Flat? Round? both round somewhat.

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!

You gotta be careful out here in the wilderness. There are beasts lurking around that would try and destroy you for so much as a spelling error if it helped their cause. (Of course, distracting people from the main subject usually helps their cause. As does running from threads. Or just denying everything.)

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.

What model?

ahhh, i think its a 190? maybe a 195? i know its been around since the 50's.

Well, believe me, 16,000ft MSL is not high enough to see the curvature of the earth.

doesnt hurt that ive been on commercial liners as well.
but never the less. its a nice plane eh?

I've always had a soft spot for radial engines.


However, even the altitude that most commercial airliners cruse at is still not high enough to see the curvature.

I've always had a soft spot for radial engines.


However, even the altitude that most commercial airliners cruse at is still not high enough to see the curvature.

When you say "most" does that mean that in some commercial airliners it is possible to see the curvature?

'All' would imply that I have been in all flight scenarios and at all flight levels.  I can not say that.

'All' would imply that I have been in all flight scenarios and at all flight levels.  I can not say that.

Your posting syntax and style reminds me of Data from Star Trek.
Who happens to be a hero of mine.
I even dressed up as him for halloween one year.

Quote from: TheEngineer on October 27, 2007, 09:18:38 PM

'All' would imply that I have been in all flight scenarios and at all flight levels.  I can not say that.

Your posting syntax and style reminds me of Data from Star Trek.

It's a remnant of the 'Gulliver' era.  He was very anal.

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

I've already given my evidence on this forum. I've personally preformed a number of experiments which demonstrated that the earth is not a globe. Here's one.

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?

You're telling me to look at the stars as evidence for the shape of the earth? That's ridiculous. On that token, why don't you look at a tortilla for evidence for the shape of the earth.

The stars cannot be used as evidence for the earth's shape because the stars are not the earth. Having trouble with that concept? Go ahead and ask your nearest priest if the stars are the earth.

The stars move however they move. Flat Earth Theory predicts through astronomical parallax on a plane surface that the stars are between three to four thousand miles above the earth. The Flat Earth Literature describes the movement of the stars as circular because they are caught in a vast stellar multiple system which makes one rotation per twenty-four hours.

The movement of the stars says nothing about the true form of the earth. Even if the earth was rotating (it's not), the movement would occur on a spinning cube or pyramid planet as well.

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.

We're talking about YOUR model. Not mine. Flat Earth Theory admits that there is no apparent evidence for the sun's power source, therefore FET does not make a prediction. The power source of the FE sun could range from fission to electron degeneracy pressure.

There is no direct evidence that fusion is occurring within the sun. The theory of fusion is a theory only, and a flimsy one at that. Once man masters stellar fusion get back to me.

You're supposition of a fusion powered sun is science fiction only. We're talking about evidence here. Do you have trouble with that concept?

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 you neglect to post any of it here? Your "evidence" consists of saying "oh that was explained hundreds of years ago."

Well here's my rebuttal. I'll just make an appeal to Rowbotham and say "oh the FE model was explained 150 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.

And the Round Earth Theory does not have holes?

If you do not think so you can start by telling us the mechanism for gravity.

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

I'll never get bored of asking for experimental evidence for the Round Earth model. Because you have none!

I'm still waiting for that evidence you say exists. The earth has been proven round hundreds of times right?

If so, why don't you post here some studies?

I understand that you are ignorant and refuse to see the truth, but does that mean you must be so ugly and unwholesome?

If you say that evidence exists you are obligated to SHOW some when confronted. Otherwise you are just a sad little child rattling against your pram, unable to prove the shape of the very earth upon which you exist. Show me the science which proves the earth to be a globe. Link us to peer reviewed studies, experimental inquiries, anything. I'm waiting. We're waiting. The Flat Earth Society has been waiting for one hundred and fifty years.

What experimental evidence is there which proves that the earth is a globe?

sunrise, sunset, eclipses, seasons, tides, 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.

If you want to be anal about it. Here's the list (with a couple of extras added.) I'll explain every one, and how it fits in with my theory. Then you can quote the list, and explain every one with your theory. Then we can decide who's theory is more flawed.

