Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"

Hi, I'm new here, I've read a few of the threads, and what I've seen is all quite similar. The FE Theorist will repeatedly dispute and attempt to discredit hard, mathematically proven evidence of a Spherical Earth, as well as reasons why a flat one would not and could not form. But they will not provide any evidence to support their theory other than "All of the "proof" is a hoax, and because it is a hoax, you cannot prove otherwise, and no one can prove there is an edge to fall off of, because everyone who goes there dies" or something along those lines.

I am not looking to argue, what I am looking for is some real, hard evidence, or "proof" that the earth is a large, flat disc. So have at it.

Look outside your window, it is all quite flat.

Be careful, ThinkingMan, the stupidest argument is being used here.

I can see that. I've seen this one before. By the same poster too. I said "hard evidence". Not "look at it". People used to think the "elements" were fire, water, earth, air, and spirit because of "look at it". Then we discovered atoms and subatomic particles. I know we're not going to refute subatomic particles here. So please tell me, I've looked, from the surface, and from 35,000 feet in an airplane. It looks flat because I'm standing on a giant ball and perspective is obscenely low off of the surface. But when I'm in an aircraft, I can see a curve in what ever direction I look, and it all looks the same, all seemingly equal distance from me to the horizon, and I've never been over the north pole.

So again I say, please prove, with hard scientific data and some imagery that the earth is a round disc and is in fact flat.

I can see that. I've seen this one before. By the same poster too. I said "hard evidence". Not "look at it". People used to think the "elements" were fire, water, earth, air, and spirit because of "look at it". Then we discovered atoms and subatomic particles. I know we're not going to refute subatomic particles here. So please tell me, I've looked, from the surface, and from 35,000 feet in an airplane. It looks flat because I'm standing on a giant ball and perspective is obscenely low off of the surface. But when I'm in an aircraft, I can see a curve in what ever direction I look, and it all looks the same, all seemingly equal distance from me to the horizon, and I've never been over the north pole.

So again I say, please prove, with hard scientific data and some imagery that the earth is a round disc and is in fact flat.

I would much like to hear how observation is not hard evidence.

It may be hard evidence to you, but you can't prove it to anyone else. Unless you have cameras for eyes and a USB port on the back of your head from which I can download the video, it is not hard evidence. Just like when someone says they saw God in a near death experience. For all we know they were hallucinating from the adrenaline rush.

Again. Scientific data is the best way to get people in the 21st century to listen and hear you out. So please provide.

I would much like to hear how observation is not hard evidence.

The eyes simply show you something. What you interpret it as being could be anything.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 11:32:40 AM

I would much like to hear how observation is not hard evidence.

The eyes simply show you something. What you interpret it as being could be anything.

I don't know if you're for or against this theory, but thank you for explaining that so well. Now, back on top. Data. Please. Support your claim. That is what a debate is. These forums have only shown me childish arguing. Not debates.

In determining the shape of the Earth, I require hard, direct sensorial evidence.  I get that in support of a flat Earth; I don't in support of a round Earth.  There is therefore no reason for me to conclude that the Earth is round.  The really hard evidence is in favor of a flat Earth, not a round one; the "evidence" in favor of a round Earth is a teetering house of cards of fallacious logic.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 11:32:40 AM

I would much like to hear how observation is not hard evidence.

The eyes simply show you something. What you interpret it as being could be anything.

With which sense do you interpret evidence?  Going down this road just leads to a tautology where the very existence of existence must be considered questionable.  It works equally for both sides so let's put it aside, shall we?

I do not believe mathematical equations supported by recorded, visual observations from space are "fallacious logic". Regardless of what my evidence is or is not, I am asking for your evidence. Which so far seems, from my end, to be fallacious logic. This whole website so far has me wondering if it's a huge troll.

Again, for what I believe is the fourth or fifth time, I ask: Please provide some MATHEMATICAL, SCIENTIFIC, and VISUAL data that I can see. Maybe a high altitude, near space or in space picture that clearly shows this "ice edge" to the earth. Some formulas that will, beyond a doubt, prove that I am standing on a disc.

I do not believe mathematical equations supported by recorded, visual observations from space are "fallacious logic".

