmony with the observed data. If, for example, a planet arrived over the horizon sooner than expected, they didn't conclude, that there was a flaw in their conceptions, but simply saw it as a bad omen. Since the planets were gods, they could actually come and go as they pleased, and it was out of grace, that they obbeyed to their eclyptical paths to keep the cosmos running.

Source?

Sources for old babylonian astronomy are scarce, the priests, so it seems, transmitted their knowledge orally. In middle babylonian times we have the Enuma Anu Enlil. It was something like the Tetrabyblos of the Babylonians. There may be an english translation of at least parts of the text. But you will be dissapointed, it just tells what will happen on earth when that and that happens in the sky.
A number of cuniform texts with astronomical observations, mainly ephemerides, are extant from old babylonian times on, so the sudden rise in expertise during the neo-babylonian times is observable. There are a number of studies about the subject, but I had to go to a subject library to tell you.
By the way the Chaldaeans didn't adopt a global earth, but they finally understood that it's curved. So the late babylonian system has a shield-shaped earth. The conceptions were hardly uniform though, for there were many schools, but that we know next to nothing about.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 01:20:49 PM
I believe I asked for a source for your claims.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Homesick Martian on March 21, 2013, 01:32:49 PM
Sorry. Thought you wanted to know something.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Rama Set on March 21, 2013, 02:22:19 PM
I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Homesick Martian on March 21, 2013, 02:56:31 PM
I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?

What do you mean by sources? I could list you a number of books.

EDIT: The classic on the subject is Otto Neugebauer's Exact sciences in antiquity. A more recent author is Asger Hartvig Aaboe. The wikipedia article on bab. astronomy is largely based on his work. It contains also a small bibliography.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: darknavyseal on March 21, 2013, 03:57:36 PM

Quote
-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.

Quote
See the Bi-Polar model: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents)

The bipolar model has been debunked like a million (exaggeration) times by now. Please stop bringing it up. It brings more problems than the questions that it answers.
Just a few extremely stupid things that must happen according to the "bipolar model".

-2 suns required at midnight sun occurrences in both the north and south pole. One to rotate around pole, one to go around in a figure 8 pattern to bring light to the rest of the earth.
-No wall surrounding us? Why haven't we found the edge? What is holding the ocean in?
-Shapes of continents are massively distorted.

So, please. Stop mentioning this, and while you are at it, you might as well remove it from the FAQ, because it is woefully ignorant of many known facts, round or flat earth. It is just silly.

Quote
Do you mean like how Greenland is larger than Africa in your Mercator maps, yet people still manage to use it to navigate?

That is used to navigate only because up-down-left-right are north-south-west-east. That's it. Area is inaccurate. Google it. Oh wait, dont. Google is probably controlled by NASA too.

-side note. Acting like an FE guy now. How the hell do you know that greenland isn't larger than Africa? Have you personally mapped it out? Post back when you do, please. /end FE type rant.

Quote
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun)

Does not explain why every celestial body is almost the exact same size instead of shrinking as it goes off into the distance. And, like many others have posted, the sun will never be less than about 10 degrees above the horizon, due to its size and closeness to Earth in the FE model.


Again, my list of "evidences" is not actual evidence. They are things that happen to perfectly coincide with the RE model. Look at Tom's response.

-2 (no, 3) bipolar model references despite that map being extremely flawed.
-Thinking that the mercator projection is used for travel and is accurate with area of land masses.
-Weird perspective things. Not a negative point, as it just doesn't make sense to me, so I can't say it is wrong. I will read that chapter in Earth Not a Globe later today.
-more conspiracy stuff.

Tom does have a fantastic rebuttal to the cosmological predictions.  ;D

Quote
The stars look like small specs in the sky. They do not look like giant things light years away.

Yes. Yes they do. I wonder how when the sun goes farther away from us it is "magnified" by our atmosphere in order to keep the same size, but all the stars remain the same size as they approach to the horizon.
Another anomaly in FE? No! Here is an explanation! Maybe the stars are giant fireflies with magical powers that prevent magnification of their glowing butts. Goes right in line with the glowing moon shrimp. I expect this to be in the FAQ by tomorrow.

Anyway, my point was, every summer for me at least, I am able to see the Milky Way galaxy on a dark clear night. It really looks like all the other millions of galaxies in the sky. Why is ours so huge? There are billions of galaxies visible if you have the equipment to find them. Are those really tiny galaxies?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 04:37:35 PM
I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?

We read that the Babylonians were good at predicting celestial events:

http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm (http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm)


And what's this, it seems that the "modern" method NASA is using to predict the eclipse is borrowed from Ancient Babylonia!  :o

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html)

Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Rama Set on March 21, 2013, 04:39:28 PM
I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?

What do you mean by sources? I could list you a number of books.

EDIT: The classic on the subject is Otto Neugebauer's Exact sciences in antiquity. A more recent author is Asger Hartvig Aaboe. The wikipedia article on bab. astronomy is largely based on his work. It contains also a small bibliography.

