A few points to consider

I do not know if any/all of these have been mentioned in the past, but here are a few items to consider:

First, why is the shadow of the Earth on the moon round during a lunar eclipse?

Second, if the earth is flat with the north pole in the center and Antarctica around the edges, why are Mercator-projection naval navigation maps not horribly inaccurate? If your model is correct, we should be using polar coordinates to navigate, not cartesian coordinates. I.e., England is not truely due east of Canada, it is counterclockwise.

Third, if Antarctica is a ring of ice around the edges, how have people transversed that continent? Were they all in on some conspiracy?

Fourth, why do experiments like that of Eratosthenes, where the shadow length of two poles a certain distance apart north-south is measured to differ, show different shadow lengths if the surface of the globe is flat? This experiment is easily reproducible with some advance planning; simply have two parties in two spots far enough away.

I am legitimately interested in hearing some responses to these questions. I apologize if these questions are answered by some base section of Flat Earth theory; I cannot claim to be anything but ignorant on the specifics. But I would love to be enlightened! So, any response is encouraged!

im an REer. i've pointed some of these problems out before on different threads. the FE answers are so silly, they actually make more problems!

example: the FE answer to the differing shadows is that the sun is supposedly much closer and smaller than RE says. but this answer also requires totally new explanations for lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, and even the phases of the moon!

As an aspiring Astronomy/Astrophysics major, I honestly find it hard to believe that people believe this "theory." I mean, when it comes right down to it, even something like Occam's Razor--i.e., common sense--should show that maybe all the spaceflights, spacecraft, probes, telescopy [sic], photographs, and so forth aren't just all part of some conspiracy or something... why would photographs from large heights not show the flat earth? Why do ships disappear on the horizon? I mean, this is stuff that was worked out in the 400's BC by Aristotle.

Yeah seriously anyone who has knowledge in nearly any field of the sciences knows how ridiculous the idea of a flat earth is in this century. you would think even a shred of common sense would be sufficient but apparently not. I am aware most on these forums who advocate FE do not actually believe in it, but those who do must lack both of the above.

Yeah seriously anyone who has knowledge in nearly any field of the sciences knows how ridiculous the idea of a flat earth is in this century. you would think even a shred of common sense would be sufficient but apparently not. I am aware most on these forums who advocate FE do not actually believe in it, but those who do must lack both of the above.

If the theory is so absurd, why can't you disprove it?

If the theory is so absurd, why can't you disprove it?

Because everyone knows you will never listen to reason, much less accept defeat. It really is pointless, whenever someone actually takes the time to makes a real attempt you just retreat to your collective "Fortress of Ignorance"...

If the theory is so absurd, why can't you disprove it?
[/quote]

you're not really serious about that are you? saying "is not" is hardly a deflection of evidence. The FE thing is reminding me a bit of creation science. It seems based around the idea that if you can show that you don't understand something (not even that its flawed) that it must be untrue. I see alternate theories here but little actual evidence that the earth is flat.. not even anicdotal evidence, you know someone who in the thousands of years of recorded history has actually gone to the edge of the earth. Why can't someone in a plane just fly there? or have people tried just to fall off and never return?

you're not really serious about that are you? saying "is not" is hardly a deflection of evidence. The FE thing is reminding me a bit of creation science. It seems based around the idea that if you can show that you don't understand something (not even that its flawed) that it must be untrue. I see alternate theories here but little actual evidence that the earth is flat..

Apparently you haven't read Earth Not a Globe. Please do so. There is a link in my signature.

Quote

you're not really serious about that are you? saying "is not" is hardly a deflection of evidence. The FE thing is reminding me a bit of creation science. It seems based around the idea that if you can show that you don't understand something (not even that its flawed) that it must be untrue. I see alternate theories here but little actual evidence that the earth is flat..

Apparently you haven't read Earth Not a Globe. Please do so. There is a link in my signature.

is that in reply to me suggesting you're not serious? cause i was being facetious...i totally belive you are serious. but if you meant in response to my suggestion that response here are light on evidence actually pro the idea, could we pretend we live in a world (flat or spherical either is fine) where I am not actually going to buy that book to find out, could you perhaps sum up? or just give me a little taste, maybe with one or two nuggets of truth i will be inspired to buy the book?

Either way, you seem to be educated and seem to have a firm grasp of the subject, but please do not ever reply to me again ever with something as lame as the equivilent of "it is true... this book says so" because that is a pretty massive cop out. Are you getting a commision for each book sold? I don't mean to be blunt here but if that was a reasonable answer to a question i could point you towards any text book which mentions the shape of the earth and say "see, look..round".

is that in reply to me suggesting you're not serious? cause i was being facetious...i totally belive you are serious. but if you meant in response to my suggestion that response here are light on evidence actually pro the idea, could we pretend we live in a world (flat or spherical either is fine) where I am not actually going to buy that book to find out, could you perhaps sum up? or just give me a little taste, maybe with one or two nuggets of truth i will be inspired to buy the book?

Either way, you seem to be educated and seem to have a firm grasp of the subject, but please do not ever reply to me again ever with something as lame as the equivilent of "it is true... this book says so" because that is a pretty massive cop out. Are you getting a commision for each book sold? I don't mean to be blunt here but if that was a reasonable answer to a question i could point you towards any text book which mentions the shape of the earth and say "see, look..round".

The book Earth Not a Globe is out of copyright and is available in full online, which you would have known if you had bothered to click on the link in my signature. All the experimental evidence for a Flat Earth is in the literature. Being too lazy to click on a few links isn't an excuse.

Quote

is that in reply to me suggesting you're not serious? cause i was being facetious...i totally belive you are serious. but if you meant in response to my suggestion that response here are light on evidence actually pro the idea, could we pretend we live in a world (flat or spherical either is fine) where I am not actually going to buy that book to find out, could you perhaps sum up? or just give me a little taste, maybe with one or two nuggets of truth i will be inspired to buy the book?

Either way, you seem to be educated and seem to have a firm grasp of the subject, but please do not ever reply to me again ever with something as lame as the equivilent of "it is true... this book says so" because that is a pretty massive cop out. Are you getting a commision for each book sold? I don't mean to be blunt here but if that was a reasonable answer to a question i could point you towards any text book which mentions the shape of the earth and say "see, look..round".

The book Earth Not a Globe is out of copyright and is available in full online, which you would have known if you had bothered to click on the link in my signature. All the experimental evidence for a Flat Earth is in the literature. Being too lazy to click on a few links isn't an excuse.

actually mate, i clicked on your link for that book, which lead me to a page with essentially the same infomation on your post. At the top of the page it had a link to buy the book at amazon. I do apologise though, i have had another look and now see the access to it. I have had bit of a look, and i do promise to give it a much more carefull look soon, but even i can se some pretty flawed logic and terrible methodology in some of the experiments, but that is only a first impression, and like i say i will give it a much better read.

But tom, that does not change that instead of actually answering the question you palmed me off to a book. Why would that be different to me directing you to...well...pretty much any science book made in the last couple of thousand years?

Hmm, read a bit of 100 Proofs... Mostly all poorly worded assumptions.

For example: Why would someone digging a tunnel or a canal (that runs approximately 1 or 2 kilometers at the most) even need to worry about calculating the curvature of the earth. The writer obviously doesn't realise how large the earth is. The curvature over a few kilometers would be so minute that it would have to be measured with extremely precise equipment.

The same goes for the ancient experiment where the surface of a large body of water is measured to see if it is in fact curved. The body of water mentioned was approximately 3 kilometers across. Of course there was not going to be any measurable curvature. And considering the date of the experiment, they probably used a piece of tight string.