Round earthers: how did you come to believe this?

hey guys hows it goin?>

ok so heres the deal. i am an ESA (earth shape agnostic). as i examine all sides of this issue i want to ask re'ers a question:

all of the FE guys i know here were not educated to believe in fe from birth. so i want to know when the re'ers here started to believe the earth was round? the very first time you though about it?

Through overwhelming evidence which I have no reason to doubt.

An unquenchable thirst for attention and the desire to always disagree with everyone.

An unquenchable thirst for attention and the desire to always disagree with everyone.

so u dont want the truth then?


also u guys didn't answer me at all! how did u OIRGINALLY come to believe in round earth?!

Learned about it from a documentary on spaceflight when I was four.

Physics

I received, like almost every other schoolkid, the information about the shape of the Earth at school, and accepted it without hesitation.

Then I received information about all the other phenomena where the shape of the Earth plays a part, and even though I did not question the shape of the Earth, I had received most of the relevant evidence before college.

Since I found this forum I decided that I would see the evidence directly, looking for the the best evidence for both a scientist (accepting evidence from other scientists) and for a total paranoid.

For a scientist, the fact that the laws of gravitation have been independently tested in several ways is the best evidence possible. From the Cavendish experiment to the orbits of the planets, gravitation predicts so many different phenomena that it is undeniable.

For the non-scientist, the deluge of photos from space are the best evidence, since it is direct, very difficult to fake, and there are so many photos and videos from so many independent sources, that you cannot just brush them all away without strong evidence.

Finally, I decided to see what evidence is there for a total paranoid, one who will only accept a simple, inexpensive test that requires nobody else to help or interfere. Somebody suggested the azimuth of the sun at dawn on the equinox, and I tested this personally, and posted my results here.

If someone wants to measure an object that is so big that direct observation is impossible, you get unmovable reference points (in this case, the stars and planets) and make measurements against them. In this case, all the measurements that navigators have done for centuries indirectly show the shape of the Earth.

Every RE'er is going to tell you that you they learned it in school.Than while learning about ancient history we see how it was discovered that the earth is round.

FE'ers treat the educational system like they use subliminal messaging or something.

"Round Earth.... round.... Earth...."

Now.  As The Question1 said, we learn off the bat that the Earth is round; then we learn about how it was discovered to be round; then, as we advance through our education, we learn more about the science behind the round Earth.

I looked out of my window and it looked round. To check I stepped off a chair. Yep still round.

1) thousands upon thousands of images of Earth which are all round, and which only half of the globe can be seen at one particular time.

2) images of other planets from many space missions such as Voyager I & II. Earth is a planet, so we are just like other planets, Globular.

3) the fact that the sun can only been seen for half the day and doesnt appear to shink into the horizon but instead seems to sink into the other side of the horizon.

4) The fact that in like the 4th century, when people had no strong ideas of science and astronomy, they thought the world was flat, and as technology and education increased we came to realize it was round after extensive studies by historical scientists. Everyone believed that the earth was flat back in the day until overwhelming evidence finally proved to everyone that the world was round... It seems now that this forum is trying to do the same thing as in the past, but for some reason, this time, no one is even slightly convinced that it's flat... hmmm

5) Flights in the southern hemisphere are not longer in duration than in the northern hemisphere. The flat Earth theory map would state that it would be.

6) The 6 or 7 different types of flat earth maps on this forum with no FET theorist able to confirm which one is more accurate.

7) im sure there are many more things that convinced me when i was younger that the world was round...

Truthfully, I always believed in a round earth because they told me it was round. I didn't question it because it was common knowledge. But there is something special about this common knowledge: Consistency.

What is Consistency?

Consistency is when things fit together very well.

All the laws of physics (At the scale we observe them) extend equally in all direction from their sources: Light from the sun or light bulbs, electric field from an electric charge, gravity from a mass... Even the magnetic field would extend equally in all directions if you could possibly find a magnetic monopole. "Extending equally in all directions" implies a sphere. This is consistent with what we see.

We have photo and video evidence of a round earth, as well as documented space explorations. None of this evidence can be verified by the individual, but one this is still true: It's consistent with what we have been told. NASA may have done the most important space explorations, but not all of them. The earth has been shown to be round by independent sources.

We can explain in detail almost any phenomenon that a person could ask. The answers we get would be consistent. The only problems people find with a round earth are made by misrepresenting the data (like the problems you guys come up with), or problems at the extremes of our knowledge (Such as quantum physics and multiverse theories...).

The round earth is tied down so tightly by so many pieces in the puzzle of science, that if you took it out of the puzzle, sience itself would break apart with it. Have you notice there's no sientific theory called the "Round Earth Theory"? It's because the round earth is only one of the many implications of larger scientific fields.

