My proofs against the theory.

Hello, firstly I realise that this is reguarded as satire by most people, however I have various pieces of evidence I would like to put forward for anyone neive* enough to believe.

*You believe everyone who does believe in a spherical Earth is neive so don't comment on my opinion

Firstly I would like to draw attention to the fact that if the earth is truely accelarating, instead of having gravity, the stars above us would appear to be getting closer and would be blue shifted (the light emitted would appear blue, because the gap between the emitter and observer is decreasing).

Futhermore accelaration requires a constant force (otherwise forces are balanced and the result will be a constant speed).

Even a constant force would not yield the constant accelaration, because as speed increases the energy usually given to increase speed begins to increase the mass instead of speed. This means the force applied would have to increase expotentially. The increase in mass would also increase the gravity of the Earth (You have admitted bodies other than the Earth have gravity, elsewhere to explain orbits etc...), to the point where it would collapse in upon itself and form a black hole.

Finally the most direct, indisputable of the group, Water fills the area directly in the direction of the force so...



Look towards the ocean in real life and in photos and you will notice a slight change in angle from the two edges of your view (the ocean is not exactly flat, so neither is the force holding the water to the Earth, so the force is gravity, which means the Earth has gravity and would collapse in on itself if it had a flat surface.

I bid good-day to you all.

Look towards the ocean in real life and in photos and you will notice a slight change in angle from the two edges of your view (the ocean is not exactly flat, so neither is the force holding the water to the Earth, so the force is gravity, which means the Earth has gravity and would collapse in on itself if it had a flat surface.

I bid good-day to you all.

That looks completely f'ing flat.  I need a ruler to check...

I did check that with a ruler, and it certainly DOES have a curve, take that society!

The FE is accelerating along with everything in the universe (at least the stuff we can see). Therefore, the distance is not decreasing due to our acceleration through space.  The mechanism of this force providing the acceleration is unknown but is often given the place holder name of Dark Energy.  Also, the mass of the earth would not increase in our frame of reference.

I did check that with a ruler, and it certainly DOES have a curve, take that society!

Clearly ruler manufacturers are in on the conspiracy.

The FE is accelerating along with everything in the universe (at least the stuff we can see). Therefore, the distance is not decreasing due to our acceleration through space.  The mechanism of this force providing the acceleration is unknown but is often given the place holder name of Dark Energy.  Also, the mass of the earth would not increase in our frame of reference.

As long as we are playing word games, let's play: You did not say "According to FE proponents". When you say "The flat earth is accelerating" you are saying, to the best understanding of typical readers, "the earth is flat and accelerating...".

You like laughing at people that assume you are an FE proponent, but in real life you are responsible for what you clearly imply, beyond what a typical listener can tell apart. If I say "some would think years of too much sun causes dark skin and burned neurons" I am a bigot. I cannot say the implication is in the listener.

I measured the coordinates (in pixels) on the picture you've posted:


The coordinates are indicated on the picture. Then I ploted the x coordinate vs the y coordinates.



The trendline is obtained by linear fitting in Excel. The R² value is the so called correlation coefficient which is always between 0 and 1. If it's exactly 1, the relation between the variables is exactly linear. If it's zero there is no linear relation between the variables. In our case, it is pretty much to 1, so I'd say it's a straight horizon anytime. 

Well, I think Bushido covered it.

Are you accounting for an angled camera? I could probably go into Photoshop and check myself, but if you've already taken the possibility that it's just an angled picture, then I won't bother.

Even IF that picture were high enough resolution,

Even IF the selection of points weren't entirely subjective,

Even IF a FE proponent would ever accept a photograph as evidence,

There are still much better cases that have been made against FET.

I like that ocean pic.  And it does reveal the cuvature...just not right to left.  It's directly in front of the camera. 

Are you accounting for an angled camera? I could probably go into Photoshop and try myself, but if you've already taken that into account then it'd be a waste of my time.

The tilt in the camera is taken into account by ignoring the tilt in the data and looking only if a circular line or a straight line fit the dots better, beyond any noise explainable by resolution, spherical aberration of the lens, etc.

The clear result is that the photograph does not fit either a circle or a straight line beyond the basic doubts I mentioned, and this is hardly unexpected.

In science, when an experiment fails to resolve the issue a better experiment is tested. In this case, only a photograph taken from an altitude of several tens of thousands of feet would resolve the issue, but then the FE camp would cry conspiracy.

The FE camp needs this kind of inconclusive results because all conclusive, repeatable, scientifically acceptable experiments are against them.

The sharp horizon line is the result of the great downward curvature.  One would see something totally different if the ocean and the earth were flat.

You stupid bastards. The horizon on the pic is straight. End of discussion.

And there are other signs of the curvature.  Notice that the further and smaller the clouds, the more near the horizon they appear to be?  In reality, they are most probably at the same altitude as the large cloud in the picture.  They just appear to be lower because they are over the visible horizon.

