[herewegoround]

A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.

But it's not the common sense conclusion. It might be the common sense conclusion for you because you already believe that the Earth is round, but for me there are too many other variables involved... including light moving through a dense medium. You are displaying confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

No, I'm not. That's a totally dishonest argument. Anyone would argue that the most obvious conclusion is that the Earth is round.

You have postulated a process by which the size of the sun might be distorted. You haven't given any account of how this could make the apparent size of the sun almost completely constant everywhere on Earth and over the course of a given day at any given location. Until you do that you haven't done anything.

[Ghost of V]

A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.

But it's not the common sense conclusion. It might be the common sense conclusion for you because you already believe that the Earth is round, but for me there are too many other variables involved... including light moving through a dense medium. You are displaying confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

No, I'm not. That's a totally dishonest argument. Anyone would argue that the most obvious conclusion is that the Earth is round.

You have postulated a process by which the size of the sun might be distorted. You haven't given any account of how this could make the apparent size of the sun almost completely constant everywhere on Earth and over the course of a given day at any given location. Until you do that you haven't done anything.

Now you are using yet another fallacious argument...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Regardless, you obviously lack a fundamental understanding of our flat Earth model. You do know that the Sun itself moves above the Earth, right? The Sun is going to look a similar size to everyone for this reason, mixed with the fact that light is travelling through a dense medium which distorts its image. Are you trying to claim now that the Earth has no atmosphere for the light to travel through????

[herewegoround]

A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.

But it's not the common sense conclusion. It might be the common sense conclusion for you because you already believe that the Earth is round, but for me there are too many other variables involved... including light moving through a dense medium. You are displaying confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

No, I'm not. That's a totally dishonest argument. Anyone would argue that the most obvious conclusion is that the Earth is round.

You have postulated a process by which the size of the sun might be distorted. You haven't given any account of how this could make the apparent size of the sun almost completely constant everywhere on Earth and over the course of a given day at any given location. Until you do that you haven't done anything.

Now you are using yet another fallacious argument...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Regardless, you obviously lack a fundamental understanding of our flat Earth model. You do know that the Sun itself moves above the Earth, right? The Sun is going to look a similar size to everyone for this reason, mixed with the fact that light is travelling through a dense medium which distorts its image. Are you trying to claim now that the Earth has no atmosphere for the light to travel through????

The equator is about 6 200 miles from the North Pole. Well, in the real world it is, I don't know how far you think it is. If you were on the equator during the equinox at midday, the sun would be directly overhead. If the sun is following a giant circle 3000 miles above the earth centred at the equator, then 12 hours later it will be above a point on the Earth 12 4000 miles away. From Pythagorus it will be 12 800 miles away, about 4 times further away than when it was directly overhead. From trigonometry it will be at angle of elevation of 14°. The first point is that it should still be visible. Or, if not it for some reason, it should never have been observed to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0° i.e. set.

Can you explain how it is that the density of the aether can make the sun appear the same size to all the observers on the equator as the sun followed its circular path and also to every other observer on Earth.

This aether has got have some pretty remarkable properties. It's go to make the sun look the same size to people who are directly underneath to people who are thousands of miles away.

Again, the most obvious interpretation of the facts is that the Earth is round.

[Ghost of V]

Did you measure these distances yourself?

Of course when you take RE measurements you're going to get a model that makes the Earth look round. That's why it's called Round Earth Theory. However, many of us here do not trust the values you are giving. It is also extremely unwise to simply believe everything you read in a text book or government source. You really need to do the measurements yourself before you can claim that they are correct.

[herewegoround]

Did you measure these distances yourself?

Of course when you take RE measurements you're going to get a model that makes the Earth look round. That's why it's called Round Earth Theory. However, many of us here do not trust the values you are giving. It is also extremely unwise to simply believe everything you read in a text book or government source. You really need to do the measurements yourself before you can claim that they are correct.

Ok, so lets get this straight. You are suggesting that the distance from the North Pole to the equator isn't 6 200 miles. This, along with many others, is a basic fact about the world that is used by thousands of people in their everyday lives. Including pilots, air traffic controllers, navigators, meteorologists, cartographers, sailors and the military. So either all these people are colluding in a conspiracy or they are all too stupid to notice that all the facts they use don't add and don't make sense.

