What evidence would it take for you to believe the Earth is round?

Whenever someone presents an argument that the Earth is round, a flat earth theorist has a reason why the argument fails. What would it take for you to really believe the Earth is round?

This subject has been covered on another thread. I think the general conclusion for the answer
to your question was :

Nothing

(You have to keep in this in mind :is The Flat Earth Society Forum)

2 questions of the top of my head:

1. How is it 'explained' that they flew over antarctica in 1935 and a couple of timer afterwards?

Is there a mirror flat earth just on the other side of the 'Big Ice Wall'?


2. Google maps, and GPS devices predict the place where you end up when using them to navigate very accurately. If your vision of the earth is correct, we would actually navigate the flat earth and seeing all the landmark, roads, city's and other points of interest at their corresponding locations. So if we would use Google maps to layer over the flat earth map, it should also be correct, so why isn't it?

The simple answer to this is, NOTHING.
I spent most of my life thinking it was a globe and I'm at the not so naive stage now, so there's absolutely nothing that can convince me that the earth is a globe, either rotating or stationary.
The reasons are very very simple.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It only makes sense when your brain is saturated into believing what  you are told to believe, not asked....TOLD.

To not be allowed to alternatively think and be ridiculed if you do alternatively think, by society, I think that alone should tell anyone that these things need to be questioned.

If I was backed into a corner and asked to name one thing that COULD, POSSIBLY sway me, I'd say viewing a rocket launch  with all the equipment necessary to personally see the rocket launch with real astronauts inside of it and for that rocket to be tracked PHYSICALLY, by me, right into space.

If I saw that, I would probably change my mind.
Will I ever get that chance? NOT A CHANCE!

2 questions of the top of my head:

1. How is it 'explained' that they flew over antarctica in 1935 and a couple of timer afterwards?

however it's explained I guess the Royal family are in on it too now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harry/10517769/Prince-Harry-Antarctic-trek-team-mates-pay-tribute-to-the-Royal.html

@LingBling,

Can you first tell us. What proof you have that earth is round globe??

There are lots of proof to prove that earth is flat but no proof that proves that earth is round and moving...

A good start to convincing us would be to develop a coherent model.

A good start to convincing us would be to develop a coherent model.

Couldn't the same be said to those that believe the world is flat?

I mean.........you guys can't even agree on a map.

To not be allowed to alternatively think and be ridiculed if you do alternatively think, by society, I think that alone should tell anyone that these things need to be questioned.

Thinking alternatively is exactly how man first found the earth is a sphere and how science has come as far as it has.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Why? I would really like to see just one specific thing that actually doesn't make sense to you regarding the round earth, not just a blanket statement like "it makes no sense".

Quote

A good start to convincing us would be to develop a coherent model.

Couldn't the same be said to those that believe the world is flat?

I mean.........you guys can't even agree on a map.

I'm not really trying to convince anybody. Also note that Flat Earther's all agreeing on a model is not the same thing as all of us having a coherent model. The round earth community can't agree on a single model as well.

However, to cut it short, the evidence I require is non disputable proof that only fits one context - its own which is self coherent and externally coherent with experimental findings - from each fundamental type of knowledge. Obviously, I don't require such a context to have all its axioms proven, strictly speaking.

Also note that Flat Earther's all agreeing on a model is not the same thing as all of us having a coherent model.

Kind of a moot point considering you have neither going for you. You don't agree on one and none of you can provide a coherent model that doesn't lead to more questions than it answers.

The round earth community can't agree on a single model as well.

That is not true.

However, to cut it short, the evidence I require is non disputable proof that only fits one context - its own which is self coherent and externally coherent with experimental findings - from each fundamental type of knowledge. Obviously, I don't require such a context to have all its axioms proven, strictly speaking.

All the evidence you require already exist.

It's about accepting it or sticking your head in the sand.

A good start to convincing us would be to develop a coherent model.

I couldn't agree more.  I've been asking for a coherent FE model for years and still haven't found one.

The simple answer to this is, NOTHING.
I spent most of my life thinking it was a globe and I'm at the not so naive stage now, so there's absolutely nothing that can convince me that the earth is a globe, either rotating or stationary.
The reasons are very very simple.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It only makes sense when your brain is saturated into believing what  you are told to believe, not asked....TOLD.

