Your arguments are invalid.

After looking around here, your only defense that the Earth is flat consists of the following:

1. There is no proof that the Earth is round.
2. The Earth appears flat from ground level.

There IS proof that the Earth is round and the only reason the Earth appears flat is because it is too large for the curve to become apparent to an observer at ground level.  For the Earth to appear round, one would need to be at an incredibly high altitude, much higher than the altitude airplanes fly at.  But, according to you lunatics, space flight is impossible for reasons no one has explained.

But, here is my argument: there IS proof that the Earth is round and here it is.

Regardless of whether you say that image is fake or not, we have provided evidence that the Earth is round.  You have provided nothing.  So until you provide an image of the planet in its entirety as a disc, your argument is invalid and no way to make it valid until you have either provided evidence of your own or have proved that our evidence is not real.

Regardless of whether you say that image is fake or not, we have provided evidence that the Earth is round.  You have provided nothing.  So until you provide an image of the planet in its entirety as a disc, your argument is invalid and no way to make it valid until you have either provided evidence of your own or have proved that our evidence is not real.

Even if that image were real it would prove nothing but that the Earth appears spherical from high altitudes.

Quote from: Seņor R. on May 31, 2010, 03:53:17 PM

Regardless of whether you say that image is fake or not, we have provided evidence that the Earth is round.  You have provided nothing.  So until you provide an image of the planet in its entirety as a disc, your argument is invalid and no way to make it valid until you have either provided evidence of your own or have proved that our evidence is not real.

Even if that image were real it would prove nothing but that the Earth appears spherical from high altitudes.

If the Earth appears spherical from a high altitude
it is a sphere.

Quote from: Seņor R. on May 31, 2010, 03:53:17 PM

Regardless of whether you say that image is fake or not, we have provided evidence that the Earth is round.  You have provided nothing.  So until you provide an image of the planet in its entirety as a disc, your argument is invalid and no way to make it valid until you have either provided evidence of your own or have proved that our evidence is not real.

Even if that image were real it would prove nothing but that the Earth appears spherical from high altitudes.

Thats some nice zetetic thinking right thar.
Oh wait no it isn't.
If you see a spherical earth,you build off that undeniable fact.Isn't this part of the zetetic method?

The Question has a point...

Zeteticism...
FE'er: The Earth appears flat when I look outside my window.  Therefore, the Earth is flat.
RE'er: Here's a picture of Earth as seen from Apollo 17. 
FE'er: Well... just because it appears spherical doesn't mean it really is.

You guys are just horrible.

Quote

Even if that image were real it would prove nothing but that the Earth appears spherical from high altitudes.

If the Earth appears spherical from a high altitude
it is a sphere.

This statement absolutely astounds me.  How hypocritical.

Thats some nice zetetic thinking right thar.
Oh wait no it isn't.
If you see a spherical earth,you build off that undeniable fact.Isn't this part of the zetetic method?

I've already seen a flat Earth.  Seems a wash to me.

The Question has a point...

Zeteticism...
FE'er: The Earth appears flat when I look outside my window.  Therefore, the Earth is flat.
RE'er: Here's a picture of Earth as seen from Apollo 17.  
FE'er: Well... just because it appears spherical doesn't mean it really is.

You guys are just horrible.

I'm not saying the Earth isn't spherical.  I'm just saying that the appearance of sphericity from a high altitude doesn't prove the Earth is spherical.  I likewise would never claim that the appearance of flatness from the surface proves the Earth is flat.

Don't bother.
The people here are either die hard believers who will only believe the Earth is flat and nothing else regardless of anything they see OR are people who simply like to pretend they believe in it to frustrate people like you.

Winning is impossible when the other team doesn't admit it defeat.

I guess I bothered.

Lol, it's not a wash, Roundy. I've seen a flat horizon as everyone else has, but that flat horizon is a consequence of our being locked in a cage. We are locked in the cage of low altitudes. Space exploration is a grand sweeping achievement in the history of the cosmos, (whether or not humans did it first) giving us a humbling perspective of our planet and everything else in the universe. Certainly the narrowminded flat horizon perspective is naive.

Any smooth surface, whether a sphere, ellipsoid, paraboloid, hyperboloid, sanded cube, etc., looks flat when viewed on arbitrarily small scales. But would you claim any of these things are actually flat? When we refer to the shape of something, we talk about its structure on the grandest of scales and not from a local naive perspective. The shape of the world looks like a cube to me right now because I am in a cubical. But that would be naive, wouldn't it? We can only free all observational naivety when we view our planet from the grandest of scales. Therefore the close perspective is inferior and it is NOT a wash at all.

This statement absolutely astounds me.  How hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical at all.

You're seeing the planet from the point of view of its surface, making a fair judgement impossible.

I'm looking at a view from space at which I can see the entire planet and make it out to be a sphere, which gives me a pretty good judgement.

It's simple statistics as well. The more data you have, the smaller uncertainty you have about trends in that data. Therefore, the more of the earth you can see at once and have as observational data, the more certain you can be of its shape. Since when looking at a flat horizon you can barely see any of the earth, you can't be very certain about its overall shape with that observation alone. So high-altitude sightings are FAR superior.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2010, 04:41:00 PM

This statement absolutely astounds me.  How hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical at all.

