evidence- for and against
« on: January 18, 2015, 12:55:35 AM »
this thread is designed for people to put down pieces of evidence for both RE and FE. Please clarify which one, and rebuttals are fine as well.
Proving the opposition wrong is not the same as proving yourself right

Ghost of V

Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2015, 12:58:07 AM »
Since you created the thread I would assume you would add some evidence for RE. Or do you just want other people to do the work for you?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8578
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2015, 01:57:50 AM »
We have the FAQ and depository (the forum category below this one) for a reason. Please utilize them and don't post threads which add literally nothing to the discussion.

Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2015, 03:15:49 AM »
so sorry good sirs, but i can't seem to find the faqs detailing all the evidence for RET. Kindly point them out to me, and please don't post if you've got literally nothing to add to the discussion. this thread is to fill in the holes in the FAQ and to present to a neutral party the for and against of both sides. I assumed naturally that as fervent FE believers that you might at least have something knowledgeable or even remotely intellectual to add to the discussion
Proving the opposition wrong is not the same as proving yourself right

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8578
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2015, 04:37:19 AM »
RET FAQ:

Q: Is the Earth a sphere?

A: No.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 04:38:51 AM by Irushwithscvs »

Ghost of V

Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2015, 04:39:36 AM »
Shouldn't you know some proofs for a round Earth before you make a thread like this? I'm confused.

Maybe mention something about the Transit of Venus? Damn. I shouldn't be doing this for you.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2015, 05:23:32 AM »
Shouldn't you know some proofs for a round Earth before you make a thread like this? I'm confused.

