The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: geckothegeek on October 16, 2015, 08:15:27 PM
-
On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?
-
The spin of the earth creates centripetal forces that makes it buldge at the equator and compress at the poles. The faster the spin, the flatter the planet.
-
I looked out my window and it was flat.
-
I looked out my window and it was flat.
Wow, that proves everything!
-
It depends what is meant by flat. I mean, I certainly believe it's anything but a globe but I don't subscribe to a disc that is flat.
I believe it to be more like a manual orange juicer.
So essentially it can be looked on as flat if you use the oceans as your yardstick, kind of thing. Because we are only land protruding from those oceans.
Once you realise the Earth is not a globe, which should be clear to anyone who bothers to question that severe indoctrination, then you start to look at the potential realities.
My main belief that the Earth is flat is the very simple water level and also sunrise and sunsets when viewed from sea level then up a high rise building as people try to use to show a globe but in reality, actually rubber- stamp the fact that it's anything but a globe.
-
I looked out my window and it was flat.
Wow, that proves everything!
This is a simplistic statement that covers the essence of flat-earth theory for many. The earth is flat because that's how we see it. People say it's a sphere, but that's counter-intuitive and notoriously difficult to demonstrate. It makes more sense that it's flat and we aren't swayed, as of yet, with evidence to the contrary.
-
Evidence of Globe Earth is literally thrown in your face each and every day. Just because you chose to opt for the simple solution because of either a) Life's easier this way or b) You don't have the capacity (or will) to learn about the complexity involved in answering your questions, doesn't mean the simple solution, to you, is the correct one.
It's a western world humanitary catastrophe that we haven't been able as a society, to catch you and save you from this narrow-minded, egoistic deroute that is believing in Flat Earth. Flat Earthers are acting as you would see with religion.
-
Evidence of Globe Earth is literally thrown in your face each and every day.
"Evidence" of a deity is thrown in my face every day. That doesn't mean it's true.
-
I looked out my window and it was flat.
Wow, that proves everything!
This is a simplistic statement that covers the essence of flat-earth theory for many. The earth is flat because that's how we see it. People say it's a sphere, but that's counter-intuitive and notoriously difficult to demonstrate. It makes more sense that it's flat and we aren't swayed, as of yet, with evidence to the contrary.
The problem with flat earthers seems to be that they see things from their own narrow point of view. Perhaps they have been disadvantaged in their lack of education and knowledge or experience in their occupations of the reality that the earth is a globe. This is a fact which has been known for centuries. Flat earthers seem to be lacking in knowledge in a lot of fields. It seems that if they don't know anything about something they simply deny that they don't exist. Either this is the reason that flat earthers believe that the earth is flat. Or it may be that the so-called flat earthers on this website no more believe that the earth is flat than any other normal person and just want to invent flat earth fantasies for the sake of debate. There is nothing difficult about demonstrating the fact that the earth is a globe.
The simple key is "facts" and "evidence." There are ample supplies of these for a globe earth and none for a flat earth.
-
There is nothing difficult about demonstrating the fact that the earth is a globe.
So you can easily demonstrate for us that the earth is a globe?
-
There is nothing difficult about demonstrating the fact that the earth is a globe.
So you can easily demonstrate for us that the earth is a globe?
For just a few examples. Best place to do this is to take a cruise at sea. Observe a sunset. See if the sun really gets smaller and fades away in the distance at sunset . See if there really is a horizon. See how far it is to the horizon. Check any flat earth fantasy against any round earth reality and you will see why the whole flat earth belief is a fantasy at best. Some of the best sources for first hand information that the earth is round are ordinary sailors, experienced sea captains and those involved in oceanic travel. This is just one group. Just about any other group of workers in the real world can affirm that the earth is not flat but is a globe. It is just "common knowledge."
If you really want to believe the earth is a flat and disc shaped and has an ice ring around the edge , that is your choice. But you are just fooling yourself.
-
There is nothing difficult about demonstrating the fact that the earth is a globe.
So you can easily demonstrate for us that the earth is a globe?
