Round Earthers have the burden of proof.

The burden of proof applies to anyone who makes a proposition about reality.

Both Flat Earthers and Round Earthers make propositions about reality.

Occam's Razor states that when two models propose to explain the same facts, the model with the most processes or entities is the one we should adopt, until further evidence comes in.

FE and RE propose to explain the same facts, but RE has the added problem of explaining how the Earth got to be the size it is, and how it got flatteny-round. The size, shape and formation of the Earth are all arbitrary factors, which do not jibe with a natural formation.

Therefore, for Round Earthism to be true, Occam's Razor must be false, as well. Therefore Round Earthers have the burden of proof to show that.

good luck getting them to say anything but, "prove it" even if the proofs are there.

I'm double-posting here, but I'm proud of my argument, so here 'goes.

Being a Canadian, there's one thing I've learned about conservative Americans like yourself: you like your guns, tall buildings, and fast cars. I can provide strong indications of a round earth using these things.

For example, the CN tower in Canada is the world's largest freestanding structure. It's so tall in fact, that they had to plant lasers at the base of the tower when they were building it. Why, you ask? Well, due to the Coriolis effect, the farther away from the surface of the Earth you are, the faster you're rotating. In effect, if the construction workers built straight up without any references to the ground, the structure would corkscrew and be impossible to build totally straight. Ergo, the construction of tall buildings takes into account a round (and spinning) earth.

Now, guns. If you know any sniper specialists in the Army, they will back this up. When a sniper has to make a shot at extreme distances (over a mile), they cannot simply shoot straight at their target, due to wind and the arc of the bullet, obviously. However, they also need to take into account where on the Earth they are, so they can account for the rotation of the earth. If they do not, they cannot properly hit their target. Ergo, a round (and spinning) earth is a sniper's enemy, but one he has to contend with.

Cars are a little trickier, so I will use commercial airplanes. The proposed shape of the flat earth is like a dollar coin, with all the continents up top. Say a pilot wanted to get from Sydney Australia to Washington DC. In a flat earth, the most direct route will be roughly across the North Pole, but in reality they travel over the Pacific Ocean, which in a flat earth would equate to much more time and fuel wasted. I've seen this argument refuted in other posts as planes stopping at many cities along the way, but that's inapplicable here as there is nowhere to stop over the Pacific. And since commercial airliners like saving fuel, and money, they take the most direct route. So, pilots take a route that highly indicates a round earth, being the most efficient path.

One final morsel of food for thought is time zones. If you look on a map of the time zones, you will see they stretch from pole to pole. On a flat earth, they would need to all begin at true North and radiate outward like bicycle spokes. This analysis does not match the actual arrangement of the time zones, as then Australia and Africa would be one huge time zone, instead of several moderately sized ones, which they actually are.

I understand that a key tenet of Flat Earthers is a worldwide conspiracy to hide the true nature of the earth, in which case my argument, and by extension all others, are meaningless.

p.s.

There exists several basic items of proof of a round earth. I will not explain them in detail unless you really want me to, but here goes: pictures from space, pictures of other planets, pictures of the sun (tracing sunspots allows its rotation to be measured, making it round), seeing the Apollo landing site through a home telescope, seeing the International Space Station fly (orbit) over your house, the cyclic nature of hurricanes and large storms, weather in general (mostly wind), and the fact that nobody appears to have seen the gigantic ice walls that are at the "edge" of the earth, or the protective "dome" that keeps our atmosphere from floating away, even though rockets seem to have no trouble penetrating it.

The biggest item of proof is the number of pictures of a round Earth from space. This could all be false of course, assuming nobody has ever been in space. However, there is a great mirror on the moon that you can reflect a laser beam off of, thereby proving man's touch has graced the moon and simultaneously gauging the distance between the moon and the earth. Since man can throw a mirror at the moon, he can certainly send cameras a quarter of that distance to take a picture of the planet.

Though some of these items are not "proof" by the strictest definitions, being highly credible inferences, the pictures of a round Earth are the most credible proof you could possibly conceive.

Though I know that Flat Earthers seem so biased, that if you laid a picture of a round earth beside one of a flat earth, they would immediately claim the earth is flat, though there is equal proof for both conjectures in that point.

I am Canadian.
I am a Market Anarchist.
You lose.

How was the Earth formed?

How was the Earth formed?

From the Big Bang.

