Science or Belief?

Hello!

So, I'm new to this website and first of all I'll admit that I honestly don't believe in Flat earth and don't really think I ever could. That aside, I have nothing but respect for a group willing to fly completely in the face of modern scientific theory despite constant belittling, patronising and general mocking of your group. No sarcasm intended. The idea of solely relying on your senses is one that, admittedly, intrigues me. Each to their own, I'll go my way, you go yours and hopefully we can still have an interesting debate!

I originally started a thread in the Q and A forum concerning a few questions I had but user Totallackey pointed me towards this forum instead given that it very quickly turned into a debate! If you'd like to see the original thread, it is right here! https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68951.0

I've decided to change my man question though, to what our debate turned into:

Is this subject based in the scientific realm, or one purely built on belief?

If it is the former, I should explain my understanding of scientific process is the method of questioning the world around us through experimentation, data analysis and finally the sharing of results towards a shared and public body of knowledge. We cannot view particles in motion with the naked eye, we cannot view the internal workings of the combustion engine as it operates without incredible difficulty. The notion of watching an antibiotic as it travels through your body is laughable, but there are experiments previous to these endeavors that mean we can trust they will work. I'm curious why Flat Earth should not be approached with the same scientific methods?

If the latter, then I wish you good day! Belief is something innate to you and is beyond debate. I respect your beliefs and will not question it if this is one of them.

Sorry about the long start! Just want to be as clear as possible! Again, genuinely interested and not in any way looking to mock. Just a guy who likes a good debate! Thanks for the time!

I find most will claim it is scientific and that there are serious flaws in the RET.
Unfortunately, they cannot substantiate that claim.

One key part of science is that new discoveries can overturn old held theories.

Also, you shouldn't just respect beliefs. Some beliefs are abhorrent and do not deserve respect.

Thank you for your reply JackBlack!

I completely agree that some beliefs are undeserving of that respect, I think in the context of this post the belief in the Earth being flat is not something that directly offends or harms anybody else. As such I can respect that.

Any thoughts by Flat Earthers?

Thank you for your reply JackBlack!

I completely agree that some beliefs are undeserving of that respect, I think in the context of this post the belief in the Earth being flat is not something that directly offends or harms anybody else. As such I can respect that.

Any thoughts by Flat Earthers?

As I wrote in my reply to your other thread, for which you provide a link in the OP, it is not a matter of belief for me; rather, it is simply a matter of opinion regarding the adjective utilized to describe the evidence.

RE utilizes the word,"incontrovertible."

As for me, I do not see it as being incontrovertible; rather I view much of the evidence to be highly variable and questionable.

FE is completely scientific. Also God believers in FES are less than God believers in REB as Proportionally. So we can pre accept FE is real science and "popular science" just an imagination, a game, a fake, a dream, or a belief. Same men were believing the eart is flat, now believing to the earth is round. They follow the scholars and most of scholars are saying the earth is round, oppositely of holly books. Anyway. I hope you're worth it.

Result of a poll:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68652.msg1847055#msg1847055

I believe in God, also believe the earth is Flat. 2 (8.3%)
I believe in God, but i believe the earth is NOT Flat. 8 (33.3%)
I DO'NT believe God, but believe the earth is flat.4 (16.7%)
I DO'NT believe God, and believe the earth is NOT Flat. 10 (41.7%)

Result:

God Believers percentage to belief on FE:
There is 10 God believers here, 2 of them believing FE, 8 of them aren't.
There is 14 non god believers here: 4 of them believing FE and 1o of them aren't.

Welcome back to the debate Totallackey, and a warm hello to Intikam! Thanks both for your time in crafting replies.

I'd like to start by asking if we could keep religion for another day and concentrate solely on scientific process? As far as I'm concerned, believing in God doesn't really seen to impact on this particular debate as there is no reason for it to stand in the way of most observations of experiments. Unless of course religion is the reason for a belief in flat Earth, in which case by all means!

