How we can prove that this theory is beyond a doubt true in a matter of days.

I would just like to state, if it somehow has not been stated in the past, that this theory, if true, could be proven in an extremely short amount of time.

If the earth is indeed a flat disc, surrounded by walls, one could simply travel to those walls, and witness a vast nothingness on the other side could they not?

A plane could simply fly past these walls, and continue on past the end of the earth.

Any legitimate society should be able to gather the funds for several people air fare and equipment for what would be a very short expedition to do so.


I would love to hear any tangible evidence as to why this is not possible, but any person, being as open minded as humanly possible, cannot deny that this would prove the theory correct instantly.

If you are going to support such a theory, you should support such a quick method of actually proving it.

I would love to hear any tangible evidence as to why this is not possible, but any person, being as open minded as humanly possible, cannot deny that this would prove the theory correct instantly.

In short, they won't do it because they already know the truth... even though no one agrees on what that truth is.

I would just like to state, if it somehow has not been stated in the past, that this theory, if true, could be proven in an extremely short amount of time.

If the earth is indeed a flat disc, surrounded by walls, one could simply travel to those walls, and witness a vast nothingness on the other side could they not?

A plane could simply fly past these walls, and continue on past the end of the earth.

Any legitimate society should be able to gather the funds for several people air fare and equipment for what would be a very short expedition to do so.


I would love to hear any tangible evidence as to why this is not possible, but any person, being as open minded as humanly possible, cannot deny that this would prove the theory correct instantly.

If you are going to support such a theory, you should support such a quick method of actually proving it.

It was already proven 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe and check out the links in my signature.

Quote from: PowerSet on January 16, 2012, 11:52:01 PM

I would just like to state, if it somehow has not been stated in the past, that this theory, if true, could be proven in an extremely short amount of time.

If the earth is indeed a flat disc, surrounded by walls, one could simply travel to those walls, and witness a vast nothingness on the other side could they not?

A plane could simply fly past these walls, and continue on past the end of the earth.

Any legitimate society should be able to gather the funds for several people air fare and equipment for what would be a very short expedition to do so.


I would love to hear any tangible evidence as to why this is not possible, but any person, being as open minded as humanly possible, cannot deny that this would prove the theory correct instantly.

If you are going to support such a theory, you should support such a quick method of actually proving it.

It was already proven 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe and check out the links in my signature.

It was already proven more than 2000 years ago by the greeks that the earth is round. Check out any science book.

It was already proven more than 2000 years ago by the greeks that the earth is round. Check out any science book.

Rowbotham addresses the proofs of the ancient Greeks. The mere act of looking up at the moon and seeing a shadow cast upon it does not demonstrate that the shadow is coming from the earth or that the earth is round.

The Sinking Ship Effect was found to be a proof for a Flat Earth, not a round one.

Quote from: rayman on January 17, 2012, 09:07:02 AM

It was already proven more than 2000 years ago by the greeks that the earth is round. Check out any science book.

Rowbotham addresses the proofs of the ancient Greeks. The mere act of looking up at the moon and seeing a shadow cast upon it does not demonstrate that the shadow is coming from the earth or that the earth is round.

The Sinking Ship Effect was found to be a proof for a Flat Earth, not a round one.

And other scientists have done the same experiment and they have come up with different conclusions. One man word does not weight more than the entire scientific community.

I would say if FE theory is to be considered science, it needs too play by the same rules everybody else does.  FET still need more scientific evidence peer reviewed by the scientific community. 

Quote from: rayman on January 17, 2012, 09:07:02 AM

It was already proven more than 2000 years ago by the greeks that the earth is round. Check out any science book.

Rowbotham addresses the proofs of the ancient Greeks. The mere act of looking up at the moon and seeing a shadow cast upon it does not demonstrate that the shadow is coming from the earth or that the earth is round.

The Sinking Ship Effect was found to be a proof for a Flat Earth, not a round one.

And we've told you that the proof uses circular reasoning, "since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations" is applicable only with the assumption that the Earth is flat. You can always get logically to where you want to go if you start there. Proof is wrong and adds to the evidence that Rowbotham was wrong in general.