Maybe mention something about the Transit of Venus? Damn. I shouldn't be doing this for you.
Since you asked so nicely:
I.   Horizon
A.   Flat Horizon—An observer on the surface of a still ocean viewing sees the horizon as flat.
B.   Rounded Horizon—An observer on the surface of a still ocean viewing at a great height sees the horizon as rounded. It appears to be highest directly ahead of the viewing angle and drops equally away to both sides at a constant predicted rate, regardless of the viewing angle.
C.   The Higher, the Farther—An observer on a middle floor of a tall building watching a departing ship disappear over a clear horizon can climb to the top floor and again view the ship.
D.   Tops First—An observer on a ship approaching a port with skyscrapers will first see the tops of the tallest buildings then the rest of the city’s skyline as the ship comes further into port.
II.   Earth Based Astronomy
A.   Apparent size of the Sun—Regardless of the season, the time of day, or viewing location, an observer views the Sun in the sky as same shape and size.
B.   Sunrise and sunset—An observer sees the sun set and rise as a disk sliding over the horizon at a predicted time and angle.
C.   Phases of the Moon—An observer sees the Moon go through predicted phases (with the illuminated face facing the Sun when both are visible in the sky).
D.   Moonrise and Moonset—An observer sees the Moon rise and set at the predicted time and angle.
E.   Shadows on the Moon—At the first quarter and third quarter of the lunar phases, an observer sees shadows of features of the moon pointing in opposite direction, but always away from the Sun.
F.   Total Solar Eclipse—An observer sees a total solar eclipse at a predicted time and location.
G.   Annular Solar Eclipse—An observer sees an annular solar eclipse at a predicted time and location.
H.   Lunar Eclipse—An observer sees a total lunar eclipse at a predicted time and location.
I.   Retrograde Motion of Mars—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Mars apparently reverses its motion in the sky.
J.   Retrograde Motion of Jupiter—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Jupiter apparently reverses its motion in the sky.
K.   Retrograde Motion of Saturn—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Saturn apparently reverses it motion in the sky.
L.   Retrograde Motion of Uranus—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Uranus apparently reverse its motion in the sky.
M.   Transit of Mercury—An observer sees Mercury transit the Sun at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
N.   Phases of Mercury—An observer sees Mercury as predicted as a partially illuminated disk with the illuminated portion facing the Sun.
O.   Transit of Venus—An observer sees Venus transit the Sun at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
P.   Phases of Venus—An observer sees Venus as predicted as a partially illuminated disk with the illuminated portion facing the Sun.
III.   Radio
A.   Ham Radio Distance—A listener can hear ham radio stations from around the world.
B.   Commercial Radio Distance—A listener cannot hear commercial radio stations beyond a predicted distance during daylight.
C.   Nighttime Distance—A listener can hear commercial radio stations during nighttime that he or she could not hear during daylight.
IV.   Foucault Pendulum—An observer will see that a Foucault Pendulum’s motion rotates predictably over the course of a day based on latitude.
V.   Parallax
A.   Moon Distance—Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the Moon.
B.   Sun Distance— Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the Sun.
C.   ISS Distance—Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the ISS.
D.   Iridium Flash Distance—Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the flash off one of the antenna dishes of an Iridium satellite.
VI.   Rotation of the sky
A.   Northern Sky Rotation—An observer in the Northern Hemisphere will observe that the stars appear to rotate about a fixed point in the northern sky.
B.   Southern Sky Rotation—An observer in the Northern Hemisphere will observe that the stars appear to rotate about a fixed point in the southern sky.
VII.   Angle of Polaris
A.   North Pole—An observer at the North Pole will see Polaris directly overhead.
B.   45 Degrees—An observer at 45° North will see Polaris at 45° above the horizon.
C.   Equator—An observer at the Equator will see Polaris at the horizon.
D.   South—An observer south of the Equator will not see Polaris.
VIII.   Angle of Polaris
A.   North Pole—An observer at the South Pole will see Crux directly overhead.
B.   45 Degrees—An observer at 45° South will see Crux at 45° above the horizon.
C.   Equator—An observer at the Equator will see Crux at the horizon.
D.   South—An observer north of the Equator will not see Crux.
IX.   Intensity of the Sun—An observer will measure the predicted solar intensity on a cloudless day, regardless of the time of day or season.
X.   Cavendish Experiments—An observer will measure the same value of G for any sizes or shapes or materials used in a Cavendish device.
XI.   Lake—An observer will measure the predicted angle of deviation from level of a line of sight over a given, large distance over a still body of water
XII.   Zodiac—An observer will determine that the Sun appears to moves in relation to the Zodiac in the predicted manner.
XIII.   Photographs—The observer will see the Earth as a sphere in photographs taken for sufficiently high altitudes.
XIV.   Man to moon
A.   Earthrise—The observer on the Moon will see the earthrise at the predicted time and angle.
B.   Distance—Using the equipment left on the moon by the Apollo project, an observer will accurately measure the predicted distance to the Moon.
XV.   Transits of the ISS
A.   Sun—An observer will see the ISS transit the Sun at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
B.   Moon— An observer will see the ISS transit the Moon at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
XVI.   Launch—An observer will see in the sky a satellite following a successful space launch following the predicted course.
XVII.   Meteors—An observer will see the meteors from a predicted shower or  storm radiate from a predicted point in the sky.
XVIII.   Lunar Eclipse Shadow—An observer will always see a round edge to the shadow on the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse.
XIX.   Commercial flights
A.   Great circle—An observer will notice that long commercial flights travel mostly along great circle routes.
B.   Times—An observer will notice that commercial flight times will not be less than a predicted minimum.
XX.   Transverse the Globe—An observer may circumnavigate the globe in any direction.
XXI.   Surveyors—When surveying large features, surveyors must account for the curvature of the Earth.
XXII.   Mountaintops—A pair of coordinated observers on two distant mountain tops within visual range of each other will both measure by line of sight the other’s position to be lower than it is measured by the other.
XXIII.   Latitude Lines—An observer will notice that latitude lines are always straight and equidistant.
XXIV.   Longitude Lines—An observer will notice that longitude lines are always straight and diverge and then converge, going north to south (or visa versa).
XXV.   Tides
A.   Daily—An observer will notice that there are two high tides and two low tides at predicted times and the Moon is high is the sky during one high tides each day and low on the horizon at all low tides at many locations.
B.   Monthly—An observer will notice spring and neap tides each twice during the lunar month, with spring tide during new and full moons and neap tide during the first and third quarter at many locations.
XXVI.   Auroras—An observer will notice auroras near the poles, and they will occur at around both poles with nearly the same intensity and duration.
XXVII.   Modern navigation
A.   Gyroscopes—An observer will note that modern navigation when aided by gyroscopes provide readings consistent with predicted results.
B.   GPS—An observer will note that modern navigation when aided by GPS provide readings consistent with predicted results.
XXVIII.   Weather patterns
A.   Weather Fronts
1.   Speed—An observer will note that weather fronts move with about the same speed in either hemisphere and in line with their internal wind speeds.
2.   Polar Origins—An observer will note that weather fronts originate from both poles with approximately the same frequency and intensity.
B.   Trade winds—An observer will note that the trade winds in both hemispheres blow at approximately the same speed, but in opposite directions.
C.   Large Storm Systems
1.   Speed—An observer will note that large storm systems move with about the same speed in either hemisphere and arrive predictably across great distances.
2.   Direction—An observer will note that large storm systems are about of equal intensity in either hemisphere, but tend to move in opposite east versus west directions within the same latitude bands.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8578
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2015, 05:29:16 AM »
Funny that you post those bullet points, without posting the subsequent debunking of each and every one of them. Go go gadget confirmation bias.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2015, 05:36:11 AM »
Funny that you post those bullet points, without posting the subsequent debunking of each and every one of them. Go go gadget confirmation bias.
Why would I present any debunking? Did you think that I would somehow start supporting FET? Vx asked for the evidence for RET, and I posted the Table of Contents of the document that provided evidence for each point which I posted back in 2007.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2015, 05:49:52 AM »
Thank you Gulliver.
Also, Vauxhall, I would welcome a concise list of the proofs of FET, much like gulliver did.
Then we (I) will try to collate both of them into lists, so that an observer might have an unbiased view of the issue.
And BTW, Vauxhall, i resent that you naturally assume that i am an RE theorist purely because i am new to this site, and possibly you don't like me.
Proving the opposition wrong is not the same as proving yourself right

