It looks that way

Quote from: Particle Person on October 09, 2011, 06:41:09 PM

Quote from: alex00 on October 09, 2011, 06:38:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 06:33:30 PM

I don't see any clouds below the horizon.

clean your glasses

You do see clouds below the horizon?

yes

That is amazing. I presume you use your powers to aid the forces of good, not evil?

Quote from: TGreenleaf on October 09, 2011, 01:25:04 PM

Quote

Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Unless you state that the earth looks flat, but isn't necessarily flat, you missed the subject of debate. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the concept that reality and appearance do not always coincide, seeing as that the ability to grasp this divergence is one of the fundamental qualities of basic cognitive functioning. Read: If you think the earth must be flat because it looks that way, a critical part of your brain is probably missing.

Let's see if you understand this:
(Correct) The earth looks flat, so maybe it is flat.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may not be flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may be round.
(Correct) The earth does not look round, but it may be round.

(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round.

Except that the earth looking flat doesn't automatically exclude that possibility of the earth being round.

Hey Thork, your Everest photo seems to indicate a round earth.


In this picture we can see two high mountain peaks. The closer one is Lhotse. The farther one is Kangchenjunga. Lhotse is 8,516 m high. Mount Everest (the camera height) is 8,848 m. The difference between these two heights is 332 meters.

Lets use some similar triangles.
Lhotse is 3.0 km away from the top of Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is 125 km away from Kangchenjunga.
332 m / 3km * 125km =13,800 meters.

This means that the, at the distance of Kangchenjunga from Mount Everest, on a flat earth, Lhotse should appear to be level with an altitude of 8,848-13,800 = -4950 meters at the distance of Kangchenjunga.


However, we see that Lhotse is about level with the top of Kangchenjunga (altitude 8,516 m). This cannot happen on a flat earth.

(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round.

Well that would certainly break the ice at that tense first meeting of "her parents".

[...]
This cannot happen on a flat earth.

But of course it can!
Just a while ago you had an issue with the horizon being too high up on the picture. However, you couldn't figure out the (elementary, really) reason why.
Welp, here's the answer to both your questions: The camera wasn't aimed perfectly horizontally. The pictures were taken while looking down a bit.

Hey Thork, your Everest photo seems to indicate a round earth.


In this picture we can see two high mountain peaks. The closer one is Lhotse. The farther one is Kangchenjunga. Lhotse is 8,516 m high. Mount Everest (the camera height) is 8,848 m. The difference between these two heights is 332 meters.

Lets use some similar triangles.
Lhotse is 3.0 km away from the top of Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is 125 km away from Kangchenjunga.
332 m / 3km * 125km =13,800 meters.

This means that the, at the distance of Kangchenjunga from Mount Everest, on a flat earth, Lhotse should appear to be level with an altitude of 8,848-13,800 = -4950 meters at the distance of Kangchenjunga.


However, we see that Lhotse is about level with the top of Kangchenjunga (altitude 8,516 m). This cannot happen on a flat earth.

This is so wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. How did you dream this up? Are you saying the line of sight on a flat earth is less than that on a round earth. ? lol. Your diagram suggests so. Imagine if the earth curved. The mountain really would disappear and be lower. Are you saying the line of sight between two mountains at 8848 and 8516m is less than 125m on a flat earth? lol. On your diagram you suggest that the mountain on a flat earth would disappear under the horizon. ? Erm, no, that's what a round earth would do.

Here you have 2 mountains. In the photo they look roughly the same height.  and you are almost level too. 8848~8516. Well all is well. If the earth curved you would expect the far mountain to be much lower. I would like you to do a round earth version of your diagram and show using your laughable conclusions how having the surface bend away and drop even lower, that these mountains suddenly reappear level.

You only helped prove the earth is flat. A round earth should have mountains much lower in the distance or obscured by its roundness. As you can see, this is not the case. Ergo, you can see with your eyes ... earth is flat. No tricks, no conspiracy just your eyes wondering why those mountains are the roughly the same height. Only on a flat earth.

