"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."
"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."
What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?
"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."
What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?
"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."
What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?
Even if there is a conspiracy you should be able to demonstrate, consistently, why the flat earth model is true and accurate. The facts exist irrespective of a conspiracy.
"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."
What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?
Even if there is a conspiracy you should be able to demonstrate, consistently, why the flat earth model is true and accurate. The facts exist irrespective of a conspiracy.
The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.
And what you said is a bit vague. How would you demonstrate the flat earth model in any way other than A ) scientific observation, or B ) invoking conspiracy to explain gaps in information?
In this case I’m just asking that we stick to the science. Again, how much you trust or distrust the powers that be is irrelevant.
Another way to look at it: If I’m holding a lighter in my pocket, and we know this lighter is real, but I refuse to show you that lighter, you can allege conspiracy until you’re blue in the face - the lighter doesn’t give a shit about your opinion.
I gave you a scientific observation.
If we are looking at a lighter, then we must conclude that it is a lighter. It is actually the burden of the naysayers who are saying that the lighter is actually something else in disguise who will have to show otherwise.
We are Empiricists. We make direct conclusions from the world. The Round Earthers are Rationalists. The model is rationalized into existence. "Um, well, a really big ball would look flat..." That is a rationalization against empirical reality, not evidence.
This is where the conversation starts. Now it is on you to post your evidence.
As best you can, try to present evidence supporting the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy. If it's really about what we can and can't observe, measure, record, etc. with our own two eyes, then it shouldn't matter that you have a restriction like this - you should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the flat earth model as easily as I would demonstrate the same of the globe model...
... I will not use any photographic or video evidence from NASA or other government space agencies. I will only use independent sources if I have to refer to photographs or video.
I submit to you that one cannot accomplish this task and maintain any kind of reasonable measure of certainty without invoking conspiracy claims to make up for gaps in empirical observation... [For] the purposes of this thread, we're just talking about the science - the physics and the mathematics that explain the phenomena we observe in reality.
Flat earthers have the floor to submit their most compelling evidence, and we'll have a back and forth to mete out each exhibit.
And I see the sun move across the sky, as does everyone else, and the path proves a round earth. As shown by timeanddate.com"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."
What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?
Even if there is a conspiracy you should be able to demonstrate, consistently, why the flat earth model is true and accurate. The facts exist irrespective of a conspiracy.
The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.
The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.Your own Wiki agrees that if the observer is high enough then you can see a curve
The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.
As for the grenade analogy, that goes back to invoking conspiracy.
You’re saying the grenade represents your claim that there’s a conspiracy, and the “lighter” and me are therefore dangerous and not to be trusted. This is what you mean, no? Correct me if I’m missing something; I want to communicate effectively and be sure I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not here to fuck with you.
In the case of your assertion that the flat horizon contradicts the globe earth model, the horizon only appears that way UNTIL you understand the limits of your own perspective as a 6-foot tall bipedal fucked up monkey living on a giant ball.
I ask once more, would you care to discuss the flat earth model and how it is or isn't consistent with reality? We can start with your first mention of looking outside, or the objection to the issue of limited perspective on a giant ball. It's really up to you. Submit your best, most compelling evidence, as much as you like, and we'll go through each exhibit one by one.
The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.Your own Wiki agrees that if the observer is high enough then you can see a curve
https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs
The FE explanation is "Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light. The observer is looking down at a circle".
The real world explanation of course is that the earth is a globe.
Point being, if even in your model you accept that you see a curve from high altitude so why can't you see it from the ground? Why in your model can't you see the "circular area of the sun's light"?
The answer is obvious: scale.
So looking out of my window even if I could see the horizon (which I can't, I can see Big Ben and the London Eye if you're interested) it wouldn't demonstrate a flat earth.
It wouldn't demonstrate a globe either. The earth could be a cube. Looking out of my window doesn't demonstrate anything. I have to look at other evidence.
Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.
Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.
Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.
Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.
Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.
Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe, not a circle.
And don't give me the "round-Earth derived distances" excuse either. These distances are measured, not extrapolated!
Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.Well, there's the famous stick experiment. There are admittedly two possible interpretations of that. The traditional one assumes a distant sun so the rays are parallel which means the earth must be curved. The FE response is that a much closer sun could explain the different angles of the shadows. OK. But then if the sun really is that close then it would be easy to prove by observing the angle of the sun from a few different locations. I asked in my thread about the FE sun whether that had been done. No response yet. You could also do that with the moon if you want to prove the moon's distance. Do that and congratulations, you've got a Nobel prize. I pointed out a few other obvious issues with a closer sun, those haven't been addressed either.
Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.
Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.
From a high altitude reference point at the edge of the atmosphere we might see some slight curvature, but as explained in the article, the observation is consistent with the idea of looking down at a circle. This means that you will have to try to come up with some other kind of evidence that the earth is round.
We can, in fact, know the Earth is round because it's very easy to show mathematically that it cannot be flat - and it doesn't require telescopes or NASA or government information...
We can see the horizon curvature by looking carefully at high-altitude footage AND CORRECTING AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ANY LENS DISTORTION. In fact, the curvilinear nature of this lens makes it CERTAIN we are seeing actual curvature because below lens center any curvilinear distortion would be FLATTENING out the actual curvature which is why I have carefully choosen [sic] a frame where the horizon is below lens center.
(https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/11/catalog-of-flat-earth-claims-refutations.html#fe9)
Once you know it is round you can also use this data to calculate the circumference and know how large around it is. Turns out it is very large - which is why merely looking at the horizon doesn't make it obvious.
Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.Well, there's the famous stick experiment. There are admittedly two possible interpretations of that. The traditional one assumes a distant sun so the rays are parallel which means the earth must be curved. The FE response is that a much closer sun could explain the different angles of the shadows. OK. But then if the sun really is that close then it would be easy to prove by observing the angle of the sun from a few different locations. I asked in my thread about the FE sun whether that had been done. No response yet. You could also do that with the moon if you want to prove the moon's distance. Do that and congratulations, you've got a Nobel prize. I pointed out a few other obvious issues with a closer sun, those haven't been addressed either.
Then there's things like the Coriolis effect which makes weather systems spin in different directions in different hemispheres.
The fact the sun traces an arc across the the sky.
The fact that the stars rotate around the poles and different stars can be seen in each hemisphere and rotate in different directions.
It all points to us being on a spinning globe.
Then there's fact we have a GPS system which demonstrably works/ Satellite TV. An airline industry which demonstrably gets people where they need to go (mostly) on time and uses great circles to plot its routes around the earth. Cruise line industry too.
The fact that multiple polar explorers from multiple countries have been to both poles.
The fact that distant objects can be seen to be partially occluded by the curve of the earth and the amount of occlusion varies by distance.
The fact there is an ISS orbiting the earth which can be seen from earth - NASA publish a website which tells you where and when you can. If they are faking it then they are going out of their way to make it difficult for themselves by doing that, something so easily testable.
Which brings me on to the fact we have photos of earth from space. Not just from NASA, multiple countries have done this.
Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.
From a high altitude reference point at the edge of the atmosphere we might see some slight curvature, but as explained in the article, the observation is consistent with the idea of looking down at a circle. This means that you will have to try to come up with some other kind of evidence that the earth is round.
Tom, your assertion is unsupported by fact. If you were the size of a bacterium on billiard ball, you would incorrect say your world is flat because, to you, it would look flat. You lack data and perspective.
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/lake_michigan_mirage-from-grand-mere.jpg
Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.
Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.
Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe, not a circle.
And don't give me the "round-Earth derived distances" excuse either. These distances are measured, not extrapolated!
That seems to be a statement rather than evidence.
Evidence: Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe
Hitchen's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor) asserts:"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
― Christopher Hitchen
Evidence: Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe
That statement isn't evidence. Are you saying that we can prove the existence of leprechauns with a sentence?Hitchen's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor) asserts:"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
― Christopher Hitchen
Evidence dismissed.
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.
