Flat Earth model and evidence supporting the theory.

Hello. For the sake of argument, I would like to see what FE model looks like. I've stumbled upon several different models, and I would like to request a model that's widely accepted as the correct one.
Also, I would like to hold a civilised discussion here. Anyone who tries to throw insults is not welcome here. This goes to the both sides, FE and RE people.
To FE community: please give me sound, undeniable proof that the Earth is really flat. I've tried to read some of the topics on those forums, but usually they end up in both sides throwing insults at each other, or FE people not presenting any clear evidence.
I'll say it again - I don't want to create another needless shitstorm. Try to act civilised, if you don't then please go vent your anger somewhere else.

Welcome lance and thank you for setting up a thread bearing safe-zone Earth shape discussion designation.

It is true that FEers have sound and undeniable proof of our Flat Earth Model and you will have access to this proof, as well.  What causes the friction you speak of is when RE believers twist the reality of FET evidence and it will be refreshing to bring forth the proof only FET can provide without that interruption. 

Alright, can you point me to where I can find the arguments supporting FE model?

Alright, can you point me to where I can find the arguments supporting FE model?

It's pretty much "look out your window".  That's about it.

Alright, can you point me to where I can find the arguments supporting FE model?

This forum is full of arguments and evidence in favor of the FET.  You are welcome to read all you want and use the search function, but I doubt anyone is going to list everything in one post, like you seem to request.  Knowledge is not for the lazy. 

Anyway, welcome to the fora. 

Jroa - Lance has a point - most of the threads on here end up a slanging match.

Has someone written up an actual model? One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

Well, the responses I received are pretty typical of FE people.
"Look out the window", "knowledge will not be given to you, you must search for it".
If there's really so much relevant evidence, it shouldn't be a problem for you to show me reference materials for it?

Jroa - Lance has a point - most of the threads on here end up a slanging match.

Yeah, and that is largely jroa's fault. 

Has someone written up an actual model?

Not really - there are the FAQs.  There isn't a completely working model out there (or even a map)...for obvious reasons.

This forum is full of arguments and evidence in favor of the FET.

Really?  Where are they?  I have been here nearly a year and I havn't yet seen a flat Earth argument that couldn't be debunked with an elementary school level understanding of physics.  Every flat Earth argument I have seen uses at least one logical fallacy, the most popular ones being ad hominem and straw-man.  Please do tell lance and I where to find this secret stash of supposedly non-fallacious arguments are.

Quote from: jroa on November 12, 2015, 06:08:27 AM

This forum is full of arguments and evidence in favor of the FET.

Really?  Where are they?  I have been here nearly a year and I havn't yet seen a flat Earth argument that couldn't be debunked with an elementary school level understanding of physics.  Every flat Earth argument I have seen uses at least one logical fallacy, the most popular ones being ad hominem and straw-man.  Please do tell lance and I where to find this secret stash of supposedly non-fallacious arguments are.

this is a government psyop.

Jroa - Lance has a point - most of the threads on here end up a slanging match.

Has someone written up an actual model? One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but if you mean that the roundies don't listen to reason, then I fully agree with you. 

Quote from: Teutarch on November 12, 2015, 10:33:02 AM

Jroa - Lance has a point - most of the threads on here end up a slanging match.

Has someone written up an actual model? One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but if you mean that the roundies don't listen to reason, then I fully agree with you.

Jroa - You just proved his point. 2 questions where asked, you ignored those and just made a non-contributing comment.

Has someone written up an actual model?

