[rabinoz]

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.

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.

If we are to believe your Wiki, then we have "a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon". Really!
I took this up with Tom Bishop and you can see the result! Still there, so it MUST be correct!

Don't blame me.

[Rama Set]

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.

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?

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, 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.

[Daguerrohype]

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.

Again, you are making a claim that the earth is flat. I'm asking whether you have any proof to support that claim, other than that it appears flat.

I don't agree either that a flat earth is the prevailing reality. I suspect that for the majority of people, their reality is that we live on a spheroid.

Re ghosts. The question of whether a thing exists is not comparable to the question of earth's shape. The burden of proof remains on you, Tom.

[Tom Bishop]

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

[garygreen]

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,

genuine question: can you point me to the photographic or video evidence of this effect?  i ask only because those really good video experiments in the repository have been deleted by the op.

also, does anyone know why fe-experiments deleted his video experiments?  those were good videos, and now they're all gone.

[markjo]

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?

[Rounder]

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.

That would be quite damning, if it were true.  Or if college courses didn't teach it.  Or if surveyor software didn't include curvature correction. 

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

The 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"...... 
The matter is dropped because there is no point in us showing photos (although sometimes we try it anyway) if all you do is say "Well, that could be fake" or "you just needed a better lens". 
The matter is dropped because when people such as myself, who have witnessed personally the 'sinking ship' effect by observing actual ships out in the deep blue sea and seen them reappear to the eye simply by climbing to a higher vantage point on my own ship (instead of 'getting a better telescope'), an FE will either call me a liar, or come up with some other reason to reject what I witnessed. 
The matter is dropped NOT because you've convinced anyone, you just tired them out is all.

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.

[Rounder]

I realized after posting above, I may need to expand one point.  When I stated that college courses are teaching earth curvature correction, I was not using that to prove "See, the earth is curved or they wouldn't / couldn't teach it in college"  What I meant was "See, surveyors ARE BEING TAUGHT that the earth's curvature matters to their work"

[rabinoz]

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

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.

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".
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.

Please don't try with little boats that are clearly no even to the horizon!

[Rama Set]

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.

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,

I have never experienced this, I have also never seen a sinking skyscraper restored by telescope, have you?

when 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.

[rabinoz]

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.

Tom, we are still waiting for all this evidence of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes.

We have this problem too!
I try to get the idea across that the measured size if the will not fit on a plane. It only gets tackled at the most trivial level, like "how do know how long a mile is?":
How do we know the Earth is spherical? http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4499.msg88306#msg88306 - Earth will not fit on a plane - never addressed!
TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth [http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4589.msg89018#msg89018 - the OP, but only trivia raised!

I try to emphasise the Gravitation have been verified hundreds of times with measurements similar to the Cavendish Experiment". The topic simply gets brushed aside!
Is the Earth really flat? http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4679.msg90247#msg90247 on Cavendish Experiment.
   

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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

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.

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".
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.

Please don't try with little boats that are clearly no even to the horizon!

How close is the camera to the surface of the sea?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[rabinoz]

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?

There probably is! One large enough to contain the earth might have trouble finding enough air to fly in! 

This is the largest at present:

and you must admit that's not quite up to it!

But, as you might have guessed I abbreviated my post a bit too much. I was intended to be "plane surface", though "plain" might have done!

This is what I meant:

Let's look at the accepted dimensions of the earth.
From the TFES Wiki we have:

see: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects.

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.
I will use a rounded figure for the north pole to equator distance of 10,000 km, which is closer to the currently accepted value.

Then to get a figure for the equatorial circumference of the earth, we can look at the "definition" of the Nautical Mile: 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?

"Ice Wall Map"

[Rama Set]

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 mentioning GPS satellites are used to measure the dimensions of the earth.

[Tom Bishop]

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 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.

[Rama Set]

Well, it mentions satellites, so it's out the window from the get-go.

Well I imagine that the entire field is likely out the window for you, since they rely heavily on a technology you claim does not exist.  That being said, why haven't you spoken with a geodetic surveyor?

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.

Sure.