Disprove or prove a flat Earth model. [Proof Section]

  • 5 Replies
  • 967 Views
*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Disprove or prove a flat Earth model. [Proof Section]
« on: November 18, 2015, 07:42:32 AM »
Here, you will post statements no longer than 10 sentences, proving or disproving a flat Earth model. Your statement cannot contain any of the following things:

- Crude language.
- A reply to a statement.
- Anything not related to a proof or disproof.

If you want to debate proofs, then post those replies in the topic linked below:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64885.0
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Disprove or prove a flat Earth model. [Proof Section]
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2015, 07:52:54 AM »
We can observe objects appearing to sink below the horizon. Refraction usually causes the opposite effect, always cause the opposite effect for the sun, and the horizon is a clear line and you can see objects that are further away than the horizon if they are high enough. This is because earth is round. The round shape means that the ground gradually curves away from an observer on or above it, until it reaches a point where it curves down under terrain in between the observer and that point. This also happens out at sea, where the height is more or less uniform across the surface of the water.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Disprove or prove a flat Earth model. [Proof Section]
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2015, 08:33:11 AM »
Quote
Here, you will post statements no longer than 10 sentences

Occam's razor tells us that, if two theories explain equal amounts of observations, then we should accept the one that makes the fewest assumptions: we can also note two things, those two things being that the gravity fundamental to RET relies on two assumptions (mass bending space, and this bending affecting matter), and the second is that your ten sentence rule means I could just use an ungodly amount of commas, which is what I will do:

To compare with the RE model, there is the DE model, which successfully explains observations and is derived primarily from a simple definition of aether; we define space, the medium by which we define distance, to be aether, and we note the universal tendency for things to move from high concentrations to low (barring outside interference): and we note also that we can safely do this, because laws can never be verified in all places at all times and for all situations (the Second Law of thermodynamics isn't confirmed, for example, for all possible chemical reactions), but we observe them constantly and note that is is logical for the principle to hold, therefore meaning we can safely take this as a definition of aether: and while abuse of commas would let me continue indefinitely here, it would take forever to explain the DET model entirely, suffice to say there is at most one justified assumption underpinning it, and all else is developed from observation, and logical deduction: and the model explains the world, from circumpolar stars, to distances, to what keeps us on the Earth, and the sunset, and it does all of this while being preferred by the Razor to RET, and does it in one sentence because I was in an irritating mood.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Disprove or prove a flat Earth model. [Proof Section]
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2015, 09:38:03 AM »
  • You can't see the South Celestial Pole from above a single disk.
  • A cruise ship from Ushuaia, Argentina (12/18/2015) going to S. Georgia Island via the Falkland Islands takes 3 days. It can not go 3500-4400 mi in that length of time.
  • Satellite TV Dishes point at geosynchronous/geostationary satellites. As these are 42,000+ km up, this is in outer space.
  • Equatorially mounted telescopes need their mounts aligned parallel to the sky rotation AND point at the N. Celestial Pole AND point at the S. Celestial Pole - ALL at the same time.
  • There is no special reason why the equator is the line of demarcation that hurricanes and ocean currents turn in different directions (clockwise vs counterclockwise).
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Disprove or prove a flat Earth model. [Proof Section]
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2015, 02:03:55 PM »
1. The earth is perceived round from outside of its atmosphere
2.  The earth is perceived flat from inside of its atmosphere
3. Proof 1 and 2 are inevitably true, and rejected by only those that are delusional
4. We cannot reject what we perceive, but what is reality can differ from what we perceive
5. If we perceived, from outside of the atmosphere, a single entity scaling the earth then his pattern of movement would be circular
6. if we perceived, from within the earths atmosphere, a single entity scaling the earth, then his pattern of movement would be straight
7. our perception in this way is relative because it varies from different vantage points
8. Its impossible to walk straight and return where you started
9. If you walk straight and return where you started it it only because it was unobvious through your current perception that your pattern of movement was that of along of a very vast "spherical"
10. Moving "forward" is more accurate dealing with perception
11. Thus, we have 2 perspectives of the earth, however there is one reality, The earth is round; the word "straight" is a fallacy in this perception; and moving "forward" is more appropiate