An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?

So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.

Quote from: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 02:39:09 AM

So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.

I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.

Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 27, 2014, 02:59:11 AM

Quote from: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 02:39:09 AM

So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.

I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.

Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.

I thought debate was the right place, the situation was me debating an REer. I'm quite new as well, so I'm still getting used to this format; I guess I'll post such questions in discussion from here on out.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 27, 2014, 02:59:11 AM

Quote from: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 02:39:09 AM

So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.

I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.

Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.

Actually  you have some online interesting tools

http://www.flightradar24.com

or
flightaware.com

that are quite accurate.

Quote from: JiffyJuff on January 27, 2014, 04:00:36 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on January 27, 2014, 02:59:11 AM

Quote from: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 02:39:09 AM

So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

This is a pretty common topic around here and the FE response is typical but not too difficult to offer. Jroa is usually the first to respond to this type of question. He'll first prod with some questions to help the RE'r realize that nobody flys directly west in this manner. Jroa is aware that flights are usually done via a great circle which is a trajectory that changes over the course of a trip. This distinction is known by both FE'rs and RE'rs but RE'rs whom have not given this much thought might not be aware of this and it's a good tactic to take advantage of this fact and make your opponent look like a dimwit. Once they understand that commercial flights don't take this route then you can offer the monopole model of a FE and specify that on it, nearly the same routes are taken with the major difference being that on the monopole projection, this is a straight line route. It is a straight arc on a globe as well but more often that not great circle routes are shown on a flat projection which makes the routes appear curved.

There really isn't anywhere else for the conversation to go after that. It doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat.

I agree. Someone will always be able to draw a map to fit your requirements, and nobody actually tracks the path of a plane apart for pilots, which gives ample space for FEers to call fraud.

Also, shouldn't this be in discussion? Debate is for debating between RE and FE, not for FE to discuss.

I thought debate was the right place, the situation was me debating an REer. I'm quite new as well, so I'm still getting used to this format; I guess I'll post such questions in discussion from here on out.

Well, a bit of background info.
On this site, both RE and FE people have accounts. And as this is RET forums, they naturally disagree, so the debate section is a strictly moderated place where people have to carry out serious, logical debate.

While you ARE in a debate, the debate is not occurring in this thread and your opponent does not have an account here. Therefore, for suggestions, you shouldn't be here.

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

Nope.  There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory.  And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).

And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory".  It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.  There's no "theory" about water.

Quote from: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 02:39:09 AM

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

Nope.  There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory.  And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).

And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory".  It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.  There's no "theory" about water.

So your pretty much saying Earth is shaped like a Egg or Football?

Quote from: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 02:39:09 AM

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

Nope.  There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory.  And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).

And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory".  It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.  There's no "theory" about water.

But what are your arguments? We're here to debate whether the earth is round or not, just saying "it is round hurdur" without bringing any arguments to the table is not debating.

What is your proof that the earth is round?

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 28, 2014, 07:20:13 AM

Quote from: wouterbakker on January 27, 2014, 02:39:09 AM

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

Nope.  There's nothing you can say to "disprove" his RE theory.  And the simple reason is because the earth IS round (or an oblate spheroid).

And to be pedantic for a moment, there's no such thing as a round earth "theory".  It's a fact that the earth is round—just as it's a fact that a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.  There's no "theory" about water.

But what are your arguments? We're here to debate whether the earth is round or not, just saying "it is round hurdur" without bringing any arguments to the table is not debating.

What is your proof that the earth is round?

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think fr themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think fr themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

The two greatest educational institutions on the face of this earth are your mother's knee and the local library.
On your mother's knee you will learn everything needed to keep you out of prison and at the local library you can learn everything else.

So a friend of mine said this to me, and I had no idea how to reply.
"If I got in an aeroplane in Amsterdam, and flew to the left (west) all the time, how do you explain that after hours of flying you end up in Amsterdam again? How can you explain that with a flat earth?"

There must be something I can say to him to disprove his RE theory. What do you guys think?

First off, are you sure he actually did this and is not just presenting guesses as evidence?

Secondly, circumnavigation is possible in all flat earth models. See:  the UN Logo.

