"Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.  Also, nobody has been to the edge of the Earth and lived; conditions on the Ice Wall get increasingly treacherous the further you get out, and navigation methods become unreliable that far south.  It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth.

If FEers cannot get to a height to get evidence or get to the edge of the Earth...then how do you know the answers to the following questions?

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 78225 miles
Diameter:       24,900 miles

Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, while others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: You would become directly affected by Dark Energy as the Earth is, creating the illusion that you are standing next to the Earth.

Q: "Exactly what shape is the Earth if it's flat? Square or circle?"

A: Circle, like in the UN logo. However, the earth is NOT 2D; it is in the shape of a cylinder.

Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.

Q: "If you go directly south won't you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?"

A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.

Those are impossible to answer if you don't have access to the proper height or distance to the edge of this "Flat Earth".

Do any FEers out there have any answer to this?

Science does not work by conclusively and indisputably refuting bad hypotheses.  Instead, hypotheses stand or fail on their ability to
explain known observations, and to predict the outcome of observations that haven't been performed yet.  Let's take the flat Earth
versus round earth hypotheses as an example.  A round earth is the most stable shape according to gravitational theory; a flat Earth would tend to collapse toward the center, and people standing near the edges would feel a gravitational pull toward the center of the flat surface instead of perpendicular to the surface. 

FE believers could counter that gravitational theory is wrong; magic holds us to the Earth. This may be true, but it doesn't explain why
gravitational theory works so well at explaining how things fall, and the observed trajectories of the planets and their moons.
You could tell FE believers that photographs of the Earth from space show that it is round. 
FE believers could counter that those photographs are government fakes.  Perhaps so, but we can see that other planets and moons are round; wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Earth is round, too?  FE believers could say that the earth is special and different.
You could ask how numerous people have sailed or flown around the earth if the Earth is flat.  FE believers would have to say that every one of these people, separated as they are in time and space, belongs to the same great conspiracy aimed at brainwashing us into supposing that the earth is round.  You could ask FE believers about the communications networks that are linked by satellite - how can you have satellites orbiting a flat Earth?  FE believers might then tell you that there really aren't any satellite links - everything is
connected by wires, or a close-packed array of relay antennas.

FE believers could go on and on.  As you see, there is no single fact you could tell FE believers that he couldn't dispute in some way.  If you step back and look at it, though, what kind of world would it have to be if FE believers were right?
Gravity doesn't function here like it does everywhere else in the solar system, there's a huge conspiracy reaching across hundreds of years to convince us (for no apparent reason) that the Earth is round instead of flat, the progression of the seasons, and even of day and night, are controlled by the gods. Eventually, a reasonable person would have to concede that it would make a lot more sense to agree that the Earth is indeed round.

There are some other theories to explain things that do not meet this test of scientific reasonableness, yet are still put forth and defended by many people in society.  This example of the flat Earth hypothesis lets you see how difficult it is to change someone's mind when they're set on some strange or unrealistic theory.  It also lets you see that just if a theory "can't be dis proven" doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct, or that it should be taken seriously for very long.

============================================================
Three arguments come to mind.  All of these date back to Greek times or
earlier.

1.  During lunar eclipses, the projected shadow of the Earth on the moon is always round.  If the Earth were flat, then this projection will not always be circular (it could degenerate to a line!).  But this is never observed, regardless of the time of the lunar eclipse. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote about this.  The third point, below, is also credited to Aristotle.

2. Eratosthanes (276-195(?) BCE) did a famous experiment on measuring the angle of the sun at noon in Alexandria, Egypt, and in Syrene.  Finding the difference in the angles and knowing the distance between the two points, the circumference can be calculated.  He calculated the circumference in stadia, which we do not know the conversion to our present day measure.

3. If you travel north or south a significant distance, you will see a different set of stars at night.  This will not happen on a flat surface.

Introductory astronomy texts deal with this topic.  A good reference is
George Abell  _Exploration of the Universe_

The next question is:  "Prove that the earth is moving."

=====================================================

I presume FE believers won't accept hearsay evidence (evidence collected by someone else and told to you), such as testimony from
astronauts or folks who have traveled around the world by boat, airplane or balloon.

So here are the standard facts observable by anyone which FE believers would find difficult to explain with a flat Earth hypothesis:

(1) When ships put out to see, they sink below the horizon gradually.
First the hull goes down, then the masts, like so:

                                    o
                                 --+--
                                    |
                                .  / \   .
                    .                              .
              .                                         .                 /
           .          here you can still see the mast .  |\   /
                      but the hull is below the horizon   \ \/
                                                                     \ \   
                                                                      \ \
This suggests that the Earth's surface curves away and downward from wherever you stand.  It's hard to observe this effect on land, because mountains and trees and so forth get in the way when something moves away from you before it dips below the horizon.

