I'm looking for a single scientific study which proves that the earth is a globe

Tom, have you actually read Copernicus?  If not, here is your chance.

Nicholas Copernicus
De Revolutionibus (On the Revolutions), 1543 C.E.

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html 

Yes, I've read it. It's not a study about the shape of the earth. I don't know why you're bringing that up.

By the way, since a flat earth can not orbit the sun, and Copernicus shows that earth does indeed orbit the sun, then the earth can not be flat, therefore it must be something else.  The most logical something else would be a sphere.  Why is that so hard to accept?

The system of Copernicus was admitted by its author to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following are his words: "It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. * * * Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. * * * The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

The Newtonian and all other "views" and "systems" have the same general character as the "hypothesis of the terrestrial motion," framed by Copernicus. The foundations or premises are always unproved; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change.

You could say that anyone who has launched an object into orbit has conducted an experiment to check if the Earth is a globe.

You could say that anyone who has launched an object into orbit has conducted an experiment to check if the Earth is a globe.

Seeing a curved horizon at very high altitudes proves nothing. Here's an example:

While NASA does not conduct actual research, amateur balloon hobbiests have ascended 100 vertical miles to the edge of space. See: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/

As we can see from the link, we see a curved earth from very high altitudes, exactly what we would see if the earth were flat.

Curvature results from the fact that on a flat earth we are looking down at the circular spotlight of the sun. A circle is always curved in two dimensions.

The distant continents of the earth are still tens of thousands of miles away horizontally from the observer at an altitude of 100 miles (edge of space), and thus beyond the resolution of the human eye and merged with the line of the horizon, indiscernible and faded with the thickness of the atmosphere and shrouded in night. This is why the view is limited to the immediate vicinity below the observer, and why the land fades into a blueish fog as it recedes.

We can confirm that we are looking down at the sun's circle of light upon the earth by noting that shots from amateur high altitude balloons show an elliptical horizon. If the earth were a globe, curving downwards in three dimensions, all curvature seen in photographs would appear as an arc of a circle. However, curvature does not appear as an arc of a circle - therefore the earth cannot be a globe.

I'm not talking about balloons, though. I'm talking about orbiting satellites, especially the ones in polar orbits.

Besides, the spotlight of the Sun should be roughly a hemisphere when projected onto a flat earth, at this time of year. Not a near perfect circle.

I'm not talking about balloons, though. I'm talking about orbiting satellites, especially the ones in polar orbits.

Satellites? What are you talking about? Satellites don't exist. Read the FAQ.

Besides, the spotlight of the Sun should be roughly a hemisphere when projected onto a flat earth, at this time of year. Not a near perfect circle.

Actually, it's a circle all year long. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Satellites? What are you talking about? Satellites don't exist. Read the FAQ.

I'm fairly certain we have satellites. Most major telecommunication companies have put something several hundred miles out in space, and they are certainly using them to communicate. stratellites/pesudollites may exist in theory, but they really aren't practical as of current.

Actually, it's a circle all year long. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Have you ever tried to determine the shape of the Suns spotlight by mapping out the areas where it is and isn't light at any certain time?

I'm fairly certain we have satellites.

Whatever they are, they're not orbiting the earth, as earth orbit does not exist.

Most major telecommunication companies have put something several hundred miles out in space, and they are certainly using them to communicate. stratellites/pesudollites may exist in theory, but they really aren't practical as of current.

Only government contractors allegedly put things into space, sorry.

Do you actually think that AT&T has a launchpad?

Have you ever tried to determine the shape of the Suns spotlight by mapping out the areas where it is and isn't light at any certain time?

In order to do that we would need to know the precise length of day at all points on the earth throughout the year. We don't have that kind of information.

The length of day calculators you can find on the internet all use Faraday's Time Zone model of the earth, which assumes that the earth is a globe.

Tom, I somehow new this would happen.

You just won't accept any evidence that doesn't enforce your narrow-minded view of things.  The point of this part of the sight is debate.  When one side presents evidence, you're supposed to present your own evidence to disprove it.

How does this concept continue to escape you?  You NEVER accept any evidence we offer if it has ever had anything to do with a government body of any kind!

so Tom, I ask one simple question.