One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

Hi Lance,
There are loads of excellent videos on you-tube explaining everything we see in life and how it can be explained on a flat earth model. Some of these things actually make more sense than the RE theories. The FE map generally used is the map that the likes of the UN, IMO & ICAO have displayed on their logo. The map is called the azimuthal equidistant projection and has the North Pole at the centre of a flat map. Some of the you-tubers to search for are Eric Dubay, Jeranism, Scrawny2brawny, Mrthriveandsurvive, Rob Skiba, marksargent, Fran Anderson and many more. I personally don't agree with everything and everyone on there but its full of useful videos that explain things better than just words can. Some videos actually show and explain why things happen as we see them which is far better than people just talking about it on here.
I've just joined this forum in search of more answers but all I seem to see is people just arguing with each other so enjoy you-tube my friend.
Cheers jamesyboy

Another typical response.
"There are many explanations on youtube", "there are many proof everywhere", etc.
This is "The FE society" yet no one can show me the model and explanation on why it's the right one?
If clearly the Earth is flat, there must be some scientific research that proves the point?
Oh, and why isn't there a single photograph taken from space that shows the whole flat planet? Is it because it's a multi-national government conspiracy to hide those pictures?
If you want to make fantasy stories, at least make them believable.

Hi Lance,
There are loads of excellent videos on you-tube explaining everything we see in life and how it can be explained on a flat earth model. Some of these things actually make more sense than the RE theories. The FE map generally used is the map that the likes of the UN, IMO & ICAO have displayed on their logo. The map is called the azimuthal equidistant projection and has the North Pole at the centre of a flat map. Some of the you-tubers to search for are Eric Dubay, Jeranism, Scrawny2brawny, Mrthriveandsurvive, Rob Skiba, marksargent, Fran Anderson and many more. I personally don't agree with everything and everyone on there but its full of useful videos that explain things better than just words can. Some videos actually show and explain why things happen as we see them which is far better than people just talking about it on here.
I've just joined this forum in search of more answers but all I seem to see is people just arguing with each other so enjoy you-tube my friend.
Cheers jamesyboy

The 'map' is totally incorrect for measured distances.

Hi Lance,
There are loads of excellent videos on you-tube explaining everything we see in life and how it can be explained on a flat earth model. Some of these things actually make more sense than the RE theories. The FE map generally used is the map that the likes of the UN, IMO & ICAO have displayed on their logo. The map is called the azimuthal equidistant projection and has the North Pole at the centre of a flat map. Some of the you-tubers to search for are Eric Dubay, Jeranism, Scrawny2brawny, Mrthriveandsurvive, Rob Skiba, marksargent, Fran Anderson and many more. I personally don't agree with everything and everyone on there but its full of useful videos that explain things better than just words can. Some videos actually show and explain why things happen as we see them which is far better than people just talking about it on here.
I've just joined this forum in search of more answers but all I seem to see is people just arguing with each other so enjoy you-tube my friend.
Cheers jamesyboy

I saw many thinks on youtube.. for example this:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Even thou there are good quality video footage of spaceships destroying whole cities, still i don't believe it is true. (or should I belive, because it is on youtube?)

Video is not evidence by it self. It just may help to explain complicated things using voice and images for people lazy to read. But it gives no room to get deeper.

I wrote some "computer science" papers and presented those things on conferences to other "compute scientists"... And I bet you, if you try to explain 7pages long science paper in 15 minutes on a conference, you will find that it is not enough time to explain it so deep that written text (with forumlas and exactly stated axioms, thesis, proofs) is not needed. Even then you  need to mention sources/base literature that need to be given, because no research is in "vacuum" and every new idea is based on something done before.  In 15 minutes you have time just to introduce the problem, explain conclusions and maybe answer few questions... And i mean paper, that tries to do a little bit of something, really little bit one, not a whole new theory, not something "gamechanging". 


If you see youtube as a good source of evidence... I will try to explain, why its not correct:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

its a lecture about electricity and magnetism... do you have feeling he proved anything? .. No he didn't proved what he talk about! He just explained what is electricity and magnetism from his point of view. THERE IS NO SINGLE PROOF IN THAT VIDEO AT ALL. If you will try to search for proofs what he is talking about, you will see there are many many hundreds pages of "boring" scientific papers that led to this view/model. But without this basement (those "boring" proofs) he just BLA BLA.... and if you were given just this video (and no other scientific basement that support this model existed), you may (and by definition you must) disagree in every single thing that he said. Lucky you may go deeper and read and think about all those papers that contains centuries of research that led to this model/view. 

