The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: the-earth-is-round on June 11, 2017, 04:58:10 AM
-
Hello FES. As you can see from my name I'm a round Earther and even givin all the "evidence" I've been shown from pictures and videos I still and most likley will always believe the earth is round. With that being said I have a friend that pushes it on me so hard its kind of annoying. We always end up getting into debates over the shape of the earth and I honestly wish we could just drop it and move on. I don't care that he believes the earth is flat millions of people do and its cool, but why do you think he tries so hard to push it on me, what do you all think I should do or say to get him to just drop it.
-
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.
-
I don't care that he believes the earth is flat millions of people do and its cool
Millions, really? If you could provide a source for that information please.
-
I don't care that he believes the earth is flat millions of people do and its cool
Millions, really? If you could provide a source for that information please.
2,384,986 its a cold hard fact.
Source: the internet
-
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.
Because he is a flat earther and flat earthers refuse to believe.
-
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.
Because he is a flat earther and flat earthers refuse to believe.
If you are correct and the earth is round, then the evidence should be plentiful and obvious. It should be easy to embarrass him enough to drop the charade.
-
If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.
-
If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.
That's not strictly true. It can be indicative of that, but different people go about their convictions in different ways. This is most easily observable with political opinions, but it applies most everywhere.
OP, have you tried talking to your friend and explaining to him exactly what you said just now? That you're cool with him being an FE'er, but that you'd rather agree to disagree and focus on other things? If you have and it didn't work, you may have to consider distancing yourself from him a little bit. Nobody likes a preacher.
-
Of course it's not necessarily true. I was just trying to fit in with the (lack of) logic on display in this thread.
-
I don't care that he believes the earth is flat millions of people do and its cool
Millions, really? If you could provide a source for that information please.
2,384,986 its a cold hard fact.
Source: the internet
LOL, that's not how "provide a source" works. Where on "the internet" did you get so specific a number? Is that source trustworthy? After all, the internet also contains web sites that "prove" the earth to be (insert shape you think is wrong) so you can't believe everything you see online.
(https://dragonscanbebeaten.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/the-problem-with-quotes-on-the-internet.jpg)
-
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.
Because he is a flat earther and flat earthers refuse to believe.
If you are correct and the earth is round, then the evidence should be plentiful and obvious. It should be easy to embarrass him enough to drop the charade.
You would think so, but hanging around sites like this just goes to show how much evidence people are willing to ignore in order to preserve their beliefs. Or for the sake of a gag. Your choice as to which is more likely.
-
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.
Because he is a flat earther and flat earthers refuse to believe.
If you are correct and the earth is round, then the evidence should be plentiful and obvious. It should be easy to embarrass him enough to drop the charade.
I have found that the opposite is true. When you present hard evidence you are confronted with conspiracy mumbo jumbo. Anyone can look at a flat earth map, look up flight times from southern hemisphere airports and see the truth.
-
My experience is that you cannot argue certain things that are pushed off the table with blank disclaimers.
- Photos of the round earth or other space-based evidence is dismissed as a "NASA/UN conspiracy" - you can't prove that it's not a conspiracy - so it's really not worth the effort to try. This evidence is "off the table".
- Scientific results and similar things are dismissed as "Have YOU actually TRIED that?" - and since you don't happen to have a handy 100" telescope in your back yard - you're not going to win that argument either.
[li]Things that require too much math or trigonometry don't work well because most FE'ers get lost in the weeds of the math - so right or wrong, the results are not compelling.
[/li][/list]
HOWEVER: The most compelling evidence are simple observations that anyone can make. How do sunsets happen? How does the moon have phases? Why does a new moon look 'vertical' in the north, 'horizontal' at the equator and 'upside-down' in the southern parts of the planet? How is it that Quantas can fly you from Australia to South America or South Africa when the Flat Earth map of the world shows that these distances are more than twice the range of a 747 airliner and the flight times would require them to fly at twice the speed of sound? Why are there TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day?
These questions are VERY tough for Flat Earth people to answer - they are not easily dismissed - and the evidence is ridiculously easy to find.
So look for simple stuff - and stick within the rules of evidence that your friend is willing to accept. This is a fascinating intellectual exercise.
I doubt you'll convince him/her though.
