Earth

Wow, that's news to me. Where did you get this information?

Is this supposed to be sarcastic? Because sarcasm doesn't come across very well over the internet.

THose theories were proven and then DID become scientific facts.

FE IS NOT FACTUAL

THose theories were proven and then DID become scientific facts.

FE IS NOT FACTUAL

Uh, the Theory of Relativity is a theory for a reason.  It has never been proven to be fact.  It is an amazing model of the universe, but can't be shown to be fact.

Quote from: "quixotic"

THose theories were proven and then DID become scientific facts.

FE IS NOT FACTUAL

Uh, the Theory of Relativity is a theory for a reason.  It has never been proven to be fact.  It is an amazing model of the universe, but can't be shown to be fact.

I dig it. I find it annoying when people don't know the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law.

General Relativity is a theory because it's usable, the best explanation, and hasn't been falsified.

the Flat Earth hypothesis, however, is trivially falsified. As such it doesn't qualify as a theory, only a hypothesis. Al least as far as my understanding of the terms go.

Ok, let me rephrase....

It HAS been Proven to be effective.

Ok, let me rephrase....

It HAS been Proven to be effective.

Heh, dig it. I know what you meant... you have to be careful with these guys, if you leave an opening for misdirection or make a trivial error, they'll twist your own words against you as a debating tool.

Remember, debate doesn't use verbal communication as a cooperative tool, it uses it as a weapon.

For example... you used the word 'Proven' there when you should have used 'Shown' or 'Demonstrated'.

It's REALLY easy to make mistakes in debate... that's why people skilled at it like Samuel Rowbotham could do so well at it.

Remember, debate doesn't use verbal communication as a cooperative tool, it uses it as a weapon.

No, rhetoric uses debate as a weapon.

For example... you used the word 'Proven' there when you should have used 'Shown' or 'Demonstrated'.

What's the difference in this context?  I'm not sure that the terms are qualitatively distinct.

"Contradiction" is a well-defined term in logic, and you are misusing it.  The discrepancy that you are bringing up is merely a surprising asymmetry, not a contradiction.

You avoided my flat-apple comparison. And stop this touchy personal attitude, it's not funny.  

Uh, the Theory of Relativity is a theory for a reason.  It has never been proven to be fact.  It is an amazing model of the universe, but can't be shown to be fact.

Thanks for supporting my argument.  

Sarcasm doesn't come across very well over the internet.

I take this as your personal opinion.

Hey.. Stop marking words and get on topic. Maybe you want this thread to be a pie-throwing competition between RE and FE, but I don't.

And so far, no one has proven TE theory wrong. So it's got to be true.

Hey.. Stop marking words and get on topic. Maybe you want this thread to be a pie-throwing competition between RE and FE, but I don't.

If you recall, you suggested that FE was somehow self-contradictory.  It seems to me that the topic has involved to me and maybe some other people waiting around to see how you'll justify this statement.

And so far, no one has proven TE theory wrong. So it's got to be true.

Wow.  So not only do you have some funny notions about "contradiction", our concepts of "true" are also fairly divergent.  I can see this is going to be a difficult discussion.

If you recall, you suggested that FE was somehow self-contradictory.  

Now you're even combining word-marking and going off-topic. That's original.

I can see this is going to be a difficult discussion.

Not if you start discussing instead of marking words and desperately trying to stupify my way of debate.

Umm.. a triangle is flat, right? So you're saying you believe in the flat earth theory?

I find it interesting that your theory implies a *flat* earth, you could have easily picked an icosahedron or a cube..

Uh, the Theory of Relativity is a theory for a reason.  It has never been proven to be fact.  It is an amazing model of the universe, but can't be shown to be fact.

No, but the hypothesis passed the tests of the scientific method. Theories aren't just random thoughts that pop into people's heads, they are very specific explanations of how things occur that are constantly tested and re-tested, and when they pass those tests, when they hold up to scrutiny, then they are accepted as Theories.

I hate when people dismiss scientific theories like that. It makes them sound so ignorant.

I hate when people dismiss scientific theories like that. It makes them sound so ignorant.

When did I dismiss the Theory of Relativity?

When did I dismiss the Theory of Relativity?

You didn't,  but from your statement, you did seem to be dismissive of scientific theories. You may not have been (which is entirely possible), but there are many who are and would relegate scientific theory to the realm of uninformed conjecture.

