Burden of Proof

Every time I see someone reference a photograph, video, website, book, anything demonstrating proof of RE it is shot down as fake, photoshopped, manufactured, etc. So the question is, where, or what is proof?

In this thread, I will act like an FE'er, only instead I will really believe the earth is round. Someone who believes the earth is flat, please, offer me some proof of a flat earth, something that would, if it were to show the earth is round, would convince you of its factuality.

Then i will shoot down everything you say. The end.

Then i will shoot down everything you say. The end.

I somehow doubt that.

1: FE'ers do not, merely those such as myself (who are really RE'ers) tend to take the piss out of a few individuals, especially my good self today.

2:refer to point 1

ummm...k, so the world flat cos...umm, read the FAQ im sure ther's sum decent stuff in there, i havn't read it all yet  :?  but don't worry, i've read most

Or you could try this: Earth: not a globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

Or you could try this: Earth: not a globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

Nope. Due to gravity, and as told by relativity, the light follow the curve in space-time cause by the earth's gravity. Due to our point of reference, on the earth, the light appears to be traveling straight.

Next.

Nope. Due to gravity, and as told by relativity, the light follow the curve in space-time cause by the earth's gravity. Due to our point of reference, on the earth, the light appears to be traveling straight.

Next.

I take it you didn't actually read the link, as it doesn't have anything to do with what you just said.

But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities, as shown in diagram fig. 2; but as the telescope was only 8 inches above the water, the highest point of the surface would have been at one mile from the place of observation; and below this point the surface of the water at the end of the remaining five miles would have been 16 feet.

This is the gist of most of the arguments, the earth must be flat because as the distance between 2 points increases, visibility is not affected as one would expect with the basic geometry of a sphere. However, see my above post. We are on the sphere. The gravity of the sphere affects space-time in such a way that when light travels, following the curve of space time, from our point of reference, light appears straighter, thus showing how the earth can appear flatter than it actually is.

1: FE'ers do not, merely those such as myself (who are really RE'ers) tend to take the piss out of a few individuals, especially my good self today.

2:refer to point 1

ummm...k, so the world flat cos...umm, read the FAQ im sure ther's sum decent stuff in there, i havn't read it all yet  :?  but don't worry, i've read most

Apologies. Something about this board brings out my irreverent sarcasm.

My point was, I want an FE'er to provide something, that if I were to provide as an RE'er would prove roundness, except that they would do it to prove flatness. The FAQ does not accomplish this, it mostly just explains away RE arguments.

This is the gist of most of the arguments, the earth must be flat because as the distance between 2 points increases, visibility is not affected as one would expect with the basic geometry of a sphere. However, see my above post. We are on the sphere. The gravity of the sphere affects space-time in such a way that when light travels, following the curve of space time, from our point of reference, light appears straighter, thus showing how the earth can appear flatter than it actually is.

Your argument assumes that we are on a sphere, if Earth is flat obviously the gravity of the planet doesn't affect space time in the same way.
You can't base your argument on the the assumption that Earth is round. It just doesn't work that way.

Your argument assumes that we are on a sphere, if Earth is flat obviously the gravity of the planet doesn't affect space time in the same way.
You can't base your argument on the the assumption that Earth is round. It just doesn't work that way.

Sure I can. I am working from the assumption that the earth is round, and follows the principles of relativity. I'm looking for proof to the contrary. Sammy's little experiment is not proof, as I clearly showed. Sammy took the assumption that the earth is round and tried to disprove it with the, at the time, assumed fact that light travels in a straight line. By giving a substantial and logical reason light would not travel in an apparent straight line that has developed since Sammy's experiment, I have shown that his argument does not prove anything.

Sure I can.

No, you can't.

Next.

Maybe my arrogance is too strong, and I apologize for any offence with the "Next" comment.

My point of this thread is to be contrary to the other threads, where the earth is assumed flat, and REs must prove otherwise. Like I said, I will am taking the assumption that the earth is round, and look to the FES for proof otherwise, which has yet to be established.

Maybe my arrogance is too strong, and I apologize for any offence with the "Next" comment.

