The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: chocolatelover99 on March 06, 2018, 02:51:08 AM
-
If I understand correctly, the promotion of the Round earth model was done by NASA, " This likely began during the Cold War's 'Space Race', in which the USSR and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the other's supposed achievements." (This is straight from the Flat Earth wiki.) If this is the case then why has the round earth model widely accepted for thousands of years? NASA nor the US existed until long after the majority of people believed the earth was round...
-
Antarctic Treat
Signed by then all.
-
Antarctic Treat
Signed by then all.
Doesn't explain thousands of years of RE belief, which was the question.
I believe most FE would posit the people who convinced everyone of a round Earth were just wrong but convincing, in the same way RE tend to call Rowbotham a snake oil salesmen.
-
We have believed many things that are completely incorrect for excessively long times. Religion, atomic theory, Newtonian mechanics, to name just a few. There really is nothing unusual or notable about humans getting things wrong for thousands of years.
-
Actually agree, what is unusual and notable is us realising we were wrong about the earth being flat thousands of years ago and THEN reverting.
Our model has evolved from geocentric to heliocentric based on observations of movements of celestial bodies.
Then as telescopes improved we realised that ours is only one of many galaxies and more recently we've been able to detect planets going round distant stars.
And we've entered the space age so any lingering doubt about the shape of the earth has long since gone.
Over the last couple of millennia we have gone from thinking we lived on a flat earth which was the centre of the universe and everything went around to us to realising that we live on a fairly unremarkable planet orbiting a fairly unremarkable star in a fairly unremarkable galaxy.
What IS unusual and notable is that some people want to cling to that belief that we are special and that we live on a flat earth and everything goes around us. Even though it doesn't match any observations. Maybe some psychological thing going on about wanting to feel special. Any significance we have can only come from religious beliefs, not cosmology or astronomy.
-
What IS unusual and notable is that some people want to cling to that belief that we are special and that we live on a flat earth and everything goes around us. Even though it doesn't match any observations. Maybe some psychological thing going on about wanting to feel special. Any significance we have can only come from religious beliefs, not cosmology or astronomy.
It's odd. I never understood how one could get being special from a flat earth. If the Earth was flat, and you couldn't go too far on the ice wall because you'd freeze or whatever, or there's an impenetrable dome, then we're essentially trapped here. No opportunity for exploration. No chance of expanding our knowledge beyond what we can interact with. No chance of expanding our species, and other species, to other worlds. No chance of finding life outside Earth, because there is no "outside." It's rather sad. You're confined to this world, and this world alone, if the Earth matches the claims of FEs. You're the only intelligent species in existence. You're alone in a vast world. There would never, and can never be any other outside life, just the life on Earth.
Would it not be better to live in the world that REs claim exist (such as myself)? All of those problems I said above disappear.
-
The flip side of that is the feeling that we are the most important thing in the universe, we are set apart and special.
Which actually, I think we are. But I happen to believe that Genesis is telling me deeper truths than the exact age of the universe or the shape of the earth.
I don't believe the Bible is to be read like a science book.
-
The flip side of that is the feeling that we are the most important thing in the universe, we are set apart and special.
Which actually, I think we are. But I happen to believe that Genesis is telling me deeper truths than the exact age of the universe or the shape of the earth.
I don't believe the Bible is to be read like a science book.
Eh. The chance that we're the only life in the universe is essentially nothing. 200 billion stars in our galaxy, and 200 billion galaxies in the universe that we're able to see (meaning there is probably more). Nearly all stars have at least 1 planet and, if I recall correctly, 1-in-5 have an earth-like planet in their habitable zone. That leaves a lot of opportunity for other intelligent life out there.
-
The flip side of that is the feeling that we are the most important thing in the universe, we are set apart and special.
Which actually, I think we are. But I happen to believe that Genesis is telling me deeper truths than the exact age of the universe or the shape of the earth.
I don't believe the Bible is to be read like a science book.
Eh. The chance that we're the only life in the universe is essentially nothing. 200 billion stars in our galaxy, and 200 billion galaxies in the universe that we're able to see (meaning there is probably more). Nearly all stars have at least 1 planet and, if I recall correctly, 1-in-5 have an earth-like planet in their habitable zone. That leaves a lot of opportunity for other intelligent life out there.
The unknown in all that, and it's quite a big unknown, is how probable is:
1) Life starting
2) Given the above, life developing to the point of intelligence.
You just said 'life' so let's just consider the first of those...honestly, we have no real way of knowing this. We know it has happened at least once in the universe, but given a planet in the Goldilocks zone does life start every time? One in 100? One in a million? Or is it so improbable that even it happening once is pretty lucky?
I don't think we have any way of determining this and thus we don't know how likely it is we're alone.
-
The unknown in all that, and it's quite a big unknown, is how probable is:
1) Life starting
2) Given the above, life developing to the point of intelligence.
You just said 'life' so let's just consider the first of those...honestly, we have no real way of knowing this. We know it has happened at least once in the universe, but given a planet in the Goldilocks zone does life start every time? One in 100? One in a million? Or is it so improbable that even it happening once is pretty lucky?
