Conclusive round earth proof

Stumbling around the internet I came across your website. I have to say it sounds like nonsense to me, but who am I to disagree with you all?

I wondered what you made of this fairly conclusive video. Although some of them your website disputes (e.g  disputing the photographic evidence, somewhat stubbornly but there you go) To prove the earth is flat you surely must be able to disprove each and every claim, preferably in one post so I'm not trawling through posts to cross reference.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round
I found number 7 to be particularly interesting, please note that you would have to travel a very large distance for this to work because the earth is so big that the sphere can be approximated to seeming like it is flat. Were you to attempt this in your back garden, the earth would appear to be flat because on a micro scale it is approximately flat whereas on a macro scale it is most definitely spherical. The same principal is true of gravitational fields (not just the one on earth, the gravitational field of anything with mass) a gravitational field on a micro scale is approximately perpendicular to the surface, but on a macro scale you notice that objects with mass have a radial gravitational field.

To add my own issues to the above video:

People have crossed Antartica from point to point through the south pole. Therefore the south pole can't be some kind of perimeter fence or every single polar explorer would have disappeared,  yet on the whole a few accidents and disasters excepted most explorers return. The bodies of those that don't return are usually found as well, so they can't have fallen off the edge of the earth either.

The northern and southern lights also show that the earth must be spherical, how can the earths magnetic field be equally concentrated around the 'central' north pole of the earth and the 'perimeter' south pole? The northern and southern lights show the same effect of charged particles at the poles because they have been deflected that way by the earths magnetic field. If the effect is the same at both poles then logically the conditions causing the effect must be the same at both poles, yet somehow the south pole which acts as a perimeter also attracts the charged particles towards itself. Northern and southern lights make absolutely no sense in a flat earth model.

What is underneath the earth in a flat model? The spherical model with a molten core is backed up by magnetic fields and temperature fluctuations as you dig down. The deepest mining shaft in the world only reaches 12km into the earths core because it reached 180 C at that point which was caused by heat emitted from the magma. Plate tectonics also show how earthquakes work in a spherical earth but in a flat earth this well proven theory completely falls apart, widely accepted plate boundaries would need to be completely revised for us to accept a flat earth model, yet experimental data completely backs up a theory of a round earth with the current plate boundaries.

I am however a humble round earth believer, so take pity on me and please don't be too cruel in disproving my heretic ways.

This video has been posted about 5-10 times already, use the search function to find our answers to your questions.

I really can't be arsed with that, you also haven't disproved any of my own reasons for proving the earth is round.

I really can't be arsed with that, you also haven't disproved any of my own reasons for proving the earth is round.

So you can't be arsed to do a simple search but you expect us to invest time into answering your 13 in a dozen questions?

Well given that the commonly accepted viewpoint of 6.9999999 billion people on this planet is that the world is round, I'd say the burden of proof is on you.

Also the 10 pieces of pseudo science you want to conjure up can be easily copied and pasted into a reply on my thread, and then I guess you can make up some misguided nonsense fairly quickly to answer my own questions about flat earth nonsense.

im a REer and for once agree with Boern. although yes the burden of proof is on them they have every right not to provide it. it just proves them wrong constantly because they refuse to provide any. but you also need to put some time in yourself. your approach does seem quite lazy

Well given that the commonly accepted viewpoint of 6.9999999 billion people on this planet is that the world is round, I'd say the burden of proof is on you.

Also the 10 pieces of pseudo science you want to conjure up can be easily copied and pasted into a reply on my thread, and then I guess you can make up some misguided nonsense fairly quickly to answer my own questions about flat earth nonsense.

Ad Populum fallacy. 

^Well not really, when you are in the minority the burden of proof is upon you. When the population thought the world was flat, the burden of proof was on the scientists trying to prove it wrong.

When a scientist submits a piece of work that is commonly accepted by his peers it becomes accepted as a fact. Should someone else disagree with this then the burden of proof is on them to show everyone that the old theory was outdated and a new one must be made. Thousands of years ago we thought the earth was flat, scientists had the burden of proof to show it was round and the scientific community accepted that work as the truth, now should anyone wish to prove the earth is not round, the burden of proof is back on them to disprove the widely accepted view.

The general population also believes that a magical fairy exists in the sky controlling their lives.

There is a thing about this magical fairy of yours, that most people agree it is a matter of religion and faith, "believe to see" which has nothing to do with scientific knowledge.

Does appealing to the knowledge of the masses makes it an invalid argument if i write it in latin? people here often forgets we are talking about something tangible and physic here, this is not about opinions, I say this because I've seen answers of the kind "people just don't notice". Companies of satelites, gps, airlains, shipping, geologists, astronomers, cartographers, etc, believe the earth is round, and their jobs depend on that. Your answer to that is "they are just mistaken" and who is not? the people on the internet who loves to read conspiracy related material, why do I call you the people of the internet? because this is what you do, you login into a forum to use debate techniques to defend your idea, the real people with real jobs traveling around the real earth, making experiments, investigations, using a round earth model don't seem to notice.
According to your idea, you don't need to know the position or size or proportions of the continents to travel around the world, not only that, you can't even notice if you have it wrong.
So in this case, appealing to general knowledge is a very valid argument.

