[Disgraced_Shield]

I was going to get around to it.  However, geckothegeek cites popular opinion over half a dozen times as an easy way to demonstrate the earth is round.  Basically, his argument can be boiled down to, "ask <insert profession> and they will all say the world is round so it must be."  It's by far his most dominant argument.

The others are rubbish too, but can we all admit that popular opinion is a poor way to decide truth before I move on?

We can agree on that, yes, and apologies for jumping the gun.

However, the citation of people working in professions which would grant them a well rounded (tee hee) knowledge of the earth, how it works, and how to navigate it could be considered professional data rather than opinion no?

I might be more inclined to take the word of a doctor on the nature of a diagnosis than that of a guy who read an article on homeopathy once while in the waiting room during an oil change.

I might be more inclined to take the word of a mechanic who says I need new brakes than my wife who tells me "I didn't hear any noise, it's fine."

-Point being that the professional input of people should carry some weight when considering matters of discussion, more so than the average shlub who happens to have an interest in the matter, and this really shouldn't be any different.
If a poster came in here and claimed he'd been a navigator on the open seas for thirty five years, and he thought the earth was flat, would you look at him with the same scrutiny as the guys cited by gecko who don't validate that particular line of thought?

Professional input needs to be weighted appropriately.

[geckothegeek]

There are many areas to consider in de-bunking the flat earth myth. Geodesy is just one. The earth had been surveyed long before NASA and the size and shape of the world proved it is a globe.

[Pongo]

I was going to get around to it.  However, geckothegeek cites popular opinion over half a dozen times as an easy way to demonstrate the earth is round.  Basically, his argument can be boiled down to, "ask <insert profession> and they will all say the world is round so it must be."  It's by far his most dominant argument.

The others are rubbish too, but can we all admit that popular opinion is a poor way to decide truth before I move on?

We can agree on that, yes, and apologies for jumping the gun.

However, the citation of people working in professions which would grant them a well rounded (tee hee) knowledge of the earth, how it works, and how to navigate it could be considered professional data rather than opinion no?

I might be more inclined to take the word of a doctor on the nature of a diagnosis than that of a guy who read an article on homeopathy once while in the waiting room during an oil change.

I might be more inclined to take the word of a mechanic who says I need new brakes than my wife who tells me "I didn't hear any noise, it's fine."

-Point being that the professional input of people should carry some weight when considering matters of discussion, more so than the average shlub who happens to have an interest in the matter, and this really shouldn't be any different.
If a poster came in here and claimed he'd been a navigator on the open seas for thirty five years, and he thought the earth was flat, would you look at him with the same scrutiny as the guys cited by gecko who don't validate that particular line of thought?

Professional input needs to be weighted appropriately.

Great, some people are more knowledgeable about things than other people.  Lets move on now that half of geckothegeek's easy proofs are debunked.  He have these:

• Take a cruise at sea.
• Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets.
• Note if a horizon exists or not.
• Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities.

Take a cruise at sea.  I've done this.  It did not prove the shape of the earth and it's not exactly "easy".  As in the average person couldn't do this just any day.

Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets.  Flat-Earth theory doesn't say that it gets appreciably smaller.  The light gets diffused.

Not if the horizon exists or not.  Check, it does. What's that supposed to prove?

Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities.  I don't even know what this means.

[geckothegeek]

I was going to get around to it.  However, geckothegeek cites popular opinion over half a dozen times as an easy way to demonstrate the earth is round.  Basically, his argument can be boiled down to, "ask <insert profession> and they will all say the world is round so it must be."  It's by far his most dominant argument.

The others are rubbish too, but can we all admit that popular opinion is a poor way to decide truth before I move on?

We can agree on that, yes, and apologies for jumping the gun.

However, the citation of people working in professions which would grant them a well rounded (tee hee) knowledge of the earth, how it works, and how to navigate it could be considered professional data rather than opinion no?

I might be more inclined to take the word of a doctor on the nature of a diagnosis than that of a guy who read an article on homeopathy once while in the waiting room during an oil change.

I might be more inclined to take the word of a mechanic who says I need new brakes than my wife who tells me "I didn't hear any noise, it's fine."