I don't think we have any way of determining this and thus we don't know how likely it is we're alone.
For 1, like you said, there's no real way of knowing this. We DO know that life requires water, which we have detected in all 3 forms on bodies other than Earth, even outside the solar system, so we know that other planets can support the growth of life. We can be certain though that, with the amount of habitable, water-bearing planets there are or could be based on calculations, life is probably not solely found on Earth. Some scientists believe Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons, could have microbial life, and there's a good chance of that. Definitely check out the wiki page's part on habitability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus#Potential_habitability
-
Would it not be better to live in the world that REs claim exist (such as myself)? All of those problems I said above disappear.
Unlike RE'ers, we do not much care for what sounds nice, what world would be better to live in, or what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.
-
Would it not be better to live in the world that REs claim exist (such as myself)? All of those problems I said above disappear.
Unlike RE'ers, we do not much care for what sounds nice, what world would be better to live in, or what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.
As do I. I'm just saying, those FEs that I regularly see claiming a flat Earth is more special and better than round Earth have really got it wrong. There are plenty of FEs out there that follow FE because it's what their "god" says is reality, and choose to believe that they're super special and this world was made for them (it wasn't).
-
We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.
Unless that shows the earth isn't flat, obvs.
This is my problem with you lot, you claim to base your views on empirical observations and measurements but that only seems to extend to those observations (like an apparently flat horizon) which reinforce your views.
Experiments or observations which show your model to be bunk are explained away or flat out denied.
-
Would it not be better to live in the world that REs claim exist (such as myself)? All of those problems I said above disappear.
Unlike RE'ers, we do not much care for what sounds nice, what world would be better to live in, or what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.
Please provide details of your measurements that show the shape of the earth.
-
Unless that shows the earth isn't flat, obvs.
And this is my problem with you lot. You unduly focus on the outcome rather than methodology. When a terrible RET experiment is denied due to being terrible, you handwave it away, because "it's just FE'ers denying RET experiments again". When the same people push against terrible FET experiments or proposals, you miraculously don't notice. Funny, that!
-
every flat Earth experiment or proposal is terrible by definition. the Earth is not flat (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=758&ei=WKUCWtrCOIfCmwHOyrCQCQ&btnG=Search&q=earth+from+space&oq=earth+from+space&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2851.4163.0.4201.19.17.0.0.0.0.150.1311.6j7.13.0....0...1.1.64.img..6.13.1309.0...0.oSGlaVo7ZN8)
so, was the halfhearted response to Mr NickRulerCreator's proof (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8695.60) that the Tesla livestream was real, supposed to be denying a terrible experiment due to it being terrible?
-
Unless that shows the earth isn't flat, obvs.
And this is my problem with you lot. You unduly focus on the outcome rather than methodology. When a terrible RET experiment is denied due to being terrible, you handwave it away, because "it's just FE'ers denying RET experiments again". When the same people push against terrible FET experiments or proposals, you miraculously don't notice. Funny, that!
What have you measured and observed?
-
... We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.
In that case, would you either; specify those things which you have personally measured and observed, or cite references to measurement or observation by others which come under this heading?
Doesn't have to be a long list, just your two or three which best illustrate your case.
-
When a terrible RET experiment is denied due to being terrible, you handwave it away, because "it's just FE'ers denying RET experiments again". When the same people push against terrible FET experiments or proposals, you miraculously don't notice.
Most often, I see FE'ers doing the hand-waving.
One FE'er points a P900 at something they insist should be "behind the curve", and in that moment hand-waves away the hundreds of orbital craft which have gone around and are still going around the globe, the hundreds of humans, just like them, who have personally orbited the same globe, the 21 who have journeyed to the Moon and back, seeing the Earth from 240k miles out, the imagery from the multiple weather satellites which give a different view of the globe every few minutes or so, the work by folks such as the Space Geodesy Facility, the International Laser Ranging Service, who monitor those orbital satellites, those who formulated the WGS84 standard, etc etc
That's a lot to hand-wave away on the premise that their £400, point-and-shoot consumer-grade camera tells no lies....
-
Unless that shows the earth isn't flat, obvs.
And this is my problem with you lot. You unduly focus on the outcome rather than methodology. When a terrible RET experiment is denied due to being terrible, you handwave it away, because "it's just FE'ers denying RET experiments again". When the same people push against terrible FET experiments or proposals, you miraculously don't notice. Funny, that!
I'm not clear what you mean here. Can you provide examples?
The infamous Bishop Experiment is objectively bad. It's very much in the Rowbotham style of him just saying "this is what I saw".
There's no documentation or proof of where he was, the angle he was looking at, equipment used and so on.
He just says "this is what I saw". Why is that good enough? He doesn't accept that level of "proof" from anyone else.
Also, he claims to be able to repeat the experiment any time he wishes. But when someone posts a video of a building occluded by the curve of the earth he just says it's "waves".
Really? But waves are never an issue in his experiment?
Come on, you have to admit this is pretty shoddy.