-
Scientific results and similar things are dismissed as "Have YOU actually TRIED that?" - and since you don't happen to have a handy 100" telescope in your back yard - you're not going to win that argument either.
Don't you think asking people to just take someone's word without a shred evidence is a bit silly? What if I told you that my late uncle absolutely super-totally went to space and saw the Earth to be flat? Unfortunately he's dead and I don't have any proof, but hey, it would be silly for you to expect me to just have a spaceship in my back yard.
Things that require too much math or trigonometry don't work well because most FE'ers get lost in the weeds of the math - so right or wrong, the results are not compelling.
I'd be interested in seeing you back up your claim that this happens often, or, failing that, that it happens at all.
HOWEVER: The most compelling evidence are simple observations that anyone can make. How do sunsets happen? How does the moon have phases? Why does a new moon look 'vertical' in the north, 'horizontal' at the equator and 'upside-down' in the southern parts of the planet? How is it that Quantas can fly you from Australia to South America or South Africa when the Flat Earth map of the world shows that these distances are more than twice the range of a 747 airliner and the flight times would require them to fly at twice the speed of sound?
Ah, yes, the "I didn't read the FAQ" starter kit. Truly the pinnacle of low-quality posting.
Why are there TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day?
I've explained this to you twice, I'm not going to waste my time for a third time.
-
Scientific results and similar things are dismissed as "Have YOU actually TRIED that?" - and since you don't happen to have a handy 100" telescope in your back yard - you're not going to win that argument either.
Don't you think asking people to just take someone's word without a shred evidence is a bit silly? What if I told you that my late uncle absolutely super-totally went to space and saw the Earth to be flat? Unfortunately he's dead and I don't have any proof, but hey, it would be silly for you to expect me to just have a spaceship in my back yard.
Things that require too much math or trigonometry don't work well because most FE'ers get lost in the weeds of the math - so right or wrong, the results are not compelling.
I'd be interested in seeing you back up your claim that this happens often, or, failing that, that it happens at all.
HOWEVER: The most compelling evidence are simple observations that anyone can make. How do sunsets happen? How does the moon have phases? Why does a new moon look 'vertical' in the north, 'horizontal' at the equator and 'upside-down' in the southern parts of the planet?
How is it that Quantas can fly you from Australia to South America or South Africa when the Flat Earth map of the world shows that these distances are more than twice the range of a 747 airliner and the flight times would require them to fly at twice the speed of sound?
Ah, yes, the "I didn't read the FAQ" starter kit. Truly the pinnacle of low-quality posting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have read the FAQ and it does not address the flight time problem in any way. In fact, the FAQ does not contain the word "flight" if the search is working.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have read the FAQ and it does not address the flight time problem in any way. In fact, the FAQ does not contain the word "flight" if the search is working.
A fair point, I was being too harsh. Let's substitute "I didn't read the FAQ" with "I didn't do basic research" for the sake of accuracy. The sentiment stands.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have read the FAQ and it does not address the flight time problem in any way. In fact, the FAQ does not contain the word "flight" if the search is working.
A fair point, I was being too harsh. Let's substitute "I didn't read the FAQ" with "I didn't do basic research" for the sake of accuracy. The sentiment stands.
This may not be the right place for the discussion on flight times but I have seen the question asked many times and never answered. How do you explain it when flights between South Africa and Australia take the amount of time they would if plotted on a globe? If plotted on any flat earth map in the Wiki / FAQ they would take much longer unless the aircraft could exceed it's posted speed and fly supersonic.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have read the FAQ and it does not address the flight time problem in any way. In fact, the FAQ does not contain the word "flight" if the search is working.
A fair point, I was being too harsh. Let's substitute "I didn't read the FAQ" with "I didn't do basic research" for the sake of accuracy. The sentiment stands.
This may not be the right place for the discussion on flight times but I have seen the question asked many times and never answered. How do you explain it when flights between South Africa and Australia take the amount of time they would if plotted on a globe? If plotted on any flat earth map in the Wiki / FAQ they would take much longer unless the aircraft could exceed it's posted speed and fly supersonic.
