I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.
I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.
The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.
I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.
The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.
Your version of basic and obvious does not account for some basic and obvious concepts though. For example: human sense are often insufficient to observe the predictions of FE theory or RE fact.
It doesn't matter. You could also say that they are insufficient to see that the earth is a torus.
The fact remains that the basic observational evidence tells us that the earth is flat. A flat earth is the most obvious truth, not a hypothetical torus.
It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses. I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.
That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over. A visit to any university geodesy department can provide it in droves.
That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.
That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.
Whether or not the burden of proof has been satisfied is not the focus of this thread. The challenge presented was that FE must satisfy the burden of proof and I was simply explaining why that is not the case.
That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.
Whether or not the burden of proof has been satisfied is not the focus of this thread. The challenge presented was that FE must satisfy the burden of proof and I was simply explaining why that is not the case.
Well that is wrong too. Each side must satisfy their positive claims.
That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.
Whether or not the burden of proof has been satisfied is not the focus of this thread. The challenge presented was that FE must satisfy the burden of proof and I was simply explaining why that is not the case.
Well that is wrong too. Each side must satisfy their positive claims.
Our positive claim can be satisfied by looking down.
It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses. I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.
To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse? Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing? Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing. Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.
So the onus of proof is most certainly on the Flat Earth Movement to prove their dissenting views.
The points I listed I see with my own eyes. I might need a bit of logic (that I can add if you like), but If I need physics and perspective to explain those things I have to wonder just who is really following Zetetic ideas here!So the onus of proof is most certainly on the Flat Earth Movement to prove their dissenting views.Your lack of logic is quite impressive. However, repeating the same nonsense over and over does not make it true. The onus of proof is on you silly round earth logicians who continue to defy observation and physics to explain your objectively false worldview.
The points I listed I see with my own eyes
The six-months sun at the South Pole.
The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.
That burden of proof has been satisifed many, many times over.
Whether or not the burden of proof has been satisfied is not the focus of this thread. The challenge presented was that FE must satisfy the burden of proof and I was simply explaining why that is not the case.
Well that is wrong too. Each side must satisfy their positive claims.
Our positive claim can be satisfied by looking down.
Which is then shown to be insufficient because looking down cannot distinguish a flat plane from a spheroid 40,000km in circumference.
Well, if you're going to just deny reality, I see no reason to engage in debate with you.It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses. I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.
To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse? Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing? Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing. Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".
Well, if you're going to just deny reality, I see no reason to engage in debate with you.It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses. I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.
To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse? Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing? Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing. Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".
The points I listed I see with my own eyes
The six-months sun at the South Pole.
The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.
Of course, you have undoubtedly observed these with your own eyes ::)
Sure, if one were to look past the deliberately misleading generalisation on your part, one might think you have a point. But let's not do that. That would be silly.That argument is weak as hell though, because that implies that what everybody else observes is false, and FE'ers are a group of people heavily relying on rowbotham and/or the very few key proponents of flat earth.The points I listed I see with my own eyesOf course, you have undoubtedly observed these with your own eyes ::)
The six-months sun at the South Pole.
The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.
If relying on other people's observations is invalid, that makes information sharing invalid and even this site a waste of time, space, and resources.
Sure, if one were to look past the deliberately misleading generalisation on your part, one might think you have a point. But let's not do that. That would be silly.That argument is weak as hell though, because that implies that what everybody else observes is false, and FE'ers are a group of people heavily relying on rowbotham and/or the very few key proponents of flat earth.The points I listed I see with my own eyesOf course, you have undoubtedly observed these with your own eyes ::)
The six-months sun at the South Pole.
The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.
If relying on other people's observations is invalid, that makes information sharing invalid and even this site a waste of time, space, and resources.
Rowbotham's and other FE'ers' experiments are reproducible. rabinoz's claims rely on the Antarctic Treaty not existing. Unfortunately, it does exist.
The points I listed I see with my own eyes
The six-months sun at the South Pole.
The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.
Of course, you have undoubtedly observed these with your own eyes ::)
That argument is weak as hell though, because that implies that what everybody else observes is false, and FE'ers are a group of people heavily relying on rowbotham and/or the very few key proponents of flat earth.
If relying on other people's observations is invalid, that makes information sharing invalid and even this site a waste of time, space, and resources.
Well, if you're going to just deny reality, I see no reason to engage in debate with you.It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses. I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.
To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse? Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing? Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing. Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".Just what reality am I denying?
All the points I mentioned are things I see! Am I supposed to deny my own eyes? Neither you nor anyone else has queried or discussed one of those points!
Yes, I suppose you are right,Well, if you're going to just deny reality, I see no reason to engage in debate with you.It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses. I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.
To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse? Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing? Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing. Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".Just what reality am I denying?
All the points I mentioned are things I see! Am I supposed to deny my own eyes? Neither you nor anyone else has queried or discussed one of those points!