My point of this thread is to be contrary to the other threads, where the earth is assumed flat, and REs must prove otherwise. Like I said, I will am taking the assumption that the earth is round, and look to the FES for proof otherwise, which has yet to be established.

If you assume one side while attempting to poke holes in the other, it means less than assuming the contrary side and poking holes in it on its own terms.

If you assume one side while attempting to poke holes in the other, it means less than assuming the contrary side and poking holes in it on its own terms.

I agree to the fullest extent, but it appears that the commonality of the threads here is thus: FE'ers, assuming FE and poking holes in RE. I want something to the contrary. Why? I have seen no adequate proof, and the agreed upon standards of proof for this forum are lacking. FE'ers essentially discredit pictures, video, documentation, expect testimony, and most of the body of scientific evidence as a conspiracy. So, maybe the FE'ers could kindly establish some proof of FE, so we would all know what would constitute proof of RE.

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Your argument assumes that we are on a sphere, if Earth is flat obviously the gravity of the planet doesn't affect space time in the same way.
You can't base your argument on the the assumption that Earth is round. It just doesn't work that way.

Sure I can. I am working from the assumption that the earth is round, and follows the principles of relativity. I'm looking for proof to the contrary. Sammy's little experiment is not proof, as I clearly showed. Sammy took the assumption that the earth is round and tried to disprove it with the, at the time, assumed fact that light travels in a straight line. By giving a substantial and logical reason light would not travel in an apparent straight line that has developed since Sammy's experiment, I have shown that his argument does not prove anything.

In other words, if a FE'er could disprove relativity, that would help a lot.

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Or you could try this: Earth: not a globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

Nope. Due to gravity, and as told by relativity, the light follow the curve in space-time cause by the earth's gravity. Due to our point of reference, on the earth, the light appears to be traveling straight.

Next.

Exactly how strong do you think the Earth's gravity is? The amount it would cause light to deviate from its course is so small as to be irrelevant for the purposes of this experiment.

Quote from: "kgmon"

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Or you could try this: Earth: not a globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

Nope. Due to gravity, and as told by relativity, the light follow the curve in space-time cause by the earth's gravity. Due to our point of reference, on the earth, the light appears to be traveling straight.

Next.

Exactly how strong do you think the Earth's gravity is? The amount it would cause light to deviate from its course is so small as to be irrelevant for the purposes of this experiment.

What do you mean? I don't understand. We don,t need to suppos a strenght of the earth's gravity, it can be calculated. That'S how we know what the earth's escape velocity is, and also the on of the sun and jupiter, even though we don't live on it.

Yes, we do know how strong the Earth's gravity is. We know that it is nowhere near strong enough to cause a curving of light's path over these distances that would be significant in this experiment.

Quote from: "kgmon"

This is the gist of most of the arguments, the earth must be flat because as the distance between 2 points increases, visibility is not affected as one would expect with the basic geometry of a sphere. However, see my above post. We are on the sphere. The gravity of the sphere affects space-time in such a way that when light travels, following the curve of space time, from our point of reference, light appears straighter, thus showing how the earth can appear flatter than it actually is.

Your argument assumes that we are on a sphere, if Earth is flat obviously the gravity of the planet doesn't affect space time in the same way.
You can't base your argument on the the assumption that Earth is round. It just doesn't work that way.

No, it does.  YOu can't use something asn argument against a round earth saying "if the earth is round, this phenomemon should not be" and then, when someone says "assuming the round earth, this phenomenon can STILL exist" and then say "That's not fair."

The purpose of that argument was to prove the earth was flat by discussing visibility with a telescope.  It was saying this visibility thing is a fact.  ANd with my understanding of light, geometry, and astronomy, it seems impossible on a round earth.

The the other guy says "no no no, your understanding of light, geometry and astronomy are incomplete, here's something called relativity, which shows how, on a sphere's surface, it can appaer more flat than it is, due to the gravity of the sphere".

So whereas the argument started, rationally, from the observable phenomenon was used to debunk the round earth theory, and then, since that is debunked, alternate explanations for gravity etc.. are hypothesizes and worked out to fit the new model, the new information about how light behaves allows for the phenomenon, previously taken as proof of a flat earth, to no longer conflict with a round earth.


