A question of why?

Hey, ive been looking on these forums for a little while and ive found it quite difficult to find any evidence which supports your belief that the earth is flat. The majority of efforts seem to be put into refuting any evidence provided for RET, and the majority of responses tend to be very rhetorical. Ive seen a few people say you have empirical evidence, and if everyone looked out their window they would see the earth is flat. But this doesnt seem to be substantial enough to support such a claim, when after all your physical perspective of the earth leaves a lot to be desired. I am generally interested, if someone could clarity exactly 'why' you believe in what you believe?

There are many threads that discuss the very question you are asking. As for evidence, you could start by reading "Earth Not A Globe".

Oh God Earth not a globe, again!

Considering that Rowbotham was a wacko who could not back up his claims without suddenly vanishing from a lecture, that book sure is dol and out dated.

Stop telling people to read Earth not a globe. Horrible fictional book written by someone who fancies himself some sort of scientist with accurat discoveries.

As i said, all of the 'answers' ive found are impossibly rhetorical. All ive seen is people ask the same questions back as to how people know the earth is round. Given that this theory, if its even worth considering would be so monumental it would be nice to ask the question and just be completely blown away by a perfectly constructed, and factually backed up argument in your case. The FAQ says that the earth is flat, therefore nasa are lying. Thats passed off as a fact. So what have you seen that proves this to that extent. Im looking for something concrete

There are many threads that discuss the very question you are asking. As for evidence, you could start by reading "Earth Not A Globe".

Have any FEers who frequent the upper fora, other than Tom and Kendrick, ever read Earth Not A Globe.

I doubt it, very much.

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on August 26, 2012, 04:55:59 AM

There are many threads that discuss the very question you are asking. As for evidence, you could start by reading "Earth Not A Globe".

Have any FEers who frequent the upper fora, other than Tom and Kendrick, ever read Earth Not A Globe.

I doubt it, very much.

I have.  You should too.

So then what is this evidence? Im curious. And the FAQ about this view of the earth is not enough, its very narrow minded. So im asking for other peoples views on what they believe

Quote from: burt on August 26, 2012, 06:22:21 AM

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on August 26, 2012, 04:55:59 AM

There are many threads that discuss the very question you are asking. As for evidence, you could start by reading "Earth Not A Globe".

Have any FEers who frequent the upper fora, other than Tom and Kendrick, ever read Earth Not A Globe.

I doubt it, very much.

I have.  You should too.

Thank you for confirming you are of limited intellect.
Once ENAG has been read, if you have any sense you join the RE side. If you prefer to accept - without question - Rowbotham's anecdotal accounts and provable errors of physics, then it proves you selectively ignore reality and are therefore a little bit deficient in brainpower.
Of course, if you were to argue that you have good intelligence, have read ENAG, and still believe Rowbothams ravings, then you are announcing that you're a troll and a liar, because believing it is not compatible with understanding the world around you.

So then what is this evidence? Im curious. And the FAQ about this view of the earth is not enough, its very narrow minded. So im asking for other peoples views on what they believe

I don't think FEers know the differences between evidence, explanation and nonsense. Though, what these trolls are upto, I have no idea.

Im generally interested to hear what they have to say. It would be a fascinating concept (such as ringworlds or a dyson sphere) if they cared to explain a little more. Even the dyson sphere seems more grounded in reality than what these people are saying

Thank you for confirming you are of limited intellect.
Once ENAG has been read, if you have any sense you join the RE side. If you prefer to accept - without question - Rowbotham's anecdotal accounts and provable errors of physics, then it proves you selectively ignore reality and are therefore a little bit deficient in brainpower.

Actually, denying "reality" would require a lot more intellect than accepting it. As only a sentient and advanced mind can understand reality as an abstract idea rather than a concrete fact. A dog, for example, could never judge reality as an abstract form and can only accept it as what it is. The average RE'er is constantly fed "reality" and accepts it as-is because it was all they were ever given. They don't question it, because they either don't want to, or more likely: can't. RE'ers that remain to be RE'ers after repeated viewing of this forum are of lower mind than even the dullest FE'er.

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 26, 2012, 07:34:50 AM

Thank you for confirming you are of limited intellect.
Once ENAG has been read, if you have any sense you join the RE side. If you prefer to accept - without question - Rowbotham's anecdotal accounts and provable errors of physics, then it proves you selectively ignore reality and are therefore a little bit deficient in brainpower.

Actually, denying "reality" would require a lot more intellect than accepting it. As only a sentient and advanced mind can understand reality as an abstract idea rather than a concrete fact. A dog, for example, could never judge reality as an abstract form and can only accept it as what it is. The average RE'er is constantly fed "reality" and accepts it as-is because it was all they were ever given. They don't question it, because they either don't want to, or more likely: can't. RE'ers that remain to be RE'ers after repeated viewing of this forum are of lower mind than even the dullest FE'er.

Yet you use the (unsound) logical inference "it looks flat therefore it is"? I wonder who can't grasp abstraction...

(Edit: used invalid instead of unsound)

Yet you use the (unsound) logical inference "it looks flat therefore it is"? I wonder who can't grasp abstraction...

(Edit: used invalid instead of unsound)

When pertaining to objects which cannot be studied in any detailed fashion, one can only observe. Astronomy is built entirely on what one perceives something to be. Most astronomers are used to the notion that the Earth is round, so of course they're going to assume everything up there is round as well (despite it appearing otherwise). As it is said, modern astronomers already know what they are looking at before they even peer through a telescope. Meaning they already think they know what the universe is and tailor all observation to that goal. FE'ers understand the universe as an abstract and thus can look at all observation in an unbiased fashion, rather than relating evidence to completely unrelated objects.

So for you modern astronomy is only looking trough an optical telescope?

