What are the evidence AGAINST a round earth ?

Quote from: Serulian on September 04, 2015, 10:28:58 AM

Quote from: SisyphusTheElder on September 04, 2015, 06:17:30 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 03, 2015, 05:43:29 PM

Ok then, since you came to your conclusion that objects are in free fall instead of floating in space, please explain why they will float in all directions. Where are they falling towards? What makes them fall?

If you look through a telescope you can see how the planets move.

Also, for the record, because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean that any idea is less or more correct.

I have seen rain fall, but never a planet.

I see you still don't understand. The moon doesn't come crushing down on the earth, because it is going at a significant speed. We've explained it to you countless times. XaeXae even gave you a link to a fantastic simulator encoded with the equations for gravity to help you understand. I really don't get why it seems so hard for you to understand.

I do understand. I do not agree.

I prefer FE over RE because for one simple thing, I don't believe in gravity and if gravity doesn't exist then the whole RE theory goes out the window.

OK, well I am going to try to prove you wrong.  Don't take it personally, peer review is a major part of real science.

I don't believe gravity keeps all the heavenly bodies from crashing into each other.

Me neither.  That's because inertia does that, not gravity.

I don't believe gravity is what holds us to the Earth.

Well something clearly is doing that.  Gravity is certainly a prime candidate.

I don't believe gravity could keep the oceans from running off a round Earth.

Why not?  If gravity didn't exist then why do you think the oceans would run off the Earth?  What force is trying to do that and do you have any evidence that it exists?  Something has to cause it.  In reality no such force exists and so gravity has nothing to fight against.

I don't believe Moon's gravity can bulge the Earth to cause tides.

The part of the Earth that's closest to the Moon is pulled by gravity harder then the part of Earth furthest from the Moon.  Gravity gets weaker with distance.  I don't see what's so unbelievable here.  Flat earthers don't even have an alternative explenation for tides.

Do some research on gravity and see if it convinces you gravity is what they say it is and what it can do.

Do some research and you will figure out that all the things gravity can do can be derived from the simple, short, elegant gravity equasion on opposed to the horrifically complicated explanations of flat Earth theory.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2015, 10:46:11 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 04, 2015, 10:28:58 AM

Quote from: SisyphusTheElder on September 04, 2015, 06:17:30 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 03, 2015, 05:43:29 PM

Ok then, since you came to your conclusion that objects are in free fall instead of floating in space, please explain why they will float in all directions. Where are they falling towards? What makes them fall?

If you look through a telescope you can see how the planets move.

Also, for the record, because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean that any idea is less or more correct.

I have seen rain fall, but never a planet.

I see you still don't understand. The moon doesn't come crushing down on the earth, because it is going at a significant speed. We've explained it to you countless times. XaeXae even gave you a link to a fantastic simulator encoded with the equations for gravity to help you understand. I really don't get why it seems so hard for you to understand.

I do understand. I do not agree.

If you understood, you would agree. It's math. You can't argue that 4+4 is 8, and you can't argue with the math behind the rotation of moons and planets.

So, what do you not agree with?

Quote from: XaeXae on September 04, 2015, 06:25:23 AM

Quote from: sircool on September 04, 2015, 05:53:58 AM

So many misconceptions, ex: the moon does not float, because there is very little matter to float in, therefore no bouyancy. Instead it falls to the earth.", the only reason it never collides with earth is because of the speed, it want's to hit earth but misses every time:) same with earth around the sun. If you were to slow earth down to the right speed, it would definetly crash into the sun.

All space simulators exactly show this : when you slow down an object orbiting around the earth/sun (for example a rocket in KSP), his orbit starts to shrink and hurts the parent body. And when you accelerate it, his orbit expand until gravitationnal escape. All that can be perfectly explain with the GmM/d² formula, which also helps us to deduce Kepler's 3 laws. No need to add an explanation for each particular case when you already have a global explanation.

Thus, the observed orbits of comets, planets and other space things (why doesn't it falls?, why does it orbit?, ...) are not a problem for the law of gravity.

Simulators are not reality. A simulation can be programmed with any physics the designer desires them to have.

If we know all of the source code of the simulation, and thus the physics chosen by the designer, and if these physics are the same as on Earth, simulation could be considered as a half-experimental proof that the gravity perfectly explains all of the observed phenomenons.

I have actually been planning to attempt to make a basic orbital mechanics simulator.  I could give the source code to whoever wants it.

There are literally hundreds of orbital mechanics simulators out there and either gravity works or hundreds if thousands of programmers are in on the conspiracy.

I have actually been planning to attempt to make a basic orbital mechanics simulator.  I could give the source code to whoever wants it.

