Text Book Science Completeness

I'm curious to hear the beliefs of the globalist here. It looks to me like their are a lot of globe believers, not only that but perhaps sport debunkers... but due to the nature of the scenario it's hard to say.

DO YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT IN TEXT BOOKS?(mainsteam science)

Do you believe in things that mainstream science refutes. Pls take a moment to explain how your beliefs differ from mainstream science if at all or talk some key points on how  we are finally at the pinacle of scientific understanding and have it figured out. But mostly the above bolded question is what I'm wonderring.

Help me understand the scenario, becasue for me it seems like in time we could PUBLICLY discover a bunch of things that would show that the earth is indeed flat. And yes I believe that not all scientific discoveries are made public... I would even go so far as to say their is a supression of certain ideas, certain facts. And also that there are of course people that have things way more figured out than the public.

What do you think?

Something not appearing in a textbook doesn't mean science has refuted it.
There are plenty of things that I haven't seen in a textbook that I believe.
The more up to date information is found in papers, not text books.

Help me understand the scenario, becasue for me it seems like in time we could PUBLICALLY discover a bunch of things that would show that the earth is indeed flat, but things still appear how they do.

By this, do you mean still appear that Earth is round, or do you mean still have it publicly stated that Earth is round?
Either way, with all the available evidence indicating Earth is round, I would say that unless you had something really major, the best you could get is us not knowing if Earth is round or flat.

Thanks i'll change the wording a bit. But what i meant was that- what everybody sees - we would understand how it is actually flat even though what we see is currently applied to explain how it's round. So i guess we would add things like stacked atmosphere and say "well, the light bends in the sky".... and that's why the sun appears to set, or what ever.

As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Also, of course there is likely the issue of being taught to see things a certain way.

Ideas that haven't been proven won't change the basic building blocks - an assumption.

Can I ask you what is your main reasoning for believing or wanting to believe that the Earth is flat?  I am only asking because we have actually known that the Earth is spherical for centuries.  Through cumulative observations made over generations, it soon became clear to us what the shape of the Earth is.  Modern technology has simply confirmed that and allowed us to measure the actual size and shape of the Earth with unprecedented accuracy. So if those earlier generations had been wrong then we would have discovered that by now.

That is how flat Earth belief is no longer a path of scientific investigation but simply a conspiracy theory. There will always be those who want to believe differently and so have convinced themselves that there is this big 'cover up' going on and that the Earth is actually flat. 

Do I believe there are aspects of science that are not in the mainstream text books?  Of course I do.  Because discoveries are being made in science all the time so it would be impossible for a single text book to include everything.  That's why updated editions are printed.  I have a book called 'Universe' which is in its 13th edition now.  Do any of the science textbooks mention anything about flat Earth?  No.  Well one mentions it in passing but that is a book on the history of astronomy and mentions how historically our ancestors thought the Earth was flat because to them it looked flat and they didn't have any other information to tell them any different.

To be accepted by science and entered into the mainstream science texts, a new discovery has to go through a long and stringent process of testing.  A process that any belief that the Earth is flat from today is unlikely to stand up to.

Thanks i'll change the wording a bit. But what i meant was that- what everybody sees - we would understand how it is actually flat even though what we see is currently applied to explain how it's round. So i guess we would add things like stacked atmosphere and say "well, the light bends in the sky".... and that's why the sun appears to set, or what ever.

The problem is that bendy light goes directly against so much of the claimed evidence in favour of a FE.

But again, that wouldn't mean that Earth is flat. If you managed to find very strong evidence that Earth is flat, that combined with all the evidence showing Earth is round would mean we wouldn't know what shape it was. Attempting to explain things typically provided as evidence of one shape as actually being due to some other phenomenon would work both ways.

As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Yes, very poorly, because you can't see flat along the surface.
What we see is entirely consistent with curvature. This includes the curvature obstructing the view to objects beyond it, but if the object is close enough only the bottom is.

Just how do you think it should look? Just what do you think you should see which you don't?

As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Also, of course there is likely the issue of being taught to see things a certain way.

