The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: aninterestedparty 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
RET FAQ:
Q: Is the Earth a sphere?
A: No.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Wouldn't mountains be considered a bulge in RET?
-
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.
-
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.
This is an interesting point. Regardless, it would still make it an imperfect sphere.
-
This is an interesting point. Regardless, it would still make it an imperfect sphere.
I never said it was a perfect sphere, mainly because it is something that hasn't even been shown to physically exist.
-
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.
It is not remotely incorrect to call the Earth an oblate spheroid. Although it's oblateness is minuscule it is measurable so why ignore it?
-
This is an interesting point. Regardless, it would still make it an imperfect sphere.
I never said it was a perfect sphere, mainly because it is something that hasn't even been shown to physically exist.
All evidence to the contrary.
-
Although it's oblateness is minuscule it is measurable so why ignore it?
Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?
-
This whole argument is irrelevant. The Earth is not an oblate spheroid or a perfect sphere. It is flat. Period. Heaps of evidence prove this.
-
This whole argument is irrelevant. The Earth is not an oblate spheroid or a perfect sphere. It is flat. Period. Heaps of evidence prove this.
Only of evidence means something other than evidence. Does it?
-
Rama, I am genuinely curious as to your answer to my earlier question is. It would give me deep insight on why you think certain things.
-
Rama, I am genuinely curious as to your answer to my earlier question is. It would give me deep insight on why you think certain things.
Although it's oblateness is minuscule it is measurable so why ignore it?
Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?
Technically, no it does not. Analyze away!
-
Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?
Technically, no it does not. Analyze away!
Technically, yes, it does (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...), as there are no non-zero infinitesimals in the set of real numbers. If you abandoned the default assumption of real numbers, you're no longer being technically correct.
-
Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?
Technically, no it does not. Analyze away!
Technically, yes, it does (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...), as there are no non-zero infinitesimals in the set of real numbers. If you abandoned the default assumption of real numbers, you're no longer being technically correct.
Thank you. To be honest I suspected that was the case but was too lazy to look it up at the time. I can't wait to see how Rushy equates this with the oblateness of the Earth. We all know he can do it, but will it be spiteful pedantry or not? Stay tuned!
-
Thank you. To be honest I suspected that was the case but was too lazy to look it up at the time. I can't wait to see how Rushy equates this with the oblateness of the Earth. We all know he can do it, but will it be spiteful pedantry or not? Stay tuned!
I was just curious on how and why you didn't understand what I was saying, but now I do. I had no intention of explaining anything to you. That question was purely for my own sake.
-
Thank you. To be honest I suspected that was the case but was too lazy to look it up at the time. I can't wait to see how Rushy equates this with the oblateness of the Earth. We all know he can do it, but will it be spiteful pedantry or not? Stay tuned!
I was just curious on how and why you didn't understand what I was saying, but now I do. I had no intention of explaining anything to you. That question was purely for my own sake.
Rushy.
-
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.
Measurements point to it being true.
So... who to believe? Someone who simply cannot think or a scientific measurement? I choose the scientific measurement.
Whether or not the bulge is significant or not, it is not a perfect sphere. A difference of 42 kms is pretty small on a planetary scale, but certainly seems large enough if you were to go out and travel 42 kms.
Your analogy of rounding 0.3 to 1 instead of to 0 is an inaccurate analogy.
An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.
Because the difference is only 42 kms does not mean that the definition is moot.
-
This whole argument is irrelevant. The Earth is not an oblate spheroid or a perfect sphere. It is flat. Period. Heaps of evidence prove this.
And yet, I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that can stand up to any scrutiny.
I have however seen many that show a round Earth, including personal experience.
Denying evidence does not make the evidence nonexistent.
-
Although it's oblateness is minuscule it is measurable so why ignore it?
Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?
Yes, 0.9999 repeating equals 1... there are several mathematical proofs to show this
-
Measurements point to it being true.
So... who to believe? Someone who simply cannot think or a scientific measurement? I choose the scientific measurement.