What do you think the distance between the North pole and the equator is? No matter what it is, if the Earth is flat and the sun is moving in a circle 3000 miles above it, its distance to different observes is going to change significantly over the course of a day.

How does the aether manage to make it look almost the same size to all of them all the time?

[herewegoround]

Well, it's late and I need to sleep.

The angle of incidence of sunlight changes gradually over the surface of the Earth. The apparent size of the sun is the same everywhere on Earth and the same over the course of a day at any given location.

The most obvious explanation for these facts is that the Earth is round.

The aether is a patch designed to explain these facts. However, on a flat Earth the distance from an observer to the sun would change radically from observer to observer, from 3000 up to 12 000 miles. So, the aether would have to have the remarkable property of making the sun seem the exact same size to any observer no matter how far they were from the sun.

[throwaway account]

I think this conversation needs to be rebooted again.
Here's a point from the first post:

3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the center of the disc.

Provide an argument this time, instead of just saying
"3) Many theories have been proposed explaining this, they can be found on our wiki or simply by using the search function".
If such an article exists, please provide a link, proving that you have actually performed this search yourself.

[lifeonmars?]

Phew...

I've been a reader here for a while, but just recently decided to post a bit.  I've been interested in finding some concrete ideas that support the notion of a flat earth, but I feel that there's really a dearth of actual evidence. As was just implied by Throwaway Account, it feels like supporters of FET (in this thread, jroa and Vauxhall specifically) often refer people back to the wiki, but I've been disappointed by the explanations I've found there. What I (and other like herewegoaround) would like are some clear arguments (or links to clear arguments) about the specific points brought up.

Relevant to this thread, the notion of the aether just seems a little fantastical...granted, it was a well accepted idea in classical physics through the 19th century, but isn't it true that the Michelson-Morley experiments pretty well indicated that such a medium does not exist?

Also, can any FET supporters provide an answer to the point posed by herewegoaround and re-posted by Throwaway Account above? (Point 3. originally posted by herewegoaround)

Also, this may be a little silly to get into, but jroa: you have an gif on your signature that says "Which model would you choose to represent the earth if you were in second grade: a.) a pancake or b.) an orange. The correct answer is a.)"

Doesn't this seem just a little presumptuous? How can you say what a hypothetical second grader would choose? And beyond that, what would it matter - should the intuitive powers of a second grader be our basis for determining ultimate truths? (I mean, children are wonderful, but...)

Finally (and forgive me for this post having multiple questions), I just want to ask: are most of you FET supporters just the internet's greatest trolls? Or do you genuinely believe the evidence suggests that the most parsimonious explanation for the observable character of the earth and its surroundings is that the planet is flat?

 

[Ghost of V]

The Michelson-Morley experiments disproved luminiferous aether, which is similar but also completely different from our aether.

Nice David Bowie username. I'm a fan.

[lifeonmars?]

Gotcha, luminferfous aether, different from FET aether. But still, since the FET aether is a medium through which light is (according to you in this thread) is bent/distorted, wouldn't the same effects on the light from the stars and other planets be noticeable?

Vauxhall, from earlier, herewegoaround has as one of his points that the Verrazano-Narrows bridge is built to account for the curvature of the earth, to which you replied "no it isn't." Yet, here's a snippet from the wikipedia article on the bridge, which apparently comes from information from the US Dept. of Transportation (I did not follow up on this, but if the point needs confirming, I'd be happy to look into it.)

"Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases; they are not parallel to each other." (Wikipedia)

Is the engineering on this bridge not proof of the earth's curvature? I think this is probably the major issue facing your belief system, that so much of what is done in modern science and engineering relies on the knowledge and truth that the earth is round. Navigation, engineering on the larger scale, satellites technology (do you content that GPS navigation systems are part of the conspiracy???)... the list, I assume, goes on for a while...

And then there's the glaring question: why would anybody cover this up? At least with the moon landing, it's obvious that if it were a hoax (and let me say emphatically that I rest assured that it was not), it would be distinctly embarrassing for the US gov. to admit that they'd not really won the space race, so the need for a government cover-up seems plausible...but science is doing amazing things these days, and it just strikes me as beyond reason that there would not be more vocal support for the FET theory?