And I tell you one good thing about science... if you notice and prove a mistake in one of those papers that led to this model/view... you will change the whole model/view and became fame. ... Science is not religion, science change model every time new evidence is there.

That is the difference between science and feelings.... science need evidence, proofs to agree on something... not just youtube.

Go look at pinhole camera landscape photos. The pinhole camera does not have a lens to distort the image and they all show a straight flat horizon. If the horizon is not curved then the Earth is not curved. If Earth is not curved then the Earth can not be a sphere/ball, period. This is absolute proof that the Earth is flat. As for the total Flat Earth system there are likely those who know, but it is not common knowledge. Really the advise to just go look is the best. Go look and make up your own mind. Don't let the government make up your mind for you.

Go look at pinhole camera landscape photos. The pinhole camera does not have a lens to distort the image and they all show a straight flat horizon. If the horizon is not curved then the Earth is not curved. If Earth is not curved then the Earth can not be a sphere/ball, period. This is absolute proof that the Earth is flat. As for the total Flat Earth system there are likely those who know, but it is not common knowledge. Really the advise to just go look is the best. Go look and make up your own mind. Don't let the government make up your mind for you.

Do you mention the same camera that can we use as evidence that sun falls under the Earth? .... why sun falling under the Earth is perspecitve thing, but the flat horizont is proof of flatness?

Hi Lance,
There are loads of excellent videos on you-tube explaining everything we see in life and how it can be explained on a flat earth model. Some of these things actually make more sense than the RE theories. The FE map generally used is the map that the likes of the UN, IMO & ICAO have displayed on their logo. The map is called the azimuthal equidistant projection and has the North Pole at the centre of a flat map. Some of the you-tubers to search for are Eric Dubay, Jeranism, Scrawny2brawny, Mrthriveandsurvive, Rob Skiba, marksargent, Fran Anderson and many more. I personally don't agree with everything and everyone on there but its full of useful videos that explain things better than just words can. Some videos actually show and explain why things happen as we see them which is far better than people just talking about it on here.
I've just joined this forum in search of more answers but all I seem to see is people just arguing with each other so enjoy you-tube my friend.
Cheers jamesyboy

Sure, but look at videos by Eric Dubay or Jeranism and you get pure idiocy like:
"1000 mph winds on the earth's surface" and "people here in Australia falling off".
In every video by "Mr ThriveandSurvive" there are glaring errors in his description of the physics of the globe earth.  These errors are trivial, but time consuming to refute.
Another series by "Global Sceptic" also tries to explain globe earth physics, and makes a hash of everything.  He proves he knows nothing about Gyroscopic, Aircraft Attitude Indicators and Compasses, then uses his botched explanations to try to ridicule the Globe Earth.
All these videos prove is that the presenters know nothing of the Globe Earth Model they are trying to refute!
Please can someone give:
1) a definitive map that distances can be estimated from,
2) a model of the motion of the sun that gives correct sunrise and sunset appearances, times and directions.
3) the correct shape of and dustance between Australia, South America and South Africa.

The suggested maps and sun models fail miserably on all these scores.

My previous post had: "1) a definitive hap that distances can be estimated from"
It should have been:   "1) a definitive map that distances can be estimated from"

Also I gave some of silly things the presenters of "Flat Earth" videos have when trying to disprove the globe earth, just a couple more:
The pole star only a few earth's diameters above the pole when trying to prove that the pole star would not remain stationary of a rotating globe earth.
The sun about one earth's diameter away when trying to show night and day.
Then on the flat earth one had a "magic" prism (or some such thing), that bent the sun's rays to make the flat earth sun appear in the right direction.  All these little unbelievable tweeks to fit a model to what is observed everyday (Occam's razor comes to mind!).
Give some evidence that is credible. 
A bit more than "It looks flat", "I can't see the curvature", "it's all the Law of Perspective" and "the Natural Physics of Water".