For just a few examples. Best place to do this is to take a cruise at sea. Observe a sunset. See if the sun really gets smaller and fades away in the distance at sunset . See if there really is a horizon. See how far it is to the horizon. Check any flat earth fantasy against any round earth reality and you will see why the whole flat earth belief is a fantasy at best. Some of the best sources for first hand information that the earth is round are ordinary sailors, experienced sea captains and those involved in oceanic travel. This is just one group. Just about any other group of workers in the real world can affirm that the earth is not flat but is a globe. It is just "common knowledge."
If you really want to believe the earth is a flat and disc shaped and has an ice ring around the edge , that is your choice. But you are just fooling yourself.
Okay, let me break your ramblings of ways to "easily demonstrate" that the earth is round into bullets. Let me know if you agree with this list or not:
- Take a cruise at sea.
- Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets.
- Note if a horizon exists or not.
- Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities.
- Ask a sailor.
- Ask an experienced sea captain.
- Ask anyone involved in oceanic travel.
- Ask any group of workers in the real world.
Do you stand by your claim that any of the items in this list is an easy way to demonstrate a round-earth?
-
Evidence of Globe Earth is literally thrown in your face each and every day.
"Evidence" of a deity is thrown in my face every day. That doesn't mean it's true.
This I take issue with.
What 'evidence' of a deity are you referring to? Are you being presented with anything more than a faith-based system? 'Evidence' of a deity rarely is more than anecdotal, and very, VERY rarely (if ever) tangible. When questioning the lack of hard evidence of a deity, the answer from believers is usually never more than "You've got to have faith."
With a globe-earth model, you're being handed a lot more than anecdotal evidence. Scientific experiment and data that you yourself can replicate, photographic evidence, questions which a flat-earth theory cannot explain....this is all out there.
The irony of it is, that when presented the evidence for a round-earth, you're dismissing it. Belief in a flat-earth is almost as faith-driven as that of a religion, since tangible evidence which CANNOT be refuted or explained by round-earth models is difficult to come by.
You're comparing apples to dildos here. Two completely different concepts, separated by tangible evidence and repeatable experimentation. Just because you happen to not agree with, or acknowledge the evidence you're presented with, doesn't render it anecdotal or irrelevant.
-
There is nothing difficult about demonstrating the fact that the earth is a globe.
So you can easily demonstrate for us that the earth is a globe?
For just a few examples. Best place to do this is to take a cruise at sea. Observe a sunset. See if the sun really gets smaller and fades away in the distance at sunset . See if there really is a horizon. See how far it is to the horizon. Check any flat earth fantasy against any round earth reality and you will see why the whole flat earth belief is a fantasy at best. Some of the best sources for first hand information that the earth is round are ordinary sailors, experienced sea captains and those involved in oceanic travel. This is just one group. Just about any other group of workers in the real world can affirm that the earth is not flat but is a globe. It is just "common knowledge."
If you really want to believe the earth is a flat and disc shaped and has an ice ring around the edge , that is your choice. But you are just fooling yourself.
Okay, let me break your ramblings of ways to "easily demonstrate" that the earth is round into bullets. Let me know if you agree with this list or not:
- Take a cruise at sea.
- Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets.
- Note if a horizon exists or not.
- Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities.
- Ask a sailor.
- Ask an experienced sea captain.
- Ask anyone involved in oceanic travel.
- Ask any group of workers in the real world.
Do you stand by your claim that any of the items in this list is an easy way to demonstrate a round-earth?
Most assuredly ! Everyone and all of them. And there are lots of others that could be added to the list. Just ask about an estimated 99.9999999 +% of the world's population whether the earth is a flat disc or a round globe.
Here is another one. Just ask the people at any astronomical observatory or a group of amateur radio operators whether the distance from the earth to the moon is 3000 miles as the flat earthers say or about 250,000 miles as the people at the astronomical observatories or the amateur radio operators say. Contact any astronomical observatory or the American Radio League for verification.
And one more .Ask any of those sailors or sea captains the reason why the crow's nests or why some of the radar antennas on some radar systems are placed on the highest maps of ships instead of just at eye level on the bridge.
-
If popular opinion is how science is done these days then it's fallen farther than I've thought. Shall we dispense with science and simply vote on what's true from now on?
-
If popular opinion is how science is done these days then it's fallen farther than I've thought. Shall we dispense with science and simply vote on what's true from now on?
