How much RET explains

This is a website about earth's shape. Does your blender picture prove that the earth must be a ball? No?

So why have we two pages of you claiming this ruler thing proves the earth to be round? It does not.

This is a website about earth's shape. Does your blender picture prove that the earth must be a ball? No?

So why have we two pages of you claiming this ruler thing proves the earth to be round? It does not.

Wow, you have a nasty case of jumping to conclusions.  I haven't drawn any conclusions yet.  I'm setting up some lemmas for my demonstration that your dinner plate explanation is irrelevant, since it shouldn't produce any VISIBLE curvature.  I haven't been able to demonstrate that yet, however, since you keep trying to change the subject and won't stop bringing up things completely irrelevant to your dinner plate phenomenon.

I'll come back when you are ready.

I'll come back when you are ready.

The pictures I just posted demonstrate that the answer to my third question is "Yes."  Do you see this?

Your method of proving the earth is flat (stating it, according to what I quoted several posts above) is extraordinarily unhelpful.  I'm using philosophy and LOGIC to try to make a case, but you're doing the equivalent of plugging your ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you".  Let's not lose our heads.  This isn't that complicated, yet it seems impossible for you to follow without stating irrelevant things and getting sidetracked.

At the VERY LEAST, take a discrete mathematics class.  They'll teach you about logic, namely the concept of lemmas and making strings of deductions.

I fear you are just wasting my time. You seem to agree with me that the ruler thing is not proving earth to be flat (the purpose of this website) and seem more intent on a semantic debate about a dinner plate analogy which it seems I pitched above the level of comprehension that can be grasped by today's visitors.

I fear you are just wasting my time. You seem to agree with me that the ruler thing is not proving earth to be flat (the purpose of this website) and seem more intent on a semantic debate about a dinner plate analogy which it seems I pitched above the level of comprehension that can be grasped by today's visitors.

I've just proven that there is a height at which the curvature produced from your dinner plate phenomenon is indistinguishable from flatness, i.e. not measurable with a ruler and your naked eye.  Therefore, if when standing on the beach and holding up a ruler, if the height of my eye from the surface of the water is too small to fall outside of this range for a full-sized earth (much larger than the circle I drew in blender, believe me), then your dinner plate explanation does not explain the observed curvature of the earth.  Since humans are so small and the earth so large, it would seem that standing on the beach would not be nearly high enough to produce such extreme curvature.  Especially if you think there's a flat ice wall at the edge, in which case the earth should be curving UP, now DOWN.

Only, my dinner plate analogy does explain the curvature you see. It explains how a flat object can have a curved edge when you are in the middle of it looking outwards.
You have then made up a load of hogwash about how this must be some other magical form of curvature ignoring the fact YOU CANNOT SEE THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH BELOW 60,000 ft.

I don't even want to get on to explaining how the horizon isn't the edge of earth but merely the edge of your perception because I know at the pace you pick things up I could be here until page 30.

I think maybe someone with a little more patience should tend to your queries.

If you are out at sea (or in the middle of a totally featureless area of land) the limit of vision (the horizon) on a round earth is about 5km away for an average person standing with their feet level with the surface (either on the land, or in a boat on the water). This is in all directions, that is, it's a circle with the observer at the centre, and a radius of about 5km. On a flat earth, we should be able to see a lot further, because there is no curvature to cut off our line of sight, but FET has a lot of fancy excuses as to why this is not case, even using a good telescope on a crystal clear day. Either way, the observable area is a circle, so dinner plate or ball makes no real difference.

You have then made up a load of hogwash about how this must be some other magical form of curvature ignoring the fact YOU CANNOT SEE THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH BELOW 60,000 ft.

I have done no such thing.  I have not made any such statement about there must be some other magical thing.  That's YOU, and I already told you to stop it.  Take your own advice.  We're only looking at your dinner plate thing, NOTHING ELSE.  Every time you mention the 60k feet, you are talking about something completely unrelated to this.  You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of someone else only focusing on one thing at a time, and who isn't constantly drawing conclusions about everything.

I've demonstrated conclusively that there are certain heights at which your dinner plate phenomenon produces no observable effect (namely height=0, which is basic geometry, and a little ways above zero, which I proved with that picture).  I'm not taking any other positions right now other than this one.  If you want to argue with me in this thread, this is the only thing you can argue against right now, since it's the only significant thing I've claimed.