So what if you have the burden of proof. Get used to it. I have plenty of experiences with the burden of proof. Take for example the time I urinated on a McDonald's employee while she was fixing my supper. Anyone could have urinated on her. But of course, she pointed and screamed at me, stupid bitch. Now the burden of proof is on me that I didn't pee on her. Ridiculous.

The burden of proof applies to anyone who makes a proposition about reality.

The burden of proof is on the party proposing a theory that is contradictory to the generally accepted one among the scientific community.

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 25, 2007, 05:42:17 PM

The burden of proof applies to anyone who makes a proposition about reality.

The burden of proof is on the party proposing a theory that is contradictory to the generally accepted one among the scientific community.

What if the scientific community is the Flat Earth Society, and that generally accepted theory is one of a flat Earth?

Quote from: pspunit on March 25, 2007, 10:28:39 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 25, 2007, 05:42:17 PM

The burden of proof applies to anyone who makes a proposition about reality.

The burden of proof is on the party proposing a theory that is contradictory to the generally accepted one among the scientific community.

What if the scientific community is the Flat Earth Society, and that generally accepted theory is one of a flat Earth?

If that were the case, the round earth theory would have the burden of proof. That's not the case though. No modern scientist has published support for the flat earth theory.

FE and RE propose to explain the same facts, but RE has the added problem of explaining how the Earth got to be the size it is, and how it got flatteny-round. The size, shape and formation of the Earth are all arbitrary factors, which do not jibe with a natural formation.
Therefore, for Round Earthism to be true, Occam's Razor must be false, as well. Therefore Round Earthers have the burden of proof to show that.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all, Occam's Razor states that, all things being equal, we should adopt the model with the least assumptions. Verbatim, "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". I assume you simply made a slip of the tongue. But even assuming so, your logic is wrong. Inventing arbitrary questions does not count as RE theory having more entities. For example the question "how the Earth got to be the size it is" can be asked with just as much validity to the FE'ers and thus falls into that "all things being equal" bit and so doesn't count. Also "flatteny-round" makes no sense whatsoever.

As an aside, Occam's Razor is not a matter of FEism or REism, it is of pure logic. To declare it false is sheer foolishness.

Back to the point, the most basic principles of RE theory have led to the development of physics that have further explained many aspects of the universe completely unrelated to the shape of the Earth. On the other hand, the most basic principles of FE theory would require throwing virtually all of commonly accepted physics out the window in favor of a bastardized version in which gravity doesn't exist and light behaves far differently than we currently think. Now consider the fact that FE theory has far more (as of yet) unexplained elements than RE theory and that a huge amount of FE theory depends upon a world-wide government conspiracy - now which theory is multiplying entities beyond necessity?

FE'ers, the burden of proof lies with you.

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 25, 2007, 05:42:17 PM

The burden of proof applies to anyone who makes a proposition about reality.

The burden of proof is on the party proposing a theory that is contradictory to the generally accepted one among the scientific community.

This is not an issue of science. We are not scientists. The burden of proof applies to ALL claims about reality.

Francerty, your logic is inherently flawed. Just like the guy trying to talk about identicl planes for bulldozing houses in Paris and Bulgaria (or something), your ideas only make sense if you already KNOW the earth is flat. Since you require to be true what you are trying to prove, your argument is one big fallacy. And claiming that Occam's razor must be false for the earth to be round is just silly, and indicates a complete lack of understanding for what you're trying to say.

The burden of proof now lies squarely on the shoulders of flat earthers. There has been a monumental amount of proof in favour of a round earth, and now for flat earthers to be taken seriously, you need an even greater volume of credible evidence than has been established for a round earth. Since none of you have actually produced this proof, but instead try to insult those who do posit quite convincing proof, you have done abolutely nothing to further your point, which I would think would be your first concern, since the round earth theory is obviously a worldwide lie between Commie hippies and dodge drafters.

I think that Occam's Razor clearly supports the RE theory, only because of all of the contrivances that have to be made for a FE. FE REQUIRES that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy to keep people from the truth, but cannot explain the actual benefit this conspiracy would provide.  That satellite imagery, Mercury, Apollo, Shuttle missions are all faked. There is an unexplainable force that is able to keep a massive body accelerating constantly. The idea that the sun & moon are discs, and a truly impossible explanation for them setting below the horizon, in opposition to obvious earth-based evidence to the contrary. No ability to explain the earths magnetic field, which is easily explained by a RE's molten spinning iron core (and of course a necessity to keep us from being harmed by the observable solar winds). The lack of a FE map that follows the known and measurable shape of land masses and distances between them. Plus at least a half dozen other things.

