Someone Explain things to me please.

Quote from: munkirench on May 17, 2009, 03:23:00 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 17, 2009, 03:05:38 PM

Look out your window. There is plenty of evidence.

When I look out my window, I see exactly what RET predicts.  Any other evidence you care to submit?

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?

If we're still talking about "looking out the window", then you, sir, are an idiot.  Both FE and RE agree on the fact that on the ground, the earth looks flat.  Which means that it is totally irrelevant.

So, RET says that the Earth looks flat? 

So, RET says that the Earth looks flat? 

Yes.  If you've been laboring under any other conclusion, then you should go back and check your facts.

The only instances where FET and RET diverge in terms of simple observation of the ground regard the horizon, which FET explains away with bendy light.  Unfortunately, bendy light (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28502.60) is not real.

It's always nice to see FEers admit they were wrong in such a graceful manner.

Which bro told a story?  I'd like to take a look...

So, RET says that the Earth looks flat? 

You must be pretty stupid if you didn't realise that the world would look flat for plenty of miles when the Earth is so huge.

Quote from: munkirench on May 17, 2009, 03:23:00 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 17, 2009, 03:05:38 PM

Look out your window. There is plenty of evidence.

When I look out my window, I see exactly what RET predicts.  Any other evidence you care to submit?

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?

That the sun sets below the horizon.

Quote

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?

That the sun sets below the horizon.

FE predicts that.

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2009, 08:32:54 AM

Quote

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?

That the sun sets below the horizon.

FE predicts that.

Nope.  FE predicts that perspective causes the sun to recede to the vanishing point.  Perspective can never cause an object above the horizon to appear below it.  And, according to the FAQ, bendy light has yet to be proven to the satisfaction of the FET community.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2009, 05:22:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2009, 08:32:54 AM

Quote

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?

That the sun sets below the horizon.

FE predicts that.

Nope.  FE predicts that perspective causes the sun to recede to the vanishing point.  Perspective can never cause an object above the horizon to appear below it.  And, according to the FAQ, bendy light has yet to be proven to the satisfaction of the FET community.

What "proven"?  What has been "proven" that's bandied about here?  I feel EM has not gotten a fair shake.  When EM is incorporated into the theory it predicts sunsets just fine.

Quote from: markjo on May 19, 2009, 07:02:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2009, 05:22:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2009, 08:32:54 AM

Quote

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?

That the sun sets below the horizon.

FE predicts that.

Nope.  FE predicts that perspective causes the sun to recede to the vanishing point.  Perspective can never cause an object above the horizon to appear below it.  And, according to the FAQ, bendy light has yet to be proven to the satisfaction of the FET community.

What "proven"?  What has been "proven" that's bandied about here?  I feel EM has not gotten a fair shake.  When EM is incorporated into the theory it predicts sunsets just fine.

But bendy light also predicts that the earth should look round.  That directly contradicts Rowbotham's assertion that a sufficiently powerful telescope can restore hull of a partially sunken ship which in turn directly proves that the earth is flat.  Rowbotham's perspective effects and bendy light are mutually exclusive FE theories.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2009, 11:24:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 19, 2009, 07:02:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2009, 05:22:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2009, 08:32:54 AM

Quote

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?

That the sun sets below the horizon.

FE predicts that.

Nope.  FE predicts that perspective causes the sun to recede to the vanishing point.  Perspective can never cause an object above the horizon to appear below it.  And, according to the FAQ, bendy light has yet to be proven to the satisfaction of the FET community.

What "proven"?  What has been "proven" that's bandied about here?  I feel EM has not gotten a fair shake.  When EM is incorporated into the theory it predicts sunsets just fine.

But bendy light also predicts that the earth should look round.  That directly contradicts Rowbotham's assertion that a sufficiently powerful telescope can restore hull of a partially sunken ship which in turn directly proves that the earth is flat.  Rowbotham's perspective effects and bendy light are mutually exclusive FE theories.

I agree.  Rowbotham was wrong.  Let's face it, the man was a charlatan.

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2009, 06:29:58 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2009, 11:24:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 19, 2009, 07:02:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2009, 05:22:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2009, 08:32:54 AM

Quote

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?

That the sun sets below the horizon.

FE predicts that.