(2) If you climb higher, you can see further.  On top of a mountain or lighthouse, or in an airplane, you can see things that are invisible
-- below the horizon -- when you are on the ground.  For example, if you watch the Sun set, and at the very moment when the Sun is just below the horizon you climb quickly up a hundred feet, you will see the Sun again.  It is hard to explain why you can see further when you climb higher unless the Earth's surface curves downward away from you
wherever you stand.

(3) The Earth casts a shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse.  The shadow is round.

(4) When the Sun is directly overhead in any place, it is NOT directly overhead at the same time in any place a few hundred miles away:

       Sun's rays are parallel because the Sun is very far away.

     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
     V   V  V  V   V   V   V  V   V  V   V  V   V   V  V   V


                     this stick  ||
                     casts no   ||
                      shadow   ||                  this stick
                                   ||                  casts a shadow
                                .       .
                    .                              .           //.
              .                                         .     //..
           .                                               . //....
                                                            //.....
         .                     EARTH                        ....
                                                                 ...

If you were to put a stick in the ground sticking straight up at noon in New York City, then telephone a friend in Chicago to ask him to
also put a stick in the ground sticking straight up, he would see a shadow, and you would not.  This is hard to explain unless ``straight
up'' (away from the Earth's surface) points in different directions when you are at different places on the Earth's surface.  That is, the
Earth is not flat.

(5) If you travel North, you can see stars at night which you never saw before.  Since there are so many stars, you only need to travel a hundred miles or so.  The new stars are stars that were hidden below the horizon before you walked North.  How could this be true if the Earth were flat?

(6) There are tides in the oceans, which you can see at the shore, that repeat every 24 hours or so.  If the Earth were flat, then there
would be no tides, because the tides depend on their being a substantial distance between the near and far sides of the Earth, from
the point of view of the Moon.  This is kind of complicated, however.

By the way, if you look at the stars, the sun, and the moon, you do not see  any of them to be non-round.  Since you observe them at different times and from different angles, it seems plausible to say that they are round. Why should the Earth be an exception?

Cite your sources.

Quote

Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.  Also, nobody has been to the edge of the Earth and lived; conditions on the Ice Wall get increasingly treacherous the further you get out, and navigation methods become unreliable that far south.  It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth.

If FEers cannot get to a height to get evidence or get to the edge of the Earth...then how do you know the answers to the following questions?

Quote

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 78225 miles
Diameter:       24,900 miles

Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, while others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: You would become directly affected by Dark Energy as the Earth is, creating the illusion that you are standing next to the Earth.

Q: "Exactly what shape is the Earth if it's flat? Square or circle?"

A: Circle, like in the UN logo. However, the earth is NOT 2D; it is in the shape of a cylinder.

Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.

Q: "If you go directly south won't you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?"

A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.

Those are impossible to answer if you don't have access to the proper height or distance to the edge of this "Flat Earth".

Do any FEers out there have any answer to this?

Well, the circumference and diameter are estimates and based on what we've observed of the Earth.  The next question is acknowledged right in the answer to be unknown and speculative.  The third answer is theoretical based on our observations of the behavior of the UA.  The fourth one is speculative, but based on the fact that we see no sharp curves in the Ice Wall, which strongly suggests that the area within it is at least round; also compasses clearly take us in a circle around the center; what shape the Earth takes beyond the limits we've reached can only be speculated upon, and indeed, it may even be infinite.  Of course we've seen the Ice Wall to answer the fifth question; there's no doubt it exists.  The answer to the last question could, admittedly, be phrased a bit better; since the Earth might be infinite for all we know there's no reason to assume there's even an edge from which to fall; most of us feel the Earth is likely to be finite, though, and that's the model we mostly use, so since the logical conclusion of a finite Earth is that there's an edge from which to fall, that's the answer that's in the FAQ.

Now, a question for you.  Does the fact that quantum physicists insist that the graviton exists despite they themselves saying it's impossible to observe mean that QM is contradictory?

Well, the circumference and diameter are estimates and based on what we've observed of the Earth.

Estimates, which means you've actually done some research.  Could you source this please?

The next question is acknowledged right in the answer to be unknown and speculative.

