Reasons for Belief

Are you asking why an FEer believes the earth is flat?

Because it looks flat.


That's the impetus. And I'm sure if you ask a young toddler who has never been told otherwise, he'd say the same thing.

The difference is that FEers aren't as easily convinced to go against their initial assumption. While REers say "Oh, ok, I guess I was wrong. It must be round," an FEer says "I don't believe you."

Sureley that depends where you're looking; if a toddler is looking out to sea, and a ship sails towards him; He'll see the mast first.  Or perhaps they're looking out over a vast piece of grassland, and see somone coming towards them; they'll see the head of the person first.

When a toddler sees these things he'll say "Why"? I doubt many toddlers would say "I know, the earh is flat and the illuminati are pretending it isn't" Without any outside input whatsoever, a toddler is more likely to come up with RE theory, not FE. Toddlers are intelligent enough to generally go for the most obvious and simple answer (what we would call applieng occam's razor), that's RE.

So I guess you're saying FEers are as reasonable as toddlers?

I'd say most toddlers I've met are more reasonable, or at least more rational

Quote from: "Unimportant"

Are you asking why an FEer believes the earth is flat?

Because it looks flat.


That's the impetus. And I'm sure if you ask a young toddler who has never been told otherwise, he'd say the same thing.

The difference is that FEers aren't as easily convinced to go against their initial assumption. While REers say "Oh, ok, I guess I was wrong. It must be round," an FEer says "I don't believe you."

Sureley that depends where you're looking; if a toddler is looking out to sea, and a ship sails towards him; He'll see the mast first.  Or perhaps they're looking out over a vast piece of grassland, and see somone coming towards them; they'll see the head of the person first.

When a toddler sees these things he'll say "Why"? I doubt many toddlers would say "I know, the earh is flat and the illuminati are pretending it isn't" Without any outside input whatsoever, a toddler is more likely to come up with RE theory, not FE. Toddlers are intelligent enough to generally go for the most obvious and simple answer (what we would call applieng occam's razor), that's RE.

Quote from: "soggycrouton"

So I guess you're saying FEers are as reasonable as toddlers?

I'd say most toddlers I've met are more reasonable, or at least more rational

i'd say a toddler is more likely to not even consider the FE/RE problem at all.  its hardly relevant to their lives.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

Are you asking why an FEer believes the earth is flat?

Because it looks flat.


That's the impetus. And I'm sure if you ask a young toddler who has never been told otherwise, he'd say the same thing.

Sureley that depends where you're looking; if a toddler is looking out to sea, and a ship sails towards him; He'll see the mast first.

 Without any outside input whatsoever, a toddler is more likely to come up with RE theory, not FE. Toddlers are intelligent enough to generally go for the most obvious and simple answer (what we would call applieng occam's razor), that's RE.

No, not at all.

I would say the toddler is a lot more likely to think "Hill!" than "we are a massive globe being propelled through an infinitely more massive universe by the centrifugal force resulting from the radial acceleration attributed to gravity, the unexplained phenomenon of mass attracting mass."

I mean, hell, have you ever played "Peek a boo" with a toddler? They generally don't even get the concept of persistance of matter until later, and you think they're going to draw relevant conclusions about perspective issues dealing with impreceptible curvature on a relatively gigantic object? No, not a chance. Wow.

Have you ever stopped to think just how ridiculous sounding the RE model is? I'm asking this as an REer to another REer, not in the context of the FE debate. I'm not saying the FE model is any less ridiculous, but there is not a person alive (nor will there ever be) who can truly comprehend the complexities of this universe, and you call this the simplest answer? The RE model is not simpler, we just know it better.

I would say the toddler is a lot more likely to think "Hill!" than "we are a massive globe being propelled through an infinitely more massive universe by the centrifugal force resulting from the radial acceleration attributed to gravity, the unexplained phenomenon of mass attracting mass."

And they're more likely to think, when seeing a ship come over the horizon, "unexplained optical illusion caused by water mist difracting the light!" Come on.

I mean, hell, have you ever played "Peek a boo" with a toddler? They generally don't even get the concept of persistance of matter until later, and you think they're going to draw relevant conclusions about perspective issues dealing with impreceptible curvature on a relatively gigantic object? No, not a chance. Wow.

Well, if you read a psychology textbook, yes, there are stages of development in toddlers. Very young ones do not understand that things continue to persist after they can no longer see them. But you're probably correct, a young child won't even think about these things.

But that's kind of irrelevant, isn't it? A toddler looks at the earth and thinks it's flat, so it's the most obvious one, so you won't be dissuaded by any evidence to the contrary?

If we're trying to go what people have understood and what their first impressions of the earth are, then RE wins again. People have understood that the earth was round for centuries. It's a myth that people of columbus' time believed the earth was flat and mutinied because they were afraid of falling of the edge. People have understood based on atronomy and the simple fact that ships disappear in that certain way over the horizon that the earth is curved.