I have suggested experiments you lot can do to measure the distance of the sun. If it's as close as you suppose then some observations and triangulation could show that.
My suggestion about this has always been met with a stony silence apart from one dude who did say that he'd seen this done and would provide the evidence. Never heard from him again.
I've suggested Tom do some experiments around shadows to see if he can produce long shadows like you see at sunset in any other way than by having a light source PHYSICALLY (not "by perspective") close to the ground. He's not taken me up on that idea either.
For people who claim to be so bothered about empirical evidence you seem remarkably reticent to actually do any experiments.
-
disregard
-
Would it not be better to live in the world that REs claim exist (such as myself)? All of those problems I said above disappear.
Unlike RE'ers, we do not much care for what sounds nice, what world would be better to live in, or what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.
Who is 'we'? Do you observe the path of the sun at many different places on earth?
-
Would it not be better to live in the world that REs claim exist (such as myself)? All of those problems I said above disappear.
Unlike RE'ers, we do not much care for what sounds nice, what world would be better to live in, or what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.
Who is 'we'? Do you observe the path of the sun at many different places on earth?
Some of us do travel around to do our own experiments, yes.
-
Would it not be better to live in the world that REs claim exist (such as myself)? All of those problems I said above disappear.
Unlike RE'ers, we do not much care for what sounds nice, what world would be better to live in, or what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.
Who is 'we'? Do you observe the path of the sun at many different places on earth?
Some of us do travel around to do our own experiments, yes.
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
-
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
I have flown around many times to try and observe the curvature of the earth (failed).
-
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
I have flown around many times to try and observe the curvature of the earth (failed).
You will not see the curve of the Earth from the height of a commercial airplane, other than a Concorde if you were lucky/privileged enough to have flown on one.
-
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
I have flown around many times to try and observe the curvature of the earth (failed).
You will not see the curve of the Earth from the height of a commercial airplane, other than a Concorde if you were lucky/privileged enough to have flown on one.
And yet you are so sure that there should be a curve. How convenient.
-
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
I have flown around many times to try and observe the curvature of the earth (failed).
You will not see the curve of the Earth from the height of a commercial airplane, other than a Concorde if you were lucky/privileged enough to have flown on one.
And yet you are so sure that there should be a curve. How convenient.
It is neither convenient or inconvenient, it's just the earth is really big. So a curve can't be discerned until you're higher than a commercial plane flies.
Loads of footage from weather balloons showing the curve, I guess you just dismiss those as fake which I guess is an easy way to prove yourself right.
-
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
I have flown around many times to try and observe the curvature of the earth (failed).
You will not see the curve of the Earth from the height of a commercial airplane, other than a Concorde if you were lucky/privileged enough to have flown on one.
And yet you are so sure that there should be a curve. How convenient.
It is neither convenient or inconvenient, it's just the earth is really big. So a curve can't be discerned until you're higher than a commercial plane flies.
Loads of footage from weather balloons showing the curve, I guess you just dismiss those as fake which I guess is an easy way to prove yourself right.
Actually at university we once sent a balloon up with a camera on it, and we could not see a curve. Have you send any cameras up to see this curve for yourself?
-
Actually at university we once sent a balloon up with a camera on it, and we could not see a curve. Have you send any cameras up to see this curve for yourself?
Quite tempted to say "yes" to see what your response would be but that would be dishonest.
The honest answer is no, but while I can't sensibly comment on your attempt I've seen plenty of football from amateur balloons and of course the multiple space agencies which only backs up what we've known about the shape of the earth for thousands of years.
-
Actually at university we once sent a balloon up with a camera on it, and we could not see a curve. Have you send any cameras up to see this curve for yourself?
Quite tempted to say "yes" to see what your response would be but that would be dishonest.
The honest answer is no, but while I can't sensibly comment on your attempt
Good, that is the whole point! Don't take my word on it, don't take someone else's word on it, but go out and do your own empirical testing. If you keep your mind open I am sure you will find that the idea of a round earth is not as self-evident as you would think. Heck, you might even come here to argue for FET in due time.
I've seen plenty of football from amateur balloons and of course the multiple space agencies which only backs up what we've known about the shape of the earth for thousands of years.
I don't know what you mean with football from amateur balloons. Did these amateur balloons show the curvature of a football? I can believe that.
-
Don't take my word on it, don't take someone else's word on it, but go out and do your own empirical testing. If you keep your mind open I am sure you will find that the idea of a round earth is not as self-evident as you would think.
Why do you insist on empirical testing for this ONE aspect of our existence, when you take so much else in your daily life at face value?
-
Don't take my word on it, don't take someone else's word on it, but go out and do your own empirical testing. If you keep your mind open I am sure you will find that the idea of a round earth is not as self-evident as you would think.
Why do you insist on empirical testing for this ONE aspect of our existence, when you take so much else in your daily life at face value?
Who says that I do?
-
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
I have flown around many times to try and observe the curvature of the earth (failed).
You will not see the curve of the Earth from the height of a commercial airplane, other than a Concorde if you were lucky/privileged enough to have flown on one.
And yet you are so sure that there should be a curve. How convenient.