So again, come on - this all has to be a joke, right? This all exists just to elicit responses from people like me, doesn't it? Can you address any of the issues I've brought up in a serious way?

Good catch by the way, I wasn't sure if I'd just come off as a skeptic of martian life! (Which, I suppose, I am)

[jroa]

1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.

2. There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South respectively. The stars in between rise and set on the horizon much like the sun does. There is no flat Earth model which can account for this.

3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the centre of the disc.

4. The sun sets. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it could never be seen to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0 degrees. Also, its apparent size would change significantly over the course of a day and it would be seen to follow a radically different path in the sky.

5. Ships disappear over the horizon at the exact distance from shore as you would predict them to do if you were standing on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles. Once they disappear the strongest telescope in the world won't bring them back into view. However, if you climb to higher ground the horizon line moves further away and you can see the ship again. The only explanation for these facts is that the world is round.

6. The curvature of the Earth had to be taken into account when building The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge.

7. The distance from the North Pole to the equator is about 6 200 miles. If the Earth is flat that would mean the equator is a circle with a circumference of 39 000 miles. The equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles. 

8. According to the flat Earth model with The North Pole at the centre; the Tropic of Cancer should have a circumference of about 29 000 miles and the Tropic of Capricorn should have a circumference of about 49 000 miles. They both have a circumference of about 23 000 miles. Coupled with the fact that the equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles, this overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is a spheroid.

1) Aetheric bending of light

2) The stars are caught in two separate aetheric whirlpools above the earth, each rotating differently and separately from each other. This causes the phenomenon known as "circumpolar stars".

3) Many theories have been proposed explaining this, they can be found on our wiki or simply by using the search function.

4) Sun sets have been discussed at length and have been explained several times. Please read the following:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Sunset
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

5) This question just shows me that you have not browsed any of other already existing material like you claim you have. You are a liar, plain and simple. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of perspective.

6) No it didn't.

7) Have you measured these distances yourself? Where are you getting this information? Please be specific.

8) Once again, where are you getting these numbers and measurements? Please be specific, because they are clearly false and/or assumptions based on a globular Earth model.


Before you post next, please peruse our wiki. It explains each of your points in great detail. It is disingenuous of you to come here, claim that you've read the wiki, and then proceed to post nonsense that clearly shows that you have not read the wiki on any of the subjects you've listed. If you have specific questions about the answers provided in the wiki pages, then ask them... but do not act like you understand FET when you clear don't.

What a load of unscientific, dishonest, incomprehensible bullshit. You're profoundly dishonest and totally deluded. Your aetheric whirlpools prove nothing. Idiot.

Let's discuss your 3rd false claim next.  You claim that there is 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica during the summer, yet, parts of Antarctica are not even located within the antarctic circle.  In other words, parts of Antarctica never experience even one day of 24 hours of daylight or night, according to RET.  Perhaps the discussion would go better for both of us if you do not make things up and just discuss facts?  Making things up can be entertaining, but it is not appropriate for a serious debate. 

[markjo]

Let's discuss your 3rd false claim next.  You claim that there is 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica during the summer, yet, parts of Antarctica are not even located within the antarctic circle.  In other words, parts of Antarctica never experience even one day of 24 hours of daylight or night, according to RET. 

What about the vast majority of Antarctica that is within the Antarctic circle and does experience 24 hours of daylight?

Perhaps the discussion would go better for both of us if you do not make things up and just discuss facts?  Making things up can be entertaining, but it is not appropriate for a serious debate.

Perhaps the discussion would go better if you weren't unnecessarily pedantic.

[Wulf]

to be fair  herewegoround, you will not convince anyone when you throw insults at them. it doesn't matter how right or wrong a person is on their topic; if they show aggression in their words people will find ways to disagree. This is a psychological phenomenon. If you aren't here to convince people then i guess it doesn't matter but you should probably keep that in mind. 

[herewegoround]

to be fair  herewegoround, you will not convince anyone when you throw insults at them. it doesn't matter how right or wrong a person is on their topic; if they show aggression in their words people will find ways to disagree. This is a psychological phenomenon. If you aren't here to convince people then i guess it doesn't matter but you should probably keep that in mind.

