I understand the FE theory, but do you have any repeatable experimental evidence

I don't expect to be able to perceive the curvature of the earth, if it were a really huge ball with some slight curvature. There is simply no reason to believe illusion over reality.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2013, 07:10:23 PM

I don't expect to be able to perceive the curvature of the earth, if it were a really huge ball with some slight curvature. There is simply no reason to believe illusion over reality.

if you cant perceive the curvature of a huge ball with your eyes, then how are you so sure its flat?

it would look flat even if it was round

Quote from: mike247 on October 22, 2013, 07:23:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2013, 07:10:23 PM

I don't expect to be able to perceive the curvature of the earth, if it were a really huge ball with some slight curvature. There is simply no reason to believe illusion over reality.

if you cant perceive the curvature of a huge ball with your eyes, then how are you so sure its flat?

it would look flat even if it was round

How are you so sure that the earth really exists and our reality is not a computer simulation run by aliens on Uranus?

How are you so sure that ghosts don't exist?

How are you so sure that the earth is not hollow?

We don't assume such things because the evidence of reality trumps "it might be an illusion" or "it might exist".

Tom, your physics simulation analogy is a piss poor example. That hypothesis isn't science because there is currently no test that can be done to verify one way or the other.

let me reiterate mine. The earth looks flat, it would look flat to our eyes if it were flat or if it were a really big ball.
so why are you so sure based on the fact it looks flat that it is?

Quote from: rottingroom on October 22, 2013, 07:41:59 PM

Tom, your physics simulation analogy is a piss poor example. That hypothesis isn't science because there is currently no test that can be done to verify one way or the other.

It would be rather ignorant to assume that every experiment conducted is invalid because "it might be an illusion". Illusions cannot be assumed until it has been demonstrated to be an illusion.

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the “curvature” of Earth’s surface. Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-Earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn’t deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-Earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn’t. The curvature of the Earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-Earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That’s why the theory lasted so long.

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-Earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the Earth’s shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on Earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling. All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the Earth’s surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the Earth to be a sphere.

What’s more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.

About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the Sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the Earth’s surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference.

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat Earth to the spherical Earth.

Mind you, even a tiny difference, such at that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The Earth cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the difference isn’t taken into account and if the Earth isn’t considered a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can’t be undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one’s own position in the ocean unless the Earth is considered spherical rather than flat.

Furthermore, the flat Earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite Earth, or of the existence of an “end” to the surface. The spherical Earth, however, postulates an Earth that is both endless and yet finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all later findings.

So although the flat-Earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to be discarded in favor of the spherical-Earth theory.

Rotundity is discounted on lack of evidence. Any illusion must be demonstrated, not assumed.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2013, 07:52:07 PM

Rotundity is discounted on lack of evidence. Any illusion must be demonstrated, not assumed.

what lack of evidence? Also what illusion?

The evidence the earth looks flat leads equally to either conclusion that it is flat or a large ball, it doesn't prove anything either way?

Quote from: mike247 on October 22, 2013, 07:56:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2013, 07:52:07 PM

Rotundity is discounted on lack of evidence. Any illusion must be demonstrated, not assumed.

what lack of evidence? Also what illusion?

The evidence the earth looks flat leads equally to either conclusion that it is flat or a large ball, it doesn't prove anything either way?

Evidence that the earth looks flat leads to the direct conclusion that the earth is flat.

It does not lead to the conclusion that the earth is a football.

It does not lead to the conclusion that the earth is a pyramid.

It does not lead to the conclusion that the earth is a dodecahedron.

Quote from: mike247 on October 22, 2013, 07:56:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2013, 07:52:07 PM

Rotundity is discounted on lack of evidence. Any illusion must be demonstrated, not assumed.

what lack of evidence? Also what illusion?

The evidence the earth looks flat leads equally to either conclusion that it is flat or a large ball, it doesn't prove anything either way?

Evidence that the earth looks flat leads to the direct conclusion that the earth is flat.

It does not lead to the conclusion that the earth is a football.

It does not lead to the conclusion that the earth is a pyramid.