The fact that a RE gives reasonable scientific explanations for all of these things without resorting to the ultimate cop-out, a conspiracy, puts Occam's Razor clearly on the RE side.

You want proof? Space ship!

I think that Occam's Razor clearly supports the RE theory, only because of all of the contrivances that have to be made for a FE. FE REQUIRES that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy to keep people from the truth, but cannot explain the actual benefit this conspiracy would provide.

I have already explained the benefits. You lose.

You can't answer one point and win you have to answer all points to win.

Quote from: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 06:57:23 AM

I think that Occam's Razor clearly supports the RE theory, only because of all of the contrivances that have to be made for a FE. FE REQUIRES that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy to keep people from the truth, but cannot explain the actual benefit this conspiracy would provide.

I have already explained the benefits. You lose.

I'm sorry, the benefits you have explained are all conjecture. You have no real evidence, IMO.

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 26, 2007, 02:29:43 PM

Quote from: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 06:57:23 AM

I think that Occam's Razor clearly supports the RE theory, only because of all of the contrivances that have to be made for a FE. FE REQUIRES that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy to keep people from the truth, but cannot explain the actual benefit this conspiracy would provide.

I have already explained the benefits. You lose.

I'm sorry, the benefits you have explained are all conjecture. You have no real evidence, IMO.

That is your position.

I'm double-posting here, but I'm proud of my argument, so here 'goes.

Being a Canadian, there's one thing I've learned about conservative Americans like yourself: you like your guns, tall buildings, and fast cars. I can provide strong indications of a round earth using these things.

For example, the CN tower in Canada is the world's largest freestanding structure. It's so tall in fact, that they had to plant lasers at the base of the tower when they were building it. Why, you ask? Well, due to the Coriolis effect, the farther away from the surface of the Earth you are, the faster you're rotating. In effect, if the construction workers built straight up without any references to the ground, the structure would corkscrew and be impossible to build totally straight. Ergo, the construction of tall buildings takes into account a round (and spinning) earth.

Now, guns. If you know any sniper specialists in the Army, they will back this up. When a sniper has to make a shot at extreme distances (over a mile), they cannot simply shoot straight at their target, due to wind and the arc of the bullet, obviously. However, they also need to take into account where on the Earth they are, so they can account for the rotation of the earth. If they do not, they cannot properly hit their target. Ergo, a round (and spinning) earth is a sniper's enemy, but one he has to contend with.

Cars are a little trickier, so I will use commercial airplanes. The proposed shape of the flat earth is like a dollar coin, with all the continents up top. Say a pilot wanted to get from Sydney Australia to Washington DC. In a flat earth, the most direct route will be roughly across the North Pole, but in reality they travel over the Pacific Ocean, which in a flat earth would equate to much more time and fuel wasted. I've seen this argument refuted in other posts as planes stopping at many cities along the way, but that's inapplicable here as there is nowhere to stop over the Pacific. And since commercial airliners like saving fuel, and money, they take the most direct route. So, pilots take a route that highly indicates a round earth, being the most efficient path.

One final morsel of food for thought is time zones. If you look on a map of the time zones, you will see they stretch from pole to pole. On a flat earth, they would need to all begin at true North and radiate outward like bicycle spokes. This analysis does not match the actual arrangement of the time zones, as then Australia and Africa would be one huge time zone, instead of several moderately sized ones, which they actually are.

I understand that a key tenet of Flat Earthers is a worldwide conspiracy to hide the true nature of the earth, in which case my argument, and by extension all others, are meaningless.

p.s.

There exists several basic items of proof of a round earth. I will not explain them in detail unless you really want me to, but here goes: pictures from space, pictures of other planets, pictures of the sun (tracing sunspots allows its rotation to be measured, making it round), seeing the Apollo landing site through a home telescope, seeing the International Space Station fly (orbit) over your house, the cyclic nature of hurricanes and large storms, weather in general (mostly wind), and the fact that nobody appears to have seen the gigantic ice walls that are at the "edge" of the earth, or the protective "dome" that keeps our atmosphere from floating away, even though rockets seem to have no trouble penetrating it.