If you read through this discussion you will see that I started off being perfectly reasonable. Jroa and Vauxhall became increasing childish and persistently insinuated things about me. I provided jroa with a quote from a professional astronomer, he referred to her twice as an astrologer and dismissed what she said. How does one deal with that level of dishonesty and obnoxious behaviour. Yet, everyone seems to think I've been the unreasonable one.

Perhaps I have spent too much time on the other flat Earth website forum. There isn't any moderation at all on the way people talk to each other. Flat Earth proponents gave themselves carte balanche to talk to me in anyway they wanted to me so I returned the favour.

It's facts that win arguments, not people.

[jroa]

Let's discuss your 3rd false claim next.  You claim that there is 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica during the summer, yet, parts of Antarctica are not even located within the antarctic circle.  In other words, parts of Antarctica never experience even one day of 24 hours of daylight or night, according to RET. 

What about the vast majority of Antarctica that is within the Antarctic circle and does experience 24 hours of daylight?

The claim was made that Antarctica receives 24 hours of sunlight for half the year.  I simply pointed out that, according to RET, parts of Antarctica do not even get one day of 24 hour sunlight.  Also, the vast majority of Antarctica, according to RET, receives between 1 day of 24 hour sunlight to just a couple of months of uninterrupted light¹. 



1 source: geometry

[herewegoround]

This video shows there is at least one location in Antarctica where the sun is visible 24 hours a day. If Antarctica is an ice rim then there shouldn't be anywhere in Antarctica where it is possible to see this. This is what can be seen in the summer in Antarctica, at the same it is winter in the Arctic where the sun isn't visible at all. So, according to flat Earth, the sun can visible at a point on the rim of a disc 24 hours a day but not visible at the centre of the disc.

[herewegoround]

Here's another video just in case you think the first one was posted on youtube by the NWO/masonic/CIA/Jesuit/Jewish conspiracy.

[jroa]

Either of those videos could have easily been produced on a sound stage.  Did you notice all of the cuts in both videos? 

[Wulf]

Aether is no different than gravity. You cannot see gravity. You can't touch it. You can't even detect it. Yet, you still use gravity to explain your globular Earth theory. How is that any different than what I am doing? You believe things magically float in a void with nothing holding them up. That sounds pretty nonsensical to me. At least we have a force that holds up the heavens, it's called Universal Acceleration and it's most likely caused by the aether. We know Universal Acceleration exists because everything falls at the same rate. That is not a coincidence.

i don't think that is correct. with gravity we observe a phenomenon (stuff falls down) and we describe this phenomenon with the law of gravity. Correct me if i'm wrong on this point, but aether was thought up to explain a phenomenon that hasn't been proved to happen; Aether explains how the light can bend and cause the sun not to change size, but without getting up high enough to see the sun change size without the interference of the aether we can't know for sure that the light is actually bending. Has this been done? To be more clear, i have a reason to believe gravity exists, i do not have a reason to believe aether exists. Would you please give me one?

The Cavendish experiment was designed to measure the gravitational pull of two balls and showed that even small objects have gravity. Today we can locate oil in the ground by using a device that measures gravity(places with oil tend to be more dense); Not many people realize that gravity actually differs very slightly across the surface of the earth; the difference is very small but it's measurable. We can test this using a device called a gravimeter(which is basically a weighted ball suspended by a spring). This was an older and less accurate method than using sound waves but it worked well enough to profit from.

It's inaccurate to say that RE proponents believe things float in the void without things to hold them up. It is as ridiculous to me as it is to you. Gravity is constantly acting in space and if you were to be in space you would fall toward the sun. However, while you fall toward the sun you would feel weightless. the same feeling can be replicated in an airplane as it shoots toward the ground. or just jump down some stairs and you will feel weightless for half a second. Things don't float, they fall.

The hardest thing about digging up research performed in this manner is that gravity and a round earth is practically uncontroversial. No ones doing experiments because they already know the answer.

[herewegoround]

Either of those videos could have easily been produced on a sound stage.  Did you notice all of the cuts in both videos?

So, let me see if I have got this straight. You are suggesting that these videos were produced by a conspiracy for the sole purpose of promoting the idea that the Earth is round. And people wonder why I ended up calling you names. Are you really a moderator on this forum? You behave more like a troll.

You admitted in an earlier post that there are places in Antarctica where the sun is visible 24 hours a day.