Not a single one of them is a direct observation regarding the shape of the Earth. In fact if you feel the need to point to such things as evidence that the Earth is round, you are supporting my argument that the burden of proof lies with RE rather than FE. So, thanks, I guess.
Yes, I suppose you are right,Well, if you're going to just deny reality, I see no reason to engage in debate with you.It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses. I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.
To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse? Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing? Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing. Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".Just what reality am I denying?
All the points I mentioned are things I see! Am I supposed to deny my own eyes? Neither you nor anyone else has queried or discussed one of those points!
Not a single one of them is a direct observation regarding the shape of the Earth. In fact if you feel the need to point to such things as evidence that the Earth is round, you are supporting my argument that the burden of proof lies with RE rather than FE. So, thanks, I guess.
but of course common sense tells us:Yes, I know I'm being stupid, but not all first impressions are correct, especially when other simple observations contradict then.
- that steel ships can never float,
- heavier that air objects can never fly,
- that the sun is a flaming chariot that climbs up from the east and goes down in the west, finding some way to get back under the earth ready for the next day,
- that it is completely impossible to talk to someone in another place,
- that even large ships clearly sink well before they disappear in the distance.
But, as they say, there are none so blind as those that will not see.
Yes, I suppose you are rightWell, if you're going to just deny reality, I see no reason to engage in debate with you.It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses. I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.
To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse? Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing? Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing. Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".Just what reality am I denying?
All the points I mentioned are things I see! Am I supposed to deny my own eyes? Neither you nor anyone else has queried or discussed one of those points!
Not a single one of them is a direct observation regarding the shape of the Earth. In fact if you feel the need to point to such things as evidence that the Earth is round, you are supporting my argument that the burden of proof lies with RE rather than FE. So, thanks, I guess.
Please be just a tiny bit honest! If you actually read what I wrote, the points I claimed to see with my own eyes were these:
The points I listed I see with my own eyes
The six-months sun at the South Pole.
The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.
Of course, you have undoubtedly observed these with your own eyes ::)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Well, I do keep my eyes open and what do I see?Note that none of this is direct evidence of a rotating earth, but I believe is strong evidence of a Globe with a distant (far further than the earths size) sun and moon. So many of these points are "explained away" by TFES using "perspective", "bendy light" (massive refraction), extreme "magnification" by the atmosphere or simply ignored. These explanations are simply quoted with no justification at all!
- The Earth looks flat - it does!
- On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.
- The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
- The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at sunrise and sunset.
- The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.
- Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
- The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.
- The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - I have have travelled and seen this).
- The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.
I could go on about the direction of sunrise and sunset etc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The points I listed I see with my own eyes. I might need a bit of logic (that I can add if you like), but If I need physics and perspective to explain those things I have to wonder just who is really following Zetetic ideas here!
Just where am I defying observation and physics. Sure I might defy your ideas on perspective, unexplainable atmospheric magnification and other things in your Wiki!
But, I have never seen any reasonable explanation in your Wiki for:That's enough for now! I don't want to get into physics or maths!
- The directions of the sun and moon rising and setting.
- The six-months sun at the South Pole.
- The 24 hour sun everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle.
- All the points in my previous post! Without magic magnification the just happens to keep the sun and moon the same size.
- The moon phases! The Wiki explanation defies any ideas of geometry I have seen! Undoubtedly Tom Bishop would understand!
- Solar and lunar eclipses - oh, sorry you invent a magic "shadow moon" for that - evidence?
- The tides, especially two tides a day and spring and king tides.
Mind you a map that showed the correct shape and dimensions for the Southern Hemisphere continents would be a great help to acceptance.
I know that Australia is grossly misshapen on the "accepted" unipolar map, and a lot worse on the bipolar one!
rabinoz's claims rely on the Antarctic Treaty not existing. Unfortunately, it does exist.
Except that observational evidence is a much different thing than "common sense".Touché, to me there is abundant "observational evidence" the points to an earth that is not flat!
Why are you here debating if you believe that all of this is obvious nonsense? Do you debate the people who think that unicorns exist too?
What is there to see that "they" don't want to show you?I really wish people would stop pretending the Antarctic Treaty keeps people from going there. It does no such thing. You really want to go to Antarctica, you are allowed to. It's expensive and difficult, but thousands of tourists go there every year.
It's much the same as North Korea in that respect. You can go there if you really want, and thousands of tourists do every year. However, your visit will be heavily regulated and you won't be seeing anything they don't want you to see.
What is there to see that "they" don't want to show you?I really wish people would stop pretending the Antarctic Treaty keeps people from going there. It does no such thing. You really want to go to Antarctica, you are allowed to. It's expensive and difficult, but thousands of tourists go there every year.
It's much the same as North Korea in that respect. You can go there if you really want, and thousands of tourists do every year. However, your visit will be heavily regulated and you won't be seeing anything they don't want you to see.