And other scientists have done the same experiment and they have come up with different conclusions. One man word does not weight more than the entire scientific community.

The entire scientific community has been wrong about many things in the past.

Only four hundred years ago the scientific community believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Only sixty years ago most doctors believed that cigarettes were harmless. Today we're still being told that beta blockers stop heart attacks, that cough syrup suppresses coughs, and that fluoride fights cavities. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/the-ideology-of-health-care/

And we've told you that the proof uses circular reasoning, "since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations" is applicable only with the assumption that the Earth is flat.

So you believe that a man can see an infinite distance away? 

Quote

And other scientists have done the same experiment and they have come up with different conclusions. One man word does not weight more than the entire scientific community.

The entire scientific community has been wrong about many things in the past.

Only four hundred years ago the scientific community believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Only sixty years ago most doctors believed that cigarettes were harmless. Today we're still being told that beta blockers stop heart attacks, that cough syrup suppresses coughs, and that fluoride fights cavities. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.

That is indeed true, by the scientific community itself eventually realizes its mistakes and embraces new ideas. I understand and agree that it might be a slow process, but it happens.

I repeat, if FET wants to be considered a science, it has to play by the same rules. It must submit its experiments to the scientific community, so they can peer review the results.

Darwin played by the rules, and eventually his ideas were accepted, even though he faced immense resistance at first. Altough something tells me that FE apologists don't believe in Evolution.

Scientific theories usually takes years of research and peer reviews in order to be accepted by the scientific community. Why should FET be any different?
 

Quote from: rayman on January 17, 2012, 09:07:02 AM

It was already proven more than 2000 years ago by the greeks that the earth is round. Check out any science book.

Rowbotham addresses the proofs of the ancient Greeks. The mere act of looking up at the moon and seeing a shadow cast upon it does not demonstrate that the shadow is coming from the earth or that the earth is round.

The Sinking Ship Effect was found to be a proof for a Flat Earth, not a round one.

A sample of Tom's Wiki lies:
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer
1. Failure to distinguish infinity from distances which are great but not actually infinite.
2. Arbitrary modification of perspective in order to fit observed data, and observed data ONLY for objects close to Earth's surface.

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes.
This is basically just a lie, or at best a rare mirage type effect. I'm sure the many sailors aboard naval vessels, who had powerful telescopes in order to identify enemy ships in times of war, would have said something about this and been familiar with the phenomenon. If you can find one of these "reports" that dates from the last hundred years, go right ahead and post it. Failure to do this means the claim that this has been observed can be dismissed. Tom Bishop's own observations are not admissible evidence.

Quote

And other scientists have done the same experiment and they have come up with different conclusions. One man word does not weight more than the entire scientific community.

The entire scientific community has been wrong about many things in the past.

Only four hundred years ago the scientific community believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Only sixty years ago most doctors believed that cigarettes were harmless. Today we're still being told that beta blockers stop heart attacks, that cough syrup suppresses coughs, and that fluoride fights cavities. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.

See: Modern Science is Still in the Dark Ages

Here is a quote from Tom's link, written by him:

We can walk on the moon

I thought you said we couldn't, Tom? 

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes.
This is basically just a lie, or at best a rare mirage type effect. I'm sure the many sailors aboard naval vessels, who had powerful telescopes in order to identify enemy ships in times of war, would have said something about this and been familiar with the phenomenon. If you can find one of these "reports" that dates from the last hundred years, go right ahead and post it. Failure to do this means the claim that this has been observed can be dismissed. Tom Bishop's own observations are not admissible evidence.

Using telescopes to observe enemy ships have gone out of style over the last 100 years. But the most recent replacement, Over the Horizon Radar, is a proof for a flat earth.

Over The Horizon Radar should be impossible in a Round Earth model where the curvature of the earth prevents direct line-of-sight, yet the excuse is that radiowaves are bouncing off the atmosphere and hitting bodies beyond the horizon without significant scatter -- as if we're expected to believe that radar waves can bounce off of the atmosphere, hit a body, and bounce off the atmosphere again to return to their destination.

Bouncing photons off of the atmosphere? Ridiculous.