Intikam, you also mention 'FE is completely scientific.' I'm curious what you mean by this statement? Could you link any studies or relevant data for us to discuss?

Thanks again for your time! I look forward to your responses!

Intikam, you also mention 'FE is completely scientific.' I'm curious what you mean by this statement? Could you link any studies or relevant data for us to discuss?

ditto for this statement.


intikam, perhaps you may not know what science is?
science is the study of the world around us.
it is the ability to be able to test to obtain a result, and achieve the same result over and over, to establish proof.

if fe is scientific as you say, then there are people who have studied it and tested their various hypothesis to establish various micro-truths, eventually after enough of these studies they can establish macro-truths. they would then write about these macro-truths, for the community to learn.
this is how science works. this is how humans as a whole, learn. including yourself.
please point us to some of these studies/writings.

Quote from: EdwinNewton on January 16, 2017, 04:31:57 AM

Any thoughts by Flat Earthers?

As I wrote in my reply to your other thread, for which you provide a link in the OP, it is not a matter of of belief for me; rather, it is simply a matter of opinion regarding the adjective utilized to describe the evidence.

RE utilizes the word,"incontrovertible."
As for me, I do not see it as being incontrovertible; rather I view much of the evidence to be highly variable and questionable.

You claim that "RE utilizes the word, 'incontrovertible.'"

Let's see who has used it in the last six months:
This post

RE utilizes the word,"incontrovertible."
As for me, I do not see it as being incontrovertible; rather I view much of the evidence to be highly variable and questionable.

Then Figg, a Globe supporter, but he is not talking of evidence for the Globe, but making a comment about Rowbotham's publications.

its a truly idiotic book. the extra pages are nothing more than restatements of the same false thinking and examples time and time again as if volume of pages made a difference. A single incontrovertible fact in one paragraph is all he needs, which is why he stuns the dull with the sheer quantity of idiocy.

And finally JRoweSkeptic, most certainly not a Globe supporter.

. . . . . . .
If I told you I'd found evidence in favor of FET, and provided clear and incontrovertible proof, you would just assume I was lying or that I'd made up the numbers.

In the last six months I failed to find one case of a Globe supporter claiming  incontrovertible evidence for the Globe. Maybe they used similar words, you can chase that up.

So please tell me where all these Globe supporters are that claim incontrovertible evidence? In your imagination, maybe.

Quote from: EdwinNewton on January 16, 2017, 04:31:57 AM

Thank you for your reply JackBlack!

I completely agree that some beliefs are undeserving of that respect, I think in the context of this post the belief in the Earth being flat is not something that directly offends or harms anybody else. As such I can respect that.

Any thoughts by Flat Earthers?

As I wrote in my reply to your other thread, for which you provide a link in the OP, it is not a matter of of belief for me; rather, it is simply a matter of opinion regarding the adjective utilized to describe the evidence.

RE utilizes the word,"incontrovertible."

As for me, I do not see it as being incontrovertible; rather I view much of the evidence to be highly variable and questionable.

So you are perfectly fine with RET and think it is the best fit for the available data, you just don't think the evidence is completely incontrovertible?

Yes. Some evidence can be variable due to very significant sources of error, which can throw that into question. But typically those results are the null results which would indicate Earth isn't round or Earth isn't moving.
The less variable the evidence, the more likely it is to indicate Earth is round and moving.

It is also quite easily controvertible.
Everything is.
All it takes is some moron that doesn't understand or someone with a belief they don't want to admit is wrong. They will happily deny anything to fit their beliefs.

So you are perfectly fine with RET and think it is the best fit for the available data, you just don't think the evidence is completely incontrovertible?

Incorrect.

I am not of the opinion RE is the best fit for the published data; as a matter of fact, I sometimes question the legitimacy of published data.

Yes. Some evidence can be variable due to very significant sources of error, which can throw that into question. But typically those results are the null results which would indicate Earth isn't round or Earth isn't moving.

Agreed.

