Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

Seems that if the Earth is sufficiently large, our measuring techniques could not be refined enough to determine whether the Earth is flat, or whether it is a very, very, very, very large sphere. If you cannot, then why flat earth society? If there's no evidence for a flat earth (which could not also be interpreted as a sufficiently large spherical Earth), and there's no evidence for a spherical earth (which you seem to assert), then you should suspend judgement until further information has been provided - you should not jump to the conclusion that the earth is flat just because we can't measure far enough

I don't think your motives are scientific, let's jut say that 

Seems that if the Earth is sufficiently large, our measuring techniques could not be refined enough to determine whether the Earth is flat, or whether it is a very, very, very, very large sphere. If you cannot, then why flat earth society? If there's no evidence for a flat earth (which could not also be interpreted as a sufficiently large spherical Earth), and there's no evidence for a spherical earth (which you seem to assert), then you should suspend judgement until further information has been provided - you should not jump to the conclusion that the earth is flat just because we can't measure far enough

I don't think your motives are scientific, let's jut say that 

Very good point - given that none of these FE devotees (which feels wrong because, as you say, I'm suuuuure this is just a wind up) have actually verified any of their beliefs through, say, stratospheric observation, then it must mean that they are simply believing some things as fact (that Teed chap) and others as fiction (NASA photography) without any rational basis for making those decisions..

It is interesting that the flat earthers vigorously and repeatedly debunk every piece of evidence that's presented by the round earthers in support of their model.  Doesn't matter whether it's still images or videos taken from space or the moon, accepted theories of astrophysics and aeronautics, observations of the planetary and solar systems from the earth, long-term geophysical investigations, 41 different (and officially recognised) planet projections, a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, or the considered opinions and analyses by thousands of accredited scientists from across the planet—the FEs refute it all.

And yet, the "evidence" they propose in support of their flat earth theory amounts to what exactly?

A snake-oil salesman named Rowbotham, plus the earth "looks" flat.  Wow!  How convincing is that?

No practical, working maps; no 3-D models; no workable geophysical theories; no images taken from space; zero acceptance by anyone in the science sector.  Sounds good... LOL.
 

 
C'mon flat earthers... lift your game!   
 

It is interesting that the flat earthers vigorously and repeatedly debunk every piece of evidence that's presented by the round earthers in support of their model.  Doesn't matter whether it's still images or videos taken from space or the moon, accepted theories of astrophysics and aeronautics, observations of the planetary and solar systems from the earth, long-term geophysical investigations, 41 different (and officially recognised) planet projections, a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, or the considered opinions and analyses by thousands of accredited scientists from across the planet—the FEs refute it all.

And yet, the "evidence" they propose in support of their flat earth theory amounts to what exactly?

A snake-oil salesman named Rowbotham, plus the earth "looks" flat.  Wow!  How convincing is that?

No practical, working maps; no 3-D models; no workable geophysical theories; no images taken from space; zero acceptance by anyone in the science sector.  Sounds good... LOL.
 

 
C'mon flat earthers... lift your game!   

You say all that as if you actually done all the extensive research into your globe model yourself. How much did you contribute?
You see, you have had all the work done for you, for you to follow. All the maps have been placed at your feet. All the scientific hokus pokus has been delivered to your eyes and mind and you have had to do what?
When you're using a two headed coin to keep flipping whilst you call heads, it's a knocking bet that the odds stack in your favour.
The key to it all is for the alternate theorists to call heads when you least expect it, leaving you with a dilemma of refusing to flip of changing the coin to tails on both sides. That's how your science works.

It's just a matter of time before the coin is flipped and heads are called but then, 'shock, horror', the wrong coin was used and it lands on tails. Then it's a case of, GET OUT OF THAT ONE.

How long that takes is down to how careful the ruse is adhered to.

It seems more like you are calling tails, then arguing that when a coin flip comes up heads, that the heads is really tails.

It seems more like you are calling tails, then arguing that when a coin flip comes up heads, that the heads is really tails.