You're seeing the planet from the point of view of its surface, making a fair judgement impossible.

I'm looking at a view from space at which I can see the entire planet and make it out to be a sphere, which gives me a pretty good judgement.

So there are factors involved that might make a spherical object look flat from close up, but similar factors causing a flat object to look spherical from far away are just inconceivable?  I admit, it might not be hypocrisy at all.  It might just be that you're unable to recognize the fallacy inherent in your argument.

It's simple statistics as well. The more data you have, the smaller uncertainty you have about trends in that data. Therefore, the more of the earth you can see at once and have as observational data, the more certain you can be of its shape. Since when looking at a flat horizon you can barely see any of the earth, you can't be very certain about its overall shape with that observation alone. So high-altitude sightings are FAR superior.

I'm not talking about which shape is more statistically likely.  I agree with you that the Earth is more likely round than flat.  My only point is that observing the Earth as spherical from thousands of miles away doesn't prove that the Earth is spherical, as there may be mitigating factors we're not taking into consideration skewing our observation of the data.  To suggest that there are definitely mitigating factors when observing the Earth up close, but opposing mitigating factors can't exist when observing the Earth from far away, just smacks of bias toward the round Earth position.

No not really, you just get more certain the more of the earth you can see at once. The factor is sample size, and uncertainty gets infinitesimal when you see the horizon curve in on itself. I don't see good reason to believe why there would be other mitigating factors inherent to looking at the earth from far away that aren't still mitigating factors when looking at the earth from close up, and if there are good reasons, please present them. The mere possibility of it isn't sufficient reason to withhold judgment about the shape of the earth. Otherwise we know nothing at all except our own existence.

Just so we're clear here, I'm reasonably certain Roundy is just 'devil's advocating' for FE, he's usually very careful to not proclaim belief in FET, just points out flaws in RE arguments.

Just so we're clear here, I'm reasonably certain Roundy is just 'devil's advocating' for FE, he's usually very careful to not proclaim belief in FET, just points out flaws in RE arguments.

If an alleged devil's advocate can find so many flaws in your airtight round-earth arguments, then maybe they aren't as sound as you think.  It's time you let go your shackles of indoctrination and begin to see the world for what it really is; a flat disc.  I have high hopes for you General Disarray, I foresee that one day we can count you among our ranks as a brother.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 31, 2010, 10:57:14 PM

Just so we're clear here, I'm reasonably certain Roundy is just 'devil's advocating' for FE, he's usually very careful to not proclaim belief in FET, just points out flaws in RE arguments.

If an alleged devil's advocate can find so many flaws in your airtight round-earth arguments, then maybe they aren't as sound as you think.  It's time you let go your shackles of indoctrination and begin to see the world for what it really is; a flat disc.  I have high hopes for you General Disarray, I foresee that one day we can count you among our ranks as a brother.

Unfortunately whatever the flaws for RET are (I haven't seen any; please point some out), I can already assure you that the flaws in FET are astronomically worse.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 31, 2010, 10:57:14 PM

Just so we're clear here, I'm reasonably certain Roundy is just 'devil's advocating' for FE, he's usually very careful to not proclaim belief in FET, just points out flaws in RE arguments.

If an alleged devil's advocate can find so many flaws in your airtight round-earth arguments, then maybe they aren't as sound as you think.  It's time you let go your shackles of indoctrination and begin to see the world for what it really is; a flat disc.  I have high hopes for you General Disarray, I foresee that one day we can count you among our ranks as a brother.

For one thing, Roundy is not merely an alleged devil's advocate, he has admitted to being one.  He has also admitted on several occasions (including in this very thread) that he acknowledges that RET is more likely to be true than FET.  Also, devil's advocate or not, it would be a gross exaggeration to claim that he has truly found "so many flaws" in round-earth arguments (though it is true that a few of the less scientifically literate among the RE'ers have made some fallacious arguments).  Whatever real or imagined (mostly imagined) flaws exist in round-earth-arguments, they pale into insignificance compared to the flaws in FET.  There are, after all, very good reasons why Roundy is only a devil's advocate and not a true advocate.  Live with it!

Quote from: General Disarray on May 31, 2010, 10:57:14 PM

Just so we're clear here, I'm reasonably certain Roundy is just 'devil's advocating' for FE, he's usually very careful to not proclaim belief in FET, just points out flaws in RE arguments.

If an alleged devil's advocate can find so many flaws in your airtight round-earth arguments, then maybe they aren't as sound as you think.  It's time you let go your shackles of indoctrination and begin to see the world for what it really is; a flat disc.  I have high hopes for you General Disarray, I foresee that one day we can count you among our ranks as a brother.

Did I say the arguments were bulletproof?

I would be glad to convert, if only I saw a piece of evidence from your side. Would you care to produce some?

It really, really annoys me when people continue to accept the "Earth looks like a flat plane at ground level" argument - IT DOES NOT.
If it looked like we were on a flat plane we would NOT see the horizon a mere few miles away, regardless of the dribble that the flat guys like to spout about atmospheric clarity. I would be able to see France from my house. I'd be able to see the Isle Of Wight from Eastbourne. The reason I can't see these things is because the earth DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A FLAT PLANE.