[Jura-Glenlivet]

A decent question.

I think for me the answer would lie in the way religion was dealt with, as a child you believe what you are told but over the years incongruence's appear  between what you are told and what you perceive, the fact that no two religions seemed to be able to agree is mirrored in FE with their maps and competing philosophies.
I think in the end it would be direct observation that would lead me to believe they were wrong, like JK... I am an amateur astronomer and watcher of the skies, two things stand out as being demonstrably wrong in the main FE world, sunsets; having watched countless times the sun sinking into the sea whilst being told (in the FE alternative reality) it doesn't, it fades away.
But also the subtle signs of roundness, earth shadow  http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz973.htm  ,eclipses , watching the night sky rotate, not only through a single night but through the seasons and the roundness of everything else we observe.

[smashinbedrock]

No kidding. Human senses are the number one tool for exploring the world and interacting with it. it just makes sense that the earth was flat. And we can prove it! They just think our proof is stupid. but it even says in the bible that there will be those who doubt the truth. Love what you're doing to spread the world of the flat earth! amen.

[Catnip]

No kidding. Human senses are the number one tool for exploring the world and interacting with it. it just makes sense that the earth was flat. And we can prove it! They just think our proof is stupid. but it even says in the bible that there will be those who doubt the truth. Love what you're doing to spread the world of the flat earth! amen.

Prove it then, let's see the earth show it to us. I won't settle for less than pictures

[juner]

No kidding. Human senses are the number one tool for exploring the world and interacting with it. it just makes sense that the earth was flat. And we can prove it! They just think our proof is stupid. but it even says in the bible that there will be those who doubt the truth. Love what you're doing to spread the world of the flat earth! amen.

Prove it then, let's see the earth show it to us. I won't settle for less than pictures

Pictures are not acceptable evidence. You also seem to be stuck in a mindset that someone owes you something. I assure you they do not.

[Woody]

I will add my personal experience:

I have sailed between Hawaii and California two times.  The map I used was of course a projection of a round Earth.

I have sailed to other locations as well.

From time to time I enjoy using more traditional methods of navigation.  Using a sextant to get noon shots of the sun to get longitude and sighting stars to get my position.  Methods that are based on a round Earth. A method of navigation that has been successfully used for hundreds of years.

Using maps based on a RE I have always made port in the travel times I expected. The speeds, distances, and travel times always added up correctly.

I also witnessed something many times during my travels over the ocean.  I will focus on one experience at night watching a ship near me and several times I approached land at night. Which I find the most compelling argument against a flat or concave Earth I have experienced.  While on deck I saw I light on the horizon.  I got my binoculars and tried to determine what heading the other ship was on.  I will list my visual observations in order.

1. Saw one light.

2. Continued to see the one light which I identified as being on a mast along with now being able to see light from a lower location the Helm.

3. Previous lights still visible and light coming through several port holes that where slightly lower.

4. Navigation lights came into view.

1. Well as for approaching land pretty much the same as above I was able to see light from the taller things first.  Pretty much the same experiences during the day but I usually have to be closer to ships before I notice they are there.  It is just harder to spot them with the naked eye until they are closer.

These experiences do not support a flat or concave Earth.

[juner]

You already posted this. There is no need to repeat it in another thread.

[macca]

Gday chaps, Im a Re believer and ibam no genius, but I have a question for the RE, if I were in a helicopter and traveled directly upwards for an hour, with the rotational speed being around 1,600kmh, would I be that far away from my original position?

[juner]

Gday chaps, Im a Re believer and ibam no genius, but I have a question for the RE, if I were in a helicopter and traveled directly upwards for an hour, with the rotational speed being around 1,600kmh, would I be that far away from my original position?

Hello. There is no need to post the same question twice in different forums.

[macca]

I just wanted an awnser, unsure if anyone would have seen it

[macca]

Would harp HARP have the same effect on a FE

[Woody]

Gday chaps, Im a Re believer and ibam no genius, but I have a question for the RE, if I were in a helicopter and traveled directly upwards for an hour, with the rotational speed being around 1,600kmh, would I be that far away from my original position?

I assume you have already been told to jump up in a moving vehicle of some sort once it is at a constant speed.  I'll try a different approach.

When the helicopter is sitting on the ground it is traveling the same speed as the Earth.  I think we can agree on that, even if that speed is 0 to somewhere up to 1,600 Km/H.

If it lifts directly upwards with no deviation forwards, backwards, or to any side it will be traveling at the same speed as the Earth for at least for a very short time.  Another thing I think we can agree on.

Now for the stuff you may not agree with.

The atmosphere moves along with the rotation of the Earth the same reason ever thing else on Earth does.  Newton's 1st Law every object in a state of motion, tends to stay in that state unless force is applied to it.

Why does something like the air start moving at the same speed as the Earth?  Friction.  That is why anything traveling fast enough will begin to heat up.  Move your hand through the air then some water.  You will get more resistance in the water.  In this regard the only difference between air and water is how dense it is.  Even if the Earth started from a dead stop the air would eventually begin to move at the same speed.

The answer to your question is Newtons 1st law.