This always confuses me.  I've driven and flown all around the world and it's anything but flat.  I can look out my windows now and what do I see?  Hills and curves of the land, it's not flat at all.  Parts of the USA are very flat, but even those have hills in places.  Then I see pictures of the Earth from space or high altitude and it looks VERY round.  I don't understand why one, single, narrow, simplified viewpoint is all you accept and everything else is lies and fake and cgi.

As for being taught, I was taught to evaluate evidence. I was taught science is a process. I know many theories we have now will be overturned with new and better ones.  I don't think science knows everything.  Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two theories that work amazing, but will be overturned with better versions, or a combined one eventually.

Us non-flat earth believers are not the close minded ones here.  I'm also curious why you believe what you do. "It looks flat" is just not a very convincing argument, when it's also does not look flat at all.

Well I guess when your options are limited in terms of producing evidence that supports what you believe in you have to resort to the basics.  The 'it looks flat' is about as convincing as FE stating that flat cloud bottoms evidence that the world is flat.

Flat Earthers it seems by their own choice limit themselves to what the unaided human senses can tell us about the world.  The turn of the 17th century when the first noted astronomical observations through a telescope were made revealed new evidence not seen before. Those observations supported the already long held popular view that the Earth was a sphere which revolved around the Sun.

Human awareness that we live on a sphere can be traced back to the time of Pythagoras among others. The heavens were regarded as natures exhibition of perfection and the sphere was seen as the most perfect of the solids. Providing the maximum surface area for the smallest possible volume.  So it was natural for early philosophers to believe that the Earth, along with all the other planets were heavenly spheres. 

Through history only small groups maintained a belief that the Earth is flat.  Most commonly among the lesser educated sections of the community. As astronomical telescope improved and provided clearer and better images, so the evidence mounted of the Earths spherical nature but as with astrology there will always be believers in alternative Earth theories.

Human awareness that we live on a sphere can be traced back to the time of Pythagoras among others. The heavens were regarded as natures exhibition of perfection and the sphere was seen as the most perfect of the solids. Providing the maximum surface area for the smallest possible volume.  So it was natural for early philosophers to believe that the Earth, along with all the other planets were heavenly spheres.

Actually, a sphere has the minimum surface area for any given volume, but you're otherwise right... the sphere was considered the most perfect solid.

I was under the impression that a sphere was considered perfect because it is the same in every direction, and doesn't have sharp corners.
If you start at the centre, then regardless of what direction you travel in, it will take a distance of r to reach the surface and when you reach it, it will be perpendicular to your line of travel.

Now consider a cube, it has obvious preferred directionality.
With it oriented "normally", with the centre at the origin, you need to travel a distance of r to get to the surface along the 3 orthogonal axes (for 6 directions total), and this surface is then perpendicular to the direction of travel.
But travelling in a different direction yields a different result. Travelling half way between 2 of them you take sqrt(2)*r to get to the surface, and the surface is a corner, with each face at 45 degrees relative to direction of travel.
Travelling at the midpoint between 3 of them yields a distance of sqrt(3)*r and you reach a corner.
And travelling at other directions yields even more results.
Much less pefect.

Actually, a sphere has the minimum surface area for any given volume

Yes apologies that's what I meant.

The point is that a sphere has always been seen as a symbol of geometric perfection.  So it was natural for the Earth and all planets to be historically regarded as spheres as far back, as I said as Pythagoras' time.  Also the planetary orbits were also seen as circular.  A circle being a sphere but in just 2 dimensions.

Several significant historical figures similarly taught that the Earth is a sphere which kind of leads you to wonder where this idea of the Earth being flat came from?  And indeed why?  It is noted that there was a belief among many during Aristotles time that the Earth was flat, but Aristotle himself regarded it as a sphere.  To quote Aristotle himself,

"The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind -- straight, gibbous, and concave -- but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth's surface, which is therefore spherical.

    Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the earth is circular, but that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon. There is much change, I mean, in the stars which are overhead, and the stars seen are different, as one moves northward or southward. Indeed there are some stars seen in Egypt and in the neighborhood of Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions; and stars, which in the north are never beyond range of observation, in those regions rise and set.

    All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be so quickly apparent. Hence one should not be too sure of the incredibility of the view of those who conceive that there is continuity between the parts about the pillars of Hercules and the parts about India, and that in this way the ocean is one."

I am pretty sure I can see farther than you say I possibly can. So go on pretending this is a globe earth explanantion sounding board.

But i'm warning you - if your wrong you're doing a major diservice - don't you fear the reprecussions? So what is the easisiest way I can confirm for myself that the earth is actually a globe?

But i'm warning you - if your wrong you're doing a major diservice - don't you fear the reprecussions? So what is the easisiest way I can confirm for myself that the earth is actually a globe?

We both can't be right, right? So by your logic, one of us is doing a major disservice. Odds are greatly stacked in my favor of being right. So do you fear these repercussions you speak of because you stand a much greater threat of being wrong than do I? Who should really be warned here? Just sayin'.

But i'm warning you - if your wrong you're doing a major diservice - don't you fear the reprecussions? So what is the easisiest way I can confirm for myself that the earth is actually a globe?

Look at a picture of the Earth from space.  Check it's shape.  Doesn't get any easier than that.

Can I ask you what is your main reasoning for believing or wanting to believe that the Earth is flat?  I am only asking because we have actually known that the Earth is spherical for centuries.  Through cumulative observations made over generations, it soon became clear to us what the shape of the Earth is.  Modern technology has simply confirmed that and allowed us to measure the actual size and shape of the Earth with unprecedented accuracy. So if those earlier generations had been wrong then we would have discovered that by now.

That is how flat Earth belief is no longer a path of scientific investigation but simply a conspiracy theory. There will always be those who want to believe differently and so have convinced themselves that there is this big 'cover up' going on and that the Earth is actually flat. 

Do I believe there are aspects of science that are not in the mainstream text books?  Of course I do.  Because discoveries are being made in science all the time so it would be impossible for a single text book to include everything.  That's why updated editions are printed.  I have a book called 'Universe' which is in its 13th edition now.  Do any of the science textbooks mention anything about flat Earth?  No.  Well one mentions it in passing but that is a book on the history of astronomy and mentions how historically our ancestors thought the Earth was flat because to them it looked flat and they didn't have any other information to tell them any different.

To be accepted by science and entered into the mainstream science texts, a new discovery has to go through a long and stringent process of testing.  A process that any belief that the Earth is flat from today is unlikely to stand up to.

Like i said, i'm pretty sure i can see further than your theory would allow.I think I could honestly say that I have taken the path less travelled and seen things not commonly seen in general, so i know there is suppression of potent ideas.

Quote from: faded mike on November 22, 2020, 12:16:55 AM

Thanks i'll change the wording a bit. But what i meant was that- what everybody sees - we would understand how it is actually flat even though what we see is currently applied to explain how it's round. So i guess we would add things like stacked atmosphere and say "well, the light bends in the sky".... and that's why the sun appears to set, or what ever.

The problem is that bendy light goes directly against so much of the claimed evidence in favour of a FE.

But again, that wouldn't mean that Earth is flat. If you managed to find very strong evidence that Earth is flat, that combined with all the evidence showing Earth is round would mean we wouldn't know what shape it was. Attempting to explain things typically provided as evidence of one shape as actually being due to some other phenomenon would work both ways.

Quote from: faded mike on November 22, 2020, 12:17:57 AM

As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Yes, very poorly, because you can't see flat along the surface.
What we see is entirely consistent with curvature. This includes the curvature obstructing the view to objects beyond it, but if the object is close enough only the bottom is.

Just how do you think it should look? Just what do you think you should see which you don't?

Do you remember the poster "Gotham"? Well, his avatar showed a wizard standing in front of grey skies.

 One day, it was oddly grey out early in the morning in the summer. I couldn't sleep. So i hopped in my car to drive to the big hill in Sherwood Park, bordering Edmonton. To see, yes, the flat earth.

What I saw at sunrise was that there was a further and higher up layer to the Horizon that (i think) you can't normally see. I did some math and figured this should be further away than is possible to see. So it seems that there was some strange morning light phenomenon going on - the day went on to bring a strange golden sky for the next few hours.

I'm thinking the bending of light happens at angles which make the horizon do all kinds of things.

Quote from: faded mike on November 22, 2020, 12:17:57 AM

As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Also, of course there is likely the issue of being taught to see things a certain way.

This always confuses me.  I've driven and flown all around the world and it's anything but flat.  I can look out my windows now and what do I see?  Hills and curves of the land, it's not flat at all.  Parts of the USA are very flat, but even those have hills in places.  Then I see pictures of the Earth from space or high altitude and it looks VERY round.  I don't understand why one, single, narrow, simplified viewpoint is all you accept and everything else is lies and fake and cgi.

As for being taught, I was taught to evaluate evidence. I was taught science is a process. I know many theories we have now will be overturned with new and better ones.  I don't think science knows everything.  Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two theories that work amazing, but will be overturned with better versions, or a combined one eventually.

Us non-flat earth believers are not the close minded ones here.  I'm also curious why you believe what you do. "It looks flat" is just not a very convincing argument, when it's also does not look flat at all.

Evaluate evidence yes, but the evidence for flat earth is suppressed. Just look at my "those seacrh engines" thread. I looked up mathematical proof of globe earht and finally found a cache of flat earth videos.

Some say suppressed, others say non existent.

So what is the easisiest way I can confirm for myself that the earth is actually a globe?

Well the same evidence is available to everyone so it really depends on what evidence you are willing to accept.

Quote

So what is the easisiest way I can confirm for myself that the earth is actually a globe?

Well the same evidence is available to everyone so it really depends on what evidence you are willing to accept.

You guys have seen the long range photos?

I am pretty sure I can see farther than you say I possibly can.

Yet you can never provide a concrete example of that. Instead it is just the same repeated claim of being able to see further than you think you should be able to if Earth is round.
Have you factored refraction into this?

But i'm warning you - if your wrong you're doing a major diservice - don't you fear the reprecussions? So what is the easisiest way I can confirm for myself that the earth is actually a globe?

This depends on how far you can travel, if you have people you trust in other locations around the globe, and what equipment you have.

Pesonally, I like the 2 celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart which can be circled. But while you can measure that fairly easily in your location (at least assuming you aren't too far north or south), it is harder to measure it around the globe by yourself.

So an easier way is to measure the angle of dip to the horizon. You can get a theolodite app for your phone, which you can then use measure just how far below level the horizon is.
If you do this, you will find it is basically level at no altitude, and as you get higher, it gets further below level. If you can accurately measure the angle, you can even calculate the radius of Earth.

But perhaps the simplest observation of all is viewing a distant ship/building/structure which is beyond the horizon, and observing that the bottom is obscured, even if you use a spotting scope, and if you go higher, you can see more of it.

You guys have seen the long range photos?

Do you mean the very long range ones, where instead of a nice clear horizon as you would expect from a low altitude on a FE, you instead have much more of a haze, with the ground blurring into the sky? If Earth was flat, that is what you would expect all the time.
But more importantly, do you mean the ones showing known mountains, where the more distant mountains, which are higher than some of the nearer mountains, appear lower in the photo, even though the photo was taken from an intermediate altitude?

Or do you mean like those clealry showing the bottom of buildings or the bottom of an entire city apparently submerged below water?

These long range photos are entirely consistent with a RE, and refute the FE.


Edit: My bad, it seems I didn't finish this. Finished now.

Quote from: Solarwind on November 22, 2020, 10:45:05 PM

Quote

So what is the easisiest way I can confirm for myself that the earth is actually a globe?

Well the same evidence is available to everyone so it really depends on what evidence you are willing to accept.

You guys have seen the long range photos?

Yes many images of half of ships and buildings missing.

Have you seen the Starlink satellite trail?

Which long range photos are they then? 