To not be allowed to alternatively think and be ridiculed if you do alternatively think, by society, I think that alone should tell anyone that these things need to be questioned.

If I was backed into a corner and asked to name one thing that COULD, POSSIBLY sway me, I'd say viewing a rocket launch  with all the equipment necessary to personally see the rocket launch with real astronauts inside of it and for that rocket to be tracked PHYSICALLY, by me, right into space.

If I saw that, I would probably change my mind.
Will I ever get that chance? NOT A CHANCE!

I'm pretty sure you could still launch a rocket from a flat earth so this doesn't make sense as an answer.

Quote

Also note that Flat Earther's all agreeing on a model is not the same thing as all of us having a coherent model.

Kind of a moot point considering you have neither going for you. You don't agree on one and none of you can provide a coherent model that doesn't lead to more questions than it answers.

Its an extremely valid point. Since the complaint was made that we did not agree within ourselves, it should be noted that Round Earthers don't as well. In fact, its unlikely a system of knowledge would progress in its stock given everyone agreed.

Quote

The round earth community can't agree on a single model as well.

That is not true.

Can you back that up?

The fact as I know it is the Round Earth Community cannot agree on a single model. Instead they either piecemeal together various unrelated theories to form a larger framework that is by nature different than any of the parts- not their sum -  or they create new ones to hope to address the current standing issues with the new model.  The various model types even have submodels which are disagreed upon by different physicists. Agreeing on the models uniformly is silly and misses the point. Science, up to now at least, has been an art of abstraction and estimation. Theories and laws approximate realities, but only that. This is why we have so many jumps in knowledge between large differences in size.

The more one learns about Round Earth science the more one sees its true way - fragmented internally and externally. It was this way when it was looked upon by Descartes, and it still is. To say there is a consensus in science is to say "we only need one point of view - one scientist, and he happens to have superhuman capabilities"

Quote

However, to cut it short, the evidence I require is non disputable proof that only fits one context - its own which is self coherent and externally coherent with experimental findings - from each fundamental type of knowledge. Obviously, I don't require such a context to have all its axioms proven, strictly speaking.

All the evidence you require already exist.

It's about accepting it or sticking your head in the sand.

Clearly I disagree. In general, I don't make a habit of sticking my head in the sand, but instead use my long ostrich neck to survey the surrounding area - Quantum Ab Hoc! Those who usually accuse of us being "ostriches" fail to look beyond what is directly in front of them.

Quote from: Username on December 17, 2013, 12:25:29 PM

A good start to convincing us would be to develop a coherent model.

I couldn't agree more.  I've been asking for a coherent FE model for years and still haven't found one.

If our goal was to convince the world, then sure.

Can you back that up?

The fact as I know it is the Round Earth Community cannot agree on a single model. Instead they either piecemeal together various unrelated theories to form a larger framework that is by nature different than any of the parts- not their sum -  or they create new ones to hope to address the current standing issues with the new model. 

the difference is the round earth society has got together and produced a map and a model of how the earth looks round. It has the big pieces in place. There are little fiddly bits that are still up for debate but the flat earthers with a several thousand year headstart don't have a unified map, nor indeed any map which could be used to navigate both on land and sea without crashing into somethingt hats in the wrong place.

Quote from: Username on December 18, 2013, 06:33:42 AM

Can you back that up?

The fact as I know it is the Round Earth Community cannot agree on a single model. Instead they either piecemeal together various unrelated theories to form a larger framework that is by nature different than any of the parts- not their sum -  or they create new ones to hope to address the current standing issues with the new model. 

the difference is the round earth society has got together and produced a map and a model of how the earth looks round. It has the big pieces in place. There are little fiddly bits that are still up for debate but the flat earthers with a several thousand year headstart don't have a unified map, nor indeed any map which could be used to navigate both on land and sea without crashing into somethingt hats in the wrong place.

Sure we have a map that works. It also explains phenomena that the round earth map does not, such as bipolar pangea. It is a superimposed map. The two models are simply approximations of a higher model, which mainstream science already admits exists.

Sure we have a map that works. It also explains phenomena that the round earth map does not, such as bipolar pangea. It is a superimposed map. The two models are simply approximations of a higher model, which mainstream science already admits exists.

Could I see this map that works?