What kind of evidence do you want us to submit as proof the Earth is round?  What sort of evidence would it take to convince you that you wouldn't just shrug off as conspiracy, edited, mistaken, or something like that?

How does this concept continue to escape you?  You NEVER accept any evidence we offer if it has ever had anything to do with a government body of any kind!

The premise of this website is that the government is in on a conspiracy. That should be pretty obvious.

Why would you bother submitting government-made evidence knowing that they're in on a Conspiracy?

You should already know that trying to pass off the "government said so" argument is pretty futile. That's just a blind appeal to authority; a fallacious argument.

What kind of evidence do you want us to submit as proof the Earth is round?  What sort of evidence would it take to convince you that you wouldn't just shrug off as conspiracy, edited, mistaken, or something like that?

A study which concludes that the earth is a globe would be nice.

All I'm hearing is "we don't need science to back up our facts, we can just plug our ears and put our blind faith in the government to tell me all I need to know."

Whatever they are, they're not orbiting the earth, as earth orbit does not exist.

So what exactly is a polar orbiting satellite doing? Teleporting from one side of the south pole to the other?

Only government contractors allegedly put things into space, sorry.

Do you actually think that AT&T has a launchpad?

Firstly, there are a number of groups who launch things into orbit, some of which are private companies. Secondly, who launches it is irrelevant. It's private companies, or at least groups not tightly tied by the government that designs, builds, tracks and communicates with the satellite.

In order to do that we would need to know the precise length of day at all points on the earth throughout the year. We don't have that kind of information.

The length of day calculators you can find on the internet all use Faraday's Time Zone model of the earth, which assumes that the earth is a globe.

Considering that the model seems to be accurate enough that nobody has had any major problems with it, I don't see why it shouldn't be sufficient to plot a map. Besides, just the fact that days are longer the further North of the equator you go and shorter the further South, or vice versa, should be sufficient information to plot at least a rough map.

So what exactly is a polar orbiting satellite doing? Teleporting from one side of the south pole to the other?

The satellite isn't doing anything seeing as how satellites don't exist.

Firstly, there are a number of groups who launch things into orbit, some of which are private companies. Secondly, who launches it is irrelevant. It's private companies, or at least groups not tightly tied by the government that designs, builds, tracks and communicates with the satellite.

While Boeing or Lockheed Martin are private companies, they're also Government Contractors.

Considering that the model seems to be accurate enough that nobody has had any major problems with it, I don't see why it shouldn't be sufficient to plot a map. Besides, just the fact that days are longer the further North of the equator you go and shorter the further South, or vice versa, should be sufficient information to plot at least a rough map.

Of course people have problems with it. Faraday's model is just a general guess at best. Do you really think that every single city on earth times the length of its day and posts complaints and reviews on a Daylight Savings Forum or something?

The satellite isn't doing anything seeing as how satellites don't exist.

I expect you'll find a number of people who state otherwise, especially at places such as satellite earth stations.

While Boeing or Lockheed Martin are private companies, they're also Government Contractors.

But they aren't the only companies that launch things into space. there seems to be several Commercial launching companies

Of course people have problems with it. Faraday's model is just a general guess at best. Do you really think that every single city on earth times the length of its day and posts complaints and reviews on a Daylight Savings Forum or something?

I can't say I've ever had a problem with, or know anyone else who has had a problem with the current predictions. And although I don't expect the whole population of earth would check these things every day, I'm sure a few people who find the time of sunrise/sunset relevant to what they do would find problems and complain, or at least develop a better model.

Quote

How does this concept continue to escape you?  You NEVER accept any evidence we offer if it has ever had anything to do with a government body of any kind!

The premise of this website is that the government is in on a conspiracy. That should be pretty obvious.

Why would you bother submitting government-made evidence knowing that they're in on a Conspiracy?

You should already know that trying to pass off the "government said so" argument is pretty futile. That's just a blind appeal to authority; a fallacious argument.

Quote

What kind of evidence do you want us to submit as proof the Earth is round?  What sort of evidence would it take to convince you that you wouldn't just shrug off as conspiracy, edited, mistaken, or something like that?

A study which concludes that the earth is a globe would be nice.

All I'm hearing is "we don't need science to back up our facts, we can just plug our ears and put our blind faith in the government to tell me all I need to know."