Thanks Homesick Martian.  Tom Bishop: Can you provide the source for your Babylonian claims?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 04:48:50 PM
Quote from: Rama Set
The bipolar model has been debunked like a million (exaggeration) times by now. Please stop bringing it up. It brings more problems than the questions that it answers.
Just a few extremely stupid things that must happen according to the "bipolar model".

-2 suns required at midnight sun occurrences in both the north and south pole. One to rotate around pole, one to go around in a figure 8 pattern to bring light to the rest of the earth.

The midnight sun does not occur at the North and South Pole at once. It occurs once during the Northern Summer and once during the Southern Summer.

Quote from: Rama Set
-No wall surrounding us? Why haven't we found the edge? What is holding the ocean in?

What makes you think there is an edge?

Quote from: Rama Set
-Shapes of continents are massively distorted.

Compared to what?

Quote from: Rama Set
Quote
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun)

Does not explain why every celestial body is almost the exact same size instead of shrinking as it goes off into the distance. And, like many others have posted, the sun will never be less than about 10 degrees above the horizon, due to its size and closeness to Earth in the FE model.

The stars remain the same size throughout the night because they get bigger by the atmosphere as they recede (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

The sun sets because the vanishing point is not an infinite distance away as taught in art school (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun).

Quote from: Rama Set
Yes. Yes they do. I wonder how when the sun goes farther away from us it is "magnified" by our atmosphere in order to keep the same size, but all the stars remain the same size as they approach to the horizon.

The stars are also magnified. This is why they don't shrink into tiny dots as they approach the horizon.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Art on March 21, 2013, 05:07:40 PM
Quote
Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.
Sometimes, not always.

Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Rama Set on March 21, 2013, 05:31:13 PM
Quote from: Rama Set
The bipolar model has been debunked like a million (exaggeration) times by now. Please stop bringing it up. It brings more problems than the questions that it answers.
Just a few extremely stupid things that must happen according to the "bipolar model".

-2 suns required at midnight sun occurrences in both the north and south pole. One to rotate around pole, one to go around in a figure 8 pattern to bring light to the rest of the earth.

The midnight sun does not occur at the North and South Pole at once. It occurs once during the Northern Summer and once during the Southern Summer.

Quote from: Rama Set
-No wall surrounding us? Why haven't we found the edge? What is holding the ocean in?

What makes you think there is an edge?

Quote from: Rama Set
-Shapes of continents are massively distorted.

Compared to what?

Quote from: Rama Set
Quote
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun)

Does not explain why every celestial body is almost the exact same size instead of shrinking as it goes off into the distance. And, like many others have posted, the sun will never be less than about 10 degrees above the horizon, due to its size and closeness to Earth in the FE model.

The stars remain the same size throughout the night because they get bigger by the atmosphere as they recede (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

The sun sets because the vanishing point is not an infinite distance away as taught in art school (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun).

Quote from: Rama Set
Yes. Yes they do. I wonder how when the sun goes farther away from us it is "magnified" by our atmosphere in order to keep the same size, but all the stars remain the same size as they approach to the horizon.

The stars are also magnified. This is why they don't shrink into tiny dots as they approach the horizon.

None of the quotes in your post actually belong to me. Would you mind properly attributing them?  Thanks!
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Homesick Martian on March 21, 2013, 05:49:13 PM
I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?

We read that the Babylonians were good at predicting celestial events:

http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm (http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm)

    "The Babylonian temple astronomers, who were in fact called  tupar Enma Anu Enlil, had been observing the skies for centuries and had recorded their observations in Astronomical diaries, astronomical almanacs, catalogues of stars and other texts. We possess observations of Venus written down under king Ammisaduqa (1646-1626 according to the Middle Chronology), detailed stellar catalogues from the eighth century -our Zodiac was invented in Babylon-, and astronomical diaries from the seventh century until the first millenium BCE.

    Because there were many data available to Babylonian astronomers, their results could be pretty accurate. An example is the length of the synodic month, i.e., the period between two full moons, which they were able to establish with an error of only a couple of minutes. The same can be said for the length of the year.

    Using these data, Babylonian astronomers were able to predict lunar eclipses and - later - solar eclipses with a fair accuracy. Their tool was the Saros-cycle: this is the period of 223 synodic months (or 18 years and 11.3 days) after which lunar and solar eclipses repeat themselves. E.g., when you know that there has been a solar eclipse on 18 May 603 BCE at dawn, you can be confident that there is an almost similar eclipse on 28 May 585 at sunset."

And what's this, it seems that the "modern" method NASA is using to predict the eclipse is borrowed from Ancient Babylonia!  :o

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html)

    "The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."

All these examples are from late babylonian times. My point waqs not that the Chaldaeans were bad astronomers, but that they needed a long time to get there. The famous astronomers like Kidinnu were contemporarys of the first greek astronomers. There is no connection between this elaborate astronomy of classical times, that you are talking about, and the old babylonian flat earth cosmology with its dome shaped heaven. The  accuracy of observation and mesurement, the counting of the saros cycle - all babylonian astronomy was known for happened quite late in its history. They were indeed the foremost astronomers in the ancient world, but scientific astronomy was a LATE development, they didn't have it from early times on.  And, what's important in this case, they couldn't have made these achievements without discovering that earth is curved (not necessarily spherical).