Offline AMann

  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2015, 06:25:56 AM »
Funny that you post those bullet points, without posting the subsequent debunking of each and every one of them. Go go gadget confirmation bias.

Funny that you use the term 'debunking' even though any 'debunking' I have ever seen here are only possible explanations (and even those only work when leaving out other bits of data) but never include any evidence that would actually debunk the phenomenon. (Thought experiments about how something would work IF the Earth were flat are not evidence).

On the other hand, I have yet to see any evidence for a Flat Earth (yes, I have read the entire wiki) that is not easy to debunk.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 06:30:00 AM by AMann »

Ghost of V

Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2015, 07:12:19 AM »
I guess I have Thork to thank for this influx of noobs. All of you are just throwing stones at us. You did not come here to debate. You came here to exercise your massive egos and flaunt your intellectual superiority over 'the little fringe group full of idiots'. Well I tell you what, I won't have it. Please conduct your feeble debate in a civilized manner, or don't conduct it at all.


As for evidence, we have the Bedford Level experiment and various measurements showing that the Sun is only 3000 or so miles away. Read the wiki for exact equations.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16079
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2015, 07:44:54 AM »
Funny that you post those bullet points, without posting the subsequent debunking of each and every one of them. Go go gadget confirmation bias.
Why would I present any debunking? Did you think that I would somehow start supporting FET? Vx asked for the evidence for RET, and I posted the Table of Contents of the document that provided evidence for each point which I posted back in 2007.
Virtually all of these have nothing to do with the Earth's shape. A poor effort, overall. In the future, try to think more and copy-paste less.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2015, 07:58:23 AM »
sir vauxhall, i believe the bedford level experiment can be explained by the refraction of light. apparently (i'm no expert), the proximity of the canal to the measuring device produced a curve opposite to the curve of the earth. And isn't the purpose of this forum to see peoples reactions and opinions about Flat Earth Theory? This proves that you are just as bad as NASA in keeping people in the dark about the true shape of the earth. The "noobs" "throwing stones" is either the results of extensive brainwashing ( less likely ), the implausibility of your theory, or lack of evidence on your part. If you were to provide a clear and completely plausible explanation for a flat earth, this would provide a very effective shield against the stone throwers.
Or you could go with the flow and accept the popular opinion that the earth is a sphere. This would be also acceptable.
Proving the opposition wrong is not the same as proving yourself right