Quote from: squevil on October 09, 2011, 06:16:44 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 12:09:18 PM

Quote from: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 09:25:05 AM

Quote

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that flat earth belief is nothing but the belief that certain experiments conducted a long time ago are accurate. This begs the question why you don't question the validity of these experiments (e.g. the experimenter could have lied, falsified the results, drawn wrong conclusions, or any number of other explanations), seeing as that you question just about anything else. If you have such a deep skepticism about established science, why don't you extend the same skepticism towards flat earth claims and declare yourself "agnostic" concerning the shape of the earth, believing that it cannot be known for sure? Wouldn't that make more sense?

They are conducted all the time. Daniel Shenton (our current president) has done it a few times, as have TB and a few particularly angry noobs.

no need to call everybody angry noobs if they dont agree with bulls***. TB claims to have done extraordinary feats that is all

I'm don't call people angry noobs because they are RE'ers. I call RE'ers 'RE'ers'. Angry noobs are noobs who are angry, and that describes you.

infact i have subscribed to this forum for 9 days longer than you making us both new people in that case. however i dont make 1000s of low content posts. you are showing this here comunity that even when the facts are laid out you still can see what something is.

A view from Everest

Magnificent view. Thanks for the link. Question.

How have you verified that these pictures are genuine? I mean, you reject any pictures that would challenge your views about the Earth's shape, but question nothing about pictures that would seem to confirm your views.

"Bendy" light, never observed to occur outside of a strong gravitational field, is an inference from the observation that the Earth looks flat.

A spherical Earth, until we had direct personal observation and photographic evidence, was an inference of, among others, the coriolis effect and angle of incoming sunlight.

Why is one inference preferable over another?

"The Earth is flat because it looks flat."
"Therefore, any observation that either suggests or proves the Earth is not flat must be explained by a highly intricate unobserved and unobservable mechanism."

This image changes when I move my eyes because it looks like it changes when I move my eyes.

Therefore, the computer can detect the movements of my eyes and changes this image when I do so.

The bars in this image are not parallel because they look like they are not parallel.

Therefore, the computer can detect when I measure a vertical distance in this picture and it will change the entire picture so that the part that I am measuring is always the same vertical size.

Because my eyes always show me what is real.

Couldn't find the white plane with evenly-spaced small black sqaures. There seem to be gray areas between the corners of the black sqaures.

The bars do look parallel. The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is. Some things will trick your eyes/mind. Are you suggesting the earth is designed in such a fashion? To what purpose?

The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is.

Perhaps it's a visual representation of celestial gears theory.

The bars do look parallel. The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is. Some things will trick your eyes/mind. Are you suggesting the earth is designed in such a fashion? To what purpose?

I believe that the purpose is to emphasize the fact that your senses cannot always be trusted to give you accurate information about your environment.

"Bendy" light, never observed to occur outside of a strong gravitational field, is an inference from the observation that the Earth looks flat.

Incorrect, the now-discredited bendy light was a feeble attempt to explain why the earth DOESN'T look flat, in other words why objects on the horizon appear to be on a big downward curve and then disappear over the edge. It's quite entertaining to see FE'ers claiming the earth looks flat in one thread then pretending to believe in bendy light in another, in blithe ignorance of how these two assertions contradict each other.
Anyway, bendy light died a death, but the objects still disappear over the horizon. 

Quote from: Ski on October 10, 2011, 08:11:33 AM

The bars do look parallel. The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is. Some things will trick your eyes/mind. Are you suggesting the earth is designed in such a fashion? To what purpose?

I believe that the purpose is to emphasize the fact that your senses cannot always be trusted to give you accurate information about your environment.

or to put simply. what you see isnt always what you get. its tragic that it was obvious to you

as you added a cool illusion id like to share this one. i had never seen one like this before and it blew me away when i first saw it.
(its not a scare video)

Quote from: TGreenleaf on October 09, 2011, 01:25:04 PM

Quote

Sorry, but it was a poor OP. There is nothing to debate. We say earth looks like a flat disc. It does. You agree. Now what?

Unless you state that the earth looks flat, but isn't necessarily flat, you missed the subject of debate. I'm sorry that you fail to understand the concept that reality and appearance do not always coincide, seeing as that the ability to grasp this divergence is one of the fundamental qualities of basic cognitive functioning. Read: If you think the earth must be flat because it looks that way, a critical part of your brain is probably missing.