Allow me to be a touch more specific.

From where/who should this acceptable study come from if not NASA or some other government branch?

Can you prove sattelites dont exist? We can track them visually, as well s through their transmisions, predict where they will be at any given time in any part of the world, and use them EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES! So we have plenty proof they exist.. and you haven't a SHRED to prove they don't. Aside from an ancient book that proves nothing but the fact that stupid people read old ass books that make no sense.

Can you prove sattelites dont exist?

It's impossible to prove a negative. That's like me saying "can you prove that ghosts don't exist?"

You're the one claiming that Satellites exist here. Therefore its your responsibility to present evidence demonstrating so.

From where/who should this acceptable study come from if not NASA or some other government branch?

I don't care where the study comes from. I would like to see a single study, government-funded or otherwise, in which a researcher studies the shape of the earth and concludes that the earth is a globe.

I've been asking for six pages now: Show me a single study conducted at any point throughout the history of time which proves that the earth is a globe.

Quote

Can you prove sattelites dont exist?

It's impossible to prove a negative. That's like me saying "can you prove that ghosts don't exist?"

You're the one claiming that Satellites exist here. Therefore its your responsibility to present evidence demonstrating so.

I did. in my last post... welcome to reading.

So you don't have any evidence contrary to mine?

I did. in my last post... welcome to reading.

You've provided evidence that maybe there's *something* up there which can send or receive transmissions, but you didn't provide evidence that Satellites exist.

Satellites are specific technologies which are defined as being in orbit around the earth.

So you don't have any evidence contrary to mine?

I don't think you understand the whole "it's impossible to prove a negative" thing. Let me clarify. Say we have two persons who are in a debate over the existence of gnomes. One believes that gnomes exist and the other person does not. Now, is it the burden of proof on the person who claims that gnomes exist, or is the burden of proof on the skeptic?

The burden of proof is on the gnome-believer, of course, as it is impossible to prove that gnomes don't exist.

Just the same in this debate; you are claiming that a specific technology exists which contradicts my model. Therefore it's your responsibility to prove that it exists.

You've provided evidence that maybe there's *something* up there which can send or receive transmissions, but you didn't provide evidence that Satellites exist.

You can't prove it not a satelite. Therefore, its a satelite. Win.

I don't think you understand the whole "it's impossible to prove a negative" thing.

I did. You can't disprove satelites. Its all I needed to know.

Scientific study?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"

I dont see anything from you Tom, in the form of any evidence from you other then you looking out a window and saying "Earth is flat" and rather large usage of the word "conspiracy" to fight back. The rest of the world seems to have the compelling argument, not you.

Other evidence on you are things like, over 9 posts a day average, the fact which shows you posted twice as many individual articles as TheEngineer in half as many years, even though he happens to be the Global Moderator, and yet TheEngineer has been attibuted the quote of "The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop.  In fact, just about everything he says is stupid.", and still you are a user rather then say a moderator. I would have believed that such an outspoken would he amoderator at least by now. Also, no evidence of age or other personal data would point to show that your only point in existing is contradict everything.

Main conclusion of mine is thats even possible you might be a fictional user used by higher ups to keep this place going, as most seem to take pleasure in fighting back against what you keep writing.

I really, really thought I could use you in carrying put interesting discussions, but after heavy reading of specifically _your_ threads, I dont see how thats possible; simple denial that something might exist (ie satellites) with nothing to back it rather then "conspiracy" or a model based only on _your_ belief in something is insane.

I love this place cause it does (at times) actually force me to jump on the net and learn something new about physics, or math or relativity. Never have I been forced to that in one of your threads. Instead I found myself shaking my head. Bad form Tom.

Quote

Can you prove sattelites dont exist?

It's impossible to prove a negative. That's like me saying "can you prove that ghosts don't exist?"

You're the one claiming that Satellites exist here. Therefore its your responsibility to present evidence demonstrating so.

Quote

From where/who should this acceptable study come from if not NASA or some other government branch?

I don't care where the study comes from. I would like to see a single study, government-funded or otherwise, in which a researcher studies the shape of the earth and concludes that the earth is a globe.