After all, debating works this way, correct?

Theory: The Earth is an Approximate Sphere

Evidence.

Sunrise and sunset.: Every day we see the sun rise in the East, and Set in the West. This is caused by the rotation of the Earth about it's axis, and gives us day and night as parts of the earth turn away from the suns light.
Eclipses: Solar eclipse: The moon lines up in front of the sun and blocks the suns light, creating a shadow upon the Earth.
             Lunar eclipse: The Earth lines up in front of the sun and blocks the suns light, creating a shadow upon the moon.
Orbits: We'll start simply, with the Newtonian theory of gravity, and take it from there. An orbit is caused by an object that is accelerating towards an object of larger mass, due to the gravitational force. At a sufficient distance, the object will always be accelerating towards the other object, and never reach it. Consider the cannon fired from a mountaintop example.


Now, in General Relativaty, the concept is that mass distorts 4-dimensional space-time, and objects of larger mass cause larger distortions. The object of smaller mass is trapped in a geodesic, and thus, we get orbit.

These two points showcase the nature of a theoretical Round Earth orbiting the Sun, and also of a theoretical Satelite (The Moon) orbiting the Earth.
Evidence for this effect: as quoted earlier, we can see a (very small) difference in the position of stars in the sky at different times of year. Which would indicate that we have changed position, or every single star in the sky has changed position. Which basically explains constellations.
And if you expand this to more massive objects, then we get the formation of galaxies.

That's all I can be bothered with for now, I look forward to your side of the debate. I will however, go on to the points of your previous post.

You're telling me to look at the stars as evidence for the shape of the earth? That's ridiculous. On that token, why don't you look at your kitchen floor for evidence for the shape of the earth.

You're telling me that the Sun is not a star? It fits exactly the properties of every other star. And other stars have planets in orbit around them. I cannot see all of the earth, however, I can see the entire surface of the star and I can see that it is round. I can look at a million different objects in the sky which all have exactly the same properties as the sun, so I can safely assume that they are similar to the sun. I can know and apply the theory of GR, and thus I can deduce that the Earth must be a sphere orbiting the sun.

The stars cannot be used as evidence because the stars are not the earth. Having trouble with that concept? Go ahead and ask your nearest priest if the stars are the earth.

I don't know what the point in this comment is, are you trying to imply that the stars are heaven or something?

The stars move however they move. Flat Earth Theory predicts through astronomical parallax on a plane surface that the stars are between three to four thousand miles above the earth. The Flat Earth Literature describes the movement of the stars as circular because they are caught in a vast stellar multiple system which makes one rotation per twenty-four hours.

I've already seen you write this, and another user showed you using a mathematical example how this system would not be possible.

The movement of the stars says nothing about the true form of the earth. Even if the earth was moving (it's not), the movement would occur on a spinning cube or triangular planet as well.

I thought your theory stated that the Earth was accelerating? Doesn't that count as movement?

We're talking about YOUR model. Not mine. Flat Earth Theory admits that there is no apparent evidence for the sun's power source, therefore FET does not make a prediction. The power source of the FE sun could range from fission to electron degeneracy pressure.

There is no direct evidence that fusion is occurring within the sun. The theory of fusion is a theory only, and a flimsy one at that. Once man masters stellar fusion get back to me.

You're supposition of a fusion powered sun is science fiction only. We're talking about evidence here. Do you have trouble with that concept?

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/whatisfusion.shtml
http://www.jet.efda.org/index.html
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/sol.html
http://www.astro.uva.nl/demo/sun/kaft.htm
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/sun/
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/resource/sun.html
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/pad/sun_today.htm
http://www.nso.edu/

All science starts out with a theory. When the theory is tested and turns out the right result, then the theory appears to be valid. This theory has turned out the right result over and over and over again. Yours has simple problems in it that anyone studying high school physics could spot.

Why don't you buy yourself a UV filter telescope and look at the sun for yourself.
Plus, mankind has mastered fusion - a modern Hydrogen Bomb uses a fusion reaction to explode. We can track the spectral emissions from such an explosion and compare it to the emissions from a star. GUESS WHAT!!!!!!??? THE EXACT SAME LINES APPEAR!!!!!! COULD IT BE - FUSION??

