Some unanswered questions concerning Flat Earth theory

I'm new to this board. I am a research scientist and I have a lot of problems with this theory about a flat Earth. I've read through the FAQ to see if it would answer any of the natural questions that would arise when confronted with such a theory, and it seems to offer very little information at all. In fact, the FAQ didn't answer many questions and only left me with many, many more.

First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.

The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.

At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.

You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.

Secondly:
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments. This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!

You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?


Third:
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.

Fourth:
An example of hypocrisy was found in your explanation for the Ice Wall and Global Warming.

A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.

A3: Global Warming is damaging the Ice Wall and will, if unchecked, eventually drain the Earth's atmolayer and oceans.

I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.


Fifth:

Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"

A: You need to have evidence for this to be true.

Ironic that you answer with this statement, considering the curious complete lack of evidence for the stance you are taking. And there, of course, is mountains of evidence for this. Airline pilots do this quite often.



This is a summary of the questions I had when reading the FAQ. I'm interested to read the answers anyone can offer.

It may be that these things have been explained. If they have, forgive me. Please show me where. I will do a search now to try to find the answers.

In my search I was only able to find a few threads concerning the things I brought up.
There were some questions similar to mine and the ones in the FAQ but I don't believe I saw any actual answers.

In my search I was only able to find a few threads concerning the things I brought up.
There were some questions similar to mine and the ones in the FAQ but I don't believe I saw any actual answers.

Welcome. It's great to have a research scientist posting here.

I believe that you'll find that the FEers will not address your concerns, beyond a few glancing attacks. They've pretty much stopped posting here. Tom Bishop and narcberry are not worthy of your time.

I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd critique (and possible contribute) to the RE Primer. It's our consensus of arguments for RE. We believe that it's now so persuasive as to render FE without support. You can also find a link to the current version of the RE Primer in my signature, as you'll see below.  Again, welcome.

I'm new to this board. I am a research scientist and I have a lot of problems with this theory about a flat Earth. I've read through the FAQ to see if it would answer any of the natural questions that would arise when confronted with such a theory, and it seems to offer very little information at all. In fact, the FAQ didn't answer many questions and only left me with many, many more.

First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.

The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.

At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.

You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.

Secondly:
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments. This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!

You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?


Third:
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.

Fourth:
An example of hypocrisy was found in your explanation for the Ice Wall and Global Warming.

Quote

A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.

A3: Global Warming is damaging the Ice Wall and will, if unchecked, eventually drain the Earth's atmolayer and oceans.

I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.


Fifth:

Quote

Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"

A: You need to have evidence for this to be true.

Ironic that you answer with this statement, considering the curious complete lack of evidence for the stance you are taking. And there, of course, is mountains of evidence for this. Airline pilots do this quite often.



This is a summary of the questions I had when reading the FAQ. I'm interested to read the answers anyone can offer.

tl;dr

I'm new to this board. I am a research scientist and I have a lot of problems with this theory about a flat Earth. I've read through the FAQ to see if it would answer any of the natural questions that would arise when confronted with such a theory, and it seems to offer very little information at all. In fact, the FAQ didn't answer many questions and only left me with many, many more.

First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.

The compilation of actual evidence for the Flat Earth is located in a book called Earth: Not a Globe. The evidence in this book, however, has been torn to shreads by those in this community. Even if the various RE'ers didn't tear them to shreads, many in history have repeated this experiment, and these repititions have shown a Round Earth or a Flat Earth, which shows that the invalidity of these experiments. You will find, however, that the FE'ers ignore all evidence against them, and will ignore these repetitions. As for publishings, the founder of the society had a newsletter, which I believe can be found in the Repository. THere are no scientists that believe in this theory today (that I know of, so you can buzz off Tom, I know what you were thinking). Sorry about that.

The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.

The Universal Acceleration is one of the frequently discussed topics here, and has been argued to a standstill. AS for sunsets, you will find Tom posting copies of his former posts that say things that have been disproved many times again. Tom, however, still posts them, and turns a blind eye to the posts that prove him wrong. THe theory is that the air causes the sunlight to be seen as larger due to the large amount of it between us and the Sun. However, at the height of the Sun, the amount of air between the SUn and the ground would vary almost none, due to the very low altitude at which the air thins out. At heights of about five miles, the air is very thin, and things can be seen very clearly at very long distances. No scientific evidence exists for this.

