Proof: The Earth is Round

1. Earth is flat.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.

However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.

1. Earth is flat.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.

However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.

A) Prove Premise 1.
B) Prove Prove 2.
C) Justify your outlandish claim that any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct.
D) Show where I assumed Premise 1 to be invalid as a premise in my deductions.

Good luck.

a) Look out the window.
b) Look at a sunset.
c) Read the definition of a theory.

Read what others have written more carefully. I did not say you assumed premise 1 to be invalid (if you had used that, you would be making a circular argument). I said you assumed the conclusion from premise 1 and premise 2, namely that light bends to be invalid.

a) Look out the window.
b) Look at a sunset.
c) Read the definition of a theory.

Read what others have written more carefully. I did not say you assumed premise 1 to be invalid (if you had used that, you would be making a circular argument). I said you assumed the conclusion from premise 1 and premise 2, namely that light bends to be invalid.

a) Nothing I see out the windows proves that the Earth is flat.
b) I have. Nothing I see at sunset nothing that proves distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
c) I have. Nothing in that definition matches what you claim.
d) You said nothing about premise 2, or any conclusion from it, in that paragraph. Clearly you fail yet again.

1. Earth is flat.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.

However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.

You can't take the unproven thing as a premise. You must show that the light bends without relying to the Earth shape. So, there are quite many experiments which show that the light travels in straight lines. Where is your experiment which shows that light bends?

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 11:27:26 AM

a) Look out the window.
b) Look at a sunset.
c) Read the definition of a theory.

Read what others have written more carefully. I did not say you assumed premise 1 to be invalid (if you had used that, you would be making a circular argument). I said you assumed the conclusion from premise 1 and premise 2, namely that light bends to be invalid.

a) Nothing I see out the windows proves that the Earth is flat.
b) I have. Nothing I see at sunset nothing that proves distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
c) I have. Nothing in that definition matches what you claim.
d) You said nothing about premise 2, or any conclusion from it, in that paragraph. Clearly you fail yet again.

Remember that evidence can never prove a theory, but only support it. Does the observational evidence from your everyday experience contradict the Flat Earth assumption? If so, please state what evidence is that. Similarly, do you not agree that the bottom of the Sun first disappears from our view during a sunset? Same, do you not agree that for other observers to the West of your location the Sun looks overhead? Therefore, it cannot decrease in altitude, but actually recedes from you and approaches other observers, but always remains at the same height above Earth's surface. These sets of observational data are best modeled by a flat earth with light bending.

As far as d) is concerned, I think you are under the influence of some mind altering substance.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 11:15:52 AM

1. Earth is flat.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.

However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.

You can't take the unproven thing as a premise. You must show that the light bends without relying to the Earth shape. So, there are quite many experiments which show that the light travels in straight lines. Where is your experiment which shows that light bends?

I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 11:40:21 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 11:15:52 AM

1. Earth is flat.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.

However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.

You can't take the unproven thing as a premise. You must show that the light bends without relying to the Earth shape. So, there are quite many experiments which show that the light travels in straight lines. Where is your experiment which shows that light bends?

I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.

And how exactly you conclusively proved that the Earth is flat? And there may be other reasons why the ships disappear. Like they actually sink. Or water raises up between you and the ship. Your deduction is worthless until you devise some experiment which shows how the light actually bends.

1. Earth is flat.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.

However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.

Well - no - the simplest explanation is that sun merely travels underneath the earth and pops up in the East the next morning.

This requires no bendy light theories and falls in with the fact the world seems flat to you when you look out your window.

I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.

By that same train of thought anyone can deduce something different given the same two premises and have an equally valid proof.

Berny
Still - nobody has explained the stars.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 11:35:42 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 11:27:26 AM

a) Look out the window.
b) Look at a sunset.
c) Read the definition of a theory.

Read what others have written more carefully. I did not say you assumed premise 1 to be invalid (if you had used that, you would be making a circular argument). I said you assumed the conclusion from premise 1 and premise 2, namely that light bends to be invalid.

a) Nothing I see out the windows proves that the Earth is flat.
b) I have. Nothing I see at sunset nothing that proves distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
c) I have. Nothing in that definition matches what you claim.
d) You said nothing about premise 2, or any conclusion from it, in that paragraph. Clearly you fail yet again.

Remember that evidence can never prove a theory, but only support it. Does the observational evidence from your everyday experience contradict the Flat Earth assumption? If so, please state what evidence is that. Similarly, do you not agree that the bottom of the Sun first disappears from our view during a sunset? Same, do you not agree that for other observers to the West of your location the Sun looks overhead? Therefore, it cannot decrease in altitude, but actually recedes from you and approaches other observers, but always remains at the same height above Earth's surface. These sets of observational data are best modeled by a flat earth with light bending.

As far as d) is concerned, I think you are under the influence of some mind altering substance.

1) Prove your claim now in red text above.
2) Why do you limit me to everyday personal experiences? I reject that limitation as does Science.
3) How do you know that the Sun remains at the same height above the Earth's surface?
4) What observer to my distant West could possibly be in my everyday experience? I'm not there by definition.
5) How do you know that the Sun isn't really going below the horizon? Do you have to assume premise 1 first?
6) Without evidence that premise 1 is correct, I have to reject it and with it your entire argument.