And you critisize the RE notion of gravity?? FEers have gravity... but only the sun and the moon emit it, which are flat objects that always look like a sphere no matter where you look at them from. Yeah. That's just as simple.

Have you ever stopped to think just how ridiculous sounding the RE model is? I'm asking this as an REer to another REer, not in the context of the FE debate. I'm not saying the FE model is any less ridiculous, but there is not a person alive (nor will there ever be) who can truly comprehend the complexities of this universe, and you call this the simplest answer? The RE model is not simpler, we just know it better.

No, it most definitely is simpler. It explains everything better, it's more consistent, and it doesn't require a ridiculous conpiracy. The laws of atronomy and physics were working great before the founder of the FE society wrote that book. Why attack them, replacing them with more inconsistent and insufficient explanations?

If we're trying to go what people have understood and what their first impressions of the earth are, then RE wins again. People have understood that the earth was round for centuries. It's a myth that people of columbus' time believed the earth was flat and mutinied because they were afraid of falling of the edge. People have understood based on atronomy and the simple fact that ships disappear in that certain way over the horizon that the earth is curved.

I really don't think that's the case and I'd like to see a source to back that up.  I don't mean about the Columbus thing specifically but about peoples belief that the Earth was round.  Certainly there are certain societies that thought that the Earth was round at certain points in history but the way you present it sounds like everybody has always known that the Earth is round.  I really don't think that's the case at all.  There are lots of cultures that believed that the Earth was flat - early Greeks, Ancient Chinese, much of Europe during the middle ages and plenty of other cultures.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are still cultures today that have a belief in a flat world (in isolated communities untouched by other cultures).

Quote from: "soggycrouton"

If we're trying to go what people have understood and what their first impressions of the earth are, then RE wins again. People have understood that the earth was round for centuries. It's a myth that people of columbus' time believed the earth was flat and mutinied because they were afraid of falling of the edge. People have understood based on atronomy and the simple fact that ships disappear in that certain way over the horizon that the earth is curved.

I really don't think that's the case and I'd like to see a source to back that up.  I don't mean about the Columbus thing specifically but about peoples belief that the Earth was round.  Certainly there are certain societies that thought that the Earth was round at certain points in history but the way you present it sounds like everybody has always known that the Earth is round.  I really don't think that's the case at all.  There are lots of cultures that believed that the Earth was flat - early Greeks, Ancient Chinese, much of Europe during the middle ages and plenty of other cultures.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are still cultures today that have a belief in a flat world (in isolated communities untouched by other cultures).

I apologize, I didn't mean to give the conception that all people of all times have always known the world was round. However, it IS a common misconception that people of columbus' time thought this. From wikipedia:

The common misconception that people, especially the Christian Church, before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828. In the United States, this belief persists in the popular imagination, and is even repeated in some widely read textbooks. Previous editions of Thomas Bailey's The American Pageant stated that "The superstitious sailors ... grew increasingly mutinous...because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world"; however, no such historical account is known.[29] Actually, sailors were probably among the first to know of the curvature of Earth from daily observations — seeing how shore landscape features (or masts of other ships) gradually descend/ascend near the horizon.

I'd understand if you wanted a better source that wikipedia, but wikipedia references the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your History Textbook Got Wrong", by James Loewen. If you want further proof I guess I could look for some.

Ok that's an ok source - I accept wikipedia as accurate enough to be believed when it has the same opinion as somebody else.  I certainly have no counter evidence anyway.

But if that's the case, then why did Columbus sail to the Americas?  Surely he was trying to prove that the world was round and if that is the case surely there were some people at the time who thought it was flat?  You don't usually try to prove something that everybody already believes (unless you're a REer on this forum - but they are a rare breed, probably closer to ape than man ).

If I remember my history correctly, he was trying to find an alternate route to India (indicating he realized the earth was round--or at least looped back somehow), to possibly flank them if the possibility was needed in war.

But, of course, instead he found that there was more than just ocean in between Spain and India to the West.  I am deliberately trying not to say he "discovered" the land, though, since Amerigo Vespucci had discovered South America (or at least the islands in the Carribean) quite a while before Columbus' voyage, not to mention the Vikings that had sailed across the Atlantic centuries before any Eurpoeans did.

It is my understanding that the issue for Columbus wasn't the shape of the earth... but it's diameter. He thought he could get to the Indies for tradin' and such faster by going across the Pacific.

Little did he know that there was a pesky continient in the way.

What they said.

I would say the toddler is a lot more likely to think "Hill!" than "we are a massive globe being propelled through an infinitely more massive universe by the centrifugal force resulting from the radial acceleration attributed to gravity, the unexplained phenomenon of mass attracting mass."

Actually, the first thought would be "why", if s\he is anything like the 3 to 5 year olds I know; it's their favorite word. And what toddler would think "hill" whilst looking out to sea? Most know that you don't get hills in water,
and I could demonstrate the RE reason of the whole ship\mast question with a beach ball and toy car. Try demonstrating FE theories.

