Disproving The Flat Earth

  • 51 Replies
  • 14053 Views
?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #30 on: April 17, 2006, 01:32:03 PM »
Quote from: "555Joshua"
One giant strawman




Read the FAQ before you post.

?

555Joshua

Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2006, 07:21:26 AM »
I see my argument is too strong for you to fight. 8-)

Quote
Why?

Because, you think the earth's flat, that means you're stupid. 8-)

?

Unimportant

  • 1229
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2006, 07:58:01 AM »
That's like me saying "You think life exists elsewhere in the universe, and that makes you stupid;" certainly an untenable claim.

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2006, 10:14:26 AM »
Quote from: "555Joshua"
I see my argument is too strong for you to fight. 8-)


You didn't post an argument, you posted one very large strawman.

Quote from: "555Joshua"
WTF??!!!
If the earth has an edge, where is it? How come those people in the Genis Book of world records never found it when they flew solo around the world? Several flew around it--all around it. And they can tell you it is round. Where is this ice you speek of? No one can show me a picture of it. At least I can show you a picture of the round eath. How come I can show you a fake when you can't show me a real?


FE theory states that the ice wall is guarded by the government. By taking out the government enforcers, you just built yourself a strawman.

Quote from: "555Joshua"
Whenever a government conspires has a reason. Why would a government waist billions of dolars over this?


I don't know why they'd "waist" billions of dollars, but perhaps the purpose of the conspiracy is to keep whatever they're hiding secret.

Quote from: "555Joshua"
WTF??!!! How do you think you use your cell phones? The signals are relayed by SATILITES. How do you think you get SATILITE TV??!!! YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE SATILITES ORBIT THE EARTH. That's another f*cking good question, HOW DOES THE MOON ORBIT A FLAT EARTH??!!!


Again, strawman. That only works if you assume the signals come from satelites, which according to FE theory they don't. FE theory claims they come from radio towers.

As to the moon, it doesn't orbit the Earth.

Quote from: "555Joshua"
AH! So you admit the earth has gravity! :)


That was never stated by someone who believes the Earth is flat.

Quote from: "555Joshua"
Oh f*ck. You people contridict yourselves. First you say no one has gone into space, and then you say we have. :?:


Again, no one who believes the Earth is flat states that we have went into space.

Quote from: "555Joshua"
What The Fuck??!!! Surely if the U.S. Government were getting shitloads of money from the devil they wouldn't be $9,000,000,000 in debt. And what would Satan get out of this "Round Eath Conspiracy"?


Do you really think the government is completely honest? If so, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

As for Satan, some FE's claim that the Earth is round because it says so in the bible, so by believing the Earth is round, it lessens the number of Christians and therefore increases the number of souls going to hell.

Quote from: "555Joshua"
And yet, you are part of the Flat Earth Conspiracy. :(


Your point?

Quote from: "555Joshua"
I used to think that everyone has intelligence. I think so less and less now. :(


I also used to think everyone was intelligent, then I saw Time Cube.


?

Knight

  • 875
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2006, 12:38:07 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
As for Satan, some FE's claim that the Earth is round because it says so in the bible, so by believing the Earth is round, it lessens the number of Christians and therefore increases the number of souls going to hell.


Some FE's claim the earth is round?

Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say what shape the earth is.  It suggests the shape in some passages though.

Because the Bible doesn't say "the earth is flat," it's not at all factual that you'll go to hell for believing it's round.
ooyakasha!

?

jamil5454

Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2006, 05:01:17 PM »
FE supporters are a prime example of questioning gone amuck. Nature has laws that everything obeys, and we aren't to the point yet where we can play God and bend the laws ourselves.

I have not seen one single experiment to support the FE theory, while every single aspect of everyday life agrees with the belief of a RE. When one considers this, it doesn't really matter who is right, because all reality is based solely on what we can observe. And from what we can observe, the earth is round, so this must be considered truth.

One interesting problem is the steady rotation of illumination upon the Earth:

On a flat Earth, the whole surface would be evenly illuminated until the Sun set below the horizon, upon which everything would suddenly become dark due to the absence of light.

On a round Earth, the whole area facing the Sun is illuminated, while on the other side of the world everything is dark. And before you ask -- yes, I can confirm this through my own experiments. Now, when the Sun sets, some of the light is still refracted back to Earth by the atmosphere (the incidence angle is very small) so this is why it's still fairly bright outside even after the Sun sets.

Considering this, it would be hard to convince me (or anyone, for that matter) that the Earth is flat. This alone doesn't necessarily prove the Earth to be round, but along with the mountain of evidence towards a round Earth, I think it's safe to say the "sceintists" are right.

