Flat? Round? both round somewhat.

im not so much going to pick one way or another, however, it all depends on your mindset, if you take to the religious side of things, you may be more prone to believe the FE theory (im not saying that thats the MAIN reason for believing the FE, and im not saying religious people HAVE to believe either). Where as those with a scientific approach, would tend to be more prone the RE theory.

these arent guide lines by ANY means, so dont butcher me over those.

now, its human nature to question one another, and questioning can often escalate to violence, or in the case of this forum, childish name calling.
there are some people, who dont wish to accept the others way of thinking, im not saying they have to embrace it as their own, but they wont even take the opponents view into consideration, and thats on both sides are guilty of this.

keep in mind, their both round somewhat.

bickering over silly things is what will kill mankind, long before global warming or the triumphant/abundant return of the dinosaurs.

Most Flat Earthers are atheists. The idea of a Flat Earth has more to do with the apparent and observable than it does with religion. FE has also been conclusively proven through test and trial.

If anything, it is the Round Earth Theory which is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Round Earth we must have blind faith in NASA and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Round Earth model.

Many Flat Earthers are atheists. The idea of a Flat Earth has more to do with the apparent and observable than it does with religion.

If anything its the Round Earth Theory which is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Round Earth we must have blind faith in NASA.

No. We musn't. You just say we must.

No. We musn't. You just say we must.

Do you have any other reason, outside of blind appeals to authority, as to why we should even entertain the Round Earth model?

What have you personally observed to indicate that the earth is a globe, as opposed to any other shape?

Many Flat Earthers are atheists. The idea of a Flat Earth has more to do with the apparent and observable than it does with religion.

If anything it is the Round Earth Theory which is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Round Earth we must have blind faith in NASA.

personally, i think religion is mankind's greatest and most primitive idea, and because it is so primitive, it will always incite our primitive nature, which is violence.

mind you, i am an atheist, and have no plans on changing that, and i have had several discussions over religion, and i realize that this site is not so much concerned with religion as it is with the geometry of the earth. however, was it not the bible where the idea of a flat earth was first conceived? also, when galileo(sp?) first introduced the idea of a spherical earth, was he not tried for heresy?

infact, oxford dictionary defines heresy as: theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary of the roman-catholic or orthodox of the doctrine of the christian church.

Quote

No. We musn't. You just say we must.

Do you have any other reason, outside of blind appeals to authority, as to why we should even entertain the Round Earth model?

What have you personally observed to indicate that the earth is a globe, as opposed to any other shape?

and for that, goto the thread entitled "My trip to the ice wall". just to save me the tedious task of copy and pasting

actually, correction on my last post, the correct thread was "has anyone ever fallen off of FE?"

however, was it not the bible where the idea of a flat earth was first conceived?

Nope.

also, when galileo(sp?) first introduced the idea of a spherical earth, was he not tried for heresy?

What does that have to do with whether the earth is actually flat or round?

infact, oxford dictionary defines heresy as: theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary of the roman-catholic or orthodox of the doctrine of the christian church.

What does any of that have to do with the shape of the earth? You're getting off topic here. Go read the Flat Earth Literature. After you've looked into the subject and have something new and meaningful to say come back and we'll be happy to listen to your argument. Otherwise you're just wasting time with your religious hearsay.

Quote

No. We musn't. You just say we must.

Do you have any other reason, outside of blind appeals to authority, as to why we should even entertain the Round Earth model?

What have you personally observed to indicate that the earth is a globe, as opposed to any other shape?

I studied Applied Mathematics and Physics. What do you know that discredits hundreds of years of scientific research, that has been proven thousands of times over?
Plus I have flown over part of Antarctica and guess what, it wasn't an icewall.

good, im back, and ho about, instead of chopping up my argument, and making me sound like some farce, you take one my whole argument, also, have you ever been to the salt flats in utah? theres a prime example of earths curvature.

also. im trying to keep a very open mindedness towards your way of thinking, but its hard to do when you're attacking mine, come back when you learn to educate as opposed to ridicule.

I studied Applied Mathematics and Physics.

So have I. And, sadly, nothing in those math and physics classes was related to the shape of the earth.

Now, what have you personally observed which proves Round Earth Theory?

What do you know that discredits hundreds of years of scientific research, that has been proven thousands of times over?

Round Earth theory has not been proven even once, let alone "thousands of times." Before making such statements, perhaps you should link us to some experimental evidence which conclusively proves Round Earth Theory. I believe you already know where to go for our experiments.