Apparently, an ice wall extending to infinity.What is there to see that "they" don't want to show you?I really wish people would stop pretending the Antarctic Treaty keeps people from going there. It does no such thing. You really want to go to Antarctica, you are allowed to. It's expensive and difficult, but thousands of tourists go there every year.
It's much the same as North Korea in that respect. You can go there if you really want, and thousands of tourists do every year. However, your visit will be heavily regulated and you won't be seeing anything they don't want you to see.
Or maybe they don't want any independent research taking place.
Maybe I am, or maybe I'm just filling that guy in on flat earth theory. Maybe I could spam hella links to flat earth videos the same way you use nasa.gov for your sources of evidence.OK, I'll make is easy on your poor old eyes.Hell, maybe I can center my text and make it bold to make it seem more worthy of attention and at the same time harder to read.
I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.
The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.
Maybe I am, or maybe I'm just filling that guy in on flat earth theory. Maybe I could spam hella links to flat earth videos the same way you use nasa.gov for your sources of evidence.OK, I'll make is easy on your poor old eyes.Hell, maybe I can center my text and make it bold to make it seem more worthy of attention and at the same time harder to read.
I have not seen anything from you on Flat Earth Theory. All you ever do is question bits of the globe earth ideas that you claim not to understand.
So, what about filling us all in on Flat Earth Theory, and explain how moon phases work. Yes, I've read the Wiki, What I see there simply does not explain how a full moon could ever be seen when it so right overhead.
You have done nothing to "prove the earth is flat", so what about it?
I think your sense of smell has been bent somewhere along the line.Maybe I am, or maybe I'm just filling that guy in on flat earth theory. Maybe I could spam hella links to flat earth videos the same way you use nasa.gov for your sources of evidence.OK, I'll make is easy on your poor old eyes.Hell, maybe I can center my text and make it bold to make it seem more worthy of attention and at the same time harder to read.
I have not seen anything from you on Flat Earth Theory. All you ever do is question bits of the globe earth ideas that you claim not to understand.
So, what about filling us all in on Flat Earth Theory, and explain how moon phases work. Yes, I've read the Wiki, What I see there simply does not explain how a full moon could ever be seen when it so right overhead.
You have done nothing to "prove the earth is flat", so what about it?
I dont care to prove anything to anyone. Obviously there is some cognitive dissonance involved, with you especially, that id rather stick my head into a behive then try to overcome.
And don't dare say the I'm the one with confirmation bias because I was brought up the same as most being taught the earth is round, tilted on an axis, and revolving the sun. My pointing out the inconsistencies in this model is the only way I can begin to develop any rational concepts otherwise. I'm no astrophysicist but I know bullshit when I smell it.
It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.Complete and utter nonsense. It's trivially easy to fool our senses and they should never be trusted over unbiased, objective methods of observation.
It's trivially easy to fool our senses
It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.Complete and utter nonsense. It's trivially easy to fool our senses and they should never be trusted over unbiased, objective methods of observation.
It does seem interesting that:It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.Complete and utter nonsense. It's trivially easy to fool our senses and they should never be trusted over unbiased, objective methods of observation.
In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us. If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.
Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line.
Why the Lunar Eclipse is Red
A typical lunar eclipse
The Lunar Eclipse is red because the light of the sun is shining through the edges of the Shadow Object which passes between the sun and moon during a Lunar Eclipse. The red tint occurs because the outer layers of the Shadow Object are not sufficiently dense.
Celestial Gravitation
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
So if your senses tell you that stopped cars in neutral really can roll uphill, then it must be true, right?It's really very simple. Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.Complete and utter nonsense. It's trivially easy to fool our senses and they should never be trusted over unbiased, objective methods of observation.
In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us. If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.
In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us. If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.
I don't see the problem. All you have to do is see that the earth is flat, then bend (literally in the case of light) all other observations as needed! Needs a bit of magic sometimes.In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us. If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.
Which of your senses support the various hypothetical statements in the wiki? A few obvious examples of things derived from FE theory, instead of sensed:
"Along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150 foot Ice Wall." Have any of you been to this wall, seen it, measured it?
Two competing ideas: Either "the Ice Wall is tall enough to hold in the atmolayer, like the edges of a bowl." Or: "The atmolayer is held in by a complex reaction to the streams of Dark Energy at the edge of the world."
"The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun" Something that is never seen? That seems the very definition of "free of what our senses tell us" don't you think?
"When the sun is too far away rays are bent in a parabolic arc before they reach earth" Have you ever seen light bend in a parabolic arc?
In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us. If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.So if your senses tell you that stopped cars in neutral really can roll uphill, then it must be true, right?
Surely you recognize that somebody at some time must have observed that cars in neutral can only roll downhill, or some other physically identical variant, otherwise the notion of a car in neutral rolling uphill would not be an absurd concept?And yet I provided an example of a car clearly rolling uphill.
You would almost think that my assertion that knowledge cannot truly be obtained free of empirical observation wasn't a mainstream philosophical view (one that would make science itself irrelevant if it weren't true).It almost sounds like you're suggesting that objective observations can't be empirical.