The less variable the evidence, the more likely it is to indicate Earth is round and moving.

Not agreed.

It is also quite easily controvertible.
Everything is.

Not agreed.

All it takes is some moron that doesn't understand or someone with a belief they don't want to admit is wrong. They will happily deny anything to fit their beliefs.

Sometimes, some places...

Beliefs were not mentioned in my response.

I utilized the word "opinion."

Which can change of course.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 17, 2017, 01:02:11 AM

All it takes is some moron that doesn't understand or someone with a belief they don't want to admit is wrong. They will happily deny anything to fit their beliefs.

Sometimes, some places...

Beliefs were not mentioned in my response.

I utilized the word "opinion."

Which can change of course.

You mentioned incontrovertible.
All it takes for something to be controvertible is for someone to claim it is wrong, regardless of how strong their case is.

Quote from: totallackey on January 17, 2017, 05:25:31 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 17, 2017, 01:02:11 AM

All it takes is some moron that doesn't understand or someone with a belief they don't want to admit is wrong. They will happily deny anything to fit their beliefs.

Sometimes, some places...

Beliefs were not mentioned in my response.

I utilized the word "opinion."

Which can change of course.

You mentioned incontrovertible.
All it takes for something to be controvertible is for someone to claim it is wrong, regardless of how strong their case is.

Yes.

That is true.

FE is completely scientific. Also God believers in FES are less than God believers in REB as Proportionally. So we can pre accept FE is real science and "popular science" just an imagination, a game, a fake, a dream, or a belief. Same men were believing the eart is flat, now believing to the earth is round. They follow the scholars and most of scholars are saying the earth is round, oppositely of holly books. Anyway. I hope you're worth it.

  Did this make sense when you were writing it? Or is that the whole point?

Quote from: İntikam on January 16, 2017, 05:48:37 AM

FE is completely scientific. Also God believers in FES are less than God believers in REB as Proportionally. So we can pre accept FE is real science and "popular science" just an imagination, a game, a fake, a dream, or a belief. Same men were believing the eart is flat, now believing to the earth is round. They follow the scholars and most of scholars are saying the earth is round, oppositely of holly books. Anyway. I hope you're worth it.

  Did this make sense when you were writing it? Or is that the whole point?

Definitely Not Official-I believe that intikam is just trolling.  Most of the posts he writes are written just to upset round earthers.  To be honest, I don't bother reading his posts anymore.  Anybody that uses religion, or the bible as proof that the earth is flat is misusing religion.  The point of religion, is to have faith in a power higher than ourselves.  If it were proof, then faith would not be needed.  I say this as a Christian.  One who does knows that the earth is round.  If somebody wants to use the bible for the basis of there believe in FE, fine.  But it is not evidence, not proof.  And to be honest, visual evidence is not the best evidence either.  In courts, eye witness accounts are considered the least reliable.  But FE supporters want to use their own eyes as proof.  I hope they don't sit on a jury.

Welcome back to the debate Totallackey, and a warm hello to Intikam! Thanks both for your time in crafting replies.

I'd like to start by asking if we could keep religion for another day and concentrate solely on scientific process? As far as I'm concerned, believing in God doesn't really seen to impact on this particular debate as there is no reason for it to stand in the way of most observations of experiments. Unless of course religion is the reason for a belief in flat Earth, in which case by all means!

Intikam, you also mention 'FE is completely scientific.' I'm curious what you mean by this statement? Could you link any studies or relevant data for us to discuss?

Thanks again for your time! I look forward to your responses!