The simplest explanation is that the signals can travel such great distances because the earth is flat. No need to imagine absurdities such as signals bouncing off the atmosphere, off of a distant body, off the atmosphere again and arriving to their destinations without experiencing extreme scattering.

RE'ers are clearly making wild and elaborate explanations for what we can explain plain and simply: That the rays took a direct path to their destination.

Here is a quote from Tom's link, written by him:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2009, 04:48:53 PM

We can walk on the moon

I thought you said we couldn't, Tom? 

Please learn context. Here is the full quote:

"We can walk on the moon but they are still telling us fluoride fights cavities. Yeah right."

The quote implies that we cannot walk on the moon.

I suggest you try harder and pay more attention in your English classes in order to avoid making such embarrassing mistakes in the future.

why want we walk on the moon? Space travel is possible, just not sustained.
Also there is no giant wall. the ice wall is a metaphor for the edge of sunlight that shines upon the earth
what is beyond is unknown, vast cold darkness for sure.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 17, 2012, 10:44:23 AM

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes.
This is basically just a lie, or at best a rare mirage type effect. I'm sure the many sailors aboard naval vessels, who had powerful telescopes in order to identify enemy ships in times of war, would have said something about this and been familiar with the phenomenon. If you can find one of these "reports" that dates from the last hundred years, go right ahead and post it. Failure to do this means the claim that this has been observed can be dismissed. Tom Bishop's own observations are not admissible evidence.

Using telescopes to observe enemy ships have gone out of style over the last 100 years. But the most recent replacement, Over the Horizon Radar, is a proof for a flat earth.

Over The Horizon Radar should be impossible in a Round Earth model where the curvature of the earth prevents direct line-of-sight, yet the excuse is that radiowaves are bouncing off the atmosphere without significant scatter -- as if we're expected to believe that radar waves can bounce off of the atmosphere, hit a body, and bounce off the atmosphere again to return to their destination.

Bouncing photons off of the atmosphere? Ridiculous.

The simplest explanation is that the signals can travel such great distances because the earth is flat. No need to imagine absurdities such as signals bouncing off the atmosphere, off of a distant body, off the atmosphere again and arriving to their destinations without experiencing extreme scattering.

RE'ers are clearly making wild and elaborate explanations for what we can explain plain and simply: That the rays took a direct path to their destination.

Lol, Tom thinks light can't bounce off the atmosphere. I suggest you take a basic physics course and get back to us. 

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 17, 2012, 10:44:23 AM

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes.
This is basically just a lie, or at best a rare mirage type effect. I'm sure the many sailors aboard naval vessels, who had powerful telescopes in order to identify enemy ships in times of war, would have said something about this and been familiar with the phenomenon. If you can find one of these "reports" that dates from the last hundred years, go right ahead and post it. Failure to do this means the claim that this has been observed can be dismissed. Tom Bishop's own observations are not admissible evidence.

Using telescopes to observe enemy ships have gone out of style over the last 100 years. But the most recent replacement, Over the Horizon Radar, is a proof for a flat earth.

Over The Horizon Radar should be impossible in a Round Earth model where the curvature of the earth prevents direct line-of-sight, yet the excuse is that radiowaves are bouncing off the atmosphere without significant scatter -- as if we're expected to believe that radar waves can bounce off of the atmosphere, hit a body, and bounce off the atmosphere again to return to their destination.

Bouncing photons off of the atmosphere? Ridiculous.

The simplest explanation is that the signals can travel such great distances because the earth is flat. No need to imagine absurdities such as signals bouncing off the atmosphere, off of a distant body, off the atmosphere again and arriving to their destinations without experiencing extreme scattering.

RE'ers are clearly making wild and elaborate explanations for what we can explain plain and simply: That the rays took a direct path to their destination.

Hey Tom, do you have any empirical data that supports your claims? Or this is just a assumption of yours?

Lol, Tom thinks light can't bounce off the atmosphere. I suggest you take a basic physics course and get back to us. 

The entire premise of Over the Horizon Radar is absurd. A signal has to leave the transmitter, bounce off of the atmosphere, reflect off a target, bounce off the atmosphere again, and hit the receiver.