At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.

It is maintained that any and all spaceflight is a Conspiracy. Therefore, all that you are posting is information from the NASA, no matter how much of it you got yourself. THey maintain this in spite of all logic and evidence to the contrary.

You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.

I think that the accepted theory is that it does exist and that the SUn and Moon have a slight gravitational pull, causing this. This would cause many things that they also believe to not be true, but they continue to believe conflicting theories.

Secondly:
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments. This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!

Absolutly no evidence exists for the Conspiracy. I myself made a thread a little while back, and the only response I got was that one of the shuttles exploded on reentry.

You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?

Money. That is the motive, however under scrutiny if fails to be a profitable business to run a Conspiracy. No other motives have been considered because the FE'ers turn a blind eye to all contrary evidence.


Third:
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.

Tom will post a picture of a the Ross Ice SHelf. However it cannot be proven.

Fourth:
An example of hypocrisy was found in your explanation for the Ice Wall and Global Warming.

Quote

A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.

A3: Global Warming is damaging the Ice Wall and will, if unchecked, eventually drain the Earth's atmolayer and oceans.

I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.

They are supposed to be two seperate answers. One or the other, not combined


Fifth:

Quote

Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"

A: You need to have evidence for this to be true.

Ironic that you answer with this statement, considering the curious complete lack of evidence for the stance you are taking. And there, of course, is mountains of evidence for this. Airline pilots do this quite often.

Tom will require posting of the evidence for him to even acknowledge a challenge. However, you are quite right



This is a summary of the questions I had when reading the FAQ. I'm interested to read the answers anyone can offer.

I hope this answers your questions from an RE standpoint. WHen in doubt, argue against the arguement that Tom does not support. Good luck helping us disprove FE.

Quote from: Lorcan on July 22, 2007, 08:15:51 PM

In my search I was only able to find a few threads concerning the things I brought up.
There were some questions similar to mine and the ones in the FAQ but I don't believe I saw any actual answers.

Welcome. It's great to have a research scientist posting here.

I believe that you'll find that the FEers will not address your concerns, beyond a few glancing attacks. They've pretty much stopped posting here. Tom Bishop and narcberry are not worthy of your time.

I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd critique (and possible contribute) to the RE Primer. It's our consensus of arguments for RE. We believe that it's now so persuasive as to render FE without support. You can also find a link to the current version of the RE Primer in my signature, as you'll see below.  Again, welcome.

Will you stop just posting links to the f'ing Primer? Its a compilation, not a cure for AIDS!

Quote from: Gulliver on July 22, 2007, 08:35:34 PM

Quote from: Lorcan on July 22, 2007, 08:15:51 PM

In my search I was only able to find a few threads concerning the things I brought up.
There were some questions similar to mine and the ones in the FAQ but I don't believe I saw any actual answers.

Welcome. It's great to have a research scientist posting here.

I believe that you'll find that the FEers will not address your concerns, beyond a few glancing attacks. They've pretty much stopped posting here. Tom Bishop and narcberry are not worthy of your time.

I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd critique (and possible contribute) to the RE Primer. It's our consensus of arguments for RE. We believe that it's now so persuasive as to render FE without support. You can also find a link to the current version of the RE Primer in my signature, as you'll see below.  Again, welcome.

Will you stop just posting links to the f'ing Primer? Its a compilation, not a cure for AIDS!

Did you miss the welcome message and the warning about TomB and narc, perhaps?

Run while you're still smart.

Evidence in favor of the conspiracy:
Evidence of motive.
Evidence of ability.
Evidence of similar conspiracies in the past.

Of course their is no direct evidence of the conspiracy, what point would the conspiracy serve?
Much more information in the FAQ and any of Tom's Links. Enjoy your stay, we'll make an FE'er of you!

I doubt that.

I doubt that.

... and that's why it's alive and kicking.

Quote from: laurie.gg on July 24, 2007, 11:35:06 AM

I doubt that.

... and that's why it's alive and kicking.

It's actually trying to bite me, because we've cut off its arms and legs with a really cool sword while riding our coconut horse.

Well Lorcan, upon realising that the FAQ is bullshit, you may have tried to look through popular threads and seen the actual answers to your questions. While FE has many alternative ways of looking at RE concepts, it has no better ways, only equakl or worse ones. Any flaws pointed out in RE are either not flaws and just idiot FE bullshit or are not explained any better by FE. The same is true for FE, except that all flaws in FE can be explained by RE.