The fact that the general population believes in a number of falsities puts your argument to bed.

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 over the counter cough syrup suppresses coughs, that knee and joint surgeries are legitimate, and that fluoride fights cavities. People believe all these things without question. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.

See: Believing in Treatments that Don't Work

If scientists can't even get things right where lives are on the line, what makes you think they are credible in less regulated fields like astronomy?

The fact that the general population believes in a number of falsities puts your argument to bed.

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 over the counter cough syrup suppresses coughs, that knee and joint surgeries are legitimate, and that fluoride fights cavities. People believe all these things without question. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.

See: Believing in Treatments that Don't Work

If scientists can't even get things right where lives are on the line, what makes you think they are credible in less regulated fields like astronomy?

So the same scientists getting things wrong in medicine are the ones regulating astronomy?
You are giving examples to prove that popular belief in something doesn't mean it is right, but i never said it did, I said in this case appealing to common knowledge is a very valid argument and I explained why, you should address that rather than giving a general speech of how popular belief can be wrong.

 

The fact that the general population believes in a number of falsities puts your argument to bed.

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 over the counter cough syrup suppresses coughs, that knee and joint surgeries are legitimate, and that fluoride fights cavities. People believe all these things without question. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.

See: Believing in Treatments that Don't Work

If scientists can't even get things right where lives are on the line, what makes you think they are credible in less regulated fields like astronomy?

So you're telling me that Scientists are smart enough to create:

The internet, super-sonic aircraft, increasingly realistic video games (simulations), smart phones with GPS (!!!), real-time video conferencing...

but somehow just can't wrap their brains around Astronomy?

The fact that the general population believes in a number of falsities puts your argument to bed.

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 over the counter cough syrup suppresses coughs, that knee and joint surgeries are legitimate, and that fluoride fights cavities. People believe all these things without question. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.

See: Believing in Treatments that Don't Work

If scientists can't even get things right where lives are on the line, what makes you think they are credible in less regulated fields like astronomy?

Tom - your banter into "because people (aka YOU...have been made to believe things that are not true) means that everything they believe is not true" is such a typical response from someone skirting a response. 

Lies are lies for one of two reasons.  Either the information originally presented was misinterpreted by the discoverer, researcher, etc and they were not aware of their error during the presentation of the information OR the truth was known in advance and a misperception was intentionally created for consumption by the general public.  Whether the purpose is sinister or benign makes no difference.  The fact is there are THOUSANDS of mistruths in the world.  Some intentional...most are not.  You cannot use this simple fact of human nature to hide behind and use as an argument.

I do not BELIEVE the Earth is round.  I know from basic observation, quantitative reasoning, and simple logic that the Earth is round.  Present a valid and substantiated argument that the Earth is flat.  This will sound arrogant but it is not intended to.  I'm a really smart person and I greatly value a good old fashioned sold argument based on the supporting premises being true.  I am also very objective and will be the first to learn from others if they are able to show me the error in my previous thought process.  Seriously...I am all about further the expansion of my own mind.  Not once...yet...on this forum...have I read an argument by an FE'er that was not full of errors, "because I say so" statements, or just plain ignorant ramblings that have given me pause for consideration that the Earth might be flat.  Not one.

You really do not understand the fundamentals of scientific research based on the statements you make.  Your statement implies you see yourself below the cognitive ability from that of a scientist.  And because some scientists make errors therefore the balance shifts somehow in your favor regarding your arguments?  This clearly shows a fundamental lack of understanding of sociology. 

And BTW...your FAQ is so full of missing data (because it doesn't exist) that it has become a meaningless archive.  Not to be mean...just saying there are many missing supporting arguments and quite honestly some incredibly ridiculous arguments as well.  Not because they are FE faith based.  They just simply make no sense.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2013, 02:13:47 PM

The fact that the general population believes in a number of falsities puts your argument to bed.

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 over the counter cough syrup suppresses coughs, that knee and joint surgeries are legitimate, and that fluoride fights cavities. People believe all these things without question. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.

See: Believing in Treatments that Don't Work

If scientists can't even get things right where lives are on the line, what makes you think they are credible in less regulated fields like astronomy?

So you're telling me that Scientists are smart enough to create:

The internet, super-sonic aircraft, increasingly realistic video games (simulations), smart phones with GPS (!!!), real-time video conferencing...

but somehow just can't wrap their brains around Astronomy?

Scientists can experiment with computers and aircraft to further those fields, but they cannot experiment with the universe to further astronomy. They are stuck at guessing and supposing. Unlike CS or aerospece engineering, the theories in Astronomy cannot be demonstrated.

^Well not really, when you are in the minority the burden of proof is upon you. When the population thought the world was flat, the burden of proof was on the scientists trying to prove it wrong.