That's a vast oversimplification of what he said, and incredibly hypocritical as a representative of a community who regularly dismisses scientific evidence counter to their beliefs as sham, doctored, irrelevant, and part of a secret government agenda.
-
If popular opinion is how science is done these days then it's fallen farther than I've thought. Shall we dispense with science and simply vote on what's true from now on?
That's a vast oversimplification of what he said, and incredibly hypocritical as a representative of a community who regularly dismisses scientific evidence counter to their beliefs as sham, doctored, irrelevant, and part of a secret government agenda.
If by "vast oversimplification," you mean exactly what he said, then I agree. I feel silly citing things from just a few posts ago, but here it is. Perhaps you'll read it this time:
Just ask about an estimated 99.9999999 +% of the world's population whether the earth is a flat disc or a round globe.
In the context, that was a proof of the round-earth that's easy to demonstrate. I have no idea how popular opinion is a proof or how asking 99.9999999 +% of the world's population (an estimated 7,380,669,738 people at the time of his post) is considered easy.
Mind of a round-earther I suppose. A boggling place.
-
The problem with the so-called "Round Earthers" is that it boggles the mind to think that there are persons who think the earth is a flat disc.
-
If popular opinion is how science is done these days then it's fallen farther than I've thought. Shall we dispense with science and simply vote on what's true from now on?
That's a vast oversimplification of what he said, and incredibly hypocritical as a representative of a community who regularly dismisses scientific evidence counter to their beliefs as sham, doctored, irrelevant, and part of a secret government agenda.
If by "vast oversimplification," you mean exactly what he said, then I agree. I feel silly citing things from just a few posts ago, but here it is. Perhaps you'll read it this time:
Just ask about an estimated 99.9999999 +% of the world's population whether the earth is a flat disc or a round globe.
In the context, that was a proof of the round-earth that's easy to demonstrate. I have no idea how popular opinion is a proof or how asking 99.9999999 +% of the world's population (an estimated 7,380,669,738 people at the time of his post) is considered easy.
Mind of a round-earther I suppose. A boggling place.
There's more to his post than that single estimation. More which begs to be addressed, lest you look as though you've been defeated and are nit-picking to try to save face. You're ignoring the meat of the post, dismissing completely ignoring credible response to your initial countering of his post, and picking at an artful exaggeration, and THEN making one of your own with the last comment?
-
I was going to get around to it. However, geckothegeek cites popular opinion over half a dozen times as an easy way to demonstrate the earth is round. Basically, his argument can be boiled down to, "ask <insert profession> and they will all say the world is round so it must be." It's by far his most dominant argument.
The others are rubbish too, but can we all admit that popular opinion is a poor way to decide truth before I move on?
-
I was going to get around to it. However, geckothegeek cites popular opinion over half a dozen times as an easy way to demonstrate the earth is round. Basically, his argument can be boiled down to, "ask <insert profession> and they will all say the world is round so it must be." It's by far his most dominant argument.
The others are rubbish too, but can we all admit that popular opinion is a poor way to decide truth before I move on?
We can agree on that, yes, and apologies for jumping the gun.
However, the citation of people working in professions which would grant them a well rounded (tee hee) knowledge of the earth, how it works, and how to navigate it could be considered professional data rather than opinion no?
I might be more inclined to take the word of a doctor on the nature of a diagnosis than that of a guy who read an article on homeopathy once while in the waiting room during an oil change.
I might be more inclined to take the word of a mechanic who says I need new brakes than my wife who tells me "I didn't hear any noise, it's fine."
-Point being that the professional input of people should carry some weight when considering matters of discussion, more so than the average shlub who happens to have an interest in the matter, and this really shouldn't be any different.
If a poster came in here and claimed he'd been a navigator on the open seas for thirty five years, and he thought the earth was flat, would you look at him with the same scrutiny as the guys cited by gecko who don't validate that particular line of thought?
Professional input needs to be weighted appropriately.
-
There are many areas to consider in de-bunking the flat earth myth. Geodesy is just one. The earth had been surveyed long before NASA and the size and shape of the world proved it is a globe.
-
I was going to get around to it. However, geckothegeek cites popular opinion over half a dozen times as an easy way to demonstrate the earth is round. Basically, his argument can be boiled down to, "ask <insert profession> and they will all say the world is round so it must be." It's by far his most dominant argument.
