is there ANYONE willing to present ANY evidence of a flat earth??

I've been asking the same question since I arrived in this forum

is there ANYONE who has ANY evidence of a flat earth?

I'm really struggling to understand WHY people believe this with no evidence, there were a few questions that the flat earth theory raised, but even without citing nasa or using gravity the majority of 'proofs' that flat earthers use HAVE BEEN irrefutably disproven

so I know most flat earthers don't like presenting anything as evidence due to a massive lack of research and cross examination, but surely there's someone here who's up for an actual two way conversation?

I've done years of research and I do actually cross examine evidence, so I know a lot when it comes to the flat earth theory

What kind of evidence would shut you up?  Please, let me know.  Please. 

What kind of evidence would shut you up?  Please, let me know.  Please.

why would you want me to shut up? do you not understand how a forum works? or even its purpose?

to answer your question, how about something that hasn't already been disproven?

What kind of evidence would shut you up?  Please, let me know.  Please.

a photo , a REAL ONE showing the edge of the world, a close from the sun, whatever just give us something REAl.

Quote from: jroa on August 20, 2016, 05:56:40 AM

What kind of evidence would shut you up?  Please, let me know.  Please.

a photo , a REAL ONE showing the edge of the world, a close from the sun, whatever just give us something REAl.

photos cannot be used as evidence, ask flat earthers

my profile pic for example is an amateur photo of the ISS passing in front of the moon, but according to the flat earth theory, the ISS doesn't exist

This is a map of all the areas where round earth gravitational explanations fall apart. A bit worse than a pear, I'd say.

This is a map of all the areas where round earth gravitational explanations fall apart. A bit worse than a pear, I'd say.

I'm not too clued up on gravity, it's not needed to disprove the flat earth or prove the globe (hence me mentioning it in my OP), but I'm pretty sure there's not going to be anywhere on earth that is defying gravity, where are you claiming that happens?

people believe the earth is flat, I'm simply wondering WHAT EVIDENCE is making people believe

it's a simple question

This is a map of all the areas where round earth gravitational explanations fall apart. A bit worse than a pear, I'd say.

also, you don't even believe in the flat earth theory, you've abandoned it and single handedly created a new one

instead of doing the obvious

We have books full of evidence: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/library 

If you are more of a poetry guy or want the quick version, I'd suggest looking at Lady Blount's the Why and Because: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/featured/the-why-and-because

Then I will provide a simple answer. The evidence is the same evidence that leads one to believe the Earth is Round. We aren't viewing some special set of data the rest of the world is missing. We are just interpreting it, we believe, correctly.

There's a lot of indirect evidence that convinces folks. Some is valid, some is not - and yet that is the evidence that leads them to believe what they do.

I've had interested new flatists message me and talk about why they came to believe. They can be divided into three broad categories: religious, everyday experience, and conspiracy. Now and then you'll get the philosopher or epistemologist that has their own reasons. I will supply a sampling of these and leave it to you to read the texts aforelinked. There is also epistemological and philosophical basis for our views that lend evidence to the point which I can talk to if you'd like.

A few everyday evidences:
1) Find the curve! You can't. Every experience we have says it's flat - from the beach to Mount Everest to a plane.

2) Water has been determined experimentally to be level. If the earth was round, and spun, water would not be level.

3) No consideration is made in architecture of large constructions for curvature of earth.

4) No consider is made in the construction of the Suez Canal - it forms a straight and level surface of water (Carpenter)

5) Rivers such as the Nile would have to flow uphill

6) Lighthouses can be seen further than one would expect. Cape Hatteras is seen at 40 miles, which should be 900 feet above the sea level to be visible. This is not the case (Carpenter)

7) The horizon rises to eye level

We'd feel the rotational acceleration.

9) So would projectiles - we've talked to experts and they say the don't account for that. Snipers and Ballistics experts we have interviewed do not account for coriolis effects (Mark Sargent)

10) Train tracks degrade eveny on both sides - if the earth rotated they would be more worn on one side.  Railroads have even wear in spite of Coriolis effects.

11) Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as gravity would dictate.

12) Everything we know and feel says it doesn't spin.

13) How are the moon phases are lit in seemingly impossible ways when both the sun and moon are in sky?

14) Daytime lunar eclipses as noted by Kepler

15) Antarctic extended daylight times did not match up for me with expected values from almanacs and on board navigation experts

16) Navigation at sea is done through "Plane Sailing"

17) No difference in the distance bullets travel against or with the supposed rotation (Carpenter)

18) Foucault Pendulums must be controlled magnetically to achieve real results as they are in most museums

19) The Bedford Level Experiment

20) Lack of Curvature in Planes

Conspiracy Evidences:
21) Lack of ability to provide us with a picture of the globe unaltered and spinning

22) Constant lies and photo manipulation from Camp NASA

23) General Byrds Testimony

24) Antarctic Treaties

25) Instead of swearing on the Bible the went to space, astronauts punch those who ask

26) Leaving the moon would be impossible

27) Stars don't exist

A few religious evidences:
28) Facing Mecca would be impossible

29) Genesis describes a flat earth

30) Jewish Cosmology describes a dome model

31) Buddhism and Mount meru describe a flat earth

32) Shinto Describes a flat earth

33) Native American Religions Describe a flat earth

34) Taoists discovered a flat earth

35) Every religion holds the earth to be flat.

36) Jesus viewing all the kingdoms of the world


and so on. I could literally list thousands.

Quote from: John Davis on August 20, 2016, 06:26:20 AM

This is a map of all the areas where round earth gravitational explanations fall apart. A bit worse than a pear, I'd say.

also, you don't even believe in the flat earth theory, you've abandoned it and single handedly created a new one

instead of doing the obvious

Yes, I'm sure you are qualified to speak of both the Flat Earth and my beliefs more so than myself.

No. Evidence can very well be countable, its just not as common now for it to be used this way:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=evidences&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cevidences%3B%2Cc0

Unless I misunderstand you.

@John Davis

first off, respect where it's due, this is the type of reply I'm looking for, over a month on the forum and honestly, only the 2nd time a flat earther has answered respectfully

secondly, I'll reply in a few hours, I'm a little tied up at present, but I'll definitely reply in detail

I hope you reply to my next post

What do measurements and observations of the sun show?  Plus the usual use of satellites...

Quote from: Johnorbital on August 20, 2016, 07:35:12 AM

also, you don't even believe in the flat earth theory, you've abandoned it and single handedly created a new one

instead of doing the obvious

Yes, I'm sure you are qualified to speak of both the Flat Earth and my beliefs more so than myself.

Well, he's allegedly studied for three years.  On the otherhand, he hasn't figured out why smoke rises in three years. I admire your patience, John.

Quote from: John Davis on August 20, 2016, 08:56:02 AM

Quote from: Johnorbital on August 20, 2016, 07:35:12 AM

also, you don't even believe in the flat earth theory, you've abandoned it and single handedly created a new one

instead of doing the obvious

Yes, I'm sure you are qualified to speak of both the Flat Earth and my beliefs more so than myself.

Well, he's allegedly studied for three years.  On the otherhand, he hasn't figured out why smoke rises in three years. I admire your patience, John.

Once again, clinging on to the one thing I openly admitted I didn't understand

poor show Ski, simply because you're unwilling to take me on in a debate

you're clearly a beginner

I even wrote 'if ua doesn't make smoke go down, it proves nothing as gravity also doesn't pull it down'

but yeah, you just carry on implying things out of context to make yourself feel better

genius

Probably you misunderstood me, mr. John Davis.
I showed you clear evidence and a way that you can check it: order a fly westward, then eastward to the original destination. Check and compare their traveling times. You ALWAYS will find a difference in time, when it is made by the (at least) alike flying medium. You won't find such evidence when flying north - south or south - north. It is an EVIDENCE that the Earth (maybe flat one?) spins.

Or that you are flying with or against the wind =-). My issue with a spinning earth is that the outside would experience far more acceleration - though that could account for the differences in travel times in at least one direction.

@John Davis

first off, respect where it's due, this is the type of reply I'm looking for, over a month on the forum and honestly, only the 2nd time a flat earther has answered respectfully

secondly, I'll reply in a few hours, I'm a little tied up at present, but I'll definitely reply in detail

I hope you reply to my next post

No problem. Though there are hundreds of these in our Library. In fact one book is so named "100 Proofs: Earth Not A Globe" which I flipped through in my physical copy to procure a couple for you. Likely part of the reason you'll get some disrespectful answers from Flatists is that many are tired of the hordes of globularists that show up at our door to insult us. I just answered about 100 messages to the society and by the end of it all its hard to keep your composure - there's only so many times some bigot can tell you to jump off the edge.