It is neither convenient or inconvenient, it's just the earth is really big. So a curve can't be discerned until you're higher than a commercial plane flies.
Loads of footage from weather balloons showing the curve, I guess you just dismiss those as fake which I guess is an easy way to prove yourself right.
Actually at university we once sent a balloon up with a camera on it, and we could not see a curve. Have you send any cameras up to see this curve for yourself?
How high did it go?
-
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
I have flown around many times to try and observe the curvature of the earth (failed).
You will not see the curve of the Earth from the height of a commercial airplane, other than a Concorde if you were lucky/privileged enough to have flown on one.
And yet you are so sure that there should be a curve. How convenient.
It is neither convenient or inconvenient, it's just the earth is really big. So a curve can't be discerned until you're higher than a commercial plane flies.
Loads of footage from weather balloons showing the curve, I guess you just dismiss those as fake which I guess is an easy way to prove yourself right.
Actually at university we once sent a balloon up with a camera on it, and we could not see a curve. Have you send any cameras up to see this curve for yourself?
How high did it go?
3km
-
3km
Not high enough to see curvature. You'd need to be over 10k. You've drawn your conclusion from incomplete data.
-
3km
Not high enough to see curvature. You'd need to be over 10k. You've drawn your conclusion from incomplete data.
So in what experiments have you taken part? So far my own observations have shown me that the earth is flat.
-
3km
Not high enough to see curvature. You'd need to be over 10k. You've drawn your conclusion from incomplete data.
So in what experiments have you taken part? So far my own observations have shown me that the earth is flat.
What has my involvement in experiments got to do with your incomplete attempt to get a balloon high enough to see the curve? Your response is called "Whataboutism". Are you going to try your balloon again? How did you measure the height last time? Please provide workings.
-
I have seen a ship disappear over the horizon with a powerfull telescope. It did disappear bottom first on a clear day, no shimmer or distortion however I cant be certain that it didnt sink slowly. If it did, it didnt send out any SOS because the Coast Guard didnt come running.
Would it not be better to live in the world that REs claim exist (such as myself)? All of those problems I said above disappear.
Unlike RE'ers, we do not much care for what sounds nice, what world would be better to live in, or what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.
Who is 'we'? Do you observe the path of the sun at many different places on earth?
Some of us do travel around to do our own experiments, yes.
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
-
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
I have flown around many times to try and observe the curvature of the earth (failed).
You will not see the curve of the Earth from the height of a commercial airplane, other than a Concorde if you were lucky/privileged enough to have flown on one.
And yet you are so sure that there should be a curve. How convenient.
It is neither convenient or inconvenient, it's just the earth is really big. So a curve can't be discerned until you're higher than a commercial plane flies.
Loads of footage from weather balloons showing the curve, I guess you just dismiss those as fake which I guess is an easy way to prove yourself right.
Actually at university we once sent a balloon up with a camera on it, and we could not see a curve. Have you send any cameras up to see this curve for yourself?
How high did it go?
3km
LOL - 3km?? You can't see any curve at such a low altitude. This is exactly the problem with FEH. You fancy yourself a backyard scientist, perform an experiment, get the exact results one would expect on the globe, and then claim the Earth is flat. I think it is safe to say many, if not most of us, have been much higher than your balloon. You'd need to be about 20km up to really see the curve. This has been proven and witnessed by many people.
-
Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?
I have flown around many times to try and observe the curvature of the earth (failed).
You will not see the curve of the Earth from the height of a commercial airplane, other than a Concorde if you were lucky/privileged enough to have flown on one.
And yet you are so sure that there should be a curve. How convenient.
It is neither convenient or inconvenient, it's just the earth is really big. So a curve can't be discerned until you're higher than a commercial plane flies.
Loads of footage from weather balloons showing the curve, I guess you just dismiss those as fake which I guess is an easy way to prove yourself right.
Actually at university we once sent a balloon up with a camera on it, and we could not see a curve. Have you send any cameras up to see this curve for yourself?
How high did it go?
3km
LOL - 3km?? You can't see any curve at such a low altitude. This is exactly the problem with FEH. You fancy yourself a backyard scientist, perform an experiment, get the exact results one would expect on the globe, and then claim the Earth is flat. I think it is safe to say many, if not most of us, have been much higher than your balloon. You'd need to be about 20km up to really see the curve. This has been proven and witnessed by many people.
Those are some convenient excuses.
-
I think it is safe to say many, if not most of us, have been much higher than your balloon. You'd need to be about 20km up to really see the curve. This has been proven and witnessed by many people.
Really? You've been 65,000ft above ground level? I did not know you were an F-15 pilot.
-
I think it is safe to say many, if not most of us, have been much higher than your balloon. You'd need to be about 20km up to really see the curve. This has been proven and witnessed by many people.
Really? You've been 65,000ft above ground level? I did not know you were an F-15 pilot.
To be fair, he said higher than his balloon. Not higher than 20km. And anyone on a commercial flight has been ~4x higher. 3km is a joke.
