Earth... proof that it is round

An "Ask a scientist" question & answer on the subject of the Earth's shape....


(I reccomend u read this at the originating page...)
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm


name         Ann
status       student
age          14

Question -   Can you give one undisputable answer to:
"Is the earth round, and how do we prove it."
Because we are having a debate in my class, and the teacher kept saying
'the earth is flat'  And I have to give him one undisputable answer.
------------------------------------------------
I may be wrong about this, but I think your teacher is trying to
demonstrate to you that anything and everything is open to dispute.  In
fact, a rather famous theorem in the philosophy of science, the Duhem-Quine
theorem, states that it is impossible to conclusively disprove any
scientific hypothesis.  That includes such hypotheses as the earth is flat,
photography steals the soul of the object being photographed, and apples
are highly toxic to humans.  To hold on to such hypotheses, it may be
necessary to put forth some rather farfetched explanations of what we can
observe, but it can always be done.

In fact, science does not work by conclusively and indisputably refuting
bad hypotheses.  Instead, hypotheses stand or fail on their ability to
explain known observations, and to predict the outcome of observations that
haven't been performed yet.  Let's take the flat earth versus round earth
hypotheses as an example.  A round earth is the most stable shape according
to gravitational theory; a flat earth would tend to collapse toward the
center, and people standing near the edges would feel a gravitational pull
toward the center of the flat surface instead of perpendicular to the
surface.  Your teacher could counter that gravitational theory is wrong;
magic holds us to the earth.  This may be true, but it doesn't explain why
gravitational theory works so well at explaining how things fall, and the
observed trajectories of the planets and their moons.  You could tell your
teacher that photographs of the earth from space show that it is round,
just like the globe model in your classroom.  He could counter that those
photographs are government fakes.  Perhaps so, but we can see that other
planets and moons are round;  wouldn't it make more sense to say that the
earth is round, too?  Your teacher could say that the earth is special and
different.  You could ask how numerous people have sailed or flown around
the earth if the earth is flat.  He would have to say that every one of
these people, separated as they are in time and space, belongs to the same
great conspiracy aimed at brainwashing us into supposing that the earth is
round.  You could ask him about the communications networks that are linked
by satellite - how can you have satellites orbiting a flat earth?  He might
then tell you that there really aren't any satellite links - everything is
connected by wires, or a close-packed array of relay antennas.




READ THE REST...
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm

I'd like to see any of you FE'ers try to get around this one. The evidence is solid and it has been presented far better than your theory. Read the rest of the page by following the links, they have diagrams.

Try swollowing this one too: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae535.cfm

An "Ask a scientist" question & answer on the subject of the Earth's shape....


(I reccomend u read this at the originating page...)
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm


name         Ann
status       student
age          14

Question -   Can you give one undisputable answer to:
"Is the earth round, and how do we prove it."
Because we are having a debate in my class, and the teacher kept saying
'the earth is flat'  And I have to give him one undisputable answer.
------------------------------------------------
I may be wrong about this, but I think your teacher is trying to
demonstrate to you that anything and everything is open to dispute.  In
fact, a rather famous theorem in the philosophy of science, the Duhem-Quine
theorem, states that it is impossible to conclusively disprove any
scientific hypothesis.  That includes such hypotheses as the earth is flat,
photography steals the soul of the object being photographed, and apples
are highly toxic to humans.  To hold on to such hypotheses, it may be
necessary to put forth some rather farfetched explanations of what we can
observe, but it can always be done.

In fact, science does not work by conclusively and indisputably refuting
bad hypotheses.  Instead, hypotheses stand or fail on their ability to
explain known observations, and to predict the outcome of observations that
haven't been performed yet.  Let's take the flat earth versus round earth
hypotheses as an example.  A round earth is the most stable shape according
to gravitational theory; a flat earth would tend to collapse toward the
center, and people standing near the edges would feel a gravitational pull
toward the center of the flat surface instead of perpendicular to the
surface.  Your teacher could counter that gravitational theory is wrong;
magic holds us to the earth.  This may be true, but it doesn't explain why
gravitational theory works so well at explaining how things fall, and the
observed trajectories of the planets and their moons.  You could tell your
teacher that photographs of the earth from space show that it is round,
just like the globe model in your classroom.  He could counter that those
photographs are government fakes.  Perhaps so, but we can see that other
planets and moons are round;  wouldn't it make more sense to say that the
earth is round, too?  Your teacher could say that the earth is special and
different.  You could ask how numerous people have sailed or flown around
the earth if the earth is flat.  He would have to say that every one of
these people, separated as they are in time and space, belongs to the same
great conspiracy aimed at brainwashing us into supposing that the earth is
round.  You could ask him about the communications networks that are linked
by satellite - how can you have satellites orbiting a flat earth?  He might
then tell you that there really aren't any satellite links - everything is
connected by wires, or a close-packed array of relay antennas.