Plus I have flown over part of Antarctica and guess what, it wasn't an icewall.

The coast of Antarctica is the ice wall.

good, im back, and ho about, instead of chopping up my argument, and making me sound like some farce, you take one my whole argument, also, have you ever been to the salt flats in utah? theres a prime example of earths curvature.

Perhaps you can point it out for us.

not in that photo, but heres a doozie for ya, you can zoom in and everything!

http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/100_2714.jpg

If anything, it is the Round Earth Theory which is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Round Earth we must have blind faith in NASA and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Round Earth model.

Not true, of course.  A cursory reading of several sections of Earth: Not a Globe reveal an unquestionable link between Rowbotham's views about the shape of the earth and his staunch faith in Christianity.  The Flat Earth Society (the big one that actually existed at one point) had a long tradition of religious fundamentalists as its leaders from the start to the end, and what little I've been able to find of its literature casts no doubt on the influence religion has on the belief.  Also, Charles K Johnson, the last president of the organization before it folded shortly after his death, said outright that the motive for the round earth conspiracy (despite what the FAQ will tell you) is to cast doubt on the literal word of the Bible, thus discrediting Jesus as a divine figure; he asserted that it's some kind of anti-Jesus sentiment that led to the foundation of the conspiracy.

not in that photo, but heres a doozie for ya, you can zoom in and everything!

http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/100_2714.jpg

Wait. I thought we were talking about the salt flats? Now you're showing me some airplane photographs? Make up your mind.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from any flying altitude.

Quote:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Therefore, since an aircraft pilot who spends much of his time looking at the horizon tells us that curvature is not visible, we must attribute your picture to nothing more than a wrong lens type.

Not true, of course.  A cursory reading of several sections of Earth: Not a Globe reveal an unquestionable link between Rowbotham's views about the shape of the earth and his staunch faith in Christianity.

There are many connections between science and religion. What's your point?

Einstein was keen on relating his theories to the "mind of god" or whatever. Stephen Hawking speaks about a god all the time. He even has personal one-on-one discussions with the Pope. Newton utilized his theories as an attempt to prove the existence of his God.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from any flying altitude.

That quote you posted says nothing of the sort.

Quote

I studied Applied Mathematics and Physics.

So have I. And, sadly, nothing in those math and physics classes was related to the shape of the earth.

Quote

What do you know that discredits hundreds of years of scientific research, that has been proven thousands of times over?

Round Earth theory has not been proven even once, let alone "thousands of times." Before making such statements, perhaps you should link us to some experimental evidence which conclusively proves Round Earth Theory. I believe you already know where to go for our experiments.

Quote

Plus I have flown over part of Antarctica and guess what, it wasn't an icewall.

The coast of Antarctica is the ice wall.

Modern science has an explanation for sunrise, sunset, eclipses, seasons, orbits, constellations (and their movement through the sky,)  general relativity, the nature of mass, the mass of the earth, the formation of galaxies, stars and planets (AND their satellites) the radius of the earth, the nature of the atom, space travel... all of these are simply explained with a round earth.

Flat Earth Theory has super-refraction of light, gravity defying orbits, a mysterious shadow object that somehow is only visible during eclipses and is otherwise undetectable, no explanation as to the nature of mass and how the earth formed, optical illusions, an Icewall around the entire earth that apparently nobody is aware of, and a GLOBAL conspiracy in a world that has been consumed by war for thousands of years.

In short. You do not need to do any single experiment to "prove" round earth theory.

You repeatedly state, "my observations indicate that the earth is flat."

I say to you know, "hundreds of years of tried and tested science, that is repeatedly improved and build upon indicate that the earth is round."

Unless every physics and mathematics paper written since, hmmm, probably ancient Greek and Chinese civilizations times, is proved to be wrong, then your theory is nothing but pure spin, speculation, and pseudo-science. It's enjoyable, light-hearted and fun, but it's simply not true. If you can prove and discredit Newton, Euler, Einstein, Pascal, Hawking (I know I'm name-dropping here, sorry) and every other prominent mathematician, physicist, and chemist for the last few thousand years, I'm never going to believe your theory.

So, you've got a lot of work to do.


P.S - There was no wall at Antarctica. The aircraft flew in on one coast, crossed some land, and flew out on another coast. Maybe you should go on an expedition there, if you're so convinced. Walk around the entire peninsula and arrive back at the start - If you've walked around every continent on Earth, your theory will be proved. Plus, it's already been shown that GPS can work on a flat earth - you'll know exactly where you are every step of the way.

whew, that was my longest post on this forum, I believe.