This statement can be backed up by mathematics. Don't believe me? Check out 3DGeek's comprehensive mathematical proof: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
Got it, Flat Earth dismissed.
This statement can be backed up by mathematics. Don't believe me? Check out 3DGeek's comprehensive mathematical proof: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
Got it, Flat Earth dismissed.
Read through the thread. He was unable to show that the distances were accurate.
This statement can be backed up by mathematics. Don't believe me? Check out 3DGeek's comprehensive mathematical proof: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
Got it, Flat Earth dismissed.
Read through the thread. He was unable to show that the distances were accurate.
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.
Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!
We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water".
when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be.
Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!
Tom, you're dancing around the subject. If you want to know, you can go find it yourself.
We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water".
Really? Odd, the link you posted says:Quotewhen the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
Why is it that you think some dude writing in Victorian times has "proven" something just by him saying he saw it, but you require an absurdly high level of proof of anything which doesn't fit in with your world view?
We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water". Youtube experimenters have provided modern replications of this reversing effect. There are numerous videos. In other instances at sea, and on inland seas, waves are causing the effect.
Why are you unable to show this restoration youself, or even prove to yourself? Please provide some links to videos.We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water".
Really? Odd, the link you posted says:Quotewhen the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
Why is it that you think some dude writing in Victorian times has "proven" something just by him saying he saw it, but you require an absurdly high level of proof of anything which doesn't fit in with your world view?
Why did you only partially quote me? I clearly said:QuoteWe are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water". Youtube experimenters have provided modern replications of this reversing effect. There are numerous videos. In other instances at sea, and on inland seas, waves are causing the effect.
Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!
Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!What do you believe the distance to be? You must have some idea.
Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!
No need to copy and paste. We can do it right now.
Globe Earth model and Flat Earth polar map agree in one thing: distances from North pole are equal on both.
Latitude of Paris is 48.85 degrees north. It means 5427.8 km from Equator, and 4572.2 km from North pole.
Latitude of New York is 40.73 degrees north. It means 4525.5 km from Equator, and 5474.5 km from North pole.
Angle between their meridians is 2.35 degrees east + 74.00 degrees west = 76.35 degrees.
If Earth is flat we would have simple triangle with two known sides and the angle between them.
Third side would be SQRT(4572.2^2 + 5474.5^2 - 2*4572.2*5474.5*cos(76.35)) = 6249.9 km
If we extend both meridians from North pole to Equator, we have another triangle, with two sides of 10 000 km each and angle between them again 76.35 degrees.
Tetive connecting the two points at Equator is 12 361 km long.
Measured ground speed of subsolar point for equinox shows that circumference of Equator is 24 900 miles, or 40 072 km.
It gives length of 76.35 degrees arc to be 76.35 * 40072 / 360 = 8498.6 km long.
So, arc is nearly 8500 km long, and its tetive is 12 360 km long ?
Can arc be shorter than its tetive ? ? ?
Does Flat Earth model work?
Maybe "perspective" ?
kekeke
This car looks fast:First things first, that car doesn't look fast at all. You may wish to learn more about cars.
(https://icdn-2.motor1.com/images/mgl/AXMEO/s1/believe-it-or-not-this-gorgeous-ferrari-is-actually-a-14500-replica.jpg)
This car looks fast:First things first, that car doesn't look fast at all. You may wish to learn more about cars.
(https://icdn-2.motor1.com/images/mgl/AXMEO/s1/believe-it-or-not-this-gorgeous-ferrari-is-actually-a-14500-replica.jpg)
... I wanna know why you think that car doesn't look fast.It appears to be stationary.
... I wanna know why you think that car doesn't look fast.It appears to be stationary.
You don't think you're playing word games there? Semantics? Splitting hairs?It was a joke. The substance of my argument followed immediately afterwards. Judging characteristics entirely unrelated to appearance by looking at things is not analogous to looking at things to figure out what they look like.
You don't think you're playing word games there? Semantics? Splitting hairs?It was a joke. The substance of my argument followed immediately afterwards. Judging characteristics entirely unrelated to appearance by looking at things is not analogous to looking at things to figure out what they look like.