Yes, but one think on first sight that "The earth looks flat", but then we find that numerous observations are not consistent with that premise!In the end, all we have to go by are what our senses tell us. If you are using "unbiased" and "objective" to mean "free of what our senses tell us", you are spouting utter nonsense.
Please stop posting, Markjo. I beg you. You are kind of making yourself look silly right now.
Surely you recognize that somebody at some time must have observed that cars in neutral can only roll downhill, or some other physically identical variant, otherwise the notion of a car in neutral rolling uphill would not be an absurd concept?
You would almost think that my assertion that knowledge cannot truly be obtained free of empirical observation wasn't a mainstream philosophical view (one that would make science itself irrelevant if it weren't true). Ooh, I'm a weird fringe Flat Earther, what I say can't possibly make sense!
(http://i68.tinypic.com/r1ajvc.jpg)
I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.
The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.
If you are suggesting that a claim which is "basic and obvious" does not require proof, then I strongly disagree with you. Whether something is basic and/or obvious is subjective, and irrespective of that even the most basic claims must be supported by evidence. Let's say that I do not deny your claim, but I do still require you to prove it. What is the evidence in support of a flat earth (if there is any), save for that the earth appears flat?
I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.
The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.
If you are suggesting that a claim which is "basic and obvious" does not require proof, then I strongly disagree with you. Whether something is basic and/or obvious is subjective, and irrespective of that even the most basic claims must be supported by evidence. Let's say that I do not deny your claim, but I do still require you to prove it. What is the evidence in support of a flat earth (if there is any), save for that the earth appears flat?
The basic and obvious is vindicated by the fact that it is the basic and obvious. All opposing theories must attack that to find their place in the world. Whether you believe the earth is concave, convex, or irregular, you must show evidence against the prevailing reality that the earth is flat. A Flat Earth is the prevailing reality upon which all contradictory hypothesis' must engage.
If you are claiming that ghosts exist, you must contradict the prevailing reality that ghosts do not exist. It is not the burden of the people who think that ghosts do not exist to prove that they don't. The burden of proof is on the people claiming that they do exist.
The people saying that ghosts do not exist don't need to prove a thing. Not a thing.
If you think there is evidence, then it is your responsibility to show your evidence for surveying and floatingglass and the existence of space ships.
The truth starts with the fact that the earth is flat.
The earth is flat until it has been disproven to be so.
But they have been shown to exist, you just deny it. I don't have to reiterate that because you like pretend surveyors don't deal with the curvature of the Earth, or that rockets don't go in to space.
So it is not flat, great. You know it has been disproven; that is why you have had to salvage the idea with things like bendy light, or other notions like people's formalization of perspective being incorrect. These are responses to valid counterexamples of the Earth's flatness. This high ground you try to occupy is a place that has not existed for a very long time.
There is nothing wrong with questioning concepts like perspective...Questioning such concepts is the very right and very intelligent thing to do.
shadows of the sun form different angles at different locations.
shadows of the sun form different angles at different locations.
This honestly intrigues me. Can you provide a picture of the sun's shadow? Because personally my response to this one would be "The sun doesn't cast a shadow that we are able to observe."
This greatly intrigues me too! But I have it on a MUCH higher authority.shadows of the sun form different angles at different locations.This honestly intrigues me. Can you provide a picture of the sun's shadow? Because personally my response to this one would be "The sun doesn't cast a shadow that we are able to observe."
The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
But they have been shown to exist, you just deny it. I don't have to reiterate that because you like pretend surveyors don't deal with the curvature of the Earth, or that rockets don't go in to space.
All we typically see on these forums are surveying myths like bridges are wider at the top than their bases; which after dozens of pages of discussion, we typically find the claim to be false or untested (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Humber_Bridge).
QuoteSo it is not flat, great. You know it has been disproven; that is why you have had to salvage the idea with things like bendy light, or other notions like people's formalization of perspective being incorrect. These are responses to valid counterexamples of the Earth's flatness. This high ground you try to occupy is a place that has not existed for a very long time.
There is nothing wrong with questioning concepts like perspective, since no one actually ever proved it to be correct. It is not incorrect to question the geometric concept of perspective that two infinitely long parallel lines receding away from you into the distance will never touch. No one tested that. There is no prevailing reality to give us an answer on that. It is very much questionable.
Questioning such concepts is the very right and very intelligent thing to do. It would be stupid to simply blindly assume, as you and the other dogmatists do, that the ancients got perspective entirely correct without any real world evidence behind it. That is not what our Zetetic philosophy of empiricism is about, and is antithetical to truth and reason.
I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.
The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.
If you are suggesting that a claim which is "basic and obvious" does not require proof, then I strongly disagree with you. Whether something is basic and/or obvious is subjective, and irrespective of that even the most basic claims must be supported by evidence. Let's say that I do not deny your claim, but I do still require you to prove it. What is the evidence in support of a flat earth (if there is any), save for that the earth appears flat?