As the FE supporters have pointed out, nothing is ever 100% certain, but at some point you have to look at the evidence, make your best judgement, and move on.

?

Knight

  • 875
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2006, 05:23:37 PM »
Quote from: "jamil5454"
On a flat Earth, the whole surface would be evenly illuminated until the Sun set below the horizon, upon which everything would suddenly become dark due to the absence of light.


Somewhere in one of these threads is a different explanation for the sun.  Rest assured, your analysis doesn't disprove that explanation.  The sun is always above the earth, smaller, and acts as a spotlight so as not to illuminate the entire earth at once.
ooyakasha!

?

jamil5454

Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2006, 05:37:38 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "jamil5454"
On a flat Earth, the whole surface would be evenly illuminated until the Sun set below the horizon, upon which everything would suddenly become dark due to the absence of light.


Somewhere in one of these threads is a different explanation for the sun.  Rest assured, your analysis doesn't disprove that explanation.  The sun is always above the earth, smaller, and acts as a spotlight so as not to illuminate the entire earth at once.

Yes, imagination has limitless possibilities. However, everything we've observed about our Sun leads to the conclusion that it is a sphere, like our Earth.

Gravitational attraction, which is present with anything that has mass, is equal in all 3 dimensions. Since the Earth is proven to be made of the same basic elements as anything else with gravity, there is no evidence that supports the idea that the Earth has no mass. The only shape that respects this law is a sphere.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2006, 06:01:42 PM »
Jamil:  I'm not particular interested in addressing your claims, since they are convered in some detail in the FAQ already.  I was hoping, however, that you might reorganize your statements

Quote
... every single aspect of everyday life agrees with the belief of a RE. When one considers this, it doesn't really matter who is right, because all reality is based solely on what we can observe. And from what we can observe, the earth is round, so this must be considered truth.


and

Quote
Gravitational attraction, which is present with anything that has mass, is equal in all 3 dimensions.  ... The only shape that respects this law is a sphere.


so that they make more than zero sense.

Thanks,

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

jamil5454

Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2006, 09:22:34 PM »
Alright, I'll try to clear things up a bit.

Air and space travel rely on the fact that the Earth is a sphere. There hasn't been one mistake in navigation resulting from the assumption that the Earth is spherical. However, there would be many navigational errors if we assumed the Earth as it is today is flat.

The truth is useless if it doesn't benefit us.

From what we can observe, this spherical model of the Earth is working great for us, so would it really matter if the Earth was flat? You'd be going through meaningless effort to instill an idea of a flat Earth in society if it didn't better work for us.

Anything that has mass has gravity. Gravity is a force that pulls equally in all directions, so any matter accumulated to a particle through gravity would take on a spherical form.

?

Unimportant

  • 1229
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2006, 09:35:24 PM »
Quote
Air travel [relies] on the fact that the Earth is a sphere. There hasn't been one mistake in navigation resulting from the assumption that the Earth is spherical. However, there would be many navigational errors if we assumed the Earth as it is today is flat.

Explain this please.

?

Dionysios

  • 482
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2006, 09:59:24 PM »
After reviewing this thought I would add that the best explanation I have ever seen for the "wave thing" and ships on the horizon is contained in 'Earth Not a Globe' by Samuel Rowbotham (using the pseudonym "Parallax") which has been posted on-line.  I think I remember seeing Daniel had established a link to it in the 'Sacred Text Archive' site.  Also, some of this is in a book called 'Adrian Galilio' by Lady Blount (which I have as a photocopy from Schadewald's own collection which he had sent to me while he was still alive, but I doubt it exists in electronic format as it is so rare) and various histories of nineteenth century flat earthism which go into the doctrine a little bit, particularly those of the late (non-flat earther) Robert Schadewald.

- Dionysios

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2006, 12:45:03 AM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
After reviewing this thought I would add that the best explanation I have ever seen for the "wave thing" and ships on the horizon is contained in 'Earth Not a Globe' by Samuel Rowbotham (using the pseudonym "Parallax") which has been posted on-line.


In all sincerety, Dionysios, thanks for posting this.

I've had a look at the chapter on why ships appear to disappear hull-first over the horizon, and I am pleased to say that Rowbotham has one of the finest understandings of the mathematically demonstrable concept of perspective that I have ever come across.

Rowbotham explains the the ship-horizon issue based on the following premeses:

Quote from: "Samuel Rowbotham"
1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.

2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.

3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body.


From these true principles he rightly concludes that a ship, receding a great distance, will appear to diminish, and that its distinct parts will become as one to a distant observer.  Since the hull is just such a distinctive part, naturally the hull will itself appear to disappear.