This car looks fast:First things first, that car doesn't look fast at all. You may wish to learn more about cars.
(https://icdn-2.motor1.com/images/mgl/AXMEO/s1/believe-it-or-not-this-gorgeous-ferrari-is-actually-a-14500-replica.jpg)
Secondly, your analogy is entirely fallacious. The appearance of the Earth may be judged by looking at the Earth. The speed at which it may or may not be moving through space can not, neither can its temperature. For your argument to be analogous, you'd have to uphold that the car is not mostly cyan and orange, that it does not have >= 2 wheels, or that it does not have the number "36" written on at least one of its doors.
That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X."And that's why the argument was so flawed. A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X. You can make arguments about how you'd need to get farther away from the Earth, get a wider sub-section of the image. You could argue that trying to infer the bigger picture from a smaller part is inconclusive. There are many points you can make here.
Kansas is flat.
Florida is even flatter.
As is Illinois.
We measured a west-east profile across Kansas taken from merged 1:250,000 scale(from http://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html (http://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html))
digital elevation model (DEM) data from the United States Geological Survey. In general,
the spacing between adjacent elevation points on the landscape transects was approximately
90 meters. We extracted surface transects and flatness estimates from the Kansas and pancake
DEM data using a geographic information system.
None of what you posted directly tells us that the earth must be a globe and cannot be anything else.You know, I might just agree with you about that. There could conceivably be other explanations for everything I've said. BUT your current flat earth model as outlined in your Wiki isn't one of them.
Kansas is flat.
Florida is even flatter.
As is Illinois.
Yes, it is. But within curvature of Earth.QuoteWe measured a west-east profile across Kansas taken from merged 1:250,000 scale(from http://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html (http://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html))
digital elevation model (DEM) data from the United States Geological Survey. In general,
the spacing between adjacent elevation points on the landscape transects was approximately
90 meters. We extracted surface transects and flatness estimates from the Kansas and pancake
DEM data using a geographic information system.
As you can see, Kansas is flat measured from sea level, not from flat plane.
Kansas's "flatness" was also measured against a pancake from IHOP as a joke but the report also states that because of the scale for any state to be less flat than the pancake it would have to have a mountain higher than Everest on it.Neither reply here addresses the issue of curvature.
It seems you don't understand what elevation means.The graphical representation of elevation levels for all three states demonstrate no curve.
It is the level above sea level, the curve of the earth is taken into account.
The sea would be regarded as "flat" because it is, by definition, at sea level.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't curve. The fact it does curve is proven by the video I posted in the "Beyond The Sea" thread.
*whoosh*It seems you don't understand what elevation means.The graphical representation of elevation levels for all three states demonstrate no curve.
It is the level above sea level, the curve of the earth is taken into account.
The sea would be regarded as "flat" because it is, by definition, at sea level.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't curve. The fact it does curve is proven by the video I posted in the "Beyond The Sea" thread.
That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X."And that's why the argument was so flawed. A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X. You can make arguments about how you'd need to get farther away from the Earth, get a wider sub-section of the image. You could argue that trying to infer the bigger picture from a smaller part is inconclusive. There are many points you can make here.
But to claim that something that looks flat is not flat is not the same as claiming that a car that's been designed to imitate another car doesn't go fast.
Very simply put, no one has to address the conspiracy claims in order to demonstrate why the flat earth model is not consistent with reality. Happy to discuss the conspiracy claims in another thread and show you why THEY fall flat for totally different reasons, but right now I want to hash this out and demonstrate the hypothesis in the title:
"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."
Once we take the time to actually demonstrate why this is, the only response proponents can retreat to is hand-waving about conspiracy.
Mind you, I'm not knocking the conspiratorial elements utterly - certainly there's all kinds of things the elites and the authorities keep hidden from us for one reason or another, however sinister or mundane. All I'm saying is that THIS isn't one of those conspiracies.