You can't even quote the phrase correctly. What a failure you are.

If you cannot contribute anything but off-topic bickering and pendantry please step away from the computer and enjoy the fellowship of friends and family. This is hardly the first time you've been warned. Please consider this your final warning before you take an involuntary sabbatical.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 11:15:52 AM

1. Earth is flat.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.

However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.

Well - no - the simplest explanation is that sun merely travels underneath the earth and pops up in the East the next morning.

This requires no bendy light theories and falls in with the fact the world seems flat to you when you look out your window.

If this were true, it would mean that it is day and night at ALL points on the Earth at the same time. However, this is contrary to observational evidence.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 11:43:27 AM

I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.

By that same train of thought anyone can deduce something different given the same two premises and have an equally valid proof.

I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.

I can deduce anything I want if I craft the premises to suit the conclusion without regard for their veracity.

I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.

 That the premise 1 isn't true.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 12:20:28 PM

I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.

 That the premise 1 isn't true.

So, assuming premise 1 and premise 2, you deduce premise 1 is correct. WOW! You are a genius.

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 12:39:01 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 12:20:28 PM

I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.

 That the premise 1 isn't true.

So, assuming premise 1 and premise 2, you deduce premise 1 is correct. WOW! You are a genius.

I think you've erred, again. After you fix this, please tell us the reason that you need to assume premise 1.

Quote from: berny_74 on November 13, 2010, 11:54:08 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 11:15:52 AM

1. Earth is flat.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.

However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.

Well - no - the simplest explanation is that sun merely travels underneath the earth and pops up in the East the next morning.

This requires no bendy light theories and falls in with the fact the world seems flat to you when you look out your window.

If this were true, it would mean that it is day and night at ALL points on the Earth at the same time. However, this is contrary to observational evidence.

Irrelevant, it is what I see out my window.

a) Look out the window.
b) Look at a sunset.

Quote from: berny_74 on November 13, 2010, 11:54:08 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 11:43:27 AM

I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.

By that same train of thought anyone can deduce something different given the same two premises and have an equally valid proof.

I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.

The sun sinks below the horizon in the west and rises in the east.  The only logical explanation is that it traveled under us.

Berny

ITT: REers being dumb unintentionally.

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 12:39:01 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 12:20:28 PM

I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.

 That the premise 1 isn't true.

So, assuming premise 1 and premise 2, you deduce premise 1 is correct. WOW! You are a genius.

I said it isn't true not that it is true. Can't you read? And of course. If you assume the premise 1 and premise 2 and got the result which contradicts the premise 1 then only thing to deduce is that the premise 1 isn't true.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 12:40:03 PM

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 12:39:01 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 12:20:28 PM

I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.

 That the premise 1 isn't true.

So, assuming premise 1 and premise 2, you deduce premise 1 is correct. WOW! You are a genius.

I said it isn't true not that it is true. Can't you read? And of course. If you assume the premise 1 and premise 2 and got the result which contradicts the premise 1 then only thing to deduce is that the premise 1 isn't true.

Ok, so let's get this straight. Are you claiming:

Premise 1;
Premise 2;
---------------
NOT(Premise 1)

is a valid syllogism or, are you saying something else?

 I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.

I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.

Ok, how do you think premise 2 contradict premise 1 in our particular case?

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 01:28:46 PM

I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.

Ok, how do you think premise 2 contradict premise 1 in our particular case?

Because you can assume from that the round earth.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 01:29:38 PM

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 01:28:46 PM

I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.

Ok, how do you think premise 2 contradict premise 1 in our particular case?

Because you can assume from that the round earth.

Wow, that's a large leap of faith.

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 01:57:07 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 01:29:38 PM

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 01:28:46 PM

I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.

Ok, how do you think premise 2 contradict premise 1 in our particular case?

Because you can assume from that the round earth.

Wow, that's a large leap of faith.

As is accepting that the earth is flat when that has yet to be proven.

Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?

Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?

Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 07:31:13 PM

Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?

Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!

pats 'ClockTower' on the shoulder... There there, don't get overexcited. Here, drink these pills.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 07:41:38 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 07:31:13 PM

Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?

Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!

pats 'ClockTower' on the shoulder... There there, don't get overexcited. Here, drink these pills.

You know you really never had a chance there. I really thought there was a time that you could have made a case for EAT. I guess the math must have been too much for you, like Roundy and his grand unified theory for FET.

EAT is just not even making a decent appearance in these topics anymore. Really, you want to start from the "assumption" that the Earth is flat to prove EAT?

Oh, and you don't drink pills.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 07:43:41 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 07:41:38 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 07:31:13 PM

Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?

Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!

pats 'ClockTower' on the shoulder... There there, don't get overexcited. Here, drink these pills.

You know you really never had a chance there. I really thought there was a time that you could have made a case for EAT. I guess the math must have been too much for you, like Roundy and his grand unified theory for FET.

EAT is just not even making a decent appearance in these topics anymore. Really, you want to start from the "assumption" that the Earth is flat to prove EAT?

Oh, and you don't drink pills.

Keep telling that to yourself.