Whether or not the bulge is significant or not, it is not a perfect sphere. A difference of 42 kms is pretty small on a planetary scale, but certainly seems large enough if you were to go out and travel 42 kms.
Your analogy of rounding 0.3 to 1 instead of to 0 is an inaccurate analogy.
An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.
Because the difference is only 42 kms does not mean that the definition is moot.
Perhaps if you learn more about RET, you'll understand why it isn't true. I suggest going over more geodesy topics before engaging me again; I won't repeat myself ad infinitum only to have you argue the same incorrect point in a likewise manner.
-
Measurements point to it being true.
So... who to believe? Someone who simply cannot think or a scientific measurement? I choose the scientific measurement.
Whether or not the bulge is significant or not, it is not a perfect sphere. A difference of 42 kms is pretty small on a planetary scale, but certainly seems large enough if you were to go out and travel 42 kms.
Your analogy of rounding 0.3 to 1 instead of to 0 is an inaccurate analogy.
An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.
Because the difference is only 42 kms does not mean that the definition is moot.
Perhaps if you learn more about RET, you'll understand why it isn't true. I suggest going over more geodesy topics before engaging me again; I won't repeat myself ad infinitum only to have you argue the same incorrect point in a likewise manner.
I am noticing a pattern amongst FE'ers, the inability to point out much evidence, but purely to redirect someone to another source of evidence. Either admit that you don't know, or take the trouble to enlighten us. Claiming that you won't repeat yourself repeatedly is not an excuse to leave a discussion. If you don't want to repeat yourself ad infinitum, don't post.
-
Actually, you can't force anyone to repeat themselves ad nauseam just because you're too lazy to run a simple search. You're welcome to complain about it and tell people they're lazy, but that's likely to make them even more averse to your laziness.
-
Excuse my ignorance. the reason i made that point was that irushwithscvs posted a recommendation to seek other knowledge elsewhere. Wherever i go to seek extra knowledge, i am bombarded with absolutely nothing suggesting that anyone outside a blind fringe group ( no offence ) has even considered that the earth is flat.
I respectfully request that you keep my nationality out of this pizaaplanet.
Australians are just as intelligent and respectable as Americans
-
Excuse my ignorance. the reason i made that point was that irushwithscvs posted a recommendation to seek other knowledge elsewhere. Wherever i go to seek extra knowledge, i am bombarded with absolutely nothing suggesting that anyone outside a blind fringe group ( no offence ) has even considered that the earth is flat.
I respectfully request that you keep my nationality out of this pizaaplanet.
Australians are just as intelligent and respectable as Americans
What are your precise questions? I will try to supply you with the resources to discover the answers.
-
Measurements point to it being true.
So... who to believe? Someone who simply cannot think or a scientific measurement? I choose the scientific measurement.
Whether or not the bulge is significant or not, it is not a perfect sphere. A difference of 42 kms is pretty small on a planetary scale, but certainly seems large enough if you were to go out and travel 42 kms.
Your analogy of rounding 0.3 to 1 instead of to 0 is an inaccurate analogy.
An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.
Because the difference is only 42 kms does not mean that the definition is moot.
Perhaps if you learn more about RET, you'll understand why it isn't true. I suggest going over more geodesy topics before engaging me again; I won't repeat myself ad infinitum only to have you argue the same incorrect point in a likewise manner.
While I am unfamiliar with Round Earth Theory for the simple reason that it is not a scientific theory as it is an observable fact, I am quite knowledgable about how a round world works. Besides living on a round Earth, I teach secondary science, which includes Earth and Atmospheric Sciences to grade 9.
Everything about a round Earth works flawlessly with all the observations you can make about the Earth and have been made about the Earth as well as all the measurements taken over the years by thousands of scientists.
I find it funny how so many on this site claim the 'countless' experiments, observations and calculations that 'prove' the Earth flat and yet the very wiki that you tell everyone to go to for answers only has a couple experiments listed under 'evidence' that have been thoroughly debunked for years.
