[xenotolerance]

What these smilers are describing is akin to Pyrrhonism.

If one were able to show that the epistemology Pete & Pete-flattering-alt are describing is bunk, would that convince them to abandon flat Earth belief?

I predict not

[Edgar Alan Hoe]

You appear to be principled, do you not feel hypocritical then using technology that owes its existence to theoretical physics?

You mean GPS? Yes, I am a pilot, and I have empirically determined that it just works. I'm not sure how, but it's approved as primary means of navigation for my profession, which includes descending in between mountains at night in cloud, with specimens of the general public on board. In total we had 4,000,000,000 passengers with zero deaths over 2017. That means something.

The fact that I don't yet understand how it works, or how it matches my observations of the earth being flat even from an airplane, doesn't mean that I am ignorant. (Not that you said that)

Planes used to navigate by NDB, and VOR, which both have considerable problems for navigation.
For example with the NDB and VOR we need to allow for 5 degree error. This is an 8 km error (!!!) if you are 60 miles from the beacon. I have seen this too, the needle on the instrument just waver, and for example if there is a thunderstorm nearby, the needle swings to the strike...

With a standard GPS system, we allow for a 1km error. That is valid anywhere, close to a waypoint, far from a waypoint, in mountains or over water, as long as the system does not give a warning in regard to position accuracy. (Aviation GPSes tell the pilot when their position is inaccurate). Once we go in to land, the allowed error drops down to 300 metres.

That is how precise we can use it, and there is no other navigation system available that comes close to how it performs.

No, I'm talking about pretty much everything that has a microchip in it, and not whether or not you understand how they work, but how come you are OK with the fact that they are the products of a form of science you appear to reject, yet you are presumably happy to use them (given you are posting on the Internet).

If everyone followed your strict adherence to observation then none of these things would have been invented.

[Treep Ravisarras]

You are a pilot and you believe in a flat earth? Really?
You know your routes are planned using great circles, right?

I only fly short routes (our sector is called General Aviation). When I am on the ground, or in the air, the earth is flat nonetheless. Even high in the air at 10,000s of feet. Still flat.

I always accept the possibility that I might be mistaken though. But what I see and experience is what I know. If something else comes along, I must sense it. Otherwise leave it as unknown.

[Pete Svarrior]

What I'm interested in is where your reasonable doubt came from when it comes to the shape of the earth.
You used to believe in the globe I guess because that is what we are all taught.
I'm wondering what things you started to think could not be explained by a globe which could be explained by a flat earth.

It's hard to tell, it's not something that happened overnight, nor was it down to a single "Aha!" moment. It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.

I mean, you might think the moon landings were faked. Fine, a relatively common view. A wrong one in my opinion, but fairly common.
But it's quite a leap from there to think that the whole shape of the earth is different to what we've been told.
Most* people who think the moon landings were faked don't see that as evidence for a flat earth

I agree - I think that would be a reversal of the cause-effect relationship. Do you have anyone specific in mind when you bring this up? Someone who thinks the Earth is flat because the Moon landings were faked?

[Treep Ravisarras]

they are the products of a form of science

Do you know how the microchip came to be? There are many different stories. All I know is that it works. Same as GPS. It just works.

Same as weather radar. I use it a lot when I'm flying. It is always accurate. I'm not sure how they make the 'satellite' pictures look almost the same as what the weather radar shows, that I have observed to be accurate. I have never been shown a satellite. Perhaps they just merge images from high-flying planes.

But as far as weather radar, I'm yet to meet a FE-er that denounces weather radar and the detail that it shows. So I'm not the only one.

[StinkyOne]

It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.

An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?

[Beorn]

It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.

An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?

According to RET you should be able to see it also from other planes than just a Concorde.

[StinkyOne]

It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.

An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?

According to RET you should be able to see it also from other planes than just a Concorde.

There are no other commercial planes that fly high enough to see the curve of the Earth. I highly doubt Pete has access to military aircraft, so in light of that, you are wrong.

[xenotolerance]

Thing is, there aren't discrepancies in how far you can see, or whatever. Sounds like a case of not knowing what he was looking at, mixed with a chip on the shoulder and bad philosophy.

How far do you think you should be able to see from the top of a mountain, given the Earth is a globe? Or from a commercial flight? Figure it out, using WGS84 and other public info. Make a prediction. Test it against what you actually see. Share your methods with your peers.

You don't have to trust NASA to know the Earth is not flat, just use that big brain of yours

[AATW]

I'm wondering what things you started to think could not be explained by a globe which could be explained by a flat earth.

It's hard to tell, it's not something that happened overnight, nor was it down to a single "Aha!" moment. It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.[/quote]
I don't understand the first of those. The second...I'm unclear why you regard that as the smoking gun as the earth is too big for a curve to be discerned at the height of commercial flights. I've heard anecdotally that it could be seen from Concorde, which flew higher, and there are so many photos and videos from higher - not just from NASA but lots of amateur balloon footage. You really think all of that is fake?