Can a more true statement about the nature of perspective be made?  I must once again praise Mr. Rowbotham's capability for demonstrating the abstract in an understable way, and also for demonstrating that he has never once in his life looked at a ship on the sea, or for that matter, the sun in the sky.  His myriad diagrams all show a similar scene: an object, detailed when viewed up close but vanishing into a point as they recede into the distance, illustrate something exactly unlike the phenomena Rowbotham claims to be explaining: for who among those who claim that they have seen, through telescopes, ships recede below horizon, will admit that they seem to shrink to mere points before doing so?  Who too will claim that the sun -- a disc of measurable size in the sky -- when going to its resting place in the West at the end of every day, is squeezed uniformly into a mere speck of furiously bright light against the darkening blue sky, and then vanishes altogether?

No, indeed, perspective -- a notion elegantly, completely, and soundly elucidated by Mr. Rowbotham -- is in fact so distinct from one's view of the obvious and undeniable nature of ships and suns that one is led to conclude that Mr. Rowbotham has spent every waking minute of his life in his cellar.  Possibly his internment (or interment) was broken by an occassional reptilian crawl on his belly in the thick grass lining the 3-mile wall leading out to the Poolbeg Lighthouse in Ireland --- which wall and grass must have severly limited his view of sun and sea.

To all who desire to learn the mysteries of perspective -- and nothing else at all -- from a longwinded reptile and his vague, confusing, eyestraining sketches, I heartily encourage you to read "Earth: Not a Globe" by the renouned Samuel Rowbotham.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2006, 12:51:12 AM »
As for Rowbotham's treatment of the so-called "Wave Thing", it is mind-boggling in its stupidity.  I am tempted to believe that this rubbish was assembled by his enemies to discredit him.

He begins by pointing out that when winds are high, waves can be quite high, blocking the view of objects that are normally quite distant.

He then goes on to claim that in all instances when a telescope cannot view a distant object at sea it is due to causes local to the object viewed.  Does he mean to claim that telescopes are able to -- and regularly do -- hide such conditions as, say, a rough sea as caused by gale-force winds?  If not, then when the sea is calm, what "purely local" causes are they that obscure an object that would otherwise be viewable by a telescope?

Truly, no literature has been more damning to the Flat Earth cause than "Earth: Not a Globe" by Samuel Rowbotham.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

jamil5454

Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2006, 08:09:56 AM »
I'm surprised there hasn't been a FE supporter ever to go into orbit to prove, once and for all, that the Earth is flat.

Just curious - do FE supporters generally believe that the Earth is rotating on its axis, or is it at a standstill and all objects revolve around it?

?

Fountain of all Knowledge

Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2006, 11:41:22 AM »
Iv got a realy big problem with the FE Theory
1.)wouldnt water run off the edge of the planet, or off a place where there wasnt any Barriers

2.)what your saying is i could walk in a strate line and fall off the edge of the planet,

is this right?

?

semperround

  • 2885
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2006, 11:43:12 AM »
Quote from: "Fountain of all Knowledge"
Iv got a realy big problem with the FE Theory
1.)wouldnt water run off the edge of the planet, or off a place where there wasnt any Barriers

2.)what your saying is i could walk in a strate line and fall off the edge of the planet,

is this right?


you obviously haven't read the faq.
an vir

?

Fountain of all Knowledge

Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2006, 11:53:47 AM »
semperround, thanks for replying to me but you still havent answerd my questions,

could i fall of the edge of the earth if i walked far enough

and i have just finnished the FAQ, if the earth is flat what happens when the "ice walls" melt, due to globle warming?

?

semperround

  • 2885
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2006, 12:04:35 PM »
according to FE'ers, yes you could fall off. Being RE'er that I am i don't believe in this ice wall and i am not sure if all the FE'ers agree on the effects of global warming, and of course i have no idea. But i think there was a topic in this, you'll have to look for it but it's there.
an vir

?

The Creator

  • 22
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #49 on: August 29, 2006, 12:05:05 PM »
Quote from: "jamil5454"
I'm surprised there hasn't been a FE supporter ever to go into orbit to prove, once and for all, that the Earth is flat.

Just curious - do FE supporters generally believe that the Earth is rotating on its axis, or is it at a standstill and all objects revolve around it?


We can't go into orbit.  If we did have rocket technology, we would.  But the government covers that up well, so for right now it's impossible.  

And I believe that we think that the Earth rotates around a central point.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
  • +0/-0
Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #50 on: August 29, 2006, 12:15:13 PM »
Exactly how quickly does the Earth rotate in FE?
the cake is a lie

?

Fountain of all Knowledge

Disproving The Flat Earth
« Reply #51 on: August 29, 2006, 12:18:31 PM »
To any FEer consider this:

the Coriolis force:The Coriolis force is the force that results from the rotation of a Spherical around its axis