Why do you think the Earth is round?

Dear Robotic Steve and all others to whom it may concern,

I believe the earth is round because of the logical weight of evidence from respectable scientists and science agencies, not the tinpot tinkerings of some unknown theorist in his garden shed

Professor, is that a list of your qualifications under your avatar there?

Why yes it is

Odd, you'd think someone with a Bachelors Degree in Science would know the acronym is BSc, not BsC.

Stop bullsh*tting why don't you.

. . . and CCSA =  Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

You've been popping too many pills mate!   

. . . and CCSA =  Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

You've been popping too many pills mate!   

CCSA (Certification in Control Self Assessment) Its an accounting thing, you wouldnt understand

You ignored my point.

Also, surely a distinguished academic such as yourself will have published some papers over the years. Strange that when i google you, there are no matches. None at all.

Do you have a link to your homepage at Oxford University so i can peruse the research you've been working on?

No? Thought not.

CCSA (Certification in Control Self Assessment) Its an accounting thing, you wouldnt understand

Oh but I would!

Did you know that there are only 3 types of accountant?

Guys, let's keep discussion of the prof's 'qualifications' out of the serious boards.

Quote from: nocreyente on July 20, 2009, 10:59:50 PM

I know the earth is Round because:

1.- I flew a Jetfighter in southamerica, near to 60.000 fts, and saw the earth curvature. (4th group-IV Brigade FACh- In Punta Arenas-Chile) this city is the more austral in the world. near to Antartica.

I too have flown in Jet Fighters. It's a good thing unsubstantiated claims on the internet don't count for much on the internet- otherwise every employee in the history of NASA would have posted here.

That doesn't mean that you were at the top fo ceiling flying on a jet fighter. I was a pilot of "CHILEAN AIR FORCE", I did things on my jet that you couldn't do as civilian. I don't care about NASA, Chile is an independent goverment that doesn't have business with NASA nor another space agency. Visit Chile and Chilean Antartic territory. Chile have Continental territory, Antartic territory and insular territory. don't believe in my word, don't care really, but answer me the things I say about the FE Map.

Quote from: nocreyente on July 20, 2009, 10:59:50 PM

2.- Live in the most large country (north to south) in the world, and traveled accross in car, From Arica to Chiloe- In Plane (Comercial and Military) From Arica (north) to Antartica (South) more than 6.000 km from North to south (and I saw the time and other stuff that can be prove and demostrated by RE maps).

3.- Your map is less than accurate in show the real size of Argentina and Chile (that's is so important) Earth is not only the north hemisphere, so you are wrong there. Show an accurate FE map what can prove the real distance that I know by empiric experience of southamerica.

The current FE map is only an approximation, and many here believe some of the details on that map are fundamentally wrong. For example, a ot of us think the earth may in fact look something like this:




All of these maps are based on RET projections, so some degree of distortion is to be expected.

Once again, your map is wrong, Southamerica in this new map is much longer and so thin, Chile in this new map is longer than Africa, so was to be 8.000 km long, 4.000 km longer than continental Chile territory. And the distance between Lima and Rio de Janeiro has to be a few hundred miles, not the 3.700 km that I know.
Please stop deforming my continent and my country, my house suffers with the modifications.

...so some degree of distortion is to be expected.?
Is so wrong and distorted.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 04:30:58 AM

Quote from: nocreyente on July 20, 2009, 10:59:50 PM

I know the earth is Round because:

1.- I flew a Jetfighter in southamerica, near to 60.000 fts, and saw the earth curvature. (4th group-IV Brigade FACh- In Punta Arenas-Chile) this city is the more austral in the world. near to Antartica.

I too have flown in Jet Fighters. It's a good thing unsubstantiated claims on the internet don't count for much on the internet- otherwise every employee in the history of NASA would have posted here.

That doesn't mean that you were at the top fo ceiling flying on a jet fighter. I was a pilot, I did things on my jet that you can't imagine. I don't care about NASA, Chile is an independent goverment.

Oh, I've flown the U-2. It goes very high, I can assure you. Lucky I don't have to back any of this up, eh?

