[Munky]

We are not talking about your logic of using girl children to describe non existing circular objects in space.

Please stay on topic. This thread is about how we know the earth is Spherical.

[juner]

Please stay on topic. This thread is about how we know the earth is Spherical.

I will try to be as clear as I can. You are posting in flat earth fora, you don't get to restrict a topic to the round earth myth and why you think it is round.

[AMann]

You having 2 boys and expecting to always have girls is a ridiculous counterargument.

Slight mistake in your quoting me there...

Always should be replaced by the word never.

I said "I have 2 boys and that means there is no reason to think I will ever have a girl".

But more importantly, I'd like to save you some time.

Myself and I am positive most of the people here understand all the principles you pointed out and then some.

You have to keep in mind "we" all know what mainstream science/school teaches us.

I myself excelled throughout school.

So, I don't aim to sound harsh, but there is little to "teach" anyone here.

RE'rs have a notion that flat earthers are uneducated. I think if you asked around you'd find that's not the case at all.

The fact that people who support flat earth do not subscribe to mainstream science, doesn't mean they don't understand it.

And in relation to your post, that was a good response to the question.

Now if that or even a bit of that was was said for #1 in the video then it would at least have an argument.

The kindergarten like statements of that video are just laughable. Truly, I was out and about today mocking it with some friends, to me it is just that funny.

lol - a little proof-reading on my part could have noticed that error as it did not make sense in context of what I was saying next

No one said that flat-Earthers were uneducated. At least those from developed countries get their basic education. Some education systems are better than others of course.
What is readily evident is that flat-Earthers fail to use their reasoning skills... that could certainly be the fault of a lot of modern education systems where teachers tell you what to think not how to think.

I would counter that rejecting scientific principles does mean that someone does not understand science. Science is not a body of knowledge. Science is a method of gathering and interpreting information using evidence and logic. This is why, in a good science classroom, you are not simply given facts to learn. You are shown how we discovered them. This is why Charles Darwin is talked about when learning Evolution, Hooke is brought up when talking about cells, Galileo when talking about heliocentrism, etc.
The rejection of the fact that the earth is round is silly since there are simple experiments that can be performed to show this. The shadow experiment is common enough in high school physics and trig classes...

Of course the reasons in the video are short - there is a reason why it's called MinutePhysics (the series is pretty decent as well as the spin-off: MinuteEarth). And they were listed as reasons why we know the Earth is round, not proofs that the Earth is round.
Simply writing off an answer because it is simple without using the reasoning skills you were supposed to be taught in school is beneath an educated person...

[Bookish Neptune]

Some education systems are better than others of course.
Simply writing off an answer because it is simple without using the reasoning skills you were supposed to be taught in school is beneath an educated person...

Ok. Here is what you first attempted to "teach" me:

Now, try to realize that there are 30 billion trillion stars just in the visible universe. 3x10^22 (that's a 3 followed by 22 zeroes).

If you were a "teacher", would you teach this to children as fact?

I hope not... I am about to dismantle that erroneous statement very easily.

Here is how that calculation came about:

"The team carried out two sets of observations in the same region"

Source:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/02/the-visible-universe-seven-trillion-dwarfs-and-billions-of-undetected-galaxies-weekend-feature.html

SAY WHAT?

So they point their telescope into space only 2 times into THE SAME REGION...

And BOOM, they know how many stars are in space, and so do you!!

You can't use this mainstream nonsense as fact. It is not. And it's very easy to point that out.

So on point one of your "lesson", you taught me nothing other than how easily one can believe what they hear/read and, so easily spread that hearsay as fact... But really i already knew that...

[Munky]

I am sorry I am not following, what exactly is your point here? No one other than you as far as I can tell posted anything on the following quote:

"Now, try to realize that there are 30 billion trillion stars just in the visible universe. 3x10^22 (that's a 3 followed by 22 zeroes)."

Only you..

Then you claim that it is not true but you supported it with an article.

I am confused...

Do you not understand the article? Are you asking for guidance?

[AMann]

Some education systems are better than others of course.
Simply writing off an answer because it is simple without using the reasoning skills you were supposed to be taught in school is beneath an educated person...

Ok. Here is what you first attempted to "teach" me:

Now, try to realize that there are 30 billion trillion stars just in the visible universe. 3x10^22 (that's a 3 followed by 22 zeroes).

If you were a "teacher", would you teach this to children as fact?

I hope not... I am about to dismantle that erroneous statement very easily.

Here is how that calculation came about:

"The team carried out two sets of observations in the same region"

Source:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/02/the-visible-universe-seven-trillion-dwarfs-and-billions-of-undetected-galaxies-weekend-feature.html

SAY WHAT?