As best you can, try to present evidence supporting the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy. If it's really about what we can and can't observe, measure, record, etc. with our own two eyes, then it shouldn't matter that you have a restriction like this - you should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the flat earth model as easily as I would demonstrate the same of the globe model. It is only rational to then assume that whichever model we call "true" must therefore not only be logically consistent, but also exhibit few internal contradictions.
As a gesture of good will, I will not use any photographic or video evidence from NASA or other government space agencies. I will only use independent sources if I have to refer to photographs or video.
I submit to you that one cannot accomplish this task and maintain any kind of reasonable measure of certainty without invoking conspiracy claims to make up for gaps in empirical observation. Happy to debate those claims with you another time, but for the purposes of this thread, we're just talking about the science - the physics and the mathematics that explain the phenomena we observe in reality.
Flat earthers have the floor to submit their most compelling evidence, and we'll have a back and forth to mete out each exhibit.
Neither reply here addresses the issue of curvature.
In other words, there is no measurable curvature found in the State of Kansas, nor Florida, nor Illinois.
When have flat earth theorists used conspiracy theories to defend or prove a flat earth? We haven't. We have concluded that there is a conspiracy taking place that fakes space exploration (for whatever reason such as embezzlement). We base that conclusion on the inconsistencies present in NASA photos, etc. This includes such anomalies as lemmings and a flying bird on mars, and obvious Photoshopping of space images.
But this is separate from flat earth in general. Yes, we use it to dismiss the satellite images of earth, but we're not suggesting that anyone is intentionally hiding a flat earth. NASA and other space agencies are simply faking images based on what the public already accepts. Again, we have valid reasons independent of flat earth to believe space exploration is a hoax.
I recommend you refrain from using strawman fallacies here (if that is what you are doing). You're portraying us as crazies, which we most certainly are not. If you're going to make claims that all we have are conspiracy theories, may you please cite a few? Then I suggest you read the tfes wiki
That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X."And that's why the argument was so flawed. A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X. You can make arguments about how you'd need to get farther away from the Earth, get a wider sub-section of the image. You could argue that trying to infer the bigger picture from a smaller part is inconclusive. There are many points you can make here.
But to claim that something that looks flat is not flat is not the same as claiming that a car that's been designed to imitate another car doesn't go fast.
A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X.
As for the grenade analogy, that goes back to invoking conspiracy.
You’re saying the grenade represents your claim that there’s a conspiracy, and the “lighter” and me are therefore dangerous and not to be trusted. This is what you mean, no? Correct me if I’m missing something; I want to communicate effectively and be sure I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not here to fuck with you.
The analogy relates to the observation of the earth.
We look out the window and see that the earth is flat. Therefore the conclusion is that the earth is flat until evidence has been presented otherwise. If you are saying that the earth is actually something else, then the burden is on you to show that.
In the case of your assertion that the flat horizon contradicts the globe earth model, the horizon only appears that way UNTIL you understand the limits of your own perspective as a 6-foot tall bipedal fucked up monkey living on a giant ball.
Again, the observation says that the earth is flat. Your assertion that it might really be a giant ball, it's just that we can't see it, is a rationalization against an empirical observation. The evidence is still that the earth is flat.
I ask once more, would you care to discuss the flat earth model and how it is or isn't consistent with reality? We can start with your first mention of looking outside, or the objection to the issue of limited perspective on a giant ball. It's really up to you. Submit your best, most compelling evidence, as much as you like, and we'll go through each exhibit one by one.
Well, I submitted something -- that we see that the earth is flat -- and so far your only remark is that it *might* be a giant ball or something. It *might* also be a giant torus. We don't give a hoot about "might". We care only about "is". The fact of the matter is that it is evidence that the earth is flat, and not evidence for any of those other things.
Your phrasing is very weasely. Can one always know what shape an object is at a glance, or can't they?No, it's not. I followed immediately with examples of arguments an honest person could make. Perhaps if you stop trying to warp my words, you'll have an easier time convincing people that you're correct. Between this incident and your previous attempt at framing me as "intellectually dishonest" for making an obvious joke, I'm starting to think that you're not worth my time.