Once again, your map is wrong, Southamerica in this new map is much longer and so thin, Chile in this new map is longer than Africa, so was to be 8.000 km long, 4.000 km longer than continental Chile territory. And the distance between Lima and Rio de Janeiro has to be a few hundred miles, no the 3.700 km that I know.
Please stop deforming my continent and my country, my house suffers with the modifications.

...so some degree of distortion is to be expected.?
Is so wrong and distorted.

It is only meant to be an approximation. Relax, I'm not here to deform your country. These maps are based on RE projections, so they don't actually match the Flat Earth as it really is.

Quote from: nocreyente on July 21, 2009, 08:36:41 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 04:30:58 AM

Quote from: nocreyente on July 20, 2009, 10:59:50 PM

I know the earth is Round because:

1.- I flew a Jetfighter in southamerica, near to 60.000 fts, and saw the earth curvature. (4th group-IV Brigade FACh- In Punta Arenas-Chile) this city is the more austral in the world. near to Antartica.

I too have flown in Jet Fighters. It's a good thing unsubstantiated claims on the internet don't count for much on the internet- otherwise every employee in the history of NASA would have posted here.

That doesn't mean that you were at the top fo ceiling flying on a jet fighter. I was a pilot, I did things on my jet that you can't imagine. I don't care about NASA, Chile is an independent goverment.

Oh, I've flown the U-2. It goes very high, I can assure you. Lucky I don't have to back any of this up, eh?

I know by a simple thing that you never flew on a Lockheed U2... at 21000 km above the earth. you would have changed your thoughts about FE. Is a fact.

Quote from: nocreyente on July 21, 2009, 08:36:41 AM

Once again, your map is wrong, Southamerica in this new map is much longer and so thin, Chile in this new map is longer than Africa, so was to be 8.000 km long, 4.000 km longer than continental Chile territory. And the distance between Lima and Rio de Janeiro has to be a few hundred miles, no the 3.700 km that I know.
Please stop deforming my continent and my country, my house suffers with the modifications.

...so some degree of distortion is to be expected.?
Is so wrong and distorted.

It is only meant to be an approximation. Relax, I'm not here to deform your country. These maps are based on RE projections, so they don't actually match the Flat Earth as it really is.

RE have one unified map... FE have as many maps as theorys... I saw 4 different FE maps, no one show an accurate Southamerica.

I know by a simple thing that you never flew on a Lockheed U2... at 21000 km above the earth. you would have changed your thoughts about FE. Is a fact.

...

RE have and only and unified map... FE have as many maps as theorys... I saw 4 different FE maps, no one show an accurate Southamerica.

My point is that we have literally had hundreds, possibly thousands of people come here and tell us they work for NASA, or they were in the SAS, etc etc. Just claiming something doesn't mean everyone's going to believe you.

As for this apparent sore point you have about the representation of South America in these maps, all I can say is I hope you'll get over it and recognise that we are limited in what we can do. Secondly, I hate to break it to you, but all non-globe RE maps also distort South America, only in a different way. Finally, as for there being only one 'RE map', that simply isn't true. Here are just a few different kinds of RE maps:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/education/voices/img/Map_of_World_tn.gif

http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/x/7/xx-150.gif

http://www.telescopes-astronomy.com.au/world_map_wallpaper2.jpg

http://www.freeworldmaps.net/world.jpg

http://www.tf3yh.net/myndir/TF_Azimuthal.gif

Quote from: nocreyente on July 21, 2009, 09:07:01 AM

I know by a simple thing that you never flew on a Lockheed U2... at 21000 km above the earth. you would have changed your thoughts about FE. Is a fact.

...

RE have and only and unified map... FE have as many maps as theorys... I saw 4 different FE maps, no one show an accurate Southamerica.

My point is that we have literally had hundreds, possibly thousands of people come here and tell us they work for NASA, or they were in the SAS, etc etc. Just claiming something doesn't mean everyone's going to believe you.