Offline AMann

  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2015, 09:42:33 AM »

As for evidence, we have the Bedford Level experiment and various measurements showing that the Sun is only 3000 or so miles away. Read the wiki for exact equations.

Interesting that you mention that farce of an experiment.

If the world were round, then there is a cumulative curvature to it. Experimentation on land is difficult to do due to land being anything but flat (as a look out my door can attest to).
Water is the best medium since it would naturally follow gravity and best show any curvature to the Earth right? While this is true (for the most part), you have to be careful of the sample body of water used for observation.
The Bedford experiment uses... a river.
Now, a river is a horrible sample of water to use for one simple reason: it is running water. Running water flows downhill.
You are not going to get a significant curve over a short distance due to the downward flow of the water - it significantly reduces the amount of curve that can be observed. You are instead looking uphill and downhill (even if the grade is insignificant to perception).

The calculation that the sun is only 3000 miles away?
Eratosthenes calculated the Earth to have a circumference of 24,662 miles around 200BC. He used the angles of the sun in Syene and Alexandria to calculate a difference of 7.2 degrees.
His measurements were pretty accurate compared to the modern value of 24,900 miles.
Now, the calculation as to the distance of the sun was conducted based on his work, but simply changing his assumptions. By assuming the world is flat and using some trigonometry based on the 7.2 degree difference between the angle of the sunlight that fell on Syene and Alexandria, we will get a result of approximately 3000 miles.
See the problem? Making an assumption like "the world is flat" changes the outcome of the calculations. A better statement would be that the Sun is only 3000 or so miles away IF the Earth is flat.
The second problem with the calculation that the Suns is only 3000 miles away is that it only utilizes those 2 cities as data points. The calculations would need to be replicated at various locations before they mean anything.
That's a big thing in science: replicability in various situations.
When you find one piece of data that fits your idea, you must further test it in different situations and locations. Performing a single experiment and concluding you are correct is premature.

Rama Set

Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2015, 02:19:39 PM »


As for evidence, we have the Bedford Level experiment

Which has been debunked Ad Nauseam. Also, surveyors routinely encounter the curvature of the Earth in their work, hence the need for geodetic surveys.

Quote
and various measurements showing that the Sun is only 3000 or so miles away. Read the wiki for exact equations.


He hardly needs to refer to the Wiki to learn Pythagorus. Anyway, this calculation assumes a FE and is no more evidence than Eratosthenes is for a RE.

Offline AMann

  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2015, 06:31:51 PM »
RET FAQ:

Q: Is the Earth a sphere?

A: No.

Correct.
The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
The Earth has a slight bulge around its equator due to its rotation.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Equatorial_bulge.html

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8578
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2015, 01:30:55 AM »
The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
The Earth has a slight bulge around its equator due to its rotation.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Equatorial_bulge.html

This isn't correct, even if RET were true. If the Earth were a sphere, its rotational velocity is not high enough to create a oceanic bulge that could classify it as something other than a sphere. While it is not a perfect sphere, it is closer to the defined properties of a sphere than it is to the defined properties of an oblate spheroid. It's like taking 0.3 and saying it would be better to round it to 1 than 0.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 01:34:30 AM by Irushwithscvs »

Ghost of V

Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2015, 01:34:23 AM »
Wouldn't mountains be considered a bulge in RET?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8578
    • View Profile
Re: evidence- for and against
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2015, 01:36:33 AM »
Wouldn't mountains be considered a bulge in RET?

Relative to the size of the planet, mountains are miniscule variations in the surface. If the Earth was a sphere and the size of an 8 ball, you would not be able to feel the mountains on the surface.