So you find it more likely that there are elephants and a turtle underneath the Earth.  What causes you to think that those are what is under the Earth?  Why not go with Mythology and say that Atlas is holding the Earth up?  What causes you to think that elephants and a turtle are the most logical choice?  Why not say that the thickness of the earth is endless or something along the lines of that?

The third answer is theoretical based on our observations of the behavior of the UA.

If you're following theories, then why do all of you FEers ask us for proof when you don't have any proof to prove your ideas?

The fourth one is speculative, but based on the fact that we see no sharp curves in the Ice Wall, which strongly suggests that the area within it is at least round; also compasses clearly take us in a circle around the center; what shape the Earth takes beyond the limits we've reached can only be speculated upon, and indeed, it may even be infinite.

Just because the compass causes you to go in a circle, why would you think the Earth is circle?  The magnetic fields could just be a circle within the square, triangle or even octagon shape of a Flat Earth.  If the Earth is an infinite plane...then why would there need to be guards?  If it's inifinit then there would be no need for guards.  So that right there disproves that theory of the Earth being an infinite plane.

Of course we've seen the Ice Wall to answer the fifth question; there's no doubt it exists.

Please cite a source.

The answer to the last question could, admittedly, be phrased a bit better; since the Earth might be infinite for all we know there's no reason to assume there's even an edge from which to fall; most of us feel the Earth is likely to be finite, though, and that's the model we mostly use, so since the logical conclusion of a finite Earth is that there's an edge from which to fall, that's the answer that's in the FAQ.

Infinite plane already disproven, sorry.

Now, a question for you.  Does the fact that quantum physicists insist that the graviton exists despite they themselves saying it's impossible to observe mean that QM is contradictory?

I have never once heard that it is impossible to observe that.  Please cite your sources.



The more I read your ideas and theories, the more I feel you're trying to make some type of religious statement and that you don't really believe in any of this.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 06, 2009, 10:36:29 AM

The next question is acknowledged right in the answer to be unknown and speculative.

So you find it more likely that there are elephants and a turtle underneath the Earth.  What causes you to think that those are what is under the Earth?  Why not go with Mythology and say that Atlas is holding the Earth up?  What causes you to think that elephants and a turtle are the most logical choice?  Why not say that the thickness of the earth is endless or something along the lines of that?

That's a joke. 

Why would I need to cite any sources?  You didn't ask for evidence of our theories, you asked for clarification about the FAQ.  How do you think it's contradictory?

That's a joke. 

Flat Earth Theory?

Why would I need to cite any sources?

Because FEers always need sources from REers, so why not the other way around?

You didn't ask for evidence of our theories, you asked for clarification about the FAQ.

And now I'm asking for clarification.  So could you please stop going around it and clarify it for me, please.

How do you think it's contradictory?

Because you say the Earth is infinite, yet you say the Earth is round.  If the Earth were an infinite plane then it would continue on in all directions and would not have a shape.

The difference between the Flat Earth Theory and the REer's Spherical Earth is that we only have one answer for what we call facts and FEers have multiple answers, which all mostly contradict one another.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 06, 2009, 11:29:17 AM

How do you think it's contradictory?

Because you say the Earth is infinite, yet you say the Earth is round.  If the Earth were an infinite plane then it would continue on in all directions and would not have a shape.

It is true, FET in its modern form is still relatively young and some things are still unknown and speculative, such as the true extent of the Earth.  We have multiple theories concerning it that are at odds with each other; that doesn't make FET as a whole contradictory.

It is true, FET in its modern form is still relatively young and some things are still unknown and speculative, such as the true extent of the Earth.  We have multiple theories concerning it that are at odds with each other; that doesn't make FET as a whole contradictory.

You still haven't given any proof...or are you forgetting what you read at the beginning of my post?


How old is your theory? 

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 06, 2009, 11:29:17 AM

That's a joke. 

Flat Earth Theory?

No, just the "elephant and turtle" part was a joke.  The point of whoever wrote the FAQ was that we have no idea what's under the Earth.  It could be an elephant and turtle, for all we know.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 06, 2009, 11:29:17 AM

Why would I need to cite any sources?

Because FEers always need sources from REers, so why not the other way around?

You're trying to disprove our theories, so it's only common courtesy for you to cite sources.  But, if you insist, we do have sources.  You should look in the FE Information Repository.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 06, 2009, 11:29:17 AM

How do you think it's contradictory?

Because you say the Earth is infinite, yet you say the Earth is round.  If the Earth were an infinite plane then it would continue on in all directions and would not have a shape.

Technically, yes.  However, we live in what you might call an "empty space" in the middle of the Ice Wall.  This is a circle, and the center is what we normally call the North Pole.