Have you ever stopped to think just how ridiculous sounding the RE model is? I'm asking this as an REer to another REer, not in the context of the FE debate. I'm not saying the FE model is any less ridiculous, but there is not a person alive (nor will there ever be) who can truly comprehend the complexities of this universe, and you call this the simplest answer? The RE model is not simpler, we just know it better.

Yes, I'd call it the simplest answe that fits all our observational evidence.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

Have you ever stopped to think just how ridiculous sounding the RE model is? I'm asking this as an REer to another REer, not in the context of the FE debate. I'm not saying the FE model is any less ridiculous, but there is not a person alive (nor will there ever be) who can truly comprehend the complexities of this universe, and you call this the simplest answer? The RE model is not simpler, we just know it better.

Yes, I'd call it the simplest answe that fits all our observational evidence.

but like he said. you only consider it simpler cause you've been taught it for what? let me assume you're a teenager(no offence intended, its just the minimum age someone here would be) that would mean you've been having RE theory taught to you for about ten years.  of course you'll think something you've been taught for ten years is simple!  i think getting dressed is simple, but can a toddler/will a toddler do that?

Quote from: "VJ"

Quote from: "Unimportant"

Have you ever stopped to think just how ridiculous sounding the RE model is? I'm asking this as an REer to another REer, not in the context of the FE debate. I'm not saying the FE model is any less ridiculous, but there is not a person alive (nor will there ever be) who can truly comprehend the complexities of this universe, and you call this the simplest answer? The RE model is not simpler, we just know it better.

Yes, I'd call it the simplest answe that fits all our observational evidence.

but like he said. you only consider it simpler cause you've been taught it for what? let me assume you're a teenager(no offence intended, its just the minimum age someone here would be) that would mean you've been having RE theory taught to you for about ten years.  of course you'll think something you've been taught for ten years is simple!  i think getting dressed is simple, but can a toddler/will a toddler do that?

But when stands back and simply looks at the two theories, RE theory is clearly the simpler. Even if we ignore most of the stuff, this is just because of the conspiracy. Then you factor in the ship sinking phenomenon (which sailors for 100s of years have taken a clue as to what it means, without being taught one or the other), and you factor in the unexplained sun and moon (cold light? wtf?), you factor in the fact that apparently some things have gravity and others don't... etc. It's clear which is simpler. The way unimportant phrased it, the RE sounds strange and complicated, and it is. But FE's still worse.

Bump. I still don't know why I single one of you believes the earth to be flat.

I believe. Round Earth Theory has some holes, and Flat Earth Theory seems to be more reasonable and easier to understand and make sense of.

I believe. Round Earth Theory has some holes, and Flat Earth Theory seems to be more reasonable and easier to understand and make sense of.

Besides Rowbotham's experiments, it has none.

Besides Rowbotham's experiments, it has none.

Then explain not how, but why, gravity causes masses to mystically attract, and how a mass can actually judge the distance and heaviness of another mass and move accordingly as in RE theory.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Besides Rowbotham's experiments, it has none.

Then explain not how, but why, gravity causes masses to mystically attract, and how a mass can actually judge the distance and heaviness of another mass and move accordingly as in RE theory.

Explain not how, but why, the sun an the moon cause masses to slightly mystically attract (even thought they're flat), and can judge the distance and density of another mass and attract accordingly. But the earth does not.

Also, explain why the sum of two equals is equal. Or why, when you have two lines, and there is a line that intersects both of them, making the interior angles equal to less than two right angles, the lines will eventually intersect.


Usually, the most simple and fundamental things are the most difficult things to explain. It is unknown why all masses are attracted to all masses. But at least it's fundamental, consistent, and obvious. I think it's a lot easier to believe than a conpiracy.

Also, people attacked me for trying to disprove the FE theory by attacking the conspiracy. But you find it justifiable to do so with RE and attacking gravity? Weird.

For all the complaining FEers do about spammers and people who reask questions already stated in the FAQ, it's surprising how much they post in those threads, and how little they post in more honest, meaningful ones.

It is unknown why all masses are attracted to all masses. But at least it's fundamental, consistent, and obvious.

I don't think gravity is "obvious" at all. I'm sure you were just looking for a third adjective to complete your list, but I have never seen or experienced an "obvious" example of gravity, save one; when I jump, my feet end up back on the ground.

Unfortunately for gravity, this effect is explained flawlessly by universal acceleration, so it is far from "obvious" which is the case.

I actually was just looking for a third adjective to complete my list. It occured to me that this might get picked appart, but I decided to risk it.

That's all good and fair, but you DID just only reply to the easiest part of the post. You still haven't explained about the consistent and all that. It makes more sense than JUST the moon and sun having gravity. If you accept that they do, then it's unreasonable to think gravity is unreasonable.