What proof do you need to believe the earth is a sphere?

As the title asks, what proof do you FE'ers need to believe the earth is a sphere? I can provide a lot of proof, as can many other people, so tell me something you need to know so that you belive in a RE.

As the title asks, what proof do you FE'ers need to believe the earth is a sphere? I can provide a lot of proof, as can many other people, so tell me something you need to know so that you belive in a RE.

Man, you are just asking for some near immposible very expensive action to be performed by yourself. And That's IF something actually counts as evidence in this bizarro world.

Well, let's first consider what proof we WON'T accept and why we don't accept them:

-Photographs/Visuals. Look, if you want, I can gladly show you over a hundred pictures of fictional planets if you really wanted me to, and I highly doubt you believe that Kashyyyk is a real place.

-"Scientific" studies. If I ever want some nameless lab coat telling me that due to some microbiological reason, the Earth has to be flat, I'll be sure to call you back here.

-Claims of space travel. I can claim that I went to the Ice Wall just as easily as you can claim that men have been sent hurtling through space. It still doesn't make it true.


Don't forget that numerous times, Flat Earthers have used all three of these, sarcastically and seriously, and Round Earthers have rejected all of them in all of their hypocritical glory.

What we DO want is:

-Real mathematical and LOGICAL reasons why the Earth NEEDS to be round. This means theories that use postulatory and necessary conclusions, not detailed, scientific research.

-Easy, simple experiments that don't require equipment, and, preferably, requires only optical observation.

Also don't forget that we have been beaten before, and we have admitted it, but Round Earthers don't bother to look too far into things or threads, so we manage to still come out on top.

~D-Draw

Ok, I don't know if this has been said ever, but look at the Earth's shadow cast on the moon. It cover's the whole moon. It would be a line on the moon if the earth was flat. But, you could argue this by saying that the earth is just so big compared to the moon/ its the flat side of the earth, so I'm working on another reason; I'll get back to you when I have it how I want to say it.

EDIT: Anyways, ok, i have a question. If you don't believe in intelligent disign, how do you believe that the ice walls would convieniently be there? It could make since that someone made it that way, but without intelligent design. So, basicly, my question is, why do you non-religeous FE'ers believe the earth was formed this way? Thanks.

It's more a case of we know how the world is, we just don't know why.  Like how we know that two girls kissing is awesome but we can't explain why it's so awesome (especially to another girl).



See - awesome.  Now go explain why it is awesome to your Mum if you can.  Not being able to explain something doesn't mean it's not how it is.

I have a sort of question/proof to suggest.

Gravity is accounted for by everything accelerating at 9.8 m/s in the same direction (up). The question is, can something or someone fall off the planet? This is somewhat rhetorical, as the answer is in the FAQ as yes, and the planet accelerates away from them.

Also, the question of moving faster than the speed of light has been brought up. There is a rather flawed explenation for this using the idea of perspective. I'm not going to try to debate that, but consider this:

Someone falls off the planet, and the planet continues to accelerate. After some 700 days, the planet is moving twice the speed of light away from the person, or the person is moving twice the speed of light away from the planet, either way you want to look at it. There is no point of perspective that can account for this, as even at the "halfway point" between the two (a point that would therefore move half the distance the planet does) both are moving away faster than the speed of light. Any perspective remaining closer to one body causes the other to move away even faster,

Whats wrong? Einstein's theories, or the explenation of gravity and falling off the planet?

Whats wrong? Einstein's theories, or the explenation of gravity and falling off the planet?

Einstein's theories are based off of the Round Earth model; you have to remember that. His theories are theoretically correct on a round Earth model, but on a flat Earth model, they're incorrect.
For an analogy, I could construct a theory that proves that if the Earth had no gravity and no force pushing down that everything would start floating. Now, obviously, on a "no gravity Earth model" it would work, and it'd be fully correct. However, if you go back to the reality, which is the "gravity-prone Earth model," things still fall, because there is gravity, whereas I was proving something based on the fact that there isn't gravity.

To address the example that you used, you say that the person would be moving twice the speed of light away from the Earth. Well, think about this. What is that relative to? The Earth? You can't base something on the nothingness that surrounds the Earth, therefore it is safe to assume that--while technically the Earth is accelerating up by the force come to be known as "schmavity"--really, the base that must be referred to is the Earth itself. To place the relative point anywhere else wouldn't make sense, since everywhere else in the universe is, in actuality "nothing."