The map everyone wants to reference and or criticize doesn't accurately represent longitude. No one makes that claim. The projection is called Azimuthal Equidistant meaning that each line of longitude intersects the lines of latitude at equal distances. It is a projection made on the assumption of the Earth being a sphere, and should not be used beyond basic visualization of how our planet might appear with the North Pole as its center.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have read the FAQ and it does not address the flight time problem in any way. In fact, the FAQ does not contain the word "flight" if the search is working.
A fair point, I was being too harsh. Let's substitute "I didn't read the FAQ" with "I didn't do basic research" for the sake of accuracy. The sentiment stands.
This may not be the right place for the discussion on flight times but I have seen the question asked many times and never answered. How do you explain it when flights between South Africa and Australia take the amount of time they would if plotted on a globe? If plotted on any flat earth map in the Wiki / FAQ they would take much longer unless the aircraft could exceed it's posted speed and fly supersonic.
The map everyone wants to reference and or criticize doesn't accurately represent longitude. No one makes that claim. The projection is called Azimuthal Equidistant meaning that each line of longitude intersects the lines of latitude at equal distances. It is a projection made on the assumption of the Earth being a sphere, and should not be used beyond basic visualization of how our planet might appear with the North Pole as its center.
What does the map look like to you? Are you saying longitude lines are not a consistent angle? If one goes south of the north pole on East 150 degrees you eventually come to the southeast corner of Austraila. If you do the same on West 70 you will arrive close to the tip of South America. These two points are roughly 5,600 miles or 9,000 km apart. How far would that be on the map you think of? The only flat earth maps I can find show those two points to be about as far apart as any two can.
I am not asking this to criticize but to understand more about FE theory.
The distances from point to point are fairly well established.
Edited for typo
-
I told you exactly what that projection is.
There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.
People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.
-
I told you exactly what that projection is.
There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.
People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.
I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like.
-
I told you exactly what that projection is.
There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.
People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.
I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like.
I don't think anything about the AEP "map." I know that the distances are accurate for latitude only. As is thoroughly explained if you do even a small amount of research into how the projection was made.
-
I told you exactly what that projection is.
There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.
People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.
I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like.
I don't think anything about the AEP "map." I know that the distances are accurate for latitude only. As is thoroughly explained if you do even a small amount of research into how the projection was made.
Again I asked nothing about any projection map. I know how projection maps are made. I asked what do you think a flat earth map looks like? Not a trick question, I really want to know.
I misspoke earlier and said latitude when I meant longitude (since edited). Do you think that longitude lines maintain the same angle as they go south from the north pole? If so the distance between points at any latitude would be simple to calculate.
-
I told you exactly what that projection is.
There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.
People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.
I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like.
I don't think anything about the AEP "map." I know that the distances are accurate for latitude only. As is thoroughly explained if you do even a small amount of research into how the projection was made.
Again I asked nothing about any projection map. I know how projection maps are made. I asked what do you think a flat earth map looks like? Not a trick question, I really want to know.
I misspoke earlier and said latitude when I meant longitude (since edited). Do you think that longitude lines maintain the same angle as they go south from the north pole? If so the distance between points at any latitude would be simple to calculate.
Longitude and Latitude would have nothing at all to do with a flat earth map.
-
I told you exactly what that projection is.
There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.
People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.
I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like.
I don't think anything about the AEP "map." I know that the distances are accurate for latitude only. As is thoroughly explained if you do even a small amount of research into how the projection was made.
Again I asked nothing about any projection map. I know how projection maps are made. I asked what do you think a flat earth map looks like? Not a trick question, I really want to know.
I misspoke earlier and said latitude when I meant longitude (since edited). Do you think that longitude lines maintain the same angle as they go south from the north pole? If so the distance between points at any latitude would be simple to calculate.
Longitude and Latitude would have nothing at all to do with a flat earth map.
Let me try one more time. What do you think a flat earth map looks like?
-
There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.
There are no decent flat earth maps, because there are no flat earth cartographers.
What kind of willingness would you require? Willingness to ignore the movement of the sun and the other stars? Willingness to ignore the rotation of the earth? What kind of cartographic methods actually would be accepted?
-
So we're being told here that the FE map that shows a series of equally spaced concentric circles for the lines of latitude and straight lines radiating outwards from the North pole for the lines of longitude is no longer considered "correct" in FE circles?