EDIT: I don't claim the Babylonians had no astronomy from ancient times on. They certainly observed the movements of the planets and kept records on strange phenomena like eclipses. But until about the neoassyrian empire (7th century) their countings were quite bad and they made huge mistakes. Astronomy proper, as a science, begins in the middle of the 1st millenium BC. Its more an achievement of the mediterranean area as a whole than of any particular culture like the "Babylonians" or the "Greeks".

EDIT II: this is the point I aim at:

Quote
The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat

No. Because when the Babylonians had finally learned how to predict events they had also learned that earth is not flat.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on March 21, 2013, 06:56:43 PM
The sun sets because the vanishing point is not an infinite distance away as taught in art school (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun).

So parallel lines aren't actually parallel then?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Homesick Martian on March 21, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
A better arguement for FET than Babylonian astronomy would be Chinese astronomy. My implicite statement was, that accurate astronomical observations and predictions are not possible without knowledge that earth is curved. But Chinese astronomy as far as I know never incorporated this knowledge, and yet they did make accurate observations. I know next to nothing about Chinese astronomy, but since it seems to be the only example in history of a real flat earth astronomy, it should be quite interesting for FEs.

EDIT I wrote all that quite late in the night so it's a little chaotic. Tom Bishop's mistake was to take the Babylonians as a whole. Just because they had a flat earth cosmology doesn't mean that Babylonian astronomers believed in a flat earth. They had overcome this world view, just as 17th centuries astronomers had overcome the world view of the middle ages.
The Chinese never did until they learned modern astronomy from the Jesuits.  That's a stunning fact to me.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: garygreen on March 22, 2013, 09:27:02 AM
We read that the Babylonians were good at predicting celestial events:

http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm (http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm)

    "The Babylonian temple astronomers, who were in fact called  tupar Enma Anu Enlil, had been observing the skies for centuries and had recorded their observations in Astronomical diaries, astronomical almanacs, catalogues of stars and other texts. We possess observations of Venus written down under king Ammisaduqa (1646-1626 according to the Middle Chronology), detailed stellar catalogues from the eighth century -our Zodiac was invented in Babylon-, and astronomical diaries from the seventh century until the first century BCE.

    Because there were many data available to Babylonian astronomers, their results could be pretty accurate. An example is the length of the synodic month, i.e., the period between two full moons, which they were able to establish with an error of only a couple of minutes. The same can be said for the length of the year.

    Using these data, Babylonian astronomers were able to predict lunar eclipses and - later - solar eclipses with a fair accuracy. Their tool was the Saros-cycle: this is the period of 223 synodic months (or 18 years and 11.3 days) after which lunar and solar eclipses repeat themselves. E.g., when you know that there has been a solar eclipse on 18 May 603 BCE at dawn, you can be confident that there is an almost similar eclipse on 28 May 585 at sunset."

And what's this, it seems that the "modern" method NASA is using to predict the eclipse is borrowed from Ancient Babylonia!  :o

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html)

    "The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."

No one disputes that the Babylonians were able to predict the timing of eclipses in their region.  This is yet another pathetic straw man argument.  Contemporary astronomers do not claim that predicting the timing of eclipses indicates the shape of the Earth or the arrangement of our solar system.  And, predicting eclipses does not represent the limit of its predictive power.

As you yourself agreed in this thread, (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57010.msg1430518.html#msg1430518) diligent amateurs can calculate the future positions of the planets with a very high degree of accuracy for years and years into the future, from any position on Earth, with a margin of error that is significantly smaller than the angular diameter of a full moon.

Once again, here is a summary of the steps taken to calculate the future positions of a given planet: http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/ellipse.html#twig02a (http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/ellipse.html#twig02a)
Quote
The sections below deal with calculating the RA and DEC of a planet from the osculating elements. As an example, I shall find the position of Mars at 0h UT on the 21st of June 1997. The main steps in the calculation are;

Finding the position of the planet in its orbit
Find the number of days since the date of the elements
Find the mean anomaly from the Mean Longitude and the daily motion
Find the true anomaly using the Equation of Centre
Find the radius vector of the planet
Refer that position to the Ecliptic - hence find the heliocentric ecliptic coordinates of the planet
Repeat most of above to find the heliocentric coordinates of the Earth
Transform the heliocentric coordinates to geocentric coordinates by a change of origin
Transform the geocentric ecliptic coordinates to geocentric equatorial coordinates by a rotation about the X axis
Calculate the RA and DEC and Earth - planet distance from the rectangular coordinates

Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: kevinagain on March 22, 2013, 11:22:30 AM
Sorry. Thought you wanted to know something.

he did, martian.

he wants to be able see whether you just made all that up.

so do i. it's very interesting.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Homesick Martian on March 22, 2013, 01:03:54 PM
Sorry. Thought you wanted to know something.

he did, martian.

he wants to be able see whether you just made all that up.
so do i. it's very interesting.