It does not lead to the conclusion that the earth is a dodecahedron.

The observation only leads to the direct conclusion that the earth is flat. While the shapes mentioned above may be "possible," the evidence remains that the earth is flat. Only until evidence is presented that the flatness is an illusion and that the earth is really an imperceptibly big torus/boomerang/whatever, the earth remains flat until demonstrated otherwise.

Quote from: Rama Set on October 22, 2013, 06:20:27 AM

What about sunsets that do not merge in to the horizon like a liquid?

That image is looking up at a hill, not the true horizon. Take a look at the cow to the furthest right. His feet are obscured by the land.

There are images of the sun disappearing behind land where it is behaving like a liquid.



It is, however, possible to get the sun as a picturesque circle. The sun is constantly morphing as it sets and if a number of pictures are taken one can capture a circular sun.

Look out your window.

An observation of a flat earth constitutes evidence that the earth is flat. It is not evidence of "an illusion". The fact that other illusions may exist (although I can see curvature in that image) is not evidence that the flat earth is an illusion.

Experiment Vs. Assumption. Experiment always wins.

I don't expect to be able to perceive the curvature of the earth, if it were a really huge ball with some slight curvature.

There is simply no reason to believe illusion over reality.

Experiment Vs. Assumption. Experiment always wins.

Look out your window.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

Tom Bishop that isn't going to cut it. If you can imagine a sphere so big, that when you stand on its surface, that it looks flat, you got a faulty conclusion when you say the earth looks flat therefore it must be flat.

Look at this video. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Impossible Balls Illusion!
Does it proof to you that things can roll upwards?

The earth may look flat, but in fact, the distance for the horizon to drop just 1 degree is about 110 km. Gives some stuff to think about Tom.

That video does little to refute his point. That's an illusion, whereas looking outside and seeing flatness isn't an illusion.

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on October 28, 2013, 05:09:06 PM

That video does little to refute his point. That's an illusion, whereas looking outside and seeing flatness isn't an illusion.

So FE'ers are saying that the flatness that someone sees out their window is not an illusion, but the sunset that someone sees out that same window is an illusion?  Wow, that's some window.

Quote from: markjo on October 28, 2013, 05:31:32 PM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on October 28, 2013, 05:09:06 PM

That video does little to refute his point. That's an illusion, whereas looking outside and seeing flatness isn't an illusion.

So FE'ers are saying that the flatness that someone sees out their window is not an illusion, but the sunset that someone sees out that same window is an illusion?  Wow, that's some window.

markjo, you have been here for a long, long time.  You have asked every question, and heard every answer.  Why don't you let new people ask questions?

Quote from: jroa on October 28, 2013, 06:10:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 28, 2013, 05:31:32 PM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on October 28, 2013, 05:09:06 PM

That video does little to refute his point. That's an illusion, whereas looking outside and seeing flatness isn't an illusion.

So FE'ers are saying that the flatness that someone sees out their window is not an illusion, but the sunset that someone sees out that same window is an illusion?  Wow, that's some window.

markjo, you have been here for a long, long time.  You have asked every question, and heard every answer.  Why don't you let new people ask questions?

I'm sorry, but does me asking that question make it any less valid?  Or would you rather ignore/evade that same question from a noob?

Quote from: markjo on October 28, 2013, 06:45:25 PM

Quote from: jroa on October 28, 2013, 06:10:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 28, 2013, 05:31:32 PM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on October 28, 2013, 05:09:06 PM

That video does little to refute his point. That's an illusion, whereas looking outside and seeing flatness isn't an illusion.

So FE'ers are saying that the flatness that someone sees out their window is not an illusion, but the sunset that someone sees out that same window is an illusion?  Wow, that's some window.

markjo, you have been here for a long, long time.  You have asked every question, and heard every answer.  Why don't you let new people ask questions?

I'm sorry, but does me asking that question make it any less valid?  Or would you rather ignore/evade that same question from a noob?

markjo, you could let people who do not know the answers ask the questions.

Look out your window.

Please keep low content posts out of the upper fora.