-Point being that the professional input of people should carry some weight when considering matters of discussion, more so than the average shlub who happens to have an interest in the matter, and this really shouldn't be any different.
If a poster came in here and claimed he'd been a navigator on the open seas for thirty five years, and he thought the earth was flat, would you look at him with the same scrutiny as the guys cited by gecko who don't validate that particular line of thought?

Professional input needs to be weighted appropriately.

Great, some people are more knowledgeable about things than other people.  Lets move on now that half of geckothegeek's easy proofs are debunked.  He have these:

• Take a cruise at sea.
• Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets.
• Note if a horizon exists or not.
• Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities.

Take a cruise at sea.  I've done this.  It did not prove the shape of the earth and it's not exactly "easy".  As in the average person couldn't do this just any day.

Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets.  Flat-Earth theory doesn't say that it gets appreciably smaller.  The light gets diffused.

Not if the horizon exists or not.  Check, it does. What's that supposed to prove?

Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities.  I don't even know what this means.

1.Granted that the average person probably doesn't take a cruise, but many do.
The fact that the old "ship going over the horizon" at least proves that the earth is not flat. If the earth was flat, the ship would just appear smaller and smaller and could
be restored to view with a telescope of sufficient power. But the ship does disappear, hull first and finally the masts go out of view. Even the old sailors knew the earth was round , too. When sailing away from land, the shoreline first disappears and gradually the tops of mountains disappear.

2.Simple. Observe a sunset and notice that the sun remains the same size and also gradually disappears as it sets below the horizon. If the earth was flat the sun would always remains at the same altitude and fade away as it gets in the distance.

3.If the earth was flat the flat earth idea is that the horizon is a blur that fades away n the distance. But the horizon, especially at sea, is always a distinct line where sea and sky meet unless there is some atmospheric condition such as fog . And also the fact that the distance to the horizon depends on the height of the observer. If the earth was flat there would be no need for placing crow's nest or radar antennas on the highest points above the seas to enable the lookout or the radar antenna to "see" the greatest distance to the horizon.

4.Ask any sea captain to show you a chart showing an ice ring around the earth, for just one example. Ask him to show you a flat earth map. Ask him how his charts were made. This is one of the simplest ways in de-bunking flat earth fantasies, which is just what they are. I don't think I am alone, but I think if you asked anyone, they could not give you a reason why anyone would think , much less believe, that the earth was flat and was not a globe. It just boggles the mind to think that there any persons who -quote-"believe"-unquote- that the earth was a flat disc. This, after all , is the year 2015.

 

[Luke 22:35-38]

States like Kansas make me think there's flat earth.

[geckothegeek]

States like Kansas make me think there's flat earth.

How about states like Colorado, Wyoming, Hawaii or Alaska ?

[Luke 22:35-38]

States like Kansas make me think there's flat earth.

How about states like Colorado, Wyoming, Hawaii or Alaska ?

They don't exist.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Actually, I lived in both Colorado and Alaska and visited Wyoming often when I was in Colorado.

[CableDawg]

I looked out my window and it was flat.

Wow, that proves everything!

This is a simplistic statement that covers the essence of flat-earth theory for many.  The earth is flat because that's how we see it.  People say it's a sphere, but that's counter-intuitive and notoriously difficult to demonstrate.  It makes more sense that it's flat and we aren't swayed, as of yet, with evidence to the contrary.

Air is invisible yet you can still breathe.  You can also, at times, feel air move past you.

By your logic air doesn't exist since you can't see it yet you are still breathing and you can still feel air move past you.

How does the same logic prove a flat Earth yet doesn't account for the air you breath?

[illuminous21]

On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?

I'm so green to the FET - me and my gf just uncovering some of this info a few days ago. The more I look into this (watch documentaries, youtube vids, and read on the net) the more I'm starting to believe the earth is indeed flat.

I don't know enough to elaborately debate anything (yet), but I am now hooked into an investigation - I look at the sun and moon in an entirely new way.