I'll do my best to respond to your message, but I can't say I agree with all the aforementioned evidences; I'm just supplying them as you asked what are some of the reasons people believe this.

We have books full of evidence: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/library 

If you are more of a poetry guy or want the quick version, I'd suggest looking at Lady Blount's the Why and Because: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/featured/the-why-and-because

Then I will provide a simple answer. The evidence is the same evidence that leads one to believe the Earth is Round. We aren't viewing some special set of data the rest of the world is missing. We are just interpreting it, we believe, correctly.

There's a lot of indirect evidence that convinces folks. Some is valid, some is not - and yet that is the evidence that leads them to believe what they do.

I've had interested new flatists message me and talk about why they came to believe. They can be divided into three broad categories: religious, everyday experience, and conspiracy. Now and then you'll get the philosopher or epistemologist that has their own reasons. I will supply a sampling of these and leave it to you to read the texts aforelinked. There is also epistemological and philosophical basis for our views that lend evidence to the point which I can talk to if you'd like.

A few everyday evidences:
1) Find the curve! You can't. Every experience we have says it's flat - from the beach to Mount Everest to a plane.

2) Water has been determined experimentally to be level. If the earth was round, and spun, water would not be level.

3) No consideration is made in architecture of large constructions for curvature of earth.

4) No consider is made in the construction of the Suez Canal - it forms a straight and level surface of water (Carpenter)

5) Rivers such as the Nile would have to flow uphill

6) Lighthouses can be seen further than one would expect. Cape Hatteras is seen at 40 miles, which should be 900 feet above the sea level to be visible. This is not the case (Carpenter)

7) The horizon rises to eye level

We'd feel the rotational acceleration.

9) So would projectiles - we've talked to experts and they say the don't account for that. Snipers and Ballistics experts we have interviewed do not account for coriolis effects (Mark Sargent)

10) Train tracks degrade eveny on both sides - if the earth rotated they would be more worn on one side.  Railroads have even wear in spite of Coriolis effects.

11) Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as gravity would dictate.

12) Everything we know and feel says it doesn't spin.

13) How are the moon phases are lit in seemingly impossible ways when both the sun and moon are in sky?

14) Daytime lunar eclipses as noted by Kepler

15) Antarctic extended daylight times did not match up for me with expected values from almanacs and on board navigation experts

16) Navigation at sea is done through "Plane Sailing"

17) No difference in the distance bullets travel against or with the supposed rotation (Carpenter)

18) Foucault Pendulums must be controlled magnetically to achieve real results as they are in most museums

19) The Bedford Level Experiment

20) Lack of Curvature in Planes

Conspiracy Evidences:
21) Lack of ability to provide us with a picture of the globe unaltered and spinning

22) Constant lies and photo manipulation from Camp NASA

23) General Byrds Testimony

24) Antarctic Treaties

25) Instead of swearing on the Bible the went to space, astronauts punch those who ask

26) Leaving the moon would be impossible

27) Stars don't exist

A few religious evidences:
28) Facing Mecca would be impossible

29) Genesis describes a flat earth

30) Jewish Cosmology describes a dome model

31) Buddhism and Mount meru describe a flat earth

32) Shinto Describes a flat earth

33) Native American Religions Describe a flat earth

34) Taoists discovered a flat earth

35) Every religion holds the earth to be flat.

36) Jesus viewing all the kingdoms of the world


and so on. I could literally list thousands.

firstly, i wouldn't describe these as 'currently accepted proofs' as the majority have already been disproven, and even accepted by a huge majority of flat earthers, I'll go through them one by one though, as you have


1. curve - there IS a curve, most flat earth videos trying to disprove a curve, at some point, will have half of a landmark showing.. and unless there's some half above water and half below water cities that i'm not aware of, then that's absolute proof of a curve, how anyone is expecting to see a curve with the sheer size of the planet anyway is beyond me!
also, when there's photos of landmarks from too far away, the camera is never at ground level, making the tests void, when the camera is put at ground level, the difference you can see is NOT around 6ft, its a drastic difference, there's good reason lighthouses are built on the top of cliffs etc

2. water level - well this is gravity related, i'm not scientific enough to get into a detailed gravity debate.. the way i understand it is; its like a magnet in the centre of the earth, everything within the atmosphere is attracted to it (and only huge bodies outside of the atmosphere are attracted to it, the bigger the mass etc)
so, with my BASIC understanding of gravity, i've no reason to see the water levelling out in accordance with the magnetic cente outwards, creating a shperical shape, as any kind of issue whatsoever, but again, i don't understand the ins and outs so i'm not claiming anything

3. buildings - is this serious? how big do people think buildings are? nowhere NEAR large enough to have any kind of need to take the curvature into account, if anyone uses this as any kind of proof, they need to go right back to the basics

4. suez canal - I can't really comment as i've not really looked into it much, a quick search shows people with photos of the top half of ships on the suez though, photos though, urgh right? lol

5. the nile - uphill? why? it flows from south to north, but it does happen to be in a downhill direction.. do ANY of these flat earthers you're quoting know how to cross examine?

6. lighthouses - see answer 1, or answer the question; why are lighthouses so often built so high above sea level

7. horizon rising to eye level - thats basic perspective, you're too far away from the horizon to be able to tell exactly where your eye level is above the horizon you're looking at, it would be impossible to look at the point that is exactly your own height above the horizon

8. feeling the rotation - i'm not sure why someone would expect to feel any rotation spin, its the same as being in a train and being on top of a train, you don't feel the wind in the train as you're encased IN the train.. you don't feel the wind in the atmosphere as you're encased IN the atmosphere, gravity is affecting the whole atmosphere, it doesn't stop at the planet, otherwise if you threw a ball up, it wouldn't come back down, again, very basic stuff that even I can explain

9. corielis effect - i'm not sure who you've spoken to, but after the amount of flat earthers screaming 'don't just believe what you're told', then i'll do the same.. do the tests yourselves, i've seen them done (on video)
this is where there's a major stumbling block, until a flat earther actually does any physical testing themselves, they just cry 'fake' to every test, every first hand account, every video.. so there's no way of proving anything without convincing a flat earther to test things themselves, which most are unwilling to do, the same goes for the 'landmarks from too far away' test, just DO the test, they will then have irrefutable evidence..
..but they won't
the corielis effect also affects storm rotations and water rotations (toilets, sinks, bathtubs, whirlpools etc)
i've heard the answer for the storms, fair enough, it works on both models to an extent
but the water answers are usually pretty few and far between, when they do come they're flaky as hell, mainly 'they're made that way'.. well i'm damn sure if I imported a sink from Australia it aint gonna spin the opposite direction to my french imported bathtub so that's that not a valid answer.. also, the corielis effect isn't necessary due to stronger proof, i normally just agree to disagee, the effect is miniscule anyway

10. train tracks - see answer 8, people actually ask this? i've never once heard this, secondly, it would ONLY be relevant if train tracks only ran in straight lines, from (what us globe earthers would call) south to north / north to south

11. i'm assuming you meant; Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as rotation would dictate...?
if so, see answer 8
if not, i'll assume you mean that you're expecting gravity to pull air downwards towards the ground?
gravity needs mass, there's no mass with air?
again, gravity is definitely NOT my strongpoint

12. Everything we know and feel says it doesn't spin again, see answer 8.. with the KNOWLEDGE we do have, we understand why we don't FEEL the spin, the train analogy is a perfect example

13. crescent moon during the day - another what can only be described as a shockingly basic question; remember, the moonrise and moonset have nothing to do with the sunrise and sunset, the moon has its own schedule.. i'm not even sure i understand the point that's supposed to be making

14. daytime lunar eclipse - i've answered this on here many times.. when this has been reported, both the sun and the moon were at opposite ends of the horizon.. this is due to 'refraction'
this is usually met, strangely enough, with flat earthers claiming that its impossible for that to be correct (i've not had any elaboration on a standard 'you're wrong', so i'm not sure of their reasoning)
..to which I tell them they then have to RE-answer their 'refraction' claim for the sun going DOWN below the horizon instead of disappearing to a point as you would expect if it was going away
on one hand i'm told it cannot cause that effect, on the other i'm told its evidence

15. i cannot really comment on that, your tests are your tests, i know all i need to know about Antarctica, its of very little actual significance to the flat earth theory to be honest, its of huge significance to the anti elite, but not the flat earth theory.. i'll elaborate in another answer

16. plane sailing - as far as i can understand, plain sailing is used to find 'approximate' distances instead of having to take any curvature into account using angular mathematics etc, to simply make things easier, hence the derived expression

17. see answer 9, already covered the corielis effect

18. pendulums - i feel things like this are just clutching at straws, pendulums don't naturally go on forever, of course you're going to need magnetism for a 24hr test, the magnets are turned on and off automatically too

19. bedford level experiment - i'm not sure what you're saying about this, it proves a curvature when carried out, the middle rod is usually around 3ft up, another argument i've not heard for a long time

20. plane curvature - i'm assuming you mean being able to see a curvature from a plane?
the perfect analogy is: put an ant on a boulder, he'll perceive it as flat, lift him up an inch, he'll still perceive it as flat
..but does that mean its flat? absolutely not, you're not high enough up, plain and simple, you're teeny weeny in comparison, the earth is frikkin ginormous!