How does a signal bounce off of the atmosphere in such a directed fashion? How can a signal make multiple bounces off of the atmosphere without extreme scattering?

The premise is blatantly absurd. I have never seen evidence that bouncing a signal off of the atmosphere is even possible. It's clearly just an excuse to justify Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth.

Quote from: jraffield1 on January 17, 2012, 11:14:01 AM

Lol, Tom thinks light can't bounce off the atmosphere. I suggest you take a basic physics course and get back to us. 

The entire premise of Over the Horizon Radar is absurd. A signal has to leave the transmitter, bounce off of the atmosphere, reflect off a target, bounce off the atmosphere again, and hit the receiver.

How does a signal bounce off of the atmosphere in such a directed fashion? How can a signal make multiple bounces off of the atmosphere without extreme scattering?

The premise is blatantly absurd. I have never seen evidence that bouncing a signal off of the atmosphere is even possible. It's clearly just an excuse to justify Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth.

This is just a assumption of yours. You don't have any evidence to support your claims.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 17, 2012, 10:44:23 AM

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes.
This is basically just a lie, or at best a rare mirage type effect. I'm sure the many sailors aboard naval vessels, who had powerful telescopes in order to identify enemy ships in times of war, would have said something about this and been familiar with the phenomenon. If you can find one of these "reports" that dates from the last hundred years, go right ahead and post it. Failure to do this means the claim that this has been observed can be dismissed. Tom Bishop's own observations are not admissible evidence.

Using telescopes to observe enemy ships have gone out of style over the last 100 years.

Oh really? Want to talk to anyone who served in the navy during the Second World War? Telescopes were extensively used at sea. You can see a big ping on radar - is it a battleship? A cargo ship? Something else? Let's get a telescope out and have a look, shall we, as soon as it comes into visual range - in other words, as soon as it appears above the horizon.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 17, 2012, 10:48:01 AM

Here is a quote from Tom's link, written by him:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2009, 04:48:53 PM

We can walk on the moon

I thought you said we couldn't, Tom? 

Please learn context. Here is the full quote:

"We can walk on the moon but they are still telling us fluoride fights cavities. Yeah right."

The quote implies that we cannot walk on the moon.

I suggest you try harder and pay more attention in your English classes in order to avoid making such embarrassing mistakes in the future.

Your wall of text in that thread implies because some medical ideas are questionable, the whole of modern medicine is rubbish. Gee, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they offer you an angioplasty or heart bypass after a heart attack and you refuse, or chemotherapy for cancer and you refuse, or antibiotics for a throat infection and you refuse, or lithotripsy for a kidney stone and you refuse... do you get it?
I suggest you try harder and pay more attention when you next visit the doctor in order to avoid making such embarrassing mistakes in the future.

This is just a assumption of yours. You don't have any evidence to support your claims.

I don't need evidence to call it blatantly absurd. Bouncing signals multiple times off of the atmosphere is simply an absurd concept. I've studied the subject off and on for many years, looking for why they say the signal bounces off the atmosphere. There have been no experiments showing that they do.

I can only conclude that they say it does because it's the only way Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth can be justified.

Oh really? Want to talk to anyone who served in the navy during the Second World War? Telescopes were extensively used at sea. You can see a big ping on radar - is it a battleship? A cargo ship? Something else? Let's get a telescope out and have a look, shall we, as soon as it comes into visual range - in other words, as soon as it appears above the horizon.

In all the old war documentaries and old war movies you'll notice that when the captain/officer is looking for ships he doesn't put his hand over his eyes and look for a dot on the horizon. The first thing he does is whip out his telescope and scan for bodies. He knows intuitively that distant ships will appear through the telescope first, naked eye later.

Quote

This is just a assumption of yours. You don't have any evidence to support your claims.

I don't need evidence to call it blatantly absurd. Bouncing signals multiple times off of the atmosphere is simply an absurd concept. I've studied the subject off and on for many years, looking for why they say the signal bounces off the atmosphere. There have been no experiments showing that they do.

