I'd like to present a few proofs...

I've taken all these proofs from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round, so they aren't my own, but I think they're all quite good. I'm open to anyone trying to disprove them, but as it stands, I think these proofs are pretty rock-solid. There are quite a few there, but the below are some of the top proofs:

The shadow of the Earth on the Moon during an eclipse and the way masts of ships are visible when they are out of sight are the classical reasons.

Simplest, you say? There are two that strike me as being simple to demonstrate. Luckily someone on the internet has already spent some time to help us here to make these easy to illustrate:

1. Shadows differ from place to place



Eratosthenes carried out this experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference to determine the circumference of the Earth, already assuming its spherical shape; incidentally, the proof of such being consequential of the procedure.

However, a demonstration can be achieved by a simple, local experiment (as opposed to having a party venture to a distant enough point):

Take a piece of card (A3, or so), attach two obelisks to the card by their bases and, with a light source, produce shadows - now, slowly bend the card so that it becomes convex (that is, the side with obelisks attached bulging out) and watch the effect.

2. You can see farther from higher





There are numerous other ways of demonstrating that the Earth is round, or curved, at least, from analysing the center of gravity to simply observing the other round objects that are visible in space; but I believe these illustrations to be the simplest to comprehend.

Another way is the triple-right triangle:

1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" a half-finished square.

Sitting for a while by the seashore ought to make it clear the Earth isn't flat, even if you don't happen to see a ship go over the horizon. The edge of the discworld Earth would have to be just a few miles away, and there's no way that the entire, circular world would fit inside the circle that the ocean horizon seems to make.

Humans have not just known the Earth was spherical but actually have been measuring its radius for thousands of years. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy

Again, these aren't my own, but I'm open to anyone trying to disprove them, but I still think that they prove pretty solidly that the Earth is round and not flat.

You expect the good hard working Americans of this forum to believe a couple of pictures a 12 year old could have drawn?  It seems to me that you are misguided. Here is my personal website, a wonderful resource for anyone seeking the truth in the face of the crock of lies NASA tries to stuff down your throat. http://libertyjfreedom.wix.com/theearthisflat

You know, if you read the text accompanied with the pictures, it's explained. Don't expect scientific pictures to be masterful works of art. They aren't supposed to be.

You expect the good hard working Americans of this forum to believe a couple of pictures a 12 year old could have drawn?  It seems to me that you are misguided. Here is my personal website, a wonderful resource for anyone seeking the truth in the face of the crock of lies NASA tries to stuff down your throat. http://libertyjfreedom.wix.com/theearthisflat

I am a busy man, "I have no time for such nonsense"  If you tell me who said that I will give you a shout out on my Kansas public radio station  kbkk thewind

If the earth was flat the sun would appear to get smaller as it approached the horizon. This is never sen. Furthermore the sun would never actually go below the horizon if the earth as flat.

Check out "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment" for a DISPROOF of ANY Flat Earth model.

ANY Flat Earth model must:

• Be aligned with the axis of the model (N.Pole to S.Pole). On ANY Flat Earth model, that is 90° - by definition.
• It must point at the N. Celestial Pole (NCP) and S. Celestial Pole (SCP) (center of star trail pictures) - both at the same time. This angle varies by location. On the RE model, this coincides exactly with the latitude of the observer. Unless you're physically at the N.Pole or S.Pole, the angle is NOT 90°.
• On ANY Flat Earth model, the telescope must point 90° and NOT point 90° at the same time. That is IMPOSSIBLE. This a direct DISPROOF of ANY Flat Earth model.
• The ONLY model it works with is a RE model. This is a direct PROOF the world is a GLOBE. This is what happens in RET (http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954). Notice in the image, the axis of the telescope is parallel to the axis of the Earth. The "latitude" is the angle pointing at the NCP/SCP. Both at the same time.

Is this another thread where people are claiming that people can make a triangle with 3 90 degree angles and this is suppose to be proof that the Earth is round?  lol 

Except you can do that. Look around you for a sphere or a ball or something and try it. It actually works, which therefore can be used to prove that the Earth is round.