The biggest item of proof is the number of pictures of a round Earth from space. This could all be false of course, assuming nobody has ever been in space. However, there is a great mirror on the moon that you can reflect a laser beam off of, thereby proving man's touch has graced the moon and simultaneously gauging the distance between the moon and the earth. Since man can throw a mirror at the moon, he can certainly send cameras a quarter of that distance to take a picture of the planet.

Though some of these items are not "proof" by the strictest definitions, being highly credible inferences, the pictures of a round Earth are the most credible proof you could possibly conceive.

Though I know that Flat Earthers seem so biased, that if you laid a picture of a round earth beside one of a flat earth, they would immediately claim the earth is flat, though there is equal proof for both conjectures in that point.

long posters suck
this is a long post
therefore you suck

QED, world is flat.

Once again, Frankis, you have polluted another post with your stubborn "I win, you lose" attitude. Like, seriously... what are you, six years old?

Not only can you not come up with ANY proof for any of your claims, but as soon as someone debates your points, you throw up this disgusting front about how everything you believe in is correct. Well, sorry pal, but it just isn't. And the fact that you can't, and are not willing to, back ANYTHING up shows that even you yourself don't understand what you talk about. Frankly (no pun intended), you're an embarrassment to this forum, as the only things you say are conjectural pieces of nothing, that are worth nothing and mean nothing.

And nobody cares if YOU believe in them, because I could tell you that I believe the sky is green, and then just say "I win, you lose" when you refute it. Do yourself a favour and cure your delusion; open your mind to things other than what Tom Bishop (or whatever the hell his name is) says.

p.s. narcberry, you've once again solidified your position as token douchebag.

Quote from: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 03:03:10 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 26, 2007, 02:29:43 PM

Quote from: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 06:57:23 AM

I think that Occam's Razor clearly supports the RE theory, only because of all of the contrivances that have to be made for a FE. FE REQUIRES that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy to keep people from the truth, but cannot explain the actual benefit this conspiracy would provide.

I have already explained the benefits. You lose.

I'm sorry, the benefits you have explained are all conjecture. You have no real evidence, IMO.

That is your position.

True, you have shown the benefits... however that does not mean that is what is truly happening. As you have said in your first post that FE'ers have made the theory and it is up to the RE'ers to disprove it. But wouldn't it be the opposite way. Instead of the RE'ers having to disprove the theory, shouldn't FE'ers have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt before any disproving can take place? Also, I have yet to see definitive proof, only lame responses saying that we lose. Which leads me to believe that you have no proof. Well... in this world to make anyone believe you, you must have proof. Checkmate, Francy...

tl;dr

Anyone care to summarize?

tl;dr

Anyone care to summarize?

Round Earthers are idiots.

Hmm... no responce... just insults... I take it you have no proof. Well Francy... I suggest you explain something to the so called idiots. Like what you beleive and why you beleive it. By now I can already deside that it is not FE'ers that are ignorant, but you. You give FE'ers a bad name. Most back up what they say, not you though. You just kinda insult when people dont agree with you. That is the truth. Checkmate.

I was asked to summarize, and I did. Round Earthers have zero evidence. Any way you cut it, that makes you full of shit.

I was asked to summarize, and I did. Round Earthers have zero evidence. Any way you cut it, that makes you full of shit.

You're a lying troll, get off this forum!

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 27, 2007, 03:23:54 PM

I was asked to summarize, and I did. Round Earthers have zero evidence. Any way you cut it, that makes you full of shit.

You're a lying troll, get off this forum!

Get outta here.

Quote from: Darkfrog on March 27, 2007, 03:32:51 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 27, 2007, 03:23:54 PM

I was asked to summarize, and I did. Round Earthers have zero evidence. Any way you cut it, that makes you full of shit.

You're a lying troll, get off this forum!

Get outta here.

Just trying to beat you to the punch.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on March 27, 2007, 03:56:42 AM

tl;dr

Anyone care to summarize?

Round Earthers are idiots.

Wonderful summary... an insult... But I guess that was the most I should have expected from you. I have proof, yet you don't as I can see. Or else you would think up of more than just an insult as a summary. Earth is round because gravity pulls with equal strength in all directions; therefore any variations from a spherical shape will lead to gravitational forces that bring the shape back into that of a sphere. That is one shread of proof more than what you have.