I've been asking for six pages now: Show me a single study conducted at any point throughout the history of time which proves that the earth is a globe.

Tom, if any study where someone/something was sent up to study the shape of the Earth (Or wound up studying the shape of the Earth) is what you are looking for...

And you just said that you don't care if it's government funded or otherwise...

Then what the <expletive deleted> is wrong with using NASA?

I know, I know, conspiracy right?  But how do you expect this to be a fair debate in anyway if you just call conspiracy on some of the best proofs we have to offer?  It's not just the NASA ones either, you claim any government funded agency is in on the conspiracy and can't be trusted!

Look back at any of the threads about commercial space flight and sattelites, you can't deny that you've tried to eschew every last commercialized method of proving RE by pointing out the companies recieve government funding!

And now you say you don't care where it comes from.  Oh, I'd imagine you'll retract that statement soon, and say something like "Anywhere except NASA" but still, it's easy to find photos from non-NASA satellites online, so what's wrong with accepting those as proof?

EDIT:  Also, Cpt. bthimes proved you wrong several times over, and you tried to reject his pictures.  I don't care if I get banned over this Tom because it needs to be said:

YOU ARE A TROLL!  YOU ARE THE WORST THING TO EVER CRAWL OUT OF THE ANALS OF THE INTERNET AND IT'S OBVIOUS YOU ONLY EXIST TO SPOUT ALL MANNER OF BULL-SHIT AND MAKE YOURSELF FEEL GOOD!!!  IT'S A WONDER YOU HAVEN'T BEEN BANNED, YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT HOW ANYTHING IN THE WORLD WORKS AND GO ON QUOTING A ONE-HUNDRED-YEAR OLD BOOK LIKE IT'S THE BIBLE!

NEWSFLASH!  ROWBOTHAM WAS WRONG, YOU'RE CRAZY, AND YOU BREAK EVERY RULE OF FAIR DEBATE!!  IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO ACCEPT THE PROOF WE SHOVE RIGHT INTO YOUR FACE THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS POSTING IN THE DEBATE SECTION!

There Tom, it takes a lot to get me mad but congratulations, you did it.  I hope you're proud of yourself.

FYI, I will not apologize to Tom for this, but I do to anyone else who happens across this post.  That's not a side of me I usually like folks to see.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled one-sided ridiculously unfair debate between the rest of the world and Tom Bishop, who is currently covering his ears and eyes and pretending all the proof of a Round Earth is faked.

Oh, and Tom?  Since you are a troll and I obviously just gave you what you wanted by getting angry, allow me to say that from now on I plan to pretend that everyone of your posts is blank.  I'll just pretend nothing is written in it so that I never have to act like that again.

Scientific study?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"

I dont see anything from you Tom, in the form of any evidence from you other then you looking out a window and saying "Earth is flat" and rather large usage of the word "conspiracy" to fight back. The rest of the world seems to have the compelling argument, not you.

Other evidence on you are things like, over 9 posts a day average, the fact which shows you posted twice as many individual articles as TheEngineer in half as many years, even though he happens to be the Global Moderator, and yet TheEngineer has been attibuted the quote of "The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop.  In fact, just about everything he says is stupid.", and still you are a user rather then say a moderator. I would have believed that such an outspoken would he amoderator at least by now. Also, no evidence of age or other personal data would point to show that your only point in existing is contradict everything.

Main conclusion of mine is thats even possible you might be a fictional user used by higher ups to keep this place going, as most seem to take pleasure in fighting back against what you keep writing.

I really, really thought I could use you in carrying put interesting discussions, but after heavy reading of specifically _your_ threads, I dont see how thats possible; simple denial that something might exist (ie satellites) with nothing to back it rather then "conspiracy" or a model based only on _your_ belief in something is insane.

I love this place cause it does (at times) actually force me to jump on the net and learn something new about physics, or math or relativity. Never have I been forced to that in one of your threads. Instead I found myself shaking my head. Bad form Tom.

The scientific method is so overrated.  Can you point out a study using the zetetic method that proves the earth is a globe?  If not you're not going to win any converts here.

The scientific method is so overrated.  Can you point out a study using the zetetic method that proves the earth is a globe?  If not you're not going to win any converts here.

lol.