Do you have anyone specific in mind when you bring this up? Someone who thinks the Earth is flat because the Moon landings were faked?

No. Just making the point that many people believe the moon landings were fake but most don't see that as evidence that the earth is flat.
You guys seem to work the other way around: The earth is flat ergo the moon landings must have been faked and all evidence to the contrary must be wrong or faked.
This is rather closed minded. New evidence is not considered, you assume without basis it must be fake because it contradicts your world view rather than considering whether your world view may be wrong.

[Talala]

All i can say for both camps - this does not look like a discussion about anything... you are going in circles....

FLAT EARTHERS - Please provide your best and undeniable proof that the earth is flat. Multiple arguments are very welcome, i ask for facts followed by conclusions from observations or calculations. You cannot deny math, hence it is absolutely best way to proove anything. And i mean i need proof, no need qoutes from bible, no need insults or " go research yourself " stuff. I am here to find out what is what. No need for pictures or videos. Give me math, simple or complex, anything. Would love to see your own experiments as all i see in this forum is " empirical proof" which does not revolve around your eye sight only... experiments please. Small scale, large scale, anything. Can be done by you or any other person, as long as it has proper math because numbers dont lie



Same for the ROUNDEARTHERS please

I have spent 3 days reading this forum and i have not found a single thread dedicated to proof alone, avoiding " but you said this and that " crap.

I am an empty bowl and a summary of proof which will be the most convincing considering the number or arguments, amount of data and sensibility of it in relation to laws of nature and how it fits to the world model will win.

As far as i am concerned this is the greatest opportunity to put all " undeniable proof" in to one place and then go from there. Otherwise not a single thread will come anywhere near a conclusion. No need for personality, i need proof please

I appreciate for any input, lets end this once and for all dare i say? ( no need to answer this, i just ask to give me proof as per above and only that )

Big big thank you

[jimbob]

So, i have been reading through these forums for quite a while, it was fascinating, keep up the good work. However, I have noticed a little discrepancy, particularly with the reliance on empiricism. Its based on what one observes with ones senses, correct? One teeny tiny little problem. Our senses can lie. Optical illusions exist. Nose blindness, hallucinations, you get the idea. Compounding this, several Flat Earth Theory astronomical phenomena are explained away with said illusions and incorrect observations. Tom Bishop's wonderful, magical, all-purpose-theory-hole-sealant, 'perspective' for example. Anyone care to explain?

This is the primary problem, there always needs to be trust. Do you trust other peoples theories, people you know, people you dont, pictures, video's, your eyes and other senses and finally your mind. Rene descartes Demon hypothesis cannot be disproved and is similar to the Symulation Hypothesis put forward by Nick Bostrom. There really is nowhere to hang your hat.
My next door neighbour is a friend of Tim Peake, they went to school together, served in the military together and are still good friends. If Tim had been paid off or threatened, he would know. I saw a photo he took, the Earth was round.
I trust my neighbour and his friend and the picture I saw. Enough to believe there world is round. That doesnt mean mine is.....when Im considering it or thinking about it.
I trust my neighbour and his friend

[Curious Squirrel]

Same for the ROUNDEARTHERS please

I have spent 3 days reading this forum and i have not found a single thread dedicated to proof alone, avoiding " but you said this and that " crap.

I am an empty bowl and a summary of proof which will be the most convincing considering the number or arguments, amount of data and sensibility of it in relation to laws of nature and how it fits to the world model will win.

As far as i am concerned this is the greatest opportunity to put all " undeniable proof" in to one place and then go from there. Otherwise not a single thread will come anywhere near a conclusion. No need for personality, i need proof please

I appreciate for any input, lets end this once and for all dare i say? ( no need to answer this, i just ask to give me proof as per above and only that )

Big big thank you

3DGeek created a list at one point during his time on here. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0 It's not exactly comprehensive, nor is it necessarily valid for him to be claiming victory in some of these, but together they are a pretty solid body of evidence towards the RE. My personal favorite is linked in my signature.

[Frocious]

All i can say for both camps - this does not look like a discussion about anything... you are going in circles....

FLAT EARTHERS - Please provide your best and undeniable proof that the earth is flat. Multiple arguments are very welcome, i ask for facts followed by conclusions from observations or calculations. You cannot deny math, hence it is absolutely best way to proove anything. And i mean i need proof, no need qoutes from bible, no need insults or " go research yourself " stuff. I am here to find out what is what. No need for pictures or videos. Give me math, simple or complex, anything. Would love to see your own experiments as all i see in this forum is " empirical proof" which does not revolve around your eye sight only... experiments please. Small scale, large scale, anything. Can be done by you or any other person, as long as it has proper math because numbers dont lie



Same for the ROUNDEARTHERS please

I have spent 3 days reading this forum and i have not found a single thread dedicated to proof alone, avoiding " but you said this and that " crap.