Nope.  FE predicts that perspective causes the sun to recede to the vanishing point.  Perspective can never cause an object above the horizon to appear below it.  And, according to the FAQ, bendy light has yet to be proven to the satisfaction of the FET community.

What "proven"?  What has been "proven" that's bandied about here?  I feel EM has not gotten a fair shake.  When EM is incorporated into the theory it predicts sunsets just fine.

But bendy light also predicts that the earth should look round.  That directly contradicts Rowbotham's assertion that a sufficiently powerful telescope can restore hull of a partially sunken ship which in turn directly proves that the earth is flat.  Rowbotham's perspective effects and bendy light are mutually exclusive FE theories.

I agree.  Rowbotham was wrong.  Let's face it, the man was a charlatan.

Sounds like it's time to update the FAQ.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2009, 12:10:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2009, 06:29:58 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2009, 11:24:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 19, 2009, 07:02:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2009, 05:22:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2009, 08:32:54 AM

Quote

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?

That the sun sets below the horizon.

FE predicts that.

Nope.  FE predicts that perspective causes the sun to recede to the vanishing point.  Perspective can never cause an object above the horizon to appear below it.  And, according to the FAQ, bendy light has yet to be proven to the satisfaction of the FET community.

What "proven"?  What has been "proven" that's bandied about here?  I feel EM has not gotten a fair shake.  When EM is incorporated into the theory it predicts sunsets just fine.

But bendy light also predicts that the earth should look round.  That directly contradicts Rowbotham's assertion that a sufficiently powerful telescope can restore hull of a partially sunken ship which in turn directly proves that the earth is flat.  Rowbotham's perspective effects and bendy light are mutually exclusive FE theories.

I agree.  Rowbotham was wrong.  Let's face it, the man was a charlatan.

Sounds like it's time to update the FAQ.

So we're sharpening that old saw again? 

You know that my opinions don't necessarily represent the opinions of the FES as a whole.  Although, I do think the FAQ could use a little tidying.

I heard a rumor that there is supposed to be a Flat Earth Wiki in the works.  I'm thinking that it's reached urban legend status by now.

No, it's still going on. I've not been doing any because I don't even understand half of the articles on there, let alone know how to improve them.

No, it's still going on. I've not been doing any because I don't even understand half of the articles on there, let alone know how to improve them.

Then perhaps "vaporware" is a more appropriate term.  Besides, I thought that the idea of a wiki was to have it open to the community so that the community can improve the articles, not just the elite FEW (so to speak).

Besides, I thought that the idea of a wiki was to have it open to the community so that the community can improve the articles, not just the elite FEW (so to speak).

No, look at most of the threads in the 'serious' forums around here. They are a bunch of noobs that keep on reinventing themselves. wiki has standards of writing.

Quote from: General Douchebag on May 20, 2009, 10:59:26 PM

No, it's still going on. I've not been doing any because I don't even understand half of the articles on there, let alone know how to improve them.

Then perhaps "vaporware" is a more appropriate term.  Besides, I thought that the idea of a wiki was to have it open to the community so that the community can improve the articles, not just the elite FEW (so to speak).

Did you even stop for a moment to consider the consequences before you said that? Also,

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2009, 06:25:32 AM

Besides, I thought that the idea of a wiki was to have it open to the community so that the community can improve the articles, not just the elite FEW (so to speak).

No, look at most of the threads in the 'serious' forums around here. They are a bunch of noobs that keep on reinventing themselves. wiki has standards of writing.

Qft.

Don't my references to bendy light, elephants, turtles, and how you explain the sun INDICATE that I have already?

how would you explain gps? i code gps for a living, and if the earth were flat the data we hold of the satellites' positions would be significantly off. triangulation would fail, and gps would not be able to pinpoint your location as accurately as it does. It follows the same logic as the following:

suppose a tower were built to be a fixed (large) height above the earths surface. if the tower sent signals to various locations around the world, it would take x amount of time to reach those locations. due to the "hypothetical curvature" of the earth in this scenario, the time it takes to reach those locations would be significantly off, and actually the dimensions of the earth could be calculated with this experiment. although this particular instance hasnt been instantiated, there is no need for it to be because the same scenario occurs with satellites, triangulation and gps.