Let's see if you understand this:
(Correct) The earth looks flat, so maybe it is flat.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may not be flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is flat.
(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.
(Correct) The earth looks flat, but it may be round.
(Correct) The earth does not look round, but it may be round.

(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round.

Thanks for clarifying part of TGreenleaf point.  What you said is essentially this:

(Incorrect) The earth looks flat, so it is round.

This is a dome.  It looks pretty flat.  It even fooled Roundy.

Quote from: momentia on October 09, 2011, 10:48:08 PM

Hey Thork, your Everest photo seems to indicate a round earth.


In this picture we can see two high mountain peaks. The closer one is Lhotse. The farther one is Kangchenjunga. Lhotse is 8,516 m high. Mount Everest (the camera height) is 8,848 m. The difference between these two heights is 332 meters.

Lets use some similar triangles.
Lhotse is 3.0 km away from the top of Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is 125 km away from Kangchenjunga.
332 m / 3km * 125km =13,800 meters.

This means that the, at the distance of Kangchenjunga from Mount Everest, on a flat earth, Lhotse should appear to be level with an altitude of 8,848-13,800 = -4950 meters at the distance of Kangchenjunga.


However, we see that Lhotse is about level with the top of Kangchenjunga (altitude 8,516 m). This cannot happen on a flat earth.

This is so wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. How did you dream this up? Are you saying the line of sight on a flat earth is less than that on a round earth. ? lol. Your diagram suggests so. Imagine if the earth curved. The mountain really would disappear and be lower. Are you saying the line of sight between two mountains at 8848 and 8516m is less than 125m on a flat earth? lol. On your diagram you suggest that the mountain on a flat earth would disappear under the horizon. ? Erm, no, that's what a round earth would do.

You seem to be critiquing the methodology, which is just fine. However, I did make a big mistake. The closer mountain is Makalu, (NOT Lhotse), which is 19.5 km away from everest and is 367 m lower than mount everest, at 8,481 m.

This means that the altitude level with apparently level with the top of Makalu at the distance of Kanchenjunga on a flat earth is:

367 m / 19.5km * 125km = 2.35 km lower than the height of everest, or 2.09 km lower than the height of Kanchenjunga.
Again, the methodology is just similar triangles, nothing wrong with it.

On a round earth, Kanchenjunga would appear to be lower than it would be on a flat earth. It would be lower by 1/2*d²/R = 1/2*125²/6380 = 1.22 km

This means that Makalu would appear to be level with a point .87 km lower than the summit on Kanchenjunga.

I will know draw your attention to Jannu (yes it's Jannu, you can check), the first peak a little bit to the right of Kanchenjunga. Its altitude is 7710 m and is 115 km away from everest.

Using the same methodology as above, Makalu should appear to be level with a point at Jannu 7710 - (8848-367*115/19.5) = 1030 meters lower than Jannu on a flat earth.
On a round earth, Makalu should appear to be level with a point 1000(1/2*115²/6380) - 1030 = -6 meters below Janna. I.e. The two should be just level.
The top of Makalu is about level with Jannu, indicating a round earth.

Since the difference between the top of Kanchenjunga and Jannu is under a 1000 meters (870), we can say that 1000 meters is a visible difference in height at 115 km.

The top of Makalu is clearly about lined up with the top of Jannu rather than a point on Jannu 1000 meters below the summit, indicating that the earth is round

Edit:
This picture demonstrates the Makalu appears about level with Jannu, as RE predicts. If the earth were flat, Makalu would appear be well under Jannu.

Need to change the RE estimate. When I calculated the triangle for Lhotse (I thought Makalu was Lhotse, derp), curvature didn't matter when calculating the difference between the height of Lhotse and Everest, since it was 3 km away. However, Makalu is 15 km away, so would appear lower than Everest by an additional 1000/2*15²/6380 = 17.6 meters. this means that the apparent RE altitude that Makalu would be level with on Jannu would be 17.6*115/15 = 135 m lower than I stated. Makalu should appear about 140 meters lower than the summit of Jannu (at the distance of Jannu).