I responsed with other topic an answer like that:

Quote from: justaguy on January 17, 2017, 09:44:20 AM

This is my first post.  I have been reading posts on this site for about a month, and find it hard to believe people actually believe in flat earth.  I honestly believed when I first started "researching" this, that this was purely an exercise for debating.  I understand there are trolls out there, and I am not concerned about them.  If FE is what you truly believe, I won't mock you, but I just would like to hear some actual proof.  And citing lines and lines of math and physics info won't help me, I am neither an expert in either.  I am fairly educated, four year degree in accounting.  So I think it is fair to say I am of average intelligence, but by no means will I understand over the top explanations of something I feel is so basic.  And please don't tell me because of religious ideas or it is so because that is what the bible says.  That is not proof, that is faith.  Big difference.  I am a Christian, and I believe the earth is round.  And before and round earthers come out to mock me and how stupid I must be to believe in God, it is irrelevant.  My beliefs are my beliefs and have nothing to do with this discussion.  But if it makes you feel better, I don't believe the earth was created 4000 years ago in seven days.  I believe things are created scientifically, by the hand of God.  I don't believe God and Science are incompatible.  But stating the earth is flat because that is what the bible says, is not proof.  At best, it is evidence.  And please don't tell me that the Nazis were involved in NASA, so therefore, anything that NASA say is a lie.  One, that is not proof either.  And second, using this logic, has any of you ever told a lie?  If that is the case, than anything you say can't be trusted either. 

Sorry, a long intro, but somebody give me some actual proof.  Because, I have not seen any on this sight.  And here is the dictionary definition of proof:
   

Definition of proof

    1
    a :  the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a factb :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Okey I understand the issue.

There is two main argument for me to believe to earth is not round. Actually FE theory depends on "round earth is wrong". So it must not be exactly flat. The shape can be discussable, but we know it is not a round ball and don't spinning. I'll give you two proof that, if you have a brain, you can't refuse.

1- Theoric proof. Diffusion: Every matters move to gap. If there is a gap around of the atmospher, gap must be suck all of it. There are some (fake) theoretical explanations. I'm calling them as fake because with "straight mentality", it is clear that there is nothing can save to the atmospher. We are using vacuum holders and holding up hundreds of kilogram materials with 4 small vacuum holder. They are beating gravity in land level that the gravity has its greatest value. Also we are jumping up and beating gravity. So gravity isin't a great power. But vacuum isin't.

2- Practice proof: We Detect that the directions on the round map is wrong by a compass cost of 1 dollar. You can do that experiment by the way suggest on this issue:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68228.0

By this way:

Quote from: İntikam on October 18, 2016, 12:58:39 AM

Quote from: İntikam on October 16, 2016, 03:04:49 AM

Get a compass 1 dollar cost.

Go to nearest road that shown in google map. Use the compass on the road to find out direction of the road.



Go open the google map and find out same road, same location. Draw a compass on the road yourself and compare them.



You'll see that some of directions are true but some of aren't. It is your chance to your test prove or disprove the map.

This is a map drawn by one of the famous mapper Piri Reis who lived in Istanbul for a long while.



I corrected that direction as North is true by measuring it by my compass.

This is one of famous round map shown on it direct North, magnetic North (as theorical) and real North measured by me. As we see that there is still 20 degrees difference between theorically magnetic North and magnetic north which i measured:



Map is collapsed. War is over. The time for rounders crying now!

Basic, understandable, repeatable by everybody, absolute and deadly!

Also you can find out more proofs or some of my workings on believers section. Also you can read sandokhan's page at there for more and more proofs. Maybe you can't understand sandokhan's writings because his writing language a bit heavy but mine is clear and understandable. I suggest you take a look there.

Good luck.

There are many names on my ignore list. They are provocators and liars. Sabotaging the issues. Do not care what they write, specially about my posts. Thank you in advance.

Quote from: EdwinNewton on January 16, 2017, 06:22:42 AM

Intikam, you also mention 'FE is completely scientific.' I'm curious what you mean by this statement? Could you link any studies or relevant data for us to discuss?

ditto for this statement.


intikam, perhaps you may not know what science is?
science is the study of the world around us.
it is the ability to be able to test to obtain a result, and achieve the same result over and over, to establish proof.

if fe is scientific as you say, then there are people who have studied it and tested their various hypothesis to establish various micro-truths, eventually after enough of these studies they can establish macro-truths. they would then write about these macro-truths, for the community to learn.
this is how science works. this is how humans as a whole, learn. including yourself.
please point us to some of these studies/writings.