There are literally hundreds of orbital mechanics simulators out there and either gravity works or hundreds if thousands of programmers are in on the conspiracy.

I always enjoy reading Mikemans two cents.

With most science, there is very rarely (if ever) one piece of firm, unquestionable evidence: more, it's lots of small bits and pieces that just add up to make suspicion a more than justified position.

Firstly, there are gaps of the figurative kind: any honest scientist will admit some aspects are not fully understood. This isn't a contradiction: it's entirely possible if the world were round too.
There are also gaps of a literal kind: nature is not so ugly as people suppose. There are patterns to be expected everywhere: in the RE model, approximately spherical objects form commonly in space, elliptical orbits too being common. And yet space is so uneven in composition: there's a very powerful thread in the SaAS section which shows the Solar System to scale, and the sheer diminutive nature of every solid body is really quite shocking given how much space they had to form in, and how much matter must have been involved to begin with.
There are undeniable conveniences all the way from the start of the RE model (such as the rapid expansion), which again may be explained by things such as the anthropic principle, and further gaps-to-be-filled. Another example would be how we are in the prime time, cosmically speaking, to observe the universe: theoretically the window of opportunity would be far greater in a FE model.
There are bits and pieces in every field, from the importance of mass to both space, time, and a hypothesized Higgs field, to the behavior and importance of light.

None of these (or the other queries) alone are nearly enough to justify toppling a paradigm. It is the fact that they are all held to be true that makes questioning a very valid pursuit. There may be answers, certainly: there can be answers for many things. What matters is how likely it is for all those answers to simultaneously be true.

With most science, there is very rarely (if ever) one piece of firm, unquestionable evidence: more, it's lots of small bits and pieces that just add up to make suspicion a more than justified position.

Firstly, there are gaps of the figurative kind: any honest scientist will admit some aspects are not fully understood. This isn't a contradiction: it's entirely possible if the world were round too.
There are also gaps of a literal kind: nature is not so ugly as people suppose. There are patterns to be expected everywhere: in the RE model, approximately spherical objects form commonly in space, elliptical orbits too being common. And yet space is so uneven in composition: there's a very powerful thread in the SaAS section which shows the Solar System to scale, and the sheer diminutive nature of every solid body is really quite shocking given how much space they had to form in, and how much matter must have been involved to begin with.
There are undeniable conveniences all the way from the start of the RE model (such as the rapid expansion), which again may be explained by things such as the anthropic principle, and further gaps-to-be-filled. Another example would be how we are in the prime time, cosmically speaking, to observe the universe: theoretically the window of opportunity would be far greater in a FE model.
There are bits and pieces in every field, from the importance of mass to both space, time, and a hypothesized Higgs field, to the behavior and importance of light.

None of these (or the other queries) alone are nearly enough to justify toppling a paradigm. It is the fact that they are all held to be true that makes questioning a very valid pursuit. There may be answers, certainly: there can be answers for many things. What matters is how likely it is for all those answers to simultaneously be true.

And the point of all of that is...?

And the point of all of that is...?

I was answering the title question.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2015, 01:58:40 PM

And the point of all of that is...?

I was answering the title question.

But... It doesn't really answer it...

But... It doesn't really answer it...

Why do you think that is so? I explained problems with the RE model: that is evidence against said model. It may not be solid or completely firm, but that's how realistic science works.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2015, 02:08:01 PM

But... It doesn't really answer it...

Why do you think that is so? I explained problems with the RE model: that is evidence against said model. It may not be solid or completely firm, but that's how realistic science works.

But you didn't really list any problems though... I don't know, maybe there is a point that you make and I miss.

Anyway, normally we have direct evidence for the curvature of the earth, the photos and videos NASA has given us. However, flat earthers reject them, so we simply try to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is round based on other phenomena.

With most science, there is very rarely (if ever) one piece of firm, unquestionable evidence: more, it's lots of small bits and pieces that just add up to make suspicion a more than justified position.

Firstly, there are gaps of the figurative kind: any honest scientist will admit some aspects are not fully understood. This isn't a contradiction: it's entirely possible if the world were round too.
There are also gaps of a literal kind: nature is not so ugly as people suppose. There are patterns to be expected everywhere: in the RE model, approximately spherical objects form commonly in space, elliptical orbits too being common. And yet space is so uneven in composition: there's a very powerful thread in the SaAS section which shows the Solar System to scale, and the sheer diminutive nature of every solid body is really quite shocking given how much space they had to form in, and how much matter must have been involved to begin with.
There are undeniable conveniences all the way from the start of the RE model (such as the rapid expansion), which again may be explained by things such as the anthropic principle, and further gaps-to-be-filled. Another example would be how we are in the prime time, cosmically speaking, to observe the universe: theoretically the window of opportunity would be far greater in a FE model.
There are bits and pieces in every field, from the importance of mass to both space, time, and a hypothesized Higgs field, to the behavior and importance of light.