The others are rubbish too, but can we all admit that popular opinion is a poor way to decide truth before I move on?
We can agree on that, yes, and apologies for jumping the gun.
However, the citation of people working in professions which would grant them a well rounded (tee hee) knowledge of the earth, how it works, and how to navigate it could be considered professional data rather than opinion no?
I might be more inclined to take the word of a doctor on the nature of a diagnosis than that of a guy who read an article on homeopathy once while in the waiting room during an oil change.
I might be more inclined to take the word of a mechanic who says I need new brakes than my wife who tells me "I didn't hear any noise, it's fine."
-Point being that the professional input of people should carry some weight when considering matters of discussion, more so than the average shlub who happens to have an interest in the matter, and this really shouldn't be any different.
If a poster came in here and claimed he'd been a navigator on the open seas for thirty five years, and he thought the earth was flat, would you look at him with the same scrutiny as the guys cited by gecko who don't validate that particular line of thought?
Professional input needs to be weighted appropriately.
Great, some people are more knowledgeable about things than other people. Lets move on now that half of geckothegeek's easy proofs are debunked. He have these:
- Take a cruise at sea.
- Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets.
- Note if a horizon exists or not.
- Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities.
Take a cruise at sea. I've done this. It did not prove the shape of the earth and it's not exactly "easy". As in the average person couldn't do this just any day.
Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets. Flat-Earth theory doesn't say that it gets appreciably smaller. The light gets diffused.
Not if the horizon exists or not. Check, it does. What's that supposed to prove?
Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities. I don't even know what this means.
-
I was going to get around to it. However, geckothegeek cites popular opinion over half a dozen times as an easy way to demonstrate the earth is round. Basically, his argument can be boiled down to, "ask <insert profession> and they will all say the world is round so it must be." It's by far his most dominant argument.
The others are rubbish too, but can we all admit that popular opinion is a poor way to decide truth before I move on?
We can agree on that, yes, and apologies for jumping the gun.
However, the citation of people working in professions which would grant them a well rounded (tee hee) knowledge of the earth, how it works, and how to navigate it could be considered professional data rather than opinion no?
I might be more inclined to take the word of a doctor on the nature of a diagnosis than that of a guy who read an article on homeopathy once while in the waiting room during an oil change.
I might be more inclined to take the word of a mechanic who says I need new brakes than my wife who tells me "I didn't hear any noise, it's fine."
-Point being that the professional input of people should carry some weight when considering matters of discussion, more so than the average shlub who happens to have an interest in the matter, and this really shouldn't be any different.
If a poster came in here and claimed he'd been a navigator on the open seas for thirty five years, and he thought the earth was flat, would you look at him with the same scrutiny as the guys cited by gecko who don't validate that particular line of thought?
Professional input needs to be weighted appropriately.
Great, some people are more knowledgeable about things than other people. Lets move on now that half of geckothegeek's easy proofs are debunked. He have these:
- Take a cruise at sea.
- Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets.
- Note if a horizon exists or not.
- Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities.
Take a cruise at sea. I've done this. It did not prove the shape of the earth and it's not exactly "easy". As in the average person couldn't do this just any day.
Observe a sunset to see if the sun gets smaller as it sets. Flat-Earth theory doesn't say that it gets appreciably smaller. The light gets diffused.
Not if the horizon exists or not. Check, it does. What's that supposed to prove?
Check flat-earth fantasies against round-earth realities. I don't even know what this means.
1.Granted that the average person probably doesn't take a cruise, but many do.
The fact that the old "ship going over the horizon" at least proves that the earth is not flat. If the earth was flat, the ship would just appear smaller and smaller and could
be restored to view with a telescope of sufficient power. But the ship does disappear, hull first and finally the masts go out of view. Even the old sailors knew the earth was round , too. When sailing away from land, the shoreline first disappears and gradually the tops of mountains disappear.
2.Simple. Observe a sunset and notice that the sun remains the same size and also gradually disappears as it sets below the horizon. If the earth was flat the sun would always remains at the same altitude and fade away as it gets in the distance.
3.If the earth was flat the flat earth idea is that the horizon is a blur that fades away n the distance. But the horizon, especially at sea, is always a distinct line where sea and sky meet unless there is some atmospheric condition such as fog . And also the fact that the distance to the horizon depends on the height of the observer. If the earth was flat there would be no need for placing crow's nest or radar antennas on the highest points above the seas to enable the lookout or the radar antenna to "see" the greatest distance to the horizon.