So, basicly, my question is, why do you non-religeous FE'ers believe the earth was formed this way? Thanks.

Well, a while ago I came up with the idea of a Flat Earth Genesis. Basically, this proves how the ice-wall was formed and why it's there.

So, at "the beginning," the Earth is simply a large chunk of ice with some (a crapload) of dirt underneath it. Now, the sun is just a large ball of heat, basically. When the sun comes into orbit with the Earth, guess what it's going to do? Melt the ice. Now, since the sun orbits around in a circle, you can see that it is never directly above the sides (where the ice wall is) and it is also never directly above the center (north pole). So, those places are still largely frozen, and the ice wall, which was never melted, keeps all of the water that was melted from the sun's rays, inside, creating oceans. Also, this is obviously how the Earth's landforms were formed.
For example, note how sand is a very soft, loose form of rock. Then look at granite and other hard stones. They pack together very well. Well, when you have a bunch of sand and dirt (loose rocks), around a bunch of granite and other hard rocks (packed rocks), the sand and dirt is going to be washed away easily, while the harder, more packed rocks will stay. The loose stuff is washed away, while the harder stuff stays strong. This can make high mountains, low deserts, and many other landforms.

~D-Draw

Someone falls off the planet, and the planet continues to accelerate. After some 700 days, the planet is moving twice the speed of light away from the person, or the person is moving twice the speed of light away from the planet, either way you want to look at it. There is no point of perspective that can account for this, as even at the "halfway point" between the two (a point that would therefore move half the distance the planet does) both are moving away faster than the speed of light. Any perspective remaining closer to one body causes the other to move away even faster,

The acclerating earth would approach the speed of light asymptotically and NEVER reach it.  Velocities do not add linerally in relativistic situations.

When the sun comes into orbit with the Earth

That just raises more questions.

1. Where the heck was the sun before? If everything is moving "upwards" at the same speed, how could it ever get above flat earth?

2. Flat earth has no gravitational field, so the sun could not "come into orbit" with it. (you can't orbit an object that has no gravitational field since there would be no gravitational pull for you to be subjected to). It would have been neither attracted nor compelled to remain above it.

Quote from: "sideway"

Someone falls off the planet, and the planet continues to accelerate. After some 700 days, the planet is moving twice the speed of light away from the person, or the person is moving twice the speed of light away from the planet, either way you want to look at it. There is no point of perspective that can account for this, as even at the "halfway point" between the two (a point that would therefore move half the distance the planet does) both are moving away faster than the speed of light. Any perspective remaining closer to one body causes the other to move away even faster,

The acclerating earth would approach the speed of light asymptotically and NEVER reach it.  Velocities do not add linerally in relativistic situations.

If it approached it asymptotically would that still fulfill special reletivity? Asymptotically under my under my understanding could be that given some arbitrarily amount of time (as I would say the earth is reaching at this point) the speed of the earth would get so close to C that the two would be almost indistinguisable.

Now, I don't claim to even have a vague understanding of special reletivity, but at that point, wouldnt the mass be so large as to use incredible amounts of energy, like getting up to an almost infinite amount?

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "sideway"

Someone falls off the planet, and the planet continues to accelerate. After some 700 days, the planet is moving twice the speed of light away from the person, or the person is moving twice the speed of light away from the planet, either way you want to look at it. There is no point of perspective that can account for this, as even at the "halfway point" between the two (a point that would therefore move half the distance the planet does) both are moving away faster than the speed of light. Any perspective remaining closer to one body causes the other to move away even faster,

The acclerating earth would approach the speed of light asymptotically and NEVER reach it.  Velocities do not add linerally in relativistic situations.

If it approached it asymptotically would that still fulfill special reletivity? Asymptotically under my under my understanding could be that given some arbitrarily amount of time (as I would say the earth is reaching at this point) the speed of the earth would get so close to C that the two would be almost indistinguisable.

Now, I don't claim to even have a vague understanding of special reletivity, but at that point, wouldnt the mass be so large as to use incredible amounts of energy, like getting up to an almost infinite amount?

It would require infinite energy. (that may or may not be part of FE theory.

No it wouldnt, only C would require infinite energy, the required amount of energy would be enormous but not infinite

It would require infinite energy. (that may or may not be part of FE theory.

