Proofs-thread

I'm tired of all nonsense.
I want proof, evidence, scientific support, of the FE theories.
Anything would be fine, just post away. As long as it is scientifically reliable.

Otherwise I will, sadly enough, have to believe the fact that you FE'ers believe in something that consists of nothing but made up assumptions - which seems to be the case so far.

If science is not on your side, then what is(?).

2 words...

Thank you

2 words...

Thank you

I guess this topic will hit the bottom pretty fast.

most likely

whatever though, its worth a shot

See "Experiments demonstrating the true Form of Standing Water, and proving the Earth to be a Plane".  Here, the founder of the Flat Earth Society gives fifteen experiments whereby he measures the curvature of the surface of standing (not waving or turbulent) water, finding it to be nonexistent, indicating that the Earth is not round.

In particular, several of his experiments involved the visibility of two points close to the surface of the water and separated by six miles.  Over such a distance, the surface of the water should have dropped off 24' (by Rowbotham's calculations; 24.00076' by mine); in fact, he is still able to observe, through a telescope positioned 8" off the water's surface, objects only 5' above the surface.

Rowbotham's introduction includes a table for the curvature of the Earth (in modern parlance, curvature is a different quantity; his table shows the distance between a point P a distance X along a tangent line from the point of tangency, and the Earth's surface).  You may choose to disbelieve the contents of this table, but I have verified them for the first ten miles using basic trigonometry (the dropoff D is given by D = R * (1 - sec arctan X/R), where R is the Earth's radius).  The results of my computations are as follows:

  at X = 1 mi., D = 8.00026"
  at X = 2 mi., D = 32.00103"
  at X = 3 mi., D = 72.00231" = 6.00019'
  at X = 4 mi., D = 128.00409" = 10.66701'
  at X = 5 mi., D = 200.00636" = 16.66720'
  at X = 6 mi., D = 288.00911" = 24.00076'
  at X = 7 mi., D = 392.01232" = 32.66769'
  at X = 8 mi., D = 512.01597" = 42.66800'
  at X = 9 mi., D = 648.02003" = 54.00167'
  at X = 10 mi., D = 800.02449" = 66.66871'

If you believe this data (which you can easily verify yourself), then any one of Rowbotham's fifteen experiments should convince you that the Earth cannot be round.

Sine I am not a physician, and a lousy mathematician, you might as well write your formulas in greek. Makes no difference to me. Get a physician to register here who may explain. :/

I would however be satisfied with more solid proof, such as images, videos, anything visual. I think that would suit pretty good, regarding that some people, Unimportant for example, says he can see that the Earth is round with his very eyes. Somehow I cannot. Anyways, according to him, as long as one can See something, that should be proof enough for one to believe it. I use this argument to justify my thirst for visual proof other than formulas (for formulas have I already seen plenty of already on this forum).

I would however be satisfied with more solid proof, such as images, videos, anything visual.

If I were to show you a picture of a flat earth, would you believe the earth is flat? Or would you just say the picture is fake?

Quote from: "Xargo"

I would however be satisfied with more solid proof, such as images, videos, anything visual.

If I were to show you a picture of a flat earth, would you believe the earth is flat? Or would you just say the picture is fake?

How could you have one since satellites don't exist? Or do they?
Stop arguing and send me a photo if you have one. Tangible proof. Scientific proof.

How could you have one since satellites don't exist? Or do they?
Stop arguing and send me a photo if you have one.

I can't untill you answer the question.

Quote from: "Xargo"

How could you have one since satellites don't exist? Or do they?
Stop arguing and send me a photo if you have one.

I can't untill you answer the question.

You mean you won't post a photograph unless I promises to believe it's true?
Send the damn photo, would you have one.

Here's some proof on behalf of the RE theory:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm

Proof.

You mean you won't post a photograph unless I promises to believe it's true?

Since you don't want to answer my question, I'll just post a link to a thread with a picture (Note: the sun and moon were added in later). Here you go.

Xargo: Post evidence that the earth is not round.

Erasmus: [Easily verifiable, observable, valid experiment suggesting earth is not round].

Xargo: That doesn't count.

-----------

Xargo, why is your response any different from those that you claim make FE'ers stupid and ignorant?

Quote from: "Xargo"

You mean you won't post a photograph unless I promises to believe it's true?