All your work has been done for you. All you have to do is recite it all. It's all there for you to look up. You're playing with a stacked deck.

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 18, 2014, 07:30:51 AM

It seems more like you are calling tails, then arguing that when a coin flip comes up heads, that the heads is really tails.

All your work has been done for you. All you have to do is recite it all. It's all there for you to look up. You're playing with a stacked deck.

well this is your chance to offer up some evidence for your cause rather than vitriolic ranting. How about the thread that was started at your request for you to share your evidence? Care to carry on where we left off? Please enlighten us

You say all that as if you actually done all the extensive research into your globe model yourself. How much did you contribute?

Very little—apart from thoroughly investigating much of the available gephysical data, and correlating it into a suitably concise form for posting to a forum.

In your haste to pen yet another baseless comment, you obviously missed the part wherein I said: "multitudes of peer-reviewed scientific papers, or the considered opinions and analyses by thousands of accredited scientists from across the planet".

If you took the time to more closely read other people's comments, and comprehend what they were saying, you'd make a much better impression regarding your intellectual capabilities (such as they are).

You see, you have had all the work done for you, for you to follow.

Can you post a listing of all the personal research activities you've carried out to form the conclusion that the earth is flat.  I'd like to know what sorts of geodetic instruments you utilised in your experiments.  Can you also list the number of countries you've visited to have discussions with other round earth scientists, and the number of experimental aircraft flights you've undertaken?  I'd like to see some of the photographic images you captured on those flights as well, and ask you what the experience of zero gravity was like.  And finally, can you link us to a few of your peer-reviewed papers that've been published in science journals?

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 18, 2014, 07:30:51 AM

It seems more like you are calling tails, then arguing that when a coin flip comes up heads, that the heads is really tails.

All your work has been done for you. All you have to do is recite it all. It's all there for you to look up. You're playing with a stacked deck.

You mean people have already proved the earth is round? You're right, the work has been done and (nearly) everyone agreed the world was spherical.

Can you post a listing of all the personal research activities you've carried out to form the conclusion that the earth is flat.  I'd like to know what sorts of geodetic instruments you utilised in your experiments.  Can you also list the number of countries you've visited to have discussions with other round earth scientists, and the number of experimental aircraft flights you've undertaken?  I'd like to see some of the photographic images you captured on those flights as well, and ask you what the experience of zero gravity was like.  And finally, can you link us to a few of your peer-reviewed papers that've been published in science journals?

Of course he can't. In his world none of that matters.

He has vividly described the giant volcano at the north pole that supports a giant ice dome responsible for what we perceive as "space". He knows the elemental make up of this dome and the phenomena responsible for eclipses, comets and meteorites... incredible depths of "knowledge" of the foundations of the earth despite the fact that by his own admission, no one could ever see it because anyone getting to close would die instantly.

This is because in his world, the mere fact that he thought this crap up makes it superior to anything that can be learned from books and nothing you or anyone else can say will ever convince him otherwise. It still amazes me that so many people here can't see this and continue to "debate" him.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 18, 2014, 07:37:31 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 18, 2014, 07:30:51 AM

It seems more like you are calling tails, then arguing that when a coin flip comes up heads, that the heads is really tails.

All your work has been done for you. All you have to do is recite it all. It's all there for you to look up. You're playing with a stacked deck.

You mean people have already proved the earth is round? You're right, the work has been done and (nearly) everyone agreed the world was spherical.

The Earth is spherical it's actually a perfect sphere and not an oblate spheroid. And we actually live inside the Earth and the Earth completely wraps around us. However we can never see above the horizon line as we can't see light past a certain subtended angle.

Quote from: Wygyfop on February 19, 2014, 09:32:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 18, 2014, 07:37:31 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 18, 2014, 07:30:51 AM

It seems more like you are calling tails, then arguing that when a coin flip comes up heads, that the heads is really tails.