-

21. lack of video evidence - there's plenty, the US, Russia AND China have 24hr live feed of the earth spinning, they can claim its fake, but they can't claim it doesn't exist

22. photo manipulation - nasa openly admit that most pictures of earth are 'composites' due to the manner of how they're taken, there's original photos, again, not from just nasa, of the earth.. so FE's can scream and shout fake all they like, but i personally don't see the logic behind ASKING FOR PHOTO EVIDENCE FROM NASA, i've heard FE's before saying things like 'why don't they just turn hubble round and take a photo of earth?' well i'm sure they have their reasons but not a single flat earther would believe it anyway.. CGI!!! I do try to leave nasa out of my arguments though, I only mention them when people say things like you quoted; 'there's no photos' well there is, they just claim they're fake, there's a big difference

23. I've watched the full interview with Admiral Byrd, have you?
he said MANY times 'the continent of Antarctica', he reported masses of natural resources, he expected many more expeditions to recover the resources but instead.........

24. .....the Antarctic Treaty was signed and the massive ice shelf was renamed 'The Rockefeller Plateau' - to anyone with any real knowledge, that should explain a hell of a lot

25. fake moon landings? i couldn't give a shit to be fair, we've clearly sent something there at some point due to the advanced reflector test (not the old one that produced less accurate results)

26. i'm not really here for a discussion about the moon landings, again, that's a totally different topic

27. stars dont exist??? - come on now, lets not get too ridiculous, i look out of my window, i see stars, i need more than 'they don't exist', i've more credibility claiming headaches don't exist

-

as for the religious angle, of course people thousands of years ago just assumed it was flat, in all fairness its completely understandable, we'd all assume it was flat without being told otherwise, again the ant metaphor

but we gained the knowledge to be capable of great things, the religious flat earthers should be worried about meeting the big guy at the pearly gates and having to explain how they were trying to belittle his work right..? I don't care who did it to be honest, god, aliens, or if we're just living in a cell within another living being.. its an absolutely wonderfully beautiful place, you guys are missing out, really you are


i'm here to ask questions and have a discussion.. i've done tests, i've cross examined..the earth IS a globe.. there's an abundance of evidence, from nasa, russia, china, amateurs, scientists, astronomers, to tests you can do yourself.. some things flat earthers can just claim as fake, some they literally can not, thats where cognitive dissonance plays a big part, well, maybe some are just very guillable

the flat earth on the other hand has absolutely zero actual physical evidence, zero

the OTHER theories, in my honest opinion, are simply created so the flat earther doesn't have to admit defeat, 'emporers new clothes syndrome', they cannot bring themselves to admit they were wrong, I don't mean that directly at you, i'm fully aware there's MANY theories.. some are just innocently taken in by it all, others are more 'I won't be beaten'

look, i believed it for a short while, ignorantly, without cross examining anything, but when i started looking into religions and their history, i realised you HAVE to cross examine everything, doing that provides better understanding of things..

cross examining evidence regarding the flat earth theory leads to one answer only.. the earth is a globe

25. No.  One astronaut punched a faux jouranalist, convicted stalker who got Aldrin there under false pretenses, who physically blocked his path when he tried to leave, and who admitted in court that he was going to call Aldrin a liar either way.  As for swearing on a bible, some did, some didn't.  Sibrel doesn't like to show you those that did.

26.  Why would it be impossible?

firstly, i wouldn't describe these as 'currently accepted proofs' as the majority have already been disproven, and even accepted by a huge majority of flat earthers, I'll go through them one by one though, as you have


1. curve - there IS a curve, most flat earth videos trying to disprove a curve, at some point, will have half of a landmark showing.. and unless there's some half above water and half below water cities that i'm not aware of, then that's absolute proof of a curve, how anyone is expecting to see a curve with the sheer size of the planet anyway is beyond me!
also, when there's photos of landmarks from too far away, the camera is never at ground level, making the tests void, when the camera is put at ground level, the difference you can see is NOT around 6ft, its a drastic difference, there's good reason lighthouses are built on the top of cliffs etc

This does not prove water itself is not level.

2. water level - well this is gravity related, i'm not scientific enough to get into a detailed gravity debate.. the way i understand it is; its like a magnet in the centre of the earth, everything within the atmosphere is attracted to it (and only huge bodies outside of the atmosphere are attracted to it, the bigger the mass etc)
so, with my BASIC understanding of gravity, i've no reason to see the water levelling out in accordance with the magnetic cente outwards, creating a shperical shape, as any kind of issue whatsoever, but again, i don't understand the ins and outs so i'm not claiming anything

It has been measured to be level several times over the last century and then some. I can provide some examples, but many are again within our library.

3. buildings - is this serious? how big do people think buildings are? nowhere NEAR large enough to have any kind of need to take the curvature into account, if anyone uses this as any kind of proof, they need to go right back to the basics

There are plenty of man made structures that are large enough to require such allowances to be made. One is cited in the very next number. Its not hard to find other large man made structures that did not account for curvature.

4. suez canal - I can't really comment as i've not really looked into it much, a quick search shows people with photos of the top half of ships on the suez though, photos though, urgh right? lol

Are you claiming it was made with attention to the curvature of the earth? Because your point doesn't seem to address the original point.

5. the nile - uphill? why? it flows from south to north, but it does happen to be in a downhill direction.. do ANY of these flat earthers you're quoting know how to cross examine?

Due to its length - its long enough to have to account for the curvature of the earth and thus at some point it must flow uphill to overcome the curve of the earth.

6. lighthouses - see answer 1, or answer the question; why are lighthouses so often built so high above sea level

Unfortunately for you, the example I mention takes into account its elevation. You can also find another example of this in Carpenters work and I believe its in Rowbotham as well, all citing specific locations.

Additionally, I'm regularly contacted by folks that send me images of locations around the world from vantage points they should not be able to see given the curvature. It would be hard to find one in the mass, and I actually need to anyways for a citation

7. horizon rising to eye level - thats basic perspective, you're too far away from the horizon to be able to tell exactly where your eye level is above the horizon you're looking at, it would be impossible to look at the point that is exactly your own height above the horizon

On a globe it would fall away from you when, say, you went to a high mountain. This is not observed.

8. feeling the rotation - i'm not sure why someone would expect to feel any rotation spin, its the same as being in a train and being on top of a train, you don't feel the wind in the train as you're encased IN the train.. you don't feel the wind in the atmosphere as you're encased IN the atmosphere, gravity is affecting the whole atmosphere, it doesn't stop at the planet, otherwise if you threw a ball up, it wouldn't come back down, again, very basic stuff that even I can explain

Rotation is acceleration. If the train accelerates you feel just like if when a car accelerates (turns or changes speed) you feel the pull. This is basic physics and more than that common sense. See if your encasing helps in your car by placing a cup of coffee on your dashboard.

As far as the internal consistency of your beliefs - if what you are claiming here is true, you'd expect no Coriolis force. You have created a round earth model that is impossible. Don't feel bad though - Galileo made almost the exact same mistake infamously being incorrect in one of his dialogues concerning the tower of pisa.