You can find out my "scientific" workings  on flat earth believers section. You made a mistake with the prejudice. Now do not continue to despise my studies. Just read to understand.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68228.0

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66479.0

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.0

Now Take your prejudices and take it home. Perhaps you need it.

I responsed with other topic an answer like that:

And it has been refuted there as well the previous times you brought it up.
You should really stop bringing up the same refuted crap.
There is nothing scientific about doing so.

There are many names on my ignore list. They are provocators and liars. Sabotaging the issues. Do not care what they write, specially about my posts. Thank you in advance.

Sure, we are "provocateur" because we provoke you by pointing out your errors.
We aren't the ones lying. But you need to lie so much you even lie about why we are on your ignore list.

How about this? Instead of ignoring them, deal with their refutations of your post.
Repeatedly ignoring them just shows that you ignore them because you are unable to refute them.

You can find out my "scientific" workings  on flat earth believers section. You made a mistake with the prejudice. Now do not continue to despise my studies. Just read to understand.

It's a good thing you put "scientific" in quote marks, because there is very little (if anything) that is scientific about it.

You post it there and link to it there because you know they can't withstand honest, rational scrutiny which they would get in the debate forum.

We have read your nonsense. We understand it is nonsense.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68228.0

Non-scientific. No discussion of errors which would be intrinsic to such a cheap compass.
All you did was use a single dodgy compass and found it had large errors. Rather than realise the compass was wrong, you assumed everything else was.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66479.0

Ignorance about how Earth's magnetic field works.
Did you know that for the most part in the southern hemisphere, the magnetic field actually points upwards, such that "H" would be negative?

The bigger issue with your experiment is that you are using a cheap compass which isn't made to measure something like that.
It has such a tiny force acting on it, a slight imbalance in the weight will throw it off.

Get a dip circle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dip_circle) and try that.

Also, the reason magnetic things aren't stuck to Earth is because of how weak the field is.
Again, that argument of yours works equally well against you.
The field exists regardless, and if it is a monopole, then why isn't every magnetic object drawn to the pole, such that all the metal is at the north pole?

Another big issue is the strength. The magnetic field of Earth has a fairly constant strength (25 to 65 microteslas), yet you say it should drop as a function of 1/r^2.
That means at the north pole it should be near infinite, and further away it drops massively.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.0

And this is just a compilation of your stupidity.
ISIS has nothing to do with the shape of Earth.
If it was going to support one way or the other it would support a flat Earth as it is described in its terrorist manual (the Quran).

Now Take your prejudices and take it home. Perhaps you need it.

How about you throw away your nonsense and prejudice against those that you refute you?

He is an insulter so on my ignore list. He knows I don't see and don't care his posts.

He is an insulter so on my ignore list. He knows I don't see and don't care his posts.

Proving you wrong isn't insulting you.
Yes, you have decided to ignore me, because I proved you wrong too many times for your liking.

I know that you see my post and are unable to refute it.

To Just a Guy,
I'm greatly interested in your ideas about religion and science existing completely in parallel, but once I start to think about it, it would make a lot of sense for a religion to exist in the modern world. Love it!


To Intikam,
I'm intrigued by your ideas about scientific methods. You've started off well enough. You have a theory that you want to test (Flat Earth) by taking readings of direction (Experimentation and data collection) and have compared those results to a map (Data analysis). Great start! However, an incredibly important part of science is peer review, that is, other people taking your results and questioning them, seeing if your conclusions are as reliable and accurate as you want them to be.

In terms of accuracy, we can help that by using the most advanced equipment we can find. A dollar compass may be reasonable to find your way around a campsite, but isn't going to be able to have any bearing on a global scale: It simply isn't accurate enough.