There has never been any evidence presented here that proves that the Earth must be round.  If anything all of the evidence I've seen is embarrassingly circumstantial and usually biased to start with toward a round Earth.  Satellites exist so the Earth must be round.  Planets exist so the Earth must be round.  The Coriolis force exists so the Earth must be round.  Such proclamations often make for hugely entertaining speculative fiction but I don't see where they have any place in rational debate.

Regardless of what my evidence is or is not, I am asking for your evidence.

Well, it hardly seems fair that you get to criticize my evidence without me being able to turn around and do the same with yours.  I refuse to participate in the sort of one-sided debate that you seem to so desperately want.

Which so far seems, from my end, to be fallacious logic. This whole website so far has me wondering if it's a huge troll.

Again, for what I believe is the fourth or fifth time, I ask: Please provide some MATHEMATICAL, SCIENTIFIC, and VISUAL data that I can see. Maybe a high altitude, near space or in space picture that clearly shows this "ice edge" to the earth. Some formulas that will, beyond a doubt, prove that I am standing on a disc.

FET is based on the best evidence available, evidence that can be easily observed by all.  I've been many places and everywhere I go I see a flat Earth.  Images of far-off places show me a flat Earth.  Looking out the window of an airplane, or from the observation deck of a skyscraper, I see a wide expanse of flat Earth all around me.  I consider what I observe with my own eyes to be much more compelling than what I'm told.  I'm sorry if you see things differently, but those are the facts.  I observe a flat Earth; all the evidence I've ever personally seen suggests a flat Earth.  I think if you break those shackles holding you to believe the popular opinion to be gospel truth you'll recognize that for yourself as well (although regrettably few seem able to do so).

You are being a hypocrite. You are telling me I'm believe just what people are telling me. You are telling people the Earth is flat because that's what you see, and they are supposed to believe it because their miniscule perspective only allows them so much.

I'm am not criticizing your data. You have presented none. I am asking you to present your data. Do not take every comment that does not fit in with your theory as aggression or criticism. I am not of that mindset. I am just asking for data that I can see. Not a statement that says you saw it, so it's there. That is strikingly similar to when my son tells me he saw a shadow in the darkness of his room at night, so there is a monster. Are you to have me believe that because he saw a shadow, that also means there is a monster, and his five-year-old, undeveloped senses are to be trusted on that level?

Perhaps I could see a picture of the edge of the earth. I do not have the financial means to go look for myself. But a picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes. I have seen nothing here that truly supports the claim. Therefore, I am asking to see something. That is all. No criticism intended from me. I am honestly open to ideas. But I will not actually believe anything unless there is something factual to back it up.

There has been a lot more evidence, however circumstantial or biased it may seem from your perspective, to support a spherical (I'll rename it as such) earth theory than a flat one.

There has never been any evidence presented here that proves that the Earth must be round.  If anything all of the evidence I've seen is embarrassingly circumstantial and usually biased to start with toward a round Earth.  Satellites exist so the Earth must be round.  Planets exist so the Earth must be round.  The Coriolis force exists so the Earth must be round.  Such proclamations often make for hugely entertaining speculative fiction but I don't see where they have any place in rational debate.

As long as flat earth fails to provide an adequate explanation for these phenomena, which it doesn't, round earth is the preferred theory. Even if earth looks flat, this makes round earth the simpler and more proven.

Anyway, earth looking flat is just as limited as evidence as all the other forms of evidence that us RE'ers provide. The Coriolis force can be proven mathematically and all experiments match up with the RE scenario, however, it not 100% excluded that it's caused by some unidentified force from the sky, as you claim. The recorded S- and P-wave patterns are very easy to explain on round earth, yet very hard on flat earth. However, we cannot exclude 100% that flat earth has a very strange interior composition that somehow creates very strange wave patterns. In the same way, earth looks flat, however, it may just be round and very big.

The difference is however, RE provides much, much more (and in my opinion stronger) evidence of this sort than flat earth does. And every time FES blames us for not being "open-minded" enough for far-fetched theories that have very little or no scientific basis, bendy light being the most blatant example. Yet you blame us for not accepting "it looks flat" as a good argument.

Now, modern technology has even allowed us to look down onto earth from outer space and observe its true round shape, yet it must be fake, because after all, it looks flat from where you're standing.