I'm still waiting for that evidence you say exists. The earth has been proven round hundreds of times right?

If so, why don't you post here some studies?

I understand that you are ignorant and refuse to see the truth, but does that mean you must be so ugly and unwholesome?

If you say that evidence exists you are obligated to SHOW some when confronted. Otherwise you are just a sad little child rattling against your pram, unable to prove the shape of the very earth upon which you exist. Show me the science which proves the earth to be a globe. Link us to peer reviewed studies, experimental inquiries, anything. I'm waiting. We're waiting. The Flat Earth Society has been waiting for one hundred and fifty years.

What experimental evidence is there which proves that the earth is a globe?

relax man, I was writing up my post. What have you been doing? Looking out the window to see a flat garden?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2007, 09:41:39 PM

I understand that you are ignorant and refuse to see the truth, but does that mean you must be so ugly and unwholesome?

 

I know man. I'm not even responding to such blatant trolling.

There is no direct evidence that fusion is occurring within the sun. The theory of fusion is a theory only, and a flimsy one at that. Once man masters stellar fusion get back to me.

So... if there's no fusion occurring within the Sun, then how does the Sun power itself? What powers the Sun? Coal?

Where does all the sunlight and radiant energy come from? What is the primary requirement for photosynthesis other than just carbon dioxide and water?

I found a new Bishop Quote for my sig.

You still haven't shown me experimental studies which proves that the round earth model is correct. What are you waiting for?

That's the very basis of what we're talking about here. We're not talking about astronomy. We're talking about the earth. I don't know why you insist on bringing up these observations and trying to pass them off as experimental evidence.

Here's a clue for you: Astronomy is completely observational. There is no experimentation in Astronomy. Astronomy consists of looking up into the night sky and interpreting what is being seen. The Copernican theory and all other theories are nothing more than elaborate explanations for what occurs. But no proof is ever given. The necessity for it is always denied.

This must be realized firstly and beyond all else. Do astronomy projects ever win Science Fairs? No. There are no controlled experiments going on. It's observation and interpretation.

This is why the Flat Earth Society can use the very same calculations astronomers use and declare that on a flat surface the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth.

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

Using these very same precepts, on a Round Earth model, we can account for curvature and calculate that the sun is 93,000,000 miles above the surface of the earth. And, indeed, this type of astronomical parallax is exactly how modern astronomers have concluded this.

Changing the shape of the earth changes the very nature of the cosmos. This is why the flat earth universe is so different than the one you are accustomed to. Humanity's very assumptions about the universe depends on the shape of the earth. If the shape of the earth changes, so do the cosmos, and any previous stellar models must therefore be thrown out the window.

And don't even assume that the Round Earth model of the universe already accurately accounts for the movements of the cosmos. It does not. Oh sure, it can be made to work by adding a lot of hypothetical forces and particles. But that's just a crude workaround. Those forces and particles are unproven. Dark Matter? Dark Energy? Gravitons? Machos? Metric expansion of space? It's all fiction until proven otherwise. Frivolous elaborate hypotheses created to explain away the observable and nothing more.

Observations are not experiments. I asked for experimental evidence, remember? Telling me to look at the cosmos is not an experiment. Any number of stellar models could be created to describe the movements and details of the cosmos. Observation does not prove anything. Lets repeat: Observations are not experiments. Observations are not experiments.

So again, show me the experimental studies which prove that the earth is a globe. So far you have shown me none. Zero, zip, nada.

Where are the experiments? I don't want observations which can be interpreted in a million different ways. Prove it. Prove any one fact about your model.

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/whatisfusion.shtml
http://www.jet.efda.org/index.html
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/sol.html
http://www.astro.uva.nl/demo/sun/kaft.htm
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/sun/
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/resource/sun.html
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/pad/sun_today.htm
http://www.nso.edu/

All science starts out with a theory. When the theory is tested and turns out the right result, then the theory appears to be valid. This theory has turned out the right result over and over and over again. Yours has simple problems in it that anyone studying high school physics could spot.