Is this another thread where people are claiming that people can make a triangle with 3 90 degree angles and this is suppose to be proof that the Earth is round?  lol 

Except you can do that. Look around you for a sphere or a ball or something and try it. It actually works, which therefore can be used to prove that the Earth is round.

Quote from: jroa on November 03, 2015, 05:22:52 AM

Is this another thread where people are claiming that people can make a triangle with 3 90 degree angles and this is suppose to be proof that the Earth is round?  lol 

This is how the conversation always goes:

RE: You can make 3 90 degree angles and have a triangle.  This proves the Earth is round.
FE:  Really?  Who did this?
RE:  Lots of people must have done it.  The physics forum lists it as a proof that the Earth is round.
FE:  Please, do some research and name one person who has done this; otherwise, it is just a thought experiment and not proof.
RE:           Your a poo poo head.  Whaaaaaa!!!         
FE:  Another win for the FES!

Got any comments on any of the other arguments presented?

Got any comments on any of the other arguments presented?

I am feeling generous today and will humor you again, Sokarul, since you almost seem to be pleasant for a change.

Simplest, you say? There are two that strike me as being simple to demonstrate. Luckily someone on the internet has already spent some time to help us here to make these easy to illustrate:

1. Shadows differ from place to place



Eratosthenes carried out this experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference to determine the circumference of the Earth, already assuming its spherical shape; incidentally, the proof of such being consequential of the procedure.

The quote says that it only proves the Earth is round if you assume the shape is round to begin with.  Does this not sound backwards to you?  Actually, the RE'er who was quoted was quite confused.  This experiment was not done to determine the shape of the Earth, but the circumference of the assume round Earth.  Even the egghead on Vsauce said this is not proof, because you can "assume" the Earth is flat fist and simply get different numbers.  Once again, this is only evidence that RE'ers don't really understand what proof is. 

While the 3*90° example is true, it also is, admittedly, rather impractical (because it needs the distance between pole and equator). Of course, this extreme example is part of the simple fact that on earth we have to follow spherical geometry and not euclidean (flat) geometry, with the difference becoming very noticeable over larger distances.

Yes, the sum of the angles of any triangle on top of a spherical surface is larger than 180° (on a flat surface it would, of course, be always 180). This is true for the extreme example (where it adds to 270°), but also true for smaller triangles, only to a lesser degree.

Of course, the need for spherical geometry on earth has many consequences for people leaving their basement occasionally.

The concepts of spherical geometry are implemented in air and space travel, naval cruises, and much more. Spherical Geometry is used by pilots and ship captains as they navigate around the world. For example, an airplane looking to travel from Florida to the Philippines would pass over Alaska. Since the Philippines lie south of Florida, it does not seem reasonable to take this flight route. Yet, this happens to be the shortest distance between the two points, since Florida, Alaska, and the Philippines lie relatively “collinearly” along the path of a great circle. Thus, the best path to travel from Florida to the Philippines would include a flight route over Alaska. Spherical Geometry also aided navigators in mapping out the land and water.

Quote from: sokarul on November 03, 2015, 06:00:10 AM

Got any comments on any of the other arguments presented?

I am feeling generous today and will humor you again, Sokarul, since you almost seem to be pleasant for a change.

Quote from: TheEarthIsRoundNotFlat on November 02, 2015, 03:13:56 PM

Simplest, you say? There are two that strike me as being simple to demonstrate. Luckily someone on the internet has already spent some time to help us here to make these easy to illustrate:

1. Shadows differ from place to place



Eratosthenes carried out this experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference to determine the circumference of the Earth, already assuming its spherical shape; incidentally, the proof of such being consequential of the procedure.

The quote says that it only proves the Earth is round if you assume the shape is round to begin with.  Does this not sound backwards to you?  Actually, the RE'er who was quoted was quite confused.  This experiment was not done to determine the shape of the Earth, but the circumference of the assume round Earth.  Even the egghead on Vsauce said this is not proof, because you can "assume" the Earth is flat fist and simply get different numbers.  Once again, this is only evidence that RE'ers don't really understand what proof is. 

Actually, you are correct. You can not prove the Earth's shape with just 2 points.