The basic and obvious is vindicated by the fact that it is the basic and obvious. All opposing theories must attack that to find their place in the world. Whether you believe the earth is concave, convex, or irregular, you must show evidence against the prevailing reality that the earth is flat. A Flat Earth is the prevailing reality upon which all contradictory hypothesis' must engage.
If you are claiming that ghosts exist, you must contradict the prevailing reality that ghosts do not exist. It is not the burden of the people who think that ghosts do not exist to prove that they don't. The burden of proof is on the people claiming that they do exist.
The people saying that ghosts do not exist don't need to prove a thing. Not a thing.
Just because unsatisfactory (to you) evidence is not on this forum, does not mean there is no satisfactory evidence. When was the last time you had a conversation with a geodetic surveyor?
QuoteThere is nothing wrong with questioning concepts like perspective, since no one actually ever proved it to be correct. It is not incorrect to question the geometric concept of perspective that two infinitely long parallel lines receding away from you into the distance will never touch. No one tested that. There is no prevailing reality to give us an answer on that. It is very much questionable.
Questioning such concepts is the very right and very intelligent thing to do. It would be stupid to simply blindly assume, as you and the other dogmatists do, that the ancients got perspective entirely correct without any real world evidence behind it. That is not what our Zetetic philosophy of empiricism is about, and is antithetical to truth and reason.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with questioning things. What is wrong is acting as if there has never been a valid counter example to the observation, by the unaided eye, that the Earth is flat. That is demonstrably false, and it is ludicrous to reassert it as the starting point of inquiry at this stage.
When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped,
The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped, when NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do. There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.What about the branch of earth science known as geodesy?
In Earth Not a Globe, Rowbotham uses the work of long distance surveyors and the construction of railways as evidence that the earth is not a globe. They treat the earth as if it is flat.
The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is droppedThe matter is dropped because there is nothing to be gained by an infinite series of "You're wrong" "No, YOU'RE wrong" "No, YOU are the one who is wrong" "No I'm not, you are"......
There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.Here, let me fix that for you: There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth that an FE will accept.
You always say "When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped, when NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do. There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.
Whatever evidence there is doesn't make it to this forum. In Earth Not a Globe, Rowbotham uses the work of long distance surveyors and the construction of railways as evidence that the earth is not a globe. They treat the earth as if it is flat.
When was the last time you spoke with a geodetic surveyor? It appears Rowbotham did not, or treated a datum the same as a FE. Either it appears a mistake on his part.QuoteThe evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped,
I have never experienced this, I have also never seen a sinking skyscraper restored by telescope, have you?Quotewhen NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do.
NASA are not the only ones who have been to space. Why do you behave as if they are? You have never been able to produce any direct, conclusive evidence that any space missions were frauds, and ignore countless testimonies from sources other than NASA that space travel indeed exists.
There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.
The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped, when NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do. There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.
The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped, when NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do. There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.What about the branch of earth science known as geodesy?
The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped, when NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do. There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.What about the branch of earth science known as geodesy?
All I can say on that is every time you bring it up we ask what evidence geodesy has and the answer is silence.
You always say "When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped, when NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do. There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.
Would you please give some credible evidence that this really happens! I have NEVER seen any.
I have seen small boats not yet to the horizon, that seem to have disappeared simply because of size that have been restored by a telephoto lens, but NEVER seen any evidence of a ship clearly over the horizon "brought back".
Maybe something of this type with the ship clearly over the horizon being "brought back" from say where it is 30 sec in.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV0h68YU0iQ
Please don't try with little boats that are clearly no even to the horizon!
The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science. Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it. Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence? Or that the field itself is a scam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
How can you say that the earth cant fit on a plane? Is there some kind of restriction on how big a plane can be?
see: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall)Presumably the distance from the north pole out to the equator can be taken as one quarter of this, 6,225 miles or 10,018 km.
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects.
| Then to get a figure for the equatorial circumference of the earth, we can look at the "definition" of the Nautical Mile: Quote A sea mile or nautical mile is, strictly, the length of a minute of arc measured along a meridian. It represents a minute of longitude only at the equator.Currently the Nm is defined as exactly 1,852 meters. So the circumference of the equator must be (1,852 m) x 60' x 360° = 40,003 km. Again I will use a rounded figure for the equatorial circumference of 40,000 km. But, on any flat earth map I have seen (such as the one on the right) the equatorial circle circumference is simply the circumference of a circle of radius 10,000 km, or 62,830 km. I do not see any possible way of reconciling the quite accepted equatorial circumference of 40,000 km of the earth with the flat earth equatorial circle circumference of 62,830 km. What are your thoughts? Are my distances wrong? | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20equ%20co-ords_zps5kmnmgbb.png) "Ice Wall Map" |
The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science. Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it. Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence? Or that the field itself is a scam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can assume x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.
The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science. Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it. Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence? Or that the field itself is a scam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can assume x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.