9. corielis effect - i'm not sure who you've spoken to, but after the amount of flat earthers screaming 'don't just believe what you're told', then i'll do the same.. do the tests yourselves, i've seen them done (on video)
this is where there's a major stumbling block, until a flat earther actually does any physical testing themselves, they just cry 'fake' to every test, every first hand account, every video.. so there's no way of proving anything without convincing a flat earther to test things themselves, which most are unwilling to do, the same goes for the 'landmarks from too far away' test, just DO the test, they will then have irrefutable evidence..
..but they won't
the corielis effect also affects storm rotations and water rotations (toilets, sinks, bathtubs, whirlpools etc)
i've heard the answer for the storms, fair enough, it works on both models to an extent
but the water answers are usually pretty few and far between, when they do come they're flaky as hell, mainly 'they're made that way'.. well i'm damn sure if I imported a sink from Australia it aint gonna spin the opposite direction to my french imported bathtub so that's that not a valid answer.. also, the corielis effect isn't necessary due to stronger proof, i normally just agree to disagee, the effect is miniscule anyway

I'm referring mostly to the subject matter experts and military persons interviewed by Mark Sargent. You say flat earthers don't do these physical tests themselves, but that is not the case - they certainly do. A similar argument could be made towards round earthers. Its almost impossible to get them to do any test at all since their view and faith is so entrenched. Once they start doing tests thats when you start seeing flat earthers pop up. I'd say that almost everybody that's contacted me (I get a few hundred messages a week some weeks) that has changed to a flat earther recently has also performed some test to make such a radical shift in worldview.

As a matter of psychology, they would almost have to.

10. train tracks - see answer 8, people actually ask this? i've never once heard this, secondly, it would ONLY be relevant if train tracks only ran in straight lines, from (what us globe earthers would call) south to north / north to south

Answer 8 is incorrect. And no, it would be relevant in general.

11. i'm assuming you meant; Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as rotation would dictate...?
if so, see answer 8
if not, i'll assume you mean that you're expecting gravity to pull air downwards towards the ground?
gravity needs mass, there's no mass with air?
again, gravity is definitely NOT my strongpoint

Answer 8, again, is incorrect.

12. Everything we know and feel says it doesn't spin again, see answer 8.. with the KNOWLEDGE we do have, we understand why we don't FEEL the spin, the train analogy is a perfect example

Answer 8, again, is incorrect.

13. crescent moon during the day - another what can only be described as a shockingly basic question; remember, the moonrise and moonset have nothing to do with the sunrise and sunset, the moon has its own schedule.. i'm not even sure i understand the point that's supposed to be making

I admittedly don't put much weight in this one, but have heard it often. This is when you see the sun in the sky and the moon lit with an impossible crescent given the angle between the two.

14. daytime lunar eclipse - i've answered this on here many times.. when this has been reported, both the sun and the moon were at opposite ends of the horizon.. this is due to 'refraction'
this is usually met, strangely enough, with flat earthers claiming that its impossible for that to be correct (i've not had any elaboration on a standard 'you're wrong', so i'm not sure of their reasoning)
..to which I tell them they then have to RE-answer their 'refraction' claim for the sun going DOWN below the horizon instead of disappearing to a point as you would expect if it was going away
on one hand i'm told it cannot cause that effect, on the other i'm told its evidence

Yes, refraction does serve useful as a fudge factor for the globular camp, would you not agree?

15. i cannot really comment on that, your tests are your tests, i know all i need to know about Antarctica, its of very little actual significance to the flat earth theory to be honest, its of huge significance to the anti elite, but not the flat earth theory.. i'll elaborate in another answer

Waiting on elaboration then...

16. plane sailing - as far as i can understand, plain sailing is used to find 'approximate' distances instead of having to take any curvature into account using angular mathematics etc, to simply make things easier, hence the derived expression

Yes, its the practice of sailing and navigating without regards to the curvature of the earth and its how the vast majority sail. You don't see ships with ribbons and globes.

17. see answer 9, already covered the corielis effect

This has nothing to do with the corielis[sic] effect, but instead has to do with the rotation of the earth.

18. pendulums - i feel things like this are just clutching at straws, pendulums don't naturally go on forever, of course you're going to need magnetism for a 24hr test, the magnets are turned on and off automatically too

The inability of the Foucault pendulum to act as suspected is certainly not 'grasping at straws.' You don't seem to have an answer for this one (among the others above.)

19. bedford level experiment - i'm not sure what you're saying about this, it proves a curvature when carried out, the middle rod is usually around 3ft up, another argument i've not heard for a long time

This experiment has been repeated several times conclusively showing no curvature. Most recently it was done by our President, Daniel Shenton.

20. plane curvature - i'm assuming you mean being able to see a curvature from a plane?
the perfect analogy is: put an ant on a boulder, he'll perceive it as flat, lift him up an inch, he'll still perceive it as flat
..but does that mean its flat? absolutely not, you're not high enough up, plain and simple, you're teeny weeny in comparison, the earth is frikkin ginormous!

-

Does common sense, dear science enthusiast, really lead you to believe you act like an ant clinging to a ball, upside down, twirling and zipping through space?

-

as for the religious angle, of course people thousands of years ago just assumed it was flat, in all fairness its completely understandable, we'd all assume it was flat without being told otherwise, again the ant metaphor

but we gained the knowledge to be capable of great things, the religious flat earthers should be worried about meeting the big guy at the pearly gates and having to explain how they were trying to belittle his work right..? I don't care who did it to be honest, god, aliens, or if we're just living in a cell within another living being.. its an absolutely wonderfully beautiful place, you guys are missing out, really you are


i'm here to ask questions and have a discussion.. i've done tests, i've cross examined..the earth IS a globe.. there's an abundance of evidence, from nasa, russia, china, amateurs, scientists, astronomers, to tests you can do yourself.. some things flat earthers can just claim as fake, some they literally can not, thats where cognitive dissonance plays a big part, well, maybe some are just very guillable

the flat earth on the other hand has absolutely zero actual physical evidence, zero

the OTHER theories, in my honest opinion, are simply created so the flat earther doesn't have to admit defeat, 'emporers new clothes syndrome', they cannot bring themselves to admit they were wrong, I don't mean that directly at you, i'm fully aware there's MANY theories.. some are just innocently taken in by it all, others are more 'I won't be beaten'

look, i believed it for a short while, ignorantly, without cross examining anything, but when i started looking into religions and their history, i realised you HAVE to cross examine everything, doing that provides better understanding of things..

cross examining evidence regarding the flat earth theory leads to one answer only.. the earth is a globe

Half of your answers are based on a misunderstanding of what acceleration is and feels like. When one rationally examines the evidence, its clear the earth is no globe.  I can list more evidences, but I'd hate to serve you another portion of dinner before you've finished your first. As we can see we clearly don't have 'zero actual physical evidence zero'. You are either choosing to be incorrect concerning a large portion of the evidence or are closing your ears to the evidence.

Nobody believes anything in this world without some kind of evidence - even those things that seem to require almost total faith.

Apologies for my lack of quoting skills lol

firstly, i wouldn't describe these as 'currently accepted proofs' as the majority have already been disproven, and even accepted by a huge majority of flat earthers, I'll go through them one by one though, as you have


1. curve - there IS a curve, most flat earth videos trying to disprove a curve, at some point, will have half of a landmark showing.. and unless there's some half above water and half below water cities that i'm not aware of, then that's absolute proof of a curve, how anyone is expecting to see a curve with the sheer size of the planet anyway is beyond me!
also, when there's photos of landmarks from too far away, the camera is never at ground level, making the tests void, when the camera is put at ground level, the difference you can see is NOT around 6ft, its a drastic difference, there's good reason lighthouses are built on the top of cliffs etc

This does not prove water itself is not level.

no, it proves the curvature exists

2. water level - well this is gravity related, i'm not scientific enough to get into a detailed gravity debate.. the way i understand it is; its like a magnet in the centre of the earth, everything within the atmosphere is attracted to it (and only huge bodies outside of the atmosphere are attracted to it, the bigger the mass etc)
so, with my BASIC understanding of gravity, i've no reason to see the water levelling out in accordance with the magnetic cente outwards, creating a shperical shape, as any kind of issue whatsoever, but again, i don't understand the ins and outs so i'm not claiming anything

It has been measured to be level several times over the last century and then some. I can provide some examples, but many are again within our library.

without trying to sound like I know exactly what I'm on about, the centre is where the gravity is, therefore the sphere is the obvious shape expected, water, air, trees, us, it doesn't matter, we're all affected (I'll happily agree to disagree with regards to gravity)

3. buildings - is this serious? how big do people think buildings are? nowhere NEAR large enough to have any kind of need to take the curvature into account, if anyone uses this as any kind of proof, they need to go right back to the basics

There are plenty of man made structures that are large enough to require such allowances to be made. One is cited in the very next number. Its not hard to find other large man made structures that did not account for curvature.

buildings, definitely not, the Suez canal was dug out right? they measured from the ground down, not the bottom up

4. suez canal - I can't really comment as i've not really looked into it much, a quick search shows people with photos of the top half of ships on the suez though, photos though, urgh right? lol

Are you claiming it was made with attention to the curvature of the earth? Because your point doesn't seem to address the original point.

no, I'm saying there's photographic evidence of the canal being curved, there's no other explanation for only seeing half a ship, unless it was sinking

5. the nile - uphill? why? it flows from south to north, but it does happen to be in a downhill direction.. do ANY of these flat earthers you're quoting know how to cross examine?