[macca]

Cheers

[Rounder]

You already posted this. There is no need to repeat it in another thread.

Disagree.  We don't all read every post, so wherever he posted this comment before, it won't have been seen by everyone reading this thread.  It is relevant here.

[Icaruss]

*cracks my brain knuckles*

Alrighty, flat Earthers. I have a challenge for you. If you don't take my challenge, go home. Start where you're at, and move east. Keep moving east until you arrive at your starting point. Then explain to me why you were able to do that if the earth is flat. Quantum portal bordering the edges of the earth? A magic force, looping you to the other side? This is legit, I'm not flaming you guys, just challenging you. If you can explain this to me and back it up scientifically, I'll become a flat Earther.

Both depending on your perspective.
In the conventional model, you are tracing a concentric circle around the north pole.  It's really not a difficult concept to understand.  Let's imagine a round Earth for a moment for illustrative purposes.  You are standing exactly thirty feet from the north pole.  You travel due east until you get back to your starting point.  Did you travel in a straight line, or in a circle?

[rabinoz]

*cracks my brain knuckles*

Alrighty, flat Earthers. I have a challenge for you. If you don't take my challenge, go home. Start where you're at, and move east. Keep moving east until you arrive at your starting point. Then explain to me why you were able to do that if the earth is flat. Quantum portal bordering the edges of the earth? A magic force, looping you to the other side? This is legit, I'm not flaming you guys, just challenging you. If you can explain this to me and back it up scientifically, I'll become a flat Earther.

Oh, that's easy - mind you it is actually a circle you traverse, but then I guess it is on the globe too!
But, try that on the FE map in a North-South direction.
Yes, it HAS been done a couple of times, via both poles.  Haven't got time to chase up reference right now!

More important things on the table, like a light late lunch!

I nearly spelt that "lynch", and if I delay too much that is what it might be!

[Rounder]

Alrighty, flat Earthers. I have a challenge for you....Start where you're at, and move east. Keep moving east until you arrive at your starting point. Then explain to me why you were able to do that if the earth is flat.

I'm not a FE, but I can show you why your proposed experiment does not prove either side.  You want to move East, always East, right?  How are you determining your direction?  Several methods appear viable, and all can be shown to be insufficient to prove RE or FE.
1. Magnetic compass?  On the FE model of the earth, the compass always points North to the center of the disk.  If you are far enough away from that spot, your path will LOOK and FEEL like a straight line, but will turn in a very gradual circle, imperceptible to you, that curves you back to your starting point.  For that matter, as pointed out by others, the illustration can be done if you are very close to the pole, in which case the FE and RE models produce the exact same result.
2. The motion of the Sun?  Here again, FE has an answer that your observations will not be able to disprove: their Sun does not behave the way you know it to, but instead follows a circular path in the sky.  Once again, the path you take toward sunrise / away from sunset will appear straight to you, but will not be.
3. GPS?  Here you have several problems, not least of which is that you are no longer making your own determination of direction but instead are counting on someone else.  This opens you up to manipulation by agents of the supposed RE conspiracy to trick you into seeing evidence that they want you to see, confirming your belief in the RE world.

In cases 1 and 2 (and possibly case 3 but who's to say), both the RE and the FE models have you taking a curved path; the two models simply disagree on the direction of that curvature.  RE have you turning down, down, down, going more or less 'upside down' from your starting point when you are halfway home, then more down, down, down until you have returned upright at the start.  FE have you turning left, left, left, all the way around a flat track. 

[rabinoz]

Alrighty, flat Earthers. I have a challenge for you....Start where you're at, and move east. Keep moving east until you arrive at your starting point. Then explain to me why you were able to do that if the earth is flat.

I'm not a FE, but I can show you why your proposed experiment does not prove either side.  You want to move East, always East, right?  How are you determining your direction?  Several methods appear viable, and all can be shown to be insufficient to prove RE or FE.

...............................................................

In cases 1 and 2 (and possibly case 3 but who's to say), both the RE and the FE models have you taking a curved path; the two models simply disagree on the direction of that curvature.  RE have you turning down, down, down, going more or less 'upside down' from your starting point when you are halfway home, then more down, down, down until you have returned upright at the start.  FE have you turning left, left, left, all the way around a flat track.

Fine, but as I said in the previous post:

But, try that on the FE map in a North-South direction.
Yes, it HAS been done a couple of times, via both poles.

from: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-by-aircraft/
Captain Elgen M. Long achieved the first circum-polar flight in a twin-engined Piper PA-31 Navajo from 5 November to 3 December 1971. He covered 62,597 km (38,896 miles) in 215 flying hours.

from: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/17/world/charles-burton-59-a-pole-to-pole-explorer.html
Charles Burton, 59, a Pole-to-Pole Explorer
Charles Burton, a British explorer who took part in the first expedition to circumnavigate the globe from pole to pole, died on Monday at his family home in the English village of Framfield in Sussex. He was 59 and had suffered a heart attack, said his brother, Richard.

Yes, I know you can't trust the "Guinness World Records", you can't trust the "New York Times" and you can't trust photographs, videos, eye-witness account (you do know that from a series of eye-witnesses you can get a multitude of stories!), you can't trust Scientists, you can't trust Astronomers and in particular you cannot thrust any that do not believe THE TRUTH.

