[Jura-Glenlivet]

There is plenty of evidence that the earth is round.  There is also plenty of evidence that NASA is to be trusted.  So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat?  What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying?  Remember to cite your sources.

Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.

Hello Rain,

From my perspective as an avid watcher of the skies (day, night and the transitions) there are a few observations that are easy to replicate but don't mesh with the FE scheme of things. Earth Shadow, explained here (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fza60.htm) can be observed most clear days either as the sun sets or rises, something it doesn't do on the FE. Sunsets over the sea, clearly dipping below the horizon when it shouldn't and the accompanying clouds lit from beneath when the FE wiki says it (the sun) stays at a constant height that  would make those stunning red sunsets impossible. Also noctilucent clouds, night shining very high clouds illuminated by the sun over the horizon (see  https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=1&t=cloud92&i=0). There are many more if you would like to look at these sites and take yourself out to observe. And Neptune. I have and taken the photo's but just not as good as the ones on the links, anyway hope this is of some interest in your search, good luck.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

There is plenty of evidence that the earth is round.  There is also plenty of evidence that NASA is to be trusted.  So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat?  What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying?  Remember to cite your sources.

Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.

Hello Rain,

From my perspective as an avid watcher of the skies (day, night and the transitions) there are a few observations that are easy to replicate but don't mesh with the FE scheme of things. Earth Shadow, explained here (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fza60.htm) can be observed most clear days either as the sun sets or rises, something it doesn't do on the FE. Sunsets over the sea, clearly dipping below the horizon when it shouldn't and the accompanying clouds lit from beneath when the FE wiki says it (the sun) stays at a constant height that  would make those stunning red sunsets impossible. Also noctilucent clouds, night shining very high clouds illuminated by the sun over the horizon (see  https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=1&t=cloud92&i=0). There are many more if you would like to look at these sites and take yourself out to observe. And Neptune. I have and taken the photo's but just not as good as the ones on the links, anyway hope this is of some interest in your search, good luck.

Why do you day red sunsets wouldn't be possible? The light from the sun would still have to travel through the same amount of atmosphere horizontally whether it was "setting" beneath the horizon or extremely distant.

One thing I dont understand is how the sun is said to be what illuminates the moon but ive seen the moon out same time as sun very close in proximity and you would think light from sun would hit it from the back. Also would the light be able to illuminate a spherical moon so evenly? Doesn't it revolve around earth as we rotate, shouldnt we see multiple phases in one night?

[juner]

We send up high altitude balloons that can see the curvature of the earth. 

Please do share the videos, then. Hopefully you didn't use a fisheye lens.

The point is that I am more qualified to speak for NASA and the round earth than you are to speak against them. 

I noticed you put this in your signature as well. What gives you the impression that you are more qualified to talk about NASA?

[Woody]

There is plenty of evidence that the earth is round.  There is also plenty of evidence that NASA is to be trusted.  So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat?  What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying?  Remember to cite your sources.

Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.

I would look critically look at the evidence and make up your own mind.

I do not think this is the place to learn about the true nature of the world, but I am looking at it from a biased opinion that we live on a spheroid.  Coming here has even strengthened that belief from 99.5% sure to 99.9999% sure.

Here is what I was able to verify about FE truth in the wiki:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.msg88112#msg88112

Basically for the distances stated one is 10 miles off and the telescope height stated is very questionable.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4497.msg87633#msg87633

The wiki states the court ruling was Wallace cheated. Which does not reflect what court transcripts say the ruling was.  The court ruled that it was a wager and not an enforceable contract.  It even shows witnesses stated that Wallace had indeed proven in a satisfactory manner the curvature of the earth.

I also point out a link provided under experimental evidence can be misleading if the reader does not understand the methodology used.

When I first found this site and started asking questions and looking for answers I started reading the wiki.  The first three things I ran across that I could verify the information given turned out not to be representing the truth or could be considered an attempt to mislead people.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Why do you day red sunsets wouldn't be possible? The light from the sun would still have to travel through the same amount of atmosphere horizontally whether it was "setting" beneath the horizon or extremely distant.




 

Yes but if your sun remains at the height stated in the Wiki (2,000-3,000 miles) and never goes down it wouldn't shine on the underside of a cloud that was only 2,000-18,000 ft (altocumulus the best sunset cloud) up, not on a flat plane.

[rabinoz]

Why do you day red sunsets wouldn't be possible? The light from the sun would still have to travel through the same amount of atmosphere horizontally whether it was "setting" beneath the horizon or extremely distant.

Yes but if your sun remains at the height stated in the Wiki (2,000-3,000 miles) and never goes down it wouldn't shine on the underside of a cloud that was only 2,000-18,000 ft (altocumulus the best sunset cloud) up, not on a flat plane.