As well, it should appear .87+.146 = 1.02 km below Kangchenjunga's summit on Kangchenjunga, not .87 km.

The bars do look parallel. The rotating pinwheels are fascinating, but unless you're proposing that the earth really looks like that, I'm not sure what your point is. Some things will trick your eyes/mind. Are you suggesting the earth is designed in such a fashion? To what purpose?

And I thought you were one of the cleverer ones. Perhaps you are, and that's even more frightening.

WHAT. YOU. SEE. IS. NOT. ALWAYS. WHAT. IS. REALITY.

The Earth looks flat. But it isn't.

Quote from: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 04:59:18 AM

Ok, I'll give it a shot...

According to the FAQ, the main reason flat earth proponents believe the earth is flat is that it "looks that way". I understand there are some (questionable) experiments to further back up the idea, but I'll assume these are merely supportive, and that the main reason flat earth proponents believe what they do is their personal observation.

So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point. If it did, then both theories would be equal on that particular point, weakening your theory. Hence you might want to present factual evidence to the rest of us, that, if, hypothetically speaking, the earth was round, it would actually look different to us than it does. Since you acknowledge gravity, you can't argue we'd fall off. Since the hypothetical assumption should also include the earth's large radius, by mathematical considerations it wouldn't look "bent" to us from down here. So what exactly would be the observable difference in this hypothetical world that cannot be reconciled with your actual observations?

Remember, bogus experiments will not answer this question, since this would mean you admit that from your personal observations, the earth "might as well be round" and that only those experiments show otherwise. So the flat earth theory would merely be a strong trust in the validity of a few bogus experiments, combined with a strong distrust in the validity of a much greater number of other experiments. This is obviously much weaker than a theory which claims to match universal personal observations while others don't. So choose wisely whether or not you take that step.

Of course you might take the position that your personal observations lead you to tend towards flatness, and that while a round earth would lead you to have the same observations, it seems more complex to you, and, denying all evidence to the contrary, you will stick to your personal impression.

Here's a few examples which illustrate this line of thinking:
- (About a person in a coma) He looks dead to me, so I'm going to assume he is and bury him until someone proves me otherwise. Breathing? Must be an inflating balloon in his chest, since, after all, I can see he's dead.
- (About an alleged serial killer) He looks guilty to me, so I'm going to assume he is and lock him up until someone proves me otherwise. The butler already admitted to it? He must be lying, since the defendant looks guilty.
- (About a person with internal bleeding) He looks healthy to me, so I'm going to deny him any medical treatment until someone proves me otherwise. X-ray? Must be fake, since, after all, I can see that he's healthy.

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

If he's tired of explaining why to everyone, then maybe he should have put that in the FAQ to begin with instead of saying, "The Earth is flat because it looks flat". That's hugely misleading if you actually have evidence backing up FET. If you think people won't understand the real explanation, then that's foolish of you to assume ignorance on the part of your readers.

Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.

Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.

It does.

Quote from: CuriousAngel on October 13, 2011, 12:59:11 PM

Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.

It does.

The Bedford Level results conflict with Rowbotham's own perspective theory. How do you explain this discrepancy within ENAG? Rowbotham doesn't.

Quote from: CuriousAngel on October 13, 2011, 12:59:11 PM

Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.

It does.

It also proves that the Earth is round and concave.

Quote from: Tausami on October 08, 2011, 07:09:13 AM

Quote from: TGreenleaf on October 08, 2011, 04:59:18 AM

Ok, I'll give it a shot...

According to the FAQ, the main reason flat earth proponents believe the earth is flat is that it "looks that way". I understand there are some (questionable) experiments to further back up the idea, but I'll assume these are merely supportive, and that the main reason flat earth proponents believe what they do is their personal observation.

So I'll ask this: If you assumed, for the sake of argument, that the earth was indeed round, then, following your logic, the earth would indeed not look flat from your local reference point. If it did, then both theories would be equal on that particular point, weakening your theory. Hence you might want to present factual evidence to the rest of us, that, if, hypothetically speaking, the earth was round, it would actually look different to us than it does. Since you acknowledge gravity, you can't argue we'd fall off. Since the hypothetical assumption should also include the earth's large radius, by mathematical considerations it wouldn't look "bent" to us from down here. So what exactly would be the observable difference in this hypothetical world that cannot be reconciled with your actual observations?