Is the flat earth idea consistent?

What is consistent about the Flat Earth Idea? Let me show you what isn't consistent:
-6 or 7 different maps.
-Different theories on the curvature of light. (Straight, parabolic, circular, magical...)
-Different theories on the scale of the conspiracy.(And the need for a conspiracy is usually a sign of a failed theory)
-Different ideas for the distance and size of the sun and moon.
-Different motion theories of the stars.
-Different opinions on the existence of the universal accelerator.
-And those were just the internal inconsistencies. This idea is also inconsistent with the entirety of science.

Consistency is probably the single most important aspect of any theory in science, and that's why I believe in a round earth. Every theory has little problems and arguments concerning the details and implications it might have. But this one just goes way too far: The only thing that all of you (Flat earth believers) agree on is that the earth must be flat.

I believe the theories revolving around the shape of the earth, are way too complex and requires good education within the subject. People who have studied their subject for years and devoted their life to it, are people I'd rather trust compared to people who claim themselves to be experts on every earth-shape related subject.

The people talking about a flat earth can't agree with each other, and the majority seem to have very poor reading comprehension skills. How can I expect these people to interpret numerous links explaining the scientific methods behind the earth shape ideas, when they can't understand sentences like "Plants see light" and think they mean "Plants have eyes"?

I was told at a young age.
Everything makes perfect sense and so far I haven't found anything that contradicts my view.  Oh sure I've wavered when arguing with Levee about pictures, but in my mind, the probability of 6 billion people being constantly wrong even though many of them depend on the Earth being round to function (satellite communications being one), it'll take one hell of a solid fact to convince me that the Earth isn't round.  And by fact I mean something that I can verify that can't be explained by mirage, bad math, or Levee.

Truthfully, I always believed in a round earth because they told me it was round. I didn't question it because it was common knowledge. But there is something special about this common knowledge: Consistency.

What is Consistency?

Consistency is when things fit together very well.

All the laws of physics (At the scale we observe them) extend equally in all direction from their sources: Light from the sun or light bulbs, electric field from an electric charge, gravity from a mass... Even the magnetic field would extend equally in all directions if you could possibly find a magnetic monopole. "Extending equally in all directions" implies a sphere. This is consistent with what we see.

We have photo and video evidence of a round earth, as well as documented space explorations. None of this evidence can be verified by the individual, but one this is still true: It's consistent with what we have been told. NASA may have done the most important space explorations, but not all of them. The earth has been shown to be round by independent sources.

We can explain in detail almost any phenomenon that a person could ask. The answers we get would be consistent. The only problems people find with a round earth are made by misrepresenting the data (like the problems you guys come up with), or problems at the extremes of our knowledge (Such as quantum physics and multiverse theories...).

The round earth is tied down so tightly by so many pieces in the puzzle of science, that if you took it out of the puzzle, sience itself would break apart with it. Have you notice there's no sientific theory called the "Round Earth Theory"? It's because the round earth is only one of the many implications of larger scientific fields.

Is the flat earth idea consistent?

What is consistent about the Flat Earth Idea? Let me show you what isn't consistent:
-6 or 7 different maps.
-Different theories on the curvature of light. (Straight, parabolic, circular, magical...)
-Different theories on the scale of the conspiracy.(And the need for a conspiracy is usually a sign of a failed theory)
-Different ideas for the distance and size of the sun and moon.
-Different motion theories of the stars.
-Different opinions on the existence of the universal accelerator.
-And those were just the internal inconsistencies. This idea is also inconsistent with the entirety of science.

Consistency is probably the single most important aspect of any theory in science, and that's why I believe in a round earth. Every theory has little problems and arguments concerning the details and implications it might have. But this one just goes way too far: The only thing that all of you (Flat earth believers) agree on is that the earth must be flat.

Round earth theory is hardly consistant on space and other manners , that I'm usre someone other than my self would research and find.

Ahh, I love how the goal post is so far for RE: Outer Space yet so close for FE, Earth.

Physics

This does not answer Gigamonsta's question.  In fact, it shows a frightening lack of reading comprehension.

Quote from: sokarul on June 01, 2010, 12:56:00 PM

Physics

This does not answer Gigamonsta's question.  In fact, it shows a frightening lack of reading comprehension.

ya thats what I am trying to say. I want them to tell me how they first began to believe in a RE... Thanks roundy for pointing this out.

Years of brainwashing.

Somewhere in elementary school, you learn about Christopher Columbus and how everyone thought the earth was flat, and Columbus thought it was round and thought he could go West to get to India, but instead found North America. Then later we learned that at that time, actually most people thought the earth was round, but didn't know about the Americas. Then after that, all math and science that applies, is based on/confirms the earth is round.