Using a pinhole camera to image the setting sun proves the flat Earth. The sun moves in a straight line, not a curved line. If the Earth were moving the setting sun would show an arc and it does not.

It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convenience them they have been fooled.

Using a pinhole camera to image the setting sun proves the flat Earth. The sun moves in a straight line, not a curved line. If the Earth were moving the setting sun would show an arc and it does not.

It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convenience them they have been fooled.

Explain how the setting sun seen from one place is seen as rising when seen from another.

The ball Earth cult keeps saying that ball Earth theory beats real world evidence. When the Earth is measured to be flat and the curve of Earth is missing then the Earth can not be a sphere it can not be a ball. It is that simple, to be a ball Earth it needs a curved surface. Are you going to believe your own eyes your own mind or continue to let a fable blind you. Take the veil off, be free from the indoctrination and falsehoods. Those who have not the sense to think for themselves think as others tell them to. I have yet to see any physical proof of a ball Earth, none.

Using a pinhole camera to image the setting sun proves the flat Earth. The sun moves in a straight line, not a curved line. If the Earth were moving the setting sun would show an arc and it does not.

It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convenience them they have been fooled.

Pinhole camera is just able to prove that sun trajectory seen is ALMOST a line... what you expect to see if the Earth have 12 000 km in diameter and the sun is 149 milions of km away? Do you expect the same curvative as seen when staying on earth model with 12m diameter and the sun 149 km away?



The same is the thing about horizont.
1. if you look forward you see horizont on "eye level"
2. if you look left you see  horizont on "eye level"
3. if you look right you see  horizont on "eye level"
4. if you look behind you see  horizont on "eye level"

If you look on every point in the circle, you see the same level

If you expect to see curvative horizont, you must be high enought to be the horizont significantly lower then your "eye level".

Has someone written up an actual model? One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

That is no gauge of truth. The universe is under no obligation to be easily intelligible: all science takes some effort to understand. FET may be trickier because you're more used to RE answers, but it works just fine.

The evidence for FET (or rather DET, the theory that I've found best explains observations) is simply observational. It is a model that explains observations with fewer assumptions. It isn't a "Point to one fact and find undeniable evidence," because the real world doesn't work that way. There are a few tests that can be done, but not easily: the fundamental evidence comes from the fact that the model works with fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

Quote

Has someone written up an actual model? One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

That is no gauge of truth. The universe is under no obligation to be easily intelligible: all science takes some effort to understand. FET may be trickier because you're more used to RE answers, but it works just fine.

The evidence for FET (or rather DET, the theory that I've found best explains observations) is simply observational. It is a model that explains observations with fewer assumptions. It isn't a "Point to one fact and find undeniable evidence," because the real world doesn't work that way. There are a few tests that can be done, but not easily: the fundamental evidence comes from the fact that the model works with fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

"The FET best explains observations" ...


good point, and worth remembering... because this model were actual when people didnt had good measuring technologies... measuring 1degree of difference per day using just your EYE and a FINGER pointing to some direction will not end with some new exploration... you will end in nothing... and thats exactly what we see from FET model people... NOTHING NEW... you all just try to prove that round earth is wrong (without proofs, just using your own sences) using the less acurate things like eye and feelings. You dont try to continue from that point where flat model ended in the science...
Why all of you try to reinvent something people known 3000 years ago (that flat model) and still not wana to take thouse things as ground... who you belive in your physics? I can imagine that Newton is not trustfull for you... so who were? What mathematics and physics are you using and is trustfull for you? (lately i saw that counting under zero is invention that made math untrustfull or some FET people... thats why I ask... what math are you using? ... or do every one of you try to invent your own physics and math?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 15, 2015, 09:21:23 AM

Quote

Has someone written up an actual model? One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

That is no gauge of truth. The universe is under no obligation to be easily intelligible: all science takes some effort to understand. FET may be trickier because you're more used to RE answers, but it works just fine.