The only thing this site has a lot of is thought experiments. Attempts to explain phenomenon IF the world was flat. Sadly, none of them graduate beyond attempts (and I have read the entire wiki - that also is 'sadly').
Funny is that anything that a thought experiment assuming a flat Earth cannot explain is simply passed off as a hoax or conspiracy. I say funny, but it really is kind of sad.
If repeating yourself is annoying, then stop repeating points that have already been refuted. If debating is too far beneath you, don't debate.
-
Excuse my ignorance. the reason i made that point was that irushwithscvs posted a recommendation to seek other knowledge elsewhere. Wherever i go to seek extra knowledge, i am bombarded with absolutely nothing suggesting that anyone outside a blind fringe group ( no offence ) has even considered that the earth is flat.
I respectfully request that you keep my nationality out of this pizaaplanet.
Australians are just as intelligent and respectable as Americans
What are your precise questions? I will try to supply you with the resources to discover the answers.
How about any actual irrefutable evidence that the Earth is flat?
-
Excuse my ignorance. the reason i made that point was that irushwithscvs posted a recommendation to seek other knowledge elsewhere. Wherever i go to seek extra knowledge, i am bombarded with absolutely nothing suggesting that anyone outside a blind fringe group ( no offence ) has even considered that the earth is flat.
I respectfully request that you keep my nationality out of this pizaaplanet.
Australians are just as intelligent and respectable as Americans
What are your precise questions? I will try to supply you with the resources to discover the answers.
How about any actual irrefutable evidence that the Earth is flat?
On the contrary, sir, there is plenty of evidence the earth is flat.
However, it all relies on human observation, as all the satellites in the world are owned and bankrolled by NASA and the CIA.
Vauxhall the panda boy, here lie me questions.
1.How do you know scientifically that the earth is flat?
2. What made you see this way yourself? I am assuming that you were brainwashed as a child into believing this globular nonsense, so why and when the change?
3. what are the premise dimensions of the flat earth model? e.g. Width of the disc, distance to the sun, circumference?
3a. How do you know these measurements are accurate?
4. What are the ways that FET might be proved wrong?
5. Why has such a huge thing as the shape of the earth been hidden of so long?
5a. What would the perpetrators of the conspiracy ever hope to gain?
Once you are done with ( or ignore ) these queries, i have more.
-
Excuse my ignorance. the reason i made that point was that irushwithscvs posted a recommendation to seek other knowledge elsewhere. Wherever i go to seek extra knowledge, i am bombarded with absolutely nothing suggesting that anyone outside a blind fringe group ( no offence ) has even considered that the earth is flat.
I respectfully request that you keep my nationality out of this pizaaplanet.
Australians are just as intelligent and respectable as Americans
What are your precise questions? I will try to supply you with the resources to discover the answers.
How about any actual irrefutable evidence that the Earth is flat?
On the contrary, sir, there is plenty of evidence the earth is flat.
However, it all relies on human observation, as all the satellites in the world are owned and bankrolled by NASA and the CIA.
I am afraid that your information is incorrect. There is no need to rely on satellites. The knowledge that the Earth is round was found thousands of years before satellites where around.
Human observations that led to this knowledge include but are not limited to:
-The gradual disappearance of ships over the horizon, the tops of the sails disappearing last.
-The shape of the curved shadow of the earth on the moon during eclipses.
-The variation of the sun's elevation with latitude. (This was the basis of Eratosthenes' measurement.)
-The variation of a star's elevation with latitude. The fact that one sees new stars as one moves north or south on the earth's surface.
-
Excuse my ignorance. the reason i made that point was that irushwithscvs posted a recommendation to seek other knowledge elsewhere. Wherever i go to seek extra knowledge, i am bombarded with absolutely nothing suggesting that anyone outside a blind fringe group ( no offence ) has even considered that the earth is flat.
I respectfully request that you keep my nationality out of this pizaaplanet.
Australians are just as intelligent and respectable as Americans
I was taking the role of the devil's advocate, and employing reductio ad absurdum.