Thank you Altus_leo. But I don't think that will sink in. I've been on this forum for less than 4 hours, and I'm sure that none of what you, I, or anyone else is saying will sink in. I just want some visual evidence. So far the best support for the theory I've seen is "It's to dangerous to go to the edge of the earth and get evidence."

You are being a hypocrite. You are telling me I'm believe just what people are telling me. You are telling people the Earth is flat because that's what you see, and they are supposed to believe it because their miniscule perspective only allows them so much.

Who is supposed to believe it?  I hope you don't think I'm here to "convert" people because that is not the case.  I know the long odds against someone changing the worldview they've held their whole lives.

I'm am not criticizing your data. You have presented none.

When did I accuse you of criticizing my data?  I accused you of criticizing my evidence, and that you most definitely did, though you have yet to present a cogent reason why.

I am asking you to present your data. Do not take every comment that does not fit in with your theory as aggression or criticism. I am not of that mindset. I am just asking for data that I can see. Not a statement that says you saw it, so it's there. That is strikingly similar to when my son tells me he saw a shadow in the darkness of his room at night, so there is a monster. Are you to have me believe that because he saw a shadow, that also means there is a monster, and his five-year-old, undeveloped senses are to be trusted on that level?

Your son sees a shadow, all he knows based on that is that he sees a shadow.  His imagination fills in the details.  The direct sensorial evidence simply suggests that something is there casting the shadow.  Your attempt at analogy only shows that you don't grasp the point I'm making.

Perhaps I could see a picture of the edge of the earth. I do not have the financial means to go look for myself. But a picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes. I have seen nothing here that truly supports the claim. Therefore, I am asking to see something. That is all. No criticism intended from me. I am honestly open to ideas. But I will not actually believe anything unless there is something factual to back it up.

Again, I have presented evidence that you can easily verify for yourself.  It's not my fault that you choose to reject it.  My senses tell me the Earth is flat.  It's up to you to prove that my senses are lying to me.

There has been a lot more evidence, however circumstantial or biased it may seem from your perspective, to support a spherical (I'll rename it as such) earth theory than a flat one.

So a hundred weak arguments are better than one strong one?  Again, the direct sensorial evidence points squarely at a flat Earth.  I perceive nothing with my own senses to suggest that I am sitting on the side of a whirling globe.  That viewpoint is your monster in the closet.

Anyway, earth looking flat is just as limited as evidence as all the other forms of evidence that us RE'ers provide.

This is, I think, one of the fundamental differences between the scientific and zetetic methods.  From my view the direct sensorial evidence trumps anything else you care to trot out.  When I look at the Earth I see a flat, stationary plane, not a whirling globe racing through the cosmos.  You don't have any direct sensorial evidence that suggests that the Earth is round; in fact, you must take it for granted that your senses are deceiving you in a number of ways to arrive at that conclusion.  It seems senseless to me (you'll pardon the pun!).

Quote from: Alatus_leo on June 29, 2012, 01:10:21 PM

Anyway, earth looking flat is just as limited as evidence as all the other forms of evidence that us RE'ers provide.

This is, I think, one of the fundamental differences between the scientific and zetetic methods.  From my view the direct sensorial evidence trumps anything else you care to trot out.  When I look at the Earth I see a flat, stationary plane, not a whirling globe racing through the cosmos.  You don't have any direct sensorial evidence that suggests that the Earth is round; in fact, you must take it for granted that your senses are deceiving you in a number of ways to arrive at that conclusion.  It seems senseless to me (you'll pardon the pun!).

The problem with your senses are, they are not simply a device registering information about your surroundings. They are highly evolved to help you stay alive. This implies that your brain is going to interpret the information it receives from your eyes. A whole lot of what you think you see is actually stuff your brain made up. And then there are atmospheric effects such as refraction, or even defects to your eyes that can lead to your getting misleading information.

An relevant example of this are the Greek temples, of which the horizontal girders are slightly bent, because a perfectly straight girder appears bent to the human eye.

If you were to see the curvature of the horizon from a high-altitude aircraft, would this change your opinion? After all, it does look round from up there. If not, why would your observation from close to the ground be superior to that taken from a higher altitude?

It may be hard evidence to you, but you can't prove it to anyone else.

Well, doesn't this become specious then? What use is your observation to me? I'm fine leaving well enough alone. I feel no need to convert you.