The evidence for FET (or rather DET, the theory that I've found best explains observations) is simply observational. It is a model that explains observations with fewer assumptions. It isn't a "Point to one fact and find undeniable evidence," because the real world doesn't work that way. There are a few tests that can be done, but not easily: the fundamental evidence comes from the fact that the model works with fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

"The FET best explains observations" ...


good point, and worth remembering... because this model were actual when people didnt had good measuring technologies... measuring 1degree of difference per day using just your EYE and a FINGER pointing to some direction will not end with some new exploration... you will end in nothing... and thats exactly what we see from FET model people... NOTHING NEW... you all just try to prove that round earth is wrong (without proofs, just using your own sences) using the less acurate things like eye and feelings. You dont try to continue from that point where flat model ended in the science...
Why all of you try to reinvent something people known 3000 years ago (that flat model) and still not wana to take thouse things as ground... who you belive in your physics? I can imagine that Newton is not trustfull for you... so who were? What mathematics and physics are you using and is trustfull for you? (lately i saw that counting under zero is invention that made math untrustfull or some FET people... thats why I ask... what math are you using? ... or do every one of you try to invent your own physics and math?

How about you try not completely ignoring what I was saying? That can be quite a useful thing to do.

Quote from: tomfi on November 15, 2015, 09:37:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 15, 2015, 09:21:23 AM

Quote

Has someone written up an actual model? One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

That is no gauge of truth. The universe is under no obligation to be easily intelligible: all science takes some effort to understand. FET may be trickier because you're more used to RE answers, but it works just fine.

The evidence for FET (or rather DET, the theory that I've found best explains observations) is simply observational. It is a model that explains observations with fewer assumptions. It isn't a "Point to one fact and find undeniable evidence," because the real world doesn't work that way. There are a few tests that can be done, but not easily: the fundamental evidence comes from the fact that the model works with fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

"The FET best explains observations" ...


good point, and worth remembering... because this model were actual when people didnt had good measuring technologies... measuring 1degree of difference per day using just your EYE and a FINGER pointing to some direction will not end with some new exploration... you will end in nothing... and thats exactly what we see from FET model people... NOTHING NEW... you all just try to prove that round earth is wrong (without proofs, just using your own sences) using the less acurate things like eye and feelings. You dont try to continue from that point where flat model ended in the science...
Why all of you try to reinvent something people known 3000 years ago (that flat model) and still not wana to take thouse things as ground... who you belive in your physics? I can imagine that Newton is not trustfull for you... so who were? What mathematics and physics are you using and is trustfull for you? (lately i saw that counting under zero is invention that made math untrustfull or some FET people... thats why I ask... what math are you using? ... or do every one of you try to invent your own physics and math?

How about you try not completely ignoring what I was saying? That can be quite a useful thing to do.

Do you actually know that there were real attempts to matematicly write how sun, moon and planets move?... do you know them? If you know them EXPLAIN HOW WERE THEY WRONG, WHY DONT YOU BELIVE THEM OR why do you think that based on them they decided Earth cannot be center of movements... did you found that mistakes?... or do you try to reinvent whole physics by your self?

OK once more... who were last sciencist you belive. What is latest math you belive?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 15, 2015, 09:39:46 AM

Quote from: tomfi on November 15, 2015, 09:37:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 15, 2015, 09:21:23 AM

Quote

Has someone written up an actual model? One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

That is no gauge of truth. The universe is under no obligation to be easily intelligible: all science takes some effort to understand. FET may be trickier because you're more used to RE answers, but it works just fine.