None of these (or the other queries) alone are nearly enough to justify toppling a paradigm. It is the fact that they are all held to be true that makes questioning a very valid pursuit. There may be answers, certainly: there can be answers for many things. What matters is how likely it is for all those answers to simultaneously be true.

Planet formation is well understood (and can even be observed in distant star systems) and inflation is backed up by both evidence and math.  Most of what you are saying is in deeper territory then science is not close to answering like why there is anything in the universe to begin with.  Your question about why we are at the "prime time" to observe the universe is like asking why I am 18 right now and not all of the other ages that I have been and and yet to become.

A lot of the questions asked are answered by noting that if they were not the case then we wouldn't be here to observe them.  For example: we find ourselves on a planet the perfect distance from the Sun because if it were not the perfect distance then we wouldn't be here talking about it.  If matter didn't clump together then no planets or life would ever form and if orbits couldn't happen we wouldn't be orbiting the Sun and thus wouldn't be here talking about it.  The multiverse theory explains why a life sustaining universe has to exist, but it hasn't been proven and it is possible that we just got lucky or that there is a higher power at work, but in any case the fact that we find ourselves in a universe that's perfect for life to form should not really come as a big surprise.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 04, 2015, 01:38:06 PM

With most science, there is very rarely (if ever) one piece of firm, unquestionable evidence: more, it's lots of small bits and pieces that just add up to make suspicion a more than justified position.

Firstly, there are gaps of the figurative kind: any honest scientist will admit some aspects are not fully understood. This isn't a contradiction: it's entirely possible if the world were round too.
There are also gaps of a literal kind: nature is not so ugly as people suppose. There are patterns to be expected everywhere: in the RE model, approximately spherical objects form commonly in space, elliptical orbits too being common. And yet space is so uneven in composition: there's a very powerful thread in the SaAS section which shows the Solar System to scale, and the sheer diminutive nature of every solid body is really quite shocking given how much space they had to form in, and how much matter must have been involved to begin with.
There are undeniable conveniences all the way from the start of the RE model (such as the rapid expansion), which again may be explained by things such as the anthropic principle, and further gaps-to-be-filled. Another example would be how we are in the prime time, cosmically speaking, to observe the universe: theoretically the window of opportunity would be far greater in a FE model.
There are bits and pieces in every field, from the importance of mass to both space, time, and a hypothesized Higgs field, to the behavior and importance of light.

None of these (or the other queries) alone are nearly enough to justify toppling a paradigm. It is the fact that they are all held to be true that makes questioning a very valid pursuit. There may be answers, certainly: there can be answers for many things. What matters is how likely it is for all those answers to simultaneously be true.

Planet formation is well understood (and can even be observed in distant star systems) and inflation is backed up by both evidence and math.  Most of what you are saying is in deeper territory then science is not close to answering like why there is anything in the universe to begin with.  Your question about why we are at the "prime time" to observe the universe is like asking why I am 18 right now and not all of the other ages that I have been and and yet to become.

A lot of the questions asked are answered by noting that if they were not the case then we wouldn't be here to observe them.  For example: we find ourselves on a planet the perfect distance from the Sun because if it were not the perfect distance then we wouldn't be here talking about it.  If matter didn't clump together then no planets or life would ever form and if orbits couldn't happen we wouldn't be orbiting the Sun and thus wouldn't be here talking about it.  The multiverse theory explains why a life sustaining universe has to exist, but it hasn't been proven and it is possible that we just got lucky or that there is a higher power at work, but in any case the fact that we find ourselves in a universe that's perfect for life to form should not really come as a big surprise.

I agree with the logic here, it is possible the universe was previously in chaos at an earlier point in history for one reason or another and everything around us exists the way it does because the universe has sort of balanced itself out. It is also possible the universe was created by intelligent design. We will never know.

I don't believe the argument that the universe is the way it is now because of gravity.

FEScientist states one of my main points surrounding these debates, " Any honest scientist will admit some aspects are not fully understood." I feel like this applies to all scientific theories.

I don't believe planet formation is as well understood as the scientific community would like to believe. Their observations of distant galaxies are compounded with theories based on theories until they achieve a satisfactory idea.   

Its strange how the  gravitational pull of the sun is powerful enough to hold our entire solar system together but when it comes to  influence on the earths oceans our sun will heat them up or let them freeze but won't get involved in tidal issues because that's the moons job. 

