Why do you think the Earth is round?

After seeing a hundred of these threads directed at FE believers, I would like to hear some answers as to why REers believe what they do.

To the best of my understanding and education, it agrees with the laws I was taught and those respected by the world's bodies of knowledge. I have a tertiary education in chemistry and currently studying a masters in engineering and the body of knowledge I've been exposed to agrees with a globular planet. The various theories of FE disagree with too many things to be considered plausible.

To the best of my understanding and education, it agrees with the laws I was taught and those respected by the world's bodies of knowledge. I have a tertiary education in chemistry and currently studying a masters in engineering and the body of knowledge I've been exposed to agrees with a globular planet. The various theories of FE disagree with too many things to be considered plausible.

So your reasoning is that you were taught it to be round, and taught scientific laws which are consistent with this model? You have done no personal investigation as to the true shape of the Earth, content with accepting your teachers' words?

Quote from: dyno on June 16, 2009, 11:35:17 PM

To the best of my understanding and education, it agrees with the laws I was taught and those respected by the world's bodies of knowledge. I have a tertiary education in chemistry and currently studying a masters in engineering and the body of knowledge I've been exposed to agrees with a globular planet. The various theories of FE disagree with too many things to be considered plausible.

So your reasoning is that you were taught it to be round, and taught scientific laws which are consistent with this model? You have done no personal investigation as to the true shape of the Earth, content with accepting your teachers' words?

It's not simply a matter of being taught. You purport to be undergoing a teritary physics course and hence you should be aware that much of your education is solo research. Have I taken my chemistry and tried to perform physics experiements? Yes. Additionally my chemistry is sound enough to know when FE's theories are filled with nonsense.

In case you need your memory refreshed I replicated an experiment to restore a ship's hull using a telescope. This agrees 100% with the physics I had learned and disagreed 100% with the FE literature.

What have you done?

It's not simply a matter of being taught. You purport to be undergoing a teritary physics course and hence you should be aware that much of your education is solo research. Have I taken my chemistry and tried to perform physics experiements? Yes. Additionally my chemistry is sound enough to know when FE's theories are filled with nonsense.

In case you need your memory refreshed I replicated an experiment to restore a ship's hull using a telescope. This agrees 100% with the physics I had learned and disagreed 100% with the FE literature.

Is this your more complete answer, then?

What have you done?

I once broke my leg after jumping off a rock into a swimming pool (I didn't jump far enough and my leg hit the side). This is clear evidence that the Earth gained enough momentum while I was not in contact with it to fracture solid bone.

Troll some more? You are fully aware and I believe you have stated yourself, that in our frame of reference, it is impossible to detect whether we are accelerating toward the Earth or vice versa.

Troll some more? You are fully aware and I believe you have stated yourself, that in our frame of reference, it is impossible to detect whether we are accelerating toward the Earth or vice versa.

Even though I felt weightless while in the air, a sign of inertial motion?

I used to be a stout flat earth believer.  I would tout my theories to people both willing and unwilling to hear them.  I laughed at newton, scoffed at astronautics, and jeered anyone who did not see the truth.  However, one fateful day I decided to use this interwebs I've heard so much about to seek out like-minded scholars such as myself.  As luck would have it, my quest was fruitful and I stumbled upon The Flat Earth Society; Thor smiled upon me that day, for had found a repository of knowledge and a wealth of information as vast and deep as the pacific.  I thought I would find a true home here, a place where people accepted me despite my overtly homosexual tendencies and progressive views on the shape of the earth.  A through read of the FAQ confirmed this; excitement bubbled inside of me.  It was really happening!  Sadly though, after a few days of moar lurking, I began to understand some of the personalities of FES.  Some I immediately fell in love with (Tom <3 ) but the vast majority both sickened and revolted me.  Was this the company I was to keep?  Hives broke out across my finely toned and perfectly tanned body; fear had a name and it was called TFES.  I had a choice to make, live in disgust with my integrates intact or live in contentment only having a soft shell of self-delusion between me and the truth.  I eventually chose the latter and thus renounced my position of a flat earther and began preaching the benefits of being a roundy (not to be confused with a fatty).  That is the story of how I became a round earth believer.  Was it the better choice?  I ask myself this question every time I look out the window and see the great mirror in the sky reflecting warm and impassionate sunlight upon me.  At least now though, I can sleep at night...