So they point their telescope into space only 2 times into THE SAME REGION...

And BOOM, they know how many stars are in space, and so do you!!

You can't use this mainstream nonsense as fact. It is not. And it's very easy to point that out.

So on point one of your "lesson", you taught me nothing other than how easily one can believe what they hear/read and, so easily spread that hearsay as fact... But really i already knew that...

This is a lot like trying to talk to a creationist about evolution. Always trying to push a point where they think they see a flaw and yet never doing anything to support their stance nor discredit yours.

Lovely that you even posted an article where the method used to get this estimate is explained.

Do you know what a significant figure is? It is one of the first lessons in every science course I have ever taught. In science we use significant figures when working with imprecise data. You cannot have more precise answers than you have data going in.
3x10^22
That is a big number. Want to know what happens to that number if the estimate is off by 900 trillion? It becomes, 3x10^22... the same. The number is so large that being off by 900 trillion stars in the calculation means nothing.

If you want to simply write off the pieces of the observable universe that you can't see yourself. Go right ahead. Now look up at the night sky and see how many stars there are. Every point of light you see, and the ones that you don't see right now due to being the wrong season and the ones from the opposite hemisphere are still an incredible amount of celestial objects. And every single one has been observed and guess what? All the stars you can observe yourself are round. The planets you can use a telescope to see are round. The rare comet that comes around, that you can watch are round. You wanting to put stress on a number that you want to not be true still does nothing for any argument you are trying to make.

[Copper Knickers]

Here is how that calculation came about:

"The team carried out two sets of observations in the same region"

Source:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/02/the-visible-universe-seven-trillion-dwarfs-and-billions-of-undetected-galaxies-weekend-feature.html

SAY WHAT?

So they point their telescope into space only 2 times into THE SAME REGION...

And BOOM, they know how many stars are in space, and so do you!!

You can't use this mainstream nonsense as fact. It is not. And it's very easy to point that out.

Reading the article, it's very clear that they deliberately looked at the same region twice in order to compare two different observation techniques. I'm not sure why you would think there's a problem with that.

How is this research nonsense? I'd agree that the resulting figures are not facts - they are estimates based, no doubt, on many assumptions. But the article gives no reason to question the basis of the techniques nor the earnestness of the investigation. To call it nonsense is unjustified.

[Bookish Neptune]

Reading the article, it's very clear that they deliberately looked at the same region twice in order to compare two different observation techniques. I'm not sure why you would think there's a problem with that.

How is this research nonsense? I'd agree that the resulting figures are not facts - they are estimates based, no doubt, on many assumptions. But the article gives no reason to question the basis of the techniques nor the earnestness of the investigation. To call it nonsense is unjustified.

SAME REGION.. That's the keyword.

It doesn't matter if they pointed their telescopes 1 Billion times into THE SAME REGION.

I pointed mine into the same region more than 8 times last night. Does that give me right to say there are 40 Billion trillion stars in our viewable universe?

Even more so, does that give me the right to spread that statement as fact?

While it might be fine that you are including the word estimate, the original person I was quoting, whom was attempting to "school" me, DID NOT.

[Bookish Neptune]

You wanting to put stress on a number that you want to not be true still does nothing for any argument you are trying to make.

No. I am putting stress on:

SAME REGION..

I've been very clear about that.

Again, you can try to teach me about things such as comets, but sorry I was taught that when I was around 4 years old.

[Munky]

SAME REGION.. That's the keyword.

It doesn't matter if they pointed their telescopes 1 Billion times into THE SAME REGION.

I pointed mine into the same region more than 8 times last night. Does that give me right to say there are 40 Billion trillion stars in our viewable universe?

Even more so, does that give me the right to spread that statement as fact?

While it might be fine that you are including the word estimate, the original person I was quoting, whom was attempting to "school" me, DID NOT.

You just simply don't understand how the test works. Admit that you do not understand it and move on. Don't just discount it because you don't understand it.
If we discounted everything we did not understand the world would never have progressed technologically as far as it has.

[AMann]

You wanting to put stress on a number that you want to not be true still does nothing for any argument you are trying to make.

No. I am putting stress on:

SAME REGION..

I've been very clear about that.

Again, you can try to teach me about things such as comets, but sorry I was taught that when I was around 4 years old.