Why don't you buy yourself a UV filter telescope and look at the sun for yourself.
Plus, mankind has mastered fusion - a modern Hydrogen Bomb uses a fusion reaction to explode. We can track the spectral emissions from such an explosion and compare it to the emissions from a star. GUESS WHAT!!!!!!?Huh?? THE EXACT SAME LINES APPEAR!!!!!! COULD IT BE - FUSION?HuhHuhHuh?

Those are web pages about fusion theory. They do not show that fusion is what is occurring inside of the sun. Who has gone into the sun and proven that fusion is occurring?

The idea that fusion is occurring within the sun is a hypothesis. It's science fiction until someone goes into the sun to prove it.

You are presenting Science Fiction as evidence. I'm asking for proof here, remember?

http://www.youth.net/eratosthenes/

You still haven't shown me experimental studies which proves that the round earth model is correct. What are you waiting for?

That's the very basis of what we're talking about here. We're not talking about astronomy. We're talking about the earth. I don't know why you insist on bringing up these observations and trying to pass them off as experimental evidence.

Here's a clue for you: Astronomy is completely observational. There is no experimentation in Astronomy. Astronomy consists of looking up into the night sky and interpreting what is being seen. The Copernican theory and all other theories are nothing more than elaborate explanations for what occurs. But no proof is ever given. The necessity for it is always denied.

This must be realized firstly and beyond all else. Do astronomy projects ever win Science Fairs? No. There are no controlled experiments going on. It's observation and interpretation.

This is why the Flat Earth Society can use the very same calculations astronomers use and declare that on a flat surface the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth.

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

Using these very same precepts, on a Round Earth model, we can account for curvature and calculate that the sun is 93,000,000 miles above the surface of the earth. And, indeed, this type of astronomical parallax is exactly how modern astronomers have concluded this.

Changing the shape of the earth changes the very nature of the cosmos. This is why the flat earth universe is so different than the one you are accustomed to. Humanity's very assumptions about the universe depends on the shape of the earth. If the shape of the earth changes, so do the cosmos, and any previous stellar models must therefore be thrown out the window.

And don't even begin to think that the Round Earth model of the universe accurately accounts for the movements of the cosmos. It does not. Oh sure, it can be made to work by adding a lot of hypothetical forces and particles. But that's just a crude workaround. Those forces and particles are unproven. Dark Matter? Dark Energy? Gravitons? Machos? Metric expansion of space? It's all fiction until proven otherwise. Frivolous elaborate hypotheses created to explain away the observable and nothing more.

Observations are not experiments. I asked for experimental evidence, remember? Telling me to look at the cosmos is not an experiment. Any number of stellar models could be created to describe the movements and details of the cosmos. Observation does not prove anything. Lets repeat: Observations are not experiments. Observations are not experiments.

So again, show me the experimental studies which prove that the earth is a globe. So far you have shown me none. Zero, zip, nothing.

Where are the experiments? I don't want observations which can be interpreted in a million different ways. Prove it. Prove any one fact about your model.

The error in your logic is that every experiment only has observational evidence. There is no need to experiment in astronomy because there is nothing to experiment with, the answers are already there.

anyway, here's your experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Quote

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/whatisfusion.shtml
http://www.jet.efda.org/index.html
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/sol.html
http://www.astro.uva.nl/demo/sun/kaft.htm
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/sun/
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/resource/sun.html
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/pad/sun_today.htm
http://www.nso.edu/

All science starts out with a theory. When the theory is tested and turns out the right result, then the theory appears to be valid. This theory has turned out the right result over and over and over again. Yours has simple problems in it that anyone studying high school physics could spot.

Why don't you buy yourself a UV filter telescope and look at the sun for yourself.
Plus, mankind has mastered fusion - a modern Hydrogen Bomb uses a fusion reaction to explode. We can track the spectral emissions from such an explosion and compare it to the emissions from a star. GUESS WHAT!!!!!!?Huh?? THE EXACT SAME LINES APPEAR!!!!!! COULD IT BE - FUSION?HuhHuhHuh?