You're trying to disprove our theories, so it's only common courtesy for you to cite sources.  But, if you insist, we do have sources.  You should look in the FE Information Repository.

You could just start sourcing stuff in here because I can't respond to your closed topics and such that have your so called "proof".

Technically, yes.  However, we live in what you might call an "empty space" in the middle of the Ice Wall.  This is a circle, and the center is what we normally call the North Pole.

FEers have been saying the Earth is a circle...that's it.  No one has ever said that what's within the ice wall is the circle.  I keep seeing all of you constantly mixing up your ideas.  If you want to try and say that there is a Flat Earth then all of you have to have the same views and not a whole bunch of mixed views.

I still have yet to see the slightest of proof of there being a Flat Earth.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 06, 2009, 10:36:29 AM

Now, a question for you.  Does the fact that quantum physicists insist that the graviton exists despite they themselves saying it's impossible to observe mean that QM is contradictory?

I have never once heard that it is impossible to observe that.  Please cite your sources.

This is the one point you bring up where a source, perhaps, is appropriate.  Here you go:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0601/0601043v3.pdf

Can Gravitons Be Detected?

Tony Rothman ∗ and Stephen Boughn?

 Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544
? Haverford College,
Haverford, PA 19041

LATEX-ed February 4, 2008

Abstract
Freeman Dyson has questioned whether any conceivable experiment in the
real universe can detect a single graviton. If not, is it meaningful to talk about
gravitons as physical entities? We attempt to answer Dyson?s question and find
it is possible concoct an idealized thought experiment capable of detecting one
graviton; however, when anything remotely resembling realistic physics is taken
into account, detection becomes impossible, indicating that Dyson?s conjecture
is very likely true.

Foundations of Physics 36 (2006) 1801-1825

It's an interesting article, if you wish to read it in its entirety.

This is the one point you bring up where a source, perhaps, is appropriate.  Here you go:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0601/0601043v3.pdf

Do you honestly think I'm gonna download something from you that's probably filled with viruses?

Quote

Can Gravitons Be Detected?

Tony Rothman ∗ and Stephen Boughn?

 Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544
? Haverford College,
Haverford, PA 19041

LATEX-ed February 4, 2008

Abstract
Freeman Dyson has questioned whether any conceivable experiment in the
real universe can detect a single graviton. If not, is it meaningful to talk about
gravitons as physical entities? We attempt to answer Dyson?s question and find
it is possible concoct an idealized thought experiment capable of detecting one
graviton; however, when anything remotely resembling realistic physics is taken
into account, detection becomes impossible, indicating that Dyson?s conjecture
is very likely true.

Foundations of Physics 36 (2006) 1801-1825

It's an interesting article, if you wish to read it in its entirety.

You're basing it off of what one person said?

The Graviton is an idea that gravity is composed of actual matter, but it is still unknown why mass and distance causes gravity.  A Graviton is just a theory.  At this point gravity is simply considered a universal force caused by mass and distance.

FEers don't even have the same amount of proof as REers have theories, which is kind of sad.

Do you honestly think I'm gonna download something from you that's probably filled with viruses?

Then why the hell are you asking for sources?

The Graviton is an idea that gravity is composed of actual matter

The Graviton is an idea that "gravity" is carried by a particle due the success of the Standard Model, not that "gravity" is composed of actual matter.

At this point gravity is simply considered a universal force caused by mass and distance.

A fictitious force, of course. It is a force that acts instantaneously across any distances, and it does not apply to objects without mass. Magic.

Quote from: TheSphericalist on April 06, 2009, 12:55:48 PM

Do you honestly think I'm gonna download something from you that's probably filled with viruses?

Then why the hell are you asking for sources?

Usually people provide links to websites that have "proof" of something, not downloadable files that could possibly have viruses.  Wikipedia is not a valid source, so don't use that or anything like it.  I'll know if the source is reliable or not, so don't give me any half assed websites.

All of REers sources would most likely be considered part of the conspiracy that the FEers dreamt up.

In fact, I feel that the "Flat Earth Theory" is a conspiracy. 

well, the cornell university library is quite a trustworth and virus-free source i'd say 

Quote from: Jack on April 06, 2009, 02:12:50 PM

Quote from: TheSphericalist on April 06, 2009, 12:55:48 PM

Do you honestly think I'm gonna download something from you that's probably filled with viruses?

Then why the hell are you asking for sources?

Usually people provide links to websites that have "proof" of something, not downloadable files that could possibly have viruses.

For the love of God, it's a PDF.  It does not have any viruses.  We're not fucking criminals.

