Why ask for evidence?

How many hundreds of n00bsters come to this site and leap right into "Show me evidence"
Why?

Let's be honest here, even if a FEer gave you an absolutely perfect explanation, you are going to dismiss it and continue believing in RE anyway

Like Christianity vs Evolution really

Amagad!

This whole forum is a metaphore 

It's the human ego. People like feeling superior, so posing "why" and then going "NOPE, HA!"...they fill their need.

Like Christianity vs Evolution really

I HATE THAT!

I'm a strong christian, and I believe in Evolution, The Big Bang!

Go to "Christianity and Evolution" thread under "Religion." Its being debated there.

It was a vague generalization for the purpose of humour. Chill.

The worst is people that argue creation vs. evolution. You'd think people would know that evolution isn't a creation theory.

people ask why just because we ALL are naturally questioning. its how we have become so technologically advanced.....just because we wanted to know "why does this work" or "why does this happen" btw....dont assume that every person will laugh in your face even after you prove them wrong.....judging everyone by one close-minded standerd is no way to go through life.

Evidence for a Flat Earth is not really necessary. If we look outside our windows or take a stroll down the coast of a beach we will immediately notice that the earth is flat by pretense. All basic instinct and intuition tells us this.

It's evidence for a Round Earth which needs to be given and sought after. The idea of a globe earth is absolutely extraordinary; it is asking us to disbelieve our own senses which constantly tells us at every moment of the day that we are walking upon a plane.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

really now....evidence for FE not needed eh? where is this "ice wall" ya'll keep talking about?

really now....evidence for FE not needed eh? where is this "ice wall" ya'll keep talking about?

The 150 foot Ice Wall was discovered by Sir James Clark Ross, a polar explorer who was among the first to venture to Antarctica in an attempt to determine the position of the South Magnetic Pole. Upon confronting the massive vertical front of of ice he famously remarked:

It was ... an obstruction of such character as to leave no doubt in my mind as to our future proceedings, for we might as well sail through the cliffs of Dover as to penetrate such a mass.

It would be impossible to conceive a more solid-looking mass of ice; not the smallest appearance of any rent or fissure could we discover throughout its whole extent, and the intensely bright sky beyond it but too plainly indicated the great distance to which it reached southward.

The Ice Wall is a natural formation, a thick mass of floating ice that is attached to land, formed from and fed by tongues of glaciers extending outward from deep within the uncharted tundra into sheltered waters. Where there are no strong currents, the ice becomes partly grounded on the sea bottom and attaches itself to rocks and islands. The wall is pushed forward into the sea by glacial pressure until its forward growth is terminated.

The entire coast of the Ice Wall is not one single complete wall, however. There are actually a series of thousand mile long walls, divided by Transantarctic Mountain Ranges up to 11,500 feet high. The weight of The Ice Walls are so enormous that they have literally pressed the land two thirds of a mile (one kilometer) into the earth. Under the massive forces of their own weight, the ice walls deform and drag themselves outward. Very large glaciers called ice streams flow through them continually, transporting ice from deep inland out to the sea.

Ice Wall: http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg

Evidence for a Flat Earth is not really necessary. If we look outside our windows or take a stroll down the coast of a beach we will immediately notice that the earth is flat by pretense. All basic instinct and intuition tells us this.

It's evidence for a Round Earth which needs to be given and sought after. The idea of a globe earth is absolutely extraordinary; it is asking us to disbelieve our own senses which constantly tells us at every moment of the day that we are walking upon a plane.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.

There are many things I observe every day that show the Earth to be round. Why are you telling me I should therefore not require proof it is flat? When I can see the sea-sky horizon cutting the sun as it sets. When I watch a focault pendulum move, and then watch a video of it moving the opposite direction in Australia, as well as a video showing them moving simultaneously at the north and south poles, in opposite directions. Wait on the south pole! Which can't and doesn't exist on a flat earth?

Also Sir James Clark Ross did not claim to or think he discovered an Ice Wall. He discovered Antarctica. The reference in the writings to 60,000 miles is merely the trips distance in it's entirety, not the circumference of Antarctica.

Ice Wall: http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg

That's my wallpaper lol

I know what you mean, Tom. About it 'feeling' flat, but even you gotta admit it's hard to argue against the perspective effects...

lol. My instinkt and intuition tells me that the moon doesn't have an invisible 'sub-moon' orbiting it up there.

My instinkt an intuition tells me there is a south selestial pole.

My instinkt and intuition tells me that NASA kannot possibly fake MILLIONS of piktures, videos, artifakts, dokuments, etk...

My instinkt and intuition tells me it takes 5 hours to fly over the south atlantik, without breaking the sound barrier.

My instinkt and intuition tells me that NASA kannot possibly fake MILLIONS of piktures, videos, artifakts, dokuments, etk...

Since etc. stands for 'et cetera' shouldn't that be ets. because you don't like 'c' for some reason?

When I can see the sea-sky horizon cutting the sun as it sets.

At sunset we observe the sun apparently descending into the earth. This is an illusion in both FE and RE models. The sun does not really set into the sea.