That is very interesting.
I should warn potential revisionist FE cartographers that no matter how they bend, stretch or otherwise distort the shapes of continents and oceans - they will not be able to reproduce the known observations for aircraft flight times and similar hard data correctly.
The mathematics of the situation actually guarantees that only two shapes can explain all of the distances and angles correctly - one of those is a spherical earth as in RET - the other is the inverse of that - a world where the continents and oceans line the inside of a hollow sphere. (Hollow-earthers seem to like this idea - and if there is one thing in our entire universe that both FE'ers and RE'ers can agree upon - it's that the HE'ers are batshit crazy!)
The only map projection that can produce the same distances and angles from a round object to a flat one is this kind of thing:
(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Normal/ProjInt/Img/mp_Sinusoidal-s75-i9.png)
...which I suppose might work for a Flat Earth if you don't mind having people teleport over the gaps around the edges!
-
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.
See, this is problematic for me, since the burden of proof is on the FE supporters, who make the claim which refutes accepted science.
And before you tell me that the proof has been made- it hasn't, and you know it hasn't, given the number of 'nobody knows' and 'maybes' and 'we believe' claims. You're all very, very long on theory, and extremely short on tangible evidence.
-
See, this is problematic for me, since the burden of proof is on the FE supporters, who make the claim which refutes accepted science.
This is a dubious argument at best. Scientific progress is basically a series of people demonstrating why the accepted dogma of the time is wrong. I mean, Galileo made a claim that refuted accepted science and you lot love him. At the end of the day the burden of proof is on RE because that's the claim that rejects direct observation.
-
See, this is problematic for me, since the burden of proof is on the FE supporters, who make the claim which refutes accepted science.
Flat Earth Theory is rooted in empiricism. FE supporters are generally skeptics and empiricists. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and the claimant is not the side claiming that water is wet. The burden of proof is on those who are making the claims of things beyond experience.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Burden_of_Proof
Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?
A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.
A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.
You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.
The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.
If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?
In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?
Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on Moller that all of their claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on potential investors and the public to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?
The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.
-
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is flat, why have you been unable to prove it to anyone at all?
-
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is flat, why have you been unable to prove it to anyone at all?
It is already proven by default. Look out your window sometime. That is a strong and direct empirical proof. It must actually be proven that the earth exists in some other hidden form beyond experience.
-
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.
If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is flat, why have you been unable to prove it to anyone at all?
It is already proven by default. Look out your window sometime. That is a strong and direct empirical proof. It must actually be proven that the earth exists in some other hidden form beyond experience.
I have watched boats disappear under the horizon on Lake Superior from the top of Lutsen Mountain with my own eyes. Are you trying to say that the perception you gather from looking out your window somehow represents the totality of what is really there? You are clearly having a problem comprehending how small we are in comparison to the planet we live on, and subsequently the nearly unfathomable massiveness of the universe.
There is this thing we have as "intelligent beings" called credible information. Simply denying something because you have CHOSEN not to see it for yourself, is not even remotely a valid argument that something doesn't exist. I can say you don't exist simply because I have never seen it for myself...but something tells me you would argue otherwise.
There is only 1 reality, and it is not dictated by perception until you get to the quantum level theories which is an area I don't even remotely expect you to try to venture into.
-
I have watched boats disappear under the horizon on Lake Superior from the top of Lutsen Mountain with my own eyes. Are you trying to say that the perception you gather from looking out your window somehow represents the totality of what is really there?
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed. The Sinking Ship effect is addressed and studied in Earth Not a Globe, and proven to be an illusion, but even assuming that the study is completely wrong, your observation only really suggests so far is that the earth is a hill, and my only advice to you is to continue your investigation.
-
I have watched boats disappear under the horizon on Lake Superior from the top of Lutsen Mountain with my own eyes. Are you trying to say that the perception you gather from looking out your window somehow represents the totality of what is really there?
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed. The Sinking Ship effect is addressed and studied in Earth Not a Globe, and proven to be an illusion, but even assuming that the study is completely wrong, your observation only really suggests so far is that the earth is a hill, and my only advice to you is to continue your investigation.