Is it possible that your eyes can fool you, or can't they?Outside of the cases I've already outlined, it would take a very interesting model of optics. I'd be curious to hear more.
We are simply saying that your eyes can fool you.Well, then you're going to have to substantiate your claims. And I sincerely hope you're not gonna start posting cheap "optical illusions".
Assume that we have a three dimensional cube. [snip]Okay, so you're agreeing with one of my examples, except you felt the need to say the same thing in entirely too many words. That's... great.
Assume that we have a three dimensional sphere. [...]Okay... so now you've restated one of my arguments twice. Where, exactly, are you heading with this?
Proving Kansas is on a curved world is easy. I am getting sad that one has to repeat the same proofs on each thread. If the world was flat, the canola farmers in Kansas could easily have their farms on square mile sections of land and it would have been an easy task to split up the state.Funny, but for the most part they do...
Unlike the older parts of the US or particularly England or France, land was not subject to years of inheritence and strategies to give every landowner access to some trees and a creek and whatnot.I fixed your post to reflect the real reason why things shorten up...it has nothing to do the size of the Earth or shape of the Earth...
So when you have advanced survey equipment and new land to divide up, just do it in squares. However, trying to keep roads and property boundaries north and south creates problems because theearthamount of available land gets smaller as you go north. Here is a picture east of Clifton Kansas showing how every so often they shift the roads going north and south when the roads and property lines deviate too much from north / south. There are fewer farms in each row in western north america as you go north. Same thing happens in Australia when you go south.
Proving Kansas is on a curved world is easy. I am getting sad that one has to repeat the same proofs on each thread. If the world was flat, the canola farmers in Kansas could easily have their farms on square mile sections of land and it would have been an easy task to split up the state.Funny, but for the most part they do...Unlike the older parts of the US or particularly England or France, land was not subject to years of inheritence and strategies to give every landowner access to some trees and a creek and whatnot.I fixed your post to reflect the real reason why things shorten up...it has nothing to do the size of the Earth or shape of the Earth...
So when you have advanced survey equipment and new land to divide up, just do it in squares. However, trying to keep roads and property boundaries north and south creates problems because theearthamount of available land gets smaller as you go north. Here is a picture east of Clifton Kansas showing how every so often they shift the roads going north and south when the roads and property lines deviate too much from north / south. There are fewer farms in each row in western north america as you go north. Same thing happens in Australia when you go south.
You provided no picture...
When I woke up the next day, I realized that it is not as easy as just looking at farms. All I did was prove a one pole earth is the wrong model. For lines of longitude to get closer together going north when north of the equator and closer together going south when south of the equator only proves a two pole world. I can see the picture when I look at my post. I will try to post again. I see a map showing the highway 9 east of Clinton Kansas. You can look at it online using Google Maps. So to prove the earth round, you would actually have to see how much they correct the highways going north and south and whether it fits a round model or flat model. But since the earth has two poles, and they correct farms the opposite way south of the equator we would need a diamond shaped flat earth. So who gets to live at the edges of the diamonds and particularly at the edges near the north and south tips?Can you provide any reference for this so called "farm fixing?"
Well, it appears that this thread derailed into "this is why your analogy is wrong" instead of addressing the proof with the distances to the North pole (which, to be honest, is absolutely brilliant. I never realized that FE people have pinned themselves to a set of distances just by asserting that latitude/longitude work!). The geometry simply doesn't work. I haven't seen any response to that argument; clearly, Tom Bishop's idea of just saying "the distances are wrong" doesn't work anymore.
And Pete Svarrior, your argument is completely misleading. This isn't about your eyes fooling you; this is about your eyes not having the capability to measure the very slight curvature of the horizon, making it look flat. This is about a very large sphere being describable by a tangent plane at least locally, and the approximation gets better as the sphere gets larger. I suggest you read up on linear approximations. Of course, your eyes do see something quite obvious -- there is a horizon, and the countless GIFs with the partially-obscured buildings (I'm not trying to start a debate about whether those GIFs are valid, because that's been done 3 trillion times before; I'm trying to get you to see that your visual argument doesn't line up because you debate the visual argument of the other side).
