Since the Earth appears flat the burden of proof lies with

The burden of proof (from wikipedia);
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

FE'ers go against anything that has been proven by general science. Even the most simple things (The hull of a ship dissapears before the masts do, which isn't answered in your FAQ's) cannot be proven.
Shouting that the governments of the world created a huge conspiracy to cover this up is not enough. Proof of this has to come forward to support this.

And let me tell you, I've flown around the world, and from high up, you can see the earth being round. It's a pity that FE'ers will never see the earth from space and go back doing something productive instead of filling up their time believing in something so ridiculous. I even saw a post from a Mensa member? Give me a break please. No self respecting mensa member would be allowed to express views like this ánd the word Mensa in one sentence. You do know that a lot of acclaimed scientists are Mensa members? Who are, of course, all RE'ers?

Just my 2 cents.

Quote from: "The American Nightmare"

Quote from: "Mephistopheles"

I merely asked you why the Flat Earth Theory disrupts the scientific process and, for some other unknown but also related reason, prevents the Flat Earth from being held up to scientific scrutiny.

This is clearly explained in the >>> LINK <<< I provided earlier. Therein lies your answer.

That is a claim against FE; that does not explain your claim that FE does not hold up to scientific scrutiny since it disrupts the scientific method.

Now, if you would simply state the reasons FE disrupts the scientific method (and, according to you, making it not hold up to scientific scrutiny) we can get on with the thread.

I don't see how I can explain it any more clearly. The Flat Earth hypothesis states that the sun is actually a revolving spotlight. The observations in Ecuador show that the sun does not follow a circular path (like a revolving spotlight should).

The hypothesis has been proven false. How do you propose we use a falsehood to explain natural phenomena?

>> Further reading <<

Quote from: "Mephistopheles"

Quote from: "The American Nightmare"

Quote from: "Mephistopheles"

I merely asked you why the Flat Earth Theory disrupts the scientific process and, for some other unknown but also related reason, prevents the Flat Earth from being held up to scientific scrutiny.

This is clearly explained in the >>> LINK <<< I provided earlier. Therein lies your answer.

That is a claim against FE; that does not explain your claim that FE does not hold up to scientific scrutiny since it disrupts the scientific method.

Now, if you would simply state the reasons FE disrupts the scientific method (and, according to you, making it not hold up to scientific scrutiny) we can get on with the thread.

I don't see how I can explain it any more clearly. The Flat Earth hypothesis states that the sun is actually a revolving spotlight. The observations in Ecuador show that the sun does not follow a circular path (like a revolving spotlight should).

The hypothesis has been proven false. How do you propose we use a falsehood to explain natural phenomena?

>> Further reading <<

Again, you're refuting a claim of FE, but not explaining your reasoning behind stating that the Flat Earth Theory cannot be held to scientific scrunity since it alledgedly does not follow step 5 of your scientific process.

That particular hypothesis has no bearing on our discussion.  As I said before, please explain your reasoning for why FE theory does not follow step 5 of your posted scientific process and, thus, it is not able to be held up to scientific scrutiny.

The burden of proof (from wikipedia);
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

FE'ers go against anything that has been proven by general science. Even the most simple things (The hull of a ship dissapears before the masts do, which isn't answered in your FAQ's) cannot be proven.
Shouting that the governments of the world created a huge conspiracy to cover this up is not enough. Proof of this has to come forward to support this.

And let me tell you, I've flown around the world, and from high up, you can see the earth being round. It's a pity that FE'ers will never see the earth from space and go back doing something productive instead of filling up their time believing in something so ridiculous. I even saw a post from a Mensa member? Give me a break please. No self respecting mensa member would be allowed to express views like this ánd the word Mensa in one sentence. You do know that a lot of acclaimed scientists are Mensa members? Who are, of course, all RE'ers?

Just my 2 cents.

The problem is, the RE'ers make claims against FE and not the other way around.  There has only been a few threads here in which an FE'er challenges the RE, mainly because RE is already well known enough.  In those cases, the burden of proof is required of the person challenging it.

Quote from: "qwe"

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

Also, the theory of gravity explains why Earth appears to be flat.

um.. what?

Well, actually our limited view of the world directly around us explains why Earth appears to be flat, but as we travel across the Earth, gravity is why it continues to appear flat, why we don't feel like we're travelling sideways or upside-down.

oh.  so you mean gravity is why it Feels flat, simple perspective is why it Appears flat

to someone saying that FE'rs have many theories that it is impossible to prove/disprove via experiment, may i point out that the whole thing that this is pretty much centred about, the actual working of is probably the holy grail of theoretical science.


No one in the world knows how Gravity works. there are many theories, but there is no way to prove/disprove them..... There are other things, like astronomical Dark Matter, what the core of the Earth is like, Why there is an apparent disparity in Matter and Anti-Matter in the universe, and many more.

Mephistopheles, we're just going back and forth and I have nothing left to add.

to someone saying that FE'rs have many theories that it is impossible to prove/disprove via experiment, may i point out that the whole thing that this is pretty much centred about, the actual working of is probably the holy grail of theoretical science.


No one in the world knows how Gravity works. there are many theories, but there is no way to prove/disprove them..... There are other things, like astronomical Dark Matter, what the core of the Earth is like, Why there is an apparent disparity in Matter and Anti-Matter in the universe, and many more.

You're wrong. The very nature of a theory is that it has the potential to be proven false.

Now that I think about it, this is probably the biggest failure of the Flat Earth "theory." Any criticism that can't be met with a logical explanation is met with "optical illusion" and "conspiracy" (the equivelant of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la! I can't hear you!"). Falsification is flat-out ignored. It's extremely un-scientific.

