I am a pilot and I want to prove you all wrong

I'm wondering, according to the flat Earth theory, what happens when you sail to the edge of the planet? Do you fall off into space? Hahaha! This is so ridiculous.

I remember when I was about 11 years old, my family traveled to Ireland to see the small town where my great-great grandparents and other ancestors came from before immigrating to the United States.

Anyway, long story short; I remember the plane trip like it was yesterday. It was my first time on a commercial jet, and since it was a transatlantic flight, we were on a Boeing 747. My parents put me in a window seat and I sat there for hours just looking out the window. I remember asking my grandfather how high in the air we were, he said 35,000 feet. Why is this relevant? Because at 35,000 feet in the air, I was able to look over the horizon and see a slight curvature of the Earth. When the sun set, I could look out over the horizon close to where the sun was going down and the Earth's curve was easier to see.

Circumnavigation also proves the flat Earth theory wrong. Basically, all the people who have sailed around the Earth must be in on this big conspiracy also (same with the people who flew around the planet):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumnavigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_world_sailing_record

Oh and if the Earth is flat and gravity does not exist, please explain how the Moon affects the ocean tides. Or is it just some major coincidence that the ocean tides follow the gravitational magical pull of the moon.

Ha, Planets aren't fictional. You can see them through any telescope.

And yet you post a NASA Earth photo as if it were real. Also, celestial objects are not round.

Celestial objects are not round.

Nice one!

Any proofs?

Quote from: ConnorW on June 28, 2012, 11:21:42 AM

Ha, Planets aren't fictional. You can see them through any telescope.

And yet you post a NASA Earth photo as if it were real. Also, celestial objects are not round.

You claim that planets aren't round while you can look at them through a telescope and prove yourself wrong. I don't know whether this is a case of extreme paranoia or the desire to be unique similar to those bronykids.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 28, 2012, 11:31:20 AM

Celestial objects are not round.

Nice one!

Any proofs?

Have you ever actually looked at them before? They appear quite flat.

You claim that planets aren't round while you can look at them through a telescope and prove yourself wrong. I don't know whether this is a case of extreme paranoia or the desire to be unique similar to those bronykids.

Same question as above.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on June 28, 2012, 11:37:23 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 28, 2012, 11:31:20 AM

Celestial objects are not round.

Nice one!

Any proofs?

Have you ever actually looked at them before? They appear quite flat.

Quote from: ConnorW on June 28, 2012, 11:43:51 AM

You claim that planets aren't round while you can look at them through a telescope and prove yourself wrong. I don't know whether this is a case of extreme paranoia or the desire to be unique similar to those bronykids.

Same question as above.

Look at any sphere, they all appear quite flat from any angle. Anyway lets go back to the points I previously stated.

Well, since the force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, it could be surmised that the Earth must be spherical. If the Earth were not round, whole hemispheres would have different atmospheric pressure and significantly different sea levels.

If that isnt enough for you,

http://imgur.com/C09AV

If that isn't enough for you,

then try simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another.

If that isn't enough for you,

you can try observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth!

If that isn't enough for you,

Why is the sun shineing ind china, morning in Hawaii and night in mid USA?

If that isn't enough for you,

Look at all the other planets. It'd be logical to assume since every single planet is round earth would be also. Please dont say earth is "SPECUL" because it has life and others don't.

This along with a lot of math that would be in accurate, say targeting using the formula to measure the earths surface.

<3 Connor.

Step by step prove me wrong because i'm not entirely wrong till every point is disproven.

Look at any sphere, they all appear quite flat from any angle. Anyway lets go back to the points I previously stated.

Saying they are a sphere because "they could be" is a logical fallacy. They do not look like a sphere, therefore they are not.

Step by step prove me wrong because i'm not entirely wrong till every point is disproven.

Please use the search function, it is there for a reason.

They do not look like a sphere, therefore they are not.

Sticking again to appearance?

Applying the same logic, I could look at your avatar and say: you look like an idiot therefore you are. But I dont use this apalling logic.

Quote from: ConnorW on June 28, 2012, 12:45:16 PM

Look at any sphere, they all appear quite flat from any angle. Anyway lets go back to the points I previously stated.

Saying they are a sphere because "they could be" is a logical fallacy. They do not look like a sphere, therefore they are not.

Quote from: ConnorW on June 28, 2012, 11:00:57 AM

Step by step prove me wrong because i'm not entirely wrong till every point is disproven.

Please use the search function, it is there for a reason.

I can tell you why it's not here for, avoiding a question.This is the debat section not the search function. We debate here if you didn't know.

Sticking again to appearance?

Applying the same logic, I could look at your avatar and say: you look like an idiot therefore you are. But I dont use this apalling logic.

That is not a physical characteristic. You can not look at a person and determine abstract qualities. Such a comparison to my logic is inept.