4.Ask any sea captain to show you a chart showing an ice ring around the earth, for just one example. Ask him to show you a flat earth map. Ask him how his charts were made. This is one of the simplest ways in de-bunking flat earth fantasies, which is just what they are. I don't think I am alone, but I think if you asked anyone, they could not give you a reason why anyone would think , much less believe, that the earth was flat and was not a globe. It just boggles the mind to think that there any persons who -quote-"believe"-unquote- that the earth was a flat disc. This, after all , is the year 2015.
-
States like Kansas make me think there's flat earth.
-
States like Kansas make me think there's flat earth.
How about states like Colorado, Wyoming, Hawaii or Alaska ?
-
States like Kansas make me think there's flat earth.
How about states like Colorado, Wyoming, Hawaii or Alaska ?
They don't exist. ;)
-
Actually, I lived in both Colorado and Alaska and visited Wyoming often when I was in Colorado.
-
I looked out my window and it was flat.
Wow, that proves everything!
This is a simplistic statement that covers the essence of flat-earth theory for many. The earth is flat because that's how we see it. People say it's a sphere, but that's counter-intuitive and notoriously difficult to demonstrate. It makes more sense that it's flat and we aren't swayed, as of yet, with evidence to the contrary.
Air is invisible yet you can still breathe. You can also, at times, feel air move past you.
By your logic air doesn't exist since you can't see it yet you are still breathing and you can still feel air move past you.
How does the same logic prove a flat Earth yet doesn't account for the air you breath?
-
On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?
I'm so green to the FET - me and my gf just uncovering some of this info a few days ago. The more I look into this (watch documentaries, youtube vids, and read on the net) the more I'm starting to believe the earth is indeed flat.
I don't know enough to elaborately debate anything (yet), but I am now hooked into an investigation - I look at the sun and moon in an entirely new way.
So far the biggest reason I believe the earth may be flat is the lack of any photo that has not been photoshopped proving curvature. There is not a single photo not taken with a fish eye lens that shows curvature. Nothing... This is alarming to me.
Secondly - all the mathematical "theory" involving the heavenly bodies in "outer space" are just that - theories. All these formulas with big numbers just look nonsensical, and even listening to some "round earther" trying to calculate the physical locations of objects supposedly millions of miles away based on a formula that is based off a "theory" just seems assinine to me. It's lunchtime - I will add more later ;)
-
On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?
I'm so green to the FET - me and my gf just uncovering some of this info a few days ago. The more I look into this (watch documentaries, youtube vids, and read on the net) the more I'm starting to believe the earth is indeed flat.
I don't know enough to elaborately debate anything (yet), but I am now hooked into an investigation - I look at the sun and moon in an entirely new way.
So far the biggest reason I believe the earth may be flat is the lack of any photo that has not been photoshopped proving curvature. There is not a single photo not taken with a fish eye lens that shows curvature. Nothing... This is alarming to me.
Secondly - all the mathematical "theory" involving the heavenly bodies in "outer space" are just that - theories. All these formulas with big numbers just look nonsensical, and even listening to some "round earther" trying to calculate the physical locations of objects supposedly millions of miles away based on a formula that is based off a "theory" just seems assinine to me. It's lunchtime - I will add more later ;)
You're well on the way to seeing it all for the bull crap it all is.
Just carry on investigating it and don't allow the peer pressure posse to gain a hold of you by attempts to ridicule you out of your thought's.
-
On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?
I'm so green to the FET - me and my gf just uncovering some of this info a few days ago. The more I look into this (watch documentaries, youtube vids, and read on the net) the more I'm starting to believe the earth is indeed flat.
I don't know enough to elaborately debate anything (yet), but I am now hooked into an investigation - I look at the sun and moon in an entirely new way.
So far the biggest reason I believe the earth may be flat is the lack of any photo that has not been photoshopped proving curvature. There is not a single photo not taken with a fish eye lens that shows curvature. Nothing... This is alarming to me.