So far the biggest reason I believe the earth may be flat is the lack of any photo that has not been photoshopped proving curvature. There is not a single photo not taken with a fish eye lens that shows curvature. Nothing... This is alarming to me.

Secondly - all the mathematical "theory" involving the heavenly bodies in "outer space" are just that - theories. All these formulas with big numbers just look nonsensical, and even listening to some "round earther" trying to calculate the physical locations of objects supposedly millions of miles away based on a formula that is based off a "theory" just seems assinine to me.  It's lunchtime - I will add more later

[sceptimatic]

On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?

I'm so green to the FET - me and my gf just uncovering some of this info a few days ago. The more I look into this (watch documentaries, youtube vids, and read on the net) the more I'm starting to believe the earth is indeed flat.

I don't know enough to elaborately debate anything (yet), but I am now hooked into an investigation - I look at the sun and moon in an entirely new way.

So far the biggest reason I believe the earth may be flat is the lack of any photo that has not been photoshopped proving curvature. There is not a single photo not taken with a fish eye lens that shows curvature. Nothing... This is alarming to me.

Secondly - all the mathematical "theory" involving the heavenly bodies in "outer space" are just that - theories. All these formulas with big numbers just look nonsensical, and even listening to some "round earther" trying to calculate the physical locations of objects supposedly millions of miles away based on a formula that is based off a "theory" just seems assinine to me.  It's lunchtime - I will add more later

You're well on the way to seeing it all for the bull crap it all is.
Just carry on investigating it and don't allow the peer pressure posse to gain a hold of you by attempts to ridicule you out of your thought's.

[CableDawg]

On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?

I'm so green to the FET - me and my gf just uncovering some of this info a few days ago. The more I look into this (watch documentaries, youtube vids, and read on the net) the more I'm starting to believe the earth is indeed flat.

I don't know enough to elaborately debate anything (yet), but I am now hooked into an investigation - I look at the sun and moon in an entirely new way.

So far the biggest reason I believe the earth may be flat is the lack of any photo that has not been photoshopped proving curvature. There is not a single photo not taken with a fish eye lens that shows curvature. Nothing... This is alarming to me.

Secondly - all the mathematical "theory" involving the heavenly bodies in "outer space" are just that - theories. All these formulas with big numbers just look nonsensical, and even listening to some "round earther" trying to calculate the physical locations of objects supposedly millions of miles away based on a formula that is based off a "theory" just seems assinine to me.  It's lunchtime - I will add more later

Seems to me that you would be well served to look into how theory is defined for different uses.

You dismiss all of the theory that supports a round Earth but, as you have admitted, you support the flat Earth theory.  What, in your mind, makes the flat Earth theory any more valid than the theories that support a round Earth?  Is it simply because you don't know how to use the math behind the theories that support a round Earth?

[Swyzlebeth]

I looked out my window and it was flat.

Wow, that proves everything!

This is a simplistic statement that covers the essence of flat-earth theory for many.  The earth is flat because that's how we see it.  People say it's a sphere, but that's counter-intuitive and notoriously difficult to demonstrate.  It makes more sense that it's flat and we aren't swayed, as of yet, with evidence to the contrary.

The problem with flat earthers seems to be that they see things from their own narrow point of view. Perhaps they have been disadvantaged in their lack of education and knowledge or experience  in their occupations  of the reality that the earth is a globe. This is a fact which has been known for centuries. Flat earthers seem to be lacking in knowledge in a lot of fields. It seems that if they don't know anything about something they simply deny that they don't exist. Either this is the reason that flat earthers believe that the earth is flat. Or it may be that the so-called flat earthers on this website no more believe that the earth is flat than any other normal person and just want to invent flat earth fantasies for the sake of debate. There is nothing difficult about demonstrating the fact that the earth is a globe.
The simple key is "facts" and "evidence." There are ample supplies of these  for a globe earth and none for a flat earth.

You say that flat earthers have a "narrow point of view" however you are the one unable or unwilling to look at this from a different point of view other than your own. I can't pick a side, but can you show me one picture of the earth that shows curvature? And I mean a picture that is unedited and is not taken through a fish eye lens. You can't because there are none that exist. There is more evidence to support the flat earth theory than the round earth theory. You were probably taught from a young age that the earth is round, so was I, but I am keeping an open mind to what might be reality.