We see what you are attempting to prove a globe earth by pointing towards what is an illusion in your own model: a non-argument.

When I watch a focault pendulum move

A moving Foucault Pendulm, what does that prove? It proves that the pendulum is moving. I'll agree with that.

We see that by your own admission that the pendulum moves on its own accord, when on a globe earth it would not move; the earth would move round under the pendulum while it swung stationary.

So what moves the free swinging Foucault Pendulum at one revolution per 24 hours? To answer that we just have to look around us and figure out what else moves and rotates around us at one revolution per 24 hours. The stars and celestial bodies of the skies comes to mind. Therefore we see a correlation; through gravimetric connections and bridges the free swinging pendulum is able to lodge itself into a gravitational gear and move in tandem with the stars and celestial bodies of the skies.

The Foucault Pendulum proves that the stars and celestial bodies have a form of gravitation, that they rotate above us at one rotation per 24 hours, that if we ascend up in a plane and measure the level of g it will be modified by the gravitational output of the stars. The Focault Pendulum predicts that we will experience different levels of g at different altitudes.

Wait on the south pole! Which can't and doesn't exist on a flat earth?

The South Pole on the Flat Earth would be a circle of land beyond the Ice Wall where the magnetic field lines are vertical. It is perfectly possible to reach the South Pole on a Flat Earth.

But you said that "beyond the icewall" is unreachable in various other threads, repeatedly.

Furthermore, electric field lines can't behave in the manner perscribed. In the FE model, they RADIATE upward and outward from the north pole. The south pole, holding the opposite charge is where they must reconjoin. Since the FE model shows them all headed in completely opposite directions, it goes to show the earthcannot exist in a flat environment.

But you said that "beyond the icewall" is unreachable in various other threads, repeatedly.

Furthermore, electric field lines can't behave in the manner perscribed. In the FE model, they RADIATE upward and outward from the north pole. The south pole, holding the opposite charge is where they must reconjoin. Since the FE model shows them all headed in completely opposite directions, it goes to show the earthcannot exist in a flat environment.

I believe he means on the ice wall but past where we hit it.  He has stated that the ice wall is not just a 'wall' but something that stretches on for a large distance.

I know that, sortof like an infinite glacier. But if its beyond the icewall, where would it really be? And how would the magnetic field lines orient themselves? Its impossible to orient the magnetic field as you've described...

Quote

When I can see the sea-sky horizon cutting the sun as it sets.

At sunset we observe the sun apparently descending into the earth. This is an illusion in both FE and RE models. The sun does not really set into the sea.

We see what you are attempting to prove a globe earth by pointing towards what is an illusion in your own model: a non-argument.

Nope. You attack a straw man. The poster is not pointing to an illusion. That the Sun apparently moves below the curvature of the Earth is an accurate prediction of the RE model that shames your feeble attempts with "glare" and other inane arguments.

Quote

When I watch a focault pendulum move

A moving Foucault Pendulm, what does that prove? It proves that the pendulum is moving. I'll agree with that.

We see that by your own admission that the pendulum moves on its own accord, when on a globe earth it would not move; the earth would move round under the pendulum while it swung stationary.

So what moves the free swinging Foucault Pendulum at one revolution per 24 hours? To answer that we just have to look around us and figure out what else moves and rotates around us at one revolution per 24 hours. The stars and celestial bodies of the skies comes to mind. Therefore we see a correlation; through gravimetric connections and bridges the free swinging pendulum is able to lodge itself into a gravitational gear and move in tandem with the stars and celestial bodies of the skies.

The Foucault Pendulum proves that the stars and celestial bodies have a form of gravitation, that they rotate above us at one rotation per 24 hours, that if we ascend up in a plane and measure the level of g it will be modified by the gravitational output of the stars. The Focault Pendulum predicts that we will experience different levels of g at different altitudes.

You'd don't understand Foucault's pendulum. It proves that the Earth rotates about its axis. You've seen the proof that it rotates in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere. I've pointed you to mathematics that accurately predict how much of a circle the pendulum will swing through in the x-y plane based on latitude (360^o at the Poles, not at all at the Equator). Your feeble attempt to attribute the motion to an unseen celestial force fails to account for this variance by latitude.

While g does vary by altitude, this is not the concept demonstrated by this device. Please do pay attention.

Quote

Wait on the south pole! Which can't and doesn't exist on a flat earth?

The South Pole on the Flat Earth would be a circle of land beyond the Ice Wall where the magnetic field lines are vertical. It is perfectly possible to reach the South Pole on a Flat Earth.

Nope. A Pole is not a circle. If you're trying to discuss the South Magnetic Pole, you need to realize that it must lie underneath the FE, based on Maxwell's and Gauss's works.

Do try to improve your arguments, TomB.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 20, 2007, 02:13:11 PM

Quote

When I can see the sea-sky horizon cutting the sun as it sets.

At sunset we observe the sun apparently descending into the earth. This is an illusion in both FE and RE models. The sun does not really set into the sea.