All your work has been done for you. All you have to do is recite it all. It's all there for you to look up. You're playing with a stacked deck.

You mean people have already proved the earth is round? You're right, the work has been done and (nearly) everyone agreed the world was spherical.

The Earth is spherical it's actually a perfect sphere and not an oblate spheroid. And we actually live inside the Earth and the Earth completely wraps around us. However we can never see above the horizon line as we can't see light past a certain subtended angle.

So Sculelos - tell me what it is..

LSD?  MDMA?  I'd love to know... pls.. tell us what you're on...

The Earth is spherical it's actually a perfect sphere and not an oblate spheroid. And we actually live inside the Earth and the Earth completely wraps around us. However we can never see above the horizon line as we can't see light past a certain subtended angle.

So you don't even think the earth is flat . Am I missing something?

If there's no evidence for a flat earth (which could not also be interpreted as a sufficiently large spherical Earth), and there's no evidence for a spherical earth (which you seem to assert), then you should suspend judgement until further information has been provided - you should not jump to the conclusion that the earth is flat just because we can't measure far enough

The apparent flatness of the earth could also be consistent with the earth being "a very, very, very, very large" turtle. It seems rather incongruous to believe then that it is a turtle. The apparent nonappearance of pixies could also be consistent with pixies which do not want to be seen or that are invisible. I don't think it is sound to assume that this is the case. Do you?  "I don't think your motives are scientific" -- certainly not zetetic.

Seems that if the Earth is sufficiently large, our measuring techniques could not be refined enough to determine whether the Earth is flat, or whether it is a very, very, very, very large sphere. If you cannot, then why flat earth society? If there's no evidence for a flat earth (which could not also be interpreted as a sufficiently large spherical Earth), and there's no evidence for a spherical earth (which you seem to assert), then you should suspend judgement until further information has been provided - you should not jump to the conclusion that the earth is flat just because we can't measure far enough

I don't think your motives are scientific, let's jut say that 

Excellent point! This is also something that intrigues me, this need or yearning to believe we are all victims of conspiracy theories by an evil government to hide the fact that the earth is flat, science is false along with everything else "official"... For what reason? "Them" fooling the public into believing earth is round, has exactly what advantages?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD8QeNQCPuZzwklMwlq05TQ this guy is a good example, believing clouds, satellites, atomic bombs and so on, are conspiracies. It would not surprise me if he is a member here. Now, I don't want to exhibit this guy and talk behind his back, so I shall speak no further of him. It is merely a good example of the mindset there seems to be around here.

Excellent point! This is also something that intrigues me, this need or yearning to believe we are all victims of conspiracy theories by an evil government to hide the fact that the earth is flat, science is false along with everything else "official"... For what reason? "Them" fooling the public into believing earth is round, has exactly what advantages?

Maybe we should be asking the flat earthers to list exactly why they'd prefer the planet to be flat rather than an oblate spheroid?

What would be more advantageous with a flat earth?  What is specifically disadvantageous with the spherical earth?

It's obvious that the majority of flat earthers choose to be conspiracy theorists because it provides them with an (apparently) incontrovertible response to any questions they can't satisfactorily answer—and of which there are hundreds.

Theists use god as their answers when there are none.  Flat earthers use THE conspiracy as theirs.

I would love for the Earth to be round.  I would not have to be so suspicious or do so much research if it was. 

The fact that you come here shows that you are not sure about the shape.  Maybe it is round, or maybe it is flat.  The thought of it just eats you up, does it not? 

I would love for the Earth to be round.  I would not have to be so suspicious or do so much research if it was. 

The fact that you come here shows that you are not sure about the shape.  Maybe it is round, or maybe it is flat.  The thought of it just eats you up, does it not?

The alignment of dishes for satellite tv is consistent with a round earth. Plus travel distances.

This has already bean proven to not be proof of anything.  You can spew this as much as you like, but it still does not make it anymore of a proof. 

I would love for the Earth to be round.  I would not have to be so suspicious or do so much research if it was. 