As for this apparent sore point you have about the representation of South America in these maps, all I can say is I hope you'll get over it and recognise that we are limited in what we can do. Secondly, I hate to break it to you, but all non-globe RE maps also distort South America, only in a different way. Finally, as for there being only one 'RE map', that simply isn't true. Here are just a few different kinds of RE maps:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/education/voices/img/Map_of_World_tn.gif

http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/x/7/xx-150.gif

http://www.telescopes-astronomy.com.au/world_map_wallpaper2.jpg

http://www.freeworldmaps.net/world.jpg

http://www.tf3yh.net/myndir/TF_Azimuthal.gif

those are representations of earth imaginary lines...
I mean this:
And only and unified conception of earth...
How beautiful and exact representation of my Southamerica and Chile dimensions.




PS: And the distance between Puerto Williams and Antartica in this globe earth, also is accurate. In your FE Map not.

I know why i think it, flying at 70000 feet, clear to the eye. Ok ok so this could be faked? Then hundreds of thousands of other images will also be faked? sure thing!:


If it were a conspiracy it would be on an immeasurable scale involving thousands of scientists and government personnel. Put simply, it's impossible. Twats.

Unless you have flown via concorde or in high-altitude military jets, you cannot possibly have seen the curvature of the Earth. Even if the Earth was round, you would have to be at an altitude way above that used by commercial airliners today to observe the Earth's curvature. I think 60,000 feet is the approximate figure given, but I'm not sure.

Needless to say, that means you definitely cannot observe said curvature from the beach. That's not just the viewpoint of Flat Earth Theory; RE scientists will tell you the same thing.

Simplistic observation. You fail at it. Ever watched a sailing ship as it goes directly out towards the horizon? The ship line slowly dissapears until only the sails can be seen. It's something that has been observed for hundreds of years. Even taking a strong telescope and watching it, it still happens, so it can't be down to distance and the ship looking smaller.

those are representations of earth imaginary lines...
I mean this:
And only and unified conception of earth...
How beautiful and exact representation of my Southamerica and Chile dimensions.

PS: And the distance between Puerto Williams and Antartica in this globe earth, also is accurate. In your FE Map not.

Well it's funny you should use that image, because it clearly does distort how South America is supposed to look on a globe. That map clearly makes SA bigger than it is. As a comparison:

Quote from: nocreyente on July 21, 2009, 09:35:46 AM

those are representations of earth imaginary lines...
I mean this:
And only and unified conception of earth...
How beautiful and exact representation of my Southamerica and Chile dimensions.

PS: And the distance between Puerto Williams and Antartica in this globe earth, also is accurate. In your FE Map not.

Well it's funny you should use that image, because it clearly does distort how South America is supposed to look on a globe. That map clearly makes SA bigger than it is. As a comparison:

I use it only as reference, I find it nice and clean... but the difference between the one I use and that you use is minimal... the difference between your FE map, and the other FE maps are huge.

Now answer to Overdriven.

After reading through the FAQ just to see what bull crap you FE people use to support your theories, it makes me howl with laughter. There are so many glaring holes in the theory, even in the FAQ that it would be impossible to address them all in a full day. The explanation for why circumnavigation of the earth is still possible was a particular favourite of mine. It just goes to show that the people who right this crap haven't really done much long distance travelling on foot, bike or car using only a map and compass.

After reading through the FAQ just to see what bull crap you FE people use to support your theories, it makes me howl with laughter. There are so many glaring holes in the theory, even in the FAQ that it would be impossible to address them all in a full day. The explanation for why circumnavigation of the earth is still possible was a particular favourite of mine. It just goes to show that the people who right this crap haven't really done much long distance travelling on foot, bike or car using only a map and compass.

Thanks for adding something to the discussion. Oh wait, you didn't.

Since nobody replied to my post on page 1, I'll answer this again:

I believe the Earth is round because of this:



http://earth.google.com/
http://www.gps.gov/

I flew yesterday and the pilot said we went as high as 20,000 feet. I tried looking for curvature but there was lots of clouds and also at that height the curve would be so slight that it wouldn't be obvious to the naked eye. It did look ever so slightly rounded though. 

If RE was made up by NASA for whatever bs reasons people here think, it sure works out real well scientifically.     The idea that heavy objects create gravitational fields there-by forming clusters of rock/gas/ice into round objects that orbit each-other and that the earths rotation creates sunsets/sunrises and the time zones is far simpler than the idea that the earth is flat (with fuck knows what on the otherside..) the moon and sun are "spotlights" with a movement which no one has ever (rationally) made sense of) and that sunrise/sunsets aren't real they just "appear" so.  None of which anybody on here has ever shown any explanation of.

