[Beorn]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[StinkyOne]

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?

[pablozablo]

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".

[Treep Ravisarras]

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.

[Treep Ravisarras]

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:

Should we now say that the earth is concave?

This picture is drawn:

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.

[JohnAdams1145]

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.

[Treep Ravisarras]

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.

[Beorn]

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...

[Tomato]

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

[inquisitive]

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.

[Tomato]

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."

[Frocious]

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.

[Tomato]

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.

[Treep Ravisarras]

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.


Zoom in

Zoom in

Zoom in

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.

[Westprog]

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.

[stanlee]

maybbe twasnt

[juner]

maybbe twasnt

Can you stop with the posts that are void of content relative to the discussion? Warned.