I was in around grade 10 when our science teacher said "when there are no clouds the sky is bluer in one part and almost white in another. Which is bluer, the top or the horizon?"
Can you provide any reference for this so called "farm fixing?"
No one gets to live anywhere near the edge of the flat Earth except scientists camped out on the ice wall. Even then, those scientists take shifts and return to the comforts of full society. I have no clue how far from the real edge the ice wall is but I do not imagine anyone survived too long a trek from its edge along the ocean.
If there is no collusion between (ie a conspiracy) all four of theseLooking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.
Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/bnqzm0bwiktghg4/dscovrepicmoontransitfull%20-%20reduced.gif?dl=1) Moon and Earth from EPIC on DSCOVR | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/08sp0gkdwx2kk5m/20170731%20-%20MSG-3_first_image_crop.png?dl=1) MSG-3 captured its first image of the Earth | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp60myxsgo0xmj8/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015.png?dl=1) Russian Satellite Photo around midday in Dec 2015 | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0zesphkha3fj1r/20160726%20-%20Himawari-8%2020160705120000fd.png?dl=1) Himawari-8 20160705120000fd |
If there is no collusion between (ie a conspiracy) all four of theseLooking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.
Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.
American, European, Russian and Japanese space agencies why are these photos not evidence of the Earth being a Globe!
Moon and Earth from EPIC on DSCOVR
MSG-3 captured its first image of the Earth
Russian Satellite Photo
around midday in Dec 2015
Himawari-8 20160705120000fd
Well, to be fair - and I was the only one who said I would do this - the challenge was to demonstrate this fact without relying on government space agencies, but only independent sources of media like that.So sorry, that's what I get for jumping in bare feet and all - I didn't have boots on.
Well, to be fair - and I was the only one who said I would do this - the challenge was to demonstrate this fact without relying on government space agencies.That takes five seconds!
Well, to be fair - and I was the only one who said I would do this - the challenge was to demonstrate this fact without relying on government space agencies.That takes five seconds!
Google "SpaceX"!
That takes five seconds!Yes, relying on NASA's subcontractors is vastly likely to convince people who are skeptical of NASA. Great job!
Google "SpaceX"!
SpaceX is an independent corporate entity. They have a contract with NASA to send cargo to the ISS, but they run completely independently and launch satellites for people who pay to use their rockets.That takes five seconds!Yes, relying on NASA's subcontractors is vastly likely to convince people who are skeptical of NASA. Great job!
Google "SpaceX"!
I was thinking that the management of NASA must be total idiots to fake a whole space program and then do it so poorly with them being accused of a terrible safety culture and pretending to kill 7 astronauts twice due to poor decisions at the top. And then to scatter pieces of a fake shuttle all over Texas and get a whole bunch of people to walk the bushes looking for parts and getting confused with bicycle parts in the mix and then finding 1/3 of the shuttle making them look like fools. Why not have a fake space program that makes management look like competent workers instead, since it is all fake anyway? If I was doing a fraud to get money, I would try to make it look well run to make it easier to get funding, not the opposite.
I was thinking that the management of NASA must be total idiots to fake a whole space program and then do it so poorly with them being accused of a terrible safety culture and pretending to kill 7 astronauts twice due to poor decisions at the top. And then to scatter pieces of a fake shuttle all over Texas and get a whole bunch of people to walk the bushes looking for parts and getting confused with bicycle parts in the mix and then finding 1/3 of the shuttle making them look like fools. Why not have a fake space program that makes management look like competent workers instead, since it is all fake anyway? If I was doing a fraud to get money, I would try to make it look well run to make it easier to get funding, not the opposite.
as per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.
I've been reading around on the forum a bit, and I've noticed a common trend.
The senior Flat Earthers cherry pick what they respond to. The creator of this topic puts in a lot of effort to thoroughly address everything Tom posts and is genuinely wanting to advance the discussion. Yet Tom posts very short vague replies which don't address the majority of the topic creator's points, and obviously has no interest in furthering the discussion evident by the lack of replies for 8 days now.
