1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here

« on: August 13, 2017, 07:37:41 PM »

....I apologize... But why would I include data gathered from photographic evidence for FET possibility (not PLAUSIBILITY, mind you) when photographic evidence of RET is automatically discounted? That's another case of speculation.

"This would explain why this appears the way it does on a flat Earth." has been the root of every diagram and explanation I've seen for a flat Earth.

Nothing provided so far follows along the lines of "This shows that the world IS flat."

:/

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here

« on: August 13, 2017, 05:05:31 PM »

Now before anyone says I haven't clearly read the evidence... I'm speaking about things like this.

""Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the""

Basically:

Q: Logical question as to why the Earth appears to orbit the Sun, with a definitive sinking beyond the Horizon line indicating a spherical orbit.

A: Idk, it doesn't though. It just looks that way #thetruthisalie

-----

Or

"" Q. Why are the celestial bodies and the sun so close to the earth's surface in the Flat Earth Model?

A. Tl;dr http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
""

Essentially:

Q: Why is the sun/moon/stars so close to the Earth? The Sun is stated to be only 3,000 miles away

A: Well this guy did a bunch of math with a stick. Seemed legit, so we took it and just assumed the Earth was flat and now the Sun is 3,000 miles away.

-----

Alternatively, when reading about this great Ice Wall that supposedly encircles the Flat Earth, they've based (as far as this site's FAQ on the matter) their assumption on what appears to be a single excerpt from his Arctic exploration when he encountered the Ice Shelf that was named after him. That or the Ice Bergs that blocked his path to Wellington channel. I'm not sure which, as its vague, and the single cited source is a dead link. So... Speculation again.

----

There's certainly more but this is enough for now.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here

« on: August 13, 2017, 04:33:06 PM »

Yeah.... I was hoping there would be well researched counters to those most obvious/easy to ask questions. What it appears to boil down to is confirmation bias/conspiracy theories/and rejection of widely accepted models in light of speculative theories that sound nice, briefly on their own,  and are equally unverifiable from an individual perspective. (Have YOU ever been to Space? Then how do you know that Gravity is formed by mass and not by the Earth rising continuously? Because from where you're sitting how would you be able to tell the difference?)

But Tbh that's pretty much what I expected when I realized people take the idea of the Earth being flat seriously. Hence the very obvious questions, but if there's more to it in the wiki I'll take a look, but it doesn't really look like there's much to argue about unless I'm missing something?

I find it to be quite an interesting intellectual exercise to disprove FE theory using their own (slightly odd) rules for debate and by showing inconsistences in what they claim.   They've clearly put quite a bit of effort into doing this - so it's not exactly easy.

The biggest problem (I think) is that FE'ers tend not to be well-travelled, and there is a serious northern-hemisphere bias to their thinking.   I very much doubt there are many people from Australia, South-Africa or South-America who believe in the Flat Earth because the errors due to their presumptions only show up over large distances  (Inevitably) and the biggest problems happen in the southern hemisphere where the errors get exponentially worse.

I definitely do agree that the core debate would make an excellent subject for a debate exercise, like a college project. In a debate one should be able to argue either side equally effectively, assuming each side pulls from the same established data. The art would be in forming the argument.

But in the end, if one side uses accepted facts/research and verified data while the other side discounts the sources of the data and speculates unquantifiable reasonings that arrive at the same conclusion the research does in an attempt to discount the research (Well they COULD have been just sailing in circles IF magnetic North were the center of the map.) I'm having trouble finding the words, but I'm sure my point is clear: The argument becomes trite, so let me try again.

Meaning this: The entire argument for a Flat Earth, while certainly not a joke, DOES seem like a massive exercise in debate. All "evidence" provided for a Flat Earth (taken from this very site's Wiki) are alternative explanations for how the Earth and its forces could exist with the world being Flat instead of round, while discounting all evidence of a round Earth as lies. No data or evidence to support their ideal other than it "could" work in theory.


I've seen the diagrams, read the comparison s for the magnetic field, but... I've not seen anything here that actually suggests this theory to be superior than the RET, or even argue against the RET... Or am I missing something?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here

« on: August 13, 2017, 03:04:34 PM »

Yeah.... I was hoping there would be well researched counters to those most obvious/easy to ask questions. What it appears to boil down to is confirmation bias/conspiracy theories/and rejection of widely accepted models in light of speculative theories that sound nice, briefly on their own,  and are equally unverifiable from an individual perspective. (Have YOU ever been to Space? Then how do you know that Gravity is formed by mass and not by the Earth rising continuously? Because from where you're sitting how would you be able to tell the difference?)

But Tbh that's pretty much what I expected when I realized people take the idea of the Earth being flat seriously. Hence the very obvious questions, but if there's more to it in the wiki I'll take a look, but it doesn't really look like there's much to argue about unless I'm missing something?

5

Flat Earth Theory / New here

« on: August 13, 2017, 11:00:29 AM »

So I see that there's quite a bit going on here. I was rather surprised to see that the idea of a flat Earth has so many proponents. I've not really stumbled across much evidence (aside from claims that we can't PROVE the Earth ISN'T flat) nor much discourse on the issue. I'm always up for healthy debate, but I have a few questions first so that I may understand the position that Flat Earthers hold. (I don't want to post, say Nasa photos and be labelled a sheep due to an already established position on such things.)

1. There are many reports/claims of people flying and sailing around the world. I've yet to hear of anyone making it to the edge of the world, or documenting such a finding. I suspect there will be claims like " 'They' covered it up," or "Illuminati" but I'd like a bit more than the assumption that the Earth is flat because everything is a lie, so the popular notion that the Earth is spherical must be a lie. You understand.

2. Much of our modern society hinges on the world being spherical (flight paths, ocean liners, etc.) As well as there being several scientific agencies that are staffed by some of the most intelligent minds the world has to offer. As well as numerous privately funded organizations who study the stars, multiple observatories. Does the Flat Earth reject all modern scientific research/discovery or just the evidence proposed by said agencies (NASA for example again.) Or is this another ploy by "they" and the funding for a mass cover up.

4. Several popular high-minded individuals have based their lives and their work on a geocentric model of the Earth. (Neil Degrasse Tyson/ Stephen Hawking) Does the flat Earth society have similar "celebrities" or equally accredited individuals in their corner? Or is this a case of rejected science, or covered up truth?

4. A Flat Earth would radically skew several scientific theories about the laws of physics. Everything from how light travels, to storm systems, to the electromagnetic fields and Gravity. Does the Flat Earth society propose an alternate make up/substitutions for these?

5. Is the concept of a Flat Earth religious based? Does it factor into this at all? Is this all based off of research and observation? If so is it unbiased or seeking to explain/confirm evidence found within religious writings.

I do thank you for taking the time here. I'm a simple man of average intelligence. I've never traveled very far. I've never seen the edge of the world nor have I sailed full circle around the globe. I personally subscribe to a round Earth. Its what I've been taught, the evidence for which makes sense enough and I've found no evidence in my life to refute them. So, no hate. I'm just curious and like to argue at times. Sway me