Proofs-thread

How does that picture explain solar eclipses?(sp?)

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.

the major flaw with this "proof" is that it is trying to measure the arc over "standing water". that is impossible because i) sea water is never "standing", and any lake would be too small to account for interference  ii) interference of tides iii) it is complete crap, how can you verify the accuracy, validity and indeed precision of his data, he could have made it up to fit the formulars...

Although the data is slightly off, at 1 mile the curvature should be 7.98 inches, not over 8, it is relatively correct.  What he doesnt take into account is local geography.  Although theoretically all of this information is accurate it does not take into account tidal and geographical instances or even confirm that the ground that it was performed on was not off kilter from actual or rather overall curvature of the earth.

i'm gunna go out on a limb and say, the only way to prove the earth is flat is to perform your experiment in a swimming pool

and b.t.w. the AIM was to prove the EARTH was flat, not one particular section of it... indeed, there are sections of earth that would seem flat when viewed from space, thats why they call it a "geoid", its not a perfect sphere, so any region you perform this experiment would yield a different result...

thats why his accuracy is questionable

The average curvature of the surface of a body of water would not be affected by local geography.

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.

lol. No, i did not "choose" not to believe it. How could I believe something that I do not understand? I know nothing about complex maths, and this I'm quite sure I stated immediately.

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.

Did I? I though you did.
You have nothing to learn. What you have is one flawed mathimatical principal, and one computer-made picture. What evidence are you talking about then? :p

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.

No, I did not. I thought you would bring me actual rational proof instead of more stacks of mumbo-jumbo. Since this whole belief is nothing but mumbo-jumbo in the first place, maybe I was asking for too much.

And what happened to this thread?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2750
I find it quite interesting. Explain Dr's phenomanical discoveries without making things up this time.

the major flaw with this "proof" is that it is trying to measure the arc over "standing water". that is impossible because i) sea water is never "standing", and any lake would be too small to account for interference

I'm glad to see you all read the article.  Rowbotham gives a detailed account of the geographical features of the river on which he's doing the experiment, as opposed to the lake or ocean.

As for the body being too small -- look at the numbers.  He did it over six miles of river.

ii) interference of tides

How exactly would tides interfere?  Tides don't flatten out water.

iii) it is complete crap, how can you verify the accuracy, validity and indeed precision of his data, he could have made it up to fit the formulars...

But of course, this is my favourite objection.  The canned response can be none other than, "Okay so you're saying he's part of a conspiracy to convince the world that it is flat.  Why would he lie about a thing like that?  What would the motive be?"

Although the data is slightly off, at 1 mile the curvature should be 7.98 inches, not over 8,

You must've used a different number for the radius of the Earth than I did.  I used the mean radius of the Earth (6372.797 km, from Wikipedia) divided by the number of statute miles in a kilometer (1.609344 mi/km, also from Wikipedia) to get the radius in miles (3959.9).

What he doesnt take into account is local geography.

Actually, he does.

Also, actually, geographical features such as turns in the river could only serve to obstruct his view, not reveal features obstructed by the land.  Unless you want to try to claim that the water in the river will flow uphill -- but he gives a fairly detailed description of the river and its features.

In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and (except at the part referred to at page 16) passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary--often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists.

Although theoretically all of this information is accurate it does not take into account tidal and geographical instances

I'm still not sure what these influences are that keep getting referred to.  Are you saying that the tide might flatten out a 24-foot dropoff?

or even confirm that the ground that it was performed on was not off kilter from actual or rather overall curvature of the earth.

How would that have any effect on the surface of the water?  The surface of calm water takes a shape that simultaneously minimizes the surface area and gravitational potential energy (sorry Xargo).  In other words, if it were flat on a round Earth, the water at the ends (which would be higher up) would flow towards the middle to balance out and make it rounder.  Calm water ought to be convex regardless of the shape of the river bottom.

I'm sorry I had to sign off last night before I could explain the point I was trying to make Xargo.
What I was trying to get across was that pictures are worthless as a means of evidence. If I show you a picture, you'll just say it's fake, and if you show me a picture I'll just say it's fake. So you really don't have much of a choice, you have to use evidence like what Erasmus is using here.

hmm tthat book you linked erasmus is interesting, of course you'd have to verify it to believe it (and i'm not about to go stand in a canal for any length of time), although his diagrams were embellished a bit. I'm not sure if i trust his reading that were done by hand)

might be an idea to get a laser on the back of a boat and test it on the canal - could get accurate reading on it for the height.

although if the world were flat you could  simply go to the coast of normandy, and the coast of south england and do the same.


on lying something on the ground, having it touch/not touch the ground, it would probably bend from gravity - nvm trying to find a flat space to place it

hmm tthat book you linked erasmus is interesting,

Glad to see you had a look at it... it's more than most people are willing to do.

of course you'd have to verify it to believe it (and i'm not about to go stand in a canal for any length of time),

Nor am I about to go up in space for any length of time, nor am I about to do the torsion balance experiment in my apartment, nor am I about to construct Foucault's Pendulum, etc...