I mean, come on, if somebody puts together a real theory, maybe it could garner some respect, but at this point it's not even worth acknowledging scientifically, I mean.  The 'Flat Earth Society" webpage is just a forum, there's nowhere that even shows how this purported flat-earth is meant to work.

well if any FE'ers are scientist and truly believe earth is flat than they would make a science journal, instead trying convince other people earth is flat through some forum board

Truthfully, I believe it because I was told, and I know that's your main arguement. But here's the thing, your theories don't make any more sense than the things proving the earth is round. I just think that a flat earth with big ice walls is a load of you know what.

Quote from: The Maestro on June 19, 2009, 07:42:45 PM

Readily observable astrological bodies, as seen through even rudimentary telescopes are round.  Stars, planets, and moons observed in the sky are all round, for all intents and purposes.

Second, if Apples, oranges, limes and limes are all round for intents and purposes, surely bananas can't exist.

No, bananas can exist. Apple-shaped bananas on the other hand can't exist.

Quote from: Caemis on June 21, 2009, 11:29:03 PM

If there was a flat earth, wouldn't the sun appear to be getting smaller instead of going down? Not the entire earth can see the sun at one time, and I fail to see how that is plausible.

Why are you talking about a flat Earth? This thread is about why you believe in a round Earth.

Yes, because you and other FE'ers NEVER change topic mid-thread...

Quote from: Robosteve on June 28, 2009, 11:41:37 AM

Ordinarily, I would quote the various parts of your post and respond to them each in turn, but your post really seems to carry a single theme which I would like to respond to once. You seem to feel that secondary evidence - that is to say, pictures taken by NASA, books you read in the library, the labels on your clothing - constitute absolute proof of certain things. To be quite blunt, this makes you no less a sheep than fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible provides absolute proof of Creationism. Moreover, you have no place in a debate forum, and I will not be responding to any more of your posts as you clearly lack elementary debate skills.

Some things are debatable, some things aren't... Ever since space flight became reality, "Flat Earth" stopped being debatable, unless of course you want to continue "debating" about a conspiracy. Where are "the debating skills" in that?

I do not need you to teach me debating skills or tell me what they are, or tell me that I lack them. Especially not if one of your "main debating skils" is attacking other people on spelling or grammar errors and calling people names, like you do on such a regular basis here on this "debate forum".

Me being a sheep? Perhaps... probably in the sciences that I have no master grade in then. I'm only a humble historian, with only little knowledge and understanding of physics and chemistry for instance. So at one point I have to decide to trust that scholars in physics and chemistry will explain their science to me as well as they can.
Same goes for cosmology and astronomy: at one point I have to decide to trust those who master the field of research far better than me.
You call that "being a sheep". I call it: trusting people, trusting honest scientist who try to explain thier field of research to me as well as they can. Of course it's necessary to carefully select the sources that I read (e.g.: just as I would never resort to Erich Von D?niken to learn the truth about who built the pyramids, I will never resort to the likes of Rowbotham to learn the truth about Earth's shape), but still, at one point it becomes a matter of trust in stead of continuing to uselessly question everything I learn and read.

As far as debating goes: start a debate with me on history, and I'll show you what a real debate is. Let me tell you, it will definitely not include "huge conspiracies" and attacking non native speakers on making mistakes against a foreign language.

Bring up your conspiracy, or "undetectable shadow object", or "dark energy field", or "electromagnetic universal accelerator", or ice wall or..., on any scientific congress about cosmology / astronomy and you'll very quickly know where the exit of auditorium is.

Regards,

P.S.: I have been to observatories here in Belgium myself and have actually watched through telescopes myself. I have seen a few of our planets with my very own eyes (Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) and guess what... they were not tiny globes orbiting the sun about 3000 miles above Earth... They were what I have always been taught they are.
Of course you can go on to say that I have been fooled by those running the observatory, but again: to me, that's useless skepticism.

(Edit: addition made to the 3rd paragraph of my post.)