I can only conclude that they say it does because it's the only way Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth can be justified.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 17, 2012, 11:44:28 AM

Oh really? Want to talk to anyone who served in the navy during the Second World War? Telescopes were extensively used at sea. You can see a big ping on radar - is it a battleship? A cargo ship? Something else? Let's get a telescope out and have a look, shall we, as soon as it comes into visual range - in other words, as soon as it appears above the horizon.

In all the old war movies you'll notice that when the captain is looking for ships he doesn't put his hand over his eyes and look for a dot on the horizon. The first thing he does is whip out his telescope and scan for bodies. He knows intuitively that distant ships will appear through the telescope first, naked eye later.

I am sorry Tom, but this sounds like denialism to me.

You are simply ignoring the fact that you have no evidence to support your claims.

What you suggested here is just your assumption, and it cannot be considered in a scientific debate.
Unless FE is not a scientific debate.

I am sorry Tom, but this sounds like denialism to me.

You are simply ignoring the fact that you have no evidence to support your claims.

What you suggested here is just your assumption of yours, and it cannot be considered in a scientific debate.
Unless FE is not a scientific debate.

You are asking for evidence for the abstract concept of 'absurdity'.

I think OTH Radar is absurd, therefore I think it absurd. Evidence cannot be provided that it is absurd. Absurdity is a matter of opinion. An easily impressionable RE'er might instantly believe the story without question.

The fact is that there is no compelling evidence that "atmosphere bounce" is possible, and no reason why we should believe in the explanations unquestionably.

rayman, you're making assumptions that there have been extensive studies on the reflective properties of the ionosphere, there are none.

Quote from: rayman on January 17, 2012, 12:00:38 PM

I am sorry Tom, but this sounds like denialism to me.

You are simply ignoring the fact that you have no evidence to support your claims.

What you suggested here is just your assumption of yours, and it cannot be considered in a scientific debate.
Unless FE is not a scientific debate.

You are asking evidence for the abstract concept of 'absurdity'.

I think OTH Radar is absurd, therefore I think it absurd. Evidence cannot be provided that it is absurd. Absurdity is a matter of opinion. An easily impressionable RE'er might instantly believe the story without question.

The fact is that there is no compelling evidence that "atmosphere bounce" is possible, and no reason why we should believe in the explanations unquestionably.

You just proved my point about denialism 0.0

This is no different from Scientology saying that Autism doesn't exist simply by saying that Psychiatry doesn't exist. That it is a conspiracy.

Quote

And other scientists have done the same experiment and they have come up with different conclusions. One man word does not weight more than the entire scientific community.

The entire scientific community has been wrong about many things in the past.

Only four hundred years ago the scientific community believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Only sixty years ago most doctors believed that cigarettes were harmless. Today we're still being told that beta blockers stop heart attacks, that cough syrup suppresses coughs, and that fluoride fights cavities. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.

See: Modern Science is Still in the Dark Ages

You argue from a false generalization fallacy.

rayman, you're making assumptions that there have been extensive studies on the reflective properties of the ionosphere, there are none.

Just do a quick google search and you will find out that there are plenty of research about the ionosphere.

I am sure if you run  a search on a academic database search engine you will find even more researches about the ionosphere.

But you are right, I did assume there were extensive researches about the subject even before looking for it.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 17, 2012, 12:09:03 PM

rayman, you're making assumptions that there have been extensive studies on the reflective properties of the ionosphere, there are none.

Just do a quick google search and you will find out that there are plenty of research about the ionosphere.

I am sure if you run  a search on a academic database search engine you will find even more researches about the ionosphere.

But you are right, I did assume there were extensive researches about the subject even before looking for it.

I suggest you link the research here. This basically just said "If you search for it I'm sure you'll find some." I assume you searched yourself and, having found nothing, neglected to dive too deep into the subject.

The fact is that there is no compelling evidence that "atmosphere bounce" is possible, and no reason why we should believe in the explanations unquestionably.

If light waves (radio waves included) don't bounce off the atmosphere, then please explain weather RADAR.



How can we see moisture in the atmosphere if we can't bounce light off the atmosphere?

How can you argue that a layer of the atmosphere can't act as a mirror?

In your model, why does OTH RADAR work farther than line of sight but only as far as the power of the RADAR?

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere