Modern science tells us the earth is flat

what is all the discussion about?  Modern science (specifically General Relativity) tells us that the earth is flat.  There is no disagreement between science and religion, they both say the same thing.  It is only scientists who are not fully informed that don't understand why the earth is flat; those who know their stuff should know that it is only the populist view that believes the earth is anything other than flat.

I agree with you sir.  Im glad that someone understands basic reason.

O tigger: do tell us how general relativity informs us that the Earth is flat . . . I'm not quite sure how your claim is founded.

Being told what is truth and what isn't with no supporting evidence gets me so horny... :roll:

OK, honestly, Where in ANY religion does it tell us that the world is flat?

Um, science knows the world is flat, but scientists don't?

Who's conducting the science then?!

Before I begin to propose my question to Bullhorn (or anyone who subscribes to the flat-earth theory) I would like to state two facts that I would assume we could all agree upon:


1. Distances can be measured.

2. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.


Now if anyone can refute these two simple facts, then my argument can be proven false. Otherwise, hear me out.

Bullhorn stated the following in a previous message "I will point to the official seal of the United Nations which lays out the true map of the world www.un.int."

Here's an illustration of the United Nations map with three points indicating three major cities in the word and their approximate locations on that map:





As you can plainly see, according to this map the distance between points A (Buenos Aires) and C (Sydney) should be more than twice (2x) the distance between points A (Buenos Aires) and B (New York). This would mean that the distance between A and C should be approximately 14,000 miles (according to the rough measurements taken from this map).

However, the actual measured distance between A (Buenos Aires) and C (Sydney) is 7,336 miles; which is nearly half of 14,000 miles it should be if the earth were indeed flat. Clearly, the disparity between the actual measured distances between these cities and their locations on this map do not add up.

Now, for those of you who subscribe to the flat-earth theory: how can this map, or a flat earth for that matter, be true?

I feel that people should have every right to believe what they want, but with such a great difference between actual calculated measurements and the most basic version of the "UN map", I'm just not buying it.

What I am trying to imply is that, using basic logic, a flat earth makes no sense. You would not even have to physically measure any of the distances given. One could just take a plane ride and compare the time it takes to fly from Beunos Aires to New York City to the time it takes to fly from Buenos Aires to Sydney. If the earth were flat, it should take more than twice the time to get from BA to Sydney than it does to go from BA to NY. Also, in order to take the quickest route, you would have to fly over the United States at some point while traveling from BA to Sydney, which just doesn't happen in the real world.

woot. that definitly proves the earths rondness. if any one can controdict that... then theres a problem with them.

Gee, I thought you couldn't use 'modern science', because it's from textbooks, and textbooks are lying to us! [/sarcasm]

Before I begin to propose my question to Bullhorn (or anyone who subscribes to the flat-earth theory) I would like to state two facts that I would assume we could all agree upon:


1. Distances can be measured.

2. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.


Now if anyone can refute these two simple facts, then my argument can be proven false. Otherwise, hear me out.

Bullhorn stated the following in a previous message "I will point to the official seal of the United Nations which lays out the true map of the world www.un.int."

Here's an illustration of the United Nations map with three points indicating three major cities in the word and their approximate locations on that map:





As you can plainly see, according to this map the distance between points A (Buenos Aires) and C (Sydney) should be more than twice (2x) the distance between points A (Buenos Aires) and B (New York). This would mean that the distance between A and C should be approximately 14,000 miles (according to the rough measurements taken from this map).

However, the actual measured distance between A (Buenos Aires) and C (Sydney) is 7,336 miles; which is nearly half of 14,000 miles it should be if the earth were indeed flat. Clearly, the disparity between the actual measured distances between these cities and their locations on this map do not add up.

Now, for those of you who subscribe to the flat-earth theory: how can this map, or a flat earth for that matter, be true?

I feel that people should have every right to believe what they want, but with such a great difference between actual calculated measurements and the most basic version of the "UN map", I'm just not buying it.