So, let's see if we can sum up this conversation so far.
A video showing 10 reasons we know the Earth is round is provided. You immediately latch onto the pictures point and make a claim that doesn't even fit that loch ness and nonsense must be true then.
When that point was refuted, you latch onto the number 'millions' of pictures of Earth from space. You did not to count partial pictures of Earth so you asked for whole pictures of the Earth, specifically 10 because you had already found 5. Someone gave you the link to the DSCOVR:EPIC site where multiple pictures of the full Earth are taken every day and you can go to the gallery for even more pictures - more than 10. You want to know why the Moon is not visible from all the pictures. You were told why.
There was an argument at some point that composites were not pictures. You were given an explanation on why they were.
We have moved on to objects in the universe being round and why there is no reason for Earth to be any different. You latch onto the estimate on how many stars are in the observable universe. You do not like the number. You do not like the procedure they used. Points that do not refute that there are an incredible number of objects in the universe and that they are all round in nature.
You say that you simply do not subscribe to mainstream science, but everything you bring up suggests that you do not subscribe to science at all... You say that you are educated, but you show a lack of understanding about science and the scientific method. Science is not about someone saying "this is what I discovered. It is a fact", it's about someone saying "this is what I discovered. This is the procedure I used. These are my calculations. Feel free to retest to see if I am correct." Why do you think that science papers tell you the procedures to their experiments? Why do you think you were told the method to the estimate in the article you linked? To invite others to view their methodology and retest/reobserve and/or recalculate their findings.

Do you actually want to get back on topic and try to refute the fact that the Earth is round? Or do you simply want to keep nitpicking points that do not lend itself to a rational discussion?

[Bookish Neptune]

So, let's see if we can sum up this conversation so far...

" You immediately latch onto the pictures point and make a claim that doesn't even fit that loch ness and nonsense must be true then."

No. Incorrect. I never was in any conversation about the Loch Ness monster. You are wrong. Reread the thread before you quote me please.

"but you show a lack of understanding about science and the scientific method."

Ok I'm learning how to be more scientific by your standards.

I've been practicing all day. Here you go.

You got to realize that there are 5 Billion earth like planet's in the viewable solar system. So therefore the earth is flat. "Science".

Oh and there is this stuff in space, we call it space dust. And when space dust collides it forms galaxies! "More Science".

But wait kids, there's more! There are these things in space we call Black Holes! You know, its a hole, and its black! They suck things in! And all those things disappear!

Still can't get the public into space, still no life forms found. But there's hope! We found some water on Mars! We will send astronauts to Mars before the taxpayers that made it possible gets to even go to supposed lower earth orbit. "Science".

How are my science teaching skills coming along?

[Woody]

So, let's see if we can sum up this conversation so far...

" You immediately latch onto the pictures point and make a claim that doesn't even fit that loch ness and nonsense must be true then."

No. Incorrect. I never was in any conversation about the Loch Ness monster. You are wrong. Reread the thread before you quote me please.

"but you show a lack of understanding about science and the scientific method."

Ok I'm learning how to be more scientific by your standards.

I've been practicing all day. Here you go.

You got to realize that there are 5 Billion earth like planet's in the viewable solar system. So therefore the earth is flat. "Science".

Oh and there is this stuff in space, we call it space dust. And when space dust collides it forms galaxies! "More Science".

But wait kids, there's more! There are these things in space we call Black Holes! You know, its a hole, and its black! They suck things in! And all those things disappear!

Still can't get the public into space, still no life forms found. But there's hope! We found some water on Mars! We will send astronauts to Mars before the taxpayers that made it possible gets to even go to supposed lower earth orbit. "Science".

How are my science teaching skills coming along?

Well lets look at some examples of the version of the zetetic method used be FES:

Bishop Experiment offered as conclusive proof or experimental evidence depending on which wiki you look at.

The distance stated is 10 miles off. http://imgur.com/a/BMQht
The area that the observer said is was laying down with the telescope 20" high is a rocky shore with a steep drop off to the water. http://imgur.com/DJ2mczM
Tom Bishop stated the distance was wrong and there is an addendum made available, yet it is not linked or made available. The only place I have seen it acknowledged the distance is wrong is in one thread on this forum.

This is offered as evidence of a flat Earth which IMO can be considered an attempt to mislead people.  http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

In the article it is explained how they used math to figure out what the theoretical pancake's shape would be laying on a RE.  That is one of the first steps they took to compare it to Kansas.

Not an experiment but it states in one of the wikis that the court ruled in favor of Hampden and ruled Wallace cheated.  The court transcripts sa otherwise and that the court ruled in favor of Hampden because a wager was not a legally enforceable contract.  In the transcripts evidence is provided that witnesses determined that Wallace had proved the Earth was round in a satisfactory manner. 