Pulling this thread back on topic, I believe the earth is a globe simply because I have observed it.
Flying at 37,000 feet, the curvature can be seen.  Even looking out to sea from the beach I can see the curve (it's faint, but clearly there).
As I am currently studying Geology at degree level, it seems many processes wouldn't work on a FE (or I haven't seen an explanation for them yet).  The RE theory has been accepted and verified for hundreds of years, and the evidence backing it up, for lack of a better term, pretty damn good.

Pulling this thread back on topic, I believe the earth is a globe simply because I have observed it.
Flying at 37,000 feet, the curvature can be seen.

No it can't.

Here's what a pilot has to say on the matter:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Even looking out to sea from the beach I can see the curve (it's faint, but clearly there).

Actually, it's not.

As I am currently studying Geology at degree level, it seems many processes wouldn't work on a FE (or I haven't seen an explanation for them yet).

Processes like what?

The RE theory has been accepted and verified for hundreds of years

Appeal to authority.

the evidence backing it up, for lack of a better term, pretty damn good.

There is no proper evidence which backs up the RE. Neither Aristotile, Galileo, Copernicus, or Newton followed the Scientific Method before coming to their conclusions. The Scientific Method is not even attempted.

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

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

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

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?

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.

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

I think the earth is round because I have seen photographs and video of it. The great conspiracy is too extraordinary to consider probable. We may have only a theoretical understanding of how gravitation works, but that is no reason to assume the earth must be flat and there is a great conspiracy to cover up this fact.

I have not yet found any experiments that support the earth being flat which can be recreated and consistently show the same results.

The model of our globular planet is used every day for navigation, and I have not yet heard of any inconsistencies where planes or ships run out of fuel in the middle of their trip because the distance they were traveling was twice as far as their globular earth model predicted. Nobody has ever encountered land masses that shouldn't be there.

Many people have traveled around Antarctica, and you can book a cruise there if you wish. Nobody has reported the land mass which they call Antarctica being to the north of the ship according to a compass. If it were the "ice wall" the trip would take much longer.

Nobody has been able to produce an accurate model for the movement of the stars in FET.

I have observed the horizon.

I have never seen any evidence to suggest the shape of our planet would be different from all other planets.

To Tom, RE geological processes (can't be bothered to disassemble that massive quoted post.  One day I'll figure out how to do it properly...)

I'll admit, I haven't searched for a FE view on these. 
- I cannot see how the big bang and the process of planet/star formation will create a round disc like object.  However, it does explain why planets from as spherical objects.
- Plate tectonics close to the edge I can't see working either.  If a plate is being moved away from the center of a FE, what would happen when it hits the edge?  In a RE, as the earth is spherical, the plate would get subducted, but I cannot see what it would be subducted under.
- (I have no doubt there is an answer for this one) Seismic shadow zones.

- An FE pilot will only ever support the FE view, so will not come out and say he saw a curvature.
- The researchers you stated are from hundreds of years ago.  Nowadays, scientists from various space organizations have tested Scientific Method, but no doubt you'll dismiss that as a conspiracy. 

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.

And although some *cough* say that Occam's Razor is bullshit, there still is a nice philosophy behind it.

The FET is based on so many assumptions and guesses and incomplete theories that compared to the RET, it falls apart. It would appear  the FEers don't even know the composition of the Sun yet! That's only one example of the holes in the FET, until these holes are filled in, the FET will only be an idea, nothing more.

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

Well in case you havent realised dumbass, he is not the only pilot in the world and surprise surprise not every pilot is a member of these forums. Thats very narrow minded of you.

Tell me where an FE theory fits that scientific method which you posted

Well in case you havent realised dumbass, he is not the only pilot in the world and surprise surprise not every pilot is a member of these forums. Thats very narrow minded of you.

They're the only pilots we have. And they say that curvature cannot be seen.