Since you don't want to answer my question, I'll just post a link to a thread with a picture (Note: the sun and moon were added in later). Here you go.

I've seen it before.
That picture is not a photograph.
I asked kindly for a photograph. Have you none that could strengthen anything you say?

Xargo: Post evidence that the earth is not round.

Erasmus: [Easily verifiable, observable, valid experiment suggesting earth is not round].

Xargo: That doesn't count.

-----------

Xargo, why is your response any different from those that you claim make FE'ers stupid and ignorant?

You're funny.
What I said was that I did not understand anything he wrote.

I've seen it before.
That picture is not a photograph.
I asked kindly for a photograph. Have you none that could strengthen anything you say?

I'm claiming that that is a photograph.

Here's some proof on behalf of the RE theory:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm

Proof.

I read that entire page (did you?) and it offeres absolutely nothing that hasn't been discussed in depth on these forums. In fact, that page correctly goes into some depth regarding the fact that no scientific hypothesis - such as the flat earth - can be disproven, only proven unlikely.

That picture is not a photograph.
I asked kindly for a photograph. Have you none that could strengthen anything you say?

It looks like a photograph to me. Are you saying it's fake?

I'm claiming that that is a photograph.

Then who took this picture, and with what equipment?

Then who took this picture, and with what equipment?

Astronauts.
A camera.

Quote from: "Xargo"

Then who took this picture, and with what equipment?

Astronauts.
A camera.

I thought rockets haven't been properly developed yet in your world.

I thought rockets haven't been properly developed yet in your world.

I don't recall ever making any such claims.

But his is irrelevant anyway. You wanted a picture. I gave you a picture. Now do you think the earth is flat?

Quote from: "Xargo"

I thought rockets haven't been properly developed yet in your world.

I don't recall ever making any such claims.

But his is irrelevant anyway. You wanted a picture. I gave you a picture. Now do you think the earth is flat?

Why would I think the Earth is flat? I have exactly no reason.

Why would I think the Earth is flat? I have exactly no reason.

Then why did you ask for a picture?

EP showed you a photograph which clearly proved the earth is flat. How can you deny photographic evidence?

I'll help you out; what we're looking for is for you to say "But that picture isn't real, it's computer generated" to which we will reply "So are all RE photographs."

In other words, if we can't use "photographic evidence", then neither can you.

EP showed you a photograph which clearly proved the earth is flat. How can you deny photographic evidence?

I'll help you out; what we're looking for is for you to say "But that picture isn't real, it's computer generated" to which we will reply "So are all RE photographs."

In other words, if we can't use "photographic evidence", then neither can you.

Well, since the background of the flat-earth on the image misses stars, it's either corrupted, generated, painted or fake... Also, the atmosphere is too clear. It's fake. Stop "acting" fools.

Anyways, this one pic, which is not good enough in any way, seems to be the only "evidence" you've got. Next.

There are no stars "under" the earth, so obviously they would not appear on this photograph.

This is actually a compilation of a number of photographs, such that the atmosphere is removed and the continents are more plainly visible.

Anyways, this one pic, which is not good enough in any way, seems to be the only "evidence" you've got. Next.

Good enough for what? So far we've got an easily verified "scientific" experiment, and irrefutable photographic evidence, both suggesting the earth is flat. What more do you want?

There is stars over the whole Universe.
What I want? I want proof.
Actually, it's 05:41 here in my country, and I've very much enjoyed to read all your humorous answers this night

Haven't had anything else to do than to fuck with you guys.. Dont take it personally..

Earth is round, and if it isnt, who gives a damn. Im going to bed, and tomorrow I'll start reading a new book.

Good night.  :!:

Sine I am not a physician, and a lousy mathematician, you might as well write your formulas in greek. Makes no difference to me. Get a physician to register here who may explain. :/

I'm not a physician either, nor am I a formally trained physicist.  But you know, you did ask for scientific proof:

I want proof, evidence, scientific support, of the FE theories.
Anything would be fine, just post away. As long as it is scientifically reliable.

But okay, if it's not clear to you what I meant, then I'll explain:

If two objects are very close to the surface of a round Earth, but are far apart from one another (for example, two rowboats on a long, straight river), they should be obscured by the curvature of the Earth, right?  The water between them will act like a "hill".  REers bring this up all the time: it's the whole "ships on the horizon" thing.