READ THE REST...
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm

So what's the point of this?  Why would a teacher ask you for undisputable proof anyways?  Its already a given that undisputable proof doesn't work well in our chaotic system.

Nothing is undisputable.

This is a message posted under the account of Mephistopheles.

I believe this is undisputable.

It's a pointless thing to dispute, and impossible to dispute WELL, but I can think of a myriad of ways I can dispute it.

So you could not dispute that you do not have a right hand?  That you have no nose?

So you could not dispute that you do not have a right hand?  That you have no nose?

Of course I could dispute those - in very easy ways. My point was that you CAN dispute anything, especially apparently obvious things such as one's own appendages.

Of course I could dispute those - in very easy ways. My point was that you CAN dispute anything, especially apparently obvious things such as one's own appendages.

Hey, Clueless Mike, usually terms like "undisbutable" are used to mean "cannot be reasonably disputed", if you had common sense you'd get the implied meaning.

Read the rest of the page. It has more thorough proof that the Earth is spherical.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

Of course I could dispute those - in very easy ways. My point was that you CAN dispute anything, especially apparently obvious things such as one's own appendages.

Hey, Clueless Mike, usually terms like "undisbutable" are used to mean "cannot be reasonably disputed", if you had common sense you'd get the implied meaning.

But "reasonably" is such a loose and subjective term. Much of the Earth's population consider FET to be unreasonable, and yet here we are, disputing it with some success.

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

Of course I could dispute those - in very easy ways. My point was that you CAN dispute anything, especially apparently obvious things such as one's own appendages.

Hey, Clueless Mike, usually terms like "undisbutable" are used to mean "cannot be reasonably disputed", if you had common sense you'd get the implied meaning.

But "reasonably" is such a loose and subjective term. Much of the Earth's population consider FET to be unreasonable, and yet here we are, disputing it with some success.

What I see is 0.0 success. You are defying the basic principals of thought, logic, science, and reason.

Success?! Producing bogus theories not based on any evidence or fact (like dinosaurs building boats to traverse the continents) to try to cover your ass whenever someone brings up a completely valid, and undisputable point is not disputing it with some success. If it only seems like a valid point to you and you can't convince others, then it is not success. Success would require for you to put enough of a dent in the round-earth theory that it would cause doubt amongst us RE'ers, which I still have yet to see. You don't have a success rate. Just a "covering a valid point with a bogus one so we can continue in our blind faith." That's the only success rate you have, because you never to fail to come up with something ridiculous to "defend" your point.

What I see is 0.0 success. You are defying the basic principals of thought, logic, science, and reason.

But we aren't. The basic principles of our model are highly consistent, and with every revision and consolidation our theory becomes both more comprehensive and more plausible.

Modern FE Theory is still in its scientific infancy since it has generally only been pursued by a handful of eccentric renegades like Rowbotham, and of course Shenton and Johnson themselves.

The internet is the ideal vessel for the rapid advancement of Flat Earth Science though - who knows what may come of this site in the future.

Success?! Producing bogus theories not based on any evidence or fact (like dinosaurs building boats to traverse the continents) to try to cover your ass whenever someone brings up a completely valid, and undisputable point is not disputing it with some success. If it only seems like a valid point to you and you can't convince others, then it is not success. Success would require for you to put enough of a dent in the round-earth theory that it would cause doubt amongst us RE'ers, which I still have yet to see. You don't have a success rate. Just a "covering a valid point with a bogus one so we can continue in our blind faith." That's the only success rate you have, because you never to fail to come up with something ridiculous to "defend" your point.

We do sort of convince others, a bit. I've noticed a shift in attitude in members like CrimsonKing and Desu - when they came here they were pretty much standard anti-FE's, but now they actually berate the green RE'ers who come here and ask dumb questions (we haven't actually converted them, but at least they understand our model and acknowledge some of its plausibility).

But "reasonably" is such a loose and subjective term. Much of the Earth's population consider FET to be unreasonable, and yet here we are, disputing it with some success.

Denying the existence of your right hand that everyone can see and touch is not reasonable.