The evidence for FET (or rather DET, the theory that I've found best explains observations) is simply observational. It is a model that explains observations with fewer assumptions. It isn't a "Point to one fact and find undeniable evidence," because the real world doesn't work that way. There are a few tests that can be done, but not easily: the fundamental evidence comes from the fact that the model works with fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

"The FET best explains observations" ...


good point, and worth remembering... because this model were actual when people didnt had good measuring technologies... measuring 1degree of difference per day using just your EYE and a FINGER pointing to some direction will not end with some new exploration... you will end in nothing... and thats exactly what we see from FET model people... NOTHING NEW... you all just try to prove that round earth is wrong (without proofs, just using your own sences) using the less acurate things like eye and feelings. You dont try to continue from that point where flat model ended in the science...
Why all of you try to reinvent something people known 3000 years ago (that flat model) and still not wana to take thouse things as ground... who you belive in your physics? I can imagine that Newton is not trustfull for you... so who were? What mathematics and physics are you using and is trustfull for you? (lately i saw that counting under zero is invention that made math untrustfull or some FET people... thats why I ask... what math are you using? ... or do every one of you try to invent your own physics and math?

How about you try not completely ignoring what I was saying? That can be quite a useful thing to do.

Do you actually know that there were real attempts to matematicly write how sun, moon and planets move?... do you know them? If you know them EXPLAIN HOW WERE THEY WRONG, WHY DONT YOU BELIVE THEM OR why do you think that based on them they decided Earth cannot be center of movements... did you found that mistakes?... or do you try to reinvent whole physics by your self?

OK once more... who were last sciencist you belive. What is latest math you belive?

The same observation may have multiple possible explanations. The answer to all your questions is that simple. You're creating a restrictive and absurd false dilemma. Again, I ask you to read what I actually said and not resort to tedious and irrelevant stock arguments.

Quote from: tomfi on November 15, 2015, 09:44:07 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 15, 2015, 09:39:46 AM

Quote from: tomfi on November 15, 2015, 09:37:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 15, 2015, 09:21:23 AM

Quote

Has someone written up an actual model? One that's straightforward to understand and simpler than the RE model?

That is no gauge of truth. The universe is under no obligation to be easily intelligible: all science takes some effort to understand. FET may be trickier because you're more used to RE answers, but it works just fine.

The evidence for FET (or rather DET, the theory that I've found best explains observations) is simply observational. It is a model that explains observations with fewer assumptions. It isn't a "Point to one fact and find undeniable evidence," because the real world doesn't work that way. There are a few tests that can be done, but not easily: the fundamental evidence comes from the fact that the model works with fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

"The FET best explains observations" ...


good point, and worth remembering... because this model were actual when people didnt had good measuring technologies... measuring 1degree of difference per day using just your EYE and a FINGER pointing to some direction will not end with some new exploration... you will end in nothing... and thats exactly what we see from FET model people... NOTHING NEW... you all just try to prove that round earth is wrong (without proofs, just using your own sences) using the less acurate things like eye and feelings. You dont try to continue from that point where flat model ended in the science...
Why all of you try to reinvent something people known 3000 years ago (that flat model) and still not wana to take thouse things as ground... who you belive in your physics? I can imagine that Newton is not trustfull for you... so who were? What mathematics and physics are you using and is trustfull for you? (lately i saw that counting under zero is invention that made math untrustfull or some FET people... thats why I ask... what math are you using? ... or do every one of you try to invent your own physics and math?

How about you try not completely ignoring what I was saying? That can be quite a useful thing to do.

Do you actually know that there were real attempts to matematicly write how sun, moon and planets move?... do you know them? If you know them EXPLAIN HOW WERE THEY WRONG, WHY DONT YOU BELIVE THEM OR why do you think that based on them they decided Earth cannot be center of movements... did you found that mistakes?... or do you try to reinvent whole physics by your self?

OK once more... who were last sciencist you belive. What is latest math you belive?

The same observation may have multiple possible explanations. The answer to all your questions is that simple. You're creating a restrictive and absurd false dilemma. Again, I ask you to read what I actually said and not resort to tedious and irrelevant stock arguments.

Sure observations HAVE multiple possible explanations... Its not a hidden secret, it is fact.

Does your reaction to my question means that you dont belive ANY PHYSICS SCIENCIST? Or that you are to lazy to continue where flat earth model sciencists stoped?


Do you belive computers that use that wrong physical model?