I am an empty bowl and a summary of proof which will be the most convincing considering the number or arguments, amount of data and sensibility of it in relation to laws of nature and how it fits to the world model will win.

As far as i am concerned this is the greatest opportunity to put all " undeniable proof" in to one place and then go from there. Otherwise not a single thread will come anywhere near a conclusion. No need for personality, i need proof please

I appreciate for any input, lets end this once and for all dare i say? ( no need to answer this, i just ask to give me proof as per above and only that )

Big big thank you

Here you go: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_329.html

Even better: https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

[Tumeni]

Here you go: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_329.html
Even better: https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

To which I add

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ShowQueryResults-CoolIris.pl?results=EarthDisc

(from the Whole Earth category within this - https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Collections/Historical/)

Humankind has amassed over 50 years of orbital spaceflight. You cannot have an orbit without an orb, globe or sphere around which you travel.  I'm happy to cite links to one or two of these if asked, but itemising them all individually is far too onerous a task at the moment.

In terms of those who have verified the presence of these orbital craft independently of the space agencies, I cite four parties;

The Space Geodesy Facility
The International Laser Ranging Service
Plane Wave Media
Me.

I've observed the ISS on more than one occasion, sometimes twice in one evening. There's no doubt it is an orbital craft. Nothing else explains its behaviour.

In terms of one of the most recent instances of an orbital craft;

[Pete Svarrior]

Thing is, there aren't discrepancies in how far you can see, or whatever. Sounds like a case of not knowing what he was looking at, mixed with a chip on the shoulder and bad philosophy.

Well, I'll take easily repeatable observation over a blank assertion.

An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?

I highly doubt Pete has access to military aircraft, so in light of that, you are wrong.

I can confirm that I do not indeed have access to military aircraft. I'm more of a high-powered computing kinda guy. I will not speculate about what I would or wouldn't see from a Concorde, since a thought experiment like this is largely useless.

You guys seem to work the other way around: The earth is flat ergo the moon landings must have been faked and all evidence to the contrary must be wrong or faked.

I don't think this is particularly representative of many FE'ers. Then again, I'm sure there are some who solely think like this. Sure, the argument of "the Earth is flat, therefore space exploration must be faked" has been used before, but it's used as a supporting argument, and not the basis of the belief.

3DGeek created a list at one point during his time on here.

3DGeek's methodology illustrates so beautifully what's wrong with the RE mindset. He doubled down on ideology so hard that he mistook Texas for Japan, just because he thought he'd finally prove the Earth round.

[inquisitive]

Thing is, there aren't discrepancies in how far you can see, or whatever. Sounds like a case of not knowing what he was looking at, mixed with a chip on the shoulder and bad philosophy.

Well, I'll take easily repeatable observation over a blank assertion.

An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?

I highly doubt Pete has access to military aircraft, so in light of that, you are wrong.

I can confirm that I do not indeed have access to military aircraft. I'm more of a high-powered computing kinda guy. I will not speculate about what I would or wouldn't see from a Concorde, since a thought experiment like this is largely useless.

You guys seem to work the other way around: The earth is flat ergo the moon landings must have been faked and all evidence to the contrary must be wrong or faked.

I don't think this is particularly representative of many FE'ers. Then again, I'm sure there are some who solely think like this. Sure, the argument of "the Earth is flat, therefore space exploration must be faked" has been used before, but it's used as a supporting argument, and not the basis of the belief.

3DGeek created a list at one point during his time on here.

3DGeek's methodology illustrates so beautifully what's wrong with the RE mindset. He doubled down on ideology so hard that he mistook Texas for Japan, just because he thought he'd finally prove the Earth round.

What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?

[Beorn]

What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?

From WGS 84:

Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.

Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.

[Pete Svarrior]

What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth

You have answered your own question, and it is this level of dogmatism that makes you guys so funny.

[AATW]

You guys seem to work the other way around: The earth is flat ergo the moon landings must have been faked and all evidence to the contrary must be wrong or faked.

I don't think this is particularly representative of many FE'ers. Then again, I'm sure there are some who solely think like this. Sure, the argument of "the Earth is flat, therefore space exploration must be faked" has been used before, but it's used as a supporting argument, and not the basis of the belief.

But this is exactly the reasoning given in this Wiki page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
   
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

So you don't need to provide any evidence that Elon Musk's recent launch was faked. It showed a globe earth which contradicts P2 so it must have been.
No evidence is required.
This is not a particularly rational mindset, one's opinion should always be open to change if one is shown evidence which contradicts it.
What I see time after time on here is evidence just dismissed, wilfully misunderstood or simply called fake if it shows FE to be wrong.

What is not explained on that Wiki page is why you regard P2 as "obvious" given that it flies in the face of all modern (and all quite old actually) science.
And "the horizon looks flat" is not evidence for a flat earth.