Pete Svarrior rather than contribute to the topic, decides to focus in on the barely relevant car part of the analogy while dismissing later examples that directly show that a shape may not actually be what it appears to the eye
When I first went to this website I wanted to debate, but I've learned that you don't debate on this website, you just bring up points and get no complete responses.Same. I signed up because I am genuinely fascinated by FE Theory, the idea that people in this day and age can still believe this is interesting.
When I first went to this website I wanted to debate, but I've learned that you don't debate on this website, you just bring up points and get no complete responses.You can debate. But you need to be interesting to get a response. Lets do a thought experiment using this thing I like to call empathy.
Imagine you have been a flat earther for 10 years. You've made 50,000 posts, gone over every topic again and again. And someone signs up with a new account and asks you about gravity, or Coriolis, or satellites. How enthusiastic are you going to be about having that 'debate' for the 400th time? Meanwhile someone is talking about a new film that has come out or some new game or hardware in the lower fora. Which thread are you going to engage in?Fairly reasonable. But my frustration is my thread about the FE sun was based on your Wiki. I had some questions which I didn't feel were answered in the Wiki so they seemed like reasonable questions and while the thread did generate a few pages of debate there were some fairly fundamental questions which just weren't answered. It feels like if you (plural) don't have answers you don't engage. If you're serious about a FE model that works you should be engaging with this stuff. Or, if you have and there are reasonable responses then you could at least point us in the right direction.
I've been reading around on the forum a bit, and I've noticed a common trend.
The senior Flat Earthers cherry pick what they respond to. The creator of this topic puts in a lot of effort to thoroughly address everything Tom posts and is genuinely wanting to advance the discussion. Yet Tom posts very short vague replies which don't address the majority of the topic creator's points, and obviously has no interest in furthering the discussion evident by the lack of replies for 8 days now.
Pete Svarrior rather than contribute to the topic, decides to focus in on the barely relevant car part of the analogy while dismissing later examples that directly show that a shape may not actually be what it appears to the eye
Imagine you have been a flat earther for 10 years. You've made 50,000 posts, gone over every topic again and again. And someone signs up with a new account and asks you about gravity, or Coriolis, or satellites. How enthusiastic are you going to be about having that 'debate' for the 400th time? Meanwhile someone is talking about a new film that has come out or some new game or hardware in the lower fora. Which thread are you going to engage in?
Usually Tom will answer everything. At some point you won't accept something he says or some evidence he points to. He may give further examples. You won't accept them either. Where is he going to go from there? He's showed you his reasons, you don't agree ... that's the end of the debate. He told you everything he could, he told you why he thinks what he thinks and you didn't accept it. What are you hoping to acheive? Are you expecting to be the person who convinces Tom the world is round? Or are you expecting Tom to convince you that it is flat? There is no winner. It is an exchange of ideas and once those ideas are exchanged, the thread is done and Tom will leave it.
Usually Tom will answer everything. At some point you won't accept something he says or some evidence he points to. He may give further examples. You won't accept them either. Where is he going to go from there? He's showed you his reasons, you don't agree ... that's the end of the debate. He told you everything he could, he told you why he thinks what he thinks and you didn't accept it. What are you hoping to acheive? Are you expecting to be the person who convinces Tom the world is round? Or are you expecting Tom to convince you that it is flat? There is no winner. It is an exchange of ideas and once those ideas are exchanged, the thread is done and Tom will leave it.That really isn't my experience of threads where I've seen Tom debating stuff. Look at this thread for example, the one I mentioned above
Usually Tom will answer everything. At some point you won't accept something he says or some evidence he points to. He may give further examples. You won't accept them either. Where is he going to go from there? He's showed you his reasons, you don't agree ... that's the end of the debate. He told you everything he could, he told you why he thinks what he thinks and you didn't accept it. What are you hoping to acheive? Are you expecting to be the person who convinces Tom the world is round? Or are you expecting Tom to convince you that it is flat? There is no winner. It is an exchange of ideas and once those ideas are exchanged, the thread is done and Tom will leave it.