Only when we establish that your explanation does not work can acknowledge that we are left with the conundrum of the horizon curving with no satisfactory explanation presented other than a round earth, which we can get into the specifics of when it's forced upon us.  You say that the curvature is caused by the dinner plate phenomenon, and I say that it can't be.  I'm purposefully leading this discussion so that we'll eventually get to a round earth, but only after first exhausting the avenue that you yourself brought up.

If you are out at sea (or in the middle of a totally featureless area of land) the limit of vision (the horizon) on a round earth is about 5km away for an average person standing with their feet level with the surface (either on the land, or in a boat on the water). This is in all directions, that is, it's a circle with the observer at the centre, and a radius of about 5km. On a flat earth, we should be able to see a lot further, because there is no curvature to cut off our line of sight, but FET has a lot of fancy excuses as to why this is not case, even using a good telescope on a crystal clear day. Either way, the observable area is a circle, so dinner plate or ball makes no real difference.

the use of water as a vantage point has many problems, so in regard to a land based test of your proposed experiment how will the influence of the myriad gasses and particles that constitute the air you are looking through be bypassed?

and have you any areas in mind that would fit a criteria such as the one you propose, with undulating featureless terrain in 'all' directions?
i will refine this to the four main directions being unobstructed, due to the pedantic nature of me insinuating you meant, or there being a need for, 360 deg visibility.

nb, where can the degree symbol be found on a keyboard?

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 06, 2013, 02:45:02 PM

If you are out at sea (or in the middle of a totally featureless area of land) the limit of vision (the horizon) on a round earth is about 5km away for an average person standing with their feet level with the surface (either on the land, or in a boat on the water). This is in all directions, that is, it's a circle with the observer at the centre, and a radius of about 5km. On a flat earth, we should be able to see a lot further, because there is no curvature to cut off our line of sight, but FET has a lot of fancy excuses as to why this is not case, even using a good telescope on a crystal clear day. Either way, the observable area is a circle, so dinner plate or ball makes no real difference.

the use of water as a vantage point has many problems, so in regard to a land based test of your proposed experiment how will the influence of the myriad gasses and particles that constitute the air you are looking through be bypassed?

and have you any areas in mind that would fit a criteria such as the one you propose, with undulating featureless terrain in 'all' directions?
i will refine this to the four main directions being unobstructed, due to the pedantic nature of me insinuating you meant, or there being a need for, 360 deg visibility.

nb, where can the degree symbol be found on a keyboard?

True, water can be fickle, but on a calm day on a large lake (Lake Michigan perhaps?) it would be a suitable place to test the limits of vision.

There are large areas of totally flat land (such as portions of the Great Salt Lake Desert in Utah, the most suitable land based location I can think of for this experiment), but it is difficult to find an area large enough and flat enough to do this test in all directions.

The opacity of the atmosphere can be overcome by using a suitably contrasting target, and a strong telescope. Where I live (elevation ~280m AMSL), I can see a transmission tower on a mountain top (elevation ~1500m AMSL) 25km away with the naked eye, so the 5km range of vision should be easy to test.

OK, I've cut out the ability to see the curvature of the earth to end some needless discussion. Having said that, I don't see how your dinner plate explanation could work. If we were seeing curvature on the horizon because we were looking at the edge of a disc, you're implying that we can see the edge of the earth. Surely you don't believe we can see that far?

I would say the strongest points in the list would be regarding the moon. The phases, the lunar eclipses, and the tides. Let's focus on the phases. It's quite easy to see for yourself that the phases of the moon follow exactly what one would expect if the moon was lit up by reflection. If you can see both the moon and the sun in the sky at the same time, the angular distance between them fits perfectly with the shape of the lit up part of the moon. For example, the moon will be full if and only if it rises at approximately the same time as the sun sets. Do you deny this, or do you accept that the moon is lit by reflection?

The strongest evidence is the daily direct observation of the sphericity of the Earth. This explains the need for an unproven,  unfalsifiable NASA conspiracy.

I'm choosing the moon because the philosophy here seems to evidence that you can see with your own eyes. I also think the conspiracy is ridiculous, but I don't feel like arguing that.

What you have written is wrong. Get a plate and a ruler.



Look at the top surface. Curvature on a flat object. The defence rests, Your Honour.