You can find most of this information in the wikipedia articles about bab. astronomy and astrology. Both are quite good as far as I can judge. Sure there's more on the web, but I don't know, I'm a caveman (=rather go to the library).
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on March 23, 2013, 02:36:45 AM
I want to hear them all. What are the theories or facts that support a flat earth, and deny the possibility of a round earth? Anything that is backed up with either observable or calculated data, doesn't matter to me. Just as long as there's something to support it. Instead of info that 'disproves' the flat earth, what are the facts that disproves the round earth?

We can skip over the 'disappear over the horizon' and 'the horizon looks flat'. Those have become akin to beating a poor dead horse. Something new, that I haven't heard of yet.

Just thought a refresher on the OP might be in order.

So far, there have been no unique proofs put forward to support FET (surprise, surprise), just a bunch of theories that agree with some observed phenomena, but not all, and have no evidence to back them up.

On the other hand, there are a number of proofs available of RET, many of which can be reproduced by anyone with the patience and intelligence to do so.

A short list of easy proofs (some of which require traveling, so ease could be argued):
- observing the path of celestial bodies, either at a single latitude, or multiple latitudes
- measuring the angle of the sun at midday at various latitudes at a particular time of year
- observing both the North and South celestial poles (possible from an equatorial position)
- experiments akin to the Bedford Level experiments (being careful to take atmospheric refraction into account)
- observing the other planets of our solar system over time (requires patience and a telescope)
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Parsifal on March 23, 2013, 02:41:52 AM
- observing the path of celestial bodies, either at a single latitude, or multiple latitudes

This is not a proof, it is a description of an activity. Be more specific.

- measuring the angle of the sun at midday at various latitudes at a particular time of year

The Sun does not possess an angle, it is a spheroid.

- observing both the North and South celestial poles (possible from an equatorial position)

This is not a proof, it is a description of an activity. Be more specific.

- experiments akin to the Bedford Level experiments (being careful to take atmospheric refraction into account)

This is not a proof, it is a description of a broad class of activities. Be more specific.

- observing the other planets of our solar system over time (requires patience and a telescope)

This is not a proof, it is a description of an activity. Moreover, it is a more specific instance of your first "proof" and therefore redundant.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on March 23, 2013, 03:12:55 AM
Very well.

A short list of activities one could conduct to gather data which could then be used to establish the shape of the earth:
- observing the path of celestial bodies over the course of individual nights, either at a single latitude, or multiple latitudes
- measuring the angle of elevation of the sun at midday at various latitudes at a particular time of year
- observing both the North and South celestial poles (possible from an equatorial position, and only possible on a round earth)
- experiments akin to the Bedford Level experiments (being careful to take atmospheric refraction into account)
- observing the other planets of our solar system over several months/years (requires patience and a telescope)

The data collected from three of the first four activities (with the exception of the celestial poles observation) could be used to directly calculate the shape of the earth, and would be equally useful for a round or flat earth. The final activity is simply of interest in establishing the motions of other planets (and their moons, which I neglected to mention before), which demonstrate the effects of gravity. Or, if you prefer, the celestial gears (a rather more elaborate and less elegant concept than gravity, imho).

I do believe that most people would have had the intelligence to understand what I meant in my previous post. However, since some seem to require clarification, I hope this has cleared things up sufficiently.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Parsifal on March 23, 2013, 04:15:58 AM
A short list of activities

Irrelevant. This thread is about proofs.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on March 23, 2013, 05:11:18 AM
This thread is about proofs.

*sigh*

Ok, here we go:

When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a spherical earth.
The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a spherical earth.
It is possible to observe both a North and a South celestial pole, which is consistent with a spherical earth.
Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a round earth.
The observable orbits of other planets in our solar system, and of the moons of those planets, demonstrate the effects of gravity, a phenomena not yet fully understood, but which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of a spherical earth without falling off.
Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by traveling West along the 60 degrees South line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous left turn (or by traveling East on the same line, executing a continuous right turn).
In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our earth is, at least approximately, spherical.

So, where are your proofs? That is what the OP was asking for, proofs for FET. So far I haven't seen any.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on March 23, 2013, 05:24:57 AM
When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a spherical earth.
They are also consistent with Henry the Magical Unicorn moving them around so that they look exactly how they look.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a spherical earth.
They are also consistent with Henry's wife - Henrietta - moving the Sun so that it appears exactly like it appears.

It is possible to observe both a North and a South celestial pole, which is consistent with a spherical earth.
This is also consistent with Henry's son - Hendrik - having created the North and South pole.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a round earth. [...]
I'm sure this is also somehow consistent with magical unicorns, but I think you get the idea by now. The fact that observation X is consistent with assumption Y does not mean that X proves Y. You have to understand that logical implication is one-way only. Just because Y implies X does not mean that X implies (or proves) Y.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on March 23, 2013, 06:09:22 AM
The fact that observation X is consistent with assumption Y does not mean that X proves Y. You have to understand that logical implication is one-way only. Just because Y implies X does not mean that X implies (or proves) Y.

So how would you go about proving either a flat or round earth?

And, where are your proofs? That is what the OP was asking for, proofs for FET. So far I haven't seen any.