You can be assured, i agree with everything you are saying
What are your precise questions? I will try to supply you with the resources to discover the answers.
How about any actual irrefutable evidence that the Earth is flat?
On the contrary, sir, there is plenty of evidence the earth is flat.
However, it all relies on human observation, as all the satellites in the world are owned and bankrolled by NASA and the CIA.
I am afraid that your information is incorrect. There is no need to rely on satellites. The knowledge that the Earth is round was found thousands of years before satellites where around.
Human observations that led to this knowledge include but are not limited to:
-The gradual disappearance of ships over the horizon, the tops of the sails disappearing last.
-The shape of the curved shadow of the earth on the moon during eclipses.
-The variation of the sun's elevation with latitude. (This was the basis of Eratosthenes' measurement.)
-The variation of a star's elevation with latitude. The fact that one sees new stars as one moves north or south on the earth's surface.
-
On the contrary, sir, there is plenty of evidence the earth is flat.
However, it all relies on human observation, as all the satellites in the world are owned and bankrolled by NASA and the CIA.
Vauxhall the panda boy, here lie me questions.
1.How do you know scientifically that the earth is flat?
2. What made you see this way yourself? I am assuming that you were brainwashed as a child into believing this globular nonsense, so why and when the change?
3. what are the premise dimensions of the flat earth model? e.g. Width of the disc, distance to the sun, circumference?
3a. How do you know these measurements are accurate?
4. What are the ways that FET might be proved wrong?
5. Why has such a huge thing as the shape of the earth been hidden of so long?
5a. What would the perpetrators of the conspiracy ever hope to gain?
Once you are done with ( or ignore ) these queries, i have more.
1.How do you know scientifically that the earth is flat?
- I've seen it with my own two eyes. The world disc and all its glorious majesty. The creatures that inhabit this great disc create a euphoric vibration to the realms of goodness and flatness. If you look out your window, you will notice that a) the world in front of you is flat and b) all the animals chirping, tweeting, and barking are speaking in a universal language that says: "The Earth is flat". If this mystical answer is not enough for you: we have solid maths showing that the Sun is only 3000 or so miles away, and the Bedford Level experiment which shows that one of the longest rivers on Earth remains flat (no curvature) throughout its entire run.
My point about the animals is that most animals could not actually survive on a spherical Earth. Their habitats simply would not allow them survival. Temps would be different as the Sun is much further away so it would be considerably colder, and many of them would simply slip off and the fall into the void (including us, this is because UA does not work with a Round Earth model).
2. What made you see this way yourself? I am assuming that you were brainwashed as a child into believing this globular nonsense, so why and when the change?
- I was born a Flat Earther. At the age of 6 I asked my mom about a globe my father had bought me. He said "Take a look at this son" and I did. I looked hard. After hours of thought I asked my mother why my dad had given me a representation of Earth that was false. I asked them "how come this is a ball and when I look outside it is just flat all the way?" My Father could not answer the question, and at this point I was a 100% bonafide FE'er. When I discovered that my parents could not even come up with 1 good reason why the Earth was round, that's when it started. Afterwards, I ran from my home and haven't seen my parents since (it's been 25 years).
3. what are the premise dimensions of the flat earth model? e.g. Width of the disc, distance to the sun, circumference?
- The Sun disc lights up 25,000 nautical miles worth of land on the Flat Earth. The Earth itself is actually a few times bigger than this. The Sun disc itself is about 3000 miles above the Earth, with a diameter of 32 miles.
3a. How do you know these measurements are accurate?
- Extensive research and common sense.
4. What are the ways that FET might be proved wrong?
- I cannot think of any. All evidence to the contrary has been extensively debunked.
5. Why has such a huge thing as the shape of the earth been hidden of so long?
- avarice and control.
5a. What would the perpetrators of the conspiracy ever hope to gain?
- Supreme domination of the Earth and its creatures.
And by the by, I am not a boy.
-
On the contrary, sir, there is plenty of evidence the earth is flat.