We see what you are attempting to prove a globe earth by pointing towards what is an illusion in your own model: a non-argument.

Nope. You attack a straw man. The poster is not pointing to an illusion. That the Sun apparently moves below the curvature of the Earth is an accurate prediction of the RE model that shames your feeble attempts with "glare" and other inane arguments.

Quote

Quote

When I watch a focault pendulum move

A moving Foucault Pendulm, what does that prove? It proves that the pendulum is moving. I'll agree with that.

We see that by your own admission that the pendulum moves on its own accord, when on a globe earth it would not move; the earth would move round under the pendulum while it swung stationary.

So what moves the free swinging Foucault Pendulum at one revolution per 24 hours? To answer that we just have to look around us and figure out what else moves and rotates around us at one revolution per 24 hours. The stars and celestial bodies of the skies comes to mind. Therefore we see a correlation; through gravimetric connections and bridges the free swinging pendulum is able to lodge itself into a gravitational gear and move in tandem with the stars and celestial bodies of the skies.

The Foucault Pendulum proves that the stars and celestial bodies have a form of gravitation, that they rotate above us at one rotation per 24 hours, that if we ascend up in a plane and measure the level of g it will be modified by the gravitational output of the stars. The Focault Pendulum predicts that we will experience different levels of g at different altitudes.

You'd don't understand Foucault's pendulum. It proves that the Earth rotates about its axis. You've seen the proof that it rotates in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere. I've pointed you to mathematics that accurately predict how much of a circle the pendulum will swing through in the x-y plane based on latitude (360^o at the Poles, not at all at the Equator). Your feeble attempt to attribute the motion to an unseen celestial force fails to account for this variance by latitude.

While g does vary by altitude, this is not the concept demonstrated by this device. Please do pay attention.

Quote

Quote

Wait on the south pole! Which can't and doesn't exist on a flat earth?

The South Pole on the Flat Earth would be a circle of land beyond the Ice Wall where the magnetic field lines are vertical. It is perfectly possible to reach the South Pole on a Flat Earth.

Nope. A Pole is not a circle. If you're trying to discuss the South Magnetic Pole, you need to realize that it must lie underneath the FE, based on Maxwell's and Gauss's works.

Do try to improve your arguments, TomB.

Gulliver what's that sound? It's the sound of thousands of people not caring.

...
Gulliver what's that sound? It's the sound of thousands of people not caring.

There's this box in the upper right, a little 'x' in it, of your browser window just for that problem.

Quote from: Raist on July 20, 2007, 07:01:01 PM

...
Gulliver what's that sound? It's the sound of thousands of people not caring.

There's this box in the upper right, a little 'x' in it, of your browser window just for that problem.

Not in my browser.  It's typical of TomG to think he knows everything.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 20, 2007, 07:08:10 PM

Quote from: Raist on July 20, 2007, 07:01:01 PM

...
Gulliver what's that sound? It's the sound of thousands of people not caring.

There's this box in the upper right, a little 'x' in it, of your browser window just for that problem.

Not in my browser.  It's typical of TomG to think he knows everything.

And just what did I say about your browser that prompts your post?

Furthermore, electric field lines can't behave in the manner perscribed. In the FE model, they RADIATE upward and outward from the north pole. The south pole, holding the opposite charge is where they must reconjoin. Since the FE model shows them all headed in completely opposite directions, it goes to show the earthcannot exist in a flat environment.

That's exactly how they would be oriented in the FE.

Quote from: CommonCents on July 20, 2007, 07:13:25 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 20, 2007, 07:08:10 PM

Quote from: Raist on July 20, 2007, 07:01:01 PM

...
Gulliver what's that sound? It's the sound of thousands of people not caring.

There's this box in the upper right, a little 'x' in it, of your browser window just for that problem.

Not in my browser.  It's typical of TomG to think he knows everything.

And just what did I say about your browser that prompts your post?

sorry i'm running customized firefox, the only way to close it is to hit all the keys on the keyboard simultaneously.

Quote from: CommonCents on July 20, 2007, 07:13:25 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 20, 2007, 07:08:10 PM

Quote from: Raist on July 20, 2007, 07:01:01 PM

...
Gulliver what's that sound? It's the sound of thousands of people not caring.

There's this box in the upper right, a little 'x' in it, of your browser window just for that problem.

Not in my browser.  It's typical of TomG to think he knows everything.

And just what did I say about your browser that prompts your post?

I read it.  It said 'your browser window'  which would mean my browser window.

Careful, TomG might demand proof for your outlandish claim that you don't have an "x" in the top right corner of your browser window! 

Careful, TomG might demand proof for your outlandish claim that you don't have an "x" in the top right corner of your browser window! 

Screen shots will not be accepted as proof because of forgeries by the desktop conspiracy to prove the browser x'less.

Careful, TomG might demand proof for your outlandish claim that you don't have an "x" in the top right corner of your browser window! 

Even if I supplied well accepted proof he wouldn't admit defeat.  Just like when he supplied an article that proved him wrong and the article was suddenly 'out of context'.