I am not here to prove my point. I am here to gather data. As there apparently is none, I will leave you to your beliefs. My analogy stands, as it was quite precise. Enjoy your stay on the Pancake world of Earth. If that's what tastes good to you. I will no longer have this childish banter.

I am not here to prove my point. I am here to gather data. As there apparently is none, I will leave you to your beliefs. My analogy stands, as it was quite precise. Enjoy your stay on the Pancake world of Earth. If that's what tastes good to you. I will no longer have this childish banter.

I have to say, I think you're being a bit unfair here.  I offered up reasonable responses to all of your posts (save the last one, because I read this one before responding and given what it says it seems like it would just be a waste of time) and you turn around and call me childish.  If there's anything childish about this thread it's your unwillingness to take your fingers out of your ears.

If you were to see the curvature of the horizon from a high-altitude aircraft, would this change your opinion?

Not at all, because I should perfectly expect there to be some curvature visible from altitude above a disc.

I am not here to prove my point. I am here to gather data. As there apparently is none, I will leave you to your beliefs. My analogy stands, as it was quite precise. Enjoy your stay on the Pancake world of Earth. If that's what tastes good to you. I will no longer have this childish banter.

You have been gathering all the data you need since the day you were born. That the earth is flat is so self-evident I sometimes wonder at the ability to deny it. That you deny the data given you by your own senses, is entirely within your purview.
I think primarily this must be a case of methodology, as Roundy has indicated. I find your methodology to be suspect, as no doubt you find mine to be.

I'm curious how FEers seem to know exactly what a flat earth should look like.  Because I see things daily that make the earth not look flat.  We have a distinct horizon, and things disappear behind that horizon.  Every day the sun goes under the horizon.  This seems like hard evidence, even to a zetetic, that the earth doesn't look flat if we can actually see objects becoming hidden by the curve of the earth, everywhere we go.

There's also the sun itself, never getting any smaller.  My senses tell me that the sun stays about the same distance from me the entire day.  It also appears to move throughout the sky.  My senses tell me it's rotating around me at a fixed distance, yet the flat-earth models don't have it doing that.

So don't be fooled by any of these arguments that FET is the simple, obvious choice made from direct experience.  They're very choosy about what observations they pay attention to.

Quote from: Alatus_leo on June 29, 2012, 01:32:56 PM

If you were to see the curvature of the horizon from a high-altitude aircraft, would this change your opinion?

Not at all, because I should perfectly expect there to be some curvature visible from altitude above a disc.

Yes, however, shouldn't we also perfectly expect the earth to look nearly flat when we're on its surface, after seeing how small the curvature is?

It does look nearly flat, does it not?   

It does look nearly flat, does it not?   

But not from an airplane, so that's why I wonder, why are the ground-based observations superior?

I have been on many airplanes and have never seen any curvature.  Why would either view be superior?

I have been on many airplanes and have never seen any curvature.  Why would either view be superior?

Well I mean a high-altitude aircraft, hypothetically speaking. The problem wit zeteticism here is that one view suggests a round earth and one suggests a flat earth. You'd have to choose.

In what way does seeing the curvature of the coin suggest the coin is a globe? Neither view is superior, but complementary.

In what way does seeing the curvature of the coin suggest the coin is a globe? Neither view is superior, but complementary.

In the same way seeing it from the ground suggests flatness. It's complimentary for both FET and RET. If you assume the curvature supports flat earth while not considering that it might be a sphere, you're making not going purely by your eyes tell you. That'd make FET and RET equally likely.

The argument that appearance is reality is evidence of borderline psychosis. I cannot see any reasonable person thinking that the way an object is perceived is exactly the same as the way that object exists in reality.

And even if it were, I have been in high-altitude aircraft and have seen the curvature of Earth. Whose eyes are better, mine or yours?

The argument that appearance is reality is evidence of borderline psychosis. I cannot see any reasonable person thinking that the way an object is perceived is exactly the same as the way that object exists in reality.

Really?  When I look at an apple, and smell an apple, and taste an apple, I perceive an apple.  Are you suggesting that it's unreasonable for me to assume that I am seeing and smelling and tasting an apple?  Are you saying that what I perceive to be an apple doesn't exactly exist as an apple in reality?

Talk about borderline psychosis.