Oh, but I sure you don't really understand FE "perspective" ( I sure don't anyway!  ). I am sure you will learn much from: http://wiki.tfes.org/Sunset.
And of course:

Constant Speed of the Sun
Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?
A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.
It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

see more in: http://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun
Then:

The phenomenon of the Sun's apparent magnification or shrinking throughout the day is a common cause of confusion among round earthers trying to understand the Flat Earth Theory. This article serves as an introduction to the subject.
Contents
1 Magnification and Shrinking
2 Headlight Example
3 Beam Divergence
4 Distinctness of the Sun
5 See also:
Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.

more in: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I think it beats Anne McCaffery's "Dragons of Pern" as SciFi reading anyday or maybe they are describing Terry Pratchett's "Discworld", after all John Davis (of The Flat Earth Society) on an interview actually did say:

Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"
A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, while others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

and they laughed when someone suggested "Turtles all the way down!"

I do hope you understand it better now! 

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Okay so I lifted some dimensions from the wiki and put them into my drawing program, everything is to scale apart from the thickness of the cloud which is the equivalent of 230 miles high as it would have been hardly visible and a cloud has got to look like a cloud.


They are vectored Pdf’s so you can zoom in a bit.

I have balanced it all on the RE for the hell of it.

The central cloud is representative of the distances you would be getting sunsets but the suns distance is probably a bit further out than necessary, however I think the point is made.
Once the FE’er has decided that the Earth is a plane do they check what things would look like? (Back at ya! Neptune).



So we have a 32mile diameter sun (2,500miles up) 12,000 miles away from a 200mile wide cloud 2 miles off the ground and you can see the angled line coming in from the right, I have put another cloud way over the other side of the earth just to show it never, ever ,ever gets low enough to illuminate the underside, I would say case closed but I just know there will be the ubiquitous “Aether” get out clause heading this way.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Okay so I lifted some dimensions from the wiki and put them into my drawing program, everything is to scale apart from the thickness of the cloud which is the equivalent of 230 miles high as it would have been hardly visible and a cloud has got to look like a cloud.


They are vectored Pdf’s so you can zoom in a bit.

I have balanced it all on the RE for the hell of it.

The central cloud is representative of the distances you would be getting sunsets but the suns distance is probably a bit further out than necessary, however I think the point is made.
Once the FE’er has decided that the Earth is a plane do they check what things would look like? (Back at ya! Neptune).



So we have a 32mile diameter sun (2,500miles up) 12,000 miles away from a 200mile wide cloud 2 miles off the ground and you can see the angled line coming in from the right, I have put another cloud way over the other side of the earth just to show it never, ever ,ever gets low enough to illuminate the underside, I would say case closed but I just know there will be the ubiquitous “Aether” get out clause heading this way.

What about the light that is reflected off the Earth? Or the infamous refraction that causes the moon to turn red during an eclipse or chicago to appear clearly across lake michigan. That is something that needs to be accounted for when asking how light can reflect off the bottom of a cloud.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Truth is, have you ever watched a sunset? The light catches the front end of the clouds facing the sun then spreads all across it before retreating back, you can see the sun low down, no reflections from the Earth! as for refraction, not 12 degrees, I’m sensing you are floundering a bit with this one.

Try Earth shadow.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I looked at your diagram, but charting where the sun actually is, and where it appears are two different things, even on round earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Look how extreme the difference is between the "apparent" position of the sun and the "actual" position, if we account for atmospheric refraction. On flat earth model, it's purported to be "perspective" that makes the sun appear lower to the horizon, which is the "apparent" position not the "actual" position.

If I seem to flounder it's because I don't really have a definitive stance on the shape of the earth. I have an agnostic view as far as that goes, I'm equally disturbed by those who ignore evidence for either model. I'm more intrigued by the possibility that the Earth may be stationary, in case you didn't notice, geocentricism is another long-dead concept that's also on the rise again.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Sorry If I seemed a bit obnoxious in my comments but this perspective thing that's peddled just seems a fudge to me. There are many beautiful examples of atmospheric diffraction and mirages that can literally build castles in the air, but from personal observation and study these are a low level, temporary affair where temperature differences and inversions distort things close to the horizon, I stood on the Isle of Lundy last year looking across the Bristol channel to the Welsh coastline, through binoculars, at huge cliffs that just don't exist, something called the “Fata Morgana” there is a stunning site  http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm that has both pictures and what I think are good answers to how these happen (and many other phenomena too) .
Now the important thing was the next day as weather conditions changed it was back to normal, yet for the sun to set on an FE world, refractions that to my knowledge have never been documented must happen every day, all perfectly the same. If you look at the images on the link they change by the minute. I don't ignore other options but I don't see them.

[CableDawg]

Ah the smug nature of the rounders comments... Can you feel it?

You guys talk a big game but yet still NONE of you have your own evidence the earth is round.

All any Ball Earth believers do is post links from "science" websites and use that as their evidence.

That is another man's work, not yours.

If round earth is so easy to prove, then  why don't any of you have your own evidence?

The fact that and the way that rounders even attempt to defend round earth tells me a lot about this so called science you all spew.

Most rounders have never even left their own country, state, home town, yet you all are so certain of the shape of the earth.

Rounders go through their entire life believing all they read about science. Never once having an original thought, experiment, or ground breaking discovery.

Space is nothing more than a mathematical theory, never proven, never explored, never conquered by man, ever.

The science you know is nothing more than complicated math to complete a puzzle of illusion for the weak to snack on.