Tell me where an FE theory fits that scientific method which you posted

Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Quote

Well in case you havent realised dumbass, he is not the only pilot in the world and surprise surprise not every pilot is a member of these forums. Thats very narrow minded of you.

They're the only pilots we have. And they say that curvature cannot be seen.

Negative proof fallacy, Tom?  Tsk, tsk.  You should know better than that.

I have several reasons for believing that the earth is round:

1.  If you fly southward for a long enough time, you will end up in the same spot that you were in before: proof that circumnavigation is   possible.
2.  Modern cosmology implies that all planets formed will be round (or close to it). We have no reason to believe that earth is anything
     other than a planet, so we reject this belief.
3.  There is a horizon: a point in which the sky and the earth appear to be perpendicular to one another. This can only occur if there is
     some curvature to the earth in the region in question. This phenomenon is known to occur all across the globe, therefore it is we
     conclude that the earth is curved everywhere.
4.  Sattelite evidence has shown that the earth is round, and several pictures even capture the earth at such an angle that its convexity
     is evident.

And there's more too.
A flat earth agrees with all of the above phenomena, as well as with every other phenomenon that has ever been observed, as well as with the laws of science that are already present, as well as all experimental data that we have. Therefore there is no reason to reject the theory that the earth is flat.

A flat earth agrees with all of the above phenomena, as well as with every other phenomenon that has ever been observed, as well as with the laws of science that are already present, as well as all experimental data that we have. Therefore there is no reason to reject the theory that the earth is flat.

I agree. This is why I believe in FET.

RET just makes more sense than FET.
some things in FET that I have trouble believing:
1.Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2.the edge (can people be propelled upward by UA?)
3.the other side ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4.the "shadow object" or "antimoon" (srsly?)
5.the ice wall (look out or the guards will get'cha)
6.the Super-Ultra-Powered Conspiracy of Satanism (again, srsly?)

I could go on, but I'll save my energy/sanity.

RET just makes more sense than FET.

Why's that? Because you've been brainwashed to feel comfortable with it?

1.Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2.the edge (can people be propelled upward by UA?)
3.the other side ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4.the "shadow object" or "antimoon" (srsly?)
5.the ice wall (look out or the guards will get'cha)
6.the Super-Ultra-Powered Conspiracy of Satanism (again, srsly?)

Let's draw comparisons to RET, shall we?

1. Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2. The intergalactic medium (could people live without a source of gravitation?)
3. The inside ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4. "Gravitons" and "black holes" (srsly?)
5. Antarctica (look out or the 200 K winters will getcha)
6. The Super-Ultra-Powered Space Race (again, srsly?)

But we're getting off topic here. This thread is not about why you don't believe in FET, it's about why you do believe in RET.

Quote from: Abysmal on June 18, 2009, 04:16:17 PM

RET just makes more sense than FET.

Why's that? Because you've been brainwashed to feel comfortable with it?

Quote from: Abysmal on June 18, 2009, 04:16:17 PM

1.Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2.the edge (can people be propelled upward by UA?)
3.the other side ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4.the "shadow object" or "antimoon" (srsly?)
5.the ice wall (look out or the guards will get'cha)
6.the Super-Ultra-Powered Conspiracy of Satanism (again, srsly?)

Let's draw comparisons to RET, shall we?

1. Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2. The intergalactic medium (could people live without a source of gravitation?)
3. The inside ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4. "Gravitons" and "black holes" (srsly?)
5. Antarctica (look out or the 200 K winters will getcha)
6. The Super-Ultra-Powered Space Race (again, srsly?)

But we're getting off topic here. This thread is not about why you don't believe in FET, it's about why you do believe in RET.

RS:
Strange that you are pursuing an education from a area you believe is lies. Obviously you haven't spoken up. So you are just as willing to suck up the concepts as we are.
Drunk as I am. Suck my cock you fucking lying penguin. What university do you attend?

Yeah... its banworhty and worth it.