Meaning, because that phenomenon does not conflict with a round earth, it is NOT PROOF that the earth is not round.  To prove the non existence of something you must prove the existence of something that is utterly incompatible with the existence of the other thing.  

Now, the burden of proof, argues the writer of that message, is on the flat earther, to counter the ready observations of round shadows during eclupses, the arc of falling bodies being in the direction of the earth's hypothesized rotation, the phenomenon of night and day.

While the model proposed has explanations for those (Except the arc of freefalling bodies being eastward) it fails to then demonstrate how the model works.  What forces exist, and the means by which those forces act.

What keeps the sun rotating in a ring around the equator?  What imbused the stars and moon with gravity that the earth, hypothetically posessing no gravity, lacks?  

What force permits constant acceleration of an object?  Requiring, essentially, a perpetual source of precise energy, unfluctuating, through eternity.  What power source is that, and what is the physics behind it's operation.  Aside from the observance of "clinging to the earth" what other observable phenomenon are consequences of this perpetual and constant force always applying the same amount of energy to keep acceleration constant.  

How did the flat earth form?  What process brought the liquid water, rock, etc.. together, and allowed it to form into a perfect disk , with a wall of ice to keep the atmosphere and water in.  Where are the remnants of those forces actions upon other things.  

WHy, if the tide is caused by a slight tilting of the earth back and forth, like a see saw, would the tides not ebb from western shores simultaenously but flow to eastern shores simultaenously, all, nomatter the hemisphere (As would happen.  simply reconstruct this model and tilt the plate or pan you have, and watch as the water rushes towards the eastern coasts and away from the western coasts, all at once, and then tilted the other eway, the opposiote) while in reality, tides ebb and flow based on the time of day, irrespective of westerliness or easterliness of the coast.  

These questions are all explainable by a simple theory, round rotating earth in rotation around sun with moon rotating around it.  This theory, beeing the simplest and most repeatedly demonstrable EVEN with tiny experiments in your own home, in order to disprove the round earth, you must propose then demonstrate the existence of one phenomenon at least that can NOT exist in a round earth, but CAN exist in a flat earth, and ONLY in a flat earth.  

I think that is what the gentleman was asking.  

I for one, am not arguing for either theory.  I withhold my judgement until i can examine the nature of and vilidity of the proofs on offer by this theory.

I have the hollow earth theory to examine too.  INdeed, there are more evidence for the hollow earth than flat, at least that i'vecome across so far.

Yes, we do know how strong the Earth's gravity is. We know that it is nowhere near strong enough to cause a curving of light's path over these distances that would be significant in this experiment.

Light also curves in fluids.  The atmosphere is a gas, and gasses are fluids.  

Not to mention, the mirage effect, and numerous other experiences of perceiving light from a greater distance, refracted by convection...

neither of which proves or disproves a flat earth..

What do you have on offer whic proves a flat earth.  That can not be also explained by a round earth.

One thing that says "okay, if we put two poles at opposite ends of the flat earth, and beam a laser at the hight of the pole to the other pole, it hits that pole dead on, right at the top."

that would do it, that would prove it.  If a laser shone straight south was detectible south of the equator, at the southern ice wall.  IN a flat earth, that would be possible.

that experiement would work.

Has anyone done that experiment?

I'm not sure if I follow what you mean.

"light curves in fluids" ?

I'd like you to back that up with some references.  My impression was that light bent moving from one substance (or lack of substance) to another - but that's clearly not a curve.



The above is the impression I get of how light reacts moving from substances.  You can see that at no point does the light curve but in fact it changes angles at the point of change of substance.




On the other hand this is Jessica Alba.  If you follow the contours of her body you can clearly see that it doesn't suddenly change directions and that she isn't made up of straight lines but in fact she has curves.  I see a fairly significant difference between light refracting and curving.

*drool at miss Alba*  :oops:

This thread is over. No one can argue with Beast's post.

I'm not sure if I follow what you mean.

"light curves in fluids" ?

I'd like you to back that up with some references.  My impression was that light bent moving from one substance (or lack of substance) to another - but that's clearly not a curve.



The above is the impression I get of how light reacts moving from substances.  You can see that at no point does the light curve but in fact it changes angles at the point of change of substance.




