1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Elevator?

« on: August 04, 2007, 01:30:25 AM »

So I don't get it.  Heard of Occam's Razor?  You know, the simplest explaination is probably right?  Why invent a conspiracy and all these pseudoscientific concepts that have never been observed in order to support a hypothesis that cannot ever be proven?  And what does the government have to gain, anyway?  People debate the smallest points without answering the obvious.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 28, 2006, 10:13:15 PM »

Not sure.  I'm confident the Earth is a sphere, but since I've heard several different versions, whether or not curvature is visible is still unknown to me.  I'd have to research it more.
However, I am willing to believe evidence that I myself have not viewed with my own eyes.  Just because curvature may or may not be visible from the Earth's surface doesn't mean there aren't better ways of proving the planet's sphericity.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 28, 2006, 09:32:30 PM »

Fine.  If the Earth is a disc, explain the difference in constellations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.  You can't argue that Australia doesn't exist.  If you go there, the stars in the night sky are different.  How can this be?  If the Earth is a disc, the entire surface faces the same set of stars at all times.  But due to the Earth's sphericity, two hemispheres see different stars, above and below the plane of the solar system.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 28, 2006, 10:21:12 AM »

Skeptical Scientist:  Are you calling bibicul a liar?  Because it would seem so.  He states that the picture was taken by him, thus if the picture is a fake, he himself faked it.  It seems that he would have no motive for such an act, seeing as anyone with a camera and a high cliff could reproduce the photo themselves, thus it is not likely that he would have used a distorted lens.  True enough, photos can show distorted views that depend on optical illusions, but instead of saying that all photos are faked, you say his photo is faked.  I somehow doubt that there is a "them", and that bibicul is one of "them".
Now, what is the motive for assuming a flat Earth?  I've heard comments such as "it looks that way from where I'm standing".  If you believe this to be proof of your hypotheses, you are neither skeptical, nor a scientist, because science has the ability to test and prove hypotheses that are not evident to the naked eye (anything on the atomic scale, for instance, or astronomical phenomenon not able to be observed closer than a few billion light years).  Instead, you reject evidence and embrace conspiracy.  That's not science.  That's fanaticism.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 25, 2006, 07:49:43 PM »

As far as the entire argument that a pesron is too small to have perspective, fine.  Instead of beating the idea into the heads of those who disagree, look for better evidence.  It isn't difficult to prove the Earth is round, until you get told all your evidence is wrong.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 25, 2006, 06:41:26 AM »

Oh, and for those who haven't read the FAQ, here's some supposedly "unanswered" questions that even the FEs can't explain:

Q: How does the atmosphere stay on the Earth?

Q: Explain the Coriolis force?

Q: Why does the hull of a ship disappear over the horizon before the mast does?

Q: if the moon is a spotlight, why can i see a "man" in the moon (shadows cast by the sun on the hills and mountains on it) last i checked a light can't contain shadows.

Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole.

Q: Explain fully the optical illusion causing sunrises and sunsets.

Submitted for further thought...

7

Flat Earth Q&A / New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 25, 2006, 06:32:51 AM »

DragonZero, I agree with your definitions of validity.  You are absolutely correct, of course.  I, however, am not concerned with deductive or inductive reasoning.  I can sit and think of valid theories of a flat Earth all day.  But everyone remembers their exercises in logic class when you had to prove validity and invalidity, and some of those arguments made no sense whatsoever.  I am interested in evidence.
Now, I've done some thinking, and it has to do with plausibility.  Some of the more extravagant theories on this site are a little hard to believe, but lets say for the sake of argument any of them are plausible.  Now here's my question:  How possible is it that all these theories are true?
That means that not only is the Earth flat (which strains physics and snubs planetary formation altogether) but an "ice wall" capable of supporting huge amounts of water is present to hold the oceans in.  Also, there is a massive government conspiracy in place, of which not one individual throughout history has managed to prove.  Of the millions involved, no one has found out.  Parallax is moot, apparently, the shifting seasons are unexplained, and the space programs of several different countries are farces.  Gravity no longer makes any sense.  How many scientific theories are supposedly setups just to hide something that, for no sensical person, needs to be hidden?
Then, to supposedly "prove" a theory, a group of people reject reason and refuse to accept evidence, just because some of it might possibly originate with the people in charge, who are all apparently evil.
Now, how is it possible to make all this dovetail with no holes?  How is it a FE supporter does not waver?

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 24, 2006, 02:56:05 AM »

-What's the point?  Why should the governments of the world fake a round Earth, a moon landing, and stars and planets more than a few hundred kilometers away?  What's in it for them?

Sometimes people act irrationally, sometimes their reasoning is secret.

Simply because you or I cannot think of a good reason for someone to have done something, does not mean they have not done it.

I can argue there's no good reason.  You can argue there's no way of me knowing their reason.  You argue that there's no way to prove me right... but by doing so, you also prove that I cannot be disproved.  This is an illogical way of arguing your point.  Where's your real evidence?  What proves to you, personally, that this is all true and that the world is flat?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 24, 2006, 02:45:46 AM »

The distorted photo submitted to supposedly show that the Earth could be shown to be bowl shaped was to prove his point that photos can be faked.  But by doing this the poster undercuts his own theory by showing that anything can be shown to be true; therefore his theory is only a personal belief and not a scientifically valid explanation of observed phenomena.
If one observes the shoreline photo, you can see no other objects in the frame are "distorted", as the horizon supposedly is.  However, one cannot say the same about the "bowl" photo, which is quite obviously distorted.  Look at every object in both frames.  Using the same technique in both photos would yield the same results.
So the person who posted the horizon photo must be a government agent with computer graphics imaging at their fingertips?  Your theory that all photos are faked needs more explanation, or needs to be stricken as evidence of a flat Earth.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 23, 2006, 10:41:56 PM »

Here's a better explanation of visible curvature:  In the olden days of masted ships, one could watch the masts of a ship disappear over the horizon as the ship sailed away.  With good enough telescopes, one could see all the other cities on Earth if the Earth was flat.  Why can't we?
Okay, here's another one:  How did the flat Earth form?  There are no physical processes that would result in the formation of a flat Earth.  Hydrostatic equilibrium governs the shape of the Earth (which is albeit a little flatter at the poles due to rotation).  It would be unlikely that a disc shaped Earth would even form in the first place.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / New member, possibly old questions

« on: November 23, 2006, 03:33:28 AM »

Okay, I've read the FAQ, I've read some of the forums, and I'm ready to ask a couple questions (maybe already addressed, but I couldn't find them):
-What's the point?  Why should the governments of the world fake a round Earth, a moon landing, and stars and planets more than a few hundred kilometers away?  What's in it for them?
-What about Occam's Razor?  With two explanations, one requiring a lot of explanations and no evidence that can be verified(all photos are faked, etc), and one rather simple explanation that needs no elaboration, you choose the simpler one.  Why choose the flat earth?