Due to its length - its long enough to have to account for the curvature of the earth and thus at some point it must flow uphill to overcome the curve of the earth.

that's not been explained well enough for me to understand your issue, it flows downhill, not uphill, what is there to explain?

6. lighthouses - see answer 1, or answer the question; why are lighthouses so often built so high above sea level

Unfortunately for you, the example I mention takes into account its elevation. You can also find another example of this in Carpenters work and I believe its in Rowbotham as well.

again, why do they so often build them with such elevation? if they're visible from 'too far away' there'd be absolutely no need

7. horizon rising to eye level - thats basic perspective, you're too far away from the horizon to be able to tell exactly where your eye level is above the horizon you're looking at, it would be impossible to look at the point that is exactly your own height above the horizon

On a globe it would fall away from you when, say, you went to a high mountain. This is not observed.

no it wouldn't, it seems you ignored my explanation, please re-read my original answer, it's 100% correct

8. feeling the rotation - i'm not sure why someone would expect to feel any rotation spin, its the same as being in a train and being on top of a train, you don't feel the wind in the train as you're encased IN the train.. you don't feel the wind in the atmosphere as you're encased IN the atmosphere, gravity is affecting the whole atmosphere, it doesn't stop at the planet, otherwise if you threw a ball up, it wouldn't come back down, again, very basic stuff that even I can explain

Rotation is acceleration. If the train accelerates you feel just like if when a car accelerates (turns or changes speed) you feel the pull. This is basic physics and more than that common sense. See if your encasing helps in your car by placing a cup of coffee on your dashboard. If what you are claiming here is true, you'd expect no Coriolis force. You have created a round earth model that is impossible.

The earth doesn't have any change acceleration so obviously we feel no changes, rotation is NOT acceleration, that statement is incorrect
everything within the atmosphere also rotates, this answer is also 100% correct, I see you've wrongly assumed I was wrong about this, it's quite simple really

9. corielis effect - i'm not sure who you've spoken to, but after the amount of flat earthers screaming 'don't just believe what you're told', then i'll do the same.. do the tests yourselves, i've seen them done (on video)
this is where there's a major stumbling block, until a flat earther actually does any physical testing themselves, they just cry 'fake' to every test, every first hand account, every video.. so there's no way of proving anything without convincing a flat earther to test things themselves, which most are unwilling to do, the same goes for the 'landmarks from too far away' test, just DO the test, they will then have irrefutable evidence..
..but they won't
the corielis effect also affects storm rotations and water rotations (toilets, sinks, bathtubs, whirlpools etc)
i've heard the answer for the storms, fair enough, it works on both models to an extent
but the water answers are usually pretty few and far between, when they do come they're flaky as hell, mainly 'they're made that way'.. well i'm damn sure if I imported a sink from Australia it aint gonna spin the opposite direction to my french imported bathtub so that's that not a valid answer.. also, the corielis effect isn't necessary due to stronger proof, i normally just agree to disagee, the effect is miniscule anyway

I'm referring mostly to the subject matter experts and military persons interviewed by Mark Sargent. You say flat earthers don't do these physical tests themselves, but that is not the case - they certainly do. A similar argument could be made towards round earthers. Its almost impossible to get them to do any test at all since their view and faith is so entrenched. Once they start doing tests thats when you start seeing flat earthers pop up. I'd say that almost everybody that's contacted me (I get a few hundred messages a week some weeks) that has changed to a flat earther recently has also performed some test to make such a radical shift in worldview.

As a matter of psychology, they would almost have to.

I've offered tests to FE's, none have done them, I've seen snipers saying they do take corielis into account

10. train tracks - see answer 8, people actually ask this? i've never once heard this, secondly, it would ONLY be relevant if train tracks only ran in straight lines, from (what us globe earthers would call) south to north / north to south

Answer 8 is incorrect. And no, it would be relevant in general.

answer 8 is correct
why would it be relevant? the earth only spins in one direction

11. i'm assuming you meant; Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as rotation would dictate...?
if so, see answer 8
if not, i'll assume you mean that you're expecting gravity to pull air downwards towards the ground?
gravity needs mass, there's no mass with air?
again, gravity is definitely NOT my strongpoint

Answer 8, again, is incorrect.

answer 8 is correct

12. Everything we know and feel says it doesn't spin again, see answer 8.. with the KNOWLEDGE we do have, we understand why we don't FEEL the spin, the train analogy is a perfect example

Answer 8, again, is incorrect.

answer 8 is correct

13. crescent moon during the day - another what can only be described as a shockingly basic question; remember, the moonrise and moonset have nothing to do with the sunrise and sunset, the moon has its own schedule.. i'm not even sure i understand the point that's supposed to be making

I admittedly don't put much weight in this one, but have heard it often. This is when you see the sun in the sky and the moon lit with an impossible crescent given the angle between the two.

I've not seen any 'impossible' angles, you'd have to inbox me the next time you see it, as obviously photos area no no in this forum

14. daytime lunar eclipse - i've answered this on here many times.. when this has been reported, both the sun and the moon were at opposite ends of the horizon.. this is due to 'refraction'
this is usually met, strangely enough, with flat earthers claiming that its impossible for that to be correct (i've not had any elaboration on a standard 'you're wrong', so i'm not sure of their reasoning)
..to which I tell them they then have to RE-answer their 'refraction' claim for the sun going DOWN below the horizon instead of disappearing to a point as you would expect if it was going away
on one hand i'm told it cannot cause that effect, on the other i'm told its evidence

Yes, refraction does serve useful as a fudge factor for the globular camp, would you not agree?

well no, it's just the reason for that phenomenon, flat earthers claim it simply cannot be.. but then use it to explain the impossibility of the sunset

15. i cannot really comment on that, your tests are your tests, i know all i need to know about Antarctica, its of very little actual significance to the flat earth theory to be honest, its of huge significance to the anti elite, but not the flat earth theory.. i'll elaborate in another answer

Waiting on elaboration then...

I did when explaining about Admiral Byrd

16. plane sailing - as far as i can understand, plain sailing is used to find 'approximate' distances instead of having to take any curvature into account using angular mathematics etc, to simply make things easier, hence the derived expression

Yes, its the practice of sailing and navigating without regards to the curvature of the earth and its how the vast majority sail. You don't see ships with ribbons and globes.

i explained why, it's simply for ease of working out approximations

17. see answer 9, already covered the corielis effect

This has nothing to do with the corielis[sic] effect, but instead has to do with the rotation of the earth.

ok, see answer 8 then

18. pendulums - i feel things like this are just clutching at straws, pendulums don't naturally go on forever, of course you're going to need magnetism for a 24hr test, the magnets are turned on and off automatically too

The inability of the Foucault pendulum to act as suspected is certainly not 'grasping at straws.' You don't seem to have an answer for this one (among the others above.)

yes I did answer, it is used to measure over a 24hr period, the automatic magnets make that happen, without them, the pendulum would only swing for around an hour

19. bedford level experiment - i'm not sure what you're saying about this, it proves a curvature when carried out, the middle rod is usually around 3ft up, another argument i've not heard for a long time

This experiment has been repeated several times conclusively showing no curvature. Most recently it was done by our President, Daniel Shenton.

It's been done by many people, the middle rod is always higher (did Shenton perform it the Rowbotham way of getting IN the water?)

20. plane curvature - i'm assuming you mean being able to see a curvature from a plane?
the perfect analogy is: put an ant on a boulder, he'll perceive it as flat, lift him up an inch, he'll still perceive it as flat
..but does that mean its flat? absolutely not, you're not high enough up, plain and simple, you're teeny weeny in comparison, the earth is frikkin ginormous!

-

Does common sense, dear science enthusiast, really lead you to believe you act like an ant clinging to a ball, upside down, twirling and zipping through space?