I dont see anything from you Tom, in the form of any evidence from you other then you looking out a window and saying "Earth is flat" and rather large usage of the word "conspiracy" to fight back. The rest of the world seems to have the compelling argument, not you.

Why are you asking me for evidence? This thread is about compiling a list of scientific studies which have concluded that the earth is a globe. I just went through this thread and I counted up the number of Round Earth studies we have:

Quote

I dont see anything from you Tom, in the form of any evidence from you other then you looking out a window and saying "Earth is flat" and rather large usage of the word "conspiracy" to fight back. The rest of the world seems to have the compelling argument, not you.

Why are you asking me for evidence This thread is about compiling a list of scientific studies which have concluded that the earth is a globe. I just went through this thread and I counted up the number of Round Earth studies we have:

ZERO

Funny, i have never seen a study that proved the earth was flat. 

I did. You can't disprove satelites. Its all I needed to know.

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about showing a research study to back up your model. Do you have any for us?

I love this place cause it does (at times) actually force me to jump on the net and learn something new about physics, or math or relativity. Never have I been forced to that in one of your threads. Instead I found myself shaking my head. Bad form Tom.

That's exactly right. There is absolutely nothing to learn in this thread because whoever came up with your model forgot to collect evidence, conduct an experiment, and write a study on the topic.

Maybe if you guys had some actual papers or studies we'd have more to talk about. However, you don't.

And now you say you don't care where it comes from.  Oh, I'd imagine you'll retract that statement soon, and say something like "Anywhere except NASA" but still, it's easy to find photos from non-NASA satellites online, so what's wrong with accepting those as proof?

Knowing that NASA hasn't written any studies which conclude that the earth is a globe, I don't see any reason to make any stipulation against a government or NASA funded study.

Funny, i have never seen a study that proved the earth was flat.

This thread isn't about discussing your opinions about the Flat Earth Research Studies. This thread is about showing me any one single study which comes to the conclusion that the earth is a globe.

it's easy to find photos from non-NASA satellites online, so what's wrong with accepting those as proof?

Are photos research studies? The last time I checked they weren't.

This thread isn't about discussing your opinions about the Flat Earth Research Studies. This thread is about showing me any one single study which comes to the conclusion that the earth is a globe.

Already been done.  Start reading on page 1. 

Quote

I'm fairly certain we have satellites.

Whatever they are, they're not orbiting the earth, as earth orbit does not exist.

Quote

Most major telecommunication companies have put something several hundred miles out in space, and they are certainly using them to communicate. stratellites/pesudollites may exist in theory, but they really aren't practical as of current.

Only government contractors allegedly put things into space, sorry.

Do you actually think that AT&T has a launchpad?

If AT&T is going to pay the government (NASA) a rather large sum of money in order to put a rather expensive communication satellite into orbit, into a very specific orbit, don't you think AT&T would know if they are getting ripped off?

Quote

Have you ever tried to determine the shape of the Suns spotlight by mapping out the areas where it is and isn't light at any certain time?

In order to do that we would need to know the precise length of day at all points on the earth throughout the year. We don't have that kind of information.

The length of day calculators you can find on the internet all use Faraday's Time Zone model of the earth, which assumes that the earth is a globe.

"Faraday's Time Zone model of the earth"?  Never heard of it.  Can't find it on the net.  Care to clue us in on what you're refering to here? 

Already been done.  Start reading on page 1.

Really? Where did Aristotle and Eratosthenes publish their Round Earth research studies?

If AT&T is going to pay the government (NASA) a rather large sum of money in order to put a rather expensive communication satellite into orbit, into a very specific orbit, don't you think AT&T would know if they are getting ripped off?

AT&T's financial business decisions is off topic. Where are the Round Earth studies?

"Faraday's Time Zone model of the earth"?  Never heard of it.  Can't find it on the net.  Care to clue us in on what you're refering to here?

Your ignorance of your own model is off topic. Where are the studies?

Quote

Already been done.  Start reading on page 1.

Really? Where did Aristotle and Eratosthenes publish their Round Earth research studies?

We know about what they did, thus they must of published it sometime. 

We know about what they did, thus they must of published it sometime. 

So in other words, you don't have a research paper for me which concludes that the earth is a globe?