Yes, I am going to keep repeating that until I see something that even comes close to what I have presented, or until Lunia tells me to get off his/her thread! :)
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on March 23, 2013, 06:48:16 AM
Yes, I am going to keep repeating that until I see something that even comes close to what I have presented, or until Lunia tells me to get off his/her thread! :)
I can see several other situations which could lead to you no longer repeating that.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: robertotrevor on March 23, 2013, 08:14:28 AM
Yes, I am going to keep repeating that until I see something that even comes close to what I have presented, or until Lunia tells me to get off his/her thread! :)
I can see several other situations which could lead to you no longer repeating that.

Are you a seer?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on March 23, 2013, 02:41:27 PM
Ah, the pattern recurs:

RE'er presents evidence of round earth
FE'er declares evidence useless
RE'er asks for any evidence of FE
FE'er derails topic

So nice to have consistency...

Still waiting to see any kind of proofs of FET.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on March 23, 2013, 05:51:57 PM
Are you a seer?
Sadly, no. However, given that there is an infinite amount of situations that match my prediction, it is safe to assume that it is a distinct possibility.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Parsifal on March 24, 2013, 04:15:01 AM
When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a spherical earth.

When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a flat Earth.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a spherical earth.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a flat Earth.

It is possible to observe both a North and a South celestial pole, which is consistent with a spherical earth.

It is possible to observe both a north and a south celestial pole, which is consistent with a flat Earth.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a round earth.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a flat Earth.

The observable orbits of other planets in our solar system, and of the moons of those planets, demonstrate the effects of gravity, a phenomena not yet fully understood, but which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of a spherical earth without falling off.

The observable behaviour of accelerating objects anywhere in the known Universe demonstrates the effects of inertia, a phenomenon which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of an accelerating flat Earth without falling off.

Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by traveling West along the 60 degrees South line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous left turn (or by traveling East on the same line, executing a continuous right turn).

Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by travelling west along the 60 degrees south line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous right turn (or by traveling east on the same line, executing a continuous left turn).

In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our earth is, at least approximately, spherical.

In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our Earth is, at least approximately, flat.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Pythagoras on March 24, 2013, 04:17:37 AM
can we please have evidence of everything you just put in the please  Parsifal
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Parsifal on March 24, 2013, 04:21:23 AM
can we please have evidence of everything you just put in the please  Parsifal

I have already provided as much evidence as Scintific Method has for his claims.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Pythagoras on March 24, 2013, 04:23:52 AM
why will no FEr provide an example of experimental evidence performed by FE to back up what they say? its quite revealing don't you say?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on March 24, 2013, 05:01:39 AM
When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a spherical earth.

When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a flat Earth.

The paths of celestial bodies can easily be observed to curve more the further one is from the equator when they are observed, and to curve in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres. For example, at latitude 30 degrees South, a star which passes directly overhead rises South of East, and sets South of West. At 30 degrees North, the rising and setting of a star that passes directly overhead is North of East and North of West respectively. This is not consistent with a flat earth. This is consistent with a round earth.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a spherical earth.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a flat Earth.

On either equinox, the sun's rays strike the ground as follows:
- at 40 degrees either North or South latitude; 50 degrees above horizontal
- at 30 degrees either North or South latitude; 60 degrees above horizontal
- at 20 degrees either North or South latitude; 70 degrees above horizontal
- at 10 degrees either north or South latitude; 80 degrees above horizontal
I think even an ape can see the pattern there. These results are not consistent with a flat earth. These results are consistent with a round earth.

It is possible to observe both a North and a South celestial pole, which is consistent with a spherical earth.

It is possible to observe both a north and a south celestial pole, which is consistent with a flat Earth.


How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a round earth.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a flat Earth.


How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

The observable orbits of other planets in our solar system, and of the moons of those planets, demonstrate the effects of gravity, a phenomena not yet fully understood, but which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of a spherical earth without falling off.

The observable behaviour of accelerating objects anywhere in the known Universe demonstrates the effects of inertia, a phenomenon which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of an accelerating flat Earth without falling off.


The planets in our solar system follow measurable orbits. Their moons follow measurable orbits around them. Orbits are not evidence of inertia, they are evidence of gravity. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist a change of it's motion. Gravity is an attractive force between two objects with mass. If planets or moons were subject only to inertia, they would fly off in a straight line away from their companion planet.

Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by traveling West along the 60 degrees South line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous left turn (or by traveling East on the same line, executing a continuous right turn).

Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by travelling west along the 60 degrees south line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous right turn (or by traveling east on the same line, executing a continuous left turn).


Admittedly, I have not circumnavigated Antarctica, but I am confident that, if you bothered to ask someone who had or, better yet, tried it yourself, you would find that you turn left when traveling west. If you tried turning right, you would quickly find yourself going North, not West.

In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our earth is, at least approximately, spherical.

In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our Earth is, at least approximately, flat.

In light of the further evidence provided, all of which can be obtained by anyone with the patience and intelligence to go out there and get it themselves, I rest my case. The earth is round.

And again, I am still waiting to see anything more substantial than "it looks flat" from the flat earth theorists.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Parsifal on March 24, 2013, 07:36:22 AM
The paths of celestial bodies can easily be observed to curve more the further one is from the equator when they are observed, and to curve in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres. For example, at latitude 30 degrees South, a star which passes directly overhead rises South of East, and sets South of West. At 30 degrees North, the rising and setting of a star that passes directly overhead is North of East and North of West respectively. This is not consistent with a flat earth. This is consistent with a round earth.