This map that I could use to work out accurate flight times between all world airports and distances between cities over both land and water?

also, what bipolar pangea?

Of course. It would be equivalent mathematically to any round earth map, so one can simply use the round earth maps which are also representations of the same abstracts; to be fair most cartography was developed by the Flat Earth Society.

Of course. It would be equivalent mathematically to any round earth map, so one can simply use the round earth maps which are also representations of the same abstracts; to be fair most cartography was developed by the Flat Earth Society.

well which projection would you use?

There are multiple attempts to display our earth on a flat plane and they all look a little different.

The authors of said maps claim this is because you can't accurately portray a round earth on a flat surface but I'd be intrigued to know which one you'd take as accurate.

I still want to know what a bipolar pangaea is when you've got a second.

They are all as accurate as any map can be, as they are representations, approximations and abstractions - not a hyper-reality.

In short, take the UN logo projection as well as the same projection from the south pole. Superimpose them and calculate the resultant geography. For any more *real* information on this you'll have to wait on the book.

However, one should be able to see that the representations of these are mathematically equivalent to whatever projection you choose to use.

The earth is flat and unbounded, similar to Einstein's universe (at the correct time).

They are all as accurate as any map can be, as they are representations, approximations and abstractions - not a hyper-reality.

It seems to me that if I take these two random googled up maps (sticking with the square ones):



the shape of Africa is clearly different although similar.

Assuming a flat earth I would have thought that a flat map could accurately represent the exact shape of a continent or country in scale and with correct proportions. I'd like to know which one does this and which one is wrongly distorted.


Or would I be wrong in thinking that a flat map can fully and accurately model a flat world at least to the limits of human exploration?


Incidentally do you disbelieve reports of either southern or northern polar expeditions? or are the limits of the earth divorced from the poles? I'm trying to ascertain the shape of the known world since a flat plane cannot wrap round in 3 dimensional space.

Quote from: Username on December 18, 2013, 08:32:36 AM

They are all as accurate as any map can be, as they are representations, approximations and abstractions - not a hyper-reality.

It seems to me that if I take these two random googled up maps (sticking with the square ones):



the shape of Africa is clearly different although similar.

Assuming a flat earth I would have thought that a flat map could accurately represent the exact shape of a continent or country in scale and with correct proportions. I'd like to know which one does this and which one is wrongly distorted.


Or would I be wrong in thinking that a flat map can fully and accurately model a flat world at least to the limits of human exploration?


Incidentally do you disbelieve reports of either southern or northern polar expeditions? or are the limits of the earth divorced from the poles? I'm trying to ascertain the shape of the known world since a flat plane cannot wrap round in 3 dimensional space.

I think the issue is you are thinking in three dimensional euclidean space, which is coupled with the intent to map a flat earth on a flat surface. Given the earth is in non-euclidean space (a theory held by most Round Earthers in the know) this may not be possible, and we contend it isn't. Except, of course, as depicted in abstract or approximation.


Now, these are my theories and they are held by a minority, but I feel they provide the most cohesive model for a flat earth.

Well of course a round earth is non euclidian but a flat earth IS euclidian.
Thats the point.

So if the earth is flat, where's the accurate map?

Unless you're saying your idea of a flat earth is one that's flat but wrapped round a globey shape because I believe that's called OSET



(Oblate Spheroid Earth theory)

Well of course a round earth is non euclidian but a flat earth IS euclidian.
Thats the point.

So if the earth is flat, where's the accurate map?

Unless you're saying your idea of a flat earth is one that's flat but wrapped round a globey shape because I believe that's called OSET

(Oblate Spheroid Earth theory)

No it's flat and rectangular (with also a flat and rectangular sky) but connected to itself ad infinitum.

http://www.cartographersguild.com/attachments/software-discussion/16178d1251002866-how-do-i-make-flat-world-map-globe-earth_map.jpg

Quote from: Spank86 on December 18, 2013, 11:31:25 AM

Well of course a round earth is non euclidian but a flat earth IS euclidian.
Thats the point.

So if the earth is flat, where's the accurate map?