I can tell you why it's not here for, avoiding a question.This is the debat section not the search function. We debate here if you didn't know.

I am not interested in debating your overly used topics that have been defeated multiple other times. If you do not take the time to learn about a topic before you debate it, then I will not take the time to discuss anything with you. You are not worth my time until you learn more about FET. I will not counter your lack of effort with extra effort on my part.

Would I believe him? Of course. How can you not with 100% proof?

But we are already 2 pages into this debate, a debate I have had many times, and I know how often people return with 100% proof. To date not one of them has.

That's why I'm asking, because Flat Earthers' concept of proof is intensely skewed, both in their negation of the proof of the round Earth model (which there is an unbelievable amount of) and their acceptance of proof of the Flat Earth model (of which there is none).

Quote from: ConnorW on June 28, 2012, 12:45:16 PM

Look at any sphere, they all appear quite flat from any angle. Anyway lets go back to the points I previously stated.

Saying they are a sphere because "they could be" is a logical fallacy. They do not look like a sphere, therefore they are not.

Wait, are you being serious right now?



They look like they're moving, therefore they are.

They look like they're moving, therefore they are.

Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 02:46:23 PM

They look like they're moving, therefore they are.

Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.

But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.

Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 28, 2012, 03:21:34 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 02:46:23 PM

They look like they're moving, therefore they are.

Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.

But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.

Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."

Yes, they almost look like they are moving.  How does this prove that the Earth is round? 

But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.

Close one eye and look at the picture, it won't move at all. If I close one eye and look at a planet, it still appears to be flat.

Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."

Color is an abstract figment of your imagination, color, in fact, does not exist at all. While flatness, on the other hand, is an observable physical trait. Also, there is no such thing as objective truth in science. I'm afraid you're in the wrong section, the religion section is downstairs in the lower forums.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:29:50 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 28, 2012, 03:21:34 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 02:46:23 PM

They look like they're moving, therefore they are.

Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.

But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.

Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."

Yes, they almost look like they are moving.  How does this prove that the Earth is round?

If only you paid attention!

It means that because something SEEMS to be it doesn't MEAN that it is. Ergo something can look a certain way and be different. Example: the Earth looks round but by no way it is a proof that it is flat or round.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:29:50 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 28, 2012, 03:21:34 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 02:46:23 PM

They look like they're moving, therefore they are.

Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.

But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.

Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."

Yes, they almost look like they are moving.  How does this prove that the Earth is round?

I wasn't trying to prove Earth was round, I was trying to prove his argument that "If something looks like x, it is x" is logically invalid.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:29:50 PM

But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.

Close one eye and look at the picture, it won't move at all. If I close one eye and look at a planet, it still appears to be flat.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:29:50 PM

Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."

Color is an abstract figment of your imagination, color, in fact, does not exist at all. While flatness, on the other hand, is an observable physical trait. Also, there is no such thing as objective truth in science. I'm afraid you're in the wrong section, the religion section is downstairs in the lower forums.

Closing an eye does not affect the perceived movement of the picture. All humans see it moving with one eye as well (except those with vision impairment).

Color exists as a frequency on the light spectrum. It can be measured.

Not sure why you are being insulting and claiming this is the realm of religion, as the study of light is a scientific endeavor.

Similarly, if there is no objective truth, Earth is neither round nor flat, silly.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on June 28, 2012, 12:58:35 PM

Sticking again to appearance?

Applying the same logic, I could look at your avatar and say: you look like an idiot therefore you are. But I dont use this apalling logic.

That is not a physical characteristic. You can not look at a person and determine abstract qualities. Such a comparison to my logic is inept.

Quote from: ConnorW on June 28, 2012, 01:50:43 PM

I can tell you why it's not here for, avoiding a question.This is the debat section not the search function. We debate here if you didn't know.

I am not interested in debating your overly used topics that have been defeated multiple other times. If you do not take the time to learn about a topic before you debate it, then I will not take the time to discuss anything with you. You are not worth my time until you learn more about FET. I will not counter your lack of effort with extra effort on my part.

Extra effort? I've actually looked around on these forums and you like to use the "Search function" response. In-fact I haven't seen a legit response from you. So don't just assume I haven't put forth effort.
this is a debate forum if you don't feel like debating topics then don't respond. This "Use the Search Function" is a pathetic way to get your post count up.

If the planets are indeed flat, they should appear to be elliptical when seen from different angles other than head-on, especially considering that they're only 3000 miles up.

Closing an eye does not affect the perceived movement of the picture.

Incorrect.

All humans see it moving with one eye as well (except those with vision impairment).

Incorrect.

Color exists as a frequency on the light spectrum. It can be measured.

Incorrect.

Not sure why you are being insulting and claiming this is the realm of religion, as the study of light is a scientific endeavor.

Irrelevant to my original statement.

Similarly, if there is no objective truth, Earth is neither round nor flat, silly.