VOL XXIV The Weekly Reporter May 6, 1876 pp 607-611   
https://books.google.com/booksd=2VItAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA616&lpg=PA616&dq=VOL+XXIV+The+Weekly+Reporter+May+6,+1876&source=bl&ots=TGngrZOFkI&sig=NqvsXMMNcCerDFYTa0FjQXEc1cA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCsbi88-fKAhVS9WMKHf9yCEkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=VOL%20XXIV%20The%20Weekly%20Reporter%20May%206%2C%201876&f=false

It took me less then 20 minutes of checking to discover those errors in the wikis and those were the only things I checked.  The reason being is all the other proof and evidence lacked verifiable data.

I would take the scientific or zeteric methods over the FES version of the zeteric method any day.

IMO opinion what I see displayed in this forum is we do not believe what we do not witness ourselves, unless the picture, experiment, video, etc conforms to the Earth being flat.

[AMann]

IMO opinion what I see displayed in this forum is we do not believe what we do not witness ourselves, unless the picture, experiment, video, etc conforms to the Earth being flat.

Actually, that is exactly right. Confirmational bias. Any evidence contrary to their belief is ignored and ridiculous made-up explanations are used as arguments. Their FAQ is full of fabrications and outright lies that they try to push as truth even though they have no evidence to back anything...

I had to laugh at the "educated guy" who posted that black holes were "holes" lol

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

IMO opinion what I see displayed in this forum is we do not believe what we do not witness ourselves, unless the picture, experiment, video, etc conforms to the Earth being flat.

Actually, that is exactly right. Confirmational bias. Any evidence contrary to their belief is ignored and ridiculous made-up explanations are used as arguments. Their FAQ is full of fabrications and outright lies that they try to push as truth even though they have no evidence to back anything...

I had to laugh at the "educated guy" who posted that black holes were "holes" lol

Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?

[AMann]

IMO opinion what I see displayed in this forum is we do not believe what we do not witness ourselves, unless the picture, experiment, video, etc conforms to the Earth being flat.

Actually, that is exactly right. Confirmational bias. Any evidence contrary to their belief is ignored and ridiculous made-up explanations are used as arguments. Their FAQ is full of fabrications and outright lies that they try to push as truth even though they have no evidence to back anything...

I had to laugh at the "educated guy" who posted that black holes were "holes" lol

Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?

The one who chooses to ignore evidence.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?

The one who chooses to ignore evidence.

Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.

I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one.

[Woody]

Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?

The one who chooses to ignore evidence.

Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.

I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one.

I have posted the errors I found in the TFES Wiki before.  What I have noticed the only responses I got was from RE's and Tom Bishop saying he made an addendum available and no comments from any other FE. 

It is evidence that what is in the wiki can not be trusted as fact.  Displays a willingness to ignore or discount anything that may suggest we live on a sphere orbiting the sun which both are a result of gravity and fudge the data to support the hypothesis.

The only evidence FE's have that has any credence is the ground and water look flat.  Any observation outside of that like sunsets, eclipses, other celestial objects, pictures, videos, hull down effect, being able to observe satellites and the ISS, GPS, seeing further from higher, visibility of stars and angle from the horizon from various locations, seasons, tides that match up with the relation of the sun and moon to the Earth, planets in retrograde, lunar phases, and much more suggest the Earth is in fact spherical.

So one of us is using confirmation bias, ignoring evidence or explaining it away as fraudulent and only accepting evidence without verification that supports what they want or need to be true.

[rabinoz]

Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?

The one who chooses to ignore evidence.

Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.

I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one.

Yes, but numerous time I could say about you:
"Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.
I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one."

Numerous times I asked you direct questions. Never an answer!
Don't say don't have "confirmation bias":

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

A statement as biased (and utterly inaccurate) as this can only can only come from from someone so indoctrinated that he cannot objectively look at evidence. You just ignore my replies when I point out your errors!

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?

The one who chooses to ignore evidence.

Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.

I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one.

Yes, but numerous time I could say about you:
"Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.
I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one."

Numerous times I asked you direct questions. Never an answer!
Don't say don't have "confirmation bias":

The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

A statement as biased (and utterly inaccurate) as this can only can only come from from someone so indoctrinated that he cannot objectively look at evidence. You just ignore my replies when I point out your errors!

I wasn't even taking to you lol. Answer the question, who is more likely to have confirmation bias? Someone who has their whole lives been taught a thing a certain way, or someone who learned a different explanation far letter in life?

If anything, I should've resisted my growing doubt of the globe model at all costs. But I don't have a dog in the race per se. I don't work in, have a degree in, or even severe interest in anything that would collapse of the ball came into question.

All I know is I never trusted NASA and the man on the moon, and I still don't understand how gravity, an attraction of two different objects, can make one circle around the other. So it isn't a leap for me to begin to question things and research with an open mind.