Unless you're saying your idea of a flat earth is one that's flat but wrapped round a globey shape because I believe that's called OSET

(Oblate Spheroid Earth theory)

No it's flat and rectangular (with also a flat and rectangular sky) but connected to itself ad infinitum.

http://www.cartographersguild.com/attachments/software-discussion/16178d1251002866-how-do-i-make-flat-world-map-globe-earth_map.jpg

so you're suggesting it wraps like an old computer game? You go off one edge and reappear on the other?

By what mechanism?

Flat and rectangular........connected to itself.........with a flat rectangular sky.

So.........basically...........we live in an atari game?

No it's flat and rectangular (with also a flat and rectangular sky) but connected to itself ad infinitum.

That's so very nearly a great explanation! Still a few things that need to be covered though, such as sunrises/sunsets; north/south movement of sunrise/sunset over the year, and the fact this movement is greater at higher latitudes, to the point where midnight sun occurs at very high latitudes (>76° both north and south); the increase of visible area with increasing altitude (ie you can see further if you go higher) with a distinct horizon; tides; the celestial 'sphere'; etc...

NB: I have mentioned these specifically because, in the 9 months I've been here, I have not seen a satisfactory FE explanation for any of them.

Quote from: Sculelos on December 18, 2013, 03:48:50 PM

No it's flat and rectangular (with also a flat and rectangular sky) but connected to itself ad infinitum.

That's so very nearly a great explanation! Still a few things that need to be covered though, such as sunrises/sunsets; north/south movement of sunrise/sunset over the year, and the fact this movement is greater at higher latitudes, to the point where midnight sun occurs at very high latitudes (>76° both north and south); the increase of visible area with increasing altitude (ie you can see further if you go higher) with a distinct horizon; tides; the celestial 'sphere'; etc...

NB: I have mentioned these specifically because, in the 9 months I've been here, I have not seen a satisfactory FE explanation for any of them.

Ah yeah. The Answer is pretty easy to those as well. Each Corner of the World has 90 portals connecting to the equal and opposite portals even light enters the portals so if you get close to them all you can tell them by is slight magnetic disturbance where everything crosses together. Each Portal can reach up to 66% of Earth and the Sun can trip up to 66% of the Portals at one time. Midnight Sun happens due to the Sun never deactivating these portals so light continually shines through it. The Sun itself is always at the Apex of the active Portals. The Moon itself is also Flat but during full moon 66% of the Moon is illuminated so it appears circular as the Sun is not capable of illuminating any body more then 66% at any given time.

You can see higher when you go higher because Sunlight increases in optical size (but decreases in heat) because you are effectively getting closer to the light transformer that we call the Sun. The Sun is a high powered light transmitter that emits Seven times the light from the Low Powered light conductor called the Moon so while the Moon Emits about 20 Lux, the Sun Emits about 80,000 Lux. The Sun works Kinetically with the Moon to Amplify it's own power as by itself it would only be capable of Illuminating about 50% of the Earth.

Tides are caused by Both the Sun and Moon. As the Sun and Moon are both Conductive in nature Water tries to flow to them. High Tide is caused by the Moon and Low Tide is caused by the Sun. Most of the time there is Two High Tides and Two low tides per day. There is two per day as The Sun attracts when it is closer then 66% and repels when it is further then 33% this typically occurs at Sunset and Sunrise and Moonset and Moonrise.

The Celestial Sphere likewise has a simple explanation. The Sun is magnetically repealed by the 11 World Vertices However the Sun is also consuming the Vertices at the same time when it get's close to them thus their power is drained but the others are charged once the lower 6 get drained the high 5 pull the Sun to them and they are drained and the others recharge. Thus the Sun can only drain 5 or 6 Vertices at the same time while the others charge and this happens over and over again. However the Vertices are slowly getting damaged and their restraining power is getting weaker every year which means the Sun's Orbital Radius is increasing by about 1 degree every 72 years and indeed the Sun is directly causing the Earth to become slightly hotter with each passing year as Hydrogen increased it's conductivity and it's constantly increasing the Cycle. Weather is explained the same way, Cold Air is denser then Hot Air and moves slower thus when the Sun is moving to the South it pushes warmer southern air to the north so the north stays hotter then when the Sun reverses it's direction and starts moving to the North when the Northern cold air pulls into the Sun.

Hope you read that as it took me some time to type

Hope you read that as it took me some time to type

I read it. A few times. I'm still trying to make sense of it... 

Loving the creativity though!