So with your dinner plate theory you're saying on flat earth we see the edge of the planet at all times?  so when we see the horizon we're actually looking at the wall of ice?  because this is where the curve is on the dinner plate.

so just to add a little more...in the real world the horizon is just a few miles away but in flat earth I'm able to see thousands of miles away to where your curve would exist?  I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right.

so just to add a little more...in the real world the horizon is just a few miles away but in flat earth I'm able to see thousands of miles away to where your curve would exist?  I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right.

surely you do not think the asking of a question, even if it were sincere, constitutes 'adding' to anything?

you are asking, in actual fact, for the adding to of your level of comprehension, if we ignore for a moment the obvious duplicity of your entire request.

Quote from: koolkat67 on April 09, 2013, 02:12:26 AM

so just to add a little more...in the real world the horizon is just a few miles away but in flat earth I'm able to see thousands of miles away to where your curve would exist?  I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right.

surely you do not think the asking of a question, even if it were sincere, constitutes 'adding' to anything?

you are asking, in actual fact, for the adding to of your level of comprehension, if we ignore for a moment the obvious duplicity of your entire request.

again no answer...ill move onto another post

This gets asked all the time. A horizon is not the edge of the earth. Its the edge of your perception. As far as you can see on the day.


It is not earth's shape that limits how far you can see, but atmospheric conditions.

Right now as I type, the visibility in London is about 3km.
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/current?LANG=en&WMO=03772&TIME=std&CONT=ukuk&R=310&LEVEL=140&REGION=0003&LAND=__&ART=feuchte&NOREGION=0&PLZ=&PLZN=_____&SORT=__&TEMP=___&WETTER=__&&TYP=__&SEITE=0

So why you would expect to see 5000 miles to the edge of the earth is a complete mystery to me. I think too many people come to this site hoping to shoot holes in things and type away without engaging their brains first.

Thork, that's the whole point of what we're all saying. Your dinner plate doesn't work because the curvature of the horizon cannot be attributed to the disc shape of the earth BECAUSE

A horizon is not the edge of the earth.

Don't tell US to engage our brain. Your dinner plate theory implies being able to see the edge of the circular earth. Unless, that is, you believe atmospheric conditions are perfectly uniform in all directions such that we see curvature.

The dinner plate is to explain that if you see a set distance all around you, it will be a curve. Not a straight horizon that will line up with a ruler. Where are you people coming from? Is mind.org funnelling traffic to our site again?

Why would I see a set distance all around me? Again, are atmospheric conditions so perfectly uniform in all directions?

It changes gradually so you aren't going to notice anything dramtic. You'll instead see a gradual curve. Surely this is obvious to you and that earth's shape has nothing to do with where the horizon is.

First of all, to be clear, we all understood that in a FE we don't expect to see the edge. That was your misinterpretation.

In RE, the shape of the earth does affect the horizon on a clear day. In fact, by measuring distances on Earth, and assuming a RE, one can easily calculate the furthest the horizon can be. Observations then match up to this.

In FET, some complex, unexplained, unevidenced phenomenon such as bendy light causes our perception to match up perfectly with the RET calculation. How conveniently coincidental.

Also, in photos where the curvature is observed, the distance spanned by the horizon is so large that we really cannot expect a gradual change in atmospheric conditions.

And the photo is for?

1) Gravity [...] confirmed and seems to be generally accepted by flat earthers anyway.

lol

This thread is gold. It pretty much just curb stomps all the flat earthers into coming up with more bullshit. Don't expect any flat earthers to change their mind though. They are quite stubborn, and enjoy getting a rise out of people.

This thread is gold. It pretty much just curb stomps all the flat earthers into coming up with more bullshit. Don't expect any flat earthers to change their mind though. They are quite stubborn, and enjoy getting a rise out of people.

Yeah this site is just trollers.  Thork is backpeddling hard since the last time I was put a hole in his dinner plate theory.

This thread is gold. It pretty much just curb stomps all the flat earthers into coming up with more bullshit.

Well, gravitation is widely known to not have been correctly explained yet¹, even among mainstream scientists. This thread is great because its very first assumption is "let's invoke magic!".

In formal logic, the statement "if p then q" is always true when p is false. This is exactly what the OP has done.

¹ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

In formal logic, the statement "if p then q" is always true when p is false. This is exactly what the OP has done.

If I were a unicorn, wood could swim on water. This is a true statement in formal logic? Could you spoon-feed me on that?

EDIT Well, why not. Makes sense somehow.