-
now is probably a good time to remind everyone that videos like this exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxBid6YwoHs
the field of view is not as wide as human vision, so any curve in the horizon will be subtle compared to what you would see yourself at the same altitude
see also: this thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6926)
-
I think it is safe to say many, if not most of us, have been much higher than your balloon. You'd need to be about 20km up to really see the curve. This has been proven and witnessed by many people.
Really? You've been 65,000ft above ground level? I did not know you were an F-15 pilot.
While the F-15 does hold a special place in my heart, I have not had the pleasure of flying one. As was mentioned, I didn't say, nor did I mean to imply, that I have been 65K feet up. As Frocious pointed out, I was referring to commercial flight.
-
I think it is safe to say many, if not most of us, have been much higher than your balloon. You'd need to be about 20km up to really see the curve. This has been proven and witnessed by many people.
Really? You've been 65,000ft above ground level? I did not know you were an F-15 pilot.
While the F-15 does hold a special place in my heart, I have not had the pleasure of flying one. As was mentioned, I didn't say, nor did I mean to imply, that I have been 65K feet up. As Frocious pointed out, I was referring to commercial flight.
I have also been in commercial flights and did not see any curvature.
-
yes, we know, and we also predict that you shouldn't be able to see the curve from commercial flights in general
-
yes, we know, and we also predict that you shouldn't be able to see the curve from commercial flights in general
And as Occam would say, the conclusion we should draw from that is that the world is flat.
-
that's not what Occam would say
-
that's not what Occam would say
What is the simplest explanation? That we live on a curved surface so large that at 20km in the air we can not see the curvature ( ::)), or that the earth is indeed flat and there is not curvature to be seen?
-
that's not what Occam would say
What is the simplest explanation? That we live on a curved surface so large that at 20km in the air we can not see the curvature ( ::)), or that the earth is indeed flat and there is not curvature to be seen?
The simplest explanation is that you don't know what you're talking about. Given the size of the Earth and some math, Occam would figure out that the size of the Earth is too great to see curvature at those altitudes. Further, we do have imagery from higher up that DOES show the curvature. I'm guessing you think that all those pictures are fake. I wonder what Occam would say about that...
-
first, Occam's razor isn't actually that the simplest explanation is the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
second, yes the curved surface satisfies Occam, because the best available evidence (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=758&ei=WKUCWtrCOIfCmwHOyrCQCQ&btnG=Search&q=earth+from+space&oq=earth+from+space&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2851.4163.0.4201.19.17.0.0.0.0.150.1311.6j7.13.0....0...1.1.64.img..6.13.1309.0...0.oSGlaVo7ZN8) shows the Earth is spherical. challenging this evidence requires making loads of assumptions
third, I mostly just meant that Occam probably knew the Earth was not flat
-
yes, we know, and we also predict that you shouldn't be able to see the curve from commercial flights in general
And as Occam would say, the conclusion we should draw from that is that the world is flat.
Would Occam understand that if the sphere was big enough he wouldn't be able to make any conclusions about how flat it was or wasn't unless he was sufficiently distant from the surface to appreciate any relative curve?
Also would Occam accept that his balloon experiment would need to be higher than 3k off the ground before basing his entire world view on his incomplete observations?
And I'd love to hear Occam's thoughts about why the sun stays the same size and speed throughout the entirety of its arc across the sky before disappearing bottom first beneath the horizon. Maybe in that case Occam would make a few assumptions about thickness of air and distant lights must be the same size as near lights and perspective something something something. Bad Occam!
-
And as Occam would say, the conclusion we should draw from that is that the world is flat.
Again a nominal Flat Earther ??? Do you say you are a true Flat Earther? Then you must become better at leaving a subject as unknown.
Because it might as well be a very big earth and you see only a small portion. Or do you think the earth is small, flat or not?
For example I lived in a county with mountains. Occam's razor would say what I thought: everywhere are mountains. It is not until I came to Australia that I saw flat county. No mountain in sight. I should have know better and thought to myself: I don't know if there are counties with no mountains. Rather than jumping to a conclusion that I look back and say, I was just stupid, ignorant.
But I need to be shown in order to accept as fact.
-
And as Occam would say, the conclusion we should draw from that is that the world is flat.
Again a nominal Flat Earther ??? Do you say you are a true Flat Earther? Then you must become better at leaving a subject as unknown.
What is a nominal flat earther?
Because it might as well be a very big earth and you see only a small portion. Or do you think the earth is small, flat or not?
I do not think it is small at all.
For example I lived in a county with mountains. Occam's razor would say what I thought: everywhere are mountains. It is not until I came to Australia that I saw flat county. No mountain in sight. I should have know better and thought to myself: I don't know if there are counties with no mountains. Rather than jumping to a conclusion that I look back and say, I was just stupid, ignorant.
But I need to be shown in order to accept as fact.
If not seeing a curvature was the only indication of a flat earth, then sure. But combined with other observations this becomes a different story.
-
For example I lived in a county with mountains. Occam's razor would say what I thought: everywhere are mountains. It is not until I came to Australia that I saw flat county. No mountain in sight. I should have know better and thought to myself: I don't know if there are counties with no mountains. Rather than jumping to a conclusion that I look back and say, I was just stupid, ignorant.