That is all they say? It seems exceedingly unlikely that you were thorough. Geodesy studies the Earth's magnetic and gravitational fields as well as the physical shape of the Earth. Perhaps you did not look in the right place?
With very little effort I found an introduction to an oxford journal (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227732264_Gravity-enhanced_representation_of_measured_geoid_undulations_using_equivalent_sources) mentioning GPS satellites are used to measure the dimensions of the earth.
Well, it mentions satellites, so it's out the window from the get-go.
But for future reference, for any such cryptic academic analysis, you would also have to explain why the data couldn't be used on a Flat Earth and can only suggest a round one.
The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science. Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it. Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence? Or that the field itself is a scam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can conclude x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.
The Geodetic Surveyor I mentioned in "Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality" http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4751.msg91643#msg91643 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4751.msg91643#msg91643) never mentions magnetic fields and intentionally leaves of GPS, Google Earth and all the things that may be "suspicious". He refers to geodetic surveys going back hundreds of years.The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science. Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it. Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence? Or that the field itself is a scam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can assume x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.
That is all they say? It seems exceedingly unlikely that you were thorough. Geodesy studies the Earth's magnetic and gravitational fields as well as the physical shape of the Earth. Perhaps you did not look in the right place?
With very little effort I found an introduction to an oxford journal (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227732264_Gravity-enhanced_representation_of_measured_geoid_undulations_using_equivalent_sources) mentioning GPS satellites are used to measure the dimensions of the earth.
Well, it mentions satellites, so it's out the window from the get-go.
But for future reference, for any such cryptic academic analysis, you would also have to explain why the data couldn't be used on a Flat Earth and can only suggest a round one.
So how does GPS tracking work then?
Well, it mentions satellites, so it's out the window from the get-go.
Radio towers, same as with the GSM network, even though it doesn't explain why a) the frequencies emitted from towers differ from those that carry the GPS data, and b) GPS coverage is everywhere, while GSM coverage isn't.Quote from: Tom BishopSo how does GPS tracking work then?
Well, it mentions satellites, so it's out the window from the get-go.
Fixed that typo for you.The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped, when NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do. There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.What about the branch of earth science known as geodesy?
All I can say on that is every time you bring it up we ask what evidence geodesy has and the answer issilencescience.
All I can say on that is every time you bring it up we ask what evidence geodesy has and the answer isFixed that typo for you.silencescience.
By the way, there are also the international shipping and travel industries that rely on accurate maps to provide the most efficient long distance routes.
Don't they already have accurate maps? Geodesy is only an abstraction of the reality we experience. Sure, we're not actually traveling in a straight line, but what difference does it make? If gravity renders the sphere we live on as a flat plane to any traveler, then why does it matter to mathematically obfuscate the situation?
Don't they already have accurate maps? Geodesy is only an abstraction of the reality we experience. Sure, we're not actually traveling in a straight line, but what difference does it make? If gravity renders the sphere we live on as a flat plane to any traveler, then why does it matter to mathematically obfuscate the situation?
Airplanes do not travel along a flat plane, they use spherical geodesic's to take the shortest route; ditto, for sailors.
Geodesy does not obfuscate the situation it does the opposite: it provides an increasingly accurate view of the situation.
Don't they already have accurate maps? Geodesy is only an abstraction of the reality we experience. Sure, we're not actually traveling in a straight line, but what difference does it make? If gravity renders the sphere we live on as a flat plane to any traveler, then why does it matter to mathematically obfuscate the situation?
Airplanes do not travel along a flat plane, they use spherical geodesic's to take the shortest route; ditto, for sailors.
Geodesy does not obfuscate the situation it does the opposite: it provides an increasingly accurate view of the situation.
I can understand how an airplane would travel in an arc, but that is the nature of ascending and descending in altitude... but please, please explain to me how a boat can travel upon a spherical geodetic???
Geodesy really has no use in the real world,google the words geodesy breakthrough to see what it has helped us learn...
https://www.google.com/search?q=geodesy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=geodesy+breakthrough
There is nothing that it actually contributes to society, or has helped us understand, besides attempting to confirm what we already "knew" about the shape of the Earth, it's supposed tilt, and other pseudo-scientific stuff like gravity. Until it revolutionizes something or gives us new insight into something important then it is much ado about nothing.
I think that you're missing the point of geodesy. If the earth were a perfect sphere, then there would be no need for geodesy as a science because geodesy measures the earth's deviation from a perfect sphere.All I can say on that is every time you bring it up we ask what evidence geodesy has and the answer isFixed that typo for you.silencescience.
By the way, there are also the international shipping and travel industries that rely on accurate maps to provide the most efficient long distance routes.
Don't they already have accurate maps? Geodesy is only an abstraction of the reality we experience. Sure, we're not actually traveling in a straight line, but what difference does it make? If gravity renders the sphere we live on as a flat plane to any traveler, then why does it matter to mathematically obfuscate the situation?