So your pretty much saying Earth is shaped like a Egg or Football?

Nope.  I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying the planet is an oblate spheroid.  Both eggs (almost) and footballs are prolate spheroids.

Prolate spheroids are elongated along their major axis, whereas oblate spheroids are contracted along their major axis.

What is your proof that the earth is round?

Literally thousand of real time satellite still images acquired by the USA's KH-11 satellite system.

This is actual night-time imagery recorded by the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership Satellite in 2012:


 
What more evidence does one need than real photographs?
 

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

Secondly, circumnavigation is possible in all flat earth models. See:  the UN Logo.

The UN emblem does not attempt to represent a "flat" earth, and never did.

It's simply a map of the world representing an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the North Pole.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 05:28:37 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

Uh... this doesn't address my question about your sources of evidence (above).
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 08:56:14 AM

It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

Uh... this doesn't address my question about your sources of evidence (above).

I've just gave you a perfect piece of evidence.
You have provided none to prove otherwise.

I've just gave you a perfect piece of evidence.
You have provided none to prove otherwise.

I'm not asking you for evidence primarily.  I'm asking you more particularly to clarify your sources of evidence...

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 10:04:58 AM

I've just gave you a perfect piece of evidence.
You have provided none to prove otherwise.

I'm not asking you for evidence primarily.  I'm asking you more particularly to clarify your sources of evidence...

Quote

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

Anyone can clarify it . Just go about and look at where the water all runs to. That's enough clarity. You don't even need books or hear say to prove it to yourself.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:22:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 05:28:37 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

Your proof that it is concave?  How does that tie in with a horizon if it slopes upwards?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 08:56:14 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:22:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 05:28:37 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

Your proof that it is concave?  How does that tie in with a horizon if it slopes upwards?

Your horizon is solely down to your vision, not slope of anything.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 29, 2014, 10:20:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 08:56:14 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:22:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 05:28:37 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

Your proof that it is concave?  How does that tie in with a horizon if it slopes upwards?

Your horizon is solely down to your vision, not slope of anything.

Please explain.  So the earth slopes upwards to make it concave.

I'm sorry to harp on about this, but I'm not asking you for evidence primarily.  I'm asking you more particularly to clarify your sources of your FE evidence...

As you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable RE evidence, can you also let us know, specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

Anyone can clarify it . Just go about and look at where the water all runs to.

Presumably you mean rivers specifically?

Rivers flow in different directions, depending on where you are.  For example the Thames flows roughly from West to East into the Thames estuary.  Whereas on the other side the River Severn flows the opposite direction into the sea.  This is, of course, the norm all over the world.

Are you suggesting they are all flowing towards some common point?  A basin in the middle of the planet?  Because this clearly isn't the case.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:22:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 05:28:37 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

there's oceans in every direction. that doesn't prove anything.

Are you suggesting they are all flowing towards some common point?  A basin in the middle of the planet?  Because this clearly isn't the case.

It isn't the case for you, because you think you live on a rotating globe, so I don't expect you to get your head around it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 08:56:14 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:22:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 05:28:37 AM

They have no proof, other than hearsay and library books. Plus the media and the internet,of course. Oh..and a life times worth of indoctrination into it.
Most do not have the ability to think for themselves. They simply reference anything they are hit with.

Okay sceptimatic.  Can you let us know, specifically, what empirical evidence you possess that disproves that the planet is spherical?

And as you reject information contained within books, or published in the media or on the internet as viable evidence, can you also let us know, again specifically, what sources of data you utilise in your proofs that the planet is (allegedly) flat?

It isn't exactly flat. It's ever so slightly concave.
All water flows to the oceans.

there's oceans in every direction. that doesn't prove anything.

There's ocean around the dinner plate,yes

Secondly, circumnavigation is possible in all flat earth models.

Actually, no, it isn't possible. Some forms of circumnavigation are while others are not. A "vertical" circumnavigation over both poles is perfectly feasible (although not routinely taken because it has no practical benefits for two reasons: the poles are not among the usual flying targets and crossing over the pole has the disadvantage of doing away with the possibility of crash landing) in both theory and practice but completely impossible in a FE hypothesis.