I knew it was impossible to win

It's a valid observation.  An ant would draw the same conclusion on the surface of a hot air balloon.

Unfortunately it's not testable and is therefore (like the balloon) just hot air.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 03, 2008, 10:10:25 AM

The earth I see outside my window is flat. The earth remains flat everywhere I go.

It's a valid observation.  An ant would draw the same conclusion on the surface of a hot air balloon.

In the FAQ, it is posed that all other celestial bodies are round, however the earth is not. This cannot be true, as according to the basic cosmological principle, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, or in layman's terms, the universe is composed in the same way everywhere and all laws of physics apply everywhere. Therefore either the earth is round, or the other bodies are all flat.

In the FAQ, it is posed that all other celestial bodies are round, however the earth is not. This cannot be true, as according to the basic cosmological principle, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, or in layman's terms, the universe is composed in the same way everywhere and all laws of physics apply everywhere. Therefore either the earth is round, or the other bodies are all flat.

The history of the universe and common sense provides that as matter cooled from the big bang expansion, it would lose energy and begins to coagulate into celestial bodies in several distinct generations. First came hydrogen and helium stars, which degenerated to heavier elements via fusion, and from there came carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen which make up the earth. Assuming everyone here believes the earth we occupy is a part of the same universe that the celestial bodies mentioned in the FAQ, it must be spherical in the same manner as the stars and other planets.

quod erat demonstrandum

or for cretins: "that which was to have been demonstrated"

Quote

It's a valid observation.  An ant would draw the same conclusion on the surface of a hot air balloon.

Unfortunately it's not testable and is therefore (like the balloon) just hot air.

The notion of a Flat Earth is testable. Just look out your window.

What's not testable is the notion that the earth is a big "hot air balloon."

The burden of proof is on you to prove your untested hypothesis.

"The fairies are too small to see" strikes again...

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2008, 01:10:10 AM

"The fairies are too small to see" strikes again...

OK, please explain.

"The fairies are too small to see" strikes again...

For the Mth time, the "window" test is not a test, just FE misdirection:  The shape of the earth is not detectable using the human eye at terrestrial levels;  The test would yield the same result of FE and RE.  For gawd sake.

wait, who is the sceptic here?

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2008, 01:10:10 AM

"The fairies are too small to see" strikes again...

More like "blind men trying to describe an elephant".

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2008, 01:10:10 AM

Quote from: MoonSquirt

For the Mth time, the "window" test is not a test, just FE misdirection:  The shape of the earth is not detectable using the human eye at terrestrial levels;  The test would yield the same result of FE and RE.  For gawd sake.

"The fairies are too small to see" strikes again...

OK, please explain.

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2008, 07:52:09 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2008, 01:10:10 AM

"The fairies are too small to see" strikes again...

More like "blind men trying to describe an elephant".

The elephant is under the flat earth. Re-read the FAQ

The story of the Blind Men and the Elephant, as a parable regarding the fact that people tend to understand only a tiny portion of Reality and then extrapolate all manner of dogmas from that, each claiming only his one is the correct version,

I'm familiar with the reference. I just wanted to finally tell someone to read the FAQ Especially as you are a "regular"

It needs some refinement...

It's been discussed.

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?",[1] commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote

wait, who is the sceptic here?

While the Round Earth model may be conveniently large enough to create the vista of a plane out my window, why should we even consider the possibility that the earth is a globe rather than a vast assortment of other shapes? You are arguing for an illusion.

RE: There are fairies all around us.
FE: It doesn't look like there are fairies.
RE: Oh, that's because the fairies are too small to see.

Further more, the "window test" makes the FES look rather silly to anyone over the age of 4.

Quote

Further more, the "window test" makes the FES look rather silly to anyone over the age of 4.

Human experience suggests that the earth is a plane.

Therefore the burden of proof is solely on you to prove your absurd "ball" model.

It's not my job to disprove the whacked-out hypothetical earth shapes you think up. The only evidence I see when I look out my window is evidence for a Flat Earth. It's your job to prove that our eyes are lying to us.

It's not only unscientific, but it lacks any common sense or incite.