Reliability can be increased by repetition, among other things. No experimenter worth their salt will ever only take one reading, and the more readings you have, the more reliable the results. Having 20 direction readings instead of one - potentially taken at different times of day or from different geographical points, ideally with different compasses - means we can take an average of all of those readings to find a more reliable direction. It also means we can test how accurate your test is by how closely those results are grouped together. If two lines taken in the same way don't match, there are obviously more changes needed to the experiment.

Obviously I'm not saying you have to go out and use all these changes! I just want to point out why one line drawn against a map will not hold you in as great a scientific standing as you maybe think it should.

Thanks all once again for your time!

Quote from: EdwinNewton on January 16, 2017, 04:31:57 AM

Thank you for your reply JackBlack!

I completely agree that some beliefs are undeserving of that respect, I think in the context of this post the belief in the Earth being flat is not something that directly offends or harms anybody else. As such I can respect that.

Any thoughts by Flat Earthers?

As I wrote in my reply to your other thread, for which you provide a link in the OP, it is not a matter of belief for me; rather, it is simply a matter of opinion regarding the adjective utilized to describe the evidence.

RE utilizes the word,"incontrovertible."

As for me, I do not see it as being incontrovertible; rather I view much of the evidence to be highly variable and questionable.

Just curious, can you provide some examples of such evidence?

intikam.
i read the links you provided. like the others, i dont see how any of them prove anything, either way.

im not really a compass man, never had much to do with them as in my line of work i dont need them.

however what i do use a lot of is all kinds measuring and leveling equipment.
i can tell you that if any kind of levelling device is used in a way that it is not inteded for, it will give chaotic readings.

i suspect, tilting the compass as you do, makes the compass show anything and everything, except what is accurate. a compass should be flat to work.
anyone here with knowledge of compasses able to verify this either way?

i dont see how some isis money proves the earth is flat

a picture of the sun and crescent moon dont prove anything. pictures are all cgi remember?

but 1 point that interested me is, in the 4th link bout halfway down.
you have a pic, showing/saying that according to google map, ny is east of lima, but sun will still rise in lima first. i have never been to america so can not very sun rise times
the reason this point is of interest to me is because i am aussie, i can verify sunrise times here.
if you care to check google maps, check the position of sydney, melbourne, and hobart.
i can confirm that in summer the sunrise in melbourne and sydney are similar times, and sunset in melbourne is later than sydneys.
i can confirm that the sunrise in hobart is perhaps 1 hour before sunrise in sydney, and sunset 1-1.5 hours after sydneys.

i cant confirm winters times as i havnt been there enough in winter to know for sure.

this is just something for you to ponder.

To Just a Guy,
I'm greatly interested in your ideas about religion and science existing completely in parallel, but once I start to think about it, it would make a lot of sense for a religion to exist in the modern world. Love it!


To Intikam,
I'm intrigued by your ideas about scientific methods. You've started off well enough. You have a theory that you want to test (Flat Earth) by taking readings of direction (Experimentation and data collection) and have compared those results to a map (Data analysis). Great start! However, an incredibly important part of science is peer review, that is, other people taking your results and questioning them, seeing if your conclusions are as reliable and accurate as you want them to be.

In terms of accuracy, we can help that by using the most advanced equipment we can find. A dollar compass may be reasonable to find your way around a campsite, but isn't going to be able to have any bearing on a global scale: It simply isn't accurate enough.

Reliability can be increased by repetition, among other things. No experimenter worth their salt will ever only take one reading, and the more readings you have, the more reliable the results. Having 20 direction readings instead of one - potentially taken at different times of day or from different geographical points, ideally with different compasses - means we can take an average of all of those readings to find a more reliable direction. It also means we can test how accurate your test is by how closely those results are grouped together. If two lines taken in the same way don't match, there are obviously more changes needed to the experiment.

Obviously I'm not saying you have to go out and use all these changes! I just want to point out why one line drawn against a map will not hold you in as great a scientific standing as you maybe think it should.