Secondly - all the mathematical "theory" involving the heavenly bodies in "outer space" are just that - theories. All these formulas with big numbers just look nonsensical, and even listening to some "round earther" trying to calculate the physical locations of objects supposedly millions of miles away based on a formula that is based off a "theory" just seems assinine to me. It's lunchtime - I will add more later ;)
Seems to me that you would be well served to look into how theory is defined for different uses.
You dismiss all of the theory that supports a round Earth but, as you have admitted, you support the flat Earth theory. What, in your mind, makes the flat Earth theory any more valid than the theories that support a round Earth? Is it simply because you don't know how to use the math behind the theories that support a round Earth?
-
I looked out my window and it was flat.
Wow, that proves everything!
This is a simplistic statement that covers the essence of flat-earth theory for many. The earth is flat because that's how we see it. People say it's a sphere, but that's counter-intuitive and notoriously difficult to demonstrate. It makes more sense that it's flat and we aren't swayed, as of yet, with evidence to the contrary.
The problem with flat earthers seems to be that they see things from their own narrow point of view. Perhaps they have been disadvantaged in their lack of education and knowledge or experience in their occupations of the reality that the earth is a globe. This is a fact which has been known for centuries. Flat earthers seem to be lacking in knowledge in a lot of fields. It seems that if they don't know anything about something they simply deny that they don't exist. Either this is the reason that flat earthers believe that the earth is flat. Or it may be that the so-called flat earthers on this website no more believe that the earth is flat than any other normal person and just want to invent flat earth fantasies for the sake of debate. There is nothing difficult about demonstrating the fact that the earth is a globe.
The simple key is "facts" and "evidence." There are ample supplies of these for a globe earth and none for a flat earth.
You say that flat earthers have a "narrow point of view" however you are the one unable or unwilling to look at this from a different point of view other than your own. I can't pick a side, but can you show me one picture of the earth that shows curvature? And I mean a picture that is unedited and is not taken through a fish eye lens. You can't because there are none that exist. There is more evidence to support the flat earth theory than the round earth theory. You were probably taught from a young age that the earth is round, so was I, but I am keeping an open mind to what might be reality.
-
Well I just had to go out and do an experiment because seeing videos on youtube is not proof of anything. I live near the coast in England at a place called Burnham on sea. You can see a power station accros the water at Aberthaw south Wales. It is around 20 miles away. Do the maths and it should be over 200 feet below the horizon. the chimney if 400 foot tall, so you should only be able to see half the stack. check out the second picture down on this link and check it out on google maps too. I need no more proof, I am a flat earther now ! http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2010/smog-bristol-channel-21-02-10.php
-
On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?
I'm so green to the FET - me and my gf just uncovering some of this info a few days ago. The more I look into this (watch documentaries, youtube vids, and read on the net) the more I'm starting to believe the earth is indeed flat.
I don't know enough to elaborately debate anything (yet), but I am now hooked into an investigation - I look at the sun and moon in an entirely new way.
So far the biggest reason I believe the earth may be flat is the lack of any photo that has not been photoshopped proving curvature. There is not a single photo not taken with a fish eye lens that shows curvature. Nothing... This is alarming to me.
Secondly - all the mathematical "theory" involving the heavenly bodies in "outer space" are just that - theories. All these formulas with big numbers just look nonsensical, and even listening to some "round earther" trying to calculate the physical locations of objects supposedly millions of miles away based on a formula that is based off a "theory" just seems assinine to me. It's lunchtime - I will add more later ;)
Seems to me that you would be well served to look into how theory is defined for different uses.
You dismiss all of the theory that supports a round Earth but, as you have admitted, you support the flat Earth theory. What, in your mind, makes the flat Earth theory any more valid than the theories that support a round Earth? Is it simply because you don't know how to use the math behind the theories that support a round Earth?
Seeing is believing - show me a picture or a video (not photoshopped or taken with a fish-eye lens) that even displays curvature....
Oh... you can't.
I'm not going to waste my time with ridiculous formulas that are stated to be based on something that very well may not be true. Especially when considering that basic mathematics has already proven that curvature does not exist (at least not with the given proportions of the "spherical earth")
"Theory" is not "fact".
I never said the Earth being flat is indeed fact. I only stated I'm starting to believe it. Believing something that is unproven based off investigation, logic, and Occam's razor has never steered me wrong.
-
"Seeing is believing" ..!?