What I am trying to imply is that, using basic logic, a flat earth makes no sense. You would not even have to physically measure any of the distances given. One could just take a plane ride and compare the time it takes to fly from Beunos Aires to New York City to the time it takes to fly from Buenos Aires to Sydney. If the earth were flat, it should take more than twice the time to get from BA to Sydney than it does to go from BA to NY. Also, in order to take the quickest route, you would have to fly over the United States at some point while traveling from BA to Sydney, which just doesn't happen in the real world.

I cannot refute these two simple "PROPOSALS", but I can point out yet again thet these are a premise that is simply a product of the most mainstream shared experience (social constructs-I am getting tired of pointing this out) and as such are not FACTS.  

answers on a postcard

I’m not sure I understand what exactly you’re saying here.  What portion of my explanation is not factual?  Furthermore, what precisely do you mean by “mainstream shared experience (social constructs)”?  Are you suggesting that lengths and distances cannot be measured?

I would think that our ability to declare that any distance between two points can be measured, without even considering of the type measurement system utilized (i.e. inches, meters, miles, ect).   I cannot make my explanation any simpler.  Regardless of mainstream thought, social constructs, or other external preconceptions; I would think that measurement is a universally understood concept.  Fire is hot, ice is cold, the distance from my face to the computer screen is 15 inches (or 38.1 centimeters, or 0.381 meters, or whatever you want to call it).  These are facts, not premises based on misconceptions.  I implore you, what precisely are you trying to refute here?

I cannot refute these two simple "PROPOSALS", but I can point out yet again thet these are a premise that is simply a product of the most mainstream shared experience (social constructs-I am getting tired of pointing this out) and as such are not FACTS.

Oh, come, come: this very discussion is relying upon a shared experience just in order to function. We agree upon the meaning of the words I am using to write this to you now, for example; without that agreement the words could mean completely umbrella toast flying beach king dissolved peaches and: bolts slept harbor, hitting flavanoids respect.

There is absolutely no meaning at all to anything without a shared concept of reality. And you are right in that it is just the shared experience that we are bringing into question on these boards. The question comes down to what are you going to admit as a valid shared experience. We don't, for the purposes of this site, admit that the world is round. If we admit nothing at all, the discussion is pointless, because you can't even use words to explain yourself: I could challenge the meaning of the words you use as not being within my experience, and then we have nothing to talk about.

Without some shared experience we'd have pretty awful things happening: if we don't admit some basic things like you are real person rather than a some machine that happens to look pretty much like a person, for example, then it doesn't matter much what happens to you. If something unpleasant were to happen, it wouldn't matter, because you're just a machine. But instead, I give you the benefit of the doubt based upon the fact that there is no way I can distinguish you from any other human being. I could do otherwise, but it would pretty much make me beyond society (ie, the shared experience). If someone were to believe that you're not actually human, he would generally regarded as disturbed, if not actually pathological, because he is so removed from the normal shared experience as to make him dangerous.

So you can't just dump everything for a meaningful discussion to take place. The original poster is using the measurement of distance to point out inconsistencies in the flat Earth argument. He is assuming that the measurement of distance is admitted into our shared experience; this is such a basic concept in our human experience that I would agree it should be admitted. To do otherwise would be hard to justify, and if you want to do this, I think there should be some good reasons for doing so.

There really is very little to talk about without some shared experience; it is a question of what is reasonable to admit. Distance is one of those concepts, so he still has a valid point.

Are any flat-earthers going to try to disprove my posting?

They wouldn't try unless they thought that they could.

Are any flat-earthers going to try to disprove my posting?

In the absence of anybody refuting your post (which I think is pretty hard to do with what you've presented so far), coupled with the general inattentiveness displayed generally on the part of posters here who, when confronted with a good argument, merely stop replying, I think you can safely say you've won your argument.

Seriously: if posters here are interested in a good argument, then backing up your posts is only fair. But leaving something half way through is kind of like the defense resting: and in this case there's nothing from the flat-Earthers to justify their arguments. I think the round-Earthers have this one.