Those are web pages about fusion theory. They do not show that fusion is what is occurring inside of the sun. Who has gone into the sun and proven that fusion is occurring?

The idea that fusion is occurring within the sun is a hypothesis. It's science fiction until someone goes into the sun to prove it.

You are presenting Science Fiction as evidence. I'm asking for proof here, remember?

You could quite easily go to the South Pole yourself and disprove your own theory.
Are you willing to do that?

And here's something you can see in your back Garden, irrefutable evidence:

The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.
(oh wait, you can't explain eclipses...)

(3) The constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. (You may have to draw a few diagrams to convince yourself of this.) Given sufficient world travel combined with careful observation on your part, the frisbee hypothesis becomes well - nigh insupportable. I suppose this doesn't qualify as a home experiment, but I never said science would be easy.

Here's a clue for you: Astronomy is completely observational. There is no experimentation in Astronomy. Astronomy consists of looking up into the night sky and interpreting what is being seen. The Copernican theory and all other theories are nothing more than elaborate explanations for what occurs. But no proof is ever given. The necessity for it is always denied.

This must be realized firstly and beyond all else. Do astronomy projects ever win Science Fairs? No. There are no controlled experiments going on. It's observation and interpretation.

Man, these two paragraphs are just as absurd as the thread "floating oceans".

And don't even begin to think that the Round Earth model of the universe accurately accounts for the movements of the cosmos. It does not. Oh sure, it can be made to work by adding a lot of hypothetical forces and particles. But that's just a crude workaround. Those forces and particles are unproven. Dark Matter? Dark Energy? Gravitons? Machos? Metric expansion of space? It's all fiction until proven otherwise.

Sorry, but the Flat Earth UA requires Dark Matter or Dark Energy. It doesn't really matter, as either both is claimed to have caused the upward acceleration of the Earth.

Observations are not experiments. I asked for experimental evidence, remember? Telling me to look at the cosmos is not an experiment. Any number of stellar models could be created to describe the movements and details of the cosmos. Observation does not prove anything. Lets repeat: Observations are not experiments. Observations are not experiments.

So again, show me the experimental studies which prove that the earth is a globe.

Observation are not experiments, but they are PART of the experiments. You took high school sciences before, right? I assume you do, because in every lab report there always have be some observational data to back up the conclusion. As for the experiments themselves, you have to use observational evidences to bring about your experimental conclusion. It's how science work.

No offense, but Tom Bishop is obviously behind time. Modern sciences are too confusing for him to catch up.

It's alright.

Together, we can bring the beast down. It's like firing darts at an elephant, though.

The error in your logic is that every experiment only has observational evidence. There is no need to experiment in astronomy because there is nothing to experiment with, the answers are already there.

Ever hear of a controlled experiment? I know that these ideas of "proof" and "evidence" are new to you, but we can indeed use experimentation to prove that a certain explanation is correct for a given phenomena. This is what science is based upon. Test, trial, and experimentation.

Unfortunately Astronomy is not a Science. It's just observation and interpretation. There is no experimentation. There is no test. There is no trial. Do you think Copernicus built an enormous spaceship and experimented with words and stars and their supposed rotations before coming to his conclusions? Nope. He just looked at the skies and interpreted what he saw.

There can be a million different interpretations for any observable stellar event. Without controlled experiments any of those interpretations can be correct. Whose to say that one interpretation is any different than another interpretation? Is it the most elaborate model with the most hypothetical forces?

http://www.youth.net/eratosthenes/

Eratosthenes made a number of assumptions in his experiment. He assumed that the sun was very far away and he assumed that the earth was a sphere.

The Flat Earth Society actively uses Eratosthenes' experiments to explain features of the FE model. Here's a link which explains the idea. The explanation is at the very bottom. Scroll all the way to the bottom. You will find that we can use Eratosthenes' data, in conjunction with the assumption of a Flat Earth, to confirm that the sun is very near to the earth.

As for Eratosthenes' measurement of the earth's circumference in his shadow experiment? Under the Flat Earth model we find that Eratosthenes was actually measuring the diameter of the Flat Earth. The Flat Earth Literature holds that the circumference of the Round Earth is identical to the diameter of the Flat Earth. Therefore, Eratosthenes' observations work either way. The earth can either be 24,859.82 miles in circumference or 24,859.82 miles in diameter depending on our model.