As I say in my "Height of Sun and Moon " thread:

See, that is exactly what is wrong with the Eratosthenes experiment. Assume... If you assume it is round ("always a good way to begin *I* find"), the Sun is 93M miles away. If you assume the Earth is concave, you get still a different figure. We need to get rid of the assumptions. Simply put, you can not determine the height of the Sun from 2 points without that kind of assumption. You need at least 3 points to get rid of the assumption. Probably 6-10 points would be best to get a solid reading just in case there are other variables involved (such as altitude). Furthermore, since you are measuring shadows, you need to prove the sticks are the same length and absolutely perpendicular. To be accurate, they will probably need to be at least 3 m long. You need to prove the ground you are measuring is absolutely flat. You need to prove you are taking a measurement at the same time. This is what I meant by "very accurately measured/calibrated equipment". Today, we have phones and cameras. You can use 10 people in 10 locations far apart. You can create 10 instruments carefully calibrated with measures to at least a millimeter. You will need a millimeter ruler along the shadow for measurement. With a compass, so that all the instruments are pointing the same way, photograph the shadow and ruler. Rotate the instrument N,S,E,W measuring each time to remove instrument bias. Rotate the instruments between people (to remove instrument bias). Do the experiment again in 4 directions. Do that for several days. Now you will have LOTS of data and can make error estimates on your findings. After all this, you can probably determine with a fair amount of certainty, that no one is going to question, what the height of the Sun is and what the shape of the Earth is. As you can see, although the Eratosthenes experiment was a nice attempt, especially with the assumption, it wasn't really scientific (measurable, repeatable, verifiable). Once you have good data, you can solve this with trigonometry easily. It is getting good data that is the trick so no one can find fault with the experiment. I am not sure why we need rough estimates. If the Sun and Moon are only 5000 km away, we should be able to measure their exact distances to less than a km, probably a couple of meters.

While the 3*90° example is true, it also is, admittedly, rather impractical (because it needs the distance between pole and equator). Of course, this extreme example is part of the simple fact that on earth we have to follow spherical geometry and not euclidean (flat) geometry, with the difference becoming very noticeable over larger distances.

Yes, the sum of the angles of any triangle on top of a spherical surface is larger than 180° (on a flat surface it would, of course, be always 180). This is true for the extreme example (where it adds to 270°), but also true for smaller triangles, only to a lesser degree.

Of course, the need for spherical geometry on earth has many consequences for people leaving their basement occasionally.

Quote

The concepts of spherical geometry are implemented in air and space travel, naval cruises, and much more. Spherical Geometry is used by pilots and ship captains as they navigate around the world. For example, an airplane looking to travel from Florida to the Philippines would pass over Alaska. Since the Philippines lie south of Florida, it does not seem reasonable to take this flight route. Yet, this happens to be the shortest distance between the two points, since Florida, Alaska, and the Philippines lie relatively “collinearly” along the path of a great circle. Thus, the best path to travel from Florida to the Philippines would include a flight route over Alaska. Spherical Geometry also aided navigators in mapping out the land and water.

I don't disagree that the 90 degree angles would work on a sphere.  I only disagree that this proves that the Earth is a sphere, since it has never been actually done.  It sounds like proof to someone who has either little intelligence, no critical thinking skills, lack of understanding about fallacies, or the person is simply being disingenuous.  It is actually amusing to see how often this is posted as "proof" of the shape of the Earth, and is one of the easiest proofs to squash. 

Another win for the FES!

You did read the rest about spherical geometry, or was that over your head?

I skimmed it.  Why do you think that it says something I have never heard before?  Oh, you think FE'er=Uneducated.  You roundies get funnier by the day. 

Only because your answer focused on the 3*90° example, which I never claimed as practical evidence, while ignoring the issue of spherical geometry and its implications. But you are right, that was more likely some on-purpose avoidance ...

I like the way you roundies try to change the subject when you have been defeated.  I smashed your "proofs" (lumping all roundies into your), so all you have left is to try to derail.  I think this is...

Another win for the FES!

Indeed, claiming the win on an internet forum surely ends the argument and makes clear who succeeded. Well played, Sir!

