FET evidence?

Hey, guys.

So, I'm here to ask, what evidence is there to prove the earth is flat? Like, are there any experiments i could do to try to prove it right? I would like it a lot if someone gave me an affordable, somewhat easy experiment to prove that there really is a flat earth.

Also, could someone answer this question? I was reading on the FAQ and it said that in the Flat Earth Theory, and it said that nobody has lived past what the Flat Earth Theory says is the "edge" of the Earth, and what in Round Earth Theory is the south pole.. well..... I am pretty sure people have been on the south pole.... I mean come on =P

I would also like to see some evidence proving that there is an antimoon in lunar eclipses. I'm sorry but that sounds like someone just.... well... pulled it out of there bum.

Our most canonical text, Earth Not a Globe, which is freely available online, is a book of easily repeatable experiments which prove the Earth is flat.

Our most canonical text, Earth Not a Globe, which is freely available online, is a book of easily repeatable experiments which prove the Earth is flat.

But without experiments to try for free, how do I know that you aren't just lying to people to sell a book?

Our most canonical text, Earth Not a Globe, which is freely available online, is a book of easily repeatable experiments which prove the Earth is flat.

The flag experiment in EnAG is the bedford level one. It can be explained trough atmospheric refraction, wich was wrongly measured by the author.

Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 02:43:47 PM

Our most canonical text, Earth Not a Globe, which is freely available online, is a book of easily repeatable experiments which prove the Earth is flat.

The flag experiment in EnAG is the bedford level one. It can be explained trough atmospheric refraction, wich was wrongly measured by the author.

How would i go about conducting this experiment? I'm not wasting my money on a book.

Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 02:43:47 PM

Our most canonical text, Earth Not a Globe, which is freely available online, is a book of easily repeatable experiments which prove the Earth is flat.

But without experiments to try for free, how do I know that you aren't just lying to people to sell a book?

When I say 'freely available', I mean what I say.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Quote from: RoundEarthWinners on April 29, 2010, 02:53:46 PM

Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 02:43:47 PM

Our most canonical text, Earth Not a Globe, which is freely available online, is a book of easily repeatable experiments which prove the Earth is flat.

But without experiments to try for free, how do I know that you aren't just lying to people to sell a book?

When I say 'freely available', I mean what I say.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Thanks for showing me the site, I read experiment 1... and I can't understand how 6 miles is supposed to make that much of a difference in a curve.... the curve in 6 miles would be very hard to measure... especially when water moves up and down due to tides. The telescope should move... like what? a millimeter lol

Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 03:11:36 PM

Quote from: RoundEarthWinners on April 29, 2010, 02:53:46 PM

Quote from: James on April 29, 2010, 02:43:47 PM

Our most canonical text, Earth Not a Globe, which is freely available online, is a book of easily repeatable experiments which prove the Earth is flat.

But without experiments to try for free, how do I know that you aren't just lying to people to sell a book?

When I say 'freely available', I mean what I say.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Thanks for showing me the site, I read experiment 1... and I can't understand how 6 miles is supposed to make that much of a difference in a curve.... the curve in 6 miles would be very hard to measure... especially when water moves up and down due to tides. The telescope should move... like what? a millimeter lol

Actually, all these things are correctly caracterized by rowbotham. The thing that it's not is the measuring of refraction, wich completly destroys the experiment.

The Earth appears flat.
There is no valid evidence otherwise.
Why assume otherwise?

The Earth appears flat.
There is no valid evidence otherwise.
Why assume otherwise?

Ignorance is bliss, is it not?

The Earth appears flat.

You've never looked at the ocean have you?

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 01, 2010, 05:35:55 PM

The Earth appears flat.

You've never looked at the ocean have you?

Yes, I have. It looked pretty flat.

The Earth appears flat.

But it doesn't appear flat.  If you're an ant on a basketball and another ant walks away from you, it will get farther away and seem to drop down over the horizon.  On a flat plane, you'd still be able to see it.  On a rounded surface, however, it would drop as the curvature of the ball gets between it and your line of site.  This appearance of dropping is exactly what we observe when watching a ship sail over the horizon.

There is no valid evidence otherwise.

There is.  FEers just don't want to admit it.

Quote from: Death-T on May 01, 2010, 05:53:53 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 01, 2010, 05:35:55 PM

The Earth appears flat.

You've never looked at the ocean have you?

Yes, I have. It looked pretty flat.

No it doesn't, it curves off into the distance. See horizon.

There is.  FEers just don't want to admit it.

Please provide this evidence you claim exists.

But it doesn't appear flat.  If you're an ant on a basketball and another ant walks away from you, it will get farther away and seem to drop down over the horizon.  On a flat plane, you'd still be able to see it.  On a rounded surface, however, it would drop as the curvature of the ball gets between it and your line of site.  This appearance of dropping is exactly what we observe when watching a ship sail over the horizon.

No it doesn't, it curves off into the distance. See horizon.

Lurk moar, and read the FAQ. A horizon is not indicative of a round earth, and neither is the "Sinking Ship" effect.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 05:56:40 PM

There is.  FEers just don't want to admit it.

Please provide this evidence you claim exists.

I like how you turned the thread around to put the burden of proof on RE'ers to prove their claims when the thread stated out asking your team to provide evidence.