[Rounder]

And before him, a team took a plane across both poles in November of 1965, including a nonstop leg from Buenos Aires to the south pole, then a turn and on to Christchurch New Zealand, a flight which covered about 7000 miles and took them just over 14 hours.   Going over the pole was the long route between those two cities, a great circle on the globe covers only about 6200 miles.  The distance between those two points on the Gleason map?  Much longer.  Spectacularly longer.  Ignore the "edge of the world" problem, suppose merely that they flew inland over the ice until they could no longer see the ocean, then made their turn for New Zealand.  How many thousands and thousands of miles around the rim would they have to go?  That route from BA to CC is so much longer, in fact, that a Gleason Map route beginning heading north-west-ish over South America and curving across Central America, North America, the Pacific Ocean and Hawaii would be shorter than the substantially westward flight track followed by a great circle route.
 https://books.google.com/books?id=PaLLtQ3tO_gC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=CAPTAIN+ELGEN+M+LONG&source=bl&ots=Jfht48FnrC&sig=C6xo2b783mO8GxegLMZVeOpPalY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTjrboh-jKAhUS32MKHVysDjYQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=CAPTAIN%20ELGEN%20M%20LONG&f=false

[Rounder]

The point being, regardless of the details of their route, this plane did leave Bueno Aires, and did arrive in Christchurch some 14 hours later.  Witnesses at both ends.  On the Gleason Map, there is no way to plot a route that could be covered by that aircraft (Boeing 707) in that amount of time, nor indeed any route for which the 707 has enough fuel.  The distances are simply too great.

[rabinoz]

I know its hard to admit that you may have been fooled, but I think we have.  I was a round earther up to a few months ago.  I would have laughed at the suggestion of a flat earth.  But after looking at the arguments and 'evidence' from both sides, I can honestly say that I believe I was told one huge stinking lie about our world.

This is a very good post and turns the whole global indoctrination on its head.
In the scenario you put, there's no way in hell a person would believe in a globe that was spinning in space and people walking about all over it.
It just goes to show how strong mainstream indoctrination really is and how peer pressure and ridicule stops people daring to think for themselves.
Those who do, soon come to the conclusion that the reality is far different, just by using the basic senses.

You ask: "Can you honestly put your hand on your heart, . . . . . . . ."  My answer is a resounding yes I can "honestly put your hand on your heart, look yourself in the mirror and swear on a bible that the globe earth sounds more feasible"

There is certainly some truth in what you say. If you hit someone living around 300 BC with the whole current Heliocentric Global Earth, they too would probably throw up their hands and say "No way, Jose!" (More likely "Den ypárchei trópos Eratosthénis!").
The whole idea was not rammed down their throats, as seems to happen these days in schools (at least in the USA).
But, the Heliocentric Globe Earth idea did not start all once with a scientist deciding that everybody has to swallow this. It was built up gradually "more or less" like this:

• At first people travelling noticed constellations they had never seen appearing in the night skies.
• Then, those sailing ships noticed the way ships and islands appear top first as approached (ask any sailor!)
• From these and other observations many deduced that the earth was probably a Globe.
• Certainly, from before a few centuries BC, many accepted the globe, though they definitely regarded the Earth as the centre of the Universe - with the moon, planets, sun and stars rotating about it.
• Both the Greeks, Egyptians and many from the Arab countries and India were great observers of the planets and stars (though not all these people accepted the idea of a Globe.
• By Ptolemy's time (100-200 AD) astronomers realised there were great problems making sense of the motions of the planets, especially as the Greeks thought the motions should all be perfect circles.
• Even in the early Church the globe earth was generally accepted, though many disagreed.
• For next 1000 years or so there was not much change in the western world, though there was a lot of progress in the Islamic world, leading to modern Geodetic Surveying. This was spurred on because they believed it essential to always be able to locate Mecca. The is much interesting reading on "Abu Reyhan Biruni - a universal genius of the then Islamic world", who measured the radius of the earth as 6339.6 km (the radius at the equator of the earth is actually 6378) - not bad!
• Well, to cut a long, long story down to "not quite so long", finally Copernicus (don't know if he had help) realised things fitted better if the Earth and other planets orbited the sun. He still kept to the "perfect circle" orbits, and things did not fit too well.
• After Copernicus came Tycho Brahe who was mainly an excellent observer and record keeper, though he still kept to the old Geocentric ideas.
• and finally Johannes Kepler with the help of Brahe's data found that the planets followed (nearly) elliptical orbits. This was given a sound theoretical basis by Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation.
  

Of course, there is a tremendous amount of often quite interesting detail I have omitted.

But, my whole point is that the Heliocentric Globe Earth was not suddenly "rammed down anyone's throat".  The theory was developed gradually by numerous people over around 2,000 years. Of course much detail has been added since.

Yes, I would have to agree that it may be hard to see it all in one go, but the flat earth model has so many inconsistencies that simply get explained away by so many pure guesses, or simply ignored, that there is now way it is feasible for the earth I live on.