[Beorn]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Frocious]

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.

[xenotolerance]

now is probably a good time to remind everyone that videos like this exist:


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

[StinkyOne]

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.

[Beorn]

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.

[xenotolerance]

yes, we know, and we also predict that you shouldn't be able to see the curve from commercial flights in general

[Beorn]

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.

[xenotolerance]

that's not what Occam would say

[Beorn]

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?

[StinkyOne]

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...

[xenotolerance]

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 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

[pablozablo]

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!

[Treep Ravisarras]

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.

[Beorn]

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.

[Curious Squirrel]

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.

[pablozablo]

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?

[Beorn]

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

[pablozablo]

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?

[Curious Squirrel]

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.