A Test to See if the Earth is Flat

Here's a test that one could do to find out if the Earth is flat.

Start on the edge of a continent, and sail outwards, or towards the so called "edge" of the earth.  If the world is flat, couldn't you sail right off of it, or at least see the gigantic "ice-wall"?  I'd like to see someone who believes in the flat earth theory actually partake in this trip.

Here's a test that one could do to find out if the Earth is flat.

Start on the edge of a continent, and sail outwards, or towards the so called "edge" of the earth.  If the world is flat, couldn't you sail right off of it, or at least see the gigantic "ice-wall"?  I'd like to see someone who believes in the flat earth theory actually partake in this trip.

That test is good, but impractical.  We'd like tests that we can do in our own homes (ideally), or barring that, one that doesn't require more than a short drive or hike.

That's not because we're lazy -- okay, it's not entirely because we're lazy.  The real reason is that we want to be able to give anybody at all a description of the experiment so that they can check for themselves.

If somebody performed the sailing experiment and came back saying, "I did it, there was no ice wall," then everybody could just complain that he's lying or crazy or made a mistake someplace, and while that guy would know, he would fail to convince everybody.  However, if we had some test that everybody could perform, right now, and get the results right away (or maybe in a couple of days, as in the torsion balance experiment), that would really be ideal.

-Erasmus

I understand what you mean, thanks for the reply.

Quote from: "Crimson808"

Here's a test that one could do to find out if the Earth is flat.

Start on the edge of a continent, and sail outwards, or towards the so called "edge" of the earth.  If the world is flat, couldn't you sail right off of it, or at least see the gigantic "ice-wall"?  I'd like to see someone who believes in the flat earth theory actually partake in this trip.

That test is good, but impractical.  We'd like tests that we can do in our own homes (ideally), or barring that, one that doesn't require more than a short drive or hike.

That's not because we're lazy -- okay, it's not entirely because we're lazy.  The real reason is that we want to be able to give anybody at all a description of the experiment so that they can check for themselves.

If somebody performed the sailing experiment and came back saying, "I did it, there was no ice wall," then everybody could just complain that he's lying or crazy or made a mistake someplace, and while that guy would know, he would fail to convince everybody.  However, if we had some test that everybody could perform, right now, and get the results right away (or maybe in a couple of days, as in the torsion balance experiment), that would really be ideal.

-Erasmus

That’s simply ridiculous. That’s like me saying that I’ve never known anybody who had AIDS, therefore AIDS doesn't exist. You’re trying to justify a globe spanning theory with backyard research. It just won’t work.

Also, there is flight. The government has no control over you making you're own personal airplane and flying it to the supposed ice wall. People make their own satelites all the time and send them into space to contact their friends.

That’s simply ridiculous. That’s like me saying that I’ve never known anybody who had AIDS, therefore AIDS doesn't exist. You’re trying to justify a globe spanning theory with backyard research. It just won’t work.

I've never seen Unicorns so they don't exist, right? Wait, this logic is ridiculous, Unicorns must exist.

I posted this in another thread:

there is a simple way to show you that the Earth is round.

find a straight ruler, preferrably a long one, but make sure it is straight.

go to the beach on a calm day, with low waves

put the ruler up against the horizon.

notice something?
the horizon is higher at the centre than it is at the sides.

That is because the atmospheric occlusion creates a constant terminal viewing distance, creating an apparent curvature at the visible horizon.

That is because the atmospheric occlusion creates a constant terminal viewing distance, creating an apparent curvature at the visible horizon.

Now, please explain that using words that EVERYONE can understand instead of trying to sound smart with big words that end up causing your sentence to not making any sense whatsoever.

Hold a plate in front of your eyes, almost flat. The edge furthest from you looks curved.

Same thing.

Now, please explain that using words that EVERYONE can understand instead of trying to sound smart with big words that end up causing your sentence to not making any sense whatsoever.

You mean, "causing your sentence to not make any sense to satoshi whatsoever," right?  I mean, it made sense to me.  Probably it's just you.

Quote from: "satoshi"

Now, please explain that using words that EVERYONE can understand instead of trying to sound smart with big words that end up causing your sentence to not making any sense whatsoever.

You mean, "causing your sentence to not make any sense to satoshi whatsoever," right?  I mean, it made sense to me.  Probably it's just you.

You know, you could actually say that in more laymans terms, instead of responding condescendingly. Attitudes like in your reply only make me think less highly of this theory.

Which is a shame, because it is a good debate.

That is because the atmospheric occlusion creates a constant terminal viewing distance, creating an apparent curvature at the visible horizon.

Such occulsion would create an edge view similar to what you get with fog, not a clean, sharp line.

The more you simplify something, the more it loses it's meaning.

Grab a dictionary, there's lots online.

The more you simplify something, the more it loses it's meaning.

Grab a dictionary, there's lots online.

In order to make your post meaningful, shouldn't you have made it really complicated?

"When the complexity of an ideal is decreased at a constant or variable rate by oneself, the level and depth of meaning contained in said ideal is decreased proportionally."

Quote from: "Unimportant"

That is because the atmospheric occlusion creates a constant terminal viewing distance, creating an apparent curvature at the visible horizon.

Such occulsion would create an edge view similar to what you get with fog, not a clean, sharp line.

Yes, but the sharpness is only a result of how far away the horizon is. Visibility might very well "fade out" in a similar fashion to what you experience in fog, but when that fade out is 20 miles away it sppears as a crisp line.

I got an experiment for you,


Stare into the sun until you lose the ability to use your lower brain functions,
then keep staring.


Hypothoseis - You'll eventually die and the world will be a better place.

You know, you could actually say that in more laymans terms, instead of responding condescendingly.

I could, but I realize that language, being one of the few things that separates man from beast, is a beautiful thing, not to be made dull or simple to suit the listener.  Instead of dumbing down the language, why not encourage the listener to educate themselves?

Attitudes like in your reply only make me think less highly of this theory.

Supposedly Newton was a complete jerk.  Does that make you think less highly of his theory?

-Erasmus

Quote from: "You undeducated morons"

Quote from: "Unimportant"

That is because the atmospheric occlusion creates a constant terminal viewing distance, creating an apparent curvature at the visible horizon.

Such occulsion would create an edge view similar to what you get with fog, not a clean, sharp line.

Yes, but the sharpness is only a result of how far away the horizon is. Visibility might very well "fade out" in a similar fashion to what you experience in fog, but when that fade out is 20 miles away it sppears as a crisp line.

No, it would gradually fade out in a linear fashion. Atmospheric occulsion would imply that air molecules are large and dense enough to limit one's view. Molecules closer to you would be no different then molecules farther then you, ergo, a linear decrease in visibility results.