I suggest you do a little reading: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=astronomy

So for you modern astronomy is only looking trough an optical telescope?

When did I say that?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 26, 2012, 01:23:02 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 26, 2012, 07:34:50 AM

Thank you for confirming you are of limited intellect.
Once ENAG has been read, if you have any sense you join the RE side. If you prefer to accept - without question - Rowbotham's anecdotal accounts and provable errors of physics, then it proves you selectively ignore reality and are therefore a little bit deficient in brainpower.

Actually, denying "reality" would require a lot more intellect than accepting it. As only a sentient and advanced mind can understand reality as an abstract idea rather than a concrete fact. A dog, for example, could never judge reality as an abstract form and can only accept it as what it is. The average RE'er is constantly fed "reality" and accepts it as-is because it was all they were ever given. They don't question it, because they either don't want to, or more likely: can't. RE'ers that remain to be RE'ers after repeated viewing of this forum are of lower mind than even the dullest FE'er.

Yet you use the (unsound) logical inference "it looks flat therefore it is"? I wonder who can't grasp abstraction...

(Edit: used invalid instead of unsound)

The hugely funny thing is it doesn't even look flat. It looks like it drops away at a massive cliff about 20 miles away. But hey, I guess you have to be really intelligent not to notice that, right? 

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 03:53:38 PM

So for you modern astronomy is only looking trough an optical telescope?

When did I say that?

When pertaining to objects which cannot be studied in any detailed fashion, one can only observe. Astronomy is built entirely on what one perceives something to be. Most astronomers are used to the notion that the Earth is round, so of course they're going to assume everything up there is round as well (despite it appearing otherwise). As it is said, modern astronomers already know what they are looking at before they even peer through a telescope. Meaning they already think they know what the universe is and tailor all observation to that goal. FE'ers understand the universe as an abstract and thus can look at all observation in an unbiased fashion, rather than relating evidence to completely unrelated objects.

Basically, here.

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on August 26, 2012, 04:55:59 AM

There are many threads that discuss the very question you are asking. As for evidence, you could start by reading "Earth Not A Globe".

Have any FEers who frequent the upper fora, other than Tom and Kendrick, ever read Earth Not A Globe.

I doubt it, very much.

I own a copy thankyou.

Basically, here.

Hmm, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you could point out the specific point that I said astronomers only look trough [sic] optical telescopes?

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 04:21:56 PM

Basically, here.

Hmm, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you could point out the specific point that I said astronomers only look trough [sic] optical telescopes?

Here: "one can only observe. Astronomy is built entirely on what one perceives something to be".
And your lack of understanding shows that your grasp of astronomy is only limited to what people see.

Here: "one can only observe. Astronomy is built entirely on what one perceives something to be".
And your lack of understanding shows that your grasp of astronomy is only limited to what people see.

I never used the term "see" I used the term "perceives." How do you expect astronomers to interact with the world if they don't perceive anything? Does the knowledge telepathically jump into their brain?

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 04:25:47 PM

Here: "one can only observe. Astronomy is built entirely on what one perceives something to be".
And your lack of understanding shows that your grasp of astronomy is only limited to what people see.

I never used the term "see" I used the term "perceives." How do you expect astronomers to interact with the world if they don't perceive anything? Does the knowledge telepathically jump into their brain?

Here also: "As it is said, modern astronomers already know what they are looking at before they even peer through a telescope.".

Here also: "As it is said, modern astronomers already know what they are looking at before they even peer through a telescope.".

Where is the word "only" in that sentence? Are you saying that no modern astronomer ever uses any type of telescope?

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 04:29:34 PM

Here also: "As it is said, modern astronomers already know what they are looking at before they even peer through a telescope.".

Where is the word "only" in that sentence? Are you saying that no modern astronomer ever uses any type of telescope?

You just don't get it, do you?

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 26, 2012, 07:34:50 AM

Thank you for confirming you are of limited intellect.
Once ENAG has been read, if you have any sense you join the RE side. If you prefer to accept - without question - Rowbotham's anecdotal accounts and provable errors of physics, then it proves you selectively ignore reality and are therefore a little bit deficient in brainpower.

Actually, denying "reality" would require a lot more intellect than accepting it. As only a sentient and advanced mind can understand reality as an abstract idea rather than a concrete fact. A dog, for example, could never judge reality as an abstract form and can only accept it as what it is. The average RE'er is constantly fed "reality" and accepts it as-is because it was all they were ever given. They don't question it, because they either don't want to, or more likely: can't. RE'ers that remain to be RE'ers after repeated viewing of this forum are of lower mind than even the dullest FE'er.

This is precisely my point. That is a statement of fact. And yet it is completely false. A lot of the time it sounds like you people are arguing for the sake of having your own opinion. So personally for you then, what is it that makes you believe the earth is flat. Other than because it looks like it, because that is hardly a convincing argument

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 03:53:38 PM

So for you modern astronomy is only looking trough an optical telescope?

When did I say that?

When pertaining to objects which cannot be studied in any detailed fashion, one can only observe. Astronomy is built entirely on what one perceives something to be. Most astronomers are used to the notion that the Earth is round, so of course they're going to assume everything up there is round as well (despite it appearing otherwise). As it is said, modern astronomers already know what they are looking at before they even peer through a telescope. Meaning they already think they know what the universe is and tailor all observation to that goal. FE'ers understand the universe as an abstract and thus can look at all observation in an unbiased fashion, rather than relating evidence to completely unrelated objects.

Not possible, all perception is a kind of gamble, all perception has an (implicit) theoretical construct backing it, even if zetecism is about non-theory, that does not mean when you become a zeteticist your brain and perceptual apparatus instantly become unbias, and your thoughts become untheoretical.