Indeed.

Extra effort? I've actually looked around on these forums and you like to use the "Search function" response. In-fact I haven't seen a legit response from you. So don't just assume I haven't put forth effort.
this is a debate forum if you don't feel like debating topics then don't respond. This "Use the Search Function" is a pathetic way to get your post count up.

If you didn't know how to use the search function, all you had to do was ask. Simply input the the desired topic, enter a username (optional) and enter the range of days. I suggest 365.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:38:47 PM

Closing an eye does not affect the perceived movement of the picture.

Incorrect.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:38:47 PM

All humans see it moving with one eye as well (except those with vision impairment).

Incorrect.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:38:47 PM

Color exists as a frequency on the light spectrum. It can be measured.

Incorrect.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:38:47 PM

Not sure why you are being insulting and claiming this is the realm of religion, as the study of light is a scientific endeavor.

Irrelevant to my original statement.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:38:47 PM

Similarly, if there is no objective truth, Earth is neither round nor flat, silly.

Indeed.

Quote from: ConnorW on June 28, 2012, 04:09:50 PM

Extra effort? I've actually looked around on these forums and you like to use the "Search function" response. In-fact I haven't seen a legit response from you. So don't just assume I haven't put forth effort.
this is a debate forum if you don't feel like debating topics then don't respond. This "Use the Search Function" is a pathetic way to get your post count up.

If you didn't know how to use the search function, all you had to do was ask. Simply input the the desired topic, enter a username (optional) and enter the range of days. I suggest 365.

Saying incorrect is not a debate. you have to have facts and evidence behind your claims. This is like arguing with a 3 year old, or even worse a catholic.

Also I never said i haven't or don't know how to use the search function. I suggest some reading comp. classes it will really help with these hard to understand big words I'm using.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 03:38:47 PM

Similarly, if there is no objective truth, Earth is neither round nor flat, silly.

Indeed.

So you admit Earth isn't flat. Good game, was easy.

By the way, you have severe vision problems if closing your eye causes the image to appear still.

Also, colors are light on a spectrum.

Voyaging you are still trying to debate with irushwithscvs? Seriously if I was a FE'er I'd be ashamed of myself because I would believe in the same theory as this retard. His logic must be right though. I never saw any evidence that the FET has, and have seen it be disproved multiple times. Therefor it doesn't look like a theory, and it isn't, so irushwithscvs's logic has some truth to it.

So you admit Earth isn't flat. Good game, was easy.

Hmm, where did I say that exactly?

By the way, you have severe vision problems if closing your eye causes the image to appear still.

Okay.

Also, colors are light on a spectrum.

The electromagnetic spectrum is irrelevant to the colors your mind assigns to it. The colors are completely made up inside your own head.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 07:32:42 PM

So you admit Earth isn't flat. Good game, was easy.

Hmm, where did I say that exactly?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 07:32:42 PM

By the way, you have severe vision problems if closing your eye causes the image to appear still.

Okay.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 07:32:42 PM

Also, colors are light on a spectrum.

The electromagnetic spectrum is irrelevant to the colors your mind assigns to it. The colors are completely made up inside your own head.

As are shapes.

As are shapes.

Can you elaborate on this?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 09:50:55 PM

As are shapes.

Can you elaborate on this?

The shape of something is only as much of an intrinsic quality of that object inasmuch as you perceive that object to be a certain shape.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 28, 2012, 10:05:51 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 09:50:55 PM

As are shapes.

Can you elaborate on this?

The shape of something is only as much of an intrinsic quality of that object inasmuch as you perceive that object to be a certain shape.

Certainly, but shape, unlike color, exists outside of the human mind. You could say "well, we can only perceive so many dimensions" but that is irrelevant. 3D is relevant to itself and not to a human's perception of it. Therefore we can conclude nothing has a definite shape, but if we limit to three dimensions, we can conclude that the Earth is a cylinder. We live on the flat portion of it, in case you were wondering.

The shape of something is only as much of an intrinsic quality of that object inasmuch as you perceive that object to be a certain shape.
[/quote]

 we can conclude that the Earth is a cylinder.
[/quote]

Did it hurt when you fell off the hypocritical tree, hit every hypocritical branch, and slammed face first into the albino lifeguard.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 10:22:29 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 28, 2012, 10:05:51 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 28, 2012, 09:50:55 PM

As are shapes.

Can you elaborate on this?

The shape of something is only as much of an intrinsic quality of that object inasmuch as you perceive that object to be a certain shape.

Certainly, but shape, unlike color, exists outside of the human mind. You could say "well, we can only perceive so many dimensions" but that is irrelevant. 3D is relevant to itself and not to a human's perception of it. Therefore we can conclude nothing has a definite shape, but if we limit to three dimensions, we can conclude that the Earth is a cylinder. We live on the flat portion of it, in case you were wondering.

Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth? And that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?