To the average man, the earth appears flat, therefour it is the duty of the round earth believers to explain why the Earth is round.

Can we please be at least slightly open-minded. How many times does "The world is so fucking huge that you can't tell from looking that it's curved" have to be slung by you people before you realize there might be some merit to it. At least have the balls to say that you believe there is evidence for both sides (and believe me, there's evidence for a round earth) and that the burden of proof lies with both sides of the arguement.

Can we please be at least slightly open-minded. How many times does "The world is so fucking huge that you can't tell from looking that it's curved" have to be slung by you people before you realize there might be some merit to it. At least have the balls to say that you believe there is evidence for both sides (and believe me, there's evidence for a round earth) and that the burden of proof lies with both sides of the arguement.

There's evidence for both, but the evidence for Round Earth, when looked at impartially and without the worldwide conspiracy's wicked influence, is less obvious than that for the Flat Earth.

Alright, let's look at it imparitally, without the conspiracy theory. For at least one post, you can't claim conspiracy on me. Now, we have photographical evidence from the moon orbits and landings that the earth is round. The very fact that we can orbit around it is proof of it's spherical shape. Now, even if you do claim conspiracy, the government can't cause the shadows on a lunar eclipse. If the earth was a disc as is being proposed, it would not create a circular shadow from every angle as is seen in lunar eclipses, but a sphere would. This is just some of an overwhelming amount of evidence in REs favor.

Alright, let's look at it imparitally, without the conspiracy theory. For at least one post, you can't claim conspiracy on me. Now, we have photographical evidence from the moon orbits and landings that the earth is round. The very fact that we can orbit around it is proof of it's spherical shape. Now, even if you do claim conspiracy, the government can't cause the shadows on a lunar eclipse. If the earth was a disc as is being proposed, it would not create a circular shadow from every angle as is seen in lunar eclipses, but a sphere would. This is just some of an overwhelming amount of evidence in REs favor.

You misunderstand me. When I say "without their influence", I mean "without their bogus photos and other faked evidence".

Lets see, even from that post, you have the lunar shadow, the lunar eclipse, which would have to be done on a spherical earth, considering the RE understanding of gravity.  If the moon were a sphere than it would also make the earth a sphere, because it would invalidate FE, and therefore leave RE being correct.... unless Xargo is going to push his TE theory again

You misunderstand me. When I say "without their influence", I mean "without their bogus photos and other faked evidence".

Lunar eclipses aren't faked.

Mephistopheles, we're just going back and forth and I have nothing left to add.

So is there a reason you made that claim in the first place, other than to waste my time?

Quote from: "The American Nightmare"

Mephistopheles, we're just going back and forth and I have nothing left to add.

So is there a reason you made that claim in the first place, other than to waste my time?

Yes, that's exactly why. You caught me.  :roll:

I'm not gonna lose sleep because you can't understand why the Flat Earth is being incorrectly labeled as a theory.

haha ok im sorry, but i find it funny that youre talking about losing sleep adn your name is American nightmare

Quote from: "Mephistopheles"

Quote from: "The American Nightmare"

Mephistopheles, we're just going back and forth and I have nothing left to add.

So is there a reason you made that claim in the first place, other than to waste my time?

Yes, that's exactly why. You caught me.  :roll:

I'm not gonna lose sleep because you can't understand why the Flat Earth is being incorrectly labeled as a theory.

I'm not sure how making unfounded claims would make one lose sleep in the first place.

... unfounded claims...

O! The irony!

You misunderstand me. When I say "without their influence", I mean "without their bogus photos and other faked evidence".

First of all, a very small minority of the population believes the moon landings were faked and rightfully so. Can you give me one reason why those photos are bogus other than, "They depict a round earth, which is in direct conflict with a flat earth, and since we, the flat-earthers, feel the need to act like God Almighty and never give in to the evidence, no matter how vast, can rightly say that these are bogus simply because they do not depict a flat earth, which we know is the truth sent from God above. Oh wait, that's us." This is the only arguement from you people I have heard as to why the moon landings were faked (okay, so I added my own perspective on your dogmatic views, but this is basically your arugement). Please, provide something other than this as to why they are bogus that I can not refute, and I will not use them as evidence. Until then, sorry. Oh, and by the way. You still have yet to explain the lunar eclipse, and just to make things interesting, why does the sun rise and set? And please, don't just say, "It's an optical trick." Explain the optical trick if said trick does indeed exist. If you can't explain your own hypothesis, then obviously something in it is flawed.

You still have yet to explain the lunar eclipse, and just to make things interesting, why does the sun rise and set?

Furthermore, what prevents us from seeing vast distances from a tall perspective with the aide of telescopes?  It seems like wherever I go a hill is obstructing my view, even on the open ocean.  Such problems also occur when observing a ship in the distance as the bow disappears but not the mast.  There are thermal situations that are responsible for seeing strange things out over an open ocean (such as upside down ships), however, these optical illusions are 100% dependent on a curvature in the Earth.

Quote

You still have yet to explain the lunar eclipse, and just to make things interesting, why does the sun rise and set?

Furthermore, what prevents us from seeing vast distances from a tall perspective with the aide of telescopes?  It seems like wherever I go a hill is obstructing my view, even on the open ocean.  Such problems also occur when observing a ship in the distance as the bow disappears but not the mast.  There are thermal situations that are responsible for seeing strange things out over an open ocean (such as upside down ships), however, these optical illusions are 100% dependent on a curvature in the Earth.

This simply describes how Earth has a vast amount of terrain difference.

By the same token, would you be able to see space with a telescope "parallel" to the Earth since it would create a line of tangency?

And I'll give you the bow/mast phenomena.  I haven't seen a clear-cut explanation for it on the FE side.