But I need to be shown in order to accept as fact.
If not seeing a curvature was the only indication of a flat earth, then sure. But combined with other observations this becomes a different story.
Such as? This is genuine curiosity. I have seen 2 'proofs' for a flat Earth that I have to agree are at least correct in so far as to what they are showing/seeing, even if I personally feel they're interpreting the data through their own ideals rather than attempting to be objective about it. The first is the flat horizon. Sure, the horizon looks flat. Can't really argue with that. The second is the reports of the 'flat water' idea. Well, you certainly appear to be getting results that seem on the face to be inconsistent. But most of these fall short of presenting enough information to be appropriately called proofs in my experience.
So what other observations are you referring to? Because I can list off a number of observations that point to a round Earth, which FE has to rationalize away.
-
What is a nominal flat earther?
You are being deliberately obtuse. You know he means someone who identifies as a believer that the Earth is flat.
If not seeing a curvature was the only indication of a flat earth, then sure. But combined with other observations this becomes a different story.
Other observations? There are no other observations on the Wiki - just flimflam about laws of perspective that don't exist and suppositions about unmeasured physics. No observations of the stars, no observations of the track of the sun, no observations of the path of the planets, no observations of the navigability of the globe. Are you referring to observations you have made other than ones where you didn't see curvature? What are these?
-
What is a nominal flat earther?
You are being deliberately obtuse. You know he means someone who identifies as a believer that the Earth is flat.
If not seeing a curvature was the only indication of a flat earth, then sure. But combined with other observations this becomes a different story.
Other observations? There are no other observations on the Wiki - just flimflam about laws of perspective that don't exist and suppositions about unmeasured physics. No observations of the stars, no observations of the track of the sun, no observations of the path of the planets, no observations of the navigability of the globe. Are you referring to observations you have made other than ones where you didn't see curvature? What are these?
https://books.google.nl/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA&redir_esc=y&hl=en#PPP9
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031764594
-
Other observations? There are no other observations on the Wiki - just flimflam about laws of perspective that don't exist and suppositions about unmeasured physics. No observations of the stars, no observations of the track of the sun, no observations of the path of the planets, no observations of the navigability of the globe. Are you referring to observations you have made other than ones where you didn't see curvature? What are these?
https://books.google.nl/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA&redir_esc=y&hl=en#PPP9
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031764594
Do you really want to do this? I thought you placed the primacy upon your own observations, as a true empirical seeker of knowledge, not someone else's. And in choosing someone else's, why do you accept these meagre efforts as proof yet discount the entirety of all other collected learning from ancient Greece, India, the Muslim world, medieval Europe, the enlightenment, modern science?
Random choice from "100 proofs": "11:As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."
So - because a compass points North there can be no South pole? This doesn't mean anything. There is no logic to this sentence and it proves nothing. Do we have to go through every one?
-
What is a nominal flat earther?
You are being deliberately obtuse. You know he means someone who identifies as a believer that the Earth is flat.
If not seeing a curvature was the only indication of a flat earth, then sure. But combined with other observations this becomes a different story.
Other observations? There are no other observations on the Wiki - just flimflam about laws of perspective that don't exist and suppositions about unmeasured physics. No observations of the stars, no observations of the track of the sun, no observations of the path of the planets, no observations of the navigability of the globe. Are you referring to observations you have made other than ones where you didn't see curvature? What are these?
https://books.google.nl/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA&redir_esc=y&hl=en#PPP9
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031764594
Oh please, not these tired rags. If this is all you have to offer just like everyone else, I'll resume chalking you up as another who can't be bothered to do your own work or experiments. Offering these as evidence is a far cry from Zetetic. I'll happily tear into some of these again if you so desire, but I've come to discount Rowbotham's ramblings on basis of being demonstrably wrong on some of his most important points, the hundred proofs is chock full of things which are blatantly false as well, and the other two fare no better.
Pablozablo try searching the forum. It might have been the other one, but one of them has a thread where someone already did most of the work in regards to going through each of the 100 'proofs' as I recall. Brief search here turned up nothing, so it's likely on the other site. I'll see if I can find it for you when I've got a touch more free time to go digging later today.
-
You state there are not other observations on the wiki. I show you that there are other observations on the wiki. You get angry. Classic RE tactic. If you want to debate maybe stop moving goalposts all the time and behave in a civil manner.
-
Again a nominal Flat Earther ??? Do you say you are a true Flat Earther? Then you must become better at leaving a subject as unknown.
What is a nominal flat earther?
This character alt's modus operandi is to accuse FE'ers of not being "real" enough for his tastes. Observe standard troll avoidance protocols and you'll be fine.
-
You state there are not other observations on the wiki. I show you that there are other observations on the wiki. You get angry. Classic RE tactic. If you want to debate maybe stop moving goalposts all the time and behave in a civil manner.