Wait, the second win ... you, Sir, must be surely the king of the internet!

I will GREATLY simplify geometry for you. You won't even need to know "spherical geometry". I will make it ONE line - not 3. Apparently, FEers can't do more than one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how a cruise ship from Ushuaia, AR can go in 3 days to S. Georgia Island (via the Falkland Islands no less) - a distance of 3500-4000 mi on a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png). The trip is 12/18/2015.

Indeed, claiming the win on an internet forum surely ends the argument and makes clear who succeeded. Well played, Sir!

Wait, the second win ... you, Sir, must be surely the king of the internet!

Sounds like the words of someone who has been defeated.  I will not claim this as a win, as I am starting to feel sorry for you.

I will GREATLY simplify geometry for you. You won't even need to know "spherical geometry". I will make it ONE line - not 3. Apparently, FEers can't do more than one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how a cruise ship from Ushuaia, AR can go in 3 days to S. Georgia Island (via the Falkland Islands no less) - a distance of 3500-4000 mi on a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png). The trip is 12/18/2015.

Do you think I have enough money in my bank account to perform this?  Perhaps you do not know what a demonstration is?  Or, maybe you are just confused?  You tell me. 

Quote from: Soulblood on November 03, 2015, 07:28:17 AM

Indeed, claiming the win on an internet forum surely ends the argument and makes clear who succeeded. Well played, Sir!

Wait, the second win ... you, Sir, must be surely the king of the internet!

Sounds like the words of someone who has been defeated.  I will not claim this as a win, as I am starting to feel sorry for you.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 07:29:35 AM

I will GREATLY simplify geometry for you. You won't even need to know "spherical geometry". I will make it ONE line - not 3. Apparently, FEers can't do more than one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how a cruise ship from Ushuaia, AR can go in 3 days to S. Georgia Island (via the Falkland Islands no less) - a distance of 3500-4000 mi on a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png). The trip is 12/18/2015.

Do you think I have enough money in my bank account to perform this?  Perhaps you do not know what a demonstration is?  Or, maybe you are just confused?  You tell me.

Why do you have to go on the trip? The trip exists. Using a FE model, explain it.

Quote from: jroa on November 03, 2015, 07:35:19 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on November 03, 2015, 07:28:17 AM

Indeed, claiming the win on an internet forum surely ends the argument and makes clear who succeeded. Well played, Sir!

Wait, the second win ... you, Sir, must be surely the king of the internet!

Sounds like the words of someone who has been defeated.  I will not claim this as a win, as I am starting to feel sorry for you.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 07:29:35 AM

I will GREATLY simplify geometry for you. You won't even need to know "spherical geometry". I will make it ONE line - not 3. Apparently, FEers can't do more than one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how a cruise ship from Ushuaia, AR can go in 3 days to S. Georgia Island (via the Falkland Islands no less) - a distance of 3500-4000 mi on a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png). The trip is 12/18/2015.

Do you think I have enough money in my bank account to perform this?  Perhaps you do not know what a demonstration is?  Or, maybe you are just confused?  You tell me.

Why do you have to go on the trip? The trip exists. Using a FE model, explain it.

You want me to explain your anecdote to you?  Are you serious, or are you just jerking me around? 

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 07:38:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 03, 2015, 07:35:19 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on November 03, 2015, 07:28:17 AM

Indeed, claiming the win on an internet forum surely ends the argument and makes clear who succeeded. Well played, Sir!

Wait, the second win ... you, Sir, must be surely the king of the internet!

Sounds like the words of someone who has been defeated.  I will not claim this as a win, as I am starting to feel sorry for you.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 07:29:35 AM

I will GREATLY simplify geometry for you. You won't even need to know "spherical geometry". I will make it ONE line - not 3. Apparently, FEers can't do more than one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how a cruise ship from Ushuaia, AR can go in 3 days to S. Georgia Island (via the Falkland Islands no less) - a distance of 3500-4000 mi on a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png). The trip is 12/18/2015.

Do you think I have enough money in my bank account to perform this?  Perhaps you do not know what a demonstration is?  Or, maybe you are just confused?  You tell me.