Quote from: Mackie on October 27, 2007, 06:20:03 PM

not in that photo, but heres a doozie for ya, you can zoom in and everything!

http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/100_2714.jpg

Wait. I thought we were talking about the salt flats? Now you're showing me some airplane photographs? Make up your mind.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from any flying altitude.

Quote:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Therefore, since an aircraft pilot who spends much of his time looking at the horizon tells us that curvature is not visible, we must attribute your picture to nothing more than a wrong lens type.

well sir, i must say, you make several good arguments, but what is in discussion is the curvature (or lack there of) of earth.
thus the areal photograph.
also, my dad is a pilot, he has a cesna (small, single engine plane) so i've seen the curvature or the earth with my own eyes, more than once.

now what is to say that my word is any better than your pilots? i post here too.
you'll take his word over mine because his reasoning complies with your own. simple psychology.


oh yeah, that picture you provided me with, take that same picture, but make it a panorama. then you'll see the curvature of the earth, being an amature photographer, i can gaurentee you that panorama photographs are not skewed in anyway.

no. the areal photograph is NOT panoramic.

whew, that was my longest post on this forum, I believe.

Blah Blah Blah. Instead of criticizing Rowbotham's Flat Earth model you forgot to do what I originally asked for.

What evidence is there, truly, for the Round Earth Model? You SAY that here's evidence, but you conveniently neglect to post it. What can I do, right now in my yard, to prove that the earth is a sphere? What experiments have been conducted which prove that the earth is a globe? What case studies have been conducted which proves beyond doubt that the earth is a ball?

We're waiting for you. Dig us up some evidence. You seem to have so much blind faith that it exists.

Is name dropping and blind appeals to "math and science" all you're capable of?

Why don't you show us the experimental evidence?

also, my dad is a pilot, he has a cesna (small, single engine plane) so i've seen the curvature or the earth with my own eyes, more than once.

That's nice. But you must understand that we also have people on this forum claiming that they can see curvature from the coast of the beach. Surely you must agree that they are incorrect. In reality, there is zero apparent curvature at sea level.

What makes your observation more accurate than TheEngineer's? He seems to have much more flight experience than you.

On one hand we have your word, and on the other hand we have the word of an educated pilot and mechanical engineer who has made thousands of flights. What makes you think that your experience is more accurate than his? What makes you think that your observation outside your father's aircraft window constitutes a conclusive experiment?

now to be fair i never said that anyone should take MY word over anyones, hey, if we were all taking everyones word on exprience alone, then i'd have to believe you for saying the world is flat! seeing as how these are my first few posts.

Quote

whew, that was my longest post on this forum, I believe.

Blah Blah Blah. Instead of criticizing Rowbotham's Flat Earth model you forgot to do what I originally asked for.

What evidence is there, truly, for the Round Earth Model? You SAY that here's evidence, but you conveniently neglect to post it. What can I do, right now in my yard, to prove that the earth is a sphere? What experiments have been conducted which prove that the earth is a globe? What case studies have been conducted which proves beyond doubt that the earth is a ball?

We're waiting for you. Dig us up some evidence. You seem to have so much blind faith that it exists.

Is name dropping and blind appeals to "math and science" all you're capable of?

Why don't you show us the experimental evidence?

Quote

also, my dad is a pilot, he has a cesna (small, single engine plane) so i've seen the curvature or the earth with my own eyes, more than once.

That's nice. But we also have people on this forum claiming that they can see curvature from the coast of the beach. Surely you must agree that they are incorrect. In reality, there is zero apparent curvature at sea level.

What makes your observation more accurate than TheEngineer's? He seems to have much more flight experience than you.

On one hand we have your word, and on the other hand we have the word of an educated pilot and mechanical engineer who has made on thousands of flights. What makes you think that your experience is more accurate than his? What makes you think that your observation outside your father's aircraft window constitutes a conclusive experiment?

I'm waiting for your evidence, since I've disproved everything you've written so far.

I already told you what you can do in your back yard. Get a telescope - film the stars, and then speed up the video in the morning to see a perfect rotation of every single star. Either millions of stars in the sky are rotating every night, and the earth is a spinning globe, or the earth is flat, and millions of stars are rotating. Which seems more likely to you?

Seriously, you can't even account for how the sun works with your model - and yet there is a nuclear fusion testing facility at Cambridge university that is attempting to replicate the proven R.E. model of a stars fusion reaction.