Geodesy really has no use in the real world,google the words geodesy breakthrough to see what it has helped us learn...When I replied to this earlier I was in a rush, and could not take the time to do your search. Now that I have I am more baffled than ever.
https://www.google.com/search?q=geodesy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=geodesy+breakthrough
There is nothing that it actually contributes to society, or has helped us understand, besides attempting to confirm what we already "knew" about the shape of the Earth, it's supposed tilt, and other pseudo-scientific stuff like gravity. Until it revolutionizes something or gives us new insight into something important then it is much ado about nothing.
The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science. Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it. Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence? Or that the field itself is a scam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can conclude x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.
https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/peter.clarke/offprints/Spatar_etal-2015-pp.pdf
https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/geodesy/2015/08/14/two-papers-on-ocean-tide-loading/
http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Pubs/TechnicalReports.html
http://gpi.savba.sk/GPIweb/ogg/ikohut/WEBCD/Slovak-National-Report-to-IUGG_2011-2014.pdf
http://geodesy.unr.edu/publications.php
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/65
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research-topics/geodesy-and-lithospheric-deformation
http://www.mred.tuc.gr/home/mertikas/geodesy.html
Just a sample of published papers some do involve the magnetic field and a lot do not.
Most by themselves do not prove a round Earth but collectively they put the puzzle together.
There is plenty of observations spanning over 2,000 years that do not involve the magnetic field.
Then there is this, which is also is part of the geodesy field:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;quote=91680;topic=4717.60;last_msg=91681
This seems like something you could do to me. The equipment is not too cost prohibitive and it will allow you to make accurate measurements. If you can prove the methodology flawed or conduct a survey with the methodology clearly and precisely given not measuring a curve then you got something.
Edit: Just wanted to add since I did not think about satellites you will need to look for research conducted pre-satellite era. Since in most cases the latest tech will be utilized to collect data. As I pointed out there is plenty to find before the 1950's and NASA.
| • NASA - "FAKE SPACE PHOTOS" | |
| • GRAVITY - "DOESN'T EXIST" | |
| • PHYSICS & MATHEMATICS- "MADE UP BY MASONIC SCIENTISTS" | |
| • ASTRONOMY- "IT'S A BIG DOME UP THERE" | |
| • AIR TRAVEL- "FAKE ROUTES AND FLIGHT TIMES" | |
| • GPS - "FAKE. SATELLITES AREN'T REAL. USING CELLULAR TOWERS" | |
| • HISTORY - "ALL LIES. LIES, LIES, LIES ..... " |
The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science. Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it. Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence? Or that the field itself is a scam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can conclude x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.
https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/peter.clarke/offprints/Spatar_etal-2015-pp.pdf
https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/geodesy/2015/08/14/two-papers-on-ocean-tide-loading/
http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Pubs/TechnicalReports.html
http://gpi.savba.sk/GPIweb/ogg/ikohut/WEBCD/Slovak-National-Report-to-IUGG_2011-2014.pdf
http://geodesy.unr.edu/publications.php
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/65
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research-topics/geodesy-and-lithospheric-deformation
http://www.mred.tuc.gr/home/mertikas/geodesy.html
Just a sample of published papers some do involve the magnetic field and a lot do not.
Most by themselves do not prove a round Earth but collectively they put the puzzle together.
There is plenty of observations spanning over 2,000 years that do not involve the magnetic field.
Then there is this, which is also is part of the geodesy field:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;quote=91680;topic=4717.60;last_msg=91681
This seems like something you could do to me. The equipment is not too cost prohibitive and it will allow you to make accurate measurements. If you can prove the methodology flawed or conduct a survey with the methodology clearly and precisely given not measuring a curve then you got something.
Edit: Just wanted to add since I did not think about satellites you will need to look for research conducted pre-satellite era. Since in most cases the latest tech will be utilized to collect data. As I pointed out there is plenty to find before the 1950's and NASA.
None of those links are really about showing that the earth is a globe. It's mostly "we have this data and here is how we can piece it together and tell us something interesting about the magnetic field/gravity/whatever on a globe earth".
The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science. Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it. Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence? Or that the field itself is a scam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can conclude x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.
https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/peter.clarke/offprints/Spatar_etal-2015-pp.pdf
https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/geodesy/2015/08/14/two-papers-on-ocean-tide-loading/
http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Pubs/TechnicalReports.html
http://gpi.savba.sk/GPIweb/ogg/ikohut/WEBCD/Slovak-National-Report-to-IUGG_2011-2014.pdf
http://geodesy.unr.edu/publications.php
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/65
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research-topics/geodesy-and-lithospheric-deformation
http://www.mred.tuc.gr/home/mertikas/geodesy.html
Just a sample of published papers some do involve the magnetic field and a lot do not.
Most by themselves do not prove a round Earth but collectively they put the puzzle together.
There is plenty of observations spanning over 2,000 years that do not involve the magnetic field.