Somewhere in elementary school, you learn about Christopher Columbus and how everyone thought the earth was flat, and Columbus thought it was round and thought he could go West to get to India, but instead found North America. Then later we learned that at that time, actually most people thought the earth was round, but didn't know about the Americas. Then after that, all math and science that applies, is based on/confirms the earth is round.

so you were indoctrinated at a young age and then rushed for books of math and science written by apologists trying to protect the RET?

No, you misread my post. At a young age, in school, you are never told the whole truth, at the time you really wouldn't understand it. This goes for all subjects. For instance, in algebra I, you are told that the square root of -1 does not exist, but in Algebra II, after a year of geometry, you learn differently. And as math goes on, you realize a lot of what you were told is true isn't, as you explore the world of math.

In science, when you are a child, you are told simplifications, but as you go through education, especially in college, you learn what actually happens in the world, at an atomic level.

Most importantly in science, you are told to question everything. So its fine to question the shape of the earth. The problem is that while RET explains everything adequately, the FEH (Flat Earth Hypothesis) may explain some things but can never explain everything, there are always issues with it that show it can not possibly be true.

If you want to see what those things are, I believe JackofHearts made a post about it.

Round earth theory is hardly consistant on space and other manners , that I'm usre someone other than my self would research and find.

It's easy to just say "No, it's not", which is exactly hat you just did. Now explain which part of our model of the universe is not consistent? The only problems we have so far are the differences between microscopic and macroscopic physics. But that's only because it's at the very extremes of our knowledge.

You can't use this to say that idea of a round earth is not consistent. Ask a question about almost anything and there is a scientific answer for it. And this scientific answer is usually backed up by several different sources from different scientific fields. Even if it is somewhat inconsistent at a more detiled level, it is nothing compared to the bizarre inconsistencies of a flat earth.

If you want to see what those things are, I believe JackofHearts made a post about it.

Indeed I did.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=37752.60

Round earth theory is hardly consistant on space and other manners , that I'm usre someone other than my self would research and find.

Define "Other manners"

Quote from: Tech on June 03, 2010, 09:23:03 PM

Somewhere in elementary school, you learn about Christopher Columbus and how everyone thought the earth was flat, and Columbus thought it was round and thought he could go West to get to India, but instead found North America. Then later we learned that at that time, actually most people thought the earth was round, but didn't know about the Americas. Then after that, all math and science that applies, is based on/confirms the earth is round.

so you were indoctrinated at a young age and then rushed for books of math and science written by apologists trying to protect the RET?

No,they are Math and Science books written by smart people that know what they are talking about.

Years of brainwashing.

I'm surprised more don't mention this. 

Even if they are convinced they believe it not due to brain washing *now*, at the time for everyone it was almost always brainwashing.

Brainwashing? Not really. A round earth has been proven by numerous experiments and space photos. It's not brainwashing when you're told facts(And yes, the earth being round is a fact all over the world). Then again, I don't recall ever being told the earth being round. I recall doing experiments which assumed it was round, and the results I had were consistent. This is at ground school levels, and afaik, there's not a single flat earth experiment that I can scientifically conduct at this level.

Brainwashing? Not really. A round earth has been proven by numerous experiments and space photos. It's not brainwashing when you're told facts(And yes, the earth being round is a fact all over the world). Then again, I don't recall ever being told the earth being round. I recall doing experiments which assumed it was round, and the results I had were consistent. This is at ground school levels, and afaik, there's not a single flat earth experiment that I can scientifically conduct at this level.

Its brainwashing whether it is true or not.

Quote from: Catchpa on June 05, 2010, 01:40:31 PM

Brainwashing? Not really. A round earth has been proven by numerous experiments and space photos. It's not brainwashing when you're told facts(And yes, the earth being round is a fact all over the world). Then again, I don't recall ever being told the earth being round. I recall doing experiments which assumed it was round, and the results I had were consistent. This is at ground school levels, and afaik, there's not a single flat earth experiment that I can scientifically conduct at this level.

Its brainwashing whether it is true or not.

Isn't brainwashing when you ERASE what is known or held to be true and put in new information?

Quote from: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 02:36:14 PM

Quote from: Catchpa on June 05, 2010, 01:40:31 PM

Brainwashing? Not really. A round earth has been proven by numerous experiments and space photos. It's not brainwashing when you're told facts(And yes, the earth being round is a fact all over the world). Then again, I don't recall ever being told the earth being round. I recall doing experiments which assumed it was round, and the results I had were consistent. This is at ground school levels, and afaik, there's not a single flat earth experiment that I can scientifically conduct at this level.

Its brainwashing whether it is true or not.

Isn't brainwashing when you ERASE what is known or held to be true and put in new information?

Fair enough, I guess I was using it in a more colloquial way.