You don't see bacterias, so bacterias don't exist?
-
"Seeing is believing" ..!?
You don't see bacterias, so bacterias don't exist?
Not surprised by the lack of ingenuity in this question.
I have seen them under a microscope. So yeah - seeing is believing.
Idiotic rebuttals coming from the "pro-sphere" people, like MrAtlas' here seem to be frequent on these forums...
-
Easy now..
Point is that I find it strange that you narrow your trust to observations only visible to the eye. Then you will have a very narrow view on the world. And you know what I meant, so no need to be rude.
Again - I doubt that you'll be able to see bacterias with a normal microscope, but then let's use x-rays or molecules as an example. You can't see them so do they exist? Where do you draw the line?
-
Stand on a mountain, hold a straight edge so that the center touches the horizon - you can see the horizon is curved.
-
Easy now..
Point is that I find it strange that you narrow your trust to observations only visible to the eye. Then you will have a very narrow view on the world. And you know what I meant, so no need to be rude.
Again - I doubt that you'll be able to see bacterias with a normal microscope, but then let's use x-rays or molecules as an example. You can't see them so do they exist? Where do you draw the line?
Earth curvature should be able to be seen with the naked eye given the measurements that are supposedly "factual". And it should be blatant. Yet there are dozens of examples easily accessible online proving the contrary.
If thousands of satellites are circling the globe it should be very easy to find a photograph of the planet that hasn't been photo shopped and/or cropped.
That being said you're trying to change the subject... Regardless, you can still see molecules with the right microscopes. They have been proven to exist.
And I apologize for the idiot comment - your response seemed rather trolly...
-
It's not right. You can't see molecules through a visual microscope. It's all electronic microscopes and data are bring processed through a computer before you see it. Just like any pictures you see on your computer.
If the Earth is flat with no curvatures, you would be able to send a powerful laser beam from the British west coast to the american east coast. But you can't. However, you can reflect a laser beam on the moon because there's a laser reflector up there.
-
It's not right. You can't see molecules through a visual microscope. It's all electronic microscopes and data are bring processed through a computer before you see it. Just like any pictures you see on your computer.
If the Earth is flat with no curvatures, you would be able to send a powerful laser beam from the British west coast to the american east coast. But you can't. However, you can reflect a laser beam on the moon because there's a laser reflector up there.
Nasa never landed on the moon - thus no retroreflectors were planted on the moon - thus no laser pinging has occured - at least not in the way they have stated it has
You obviously believe Nasa landed on the moon as well... Astonishing...
-
Any modern university with the right equipment can proof you wrong on that on.
I can see for a 'Flat Earther' that the Moon landings would be difficult do digest. But where do we have the common nominator? Do you believe in John Glenn? Yuri Gagarin? The Wright Brothers?
-
Any modern university with the right equipment can proof you wrong on that on.
I can see for a 'Flat Earther' that the Moon landings would be difficult do digest. But where do we have the common nominator? Do you believe in John Glenn? Yuri Gagarin? The Wright Brothers?
And this is where my debate with you ends. I refuse to lower myself to the level of someone who actually believes NASA has landed on the moon despite the mountains of evidence that has proven otherwise.
-
So your personal arrogance won over scientific evidence? I wish you all the best my 'open minded and free thinking' friend.
-
So your personal arrogance won over scientific evidence? I wish you all the best my 'open minded and free thinking' friend.
All due respect - anyone who has investigated the "Moon Landing" and still believes it actually occurred deserves the wrath that is my arrogance.
-
The so called Moon landings hoax has been debunked thousands of times. That's a fact. That's why 90 % of the population believe in the Moon landings (I know the number is slightly smaller in the US, but here we're talking about a country where 40% of the population can't point out Canada on a map, so stupidity is prevalent).
So 90% of the population deserves your arrogance? Reflect on this for a moment.
-
The Earth is not flat sorry to break it to you. First off don't say "I can't see it in a plane or on the ground" you would have to be much higher than that to see the curvature of the Earth second the biggest thing wrong with your beliefs is that gravity would simply make living impossible (in most places) as you get closer to one of the edges of earth you would start to get sinked into the middle because gravity pulls everything to center mass so by the time you reach "edge" you would fly backwards from gravity. But I have heard you think we are just falling infinitely and if you think this is true you guys are not worth my time.