Then there is this, which is also is part of the geodesy field:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;quote=91680;topic=4717.60;last_msg=91681
This seems like something you could do to me. The equipment is not too cost prohibitive and it will allow you to make accurate measurements. If you can prove the methodology flawed or conduct a survey with the methodology clearly and precisely given not measuring a curve then you got something.
Edit: Just wanted to add since I did not think about satellites you will need to look for research conducted pre-satellite era. Since in most cases the latest tech will be utilized to collect data. As I pointed out there is plenty to find before the 1950's and NASA.
None of those links are really about showing that the earth is a globe. It's mostly "we have this data and here is how we can piece it together and tell us something interesting about the magnetic field/gravity/whatever on a globe earth".
The problem you are going to have looking at current research is no one is looking to try to find out the shape of the Earth. The closest you are going to get is just more precise measurements of the Earth. If you are expecting someone to say,"We just proved the Earth is spherical again!", I think you maybe waiting a long time. My guess some cataclysm would need to take place that destroys all the knowledge gained by humanity about the shape of the Earth.
Current science is building upon the foundation already built and proven by consistently making accurate predictions.
FE proponents are the ones that are going to need to step up and start making accurate and reliable predictions based on a FE model. Since currently I do not think anyone involved in mainstream science is out to prove the shape of the Earth.
I will repeat myself. If you start collectively looking at the information in the links I provided it starts to make a picture of the world we live in. None by themselves will prove the shape of the Earth.
If none of the research is about showing that the earth is curved, or that the earth is a globe, then what good is it to us?What about the Geodesic Mission in the 18th century that measured the difference in distance between degrees of latitude near the equator and near the north pole that showed the oblateness of the earth?
If none of the research is about showing that the earth is curved, or that the earth is a globe, then what good is it to us?What about the Geodesic Mission in the 18th century that measured the difference in distance between degrees of latitude near the equator and near the north pole that showed the oblateness of the earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Geodesic_Mission
If none of the research is about showing that the earth is curved, or that the earth is a globe, then what good is it to us?What about the Geodesic Mission in the 18th century that measured the difference in distance between degrees of latitude near the equator and near the north pole that showed the oblateness of the earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Geodesic_Mission
Degrees of latitude, and longitude are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map assuming it is a globe.
The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science. Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it. Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence? Or that the field itself is a scam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can conclude x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.
https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/peter.clarke/offprints/Spatar_etal-2015-pp.pdf
https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/geodesy/2015/08/14/two-papers-on-ocean-tide-loading/
http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Pubs/TechnicalReports.html
http://gpi.savba.sk/GPIweb/ogg/ikohut/WEBCD/Slovak-National-Report-to-IUGG_2011-2014.pdf
http://geodesy.unr.edu/publications.php
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/65
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research-topics/geodesy-and-lithospheric-deformation
http://www.mred.tuc.gr/home/mertikas/geodesy.html
Just a sample of published papers some do involve the magnetic field and a lot do not.
Most by themselves do not prove a round Earth but collectively they put the puzzle together.
There is plenty of observations spanning over 2,000 years that do not involve the magnetic field.
Then there is this, which is also is part of the geodesy field:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;quote=91680;topic=4717.60;last_msg=91681
This seems like something you could do to me. The equipment is not too cost prohibitive and it will allow you to make accurate measurements. If you can prove the methodology flawed or conduct a survey with the methodology clearly and precisely given not measuring a curve then you got something.
Edit: Just wanted to add since I did not think about satellites you will need to look for research conducted pre-satellite era. Since in most cases the latest tech will be utilized to collect data. As I pointed out there is plenty to find before the 1950's and NASA.
None of those links are really about showing that the earth is a globe. It's mostly "we have this data and here is how we can piece it together and tell us something interesting about the magnetic field/gravity/whatever on a globe earth".
The problem you are going to have looking at current research is no one is looking to try to find out the shape of the Earth. The closest you are going to get is just more precise measurements of the Earth. If you are expecting someone to say,"We just proved the Earth is spherical again!", I think you maybe waiting a long time. My guess some cataclysm would need to take place that destroys all the knowledge gained by humanity about the shape of the Earth.
Current science is building upon the foundation already built and proven by consistently making accurate predictions.
FE proponents are the ones that are going to need to step up and start making accurate and reliable predictions based on a FE model. Since currently I do not think anyone involved in mainstream science is out to prove the shape of the Earth.
I will repeat myself. If you start collectively looking at the information in the links I provided it starts to make a picture of the world we live in. None by themselves will prove the shape of the Earth.
If none of the research is about showing that the earth is curved, or that the earth is a globe, then what good is it to us?
I could take some data of the most abundant minerals on each continent and make a visualization with a Flat Earth map, but that would do nothing to show that the earth is flat.
If none of the research is about showing that the earth is curved, or that the earth is a globe, then what good is it to us?
I could take some data of the most abundant minerals on each continent and make a visualization with a Flat Earth map, but that would do nothing to show that the earth is flat.
The "burden of proof" rests on no one.