Yes, it would require a near infinite amount of energy if Earth was moving close to the speed of light. But it's not. So it doesn't.

that would be the problem I pointed out with asymptotally.

1. Where the heck was the sun before? If everything is moving "upwards" at the same speed, how could it ever get above flat earth?

2. Flat earth has no gravitational field, so the sun could not "come into orbit" with it. (you can't orbit an object that has no gravitational field since there would be no gravitational pull for you to be subjected to). It would have been neither attracted nor compelled to remain above it.

Accepted, or refuted?

1. Where the heck was the sun before? If everything is moving "upwards" at the same speed, how could it ever get above flat earth?

2. Flat earth has no gravitational field, so the sun could not "come into orbit" with it. (you can't orbit an object that has no gravitational field since there would be no gravitational pull for you to be subjected to). It would have been neither attracted nor compelled to remain above it.

Accepted, or refuted?

See my answer in the Tides discussion.

-Easy, simple experiments that don't require equipment, and, preferably, requires only optical observation.

I'll give you two, watch a ship or boat sail off into the ocean starting from the sea. If you use a telescope so you can watch it, you still will only see as much as you can see with the eye, but it may be sharper. It will still disappear from view, not because you can't see it anymore, you did, indeed, use a telescope. The earth must be curved for this to happen.

The second, look at the friggin' planets and stars. If the other planets, moons, etc were flat also, they would have to be tilted at a PERFECT angle towards earth to appear circular. Stars might not work, as they are too far away to tell, but look at the moon if you want, or the sun even. In fact, stare at the sun for about 10 minutes while it's not covered by clouds.

Two easy experiments, the only equipment involved in either being a telescope.

If it approached it asymptotically would that still fulfill special reletivity? Asymptotically under my under my understanding could be that given some arbitrarily amount of time (as I would say the earth is reaching at this point) the speed of the earth would get so close to C that the two would be almost indistinguisable.

Now, I don't claim to even have a vague understanding of special reletivity, but at that point, wouldnt the mass be so large as to use incredible amounts of energy, like getting up to an almost infinite amount?

That's the thing about infinity.  The earth can accelerate indefinately and never reach c.  The mass of the earth would get very large and hence the earth from a nonacceleated frame of reference would seem to be slowing in its acceleration.  Luckily for us on the earth, we would see the acceleration stay constant.

stare at the sun for about 10 minutes while it's not covered by clouds.

That's just...stupid.

Quote from: "Rossk #5!!"

stare at the sun for about 10 minutes while it's not covered by clouds.

That's just...stupid.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

So Rossk - have you done this experiement staring at the Sun for ten minutes?  What happened?

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

If it approached it asymptotically would that still fulfill special reletivity? Asymptotically under my under my understanding could be that given some arbitrarily amount of time (as I would say the earth is reaching at this point) the speed of the earth would get so close to C that the two would be almost indistinguisable.

Now, I don't claim to even have a vague understanding of special reletivity, but at that point, wouldnt the mass be so large as to use incredible amounts of energy, like getting up to an almost infinite amount?

That's the thing about infinity.  The earth can accelerate indefinately and never reach c.  The mass of the earth would get very large and hence the earth from a nonacceleated frame of reference would seem to be slowing in its acceleration.  Luckily for us on the earth, we would see the acceleration stay constant.

That makes no sence.

Just not to you.

Are you just gonna be a b.itch or are you going to explain it in laymans terms why the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to your theory?

Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics.  But, whatever, which part are you refering to?

Quote

Whats wrong? Einstein's theories, or the explenation of gravity and falling off the planet?

Einstein's theories are based off of the Round Earth model; you have to remember that.

While he might have believe he lived on a round earth, his theory of relativity has nothing to do with the shape of the planet[/quote]

Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics.  But, whatever, which part are you refering to?

You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.

Oh lol.

It's Special Relativity that says you can't go faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't say you can't accelerate forever, just that as you approach the speed of light weird stuff starts happening from the point of view of people watching.

Oh lol.

It's Special Relativity that says you can't go faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't say you can't accelerate forever, just that as you approach the speed of light weird stuff starts happening from the point of view of people watching.

i wouldn't have thought it possible to view anything at/close to the speed of light.

ninja's can...duhhhhhh