This question was about visible curve, not gravity, I answered the original question sufficiently

-

as for the religious angle, of course people thousands of years ago just assumed it was flat, in all fairness its completely understandable, we'd all assume it was flat without being told otherwise, again the ant metaphor

but we gained the knowledge to be capable of great things, the religious flat earthers should be worried about meeting the big guy at the pearly gates and having to explain how they were trying to belittle his work right..? I don't care who did it to be honest, god, aliens, or if we're just living in a cell within another living being.. its an absolutely wonderfully beautiful place, you guys are missing out, really you are


i'm here to ask questions and have a discussion.. i've done tests, i've cross examined..the earth IS a globe.. there's an abundance of evidence, from nasa, russia, china, amateurs, scientists, astronomers, to tests you can do yourself.. some things flat earthers can just claim as fake, some they literally can not, thats where cognitive dissonance plays a big part, well, maybe some are just very guillable

the flat earth on the other hand has absolutely zero actual physical evidence, zero

the OTHER theories, in my honest opinion, are simply created so the flat earther doesn't have to admit defeat, 'emporers new clothes syndrome', they cannot bring themselves to admit they were wrong, I don't mean that directly at you, i'm fully aware there's MANY theories.. some are just innocently taken in by it all, others are more 'I won't be beaten'

look, i believed it for a short while, ignorantly, without cross examining anything, but when i started looking into religions and their history, i realised you HAVE to cross examine everything, doing that provides better understanding of things..

cross examining evidence regarding the flat earth theory leads to one answer only.. the earth is a globe

Half of your answers are based on a misunderstanding of what acceleration is and feels like. When one rationally examines the evidence, its clear the earth is no globe.  I can list more evidences, but I'd hate to serve you another portion of dinner before you've finished your first. As we can see we clearly don't have 'zero actual physical evidence zero'. You are either choosing to be incorrect concerning a large portion of the evidence or are closing your ears to the evidence.

Nobody believes anything in this world without some kind of evidence - even those things that seem to require almost total faith.

I hope you realise why I totally disagree with this last statement, there is absolutely NO acceleration to take into account, the earth isn't accelerating

I've not been incorrect with my answers, you just don't seem to understand that EVERYTHING WITHIN the atmosphere also rotates so there's no resistance to be expected
you're expecting it though for some reason, you're clearly not an idiot, I'm not sure how you don't understand


either way, thank you for your reply, I appreciate your effort, I know I've been given a bad rep in here, but as you can see by my earliest posts that I'm a respectful guy, your regulars try to wind people up though, so yeah, I may have retaliated at times..
if your moderators did their job properly I wouldn't have been given the bad rep.. but unfortunately it's THEM that cause the trouble

to you, thanks

I'm not sure why you've just posted a load of random space videos on my post?

seems like you should have created a new thread instead maybe?

I'm really struggling to understand WHY

WHY do you care?   

We have books full of evidence: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/library 

If you are more of a poetry guy or want the quick version, I'd suggest looking at Lady Blount's the Why and Because: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/featured/the-why-and-because

Then I will provide a simple answer. The evidence is the same evidence that leads one to believe the Earth is Round. We aren't viewing some special set of data the rest of the world is missing. We are just interpreting it, we believe, correctly.

There's a lot of indirect evidence that convinces folks. Some is valid, some is not - and yet that is the evidence that leads them to believe what they do.

I've had interested new flatists message me and talk about why they came to believe. They can be divided into three broad categories: religious, everyday experience, and conspiracy. Now and then you'll get the philosopher or epistemologist that has their own reasons. I will supply a sampling of these and leave it to you to read the texts aforelinked. There is also epistemological and philosophical basis for our views that lend evidence to the point which I can talk to if you'd like.

A few everyday evidences:
1) Find the curve! You can't. Every experience we have says it's flat - from the beach to Mount Everest to a plane.

2) Water has been determined experimentally to be level. If the earth was round, and spun, water would not be level.

3) No consideration is made in architecture of large constructions for curvature of earth.

4) No consider is made in the construction of the Suez Canal - it forms a straight and level surface of water (Carpenter)

5) Rivers such as the Nile would have to flow uphill

6) Lighthouses can be seen further than one would expect. Cape Hatteras is seen at 40 miles, which should be 900 feet above the sea level to be visible. This is not the case (Carpenter)

7) The horizon rises to eye level

We'd feel the rotational acceleration.

9) So would projectiles - we've talked to experts and they say the don't account for that. Snipers and Ballistics experts we have interviewed do not account for coriolis effects (Mark Sargent)

10) Train tracks degrade eveny on both sides - if the earth rotated they would be more worn on one side.  Railroads have even wear in spite of Coriolis effects.

11) Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as gravity would dictate.

12) Everything we know and feel says it doesn't spin.

13) How are the moon phases are lit in seemingly impossible ways when both the sun and moon are in sky?

14) Daytime lunar eclipses as noted by Kepler

15) Antarctic extended daylight times did not match up for me with expected values from almanacs and on board navigation experts

16) Navigation at sea is done through "Plane Sailing"

17) No difference in the distance bullets travel against or with the supposed rotation (Carpenter)

18) Foucault Pendulums must be controlled magnetically to achieve real results as they are in most museums

19) The Bedford Level Experiment

20) Lack of Curvature in Planes

Conspiracy Evidences:
21) Lack of ability to provide us with a picture of the globe unaltered and spinning

22) Constant lies and photo manipulation from Camp NASA

23) General Byrds Testimony

24) Antarctic Treaties

25) Instead of swearing on the Bible the went to space, astronauts punch those who ask

26) Leaving the moon would be impossible

27) Stars don't exist

A few religious evidences:
28) Facing Mecca would be impossible

29) Genesis describes a flat earth

30) Jewish Cosmology describes a dome model

31) Buddhism and Mount meru describe a flat earth

32) Shinto Describes a flat earth

33) Native American Religions Describe a flat earth

34) Taoists discovered a flat earth

35) Every religion holds the earth to be flat.

36) Jesus viewing all the kingdoms of the world


and so on. I could literally list thousands.

Hey, I'm new to this forum, but there were some glaring misunderstanding in your answer of what tenants of the "round earth theory" actually believe,
so I'm taking the chance to address some of it.
Hopefully I've written somethings you or someone else reading this post did not already know.
I may seem a little dismissive in my post, but it's just an impression, nothing actually intended, hope you don't mind.
Finally I'm french, so some terms/expressions may be slightly off.
So here I go :

1) Without any source or experiment described, not remotely an evidence.

2) The Bedford experiment originally seemed to imply this, but current results (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment) show the contrary. However, I get it, it's all a conspiracy, so I will grant you this one.

3) Because no consideration should be made in any buildings. You seem (sorry if I'm wrong) to hold the belief that "round earth theory" implies that the ground is actually curved homogeneously at the surface level - which is wrong. The ground surface is actually pretty chaotic, and no buildings are vast enough to need taking account for the curvature, not even the pyramids. What they do account for are the actual shape of the surface, and that's why they level the ground and build foundations.

4)6) Not a specialist of the Suez Canal or lighthouses, so I won't answer these ones for now.

5) Fundamental misunderstanding of gravity : rivers are not flowing from one cardinal direction to another : they are flowing from a point of high gravitational potential to a point of lower gravitational potential. Moreover, the Earth being round implies that places that have the same altitude (understood here as distance from the center of the Earth) have roughly the same gravitational potential. So no, the Nile would not be going uphill, as long as its delta is closer to the center of the earth than its source.

7) No idea what you're implying here.

But we do ! You're not actually attracted to the center of the Earth, but to a point slightly off due to the centrifuge force. You're feeling it as part of your weight.

9)17) Again not a ballistic specialist, so I don't know if the Coriolis force actually matters there.

10) Sources ? I can't find any actual studies on the subject at the moment or any other sources that can be trusted, but most websites tend to point out the contrary (for example this : http://people.uwplatt.edu/~stradfot/weather124/coriolis.htm).

11) Again, misunderstanding of the "round earth theory". The air is actually also spinning, and winds are just additional movement in the air mass born from a variety of reason. Just like the presence of chaotic movements in a liquid flow or the fact that you can still move inside an accelerating car.

12) Wut ? Sorry, but just saying you're right very often is still no evidence.

13)14)15)16) Will address this later.

18) First, the fact that you say in most museum show that some museum don't actually use them and still display results. Secondly, such arrangements are only used to keep the movement going, because wear means it's not perpetual (but I get it, conspiration). Other museum just give them energy back periodically without using electromagnetic forces (unless you count the contact force, but that's clearly not the subject).

19) See 2).

20) Could you clarify what you mean exactly here ?