Excellent post, my friend.

the RET makes a lot more sense and is way more understandable. It's all physics you can observe for yourself.
Lets take a real life example:
Son: What causes a solar eclipse?
Dad: Well, the moon moves in front of the sun.
OR
Son: What causes a solar eclipse?
Dad: Well, theres an antimoon up there, like a shadow object, and blocks the sun's spotlight, etc.

Quote

Scientific method is not even attempted? That's a BIG claim your making there Tom and you are so unbelievably wrong.

Here's the Scientific Method:



Now please show me where Newton puts his hypothesis of gravity as a force to the test. What about Aristotile, Copernicus, or Galileo? What about Einstein? Where does Einstein demonstrate his idea of bending space-time through experimentation?

Quote

A PILOT MADE THAT QUOTE? A PILOT!? He is a freaking FE'er what do you expect him to say? SERIOUSLY do you think that because this quote says that no curvature is seen, that the thousands of other pilots think the same? dumbass, that was made by an FE'er of course he would say that. You have one source, I am sure you could ask other pilots and they would say different

No pilot who has posted this forum has claimed to have seen curvature of this earth.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 28, 2009, 04:40:03 PM

I have never seen a curvature in all my time at 45,000 feet.

Tom, I'm not sure if you know this, but even the best commercial planes aren't allowed to fly at 45000 feet. I think I may find it hard to believe anything else to say now that you have lied through your keyboard.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2009, 05:48:54 AM

Here's the Scientific Method:



Now please show me where Newton puts his hypothesis of gravity as a force to the test. What about Aristotile, Copernicus, or Galileo? What about Einstein? Where does Einstein demonstrate his idea of bending space-time through experimentation?

You know, I acctually laughed when I saw this picture. I thought about Flat Earthers, and how they come up with *cough* brilliant theories that are *cough* tested using the scientific method.

And just about that quote that the pilot said:

When I was in grade 8, we were learning about evolution, and then the teachers made the whole grade come and see some speaker talk about evolution. Little did the teachers know that the man was there to talk AGAINST evolution  . Anyways I distinctly remember just how much I wanted to bash this guy. You know what one if his *cough* (I'm having a really bad cough right now, might be swine flu) arguments was? He gave us a list of about 20 names. All professors with Ph.Ds who did NOT believe in evolution. Unfortunately he failed to show the endless list of names of professors who believe in evolution. Had I decided to say that out loud, the man would've been baffled that his oh so great argument was destroyed by an 8th grader. I'm not saying I was a genius, everyone was thinking the same thing, I'm just saying that his argument was PATHETIC.

Do you see where I'm going with this? There are millions of pilots out there, you showed one out of a million that didn't *cough* see the curvature of the Earth  . You failed to tell us about the millions of pilots who CAN testify that you can see the Earth's curvature from a high altitude plane. Try harder next time.


To answer the original post:
It's not that I choose to believe in the RET, it's that I choose NOT to believe in the FET. I've read a lot on this forum and there's one thing that remains constant with all FEers: they have no numbers. They have concepts, I'll give them that, but they have no equations, numbers, or PROOF. Everytime the issue of proof comes up, FEers either change the subject, start insulting REers saying that we have no proof *COUGH*, or just don't respond. Maybe if there was some proof in FET, it would hold together must better. Whenever REers present proof, you dismiss it as faked or part of the conspiracy. Well, if FEers are simply going to deny all proof supporting the RET, then there's nothing REers can really say, is there? Everyone on this forum act like university teachers, yet no tests, no numbers, and no supporting evidence is offered by FEers, only concepts and theories. I find that FEers haven't conducted nearly enough experiments in order to support their theory, and therefore instead of trying to proove that the FET is true, you only try to proove that the RET is not true - a very childish way of debating, for university teachers  . The level of maturity in these forums matches that of high schoolers or adolescents like myself, and FEers are always trying to say that their theory is better or that the RET is lacking proof *cough*. I'm only in high school and I can obliterate some thoughtless concepts that FEers come up with, so what is to make me believe that you are all more than teenagers in high school? If your're better than a high schooler, do better than a high schooler. Come up with arguments that the world's greatest minds couldn't shred into peices in the blink of an eye.

well put. If only all FEers would read this.