Quote from: SisyphusTheElder on September 04, 2015, 06:17:30 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 03, 2015, 05:43:29 PM

Ok then, since you came to your conclusion that objects are in free fall instead of floating in space, please explain why they will float in all directions. Where are they falling towards? What makes them fall?

If you look through a telescope you can see how the planets move.

Also, for the record, because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean that any idea is less or more correct.

I have seen rain fall, but never a planet.

It is your opinion that the moon is 'floating' in space, or is it actually under the influence of earth's gravity and therefore trapped in its orbit?

When we see astronauts 'floating' outside the International Space Station during their maintenance space walks, sure they are 'floating' but they are also in earth's orbit.

Its strange how the  gravitational pull of the sun is powerful enough to hold our entire solar system together but when it comes to  influence on the earths oceans our sun will heat them up or let them freeze but won't get involved in tidal issues because that's the moons job.

The sun does get involved with the tide, just to a lesser extent than the moon. The reason for that is, simply, that it is so far away compared to the moon. The moon's fractional difference in its force across the Earth is greater than that from the sun.

Its strange how the  gravitational pull of the sun is powerful enough to hold our entire solar system together but when it comes to  influence on the earths oceans our sun will heat them up or let them freeze but won't get involved in tidal issues because that's the moons job.

Wow, you've just shown some awesome ignorance there - what factors do you think are in play, when we experience a 'spring tide'? 

The following link explains exactly how much effect the sun has on the earth's tides, with the relevant quote as follows -

'Even though the Sun is 391 times as far away from the Earth as the Moon, its force on the Earth is about 175 times as large. Yet its tidal effect is smaller than that of the Moon because tides are caused by the difference in gravity field across the Earth. The Earth's diameter is such a small fraction of the Sun-Earth distance that the gravity field changes by only a factor of 1.00017 across the Earth. The actual force differential across the Earth is 0.00017 x 174.5 = 0.03 times the Moon's force, compared to 0.068 difference across the Earth for the Moon's force. The actual tidal influence then is then 44% of that of the Moon.'

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html#stid

Wow, you can copy pasta.  Good for you.  We can try coloring books next. 

I have seen rain fall, but never a planet.

Have you seen the planet's movements?

By fall you mean, move at the earth? I don't know anybody who has said that all other objects are moving directly towards the earth.

Wow, you can copy pasta.  Good for you.  We can try coloring books next. 

What difference would it make if he said the exact same thing without copying and pasting?

Wow, you can copy pasta.  Good for you.  We can try coloring books next. 

If each scientist was ignoring what said the others, and never cited their works, science would be very, very slow... While if each one use the work of the others to demonstrate his own theories, science can easily go further...

With most science, there is very rarely (if ever) one piece of firm, unquestionable evidence: more, it's lots of small bits and pieces that just add up to make suspicion a more than justified position.

Firstly, there are gaps of the figurative kind: any honest scientist will admit some aspects are not fully understood. This isn't a contradiction: it's entirely possible if the world were round too.
There are also gaps of a literal kind: nature is not so ugly as people suppose. There are patterns to be expected everywhere: in the RE model, approximately spherical objects form commonly in space, elliptical orbits too being common. And yet space is so uneven in composition: there's a very powerful thread in the SaAS section which shows the Solar System to scale, and the sheer diminutive nature of every solid body is really quite shocking given how much space they had to form in, and how much matter must have been involved to begin with.
There are undeniable conveniences all the way from the start of the RE model (such as the rapid expansion), which again may be explained by things such as the anthropic principle, and further gaps-to-be-filled. Another example would be how we are in the prime time, cosmically speaking, to observe the universe: theoretically the window of opportunity would be far greater in a FE model.
There are bits and pieces in every field, from the importance of mass to both space, time, and a hypothesized Higgs field, to the behavior and importance of light.

None of these (or the other queries) alone are nearly enough to justify toppling a paradigm. It is the fact that they are all held to be true that makes questioning a very valid pursuit. There may be answers, certainly: there can be answers for many things. What matters is how likely it is for all those answers to simultaneously be true.

Because someone doesn't know or understand something doesn't mean any idea is less or more correct.

Also, what does any of this have to do with the shape of the earth? If I know what they are, they don't.

Because someone doesn't know or understand something doesn't mean any idea is less or more correct.

True, but it does mean you cannot simply assume what is in those gaps. It may not be in line with what you expect.

Also, what does any of this have to do with the shape of the earth? If I know what they are, they don't.