Incorrect. The behaviour you have described is consistent with both models.

On either equinox, the sun's rays strike the ground as follows:
- at 40 degrees either North or South latitude; 50 degrees above horizontal
- at 30 degrees either North or South latitude; 60 degrees above horizontal
- at 20 degrees either North or South latitude; 70 degrees above horizontal
- at 10 degrees either north or South latitude; 80 degrees above horizontal
I think even an ape can see the pattern there. These results are not consistent with a flat earth. These results are consistent with a round earth.

"Results" of what? How did you produce these figures?

It is possible to observe both a north and a south celestial pole, which is consistent with a flat Earth.

How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

In much the same way that it is possible on a round Earth.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a flat Earth.

How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

It is consistent with a flat Earth with bendy light.

The planets in our solar system follow measurable orbits. Their moons follow measurable orbits around them. Orbits are not evidence of inertia, they are evidence of gravity. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist a change of it's motion. Gravity is an attractive force between two objects with mass. If planets or moons were subject only to inertia, they would fly off in a straight line away from their companion planet.

Irrelevant.

Admittedly, I have not circumnavigated Antarctica, but I am confident that, if you bothered to ask someone who had or, better yet, tried it yourself, you would find that you turn left when traveling west. If you tried turning right, you would quickly find yourself going North, not West.

Why are you confident of that?

In light of the further evidence provided, all of which can be obtained by anyone with the patience and intelligence to go out there and get it themselves, I rest my case. The earth is round.

I would try to argue that your case is not nearly ready to be put at rest, but unfortunately you have not yet made a valid case.

And again, I am still waiting to see anything more substantial than "it looks flat" from the flat earth theorists.

I am still waiting to see anything more substantial than "I have been told it is round" from the round Earth theorists.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2013, 08:15:19 AM
Parsifal-How can you invoke the hypothesis, not theory, those have experimental evidence, when the equations involve an undefined constant and therefore cannot possess predictive power?  Is there an undisclosed part of the Bendy Light hypothesis you are not sharing?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Homesick Martian on March 24, 2013, 10:59:52 AM
Parsifal-How can you invoke the hypothesis, not theory, those have experimental evidence, when the equations involve an undefined constant and therefore cannot possess predictive power?  Is there an undisclosed part of the Bendy Light hypothesis you are not sharing?

There isn't.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on March 30, 2013, 03:52:14 PM
Looks like we'll all be waiting quite some time to see those FET proofs. Why am I not surprised?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on April 12, 2013, 05:31:23 PM
I wasn't going to respond to Parsifail, but I'm bored, and this thread is fading into obscurity without any answers having been offered, so here goes! (sorry for the lengthy post, but I thought everything should be kept in context)

The paths of celestial bodies can easily be observed to curve more the further one is from the equator when they are observed, and to curve in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres. For example, at latitude 30 degrees South, a star which passes directly overhead rises South of East, and sets South of West. At 30 degrees North, the rising and setting of a star that passes directly overhead is North of East and North of West respectively. This is not consistent with a flat earth. This is consistent with a round earth.

Incorrect. The behaviour you have described is consistent with both models.

Nope, for a Flat Earth model, the paths of celestial bodies would always curve one way, rising and setting North of East and West respectively.

On either equinox, the sun's rays strike the ground as follows:
- at 40 degrees either North or South latitude; 50 degrees above horizontal
- at 30 degrees either North or South latitude; 60 degrees above horizontal
- at 20 degrees either North or South latitude; 70 degrees above horizontal
- at 10 degrees either north or South latitude; 80 degrees above horizontal
I think even an ape can see the pattern there. These results are not consistent with a flat earth. These results are consistent with a round earth.

"Results" of what? How did you produce these figures?


Okay, most of those figures are not personally verified by me, but I did personally verify for 30 degrees, and ANYONE can verify for whatever latitude they live at. This is a really easy test, because anyone can predict the angle the sun will be at for their latitude, and go measure it themselves. It has also been used for nautical navigation for several hundred years.

It is possible to observe both a north and a south celestial pole, which is consistent with a flat Earth.

How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

In much the same way that it is possible on a round Earth.


What?! There would only be one observable celestial pole on a flat earth: the North celestial pole. You would have to be able to go to the edge and look down to be able to see the South celestial pole.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a flat Earth.

How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

It is consistent with a flat Earth with bendy light.


Bendy light has been pretty thoroughly debunked, so no, this is not consistent with a flat earth.

The planets in our solar system follow measurable orbits. Their moons follow measurable orbits around them. Orbits are not evidence of inertia, they are evidence of gravity. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist a change of it's motion. Gravity is an attractive force between two objects with mass. If planets or moons were subject only to inertia, they would fly off in a straight line away from their companion planet.

Irrelevant.


Wrong. Highly relevant. Gravity renders the UA unnecessary, and makes it highly unlikely that the earth would be able to retain a planar shape. It also explains how the earth can orbit the sun, and how the moon can orbit the earth.

