New member, possibly old questions

I am going to use the words of a FE'er, thedigitalnomad.

That picture that you linked, if genuine, shows curvature in the horizontal plane, which is totally irrelevant to a debate about the flatness vs. sphericity of the Earth.

Yes, but, it does show the sea (or ocean) rising,

Quote from: "Sara H B Ranson"

Yes, but, it does show the sea (or ocean) rising,

Does it?  I'm not really sure what that means.  Rising where?

Quote from: "Jake"

I am going to use the words of a FE'er, thedigitalnomad.

Quote from: "bibicul"

That doesn't explain why people would believe in something that they have no reason to believe in.

People believe the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

Read the fucking FAQ.

DragonZero, I agree with your definitions of validity.  You are absolutely correct, of course.  I, however, am not concerned with deductive or inductive reasoning.  I can sit and think of valid theories of a flat Earth all day.  But everyone remembers their exercises in logic class when you had to prove validity and invalidity, and some of those arguments made no sense whatsoever.  I am interested in evidence.
Now, I've done some thinking, and it has to do with plausibility.  Some of the more extravagant theories on this site are a little hard to believe, but lets say for the sake of argument any of them are plausible.  Now here's my question:  How possible is it that all these theories are true?
That means that not only is the Earth flat (which strains physics and snubs planetary formation altogether) but an "ice wall" capable of supporting huge amounts of water is present to hold the oceans in.  Also, there is a massive government conspiracy in place, of which not one individual throughout history has managed to prove.  Of the millions involved, no one has found out.  Parallax is moot, apparently, the shifting seasons are unexplained, and the space programs of several different countries are farces.  Gravity no longer makes any sense.  How many scientific theories are supposedly setups just to hide something that, for no sensical person, needs to be hidden?
Then, to supposedly "prove" a theory, a group of people reject reason and refuse to accept evidence, just because some of it might possibly originate with the people in charge, who are all apparently evil.
Now, how is it possible to make all this dovetail with no holes?  How is it a FE supporter does not waver?

In the horizontal plane, like you said.

The distorted photo submitted to supposedly show that the Earth could be shown to be bowl shaped was to prove his point that photos can be faked.  But by doing this the poster undercuts his own theory by showing that anything can be shown to be true; therefore his theory is only a personal belief and not a scientifically valid explanation of observed phenomena.
If one observes the shoreline photo, you can see no other objects in the frame are "distorted", as the horizon supposedly is.  However, one cannot say the same about the "bowl" photo, which is quite obviously distorted.  Look at every object in both frames.  Using the same technique in both photos would yield the same results.
So the person who posted the horizon photo must be a government agent with computer graphics imaging at their fingertips?  Your theory that all photos are faked needs more explanation, or needs to be stricken as evidence of a flat Earth.

If I stand on a very large round table, its edge will appear curved to me.  That does not mean that the table is a sphere.  In order to infer sphericity from curvature, we need to see the ground getting "lower" as it gets farther away.  In other words, the curvature needs to be in a vertical plane (containing the viewer and the horizon point straight ahead), not a horizontal one (containing the viewer and the entire horizon).  That picture that you linked, if genuine, shows curvature in the horizontal plane, which is totally irrelevant to a debate about the flatness vs. sphericity of the Earth.

Your conclusion is simply false. Wikipedia clearly states that the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is typically imperceptibly small (not always, just typically) for viewers near the ground. But as you can see:

1. The picture that I posted is taken from atop a hill, making the "curvature effect" a lot more visible.

You can calculate the difference in curvatures by standing on a large, stright piece of material placed atop on the ground (make it 10km long just to be safe - you won't see that far anyway) and measuring the curvature (that one would be due to an illusion effect).

[Wikipedia clearly states that the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is typically imperceptibly small (not always, just typically) for viewers near the ground.

But as you can see: blah blah blah

I'm pretty sure  what "Sara" is referring to is the apparent curve of the water in the image.



It's not difficult to think that the curve could mean that it is a hill, which I'm pretty sure is what he/she/it is talking about.

Skeptical Scientist:  Are you calling bibicul a liar? Because it would seem so.

He states that the picture was taken by him, thus if the picture is a fake, he himself faked it.

It seems that he would have no motive for such an act, seeing as anyone with a camera and a high cliff could reproduce the photo themselves

True enough, photos can show distorted views that depend on optical illusions, but instead of saying that all photos are faked, you say his photo is faked.

Now, what is the motive for assuming a flat Earth? I've heard comments such as "it looks that way from where I'm standing".

If you believe this to be proof of your hypotheses, you are neither skeptical, nor a scientist, because science has the ability to test and prove hypotheses that are not evident to the naked eye (anything on the atomic scale, for instance, or astronomical phenomenon not able to be observed closer than a few billion light years).  Instead, you reject evidence and embrace conspiracy.  That's not science.  That's fanaticism.

show it to us without the lines. :x

Sigh.  I thought REers had finally realized the futility of this line of argument when they stopped brining it up months ago.  I guess it needs to be in the FAQ as well!

If I stand on a very large round table, its edge will appear curved to me.  That does not mean that the table is a sphere.  In order to infer sphericity from curvature, we need to see the ground getting "lower" as it gets farther away.  In other words, the curvature needs to be in a vertical plane (containing the viewer and the horizon point straight ahead), not a horizontal one (containing the viewer and the entire horizon).  That picture that you linked, if genuine, shows curvature in the horizontal plane, which is totally irrelevant to a debate about the flatness vs. sphericity of the Earth.

Fine.  If the Earth is a disc, explain the difference in constellations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.  You can't argue that Australia doesn't exist.  If you go there, the stars in the night sky are different.  How can this be?  If the Earth is a disc, the entire surface faces the same set of stars at all times.  But due to the Earth's sphericity, two hemispheres see different stars, above and below the plane of the solar system.

Quote from: "bibicul"

[Wikipedia clearly states that the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is typically imperceptibly small (not always, just typically) for viewers near the ground.

What's the point of this sentence?

Quote

But as you can see: blah blah blah

You're still talking about the wrong sort of curvature.  The curvature I see in that silly picture is, to me, indistinguishable from the curvature of the edge of a circular object.