Quote from: Don Quichotte on October 28, 2013, 04:26:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

Tom Bishop that isn't going to cut it. If you can imagine a sphere so big, that when you stand on its surface, that it looks flat, you got a faulty conclusion when you say the earth looks flat therefore it must be flat.

Look at this video. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Impossible Balls Illusion!
Does it proof to you that things can roll upwards?

The earth may look flat, but in fact, the distance for the horizon to drop just 1 degree is about 110 km. Gives some stuff to think about Tom.

That video does little to refute his point. That's an illusion, whereas looking outside and seeing flatness isn't an illusion.
In RE, they say the earth is very big and it will look flat locally. This is their explanation. 
I interpret his point as you looking outside and seeing flatness. Seeing the flat underside of clouds, etc. Then, you should stitch all of these local, flat places together and you have a large, flat area - the flat Earth.

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on October 28, 2013, 05:09:06 PM

Quote from: Don Quichotte on October 28, 2013, 04:26:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

Tom Bishop that isn't going to cut it. If you can imagine a sphere so big, that when you stand on its surface, that it looks flat, you got a faulty conclusion when you say the earth looks flat therefore it must be flat.

Look at this video. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Impossible Balls Illusion!
Does it proof to you that things can roll upwards?

The earth may look flat, but in fact, the distance for the horizon to drop just 1 degree is about 110 km. Gives some stuff to think about Tom.

That video does little to refute his point. That's an illusion, whereas looking outside and seeing flatness isn't an illusion.
In RE, they say the earth is very big and it will look flat locally. This is their explanation. 
I interpret his point as you looking outside and seeing flatness. Seeing the flat underside of clouds, etc. Then, you should stitch all of these local, flat places together and you have a large, flat area - the flat Earth.

Both are a perception Adolf. From one point of view it may look like the marbles are rolling upwards and if you do not look further you may take it as thruth that yes, marbles can roll upwards. This however would mean you would believe anything the way it is presented to you. The world to you is presented as a flat world and yes, when looking out over the ocean it may seem perfectly flat, but it does not end there.

There are a whole lot of observations which would NOT match that of a flat earth. But all of that aside. Let's just focus on the sheer size of the earth. You know what a protractor is? Here is a link http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Protractor_Rapporteur_Degrees_V3.jpg
It shows you the degrees of half a circle. You definitely see a curvature there, don't you?  Every black line is 1 degree. Take 90 degrees as the north pole. Go one degree either left or right. Not much of a drop, agree? From 90 degrees to 89 degrees, you do not see much of a drop. That curvature becomes more visible when you go to let's say 50 degrees. You definitely see a curvature when going straight from 90 degrees to 50 degrees. Would you expect to see such a curvature for a spherical earth?

You would be living on a very tiny planet if you would, because the earth's curvature drops 1 degree for ever 111 km/ 69 miles. Check that protractor. Go from 90 degrees to 89 degrees. The amount of curvature that protractor makes in such a small distance, is the same curvature the earth has over a distance of 111 km / 69 miles. It is simply to tiny to notice. Surely there is a curvature, but you simply cannot detect such minute differences. Once you start to get higher in the sky you are able to look further. At 10 km altitude you are able to look about 300 km far away. The amount of drop visible is 3 degrees. 3 lines on that protractor Adolf. You have a curvature as much as going from 90 degrees to 87 degrees. Still a very small difference, which is very hard to notice. Especially if clouds cover the horizon. The curvature becomes more clearly visible the higher you get.

So although the earth may look flat, it is only an illusion.

I heard that cloud's undersides will reflect the surface below them shape wise...

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on October 29, 2013, 01:11:04 PM

I heard that cloud's undersides will reflect the surface below them shape wise...

Where did you hear that? 

Quote from: markjo on October 29, 2013, 01:19:08 PM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on October 29, 2013, 01:11:04 PM

I heard that cloud's undersides will reflect the surface below them shape wise...

Where did you hear that? 

I just thought I heard it somewhere.

I also just looked into why clouds have flat undersides sometimes - you can ignore my point. I was very off.