------

21)22)23)24)This is not the subject, so I'm not addressing this, but still :

25) "Instead of swearing on the Bible the went to space, astronauts punch those who ask"  Your sentence is quite funny, but it's still hardly an evidence. Only occurrence of such a fact was when an astronaut was actually getting harassed during his free time by someone invading his private space, refusing to leave and outright calling him a liar. I mean conspiracy or not, you can understand the man got angry. Also I would not swear anything on a Bible, does it means everything I say is moot ? What does the Bible has to do with anything ?

26) Why ?

27) Wut ? Wut wut wut ? Please elaborate or link to an evidence to this.

28) Again, WUT ?

35) Source please. ^^

36)The guy was God. Literally. Which is an omniscient omnipotent being. Do you really believe him to be limited in his vision by such peculiar things as the shape of the Earth ? (Just kidding, don't get offended.)

What kind of evidence would shut you up?  Please, let me know.  Please.

He is just asking for just one piece of evidence of flat earth. Do you not have even one piece?

Apologies for my lack of quoting skills lol

Quote from: John Davis on August 21, 2016, 06:57:59 AM

firstly, i wouldn't describe these as 'currently accepted proofs' as the majority have already been disproven, and even accepted by a huge majority of flat earthers, I'll go through them one by one though, as you have


1. curve - there IS a curve, most flat earth videos trying to disprove a curve, at some point, will have half of a landmark showing.. and unless there's some half above water and half below water cities that i'm not aware of, then that's absolute proof of a curve, how anyone is expecting to see a curve with the sheer size of the planet anyway is beyond me!
also, when there's photos of landmarks from too far away, the camera is never at ground level, making the tests void, when the camera is put at ground level, the difference you can see is NOT around 6ft, its a drastic difference, there's good reason lighthouses are built on the top of cliffs etc

This does not prove water itself is not level.

no, it proves the curvature exists

Quote

2. water level - well this is gravity related, i'm not scientific enough to get into a detailed gravity debate.. the way i understand it is; its like a magnet in the centre of the earth, everything within the atmosphere is attracted to it (and only huge bodies outside of the atmosphere are attracted to it, the bigger the mass etc)
so, with my BASIC understanding of gravity, i've no reason to see the water levelling out in accordance with the magnetic cente outwards, creating a shperical shape, as any kind of issue whatsoever, but again, i don't understand the ins and outs so i'm not claiming anything

It has been measured to be level several times over the last century and then some. I can provide some examples, but many are again within our library.

without trying to sound like I know exactly what I'm on about, the centre is where the gravity is, therefore the sphere is the obvious shape expected, water, air, trees, us, it doesn't matter, we're all affected (I'll happily agree to disagree with regards to gravity)

Quote

3. buildings - is this serious? how big do people think buildings are? nowhere NEAR large enough to have any kind of need to take the curvature into account, if anyone uses this as any kind of proof, they need to go right back to the basics

There are plenty of man made structures that are large enough to require such allowances to be made. One is cited in the very next number. Its not hard to find other large man made structures that did not account for curvature.

buildings, definitely not, the Suez canal was dug out right? they measured from the ground down, not the bottom up

Quote

4. suez canal - I can't really comment as i've not really looked into it much, a quick search shows people with photos of the top half of ships on the suez though, photos though, urgh right? lol

Are you claiming it was made with attention to the curvature of the earth? Because your point doesn't seem to address the original point.

no, I'm saying there's photographic evidence of the canal being curved, there's no other explanation for only seeing half a ship, unless it was sinking

Quote

5. the nile - uphill? why? it flows from south to north, but it does happen to be in a downhill direction.. do ANY of these flat earthers you're quoting know how to cross examine?

Due to its length - its long enough to have to account for the curvature of the earth and thus at some point it must flow uphill to overcome the curve of the earth.

that's not been explained well enough for me to understand your issue, it flows downhill, not uphill, what is there to explain?

Quote

6. lighthouses - see answer 1, or answer the question; why are lighthouses so often built so high above sea level

Unfortunately for you, the example I mention takes into account its elevation. You can also find another example of this in Carpenters work and I believe its in Rowbotham as well.

again, why do they so often build them with such elevation? if they're visible from 'too far away' there'd be absolutely no need

Quote

7. horizon rising to eye level - thats basic perspective, you're too far away from the horizon to be able to tell exactly where your eye level is above the horizon you're looking at, it would be impossible to look at the point that is exactly your own height above the horizon

On a globe it would fall away from you when, say, you went to a high mountain. This is not observed.

no it wouldn't, it seems you ignored my explanation, please re-read my original answer, it's 100% correct

Quote

8. feeling the rotation - i'm not sure why someone would expect to feel any rotation spin, its the same as being in a train and being on top of a train, you don't feel the wind in the train as you're encased IN the train.. you don't feel the wind in the atmosphere as you're encased IN the atmosphere, gravity is affecting the whole atmosphere, it doesn't stop at the planet, otherwise if you threw a ball up, it wouldn't come back down, again, very basic stuff that even I can explain

Rotation is acceleration. If the train accelerates you feel just like if when a car accelerates (turns or changes speed) you feel the pull. This is basic physics and more than that common sense. See if your encasing helps in your car by placing a cup of coffee on your dashboard. If what you are claiming here is true, you'd expect no Coriolis force. You have created a round earth model that is impossible.

The earth doesn't have any change acceleration so obviously we feel no changes, rotation is NOT acceleration, that statement is incorrect
everything within the atmosphere also rotates, this answer is also 100% correct, I see you've wrongly assumed I was wrong about this, it's quite simple really

Quote

9. corielis effect - i'm not sure who you've spoken to, but after the amount of flat earthers screaming 'don't just believe what you're told', then i'll do the same.. do the tests yourselves, i've seen them done (on video)
this is where there's a major stumbling block, until a flat earther actually does any physical testing themselves, they just cry 'fake' to every test, every first hand account, every video.. so there's no way of proving anything without convincing a flat earther to test things themselves, which most are unwilling to do, the same goes for the 'landmarks from too far away' test, just DO the test, they will then have irrefutable evidence..
..but they won't
the corielis effect also affects storm rotations and water rotations (toilets, sinks, bathtubs, whirlpools etc)
i've heard the answer for the storms, fair enough, it works on both models to an extent
but the water answers are usually pretty few and far between, when they do come they're flaky as hell, mainly 'they're made that way'.. well i'm damn sure if I imported a sink from Australia it aint gonna spin the opposite direction to my french imported bathtub so that's that not a valid answer.. also, the corielis effect isn't necessary due to stronger proof, i normally just agree to disagee, the effect is miniscule anyway

I'm referring mostly to the subject matter experts and military persons interviewed by Mark Sargent. You say flat earthers don't do these physical tests themselves, but that is not the case - they certainly do. A similar argument could be made towards round earthers. Its almost impossible to get them to do any test at all since their view and faith is so entrenched. Once they start doing tests thats when you start seeing flat earthers pop up. I'd say that almost everybody that's contacted me (I get a few hundred messages a week some weeks) that has changed to a flat earther recently has also performed some test to make such a radical shift in worldview.

As a matter of psychology, they would almost have to.

I've offered tests to FE's, none have done them, I've seen snipers saying they do take corielis into account

Quote

10. train tracks - see answer 8, people actually ask this? i've never once heard this, secondly, it would ONLY be relevant if train tracks only ran in straight lines, from (what us globe earthers would call) south to north / north to south

Answer 8 is incorrect. And no, it would be relevant in general.

answer 8 is correct
why would it be relevant? the earth only spins in one direction

Quote

11. i'm assuming you meant; Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as rotation would dictate...?
if so, see answer 8
if not, i'll assume you mean that you're expecting gravity to pull air downwards towards the ground?
gravity needs mass, there's no mass with air?
again, gravity is definitely NOT my strongpoint

Answer 8, again, is incorrect.

answer 8 is correct

Quote

12. Everything we know and feel says it doesn't spin again, see answer 8.. with the KNOWLEDGE we do have, we understand why we don't FEEL the spin, the train analogy is a perfect example

Answer 8, again, is incorrect.

answer 8 is correct

Quote

13. crescent moon during the day - another what can only be described as a shockingly basic question; remember, the moonrise and moonset have nothing to do with the sunrise and sunset, the moon has its own schedule.. i'm not even sure i understand the point that's supposed to be making

I admittedly don't put much weight in this one, but have heard it often. This is when you see the sun in the sky and the moon lit with an impossible crescent given the angle between the two.