Thanks all once again for your time!

We are suggest theoric calculations but ordinary people don't interest with them. This is sandokhans page and there is a lot of workings there: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0 Also my workings depends on observe and measurements. Here they are https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0 We got several calculations but popular scientists deny almost all of them. But experiments prove us, not to them. For example in natural world almost everything pushing others but they are talking about gravity exist that in our opinion that is a nonsence. In other way, we are using vacuum tecnology for holding up materials and we know vacuum can beat the gravity. But theorical lies deny it, although we see a vacuum holder is pulling up something already a proof of vacuum is stronger than gravity. So there must be a barrieer save the atmospher of the earth. When we say this, great part of scientists deny it.

Even se I suggest a basic experiment that everybody can do that, but you deny it too. So how can you leanr what is the reality? ıf is it not enough a 1 dollar compass to get truth, buy an 100 dollars compass and try it again too. Go to the road behind in your home and look what direction is it. It is wrong. The map is wrong. So this is a science, not believe. But yours is a belief that You are stuck in.

i suspect, tilting the compass as you do, makes the compass show anything and everything, except what is accurate. a compass should be flat to work.
anyone here with knowledge of compasses able to verify this either way?

It depends on the compass. However, regardless of what compass you use (with the exceptions of ones free to move in 3D) it will be restricted to the plane.
A significant deflection out of the plane may cause it to jam and prevent it moving.
Some are designed to minimise the effect of the tilt.

i dont see how some isis money proves the earth is flat

It's akin to the "NASA is founded by Nazi's" argument.
Or the argument that because Hitler supported animal welfare, if you do, you must be a NAZI.

It is guilt by association/because they are bad everything they say is wrong.

but 1 point that interested me is, in the 4th link bout halfway down.
you have a pic, showing/saying that according to google map, ny is east of lima, but sun will still rise in lima first. i have never been to america so can not very sun rise times
the reason this point is of interest to me is because i am aussie, i can verify sunrise times here.

It is careful selection of data.
Note that he has only shown sunrise times and only shown it for December and January. If he showed times from other times of the year, like June, or sunset times, his claim would be destroyed.
At this time, the southern hemisphere is in summer with long days and early sunrise and late sunset.
Meanwhile in the northern hemisphere it is winter with short days, late sunrises and early sunsets.

For example, on Dec 21st in New York, the sun would rise at roughly 12:18 UTC, and would set at 21:33 UTC.
Meanwhile in Lima Puru, the sun rises at roughly 10:42 UTC and sets at 23:33 UTC
So yes, it rises early, but it also sets later. This is primarily due to the much longer day.

If you did it in June on the equinox, you get the reverse.
In New York, the sun rises at 8:26 UTC and sets at 23:32.
In Lima it rises at 10:28 UTC and sets at 21:53.

If you want an honest comparison you go for the equinox, e.g. 21st of March.
Then, the sun rises in New York at 10:58 UTC and sets at 23:11 UTC. (23:09 the day before)
Meanwhile, in Lima, the sun rises at 11:13 UTC and sets at 23:18 UTC. (23:19 the day before).

Here it is quite clear, the sun both rises and sets later in Lima, indicating it is further west.

We are suggest theoric calculations but ordinary people don't interest with them.

Really? You suggest theoretical calculations?
What I have seen you do is repeatedly reject them and claim that you can prove anything with math.
You seemed to be completely against them, while others repeatedly bring them up to show the error of you ways.

How about rather than trying to change topic, you deal with your prior claims first?

This is sandokhans page and there is a lot of workings there: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0
 Also my workings depends on observe and measurements. Here they are https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0

And again, notice where it is? In the FE Believer section, not the debate section.
He has brought up some of it at other times and had it refuted.

We got several calculations but popular scientists deny almost all of them. But experiments prove us, not to them.

No. They don't.
The experiments back us up, or have too great an error tp indicate either way.