Remember, bogus experiments will not answer this question, since this would mean you admit that from your personal observations, the earth "might as well be round" and that only those experiments show otherwise. So the flat earth theory would merely be a strong trust in the validity of a few bogus experiments, combined with a strong distrust in the validity of a much greater number of other experiments. This is obviously much weaker than a theory which claims to match universal personal observations while others don't. So choose wisely whether or not you take that step.

Of course you might take the position that your personal observations lead you to tend towards flatness, and that while a round earth would lead you to have the same observations, it seems more complex to you, and, denying all evidence to the contrary, you will stick to your personal impression.

Here's a few examples which illustrate this line of thinking:
- (About a person in a coma) He looks dead to me, so I'm going to assume he is and bury him until someone proves me otherwise. Breathing? Must be an inflating balloon in his chest, since, after all, I can see he's dead.
- (About an alleged serial killer) He looks guilty to me, so I'm going to assume he is and lock him up until someone proves me otherwise. The butler already admitted to it? He must be lying, since the defendant looks guilty.
- (About a person with internal bleeding) He looks healthy to me, so I'm going to deny him any medical treatment until someone proves me otherwise. X-ray? Must be fake, since, after all, I can see that he's healthy.

As you stated, we proved the shape of the Earth due to our experiments, such as the Bedford Level Experiment. When TB says the Earth is flat because it looks flat, it's usually because he's tired of explaining this to you guys.

If he's tired of explaining why to everyone, then maybe he should have put that in the FAQ to begin with instead of saying, "The Earth is flat because it looks flat". That's hugely misleading if you actually have evidence backing up FET. If you think people won't understand the real explanation, then that's foolish of you to assume ignorance on the part of your readers.

We're working on that right now.

Quote from: Thork on October 13, 2011, 01:35:55 PM

Quote from: CuriousAngel on October 13, 2011, 12:59:11 PM

Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.

It does.

The Bedford Level results conflict with Rowbotham's own perspective theory. How do you explain this discrepancy within ENAG? Rowbotham doesn't.

How does it conflict with Rowbotham's explanation of perspective? In his explanation the perspective effect can be reversed with a telescope. Half-sunken ships can be restored by looking at them through a telescope, as numerous accounts attest.

The Bedford Level experiment was done through a telescope, so it's appropriate that the earth was seen to be flat.

In his explanation the perspective effect can be reversed with a telescope. Half-sunken ships can be restored by looking at them through a telescope, as numerous accounts attest.

Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps? Or maybe a link to something other than the FES Wiki. If NASA, etc can't be referenced due to their obvious part in THE CONSPIRACY, then surely you can't expect the FES Wiki to be considered unbiased?

Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?

Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.

Or maybe a link to something other than the FES Wiki. If NASA, etc can't be referenced due to their obvious part in THE CONSPIRACY, then surely you can't expect the FES Wiki to be considered unbiased?

What? NASA is referenced pretty much constantly, and to support the arguments of both sides.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 19, 2011, 07:28:28 AM

Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?

Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.

Any world record holder can tell you that it some truths can and do have expiration dates.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 19, 2011, 07:28:28 AM

Any examples from the past hundred years or so, perhaps?

Are you suggesting that the truth has an expiry date? It doesn't.

I'm simply pointing out that if this is the "truth", then this phenomenon should be noticed all the time, yet it isn't. A few sketchy accounts in a book that's over a hundred years old can hardly be considered a perfect source of "truth".

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 19, 2011, 07:28:28 AM

Or maybe a link to something other than the FES Wiki. If NASA, etc can't be referenced due to their obvious part in THE CONSPIRACY, then surely you can't expect the FES Wiki to be considered unbiased?

What? NASA is referenced pretty much constantly, and to support the arguments of both sides.

I must have missed all of the NASA photos and footage showing the flat earth in all its glory. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a link.

All photos and videos from NASA that show that the earth is round are claimed to have been faked to support THE CONSPIRACY.