FE is essentially a religion, because it has been proven wrong but people's faith in it allows them to contiinue with the cause.

Anyone who tries to argue conspiracy with a deductive arguement is not worth listening to.

I appreciate the responses, everyone. And a special thanks to Ulrichomega for taking the time to go through my entire post and respond to each part. The responses you offered were the answers I was suspecting in the first place.

It's good to see there are "Round Earthers" here debating with "Flat Earthers". I initially assumed my first post would be under heavy attack, wrongfully thinking the majority of people here would be of the Flat Earth Society. I'm a little curious as to why no Flat Earthers have responded to answer any of my questions.

I suppose, just maybe, there are no answers...

There is that, but its mainly that there's only about 3 people here who both regularly post AND believe the Earth is flat.

There is that, but its mainly that there's only about 3 people here who both regularly post AND believe the Earth is flat.

I've only seen 2 of them...

Evidence in favor of the conspiracy:
Evidence of motive.
Evidence of ability.
Evidence of similar conspiracies in the past.

Sounds exactly like a lawsuit.
However, the burden of proof is upon you.
You, FE-ers, have to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt that a) the RE model is false and that b) the FE model is valid.

Quote from: narcberry on July 23, 2007, 10:34:07 PM

Evidence in favor of the conspiracy:
Evidence of motive.
Evidence of ability.
Evidence of similar conspiracies in the past.

Sounds exactly like a lawsuit.
However, the burden of proof is upon you.
You, FE-ers, have to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt that a) the RE model is false and that b) the FE model is valid.

It is not our burden to disprove all other popular and contradictory models. We only need to support our own model, which we have done. The weakest aspect of the FE model is anything having to do with the conspiracy. We do not reference the conspiracy to prove our model. We do so to explain our lack of proof in a few small areas. These few small areas are the areas of focus, and rightly so, by both parties.

Quote from: nicolin on July 29, 2007, 01:07:28 AM

Quote from: narcberry on July 23, 2007, 10:34:07 PM

Evidence in favor of the conspiracy:
Evidence of motive.
Evidence of ability.
Evidence of similar conspiracies in the past.

Sounds exactly like a lawsuit.
However, the burden of proof is upon you.
You, FE-ers, have to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt that a) the RE model is false and that b) the FE model is valid.

It is not our burden to disprove all other popular and contradictory models. We only need to support our own model, which we have done. The weakest aspect of the FE model is anything having to do with the conspiracy. We do not reference the conspiracy to prove our model. We do so to explain our lack of proof in a few small areas. These few small areas are the areas of focus, and rightly so, by both parties.

Don't forget the FE is weak in science. 

FE can't prove itself right though, whereas we can show that you are wrong.

First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.

We have lots of evidence that strongly supports the Flat Earth Fact, read the Bible! It is ignorant to accept science as facts when it so clearly contradicts the Bible. The Bible proves the Earth is flat, so it is.

Noone is taking you seriously.

Quote from: Lorcan on July 22, 2007, 07:53:45 PM

First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.

We have lots of evidence that strongly supports the Flat Earth Fact, read the Bible! It is ignorant to accept science as facts when it so clearly contradicts the Bible. The Bible proves the Earth is flat, so it is.

Read my sig and then never post again. 

Quote from: Lorcan on July 22, 2007, 07:53:45 PM

First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.

We have lots of evidence that strongly supports the Flat Earth Fact, read the Bible! It is ignorant to accept science as facts when it so clearly contradicts the Bible. The Bible proves the Earth is flat, so it is.

Since when is the Bible proof? It's a collection of story's, made by humans... I can't find any experimental data in the Bible, proving the world is flat...

No, but if you are a Fundie you take everything literally, so quotes mentioning 'four corners of the Earth' etc imply a flat Earth.

well, that doesn't change the fact the Bible was made by humans, you can't use it as proof... however hard 'fundie's' will try

Bibleistrue is a provocateur, just as were the dozen or so before him (if they are not all the same).  It is an ancient and common practice used to discredit people, religions, politics, etc.  You know, Trolls.  They usually have only the one string on their ukelele.

Yeah, Skeptical... sokarul... you both really should know better. 

I know better, I choose to beat the Fundies down. Its fun.