What Samuel Rowbotham did was to compute exactly how "high" this hill of water should be.  Note that water is a good place to do the experiment because as long as it doesn't have any waves, it will be perfectly smooth and conform itself exactly to the curvature of the Earth, due to gravity.

Anyway, the exact values he calculated mean the following thing: imagine you put a very long, straight rod on the ground.  "Long" means "many miles long".  If the Earth were flat, then the rod would touch the ground the whole way.  If the Earth were round, the rod would only touch the ground at a single point (such a rod is idealized mathemetically as a "tangent" line).  Sure, the Round Earth curves very slowly, so you might not notice.  But as you get farther away from the point of tangency (the single point where the rod touches the ground) the ground will get further and further away from the rod; it will appear to be dropping away (if you imagine yourself as an ant or something walking along the rod).

Rowbotham gives a table describing how big this drop is, given how far along the rod you've gone.  I don't know how he got his values, but I got mine using simple trigonometry and the radius of the Earth given in Wikipedia, and our values were very close.

Here's how I got my formula: at the centre of the Earth, let the angle between the rod's point of tangency and your current position be, say, T.  Then the distance from the centre of the Earth to you is called the "secant of T", and the distance from you to the point of tangency is called the "tangent of T" (in both cases, the units are Earth radii; i.e. the Earth has radius 1).  If you are a distance X along the rod, then T = arctan(X).  "arctan(X)" is the angle whose tangent is X.  Therefore the distance from the centre of th Earth to you is sec T = sec arctan X.  To get the distance from you to the surface, we subtract off the distance from the surface to the centre, which is 1, to get: D = sec arctan X - 1.  I left the radius of the Earth in my formula, so that you can use whatever units you like (miles/feet/inches in the case of my and Rowbotham's tables).  I used a calculator to compute all the values by plugging in different values of X.

For references on the trigonometry I used, I recommend Wikipedia's article on the unit-circle definitions of the trigonometric functions.  In particular, look at the picture whose caption is "All of the trigonometric functions can be constructed geometrically in terms of a unit circle centred at O."

Anyway, Rowbotham found that the Earth did not curve enough to obscure his view of objects close to the surface when the calculations made using the RE model predicted they would be obscured.

If you're not clear on any particular points, feel free to ask and I'll try to clarify further.

On the issue of the proof being "mathematical": aside from having asked for scientific proof, how can you believe any "proof" that the Earth is round if you claim not to understanding the underlyng mathematics?  Pictures from space, for example, don't show an image that you cannot conclude to be anything other than a round Earth, since one thing you could conclude, for example, is that it is a faked photograph of the Earth.  You could also conclude that it is simply a restricted-field-of-view photograph of the flat Earth.  Basically, such things are not proof that the Earth is round; proof that the Earth is round should be in the form of a logically sound argument in the formal, rigorous language of mathematics, whose conclusion is that the Earth is round.  Only then can the proof be interpreted unambiguously.

"If a man needs to cross a river, he'll bend whatever he needs to bend in achieving that goal"


I say this: You FE'ers are a minority. Before you tries and take on the science that rule this entire world, do not do so without 100% certainty. You may sit down in a cellar with a calculator, figuring out that the Earth is both square and triangular at the same time, but do not claim to be right before you have seen your visionless explanations with your own eyes.

Are you too cheap to go around the earth personally? People do it every day - every day, your theory about FE is proven wrong to each one of those people. Doesn't that make you feel bad? Sitting at home only believing something, gathering new hopes of explanations to your fantasies without exploring them by heart - where does that take you?

I won't argue further since we're only walking in circles anyways. You believe whatever you want to believe. Matrix has you anyways.  :idea:


add my msn if you still think theres something unsaid in between us. ._.

I'm sorry, but that was a pretty sad response.  You asked for scientific evidence, and when provided with it, decided that you were unwilling to understand scientific evidence.  When it was explained to your more clearly, you decided that we were going in circles -- even though we didn't say anything that had been said before.

I think you weren't interested in a rational discussion to begin with.  Really, you just wanted to belittle your opponents.  You didn't take the opportunity to learn what we were really saying (or you would never have made several of the statements you did in your last post), and you didn't take the opportunity to listen to our evidence.

I don't think there's anything left unsaid between us; you thought you would do all the talking, and we would be stunned into silence.  Well, it didn't happen.