In fact, I feel that the "Flat Earth Theory" is a conspiracy. 

Old.

well, the cornell university library is quite a trustworth and virus-free source i'd say 

Ok, could you get some of those books and scan them in the computer and upload them onto this site?  Thanks.

For the love of God, it's a PDF.  It does not have any viruses.  We're not fucking criminals.

PDFs could carry viruses.
In fact, I feel that the "Flat Earth Theory" is a conspiracy. 

Old.

But true.

In fact, I feel that the "Flat Earth Theory" is a conspiracy. 

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on April 06, 2009, 03:12:43 PM

Old.

But true.

Horrific quotefail, and I've fix'd it for you.  But could you elaborate on what you mean by a "conspiracy"?  I don't recall any members of this website planning any crimes together.

Quote from: iznih on April 06, 2009, 02:54:56 PM

well, the cornell university library is quite a trustworth and virus-free source i'd say 

Ok, could you get some of those books and scan them in the computer and upload them onto this site?  Thanks.

i don't live anywhere near cornell and that pdf is a scientific paper and not a book. if you're really interested in it, authors and abstract were posted so you can do the googling yourself

Horrific quotefail

Just amazing.

But could you elaborate on what you mean by a "conspiracy"?  I don't recall any members of this website planning any crimes together.

You're trying to get people to think the Earth is flat for financial gain.

i don't live anywhere near cornell and that pdf is a scientific paper and not a book. if you're really interested in it, authors and abstract were posted so you can do the googling yourself

I'm not really interested, I'm just trying to get some proof out of you that doesn't require me to travel.  It's just all part of the conspiracy.

You're trying to get people to think the Earth is flat for financial gain.

This website doesn't make any money at all.  There are no fees, no items for sale, or even any ads.

Quote from: TheSphericalist on April 06, 2009, 04:12:22 PM

You're trying to get people to think the Earth is flat for financial gain.

This website doesn't make any money at all.  There are no fees, no items for sale, or even any ads.

Not yet anyways.  I've heard about your plans.  You want us to think there is all this land out there and then you'll "claim it" and try selling it to us.  Oh, but you won't get me.

Quote from: iznih on April 06, 2009, 03:36:16 PM

i don't live anywhere near cornell and that pdf is a scientific paper and not a book. if you're really interested in it, authors and abstract were posted so you can do the googling yourself

I'm not really interested, I'm just trying to get some proof out of you that doesn't require me to travel.  It's just all part of the conspiracy.

i don't believe in a fla earth. and i really don't care about the whole fe re disussion anymore. but gravitons are interesting from a scientific point of view and roundy pointed you to an interesting paper on that topic. if you want to educate yourself: good. if not: i couldn't care less.

it's rather unimportant for the discussion anyway

Wikipedia is not a valid source, so don't use that or anything like it.

It's not a valid source, but we can still use it here for three reasons:

1. Nobody is writing a research paper here. This is just a forum; it's not an academy. So long as the source supports your argument, use it.

2. If you think the Wikipedian article is not valid, you may go and change it. Otherwise, there is no reason not to use Wikipedia to support your arguments here.

3. Using Wikipedia may make your argument less compelling, but that is irrelevant.

Science does not work by conclusively and indisputably refuting bad hypotheses...
...Why should the Earth be an exception?

Well told, sir.

Quote from: TheSphericalist on April 06, 2009, 02:28:58 PM

Wikipedia is not a valid source, so don't use that or anything like it.

It's not a valid source, but we can still use it here for three reasons:

1. Nobody is writing a research paper here. This is just a forum; it's not an academy. So long as the source supports your argument, use it.

2. If you think the Wikipedian article is not valid, you may go and change it. Otherwise, there is no reason not to use Wikipedia to support your arguments here.

3. Using Wikipedia may make your argument less compelling, but that is irrelevant.

Well then you'll be very disappointed because Wikipedia says that the Earth is a sphere.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 06, 2009, 12:38:17 PM

This is the one point you bring up where a source, perhaps, is appropriate.  Here you go:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0601/0601043v3.pdf

Do you honestly think I'm gonna download something from you that's probably filled with viruses?

 

Roundy is actually the only person I'd trust in this scenario. You're safe.

So long as the source supports your argument, use it.

I believe Blacks are dirty workshy layabouts that like to get drunk and rape white women on pay day.

My source is the StormFront website. Is that OK?

Dear me, at best this website is supposed to be some kind of debating forum. The least you could do is learn proper debating techniques. (And your post above is so riddled with self contradiction it hurts)