I simply stated that the theory was a theory for a reason, it can't be proven as fact.  Isn't that the basis of all theories?

I simply stated that the theory was a theory for a reason, it can't be proven as fact.  Isn't that the basis of all theories?

Yes, but it's the best theory out there. Do FE theories even exist?

Do FE theories even exist?

Uh, how long have you been on this site?

Uh, how long have you been on this site?

Theories, not hypotheses.
 I've seen lots of hypothesizing and conjecturing, but not a lot in the way of scientifically supported theories.

I've got an FE contradiction:

Sun and moon orbit the earth, but satellites dont exist.

Theories, not hypotheses.
 I've seen lots of hypothesizing and conjecturing, but not a lot in the way of scientifically supported theories.

What do you think a theory is?

Also, have you looked at the barrage of experimental tests of flat Earthism linked from the FAQ?

Quote from: "jitterbug"

Theories, not hypotheses.
 I've seen lots of hypothesizing and conjecturing, but not a lot in the way of scientifically supported theories.

What do you think a theory is?

Also, have you looked at the barrage of experimental tests of flat Earthism linked from the FAQ?

I think theory is this:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Could you give me a few Flat Earth hypotheses for me to test so I could ignore them the way testable RE hypotheses are ignored by FErs?

Could you give me a few Flat Earth hypotheses

Sure.  If you stand several miles away from an object, with perfectly smooth ground between you and it, you can still see it even under the circumstance when your heights and the curvature of the Earth would have prevented it.

See Rowbotham's book for a description of a wide variety of experiments he performed along these lines over a period of several years, with help from others, establishing that standing water does not form a convex surface.  Link in the FAQ.

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

Could you give me a few Flat Earth hypotheses

Sure.  If you stand several miles away from an object, with perfectly smooth ground between you and it, you can still see it even under the circumstance when your heights and the curvature of the Earth would have prevented it.

How many miles? What does Rowbotham define to be the extent of the curvature of the Earth?

establishing that standing water does not form a convex surface.

Water formed in concave structures (sea bed) on a convex structure (the spherical earth)

How many miles?

Six miles, if I recall correctly.  At that distance, the exterior secant (distance above the surface you need to be to see a point six miles away) is twenty-four feet, but he was able to see an object less than a man's height off the ground from a viewpoint only a few inches off the waterline.

What does Rowbotham define to be the extent of the curvature of the Earth?

I don't recall.  His description of the experiment includes a table of the exterior secants for various distances, and they agree with my calculations using the radius of the Earth from WIkipedia.

Six miles, if I recall correctly.  At that distance, the exterior secant (distance above the surface you need to be to see a point six miles away) is twenty-four feet, but he was able to see an object less than a man's height off the ground from a viewpoint only a few inches off the waterline.

So he had a six mile long perfectly smooth surface that had no deviation in height above sea level.... hmmmmmm :roll:

So he had a six mile long perfectly smooth surface that had no deviation in height above sea level.... hmmmmmm :roll:

It was made of water.

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

How many miles?

Six miles, if I recall correctly.  At that distance, the exterior secant (distance above the surface you need to be to see a point six miles away) is twenty-four feet, but he was able to see an object less than a man's height off the ground from a viewpoint only a few inches off the waterline.

Interesting... during my time spent in The Flats, I can't say I had the same results with distances and heights. I thought it was really cool when my dad showed me... I've always been a nerd about science. I wasn't alwasy great at the math, but I loved learning.

Quote from: "xderosa"

So he had a six mile long perfectly smooth surface that had no deviation in height above sea level.... hmmmmmm :roll:

It was made of water.

water is not necessarily at constant height as water 6 miles away.. storm surges and such. and how was he able to discern an object of about 4 feet high when he was six miles away? how did he know it was 6 miles away.. how did he know it wasnt 28 feet high?

also, is there any evidence to bk up his claim?

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "xderosa"

So he had a six mile long perfectly smooth surface that had no deviation in height above sea level.... hmmmmmm :roll:

It was made of water.

water is not necessarily at constant height as water 6 miles away.. storm surges and such. and how was he able to discern an object of about 4 feet high when he was six miles away? how did he know it was 6 miles away.. how did he know it wasnt 28 feet high?

also, is there any evidence to bk up his claim?

I would suggest looking at his works first.  I don't believe Erasmus (certainly not me in his position) would care to repeat his entire works when one can simply read them.