3. The inside ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)

As in "What's inside the earth"?
Cos we do know what's inside.  An inner core of solid metal, primarily Iron and Nickel, followed by an outer core of liquid Iron and Nickel, followed by the mantle, composed of Peridotite, then the Crust - Basaltic rock in the oceans and Granitic, Carbonaceous or Siliceous rock on the continents (broadly).

Personally I like the fact that the brain washing doesn't involve sky mirrors. Or shadow objects. Or anti moons. Or satellite dishes bobbing about in invisible bubbles. Or a global conspiracy that in the same stroke pervades every nook and cranny of society, yet only involves a few people.

Call me simple minded, I just like things plausible.

As opposed to the fabrication of "dark matter" to explain how the galaxy works, "dark energy" to explain the Universal expansion, "gravitons" because we just don't know why masses seem to move towards each other and "nuclear fusion" producing terawatts upon terawatts of power all over the Universe every second even though it has never been experimentally shown to be a sustainable source of energy?

As in "What's inside the earth"?
Cos we do know what's inside.  An inner core of solid metal, primarily Iron and Nickel, followed by an outer core of liquid Iron and Nickel, followed by the mantle, composed of Peridotite, then the Crust - Basaltic rock in the oceans and Granitic, Carbonaceous or Siliceous rock on the continents (broadly).

That is a theory based on secondary evidence. Has anybody actually gone inside the Earth and made sure that this is correct, or are you just blindly accepting RE propaganda?

Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core.  The mantle proper starts at 1,300 degrees C, way hotter than any drill can stand.
Besides, the evidence for the Peridotite mantle comes directly from observations.  Basaltic magmas found all around the world suggest this.  The continents being formed of Granitic, Carbonaceous and Siliceous rock is also observed - you're standing on the stuff.
As for the composition of the core, it has been determined by working out masses, and density, as well as studying meteorites that survive impact with the earth.

Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core.  The mantle proper starts at 1,300 degrees C, way hotter than any drill can stand.
Besides, the evidence for the Peridotite mantle comes directly from observations.  Basaltic magmas found all around the world suggest this.  The continents being formed of Granitic, Carbonaceous and Siliceous rock is also observed - you're standing on the stuff.
As for the composition of the core, it has been determined by working out masses, and density, as well as studying meteorites that survive impact with the earth.

Uh, yes. None of this changes that nobody has ever been to the centre of the Earth. Now, let's return to this part of your argument:

Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core.

Why is this a valid excuse for having no direct evidence of the core in RET, but not for having no direct evidence of the base in FET?

Quote from: Joeval on June 19, 2009, 05:03:55 PM

Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core.  The mantle proper starts at 1,300 degrees C, way hotter than any drill can stand.
Besides, the evidence for the Peridotite mantle comes directly from observations.  Basaltic magmas found all around the world suggest this.  The continents being formed of Granitic, Carbonaceous and Siliceous rock is also observed - you're standing on the stuff.
As for the composition of the core, it has been determined by working out masses, and density, as well as studying meteorites that survive impact with the earth.

Uh, yes. None of this changes that nobody has ever been to the centre of the Earth. Now, let's return to this part of your argument:

Quote from: Joeval on June 19, 2009, 05:03:55 PM

Robosteve, you know as well as I do no one has the technology to get past the crust, sod all the way to the core.

Why is this a valid excuse for having no direct evidence of the core in RET, but not for having no direct evidence of the base in FET?

I never said it was an excuse either way.  The point I make is that RE has at least had a stab and managed to get reasonable evidence to back up the claim.  It's only a theory.  It could well be wrong, but the odds aren't that great. 

I never said it was an excuse either way.  The point I make is that RE has at least had a stab and managed to get reasonable evidence to back up the claim.  It's only a theory.  It could well be wrong, but the odds aren't that great.

Now imagine there are two groups of scientists looking to get funding for an experiment. One of them presents their proposal as "assuming the Earth is round, we are trying to determine the nature of the core of the Earth". The other says "assuming the Earth is flat, we are trying to determine the nature of the underside of the Earth". Given the present day attitudes towards Flat Earth believers (as evidenced by nearly every RE noob on this website), who do you think will get the funding if it is a choice between those two only? Then tell me if you think it's any wonder RE has a more developed theory than FE.