When a scientist submits a piece of work that is commonly accepted by his peers it becomes accepted as a fact. Should someone else disagree with this then the burden of proof is on them to show everyone that the old theory was outdated and a new one must be made. Thousands of years ago we thought the earth was flat, scientists had the burden of proof to show it was round and the scientific community accepted that work as the truth, now should anyone wish to prove the earth is not round, the burden of proof is back on them to disprove the widely accepted view.

Scientists never conclusively showed the Earth to be round. Really. It's an assumption. Nobody ever proved it. It just made sense at the time. Therefore, the burden of proof still belongs to RET.

FET has been conclusively proven by the Bedford Level Experiment and several others. Therefore, it is the dominant theory despite being ridiculed and significantly less popular.

The points made in the video you posted, which has been discussed multiple times by the way, are little more than assumptions which ignore the fact that in Flat Earth Theory the Earth being flat isn't the only different. I've gone into more detail in other threads which you should feel free to find via the search function.

Scientists never conclusively showed the Earth to be round. Really. It's an assumption. Nobody ever proved it. It just made sense at the time. Therefore, the burden of proof still belongs to RET.

This is hogwash. Here's just some of the ways the "assumption" of round earth has been proven.
1. Comparing a method of assessing the distance to the moon using an assumption of round earth with a method of assessing the distance to the moon to which earth shape is irrelevant (such as radar). Result: they match, backing up the assumption of earth shape as correct.
2. Firing a beam of neutrinos through the ground enables them to be detected in another country.
3. The Bedford Level Experiment, when re-conducted by people other than Rowbotham, has shown roundness.
4. The constant diameter of the sun as seen from earth, and its constant speed across the sky.
5. The existence of satellites. There is more than one thread on these forums that prove satellites.
6. Pictures of the earth from high altitude/space. This is so convincing that the only way FET can counter it is to pretend such evidence doesn't exist.

FET has been conclusively proven by the Bedford Level Experiment and several others. Therefore, it is the dominant theory despite being ridiculed and significantly less popular.

So an experiment that does not yield a consistent result to all experimenters is "conclusive proof" is it? See point #3 in my list.

I've gone into more detail in other threads which you should feel free to find via the search function.

I compiled this list from several others like it that I've seen posted across the forums, going back years. It's marvellous what you can turn up with the search function, and it's a damning indictment of the FE'ers attempts to pretend this sort of stuff has never come up before.

Scientists never conclusively showed the Earth to be round. Really. It's an assumption. Nobody ever proved it. It just made sense at the time. Therefore, the burden of proof still belongs to RET.

Since you admit that RET makes sense, then that means that it's the burden of FE'ers to prove that FET makes more sense. 

Quote from: Tausami on January 06, 2013, 10:57:44 AM

Scientists never conclusively showed the Earth to be round. Really. It's an assumption. Nobody ever proved it. It just made sense at the time. Therefore, the burden of proof still belongs to RET.

Since you admit that RET makes sense, then that means that it's the burden of FE'ers to prove that FET makes more sense.

Incorrect. Even assuming this argument was sound, it would refer only to the bolded terms.

Quote from: markjo on January 06, 2013, 07:44:14 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 06, 2013, 10:57:44 AM

Scientists never conclusively showed the Earth to be round. Really. It's an assumption. Nobody ever proved it. It just made sense at the time. Therefore, the burden of proof still belongs to RET.

Since you admit that RET makes sense, then that means that it's the burden of FE'ers to prove that FET makes more sense.

Incorrect. Even assuming this argument was sound, it would refer only to the bolded terms.

Not necessarily, seeing as "at the time" is pretty vague.  At which time is Tausami referring to?  To me, RET makes more sense at this time, so I feel that the burden rests with FE'ers.

Right back at you, markjo. Highlighting cop-outs isn't my thing.

Right back at you, markjo. Highlighting cop-outs isn't my thing.

Then why did you highlight Tausami's cop-out?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 10, 2013, 07:38:23 PM

Right back at you, markjo. Highlighting cop-outs isn't my thing.

Then why did you highlight Tausami's cop-out?

That's not a cop-out. It's just his argument, which is why your counter-point doesn't work. How can it be a cop-out when your response came afterwards? He didn't psychically cop-out of an argument you had yet to make.

Quote from: markjo on January 10, 2013, 08:54:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 10, 2013, 07:38:23 PM

Right back at you, markjo. Highlighting cop-outs isn't my thing.

Then why did you highlight Tausami's cop-out?

That's not a cop-out. It's just his argument, which is why your counter-point doesn't work. How can it be a cop-out when your response came afterwards? He didn't psychically cop-out of an argument you had yet to make.

I didn't say that Tausami copped out of my argument.  If you follow the thread a little more closely, the cop-out that you highlighted was his cop-out to o11y's argument.

How is it a cop-out if he hadn't posted in the thread yet? What was he copping-out of?