Not necessarily directly: the point was to show issues with the model surrounding a RE, which may not function so exactly under an FE model. If there are flaws with the supposed mechanism to create a RE, the knock-on effect is that the position is far less secure.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 04, 2015, 01:38:06 PM

With most science, there is very rarely (if ever) one piece of firm, unquestionable evidence: more, it's lots of small bits and pieces that just add up to make suspicion a more than justified position.

Firstly, there are gaps of the figurative kind: any honest scientist will admit some aspects are not fully understood. This isn't a contradiction: it's entirely possible if the world were round too.
There are also gaps of a literal kind: nature is not so ugly as people suppose. There are patterns to be expected everywhere: in the RE model, approximately spherical objects form commonly in space, elliptical orbits too being common. And yet space is so uneven in composition: there's a very powerful thread in the SaAS section which shows the Solar System to scale, and the sheer diminutive nature of every solid body is really quite shocking given how much space they had to form in, and how much matter must have been involved to begin with.
There are undeniable conveniences all the way from the start of the RE model (such as the rapid expansion), which again may be explained by things such as the anthropic principle, and further gaps-to-be-filled. Another example would be how we are in the prime time, cosmically speaking, to observe the universe: theoretically the window of opportunity would be far greater in a FE model.
There are bits and pieces in every field, from the importance of mass to both space, time, and a hypothesized Higgs field, to the behavior and importance of light.

None of these (or the other queries) alone are nearly enough to justify toppling a paradigm. It is the fact that they are all held to be true that makes questioning a very valid pursuit. There may be answers, certainly: there can be answers for many things. What matters is how likely it is for all those answers to simultaneously be true.

And the point of all of that is...?

Presumably to bore us all into submission.

Once again the FEs claim there there is a ton of evidence against a round Earth, but fail to provide a single piece. If you have a piece of evidence, show us and explain exactly why it is evidence against a flat earth. If you know where evidence can be found elsewhere on the forum, please link to the exact post instead of just saying "It's out there". I have been on this forum for a long time now and I have yet to see a single piece of evidence for a flat earth or against a round earth.

If you have the evidence, show us. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

Quote from: SisyphusTheElder on September 05, 2015, 08:08:20 PM

Because someone doesn't know or understand something doesn't mean any idea is less or more correct.

True, but it does mean you cannot simply assume what is in those gaps. It may not be in line with what you expect.

It's just that in the middle of listing things you didn't understand (some of which, I suppose, are also not understood by other people) you kept mentioning the shape of the earth. But again...

Quote

Also, what does any of this have to do with the shape of the earth? If I know what they are, they don't.

Not necessarily directly: the point was to show issues with the model surrounding a RE, which may not function so exactly under an FE model. If there are flaws with the supposed mechanism to create a RE, the knock-on effect is that the position is far less secure.

Because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean that any other idea is more or less correct.

Wow, you can copy pasta.  Good for you.  We can try coloring books next. 

I love to copy and paste FACTS, it's so much fun to explain things in a factual manner.

Do you refute the maths involved in my previous post?  If so, what is wrong with it?  I can understand how you feel threatened by such definitive explanations, because it shows up FE theory for the laughable theory that it is.

FEer's are NEVER able to provide answers to questions with definitive maths, due to the fact that FE theory is just that, theory, and theory which is just based on very silly ideas.

Round, flat who knows who's phucken who & who's paying the rent . Governments for a better words , those scum sucking leaches .That would make cat & dog shit smell pleasant . LIE .they get paid & promoted to LIE & those that don't want to lie , are threatened by the National secrecy legislation.  Lie or lose your job, tell the true & we will suit you up for prison or an accident.
 If you doubt they lie , just have a good look at the everdance legislation passed after 1992 . There is no such thing as a justice & fair trial. 
The judge the police the witnesses are all compelled to lie , if it contravens the secrecy act & every thing including the kitchen sink is to be lied about . Perjury is not on the table, no prison time for that , if it involves the Nation's security. Lie your pharken ass off & be sure you do a good job at it.

Round, flat who knows who  phucken who & whos paying the rent . Governments for a better words , those scum sucking leaches .That would make cat & dog shit smell plesent . LIE .they get paid & promoted to LIE & those that don't want to lie , are threatened by the National secrecy legislation. 
To lie. If you doubt they lie , just have a good look at the everdance legislation passed after 1992 . There is no such thing as a justice & fair trial. 
The judge the police the witnesses are all compelled to lie , if it contravens the secrecy act . Perjury is not on the table, no prison time for that , if it involves the Nation's security. Lie your pharken ass off & be sure you do a good job at it.

Who'd pay the world's governments to lie? And why?