If I could stand at Lands End in Cornwall and look across the Atlantic and spot the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty over in the US then I would accept the Earth is flat.  Short of that, afraid not.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 22, 2020, 03:38:33 AM

Quote from: faded mike on November 22, 2020, 12:16:55 AM

Thanks i'll change the wording a bit. But what i meant was that- what everybody sees - we would understand how it is actually flat even though what we see is currently applied to explain how it's round. So i guess we would add things like stacked atmosphere and say "well, the light bends in the sky".... and that's why the sun appears to set, or what ever.

The problem is that bendy light goes directly against so much of the claimed evidence in favour of a FE.

But again, that wouldn't mean that Earth is flat. If you managed to find very strong evidence that Earth is flat, that combined with all the evidence showing Earth is round would mean we wouldn't know what shape it was. Attempting to explain things typically provided as evidence of one shape as actually being due to some other phenomenon would work both ways.

Quote from: faded mike on November 22, 2020, 12:17:57 AM

As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Yes, very poorly, because you can't see flat along the surface.
What we see is entirely consistent with curvature. This includes the curvature obstructing the view to objects beyond it, but if the object is close enough only the bottom is.

Just how do you think it should look? Just what do you think you should see which you don't?

Do you remember the poster "Gotham"? Well, his avatar showed a wizard standing in front of grey skies.

 One day, it was oddly grey out early in the morning in the summer. I couldn't sleep. So i hopped in my car to drive to the big hill in Sherwood Park, bordering Edmonton. To see, yes, the flat earth.

What I saw at sunrise was that there was a further and higher up layer to the Horizon that (i think) you can't normally see. I did some math and figured this should be further away than is possible to see. So it seems that there was some strange morning light phenomenon going on - the day went on to bring a strange golden sky for the next few hours.

I'm thinking the bending of light happens at angles which make the horizon do all kinds of things.

i think this is the picture

What part of the picture isnt possible on a round earth?

I cant find the most definitive pictures right now, but I don't think the horizon is that far normally.

Quote from: faded mike on November 22, 2020, 06:55:19 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 22, 2020, 03:38:33 AM

Quote from: faded mike on November 22, 2020, 12:16:55 AM

Thanks i'll change the wording a bit. But what i meant was that- what everybody sees - we would understand how it is actually flat even though what we see is currently applied to explain how it's round. So i guess we would add things like stacked atmosphere and say "well, the light bends in the sky".... and that's why the sun appears to set, or what ever.

The problem is that bendy light goes directly against so much of the claimed evidence in favour of a FE.

But again, that wouldn't mean that Earth is flat. If you managed to find very strong evidence that Earth is flat, that combined with all the evidence showing Earth is round would mean we wouldn't know what shape it was. Attempting to explain things typically provided as evidence of one shape as actually being due to some other phenomenon would work both ways.

Quote from: faded mike on November 22, 2020, 12:17:57 AM

As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Yes, very poorly, because you can't see flat along the surface.
What we see is entirely consistent with curvature. This includes the curvature obstructing the view to objects beyond it, but if the object is close enough only the bottom is.

Just how do you think it should look? Just what do you think you should see which you don't?

Do you remember the poster "Gotham"? Well, his avatar showed a wizard standing in front of grey skies.

 One day, it was oddly grey out early in the morning in the summer. I couldn't sleep. So i hopped in my car to drive to the big hill in Sherwood Park, bordering Edmonton. To see, yes, the flat earth.

What I saw at sunrise was that there was a further and higher up layer to the Horizon that (i think) you can't normally see. I did some math and figured this should be further away than is possible to see. So it seems that there was some strange morning light phenomenon going on - the day went on to bring a strange golden sky for the next few hours.

I'm thinking the bending of light happens at angles which make the horizon do all kinds of things.

i think this is the picture

And, what about it?

So what is the easisiest way I can confirm for myself that the earth is actually a globe?

Take up amateur astronomy.  Study star charts, plot the sun as it moves across the sky (please use proper solar filters), learn how celestial navigation works, etc.  See if you can make these things fit with a globe earth or flat earth (some trigonometry may be needed).

One big question you could ask yourself that takes very little research is how we’ve managed to map the stars in all directions, when half the stars should be hidden if we’re all on the same side of a flat earth?