it may be conventional thought, but its that for a reason

The notion that the world is flat seems to me to be ludicrous, the curvature may have been an optical illusion, if the ratio of curve: distance hadn’t been proved mathematically to equal the circumference of the earth, i also read in another post that the world is most definitely flat because if it were round compasses would spin, they might if we weren't spinning on the surface of the earth at the same rate as the polls, your arguments are ludicrous unsubstantiated speculation, seriously a giant ice wall, the dangles on the precipice of space, get real, practical physics supports a round earth and due to the successful application of these theories in many fields I would deem worthy of the label correct. You’re a bunch of Neanderthaloid spear chucking twits, read the opening line of this wiki article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society

Or wait, wikipedia is probably owned by the conspiracy, *dramatic music*.

Why would compasses spin around on the RE?  Who said it?

RIGHT ON BRUTHA!

The notion that the world is flat seems to me to be ludicrous, the curvature may have been an optical illusion, if the ratio of curve: distance hadn’t been proved mathematically to equal the circumference of the earth, i also read in another post that the world is most definitely flat because if it were round compasses would spin, they might if we weren't spinning on the surface of the earth at the same rate as the polls, your arguments are ludicrous unsubstantiated speculation, seriously a giant ice wall, the dangles on the precipice of space, get real, practical physics supports a round earth and due to the successful application of these theories in many fields I would deem worthy of the label correct. You’re a bunch of Neanderthaloid spear chucking twits, read the opening line of this wiki article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society

Or wait, wikipedia is probably owned by the conspiracy, *dramatic music*.

"Spear chucking"?   

RACIST!

What experimental evidence can you reference in support of a Round Earth?

That's what I thought.

What experimental evidence can you reference in support of a Round Earth?

That's what I thought.

You have yet to prove you have done any experiments, either. Quoting some asinine book doesn't prove anything.
The best part is, to accomplish said experiments, you would need someone else to help you (i.e the person in the boat)... and we all know you don't have a single friend in the world... because everyone you ask to do said experiments would laugh right in your face.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again: you are not the savior of this world, nor, will you prove mankind wrong. The only thing you've ever proved: you're a paranoid, simple-minded fool, who does nothing but copy and paste.

You have yet to prove you have done any experiments, either. Quoting some asinine book doesn't prove anything.

I've done my own experiments. Click here for the details.

There is nothing wrong with the experiments put fourth in Earth Not a Globe. They are perfectly coherent. If you require further experimental evidence please read "One hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter, or "Zetetic Cosmogony" by Thomas Winship

One of William Carpenter's proofs was 'there are flat maps'.

Your experiment:

Experiment 1:

      Take any four points on earth with a significant distance apart (London, Madrid, Athens, and Kiev, for instance) and measure the angles between the points. If the earth were a globe the angles would add up to more than 360 degrees. This is called positive curvature and would prove the Earth is round. If the angles measure to be exactly 360 degrees, as they do in plain-old Euclidean geometry, it implies that the earth is a flat surface. Quadrilaterals whose angles measure less than 360 degrees implies a negative curvature (like a horse saddle).


Result: Flat.

You never did explain how you did that one.

Quote

You have yet to prove you have done any experiments, either. Quoting some asinine book doesn't prove anything.

I've done my own experiments. Click here for the details.

There is nothing wrong with the experiments put fourth in Earth Not a Globe. They are perfectly coherent. If you require further experimental evidence please read "One hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter, or "Zetetic Cosmogony" by Thomas Winship

Here you go, big guy... just for you (mention of Flat Earthers is even in there)(Don't take FER in the url for any flat earth reference, it's the guy's initials):
http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?y=200610&i=101361

Once again, say goodbye to your experiments.

Oh, and another thing: your first experiment you mentioned, you still didn't tell us how you acquire the angles between the points... you can't use a map for it, since, it is flat and the Earth is not.

I love typing this: "Thank you, come again."

Edit: I also believe you lied about the statute distance between the two points in Monterey Bay... every other map I've seen and measured, it was less than 30 miles. Plus, you didn't take into account altitude of said points, your precious refraction of light (which you keep spouting Snell's Law, Snell's Law, yet not explaining how it affects light [besides "breaking a pencil in a glass of water"]) or temperature.

Wikipedia is owned by the conspiracy.

Congratulations Tom you done "experiments" in your own back yard. They probably haven't been published, and if they have then no one is going to waste their time with them. You provide partial descriptions of your experiments; just not enough so that anyone can test them. You never cease to amaze me with your lack of common sense and logic. (Also your trigonometry and physics skills could use a tune up too.)

Quote

You have yet to prove you have done any experiments, either. Quoting some asinine book doesn't prove anything.

I've done my own experiments. Click here for the details.

There is nothing wrong with the experiments put fourth in Earth Not a Globe. They are perfectly coherent. If you require further experimental evidence please read "One hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter, or "Zetetic Cosmogony" by Thomas Winship

Reading your first experiment, I nearly fell over laughing.  Seriously.  Measuring angles proves literally nothing unless you have some bizarre method of doing so without using any maps or globes.  So if you walked along the surface of the Earth drawing perfectly stratight lines between Athens, Kiev, London, and Madrid, and went back over each line measuring that it was perfectly straight, and THEN measured the angles, you might have a case.  Did you do that?  I didn't think so.

But using a flat map to prove a flat earth is ridiculous.  Because you aren't measuring the angles between them on the Earth, but on a flat map.  Try finding the angles using a globe.  I bet you one million dollars that you'll find conclusive evidence proving that the globe you're using isn't flat.  Does that prove anything about the shape of the Earth?  Of course not.  And neither does proving that a map is flat.

And if I'm mislead, if you actually did find these angles withuout using a map, and you are 100% positive of their accuracy, I would only ask that you describe your methods in such detail that I could replicate the results.  If you DID use a map, then your point is null.