Since neither of us is willing to attempt to reproduce the experimental results that the other puts forth, we can choose to accept either all of them or none of them.  Considering they appear to be contradictory, perhaps we should accept none of them.

although his diagrams were embellished a bit.

For clarity only, unless you have a more specific complaint.  Look through any physics text and find me an "unembellished" diagram, where I'm thinking that by "embellished" you mean "not very realistic."

I'm not sure if i trust his reading that were done by hand)might be an idea to get a laser on the back of a boat and test it on the canal - could get accurate reading on it for the height.

His margins for error were reasonable huge.  He basically claimed that from "a few inches", he could see objects six miles away that were "a couple of feet" off the ground.  The ground, however, should, were the Earth flat, have dropped twenty-four feet, which is an order of magnitude greater that his measurements.  So if there was any error, it would surely be dwarfed by the Earth's curvature.

although if the world were flat you could  simply go to the coast of normandy, and the coast of south england and do the same.

The problem with that is that FEers have an alternate explanation for why you can't see arbitrarily far.

how did humans make the first mathamatically true flat surface?

but these guys don't believe in scientific proof. They believe scientists are "wierd" people who have nothing to do with creating technology and touch peoples genitalia too much.

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(?).

im guessing a great deal of crack and an F in science sence the 2nd grade

Yep. And everytime you tries to talk some sense into them, they just announce you stupid, part of the conspiracy or unable to understand.

Or, "Don't step on my ground!", as any good conservatist would say. "Let me believe what I believe and leave me alone!". Like a three year old baby.

im guessing a great deal of crack and an F in science sence the 2nd grade

Many, if not most, of the active FE posters have rather extensive backgrouns in the physical sciences; certainly moreso than the average RE poster.

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

Then how can you deny this?:



You can't just say "Ha! I've got a picture, you must be wrong!"

Maybe I can put this in words you will understand:

In regards to your sphere earth pictures;

And so does yours.

Why go so low to just insult my intelligence without making an intelligent post yourself?

I'm sorry, but you must understand; it is pretty much standard fare for every new member to do a google image search for "EARTH", link a few alleged space photos, and say "HA! GOT YOU!"

Yes, our FE diagram is computer generated.
Likewise, FE'ers think all photographs showing the round earth from space are computer generated, or otherwise faked/forged.

In other words, posting photographs of the earth from space are not valid evidence within the context of this dicussion.

That's what I said if you paid attention.

A picture of the flat earth was posted. Someone said that you can not deny this proof. I said that's just like saying "Here, I'm going to post this picture of the Earth, so you can't deny it's round."

Ok then, it looks like we were both making the same point.

I figured that, since the first two pages of this thread were dedicated almost exclusively to making that point, it did not need further elaboration here, by you. Trust me, FE'ers are more than aware of the bar on photographic evidence of that nature.

Unimportant wrote: Many, if not most, of the active FE posters have rather extensive backgrouns in the physical sciences; certainly moreso than the average RE poster.


What the fuck would you know buddy. I guess your psychic too hey?

Unimportant wrote: Many, if not most, of the active FE posters have rather extensive backgrouns in the physical sciences; certainly moreso than the average RE poster.


What the fuck would you know buddy. I guess your psychic too hey?

I assume he was going by post content...silly him, right?

Yeh what a dumbass. I'm guessing he probably is part of a group of scientists/academics having a good laugh over all this...
Myself? University level physics, Biology and some chemistry classes....

In other words, posting photographs of the earth from space are not valid evidence within the context of this dicussion.

Oh, how convenient. The RE's have a piece of un-deniable evidence, but the FE's simply choose to say it's not reliable. Wake up fuck heads. At least we can produce photos, hundreds of them. You guys have ONE picture which you agree is only a diagram.

Oh, how convenient. The RE's have a piece of un-deniable evidence, but the FE's simply choose to say it's not reliable. Wake up fuck heads. At least we can produce photos, hundreds of them. You guys have ONE picture which you agree is only a diagram.

Yes, it's almost as if some agency or another is actively trying to propogate the belief that the earth is a sphere...

These pictures come from different bodies from all around the world. Tell ya what, if they are that good, why are you guys so bad. Surely, shouldn't you guys have raised some cash to take some more photos to proove your theory.

This is beyond stupid it's comical. There is a good reason these organisation wish to convince us the world is a sphere.... IT IS!

Yeh what a dumbass. I'm guessing he probably is part of a group of scientists/academics having a good laugh over all this...
Myself? University level physics, Biology and some chemistry classes....

And even with such a limited resume you're far better than most RE'ers. See what I mean?