Powerful things happen when we blindly assume.

anyway, here's your experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Ah yes, the Foucault Pendulum. Why does the pendulum rotate one rotation per twenty four hours in the Flat Earth model?

Well it's simple. What else rotates at one rotation per twenty four hours in the Flat Earth model? The stars and celestial bodies, that's what.

Therefore we can convincingly say that the weight of the Foucault Pendulum is captured geometrically by the stars and celestial bodies overhead, which make one rotation per twenty four hours. The free swinging pendulum will follow the rotation, velocity, and apogee of the stars overhead.

Ergo, this considered, we see that the Foucault Pendulum is absolutely explainable. You cannot disprove the Flat Earth interpretation.

Do you see how powerful interpretation is? That's why we require controlled experiments for your evidence. If you point us at phenomenas and neglect to provide any documentation for experiments, we are at the mercy of interpretation.

What experimental evidence is there proving that the movement of the Foucault Pendulum results from a spinning earth as opposed to some other phenomena? What controlled experiments have been conducted with the Foucault Pendulum?

We're talking about evidence here, and again you've given me none. Just a wikipedia article. No studies. No peer reviewed articles about experiments. Nothing. You have no experimental evidence for a Round Earth. Do not even pretend that you do.

Unfortunately Astronomy is not a Science. It's just observation and interpretation. There is no experimentation. There is no test. There is no trial. 

I know an Astronomer ,
Haven't spoken to him for years , not sure if he would be amused or annoyed with a statement like that.
Tom, that statement is simply incorrect.

No offense, but Tom Bishop is obviously behind time. Modern sciences are too confusing for him to catch up.

If modern science claims to have experimental evidence for the shape of the earth perhaps you should share. Here's your chance to educate a Neanderthal.

And here's something you can see in your back Garden, irrefutable evidence:

The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.
(oh wait, you can't explain eclipses...)

That's not experimental evidence. That's an observation.

Do you know the difference between experimental evidence and an observation yet? Apparently not.

For the Flat Earth interpretation of the Lunar Eclipse please read Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe.

Observation are not experiments, but they are PART of the experiments. You took high school sciences before, right? I assume you do, because in every lab report there always have be some observational data to back up the conclusion. As for the experiments themselves, you have to use observational evidences to bring about your experimental conclusion. It's how science work.

If you had taken high school science you would know that every scientific study requires controlled experimentation before coming to a conclusion.

When you submit a scientific study on the growth rate of plants in different frequencies of light without preforming tests, trials, and controlled experiments to confirm your hypotheses; when you make a conclusion without preforming experiments to demonstrate that your conclusion is correct. Guess what. You get a big red bolded F and asked to see the teacher after class.

You get an F here as well.

I know an Astronomer ,
Haven't spoken to him for years , not sure if he would be amused or annoyed with a statement like that.
Tom, that statement is simply incorrect.

Are you telling me that your astronomer friend makes controlled experiments on the cosmos to back up his observational interpretation? That's absolutely hilarious. If you know any astronomers who experiments with the cosmos before coming to a conclusion perhaps you should share a few details. Is your astronomer friend a superhero? Does he possess alien technology? I'm very curious as to how he can create controlled experiments with the cosmos to verify his Aristotelian suppositions.

Why don't you REers ever feel like backing up your claims? Why don't you guys ever post experimental evidence that proves that the earth is a sphere? You guys claim that such evidence exists. So go ahead and post it!

Why aren't you guys posting that experimental evidence yet?

Why are there no experiments which prove a Round Earth?

Where are my experiments? I asked for them, didn't I? You said you had them.

If you have experiments perhaps maybe you should post them.

I think you should post them.

I've been asking you over and over now.

All it takes is a simple copy and paste.

I'm here waiting in absolute suspense.

You REers seem surprisingly silent on this subject.

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 and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Round Earth model.

Simple. We have real round Earth pictures, but no real Flat earth pictures.

Ps. The next FE will reply that the images are fake/conspiracy.