And there are other signs of the curvature.  Notice that the further and smaller the clouds, the more near the horizon they appear to be?  In reality, they are most probably at the same altitude as the large cloud in the picture.  They just appear to be lower because they are over the visible horizon.

Or, it's due to perspective.

Quote from: Mrs. More on June 14, 2007, 09:40:12 AM

And there are other signs of the curvature.  Notice that the further and smaller the clouds, the more near the horizon they appear to be?  In reality, they are most probably at the same altitude as the large cloud in the picture.  They just appear to be lower because they are over the visible horizon.

Or, it's due to perspective.

That would, of course, explain them seeming smaller.  But it may not completely explain why they appear so much lower to the extent that they often do.  I'ts just a thing I've observed. 

Now, go worship.

The trendline is obtained by linear fitting in Excel. The R2 value is the so called correlation coefficient which is always between 0 and 1. If it's exactly 1, the relation between the variables is exactly linear. If it's zero there is no linear relation between the variables. In our case, it is pretty much to 1, so I'd say it's a straight horizon anytime.  Grin

I don't understand the point of testing this. Imagine making a 360 degree panorama,
how could it curve the way you're testing it?  The curve goes away from the point
of reference in all directions (if you believe in RE).

Also, you seem to have the terminology mixed up. R2 is the coefficient of determination and
measures the fit, which in simple regression happens to be the degree of linear relationship.
The correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to 1, and shows the degree of positive or
negative correlation. The square of the correlation coefficient yields R2 in simple regression.

Let me be clear that I'm not trying to offend you, and I'm also aware of you being an RE'er.

Or.... it's not. Out of interest, are there any actual believers of FE here or are most of you just playing the Devils Advocate to annoy those who dislike people who spout bollocks. Have any of you noticed such a thing as a horizon, or ever wondered why the moon orbits the earth. And how would you describe Ancient Greeks as being in on the same conspiracy as the modern Americans?

The curve goes away from the point of reference in all directions (if you believe in RE).

Exactly! This is to say, enough with the curved horizon proof of RE.

Agreed.

Once again, the curve is not apparent from left to right; it is in front of the viewer.  How else is the flat, sharp horizon to be explained?

Even if there was a curve in that photo it would be due to the camera's lens. Like someone else said the only way to photograph the curve properly is to get up to at least around 50,000 feet

You stupid bastards. The horizon on the pic is straight. End of discussion.

We are stupid and might be bastards, but we do know something about science. Do you?

As I was saying, the error in the interpretation of the photograph is dismal. If you want to measure something in a digital photo you have to understand that even under the very best circumstances your measurements have a digitization error of plus or minus 1 pixel. In fact, every pixel is slightly dependent of the neighboring pixels due to the internal construction of the surface where the image is detected inside the camera, so you should assume an error of plus or minus 2 pixels, but let's go with the more optimistic assumption.

In the diagram my added vertical lines show the error in each individual measurement, optimistically shown as even less than +/- 1 pixel. The curved line shows how a tremendous curvature, much stronger than the calculated curvature of the Earth, also fits nicely in your measurements. In fact, we could also fit a line with a slight inverted curvature, hinting that Earth might be a SuperBowl.

Therefore these numbers are not evidence of anything. I doubt this kind of experiment will become accurate enough to be useful in our lifetimes. Look for better experiments; if we the stupid bastards have, and you cannot, maybe the stupid is somebody else.

Measurements are just unrelated numbers until you take into account the way you acquired them.

The FE is accelerating along with everything in the universe (at least the stuff we can see). Therefore, the distance is not decreasing due to our acceleration through space.

Goudx did not mention anything about the distance between Earth and the stars as decreasing.  He only stated that the stars appear to get closer.  Also, you have not rebutted on blue shift.

I measured the coordinates (in pixels) on the picture you've posted:

The coordinates are indicated on the picture. Then I ploted the x coordinate vs the y coordinates.

The trendline is obtained by linear fitting in Excel. The R² value is the so called correlation coefficient which is always between 0 and 1. If it's exactly 1, the relation between the variables is exactly linear. If it's zero there is no linear relation between the variables. In our case, it is pretty much to 1, so I'd say it's a straight horizon anytime. 

Your trendline is linear because you chose linear.  If you chose polynomial type with Order of 2 then you get a better fitting curve.

EDIT: sry triq, I didn't see your explanation until after I posted.

Ok Bushido, I'm going to ignore that long mathy and inaccurate post and just say that if you were to take a ruler to the picture it would depict a curved horizon.

Yes I did read it, but I do not agree with the results.

Goudx did not mention anything about the distance between Earth and the stars as decreasing.  He only stated that the stars appear to get closer.

Do you realize you contradicted yourself in just two sentences?

Ok Bushido, I'm going to ignore that long mathy and inaccurate post and just say that if you were to take a ruler to the picture it would depict a curved horizon.

Yes I did read it, but I do not agree with the results.

I also took a ruler and it was a straight horizon. Let me see you fit the curve with a circular arc and get a better fitting.