However, it all relies on human observation, as all the satellites in the world are owned and bankrolled by NASA and the CIA.
Vauxhall the panda boy, here lie me questions.
1.How do you know scientifically that the earth is flat?
2. What made you see this way yourself? I am assuming that you were brainwashed as a child into believing this globular nonsense, so why and when the change?
3. what are the premise dimensions of the flat earth model? e.g. Width of the disc, distance to the sun, circumference?
3a. How do you know these measurements are accurate?
4. What are the ways that FET might be proved wrong?
5. Why has such a huge thing as the shape of the earth been hidden of so long?
5a. What would the perpetrators of the conspiracy ever hope to gain?
Once you are done with ( or ignore ) these queries, i have more.
1.How do you know scientifically that the earth is flat?
- I've seen it with my own two eyes. The world disc and all its glorious majesty. The creatures that inhabit this great disc create a euphoric vibration to the realms of goodness and flatness. If you look out your window, you will notice that a) the world in front of you is flat and b) all the animals chirping, tweeting, and barking are speaking in a universal language that says: "The Earth is flat". If this mystical answer is not enough for you: we have solid maths showing that the Sun is only 3000 or so miles away, and the Bedford Level experiment which shows that one of the longest rivers on Earth remains flat (no curvature) throughout its entire run.
My point about the animals is that most animals could not actually survive on a spherical Earth. Their habitats simply would not allow them survival. Temps would be different as the Sun is much further away so it would be considerably colder, and many of them would simply slip off and the fall into the void (including us, this is because UA does not work with a Round Earth model).
2. What made you see this way yourself? I am assuming that you were brainwashed as a child into believing this globular nonsense, so why and when the change?
- I was born a Flat Earther. At the age of 6 I asked my mom about a globe my father had bought me. He said "Take a look at this son" and I did. I looked hard. After hours of thought I asked my mother why my dad had given me a representation of Earth that was false. I asked them "how come this is a ball and when I look outside it is just flat all the way?" My Father could not answer the question, and at this point I was a 100% bonafide FE'er. When I discovered that my parents could not even come up with 1 good reason why the Earth was round, that's when it started. Afterwards, I ran from my home and haven't seen my parents since (it's been 25 years).
3. what are the premise dimensions of the flat earth model? e.g. Width of the disc, distance to the sun, circumference?
- The Sun disc lights up 25,000 nautical miles worth of land on the Flat Earth. The Earth itself is actually a few times bigger than this. The Sun disc itself is about 3000 miles above the Earth, with a diameter of 32 miles.
3a. How do you know these measurements are accurate?
- Extensive research and common sense.
4. What are the ways that FET might be proved wrong?
- I cannot think of any. All evidence to the contrary has been extensively debunked.
5. Why has such a huge thing as the shape of the earth been hidden of so long?
- avarice and control.
5a. What would the perpetrators of the conspiracy ever hope to gain?
- Supreme domination of the Earth and its creatures.
And by the by, I am not a boy.
1.
So, when asked for scientific evidence, you give none.
Just an unconfirmed BS statement that you have seen a flat Earth. Sorry to burst your magical bubble, but unless you somehow live on a different Earth than everyone else, it is spherical. It's been empirically observed.
The animals and birds chirp that the world is flat???? Try making observations when you are sober.
When I look out the window, I never see a flat Earth. On the contrary, I have only ever seen variations in elevation due to the rolling hills around where I live.
A part of a circle can appear flat if the part is small enough...
Your calculations that the sun is only 3000 miles above the Earth is BS. It operates on the false assumption that the Earth is flat and utilizes only 2 locations to determine distance above the Earth. Using different locations on Earth and the same false assumption, you will get a different answer to the distance above the Earth.
The stupid Bedford Experiment has already been shown to be false in both its assumptions and conclusion. You can read back through this thread and see why. Using an already debunked farce of an experiment as evidence is just ignorant.
The experiment was performed on the Old Bedford River in Norfolk England. That you call it one of the longest rivers on Earth shows how little you know about geography.