I like how you turned the thread around to put the burden of proof on RE'ers to prove their claims when the thread stated out asking your team to provide evidence.

FET is the default, not RET. Such is reality.

Quote from: Sliver on May 01, 2010, 06:03:41 PM

I like how you turned the thread around to put the burden of proof on RE'ers to prove their claims when the thread stated out asking your team to provide evidence.

FET is the default, not RET. Such is reality.

So you claim, but, the OP asked for evidence.  No one has offered any.  In fact, you have just made it into a, "Cuz I said so," debate.  If the Earth is truly flat, than certainly you have some scientific data, other than "Earth Not a Globe", that supports this.

Please provide this evidence you claim exists.

The fact that the motion of stars indicates its spin.

...that different stars are observed from the southern hemisphere.

...that the differing positions of planets in the sky demonstrates our (and their) revolutions about the sun.

...that lunar eclipses occur.

...that our most accurate maps are spherical.

...that we see things drop over the horizon (including the sun).

...that we have pictures of it from space.

...oh yeah, and that the Earth's magnetic field DOES NOT WORK in the way we would expect for a flat planet--only for a round one.

That's all I can come up with off the top of my head.  Now where's the evidence that the Earth is flat aside from the already-shown-to-be-invalid "it looks flat to me?"

The fact that the motion of stars indicates its spin.

...that different stars are observed from the southern hemisphere.

...that the differing positions of planets in the sky demonstrates our (and their) revolutions about the sun.

...that lunar eclipses occur.

...that our most accurate maps are spherical.

...that we see things drop over the horizon (including the sun).

...that we have pictures of it from space.

...oh yeah, and that the Earth's magnetic field DOES NOT WORK in the way we would expect for a flat planet--only for a round one.

That's all I can come up with off the top of my head.  Now where's the evidence that the Earth is flat aside from the already-shown-to-be-invalid "it looks flat to me?"

All of those points have been addressed, lurk moar.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 06:10:40 PM

The fact that the motion of stars indicates its spin.

...that different stars are observed from the southern hemisphere.

...that the differing positions of planets in the sky demonstrates our (and their) revolutions about the sun.

...that lunar eclipses occur.

...that our most accurate maps are spherical.

...that we see things drop over the horizon (including the sun).

...that we have pictures of it from space.

...oh yeah, and that the Earth's magnetic field DOES NOT WORK in the way we would expect for a flat planet--only for a round one.

That's all I can come up with off the top of my head.  Now where's the evidence that the Earth is flat aside from the already-shown-to-be-invalid "it looks flat to me?"

All of those points have been addressed, lurk moar.

I have not seen your answers for these points.  Could you please address them here?

All of those points have been addressed, lurk moar.

No, they've been avoided by shouting "CONSPIRACY!" or simply brushed off with concepts that don't fit with observed laws.  If the Earth is round, they all make perfect sense with no further explanation.  If the Earth is flat, numerous assumptions must be made that conflict with observed laws.  Occam's razor, anyone?

The Earth appears flat.

True enough.

There is no valid evidence otherwise.

That's pretty easy to say when you refuse to define what constitutes valid evidence.

Why assume otherwise?

Why assume that evidence for FET is any more valid than evidence for RET?

I have not seen your answers for these points.  Could you please address them here?

No. They'd off topic, and frankly, that's a lot of typing I don't feel like doing.

Occam's razor, anyone?

Occam's Razor has been demonstrated numerous times, by me personally, to be bullshit. The most clear cut example is in the example of creationism and evolution.

Why assume that evidence for FET is any more valid than evidence for RET?

I'm not assuming that.

Quote from: markjo on May 01, 2010, 06:29:35 PM

Why assume that evidence for FET is any more valid than evidence for RET?

I'm not assuming that.

Of course you are. 

The Earth appears flat.
There is no valid evidence otherwise.

I fail to see how those statements contradict in anyway.

No. They'd off topic, and frankly, that's a lot of typing I don't feel like doing.

They wouldn't be off-topic.  If you manage, somehow, to disprove the roundness of the Earth, you'd do it with evidence for the flatness (or other-shaped-ness) of the Earth, which is exactly what this topic is asking for.  The "I would, but I'm too lazy" thing is rather telling.

They wouldn't be off-topic.  If you manage, somehow, to disprove the roundness of the Earth, you'd do it with evidence for the flatness (or other-shaped-ness) of the Earth, which is exactly what this topic is asking for.  The "I would, but I'm too lazy" thing is rather telling.

RET is not the default, FET is. Also, they have all been addressed. The FAQ, Wiki, and search function will elaborate.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 06:47:03 PM

They wouldn't be off-topic.  If you manage, somehow, to disprove the roundness of the Earth, you'd do it with evidence for the flatness (or other-shaped-ness) of the Earth, which is exactly what this topic is asking for.  The "I would, but I'm too lazy" thing is rather telling.

RET is not the default, FET is. Also, they have all been addressed. The FAQ, Wiki, and search function will elaborate.

How about this, you can simply link some evidence, provided by a scientist who is not a member of this forum AND living, who can support anything in your Wiki or FAQ.  Think you can do that, or are you too lazy?

They haven't been addressed competently.  It's as I said before: they all shout conspiracy or create wild new forces that only apply in certain places at certain times for no apparent reason all to keep to the original presupposition.