It may have something to do with the fact that those books have been thoroughly debunked and are full of wildly inaccurate statements. Like Rowbotham claiming the continents float on waters of the great deep or that moon light makes things cooler. Are there any valid "observations" in any of those books that amount to more than what Curious commented on?
-
You state there are not other observations on the wiki. I show you that there are other observations on the wiki. You get angry. Classic RE tactic. If you want to debate maybe stop moving goalposts all the time and behave in a civil manner.
Trouble in paradise eh Homer? Not sure what you have to get angry about. I merely voice surprise that for someone who purports to place utmost importance on personal observations, and lends very little credence to the evidence of third parties, you seem very happy to put forward as your beliefs a series of statements from other people that are neither observations nor logically supportable. Please let me know which of the evidence you provided is empirically sound observational fact? Ta muchly. "Compass points North" is not an observation that concludes "Earth must be flat". "Water looks flat" is not an observation that concludes "Earth must be flat". "Circumference is bigger is southern hemisphere" is provably false. If you're happy to accept this without thinking about it then go for it, but don't try to pretend these are "observations".
-
What is a nominal flat earther?
They are those who bear the name of "Flat Earther", but really pay not heed to it's principles. A nominal Flat Earther.
Like when you say:
And as Occam would say, the conclusion we should draw from that is that the world is flat.
a real Flat Earther would understand that his knowledge is limited to what he sees and experiences. You haven't heard Occam say this, and thus you are rationalizing. As I said:
I lived in a county with mountains. Occam's razor would say what I thought: everywhere are mountains. It is not until I came to Australia that I saw flat county. No mountain in sight. I should have know better and thought to myself: I don't know if there are counties with no mountains. Rather than jumping to a conclusion.
The mountains were simply outside my observation, so when I look back, I can only say I should have left the subject as unknown rather than jump to conclusions about this or that.
I see the Earth is flat, but that is what I see. Seeing obviously has it's limitations, just like I could not see the flat land from where I used to live.
-
https://books.google.nl/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA&redir_esc=y&hl=en#PPP9
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031764594
I'm sorry but three of your books are from 1881, 1899 and 1901. Don't you know that our Knowledge is gained by experience? Are you saying we haven't experienced for 100 years? Kind of silly. Occam's Razor would say: I assume that more knowledge has been gained since. The assumption that gaining of knowledge stopped at 1901 is simply allowed to be called 'ignorant'.
Now those a hundred proofs, it's the first time I have seen that list. Certainly interesting. However I don't know who put those together but I can already see that there is a lot of rationalization going on in a few. Where it gets to conjecture and speculation, we should best leave the subject unknown rather than jumping to conclusions.
For example this one:
Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.
First of all, have you observed or experienced all railroads, tunnels or canals? NO. Secondly so many railroads I see have a lot of "curvature" actually as they climb mountains, dive into valleys. So how can you tell?
You have to rely on conjecture - let's follow that. This image of a tunnel is drawn:
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4b56d25e0677c412150822050f425925-c)
Should we now say that the earth is concave?
This picture is drawn:
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-17a3dc95ca5e6377430d0599accca327)
Should we now say the Earth is Round, because the tunnel is shaped round?
This is what I call nominal Flat Earthism as well as it jumps to rationalisation and uses speculation and conjecture to prove a point. A Real Flat Earther would do best to leave the subject as unknown. He is smart enough that what he sees or experiences is real, but he knows that he cannot see or experience everything and therefore his knowledge is limited.
-
I really don't understand why people say that the Earth looks flat when they look out... It looks round. FE requires some weird (and bogus) optical phenomena to explain something that is obvious to someone looking toward the horizon: there is curvature in the Earth.
FE requires unproven and unobserved optical phenomena to explain that your eyes are deceiving you.
RE requires simple geometry...
Keep saying that it looks flat when you look outside. Pretty ignorant. I really don't understand why some apologists even concede this point to FE and then try to explain the valid, but confusing reasoning that our sight is limited in what it can discern. In this case, our sight is perfectly fine. There's a good reason why you can only see in a circle around you.
-
This character's modus operandi is to accuse FE'ers of not being "real" enough for his tastes.
I almost can't believe you saying this because you seem like a true FE-er to me. But when you say it is about one's tastes it makes me question your principles for the second time. Proper Flat Earth principles is not about personal tastes at all, but about determining the facts for ourselves through experience. This is all we know and we must make direct conclusions from that, or leave the subject unknown.
My 'taste' may be that I don't like this or that or don't believe this or that, but that really does not matter. Knowledge must be observed or experienced. Such as knowing that the Earth is flat, because I have been shown.
-
I really don't understand why people say that the Earth looks flat when they look out... It looks round. FE requires some weird (and bogus) optical phenomena to explain something that is obvious to someone looking toward the horizon: there is curvature in the Earth.
So at the same time it is too large to see curvature unless you are more than 20km in the air but it also looks round while standing on the ground...
-
I really don't understand why people say that the Earth looks flat when they look out... It looks round. FE requires some weird (and bogus) optical phenomena to explain something that is obvious to someone looking toward the horizon: there is curvature in the Earth.