You are operating under some kind of misconception that the idea of a round earth is just an assumption simply because you have not seen it in its entirety from looking out your window.
You tell me to look out my window and observe for myself, but then when I tell you I have observed for myself on a far greater scale, you come up with some bogus explanation as to why my observation wasn't valid.
The "sinking ship effect" explanation by "Earth is Not a Globe" is a complete misinterpretation of information. I have thoroughly studied both reality, and the flat earth theory, and the part that I can't figure out is the mental condition that allows a person to put this much effort into trying to prove something that NOBODY has ever observed while trying to use the justification that the theory is proven by default specifically due to observation, when the alternate and logically accepted solution has been based on countless observations and even more numerous experiments that anyone can do for themselves.
-
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.
How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?
-
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.
How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?
The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.
You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.
-
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.
How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?
The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.
You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.
OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.
-
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.
How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?
The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.
You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.
OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.
I find it exceedingly interesting how you put this much effort into dispensing this kind of absolute BS. Are you really under the impression that you are fooling anyone? Do you actually believe what you are saying?
Visibility conditions play a factor in scenarios where a ship can be restored into vision using optical enhancement, however this can only be observed until the ship moves beyond the line of site as dictated by the curvature of the earth. A major thing the FE theory leaves out is ocean swelling caused by constant wind direction. This can mean that the surface of the water is several feet higher several miles out to sea if the wind conditions allow for it. This would give the false perception that you are seeing the ship beyond the distance you should be able to based on the curvature of the earth due to the ship being elevated from your position.
We have optical lenses that take pictures of the earth from 300 miles in space with decent detail. You can't use the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat. Unless you are ok with just flat out lying.
-
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.
How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?
The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.
You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.
OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.
I find it exceedingly interesting how you put this much effort into dispensing this kind of absolute BS. Are you really under the impression that you are fooling anyone? Do you actually believe what you are saying?
Visibility conditions play a factor in scenarios where a ship can be restored into vision using optical enhancement, however this can only be observed until the ship moves beyond the line of site as dictated by the curvature of the earth. A major thing the FE theory leaves out is ocean swelling caused by constant wind direction. This can mean that the surface of the water is several feet higher several miles out to sea if the wind conditions allow for it. This would give the false perception that you are seeing the ship beyond the distance you should be able to based on the curvature of the earth due to the ship being elevated from your position.
We have optical lenses that take pictures of the earth from 300 miles in space with decent detail. You can't use the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat. Unless you are ok with just flat out lying.
Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.
-
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.
How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?
The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.
You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.
OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.
I find it exceedingly interesting how you put this much effort into dispensing this kind of absolute BS. Are you really under the impression that you are fooling anyone? Do you actually believe what you are saying?
Visibility conditions play a factor in scenarios where a ship can be restored into vision using optical enhancement, however this can only be observed until the ship moves beyond the line of site as dictated by the curvature of the earth. A major thing the FE theory leaves out is ocean swelling caused by constant wind direction. This can mean that the surface of the water is several feet higher several miles out to sea if the wind conditions allow for it. This would give the false perception that you are seeing the ship beyond the distance you should be able to based on the curvature of the earth due to the ship being elevated from your position.
We have optical lenses that take pictures of the earth from 300 miles in space with decent detail. You can't use the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat. Unless you are ok with just flat out lying.
Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.
Maybe you should read my post again and try to follow the context this time.
I clearly explained exactly what would make you a liar. You won't have to look too far since it is literally the sentence before it...
-
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.
How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?
The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.
You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.
OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.
I find it exceedingly interesting how you put this much effort into dispensing this kind of absolute BS. Are you really under the impression that you are fooling anyone? Do you actually believe what you are saying?
Visibility conditions play a factor in scenarios where a ship can be restored into vision using optical enhancement, however this can only be observed until the ship moves beyond the line of site as dictated by the curvature of the earth. A major thing the FE theory leaves out is ocean swelling caused by constant wind direction. This can mean that the surface of the water is several feet higher several miles out to sea if the wind conditions allow for it. This would give the false perception that you are seeing the ship beyond the distance you should be able to based on the curvature of the earth due to the ship being elevated from your position.
We have optical lenses that take pictures of the earth from 300 miles in space with decent detail. You can't use the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat. Unless you are ok with just flat out lying.
Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.
Maybe you should read my post again and try to follow the context this time.
I clearly explained exactly what would make you a liar. You won't have to look too far since it is literally the sentence before it...
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.
-
I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.
How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?
The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.
You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.
OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.
The instances where the ship was not restorable was addressed as well. See the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) in Earth Not a Globe.
-
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.
The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions. The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight). That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself. To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying. Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.
The instances where the ship was not restorable was addressed as well. See the chapter Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe.
You assume that just because people disagree, they are unaware of the information. Just because the issue was "addressed" doesn't mean any of it is even remotely true. And by the rules of your empirical beliefs, you have to assume this is all false since you yourself have never seen it anyways.
You will lose 100% of the time when you try to argue perception against fact (whether you admit it to yourself or not).
-
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.
The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions. The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight). That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself. To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying. Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.
Well just for your benefit, I've posted the sum total of my contribution to this thread below. I really think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Either that or you misunderstood my point. I was actually making an argument against TB. He has now responded with a counter argument which I haven't really looked at yet. Do you agree with me or TB. Or what is your point exactly?
If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.
Of course it's not necessarily true. I was just trying to fit in with the (lack of) logic on display in this thread.
OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.
Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.
-
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.
The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions. The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight). That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself. To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying. Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.
Well just for your benefit, I've posted the sum total of my contribution to this thread below. I really think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Either that or you misunderstood my point. I was actually making an argument against TB. He has now responded with a counter argument which I haven't really looked at yet. Do you agree with me or TB. Or what is your point exactly?
If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.
Of course it's not necessarily true. I was just trying to fit in with the (lack of) logic on display in this thread.
OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.
Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.
I quoted the parts of your "contributions" that I was discussing. And then I followed up with an explanation....
I am not sure where the confusion is coming from....or maybe I am.
Instead of making this about you, like a child would, why don't you focus on the facts that dispute your position and either admit you are wrong and move on like a big boy.... or at least provide some kind of factual disputing evidence.
-
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.
The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions. The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight). That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself. To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying. Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.
Well just for your benefit, I've posted the sum total of my contribution to this thread below. I really think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Either that or you misunderstood my point. I was actually making an argument against TB. He has now responded with a counter argument which I haven't really looked at yet. Do you agree with me or TB. Or what is your point exactly?
If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.
Of course it's not necessarily true. I was just trying to fit in with the (lack of) logic on display in this thread.
OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.
Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.
I quoted the parts of your "contributions" that I was discussing. And then I followed up with an explanation....
I am not sure where the confusion is coming from....or maybe I am.
Instead of making this about you, like a child would, why don't you focus on the facts that dispute your position and either admit you are wrong and move on like a big boy.... or at least provide some kind of factual disputing evidence.
Quite simply, I was saying that if the ship can be restored with a telescope it was never beyond the horizon in the first place, only too small to see because of distance or lighting. I then told TB that he needed to address the situations where the boat had not been able to be restored. What exactly do you disagree with? There is no lying and to me it seems pretty staight forward. Tom Bishop had no trouble understanding it.
-
I might copy here my opening from the "Science" section.
In science there are different kinds of theories. While some theories may peacefully coexist, some can not. When two (or more) theories conflict with each other, we may need to decide (assuming we are interested in the topic in the first place), which theory is better.
So, what methods do you actually use to determine, which theory to believe in? There may be several different answers, but I'll put my criteria here.
In order for theory A to be better than theory B, one of the following three conditions must be met:
1) B is proven false and A is not.
2) Neither is proven false, but A explains things better than B. (That is: it explains a greater number of things or more important things relevant to the topic.)
3) Neither is proven false, and both explain things equally well, but A is simpler than B. (This is also known as the Occam razor.)
It is worth noting that if a theory is false, it might be proven false: but if a theory is true, it can never be proven true. If a theory is true, we can test it, and we will have the results that are predicted by the theory: but if we test a theory a million times and every time get the right result, that doesn't prove that the million-and-first test will also give the right results, instead of failing because of some reason that the first million tests didn't take into account.
And to get back here... the globe theory has not been proven false, it explains pretty well what it is supposed to explain, and it is relatively simple. This is why it is popular.