Do you really believe that the sun is a 32-mile wide object orbiting the earth at 3000 miles? How does it heat the entire earth? Can you logically explain everything on that list that I wrote before with your model? I can with mine - in fact, a lot of it could be explained hundreds of years ago. Yet your theory has holes in it all over the place. Even your "sinking ship" model, (which is replicated about 800 times in Earth: Not A Globe, and basically cited as the only evidence for the theory), I disproved in an earlier thread which you conveniently never replied to.

Like I said, I'll never get bored of arguing with you.

Bring on the useless comeback...

I also love how you use the phrases "blindly believe" "blind faith" and "blind appeals"

when you can't even see beyond the horizon....

also, if you do eventually get around to doing that experiment with the stars, heres a fairly thorough explanation of why that happens.

http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/lec-celestial-sph.html

That page you linked has inspired more examples of easily explainable everyday things that flat earth theory cannot explain.

Like:

Seasons, Tides, and phases of the moon. Plus the yearly movement of the stars.

Interesting sidenote: While doing my Astronomy course, there was an experiment (possibly by Galileo), where he theorized that if the Earth is in fact a Globe travelling in orbit, he could in fact measure a star's position in June, and then again in December, to estimate the distance of the star from the Earth.
However, no matter how he measured it, he could not notice any difference in the stars position (obviously it wasn't static, but the orbital path did not seem to change.)
While many scientists took this to be proof that the Earth was flat, this particular scientist did not (I'm not 100% sure if it was Galileo, it's 3 years since I did the class and I don't know where my notes are,) and instead hypothesised that the star was in fact too far away for a change in the earths orbital position to be measurable by his telescope.
He was later proven correct when the designs of such  devices improved.
I feel that this experiment showcases one of the more important discoveries of our scientific theory - we  started to get some idea about the vastness of the Universe.

Elevations on google earth at any point on sea shore level (above or below equator etc) or somewhere on the middle of sea where the curvature of the earth changes is zero (same). If zero elevation is the correct elevation at all points along the sea shores then it means that earth is FLAT not sphere. If you want you can prove it by conducting engineering survey/ leveling at seashore.

Elevations on google earth at any point on sea shore level (above or below equator etc) or somewhere on the middle of sea where the curvature of the earth changes is zero (same). If zero elevation is the correct elevation at all points along the sea shores then it means that earth is FLAT not sphere. If you want you can prove it by conducting engineering survey/ leveling at seashore.

Elevation zero is simply where land meets water. How does this make the earth flat?

If you write something like - "the water in my glass is flat therefore the earth is flat" - I'm gonna have to report you for trolling.

Tom's silence speaks for itself.

well, not that i set out to debunk his beliefs, but to learn more of his style of thinking, but then he attacked my beliefs, and when i make it clear that im not going to attack you, and you attack me, well then its just self defense. appreciate the help.

together, we disproved the FE theory, maybe not conclusively, i'd bet ten bucks that someone says "conspiracy" when they read the site i posted.

ALSO

to those who care to read: the reason you cannot see the curvature of the earth from your normal perspective is because the earth is just too massive. if you could picture yourself on a beach ball, you can see that its a ball, no problem, shrink yourself WAAAYYY down and stand on top of the ball, you wouldnt be able to see the curve on it either. and relax, its a beach ball, i know it wouldnt have gravity or any sort of "adhesive" force.

well, not that i set out to debunk his beliefs, but to learn more of his style of thinking, but then he attacked my beliefs, and when i make it clear that im not going to attack you, and you attack me, well then its just self defense. appreciate the help.

together, we disproved the FE theory, maybe not conclusively, i'd bet ten bucks that someone says "conspiracy" when they read the site i posted.

ALSO

to those who care to read: the reason you cannot see the curvature of the earth from your normal perspective is because the earth is just too massive. if you could picture yourself on a beach ball, you can see that its a ball, no problem, shrink yourself WAAAYYY down and stand on top of the ball, you wouldnt be able to see the curve on it either. and relax, its a beach ball, i know it wouldnt have gravity or any sort of "adhesive" force.

If your mass was small enough then the mass of the ball would have a gravitational effect on you.
Edit: This is open to attack so I'll rewrite it correctly.

If your mass was small compared to the mass of the ball, and neglecting nucleostatic forces (in this speculative example where you can shrink onto a beach ball), then the mass of the ball would have a gravitational effect on you.

well considering its a beach ball, which is hollow, and has very little in the way of mass, i said no, where i should have said minute or microscopic. i done got lazy!