FE requires unproven and unobserved optical phenomena to explain that your eyes are deceiving you.
RE requires simple geometry...
Keep saying that it looks flat when you look outside. Pretty ignorant. I really don't understand why some apologists even concede this point to FE and then try to explain the valid, but confusing reasoning that our sight is limited in what it can discern. In this case, our sight is perfectly fine. There's a good reason why you can only see in a circle around you.
Lol pls tho cmon. Rusrs
-
I really don't understand why people say that the Earth looks flat when they look out... It looks round. FE requires some weird (and bogus) optical phenomena to explain something that is obvious to someone looking toward the horizon: there is curvature in the Earth.
So at the same time it is too large to see curvature unless you are more than 20km in the air but it also looks round while standing on the ground...
Look at the path of the sun, clearly shows a round earth.
-
I really don't understand why people say that the Earth looks flat when they look out... It looks round. FE requires some weird (and bogus) optical phenomena to explain something that is obvious to someone looking toward the horizon: there is curvature in the Earth.
So at the same time it is too large to see curvature unless you are more than 20km in the air but it also looks round while standing on the ground...
Look at the path of the sun, clearly shows a round earth.
You're showing no appreciation for the "shoulders of giants" that you and scientists stand on to make conclusions about reality. You really think you, and everyone else in this thread, is the next Copernicus or Newton? There's a reason millennia of mathematicians in history thought the earth was flat until just a few hundred years ago. But sure, to you it just "looks round."
-
I really don't understand why people say that the Earth looks flat when they look out... It looks round. FE requires some weird (and bogus) optical phenomena to explain something that is obvious to someone looking toward the horizon: there is curvature in the Earth.
So at the same time it is too large to see curvature unless you are more than 20km in the air but it also looks round while standing on the ground...
Look at the path of the sun, clearly shows a round earth.
You're showing no appreciation for the "shoulders of giants" that you and scientists stand on to make conclusions about reality. You really think you, and everyone else in this thread, is the next Copernicus or Newton? There's a reason millennia of mathematicians in history thought the earth was flat until just a few hundred years ago. But sure, to you it just "looks round."
A few hundred years ago? The Greeks knew the earth was round in the 6th century BC.
-
I really don't understand why people say that the Earth looks flat when they look out... It looks round. FE requires some weird (and bogus) optical phenomena to explain something that is obvious to someone looking toward the horizon: there is curvature in the Earth.
So at the same time it is too large to see curvature unless you are more than 20km in the air but it also looks round while standing on the ground...
Look at the path of the sun, clearly shows a round earth.
You're showing no appreciation for the "shoulders of giants" that you and scientists stand on to make conclusions about reality. You really think you, and everyone else in this thread, is the next Copernicus or Newton? There's a reason millennia of mathematicians in history thought the earth was flat until just a few hundred years ago. But sure, to you it just "looks round."
A few hundred years ago? The Greeks knew the earth was round in the 6th century BC.
Oh, nevermind. I was talking about individuals who saw things. Yeah, if the entire Greek civilization can manage it, I can too.
-
So at the same time it is too large to see curvature unless you are more than 20km in the air but it also looks round while standing on the ground...
To me it sounds like you both should leave the subject unknown. But for the sake of conjecture let's analyse the statement.
If for a moment we were to believe the Round Earth assumption that the radius of the earth is thereabouts of 6371km.
This means that the height difference over your beloved 20km Beorn is 31metres. Using Primary School sinus and cosinus.
(https://preview.ibb.co/ngopen/6.png) (https://ibb.co/mnn4C7)
Zoom in
(https://preview.ibb.co/ndPHX7/7.png) (https://ibb.co/hWUUen)
Zoom in
(https://preview.ibb.co/h7ZHX7/8.png) (https://ibb.co/fSGmQS)
Zoom in
(https://preview.ibb.co/egnt5S/9.png) (https://ibb.co/mG2hzn)
And as Occam would say, the conclusion we should draw from that is that the world is flat.
Jumping to conclusions unless you have very good eyes. Best leave the subject unknown to not make us look silly.
What is the simplest explanation? That we live on a curved surface so large that at 20km in the air we can not see the curvature ( ::)), or that the earth is indeed flat and there is not curvature to be seen?
I think we must say that both are correct, but it's very difficult to draw conclusions from what I can see 20 km away, and I must refrain. We must either observe or experience, else leave the subject as unknown.
-
I've suggested Tom do some experiments around shadows to see if he can produce long shadows like you see at sunset in any other way than by having a light source PHYSICALLY (not "by perspective") close to the ground. He's not taken me up on that idea either.
For people who claim to be so bothered about empirical evidence you seem remarkably reticent to actually do any experiments.
It's not just an unwillingness to do experiments - it's an unwillingness to engage with what to expect with a flat Earth versus a round Earth. It's a fundamental of science to think "Well, if this is true then when I look at this thing, this should happen." FE theory simply starts with the assumption of a flat Earth and comes up with bizarre explanations of what is observed.
-
maybbe twasnt
-
maybbe twasnt
Can you stop with the posts that are void of content relative to the discussion? Warned.