On the other hand this is Jessica Alba.  If you follow the contours of her body you can clearly see that it doesn't suddenly change directions and that she isn't made up of straight lines but in fact she has curves.  I see a fairly significant difference between light refracting and curving.

Well, light bends in a number f circumstances, such as passing through substances with different refractive indexes.  IN the convection above pavement.  Gravity.

ETc..

Beast, I am totally convinced by your argument ad albam.  Please let me know if you have any other arguments that you'd like to win.

Well, light bends in a number f circumstances, such as passing through substances with different refractive indexes.  IN the convection above pavement.  Gravity.

ETc..

You did not say that light bent.

Light also curves in fluids. The atmosphere is a gas, and gasses are fluids.

And I reject that statement.  As seen in my diagram - a curve is not the same as a change in direction.  If you can back up your statement with a scientific website link showing light curving in fluids I will be happy to accept that I'm wrong but I doubt you can do that because light doesn't curve.  You could argue that it can curve because of gravity and I accept that because from a perspective it does curve.  I think the more common explanation is that the space time fabric curves and the light goes in a straight line (but appears to curve - a non euclidian straight line I guess).  Philosophically you could definitely still argue that this is a curve.  However curving in fluids?  I think that's bullshit.

Yes, we do know how strong the Earth's gravity is. We know that it is nowhere near strong enough to cause a curving of light's path over these distances that would be significant in this experiment.

Its not the earth's gravitational field which causes the light to bend. The earth's field bends time/space, not light. And then, when light makes it's way across that portion of time/space, it it will bend as well since it can only follow that path. Light cannot follow a different line by going outside of time/space.

Clearer?

Now, I don't know general relativity that well, but I'm pretty sure that the Earth's gravity is nowhere near strong enough to bend light to the extent that you say it does.

On the other hand, I can explain why light can bend. The index of refraction of light through air depends on the density of air, which depends on the temperature (Ideal Gas Law). When you see a slight shimmering above the road, it is becuase the air near the road is less dense than the above it, and hence has a lower index of refraction. Hence, the light will bend away from the road, and you will see the sky. Note that you can only observe this shimmering effect when you are looking nearly parallel to the road, because the light is not bent very much.

Now, regarding burden of proof:
I think burden of proof lies with the people who believe in the Flat Earth. The major problem that I see with the Flat Earth Theory is the failure in meeting Occam's Razor (so many assumptions: the unknown force propelling the earth, the necessity of having hundreds of thousands of people in a consipracy, going against basic laws of physics and experiments that have occurred). There is no reason for me to believe in a flat earth; all major scientific evidence points towards the round earth. Now that evidence is false, you might say, but where is the real evidence? How do you know that some unknown force exists? How do you know that the sun works through perspective? You have all these theories, but very few (if any) of them can be substantiated with solid evidence.

Now, I don't know general relativity that well, but I'm pretty sure that the Earth's gravity is nowhere near strong enough to bend light to the extent that you say it does.

On the other hand, I can explain why light can bend. The index of refraction of light through air depends on the density of air, which depends on the temperature (Ideal Gas Law). When you see a slight shimmering above the road, it is becuase the air near the road is less dense than the above it, and hence has a lower index of refraction. Hence, the light will bend away from the road, and you will see the sky. Note that you can only observe this shimmering effect when you are looking nearly parallel to the road, because the light is not bent very much.

"Bending" and "curving" are different things in the context of this discussion. It's semantic and sometimes frustrating, to be sure, but they are still unique concepts.

No one is denying that light bends in the presence of mediums of variable density - and anyone who does is likely beyond help - but the issue is whether or not light curves under such conditions. As physics defines a curve of light, no, it does not. It only bends.

I think burden of proof lies with the people who believe in the Flat Earth.

And you would be wrong, unfortunately.

And you would be wrong, unfortunately

See, Skeptical Listener, it's pretty much always like this. They don't give reasons. You will get answers like, "no it's not"  " you're wrong" or "it doesn't" Don't expect things to be backed up often on that side.

He doesn't give reasons as to why you would be wrong, it's just stated as a fact that you are. I realise there is no value to those statments, but you should expect to see them a lot and get used to them.