-
I think there may be some reason for some of the outlandish flat earth statements.
One of them is the "The horizon is an indistinct blur which fades away at some infinite distance." This may have seemed perfectly true to some person who lived in London or in any other town in England in the time of Rowbotham. He looked out his window and the earth looked flat . He looked out his window and it did look that way with the pea soup fog and the smoke from the coal fires at that time, so he would have assumed there was some truth in Rowbotham's statement.
Of course some native in Brighton or some sea coast town which enjoyed bright sunshine and clear days might have thought otherwise.
I also believe Rowbotham was a shrewd business man - con man if you will - who found he could make a few pounds by lecturing on his flat earth ideas to the largely uneducated masses of the day.
Just two "IMHO's" in regard to FES.
-
I think there may be some reason for some of the outlandish flat earth statements.
One of them is the "The horizon is an indistinct blur which fades away at some infinite distance." This may have seemed perfectly true to some person who lived in London or in any other town in England in the time of Rowbotham. He looked out his window and the earth looked flat . He looked out his window and it did look that way with the pea soup fog and the smoke from the coal fires at that time, so he would have assumed there was some truth in Rowbotham's statement.
Of course some native in Brighton or some sea coast town which enjoyed bright sunshine and clear days might have thought otherwise.
I also believe Rowbotham was a shrewd business man - con man if you will - who found he could make a few pounds by lecturing on his flat earth ideas to the largely uneducated masses of the day.
Just two "IMHO's" in regard to FES.
Irrelevant.
-
Any modern university with the right equipment can proof you wrong on that on.
I can see for a 'Flat Earther' that the Moon landings would be difficult do digest. But where do we have the common nominator? Do you believe in John Glenn? Yuri Gagarin? The Wright Brothers?
In addition to the universities, many astronomical observatories can prove you wrong and can demonstrate how they can and do the laser measurements. I'm thinking of Mc Donald Observatory as a good source for information for just one example.
Why not just say the Wright Brothers flight was a fake and aeronautics are all lies and fakes ,too ?
-
I think there may be some reason for some of the outlandish flat earth statements.
One of them is the "The horizon is an indistinct blur which fades away at some infinite distance." This may have seemed perfectly true to some person who lived in London or in any other town in England in the time of Rowbotham. He looked out his window and the earth looked flat . He looked out his window and it did look that way with the pea soup fog and the smoke from the coal fires at that time, so he would have assumed there was some truth in Rowbotham's statement.
Of course some native in Brighton or some sea coast town which enjoyed bright sunshine and clear days might have thought otherwise.
I also believe Rowbotham was a shrewd business man - con man if you will - who found he could make a few pounds by lecturing on his flat earth ideas to the largely uneducated masses of the day.
Just two "IMHO's" in regard to FES.
Irrelevant.
Maybe so. But I thought maybe it might explain why some persons might believe that the earth is flat.
-
Any modern university with the right equipment can proof you wrong on that on.
I can see for a 'Flat Earther' that the Moon landings would be difficult do digest. But where do we have the common nominator? Do you believe in John Glenn? Yuri Gagarin? The Wright Brothers?
In addition to the universities, many astronomical observatories can prove you wrong
I'd be interested in speaking to someone who can objectively prove a negative.
-
It is interesting that you put more value in the right person than the right argument. You must be the wet dream for anybody who want to control the world. ;)
-
I looked out my window and it was flat.
Wow, that proves everything!
This is a simplistic statement that covers the essence of flat-earth theory for many. The earth is flat because that's how we see it. People say it's a sphere, but that's counter-intuitive and notoriously difficult to demonstrate. It makes more sense that it's flat and we aren't swayed, as of yet, with evidence to the contrary.
You should not pick what is easy to believe with that logic you should think the Earth is only as old as the oldest person alive because that's all you have seen and known
-
I know this does not have to do with the Earth but how does the moon work. And for the love of god don't say its a hologram. Ancient people thousands of years ago wrote and knew about the moon (and they did not have holograms) also how does or atmosphere work.
-
If popular opinion is how science is done these days then it's fallen farther than I've thought. Shall we dispense with science and simply vote on what's true from now on?
Yes but these people like sailors know the science behind it and have seen it personally