I've not seen any 'impossible' angles, you'd have to inbox me the next time you see it, as obviously photos area no no in this forum

Quote

14. daytime lunar eclipse - i've answered this on here many times.. when this has been reported, both the sun and the moon were at opposite ends of the horizon.. this is due to 'refraction'
this is usually met, strangely enough, with flat earthers claiming that its impossible for that to be correct (i've not had any elaboration on a standard 'you're wrong', so i'm not sure of their reasoning)
..to which I tell them they then have to RE-answer their 'refraction' claim for the sun going DOWN below the horizon instead of disappearing to a point as you would expect if it was going away
on one hand i'm told it cannot cause that effect, on the other i'm told its evidence

Yes, refraction does serve useful as a fudge factor for the globular camp, would you not agree?

well no, it's just the reason for that phenomenon, flat earthers claim it simply cannot be.. but then use it to explain the impossibility of the sunset

Quote

15. i cannot really comment on that, your tests are your tests, i know all i need to know about Antarctica, its of very little actual significance to the flat earth theory to be honest, its of huge significance to the anti elite, but not the flat earth theory.. i'll elaborate in another answer

Waiting on elaboration then...

I did when explaining about Admiral Byrd

Quote

16. plane sailing - as far as i can understand, plain sailing is used to find 'approximate' distances instead of having to take any curvature into account using angular mathematics etc, to simply make things easier, hence the derived expression

Yes, its the practice of sailing and navigating without regards to the curvature of the earth and its how the vast majority sail. You don't see ships with ribbons and globes.

i explained why, it's simply for ease of working out approximations

Quote

17. see answer 9, already covered the corielis effect

This has nothing to do with the corielis[sic] effect, but instead has to do with the rotation of the earth.

ok, see answer 8 then

Quote

18. pendulums - i feel things like this are just clutching at straws, pendulums don't naturally go on forever, of course you're going to need magnetism for a 24hr test, the magnets are turned on and off automatically too

The inability of the Foucault pendulum to act as suspected is certainly not 'grasping at straws.' You don't seem to have an answer for this one (among the others above.)

yes I did answer, it is used to measure over a 24hr period, the automatic magnets make that happen, without them, the pendulum would only swing for around an hour

Quote

19. bedford level experiment - i'm not sure what you're saying about this, it proves a curvature when carried out, the middle rod is usually around 3ft up, another argument i've not heard for a long time

This experiment has been repeated several times conclusively showing no curvature. Most recently it was done by our President, Daniel Shenton.

It's been done by many people, the middle rod is always higher (did Shenton perform it the Rowbotham way of getting IN the water?)

Quote

20. plane curvature - i'm assuming you mean being able to see a curvature from a plane?
the perfect analogy is: put an ant on a boulder, he'll perceive it as flat, lift him up an inch, he'll still perceive it as flat
..but does that mean its flat? absolutely not, you're not high enough up, plain and simple, you're teeny weeny in comparison, the earth is frikkin ginormous!

-

Does common sense, dear science enthusiast, really lead you to believe you act like an ant clinging to a ball, upside down, twirling and zipping through space?

This question was about visible curve, not gravity, I answered the original question sufficiently

Quote

-

as for the religious angle, of course people thousands of years ago just assumed it was flat, in all fairness its completely understandable, we'd all assume it was flat without being told otherwise, again the ant metaphor

but we gained the knowledge to be capable of great things, the religious flat earthers should be worried about meeting the big guy at the pearly gates and having to explain how they were trying to belittle his work right..? I don't care who did it to be honest, god, aliens, or if we're just living in a cell within another living being.. its an absolutely wonderfully beautiful place, you guys are missing out, really you are


i'm here to ask questions and have a discussion.. i've done tests, i've cross examined..the earth IS a globe.. there's an abundance of evidence, from nasa, russia, china, amateurs, scientists, astronomers, to tests you can do yourself.. some things flat earthers can just claim as fake, some they literally can not, thats where cognitive dissonance plays a big part, well, maybe some are just very guillable

the flat earth on the other hand has absolutely zero actual physical evidence, zero

the OTHER theories, in my honest opinion, are simply created so the flat earther doesn't have to admit defeat, 'emporers new clothes syndrome', they cannot bring themselves to admit they were wrong, I don't mean that directly at you, i'm fully aware there's MANY theories.. some are just innocently taken in by it all, others are more 'I won't be beaten'

look, i believed it for a short while, ignorantly, without cross examining anything, but when i started looking into religions and their history, i realised you HAVE to cross examine everything, doing that provides better understanding of things..

cross examining evidence regarding the flat earth theory leads to one answer only.. the earth is a globe

Half of your answers are based on a misunderstanding of what acceleration is and feels like. When one rationally examines the evidence, its clear the earth is no globe.  I can list more evidences, but I'd hate to serve you another portion of dinner before you've finished your first. As we can see we clearly don't have 'zero actual physical evidence zero'. You are either choosing to be incorrect concerning a large portion of the evidence or are closing your ears to the evidence.

Nobody believes anything in this world without some kind of evidence - even those things that seem to require almost total faith.

I hope you realise why I totally disagree with this last statement, there is absolutely NO acceleration to take into account, the earth isn't accelerating

I've not been incorrect with my answers, you just don't seem to understand that EVERYTHING WITHIN the atmosphere also rotates so there's no resistance to be expected
you're expecting it though for some reason, you're clearly not an idiot, I'm not sure how you don't understand


either way, thank you for your reply, I appreciate your effort, I know I've been given a bad rep in here, but as you can see by my earliest posts that I'm a respectful guy, your regulars try to wind people up though, so yeah, I may have retaliated at times..
if your moderators did their job properly I wouldn't have been given the bad rep.. but unfortunately it's THEM that cause the trouble

to you, thanks

I'll speak to these other points later but we seem to be stuck on a particular point of contention - #8.

I realize why you you disagree with the last statement, but it is incorrect.

The earth is accelerating if it is round. Acceleration is a change in the velocity vector which has both speed and direction. Not only is the ball spinning -changing direction, but also it is orbiting - changing direction. Both of these require a change in speed or direction. Spin in a circle quickly and tell me your hands do not feel a slight urge to raise and reach outwards.

If you spin an object it feels a pull towards its outside, like a gravitron. The fact that everything is accelerating would not stop you from feeling the acceleration. For example, if you speed up in your car you feel the acceleration in spite of being in a system that is uniformly being accelerated. Likewise if you change direction in your car.

I'm not sure why you've just posted a load of random space videos on my post?

seems like you should have created a new thread instead maybe?

If you see that I violate the rules of this forum, I guess you know what to do in such case. Don't hesitate to act approprietly.

P.S.

I've removed all my posts from this thread; after re-examination, I found all of them unrelevant: all of them only support globe-earth theory, NOT flat-earth theory. This also adds some clearness to this thread.

@globetrotter - i meant no offence, apologies if it came across that way

@John Davis - ok, I'll reanswer one point, due to how orbits work, maybe there is a slight acceleration of the earth at certain points..
but that's NOT our main stumbling block here

you're claiming we, as people, should FEEL that acceleration, but that's not what science says

the gravitational pull affects everything within the atmosphere according to science, so no 'wind' would be expected from the rotation, OR acceleration
this is why the car/train analogy only works to a point, it is also within the atmosphere, it's just the easiest way to prove you can move without feeling the force if encased

we ARE encased within the atmosphere, the gravitational pull, for everything within the atmosphere, is always synchronised.. the land, the people, the birds, the air, the lot..

therefore my answer 8 is correct

this is our main stumbling block

11. i'm assuming you meant; Air does not feel this acceleration. Winds aren't rushing by us in one direction as rotation would dictate...?
if so, see answer 8
if not, i'll assume you mean that you're expecting gravity to pull air downwards towards the ground?
gravity needs mass, there's no mass with air?
again, gravity is definitely NOT my strongpoint

Just to clarify one thing--as I am in agreement with you on basically all of this:  air does have mass, and gravity does pull it towards the ground.  Which is why it's here instead of flying off into space.  It doesn't ALL come all the way down to the ground because it would have to be compressed further and further, and the air pressure counteracts this.

To John Davis--I know you said you don't personally believe all of the items you pointed out, so I may be talking to you or just to the people who have presented this particular item to you:  the issue of a river flowing "uphill".  This only makes sense if we assume round earth gravity is a unidirectional force coming from one direction and pushing straight against the earth from that direction.  Which would mean anything on the other side would "fall off", and anything not very close to the "top" would likewise tend to "roll" down towards the equator and again "fall off".  Which I'm pretty sure every single person on either side of this debate can agree is absurd.