[TheeDavid]

Well I just had to go out and do an experiment because seeing videos on youtube is not proof of anything. I live near the coast in England at a place called Burnham on sea. You can see a power station accros the water at Aberthaw south Wales. It is around 20 miles away. Do the maths and it should be over 200 feet below the horizon. the chimney if 400 foot tall, so you should only be able to see half the stack. check out the second picture down on this link and check it out on google maps too. I need no more proof, I am a flat earther now !  http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2010/smog-bristol-channel-21-02-10.php

[illuminous21]

On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?

I'm so green to the FET - me and my gf just uncovering some of this info a few days ago. The more I look into this (watch documentaries, youtube vids, and read on the net) the more I'm starting to believe the earth is indeed flat.

I don't know enough to elaborately debate anything (yet), but I am now hooked into an investigation - I look at the sun and moon in an entirely new way.

So far the biggest reason I believe the earth may be flat is the lack of any photo that has not been photoshopped proving curvature. There is not a single photo not taken with a fish eye lens that shows curvature. Nothing... This is alarming to me.

Secondly - all the mathematical "theory" involving the heavenly bodies in "outer space" are just that - theories. All these formulas with big numbers just look nonsensical, and even listening to some "round earther" trying to calculate the physical locations of objects supposedly millions of miles away based on a formula that is based off a "theory" just seems assinine to me.  It's lunchtime - I will add more later

Seems to me that you would be well served to look into how theory is defined for different uses.

You dismiss all of the theory that supports a round Earth but, as you have admitted, you support the flat Earth theory.  What, in your mind, makes the flat Earth theory any more valid than the theories that support a round Earth?  Is it simply because you don't know how to use the math behind the theories that support a round Earth?

Seeing is believing - show me a picture or a video (not photoshopped or taken with a fish-eye lens) that even displays curvature....

Oh... you can't.

I'm not going to waste my time with ridiculous formulas that are stated to be based on something that very well may not be true. Especially when considering that basic mathematics has already proven that curvature does not exist (at least not with the given proportions of the "spherical earth")

"Theory" is not "fact".

I never said the Earth being flat is indeed fact. I only stated I'm starting to believe it. Believing something that is unproven based off investigation, logic, and Occam's razor has never steered me wrong.

[MrAtlas]

"Seeing is believing" ..!?

You don't see bacterias, so bacterias don't exist?

[illuminous21]

"Seeing is believing" ..!?

You don't see bacterias, so bacterias don't exist?

Not surprised by the lack of ingenuity in this question.

I have seen them under a microscope. So yeah - seeing is believing.

Idiotic rebuttals coming from the "pro-sphere" people, like MrAtlas' here seem to be frequent on these forums...

[MrAtlas]

Easy now..

Point is that I find it strange that you narrow your trust to observations only visible to the eye. Then you will have a very narrow view on the world. And you know what I meant, so no need to be rude.

Again - I doubt that you'll be able to see bacterias with a normal microscope, but then let's use x-rays or molecules as an example. You can't see them so do they exist? Where do you draw the line?

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Stand on a mountain, hold a straight edge so that the center touches the horizon - you can see the horizon is curved.

[illuminous21]

Easy now..

Point is that I find it strange that you narrow your trust to observations only visible to the eye. Then you will have a very narrow view on the world. And you know what I meant, so no need to be rude.

Again - I doubt that you'll be able to see bacterias with a normal microscope, but then let's use x-rays or molecules as an example. You can't see them so do they exist? Where do you draw the line?

Earth curvature should be able to be seen with the naked eye given the measurements that are supposedly "factual". And it should be blatant. Yet there are dozens of examples easily accessible online proving the contrary.
 
If thousands of satellites are circling the globe it should be very easy to find a photograph of the planet that hasn't been photo shopped and/or cropped.
 
That being said you're trying to change the subject...    Regardless, you can still see molecules with the right microscopes. They have been proven to exist.

And I apologize for the idiot comment - your response seemed rather trolly...