The fact that you come here shows that you are not sure about the shape.  Maybe it is round, or maybe it is flat.  The thought of it just eats you up, does it not?

What the....?

You claim you'd "love for the earth to be round"?  Then why the hell are you a flat earther?  Why not just accept the facts, and relax.  It'll ease all of your suspicions of (insert FE demon of choice) and relieve you of all that unnecessary "research".

How can you say—with a straight face—that people who accept that the planet is round "come here" because we're not sure?  This is the silliest bit of non-logic I've seen here today.  Sorry.

And are you seriously claiming that the "thought" of a flat planet "eats up" 7 billion people all day every day?  I think you're starting to lose the plot my friend.
 

If the Earth was in fact round, I would be able to just accept all of the "facts" that scientists give to me.  I would love to be able to just soak in all of these facts and not have to think for myself. 

Also, once again, argumentum ad populum.   

I would love for the Earth to be round.  I would not have to be so suspicious or do so much research if it was. 

The fact that you come here shows that you are not sure about the shape.  Maybe it is round, or maybe it is flat.  The thought of it just eats you up, does it not?

Good to se an openminded comment I must admit, toying with ideas that flip well accepted facts upside down is very interesting, and I'm always open to that.
But, at the same time I just do not see the motivation for believing so sternly that the earth is flat, and I have yet to se a single shred of evidence pointing towards this idea. I am not in doubt, whatsoever, that the earth is round, just to be clear
You see, no compelling evidence or anything else for that matter on this forum, thus far, has seeded any doubt in my mind.

What convinced you, personally, that it must be flat? If you don't mind me asking. Was it evidence, or more of a belief?

This has already bean proven to not be proof of anything.  You can spew this as much as you like, but it still does not make it anymore of a proof.

It is a proof, all distances are consistent with a round earth, can you prove otherwise?

The location of communication satellites and the dish angle for locations across the earth is consistent with a round earth.

I would love to be able to just soak in all of these facts and not have to think for myself. 

Also, once again, argumentum ad populum.   

Ahh, but here I must disagree; learning from being taught and thinking for one self is not mutually exclusive. Being educated gives you powerful tools to analyze the world around you, and to be critical, even of the tools themselves.

If these facts you soak up can be verified by experimenting and thinking for yourself, it would appear something is verified, yes? Basically how all knowledge works.

What convinced you, personally, that it must be flat? If you don't mind me asking. Was it evidence, or more of a belief?

I was a round Earther for a long time.  I came here to be a devil's advocate for the flat Earth.  However, the more I did research, the more evidence that I saw that the Earth is indeed flat.  Now, I can only wonder why you people ignore all of the evidence. 

Quote from: Kebab on February 28, 2014, 02:00:56 PM

What convinced you, personally, that it must be flat? If you don't mind me asking. Was it evidence, or more of a belief?

I was a round Earther for a long time.  I came here to be a devil's advocate for the flat Earth.  However, the more I did research, the more evidence that I saw that the Earth is indeed flat.  Now, I can only wonder why you people ignore all of the evidence.

What research and evidence published in the last 50 years?  To be boring I ask again about satellites.

Quote from: Kebab on February 28, 2014, 02:00:56 PM

What convinced you, personally, that it must be flat? If you don't mind me asking. Was it evidence, or more of a belief?

I was a round Earther for a long time.  I came here to be a devil's advocate for the flat Earth.  However, the more I did research, the more evidence that I saw that the Earth is indeed flat.  Now, I can only wonder why you people ignore all of the evidence.

Your evidence are all theories.

What about the NASA whistle blowers?  I suppose that you are claiming they are just lying, right? 

Now, I can only wonder why you people ignore all of the evidence.

But ignoring evidence that cannot exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature is only fair, in my opinion. Is there anything specific you are thinking of that cannot be ignored right of the bat?
Just to be clear, I have not yet actually seen any FE evidence, solid or sketchy. Since I am still new here.

How about my last post, then?