Your comment about not being able to survive on a spherical Earth is baseless BS.
Nothing is going to fall off - we have this thing called gravity that keeps us down. (Remember learning about gravity in school?)
2. So, you are saying that because your parents were too stupid to explain all the many ways to tell that the Earth is round that you failed to try and look up the answer on your own and assumed that the world is flat? I call BS on your story as well, but as there is no way to substantiate it, we'll let it slide.
3. I am laughing at your answer of "extensive research and common sense". For one any 'extensive research' conducted on those figures shows that the calculations utilize unsubstantiated assumptions in order to be completed. That the Sun has a diameter of only 32 miles for instance only works based on the calculation that the Sun is approximately 3000 miles above the Earth. That calculation has already been shown to be false, so any subsequent calculation based on that false calculation are likewise false.
4. Very wrong here too. Flat Earth has been shown to be wrong for thousands of years already.
Nothing about the spherical Earth has ever been shown to be false - show me one piece of evidence that anything about the spherical Earth has been debunked. You can't? Because there is none.
Now, in the modern age we have even more evidence with satellite photos and even a historic picture taken from the Moon. Claiming these events did not happen is the only way to perpetuate the flat Earth lie.
5. Complete conjecture about a lie to begin with. Just like there is no evidence of a flat Earth, there is no evidence of a cover-up trying to hide the existence of a flat Earth.
You have some interesting comments, but unfortunately they are simply lies (whether intentional or repeated from someone else, who knows except you) and you failed to give any evidence as asked for. I guess it is hard to give actual evidence when there is none.
-
I am offended that you think my stories are BS. I cannot convince you otherwise, I guess, so well leave it at that.
Curious how you say none of my claims have scientific backing. I don't see any claims in your posts that have scientific backing. All I see is "you're wrong". Is this how science works in the round Earth theology?
-
I cannot tell what you are trying to say here. Firstly, where is your response?
-
i think he is claiming that your fathers supposed admonition of " Look at this, son" clashes with your claim of not being a boy.
If you are claiming instead that you are a man, fair enough. i tip my hat to your genius six-year old self. it is amazing how much smarter you were then, than all the scientists in the world combined. roger1998 can claim more intelligence than you.
Good day sir/madam
-
I should have assumed that you wouldn't be able to follow a simple story. But you know what they say about assumptions, don't you?
-
I am offended that you think my stories are BS. I cannot convince you otherwise, I guess, so well leave it at that.
Curious how you say none of my claims have scientific backing. I don't see any claims in your posts that have scientific backing. All I see is "you're wrong". Is this how science works in the round Earth theology?
Be offended if you so choose. There is just very little to believe in them.
It's more your claims that are BS. Like the Earth is flat, the Sun is 3000 miles away and the Sun has a diameter of 32 miles.
I've already explained how those statements were false.
My posts do not have scientific backing? We can start with the Earth is spherical. There are many observable aspects that are easy to look up - many have already been listed, such as the observations of objects over a distance, the shape of the Earth against the Moon during an eclipse, changing star patterns when moving from the northern to southern hemispheres, pictures of Earth from orbit, etc. All of which are 100% backed by science, having been observed, experimented on and confirmed thousands of times in different situations and locations. The evidence and scientific backing is there for anyone that wants to take off their blinders.
That is how science works period. You make observations, test observations, share results, retest in different scenarios and circumstances, consider all the possibilities, test to omit alternate possibilities and when all other possibilities have been disproven come to a conclusion. Even after the conclusion stage, other ideas may come up by others looking at the data that must be tested to either accept or reject.
So, according to science, the scientific method, scientists and anyone who actually looks at the data, the Earth is spherical.
According to a handful of individuals on a pseudoscience page (and I truly believe there are less than that as there are at least a couple who are laughing at home at trying to frustrate people with nonsensical arguments that the world is flat), 2 debunked experiments and several calculations based on debunked information and incomplete assumptions are trying to tell everyone that the world is actually flat... yeah... someone somewhere is having a good laugh lol