For example in natural world almost everything pushing others but they are talking about gravity exist that in our opinion that is a nonsence.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Gravity is a model which allow all the data to fit except at galactic scales at the edge of galaxies.
We also have experiments which back it up and confirm there is an attractive force (or something) which draws masses together.

In other way, we are using vacuum tecnology for holding up materials and we know vacuum can beat the gravity. But theorical lies deny it, although we see a vacuum holder is pulling up something already a proof of vacuum is stronger than gravity. So there must be a barrieer save the atmospher of the earth. When we say this, great part of scientists deny it.

This has been refuted multiple times.
It isn't the vacuum holding it, it is the air pressure.
At the edge of the atmosphere the pressure is too low to push the gas away and off into space.
At sea level, the pressure is quite great, this is because every m^2 is holding up 10 000 kg of atmosphere. This air pressure is due to gravity.
What you are doing is akin to saying because a lead weight can lift up feathers, it must be stronger and must suck feathers into space.

Again, your barrier nonsense doesn't work either. There would still be a pressure difference which according to your "reasoning" would result in the air below being sucked up to equilibriate the pressure.
That doesn't happen.
Instead we see the pressure decrease as altitude increases.

In order for that to work in your model, there would have to be numerous domes which humans (and air) can easily pass through as if they don't exist.
You are yet to provide any kind of explanation for that.

Even se I suggest a basic experiment that everybody can do that, but you deny it too. So how can you leanr what is the reality? ıf is it not enough a 1 dollar compass to get truth, buy an 100 dollars compass and try it again too. Go to the road behind in your home and look what direction is it. It is wrong. The map is wrong. So this is a science, not believe. But yours is a belief that You are stuck in.

People have tried that experiment and found you to be wrong.
Stop saying it is wrong.
You did a single experiment with a cheap compass with massive error.
You haven't factored in that error. Thus your experiment shows nothing.

If you want it to be scientific, determine the error on the compass, preferably getting numerous compasses.

Jackblack is an ignored insulter and I don't see his posts. I suggest you ignore him for don't see his insults that possible on next a days.

Jackblack is an ignored insulter and I don't see his posts. I suggest you ignore him for don't see his insults that possible on next a days.

Who cares that you "don't see his posts"? You act like a spoilt child, Mr İntikam, when are you going to grow up?

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2017, 05:35:45 AM

Quote from: EdwinNewton on January 16, 2017, 04:31:57 AM

Thank you for your reply JackBlack!

I completely agree that some beliefs are undeserving of that respect, I think in the context of this post the belief in the Earth being flat is not something that directly offends or harms anybody else. As such I can respect that.

Any thoughts by Flat Earthers?

As I wrote in my reply to your other thread, for which you provide a link in the OP, it is not a matter of belief for me; rather, it is simply a matter of opinion regarding the adjective utilized to describe the evidence.

RE utilizes the word,"incontrovertible."

As for me, I do not see it as being incontrovertible; rather I view much of the evidence to be highly variable and questionable.

Just curious, can you provide some examples of such evidence?

What?

Evidence i find to be variable and not incontrovertible?

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 18, 2017, 03:59:35 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2017, 05:35:45 AM

Quote from: EdwinNewton on January 16, 2017, 04:31:57 AM

Thank you for your reply JackBlack!

I completely agree that some beliefs are undeserving of that respect, I think in the context of this post the belief in the Earth being flat is not something that directly offends or harms anybody else. As such I can respect that.

Any thoughts by Flat Earthers?

As I wrote in my reply to your other thread, for which you provide a link in the OP, it is not a matter of belief for me; rather, it is simply a matter of opinion regarding the adjective utilized to describe the evidence.

RE utilizes the word,"incontrovertible."

As for me, I do not see it as being incontrovertible; rather I view much of the evidence to be highly variable and questionable.

Just curious, can you provide some examples of such evidence?

What?

Evidence i find to be variable and not incontrovertible?

Exactly.  Some examples of such evidence you deem as questionable.