Why do you have to go on the trip? The trip exists. Using a FE model, explain it.

You want me to explain your anecdote to you?  Are you serious, or are you just jerking me around?

Yes, I would like you explain it. I am serious.

Quote from: jroa on November 03, 2015, 07:41:39 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 07:38:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 03, 2015, 07:35:19 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on November 03, 2015, 07:28:17 AM

Indeed, claiming the win on an internet forum surely ends the argument and makes clear who succeeded. Well played, Sir!

Wait, the second win ... you, Sir, must be surely the king of the internet!

Sounds like the words of someone who has been defeated.  I will not claim this as a win, as I am starting to feel sorry for you.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 07:29:35 AM

I will GREATLY simplify geometry for you. You won't even need to know "spherical geometry". I will make it ONE line - not 3. Apparently, FEers can't do more than one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how a cruise ship from Ushuaia, AR can go in 3 days to S. Georgia Island (via the Falkland Islands no less) - a distance of 3500-4000 mi on a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png). The trip is 12/18/2015.

Do you think I have enough money in my bank account to perform this?  Perhaps you do not know what a demonstration is?  Or, maybe you are just confused?  You tell me.

Why do you have to go on the trip? The trip exists. Using a FE model, explain it.

You want me to explain your anecdote to you?  Are you serious, or are you just jerking me around?

Yes, I would like you explain it. I am serious.

Well, then, since I did not do it, and neither did you, that means I can just make up anything I want.  I choose...Time Dilation, for the win.

When you and FE fantasies deal with reality - let me know.

When you and your people stop believing everything you are spoon fed and start to think critically instead of being sheep, let me know.

Another win for the FES!

jroa, check out "Flight times between Australia and South America" thread. This is by a real flight controller in New Zealand. This is reality. hmm... no replies...

"start to think critically instead of being sheep" - Fine, oh great critical thinker who is not spoon fed, "Why do you - critically - think the Earth is flat?

Nice deflection.  You almost derailed this thread, but you will need to try harder.  This thread is about the inaccurate "proofs" that RE'ers think are actual proofs that the Earth is round.  Perhaps you could actually contribute to this thread, instead of just trying to derail it? 

Is this thread hurting your feelings and making you question your beliefs?  Or, are you simply paid to derail threads when your fellow RE'ers fail? 

Nice deflection.  You almost derailed this thread, but you will need to try harder.  This thread is about the inaccurate "proofs" that RE'ers think are actual proofs that the Earth is round.  Perhaps you could actually contribute to this thread, instead of just trying to derail it? 

Is this thread hurting your feelings and making you question your beliefs?  Or, are you simply paid to derail threads when your fellow RE'ers fail?

Sorry, what deflection? That thread demonstrates the Earth is round. Isn't that the topic of the OP?

"This thread is about the inaccurate "proofs""... um, where did you get that? I think you misread the OP. If you actually read the link provided, this first part of the link says:

Assume you've come in contact with a tribe of people cut off from the rest of the world, or you've gone back in time several thousand years, or (more likely) you've got a numbskull cousin.

How would you prove that the Earth is, in fact, round?

Where did you get the word "inaccurate"?

This is what FEers tend to do. They make random statements as "fact/truth" throwing in "extra" false words or untrue statements ("Nice deflection") that REers have to waste time and effort to correct. These derail threads. No real evidence that is measurable, falsifiable, or testable is presented - just hand-waving. When REers produce measurable evidence (the real world) - the evidence is inconsequential. It devolves to "prove your numbers are accurate to the nth degree" (this of course does not apply to FEer arguments). I've noticed that a lot. I guess, this is the only way they can win - sad really. No real meat, just air (or Aether).

BTW, I am waiting for the insults that invariably follow. I like this (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XbkHdigrXNQ/UpZewtLSC6I/AAAAAAAAECc/3n86b6tXbUE/s1600/Paul+Graham+hierarchy+of+disagreement.GIF). Obviously, JRoweSkeptic is at the bottom - some of his posts are more than half just insults, but where are you ("Is this thread hurting your feelings")?

Fine, God forbid we discuss FE on FE forums... I'm OK with that.