Jokes on you. Go back to your History Channel and Discovery Channel for your daily brainwashing. Then, please, come back and "educate" the less fortunate and under studied some more...

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

[Tom Bishop]

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.

[BlueMoon]

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.  We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth.  We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator.  We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect.  We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round.  We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day.  We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program.  We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides.  We have centuries of proof.  You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it. 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.  We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth.  We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator.  We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect.  We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round.  We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day.  We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program.  We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides.  We have centuries of proof.  You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.

Do you really think any of that stuff is convincing? I never realized how weak the argument for round earth was until I saw someone post it all at once. I would itemize this post and talk about each point but it seems rather pointless. You are committed, your entire dorky life depends on space travel being real.

[BlueMoon]

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.  We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth.  We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator.  We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect.  We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round.  We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day.  We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program.  We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides.  We have centuries of proof.  You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.

Do you really think any of that stuff is convincing? I never realized how weak the argument for round earth was until I saw someone post it all at once. I would itemize this post and talk about each point but it seems rather pointless. You are committed, your entire dorky life depends on space travel being real.

No, there's way more.  That's just an appetizer.  But if you're not at least a little shaken by that, you must be really, really committed to the flat earth.  I mean seriously, you're making up stupid shit like celestial gravitation and trying to pin the rest on refraction, aether, and "everyone is lying but us."

[Tom Bishop]

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.  We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth.  We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator.  We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect.  We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round.  We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day.  We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program.  We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides.  We have centuries of proof.  You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.

None of that is really basic or obvious.

[BlueMoon]

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.  We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth.  We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator.  We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect.  We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round.  We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day.  We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program.  We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides.  We have centuries of proof.  You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.

None of that is really basic or obvious.

The bit about the satellites is probably the most obvious, but I still have yet to hear an explanation from you for why there are two high tides each day. 

[rabinoz]

I looked at your diagram, but charting where the sun actually is, and where it appears are two different things, even on round earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
Look how extreme the difference is between the "apparent" position of the sun and the "actual" position, if we account for atmospheric refraction. On flat earth model, it's purported to be "perspective" that makes the sun appear lower to the horizon, which is the "apparent" position not the "actual" position.
If I seem to flounder it's because I don't really have a definitive stance on the shape of the earth. I have an agnostic view as far as that goes, I'm equally disturbed by those who ignore evidence for either model. I'm more intrigued by the possibility that the Earth may be stationary, in case you didn't notice, geocentricism is another long-dead concept that's also on the rise again.

Go think up something for yourself for a change!

PS Go read some history as to why the earth was considered and then why the "not-so-log-dead" concept was finally abandoned!

[geckothegeek]

I have been a visitor and sometimes contributor to this website for some time. Probably not as long as a lot of persons- only since July, 2014.But long enough to form the following opinions.

I was first just attracted by the title of  "Flat Earth."It was and still is just a curiosity.

I assure you that I am not the only person who would ask the question "Why should anyone believe the earth is flat ?"

I have had just enough education and just enough experience to know - not just believe - that the earth is the globe that it really is.

My first experience at posting was in reference to the distance from the earth to the moon. This is also not just a belief but the known fact that the distance is approximately 250,000 miles- and not 3,000 miles. If you want to get technically about it, the distance does vary. The thread was about how some amateur radio operators in their "Moon Bounce" experiment determined the distance by bouncing radio signals off the moon, measuring the time for signals to return to earth and using the time and the speed of radio waves to determine the distance. Replies from flat earth posters were rather unbelievable. They did not seem to understand even the basics of radio. Some of the replies were downright funny. One reply seemed to think that all amateur radio operators ("hams") did was "Sit it their shack and talk to truckers". LOL Another questioned the accuracy of the speed of radio waves. Etc.

On another subject they posted their ignorance of the basics of  photography in exposures, etc. of pictures taken from the moon.

Most of my work has been in hobbies or  technical fields - photography, radio communications, radar, computers and service in the U.S. Navy.All of these depend on the fact that the earth is a globe and there is ample evidence that they work in the way that they do.

Or is it just a dumb act by so-called "flat earth believers" ?

The bottom line of all this verbiage is that I am almost certain that any person with even the basics of education knows that the earth is not some flat disc.

So naturally , some persons might come to the conclusion that if any  one who "believes" that  the earth is flat is just insane or delusional. Especially if they seem to regard an 1850's person of questionable character and veracity as an expert on the subject.

Or on the other hand, some persons might come to the conclusion that the so-called "flat earth believers" are no more believers than anyone else and just like to make up ideas as to how things would have to be if the earth was flat just for the sake of debate.

Or maybe the intent of this website is just the opposite - To show just how erroneous is even the idea of a flat earth ?

Or maybe it is as - The "King of Siam" said in his speech in the movie "The King  and I" - "Is a puzzlement !"

I don't think I'm alone. I enjoy this website for the entertainment value. I take most flat earth statements as highly curious and often just hilarious.It can be fun if you don't take anything from any devoted flat earther seriously. LOL.

I could go into a  lot more detail. But again, I don't think I am alone in asking the question.:
"Why should anyone believe that the earth is flat ?"