Admittedly, I have not circumnavigated Antarctica, but I am confident that, if you bothered to ask someone who had or, better yet, tried it yourself, you would find that you turn left when traveling west. If you tried turning right, you would quickly find yourself going North, not West.

Why are you confident of that?


Because I trust the maps that have been tried and proven to be accurate for aeronautical and nautical navigation.

In light of the further evidence provided, all of which can be obtained by anyone with the patience and intelligence to go out there and get it themselves, I rest my case. The earth is round.

I would try to argue that your case is not nearly ready to be put at rest, but unfortunately you have not yet made a valid case.


And what constitutes a valid case? I have provided a number of arguments in favour of a round earth, evidence for which can be gathered by anyone with a basic understanding of geometry. More than I can say for the FES, which so far has provided only vague, unsubstantiated hypothesis based on the notion that the earth must be flat because "it looks flat".

I am still waiting to see anything more substantial than "I have been told it is round" from the round Earth theorists.

I think that the observations I have provided, most of which can be verified by anyone with some basic equipment, constitute something more substantial.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on April 17, 2013, 11:39:00 PM
And still we wait...

Just for fun, I'll go through a few flat earth hypotheses (not theories, and certainly not proofs):

- Bendy Light. Implausible. The formula is unworkable, the constant is unknown, and it does not even come close to accounting for the difference between the flat earth path of the sun, and the apparent path of the sun.

- Universal Accelerator. Implausible. What's wrong with gravity? It makes a lot more sense than a system that requires the exponential increase of energy that it would take to continue accelerating the earth. Gravity also explains a host of other observable phenomena, UA only explains one, and even then not very well (measurable variations in gravitational effect in different areas on the earths surface sort of preclude UA).

- Aetheric Wind. Implausible. See above, and add turbulence, which would increase the likelihood of celestial objects actually being blown into the surface of the earth.

I think that'll do for now.

C'mon FE'ers, there's plenty of (really easy) ways to show that the earth is round, how are you going to show us that it's flat?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on April 26, 2013, 01:42:29 AM
Wow, still nothing!

At the risk of being labeled a pain in the a***, I'll have a shot at a couple more popular flat earth 'experiments'.

Bedford Level - First performed by Rowbotham in 1838. He waded into the water and used a telescope held 8" above the water to observe a boat with a 5' mast row away from him. Allegedly observing the vessel to remain in sight for the entire 6 miles to Welney bridge, he declared the earth to be flat, not realising (or deliberately ignoring) the fact that light refracts near the surface of water in such a way as to follow the curvature of the earth.

This experiment was later repeated by Wallace, using elevated measuring points, and successfully showed the curvature of the earth. No need to go into detail on that here, there are more than enough threads on the subject! This thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54769.0.html) being a complete account from Wallace's biography.

Eratosthenes - measured the circumference of the earth to within 2% of it's currently accepted value some 2200 years ago. Flat earth proponents claim that, had he assumed a flat earth, he would in fact have calculated the distance to the sun (either that, or they claim he was drunk/demented/otherwise defective in his reasoning). Had he done this, he would have achieved a result somewhere around 4,500 miles.

However, simply by adding a third point of measurement somewhere in between the initial two (or further North or South of either of them), the distance measurement becomes inconsistent, but the circumference measurement remains the same. Anyone can confirm this with either a little travel, or by calling on some friends who live at different latitudes to assist.

Okay, that's enough from me, it's about time we heard from a FE'er in this thread! Come on guys!
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on May 03, 2013, 12:09:59 AM
It's coming up on the weekend again, and still nothing from the FE side of the fence. What's wrong? Don't you have anything to submit? Oh well, here's a couple of other threads that might be of interest:

relative travel times in hemispheres (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58404.0.html)

What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58467.0.html)

Enjoy!
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 06, 2013, 03:56:33 PM
There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.
There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

There are thousands, thousands of pictures and videos...how is that not proof to you? Send a weather balloon up, like many amateurs did. You will see it with your own equipment, yet you stay here behind your computer ranting the earth is flat and that there is no evidence. Time to get out of your cave and come with proof.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 06, 2013, 04:05:22 PM

Seriously. And they call RET magic and illogical? Really?
Ditto, though, as the rotating globe required, (in my opinion) a whole lot of magic to work.

The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

Now in space the same principle applies. The mass forms a slope. Objects with lower mass are pulled towards the objects with high mass. Hence we orbit the sun, because it has a huge mass.

Put two marbles on your bed and nothing will happen, move them closer to each other and see them move towards eachother. Use some heavy marbles though, because your mattress is pretty stiff.

Now why don't we move towards the sun is because of our speed. We have an orbital speed, which allows us to stay in our track around the sun. The same thing as a roulette table. The ball is located on a slope, but due to the high speed it maintains its path and spins around. It slows down due to friction with the table and the air, slowly going towards the middle. The same would happen to the earth if you were able to stop it from moving around. In space there is no friction and all the planets are nicely lined up so they do not affect each other's path. This was different about 4.5 billion years ago when our solar system was formed. It just all settled in the many, many years that were to come.

Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2013, 05:17:43 AM

Seriously. And they call RET magic and illogical? Really?
Ditto, though, as the rotating globe required, (in my opinion) a whole lot of magic to work.

The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

Now in space the same principle applies. The mass forms a slope. Objects with lower mass are pulled towards the objects with high mass. Hence we orbit the sun, because it has a huge mass.

Put two marbles on your bed and nothing will happen, move them closer to each other and see them move towards eachother. Use some heavy marbles though, because your mattress is pretty stiff.

Now why don't we move towards the sun is because of our speed. We have an orbital speed, which allows us to stay in our track around the sun. The same thing as a roulette table. The ball is located on a slope, but due to the high speed it maintains its path and spins around. It slows down due to friction with the table and the air, slowly going towards the middle. The same would happen to the earth if you were able to stop it from moving around. In space there is no friction and all the planets are nicely lined up so they do not affect each other's path. This was different about 4.5 billion years ago when our solar system was formed. It just all settled in the many, many years that were to come.

Really nice analogy. Get ready for the ridicule :)
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on May 11, 2013, 05:27:10 AM
And still we wait! Seriously, is there no proof that the FES can offer?

It's a bit like a court case, where the prosecution has fingerprints, DNA, CCTV, reputable eye witnesses, etc, etc, and the following exchange takes place:

Prosecution: "Guilty."
Defense: "No, innocent!"
Prosecution: "Where's your proof?"
Defense: "He just is."
Prosecution: "So you have no proof?"
Defence: *silence*

What do you think the jury would say?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on May 17, 2013, 04:58:03 PM
And so another week passes with no answers. I think Lunia has given up in disgust.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Tausami on May 17, 2013, 05:47:53 PM
We have a wiki page dedicated to experimental evidence, which you've been linked to before.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Rama Set on May 17, 2013, 05:56:50 PM
We have a wiki page dedicated to experimental evidence, which you've been linked to before.

As someone who identifies as a scientist you should be embrassed to cite that page.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on May 17, 2013, 06:41:38 PM
We have a wiki page dedicated to experimental evidence, which you've been linked to before.

The sinking ship effect does not explain objects being obscured by the horizon;
the Bedford Level experiments conducted by Rowbotham, Blount, and Shenton were flawed in that they did not account for surface refraction;
Kansas flatter than a pancake took elevation references, which are from sea level, which is not a straight line on globe;
I haven't read Zetetic Cosmogony, but if you can link me to a free e-book, I'll have a look;
A hundred proofs does not contain any actual proofs, just a collection of anecdotes and misconceptions;
I have not read Terra Firma either, but I'll have a look if I get bored.

All in all, not a lot of useful info on that page.

EDIT: I have created a thread here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58709.0.html) for further discussion of "A Hundred Proofs..."
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2013, 04:06:43 PM
the Bedford Level experiments conducted by Rowbotham, Blount, and Shenton were flawed in that they did not account for surface refraction;

So there's a chance illusion which simulates a flat earth whenever the experiment is tried?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2013, 04:29:44 PM
the Bedford Level experiments conducted by Rowbotham, Blount, and Shenton were flawed in that they did not account for surface refraction;

So there's a chance illusion which simulates a flat earth whenever the experiment is tried?

No Wallace being an experienced surveyor did it properly. You can easily consult professional surveyor websites where they explain how to correct for refraction, superior mirage and curvature. It's all old news.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 19, 2013, 04:41:59 PM
the Bedford Level experiments conducted by Rowbotham, Blount, and Shenton were flawed in that they did not account for surface refraction;

So there's an error they made which simulates a flat earth whenever the experiment is tried?

Corrected your posts for you there Tom  ;D
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on May 19, 2013, 04:51:24 PM
the Bedford Level experiments conducted by Rowbotham, Blount, and Shenton were flawed in that they did not account for surface refraction;

So there's a chance illusion which simulates a flat earth whenever the experiment is tried?

As already pointed out, there is a well known and measurable atmospheric effect which can create the illusion of a flat earth under certain conditions.
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on May 31, 2013, 05:44:51 PM
Still nothing I see. How hard is it to say "Go out and conduct this experiment: [details of experiment]. As you will see, the resulting data clearly shows that the earth is flat."? I can do that all day for experiments that show the earth to be round (those same experiments could just as easily show it to be flat too, if it really were), so the logical conclusion is that there are no credible experiments that show the earth to be flat, because it isn't!

Go on, prove me wrong! Don't just say it, prove it! Conclusively!

PS. This thread was started March 20, and still has not actually been answered. What does that tell you?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on June 19, 2013, 03:35:42 AM
Anyone?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: hoppy on June 19, 2013, 05:28:24 AM
Have you read " Earth Not a Globe"? If you want to dismiss the information therein, why is that our problem?
Title: Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
Post by: Scintific Method on June 19, 2013, 02:59:43 PM
Have you read " Earth Not a Globe"? If you want to dismiss the information therein, why is that our problem?

Yes. I started a few threads in 'Debate' on various chapters in ENaG, going over some of the flawed reasoning and misconceptions it contained. Due to its unreliability and inaccuracy in many areas, I do not consider it proof.