The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Randominput on February 06, 2016, 12:31:45 AM

Title: Issue with the horizon arguement
Post by: Randominput on February 06, 2016, 12:31:45 AM
Generally when I engage in textual fisticuffs with a FE'er the first arguement he throws out is "look at the horizon, it's flat!" but fact is that is very, very difficult to tell at ground level.
What proof do I have that this is the case?
Take a look at this youtube thumbnail I snagged from google.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/w6I3nS2N2FA/maxresdefault.jpg)

The game is called Kerbal Space Program, and takes place in a round planet universe. Further still the homeworld, Kerbin, is 1/10 the scale of the round Earth. At first glance the curve is hardly noticable, but it is there. Zoom in on the horizon if you need to.

Now I'm not gonna try and use a game to totally falsify FE (although its a useful relatively cheap way to experiment with a RE horizon, especially with the mod that converts the game's system with a full scale RE), because thats tremendously more ballsy then I'd like to bother with. But it does drive a point that the horizon arguement is by far the worst in your arsenal. Simply because if I can hardly notice a curve on a 1/10 scale ball, I most assuredly won't notice it on a full scale one.

For clarity, I'm not saying the game actually disproves FE or proves RE, it just proves the utter pointlessness of one of the more common FE arguements.
Title: Re: Issue with the horizon arguement
Post by: Lonesome Crow on February 06, 2016, 12:36:09 AM
I imagine the argument is less about the horizon itself looking flat, but more-so that, in the area around us that we can perceive, the earth appears flat.

Therefore, in trusting our own senses and observations, we can logically conclude we are on a flat surface, and thus a flat earth.
Title: Re: Issue with the horizon arguement
Post by: rabinoz on February 06, 2016, 05:28:10 AM
Quote from: Lonesome Crow on February 06, 2016, 12:36:09 AM
I imagine the argument is less about the horizon itself looking flat, but more-so that, in the area around us that we can perceive, the earth appears flat.

Therefore, in trusting our own senses and observations, we can logically conclude we are on a flat surface, and thus a flat earth.
Or on a very large Globe - like one about 40,000 km in circumference.
If you were scaled down to the size of an ant, the earth would scale down to a globe around 7000 metres in diameter.
To the ant that globe would look very flat.
Title: Re: Issue with the horizon arguement
Post by: Woody on February 06, 2016, 06:26:42 AM
Quote from: Oscar on February 06, 2016, 05:57:43 AM
Quote from: rabinoz on February 06, 2016, 05:28:10 AM
Quote from: Lonesome Crow on February 06, 2016, 12:36:09 AM
I imagine the argument is less about the horizon itself looking flat, but more-so that, in the area around us that we can perceive, the earth appears flat.

Therefore, in trusting our own senses and observations, we can logically conclude we are on a flat surface, and thus a flat earth.
Or on a very large Globe - like one about 40,000 km in circumference.
If you were scaled down to the size of an ant, the earth would scale down to a globe around 7000 metres in diameter.
To the ant that globe would look very flat.

Ever hear of Occam's razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)?

I have seen Fes use this as an argument and never commented:

1. How is it an easier explanation sunsets are a matter of perspective when there has never been a documented observation of the sun appearing to change size throughout the day?  The only time it appears to do so at sunset does not fit into a FE model.

2. Why do neap and spring tides line up with the position of the moon?

3. Why is every other planet, moon, sun spherical and the some how the Earth would not be?

4.How can stars be observed close or on the horizon at night in the direction the sun is supposed to be in a FE model?  The sun would obstruct the view of stars and would also allow us to track the sun at night by noting which stars disappear from sight.  Stars would also have to emit either a different type light then the sun or somehow brighter even if they do not appear to be so. This is assuming stars are located outside or the surface of the firmament/dome.

How does trying to prove Earth is flat by Occam's razor work if you have to move things around, come up with answers to questions that have no evidence, or being able to at least have one FE model that can answer just the four questions I asked above.
Title: Re: Issue with the horizon arguement
Post by: CableDawg on February 06, 2016, 11:39:58 AM
Quote from: Oscar on February 06, 2016, 05:57:43 AM
Quote from: rabinoz on February 06, 2016, 05:28:10 AM
Quote from: Lonesome Crow on February 06, 2016, 12:36:09 AM
I imagine the argument is less about the horizon itself looking flat, but more-so that, in the area around us that we can perceive, the earth appears flat.

Therefore, in trusting our own senses and observations, we can logically conclude we are on a flat surface, and thus a flat earth.
Or on a very large Globe - like one about 40,000 km in circumference.
If you were scaled down to the size of an ant, the earth would scale down to a globe around 7000 metres in diameter.
To the ant that globe would look very flat.

Ever hear of Occam's razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)?

Given the competing hypotheses how many assumptions do FE supporters make to make a FE a viable option?

As of right now they base their entire worldview on only that which they can see at a given point in time.  How many assumptions are made from this?

As of right now they believe that satellites and clouds are held up by some type of earthbound machinery that no one seems to be able to locate.  How many assumptions make this possible?

As of right now they have absolutely ZERO proof for an ice wall which should have approximately 70,000 miles of coast line.  How many assumptions are made for this to be their reality?

As of right now they believe that beyond the ice wall lays a vast, unknown tract of land, nothing or magic.  How many assumptions were made to bring this idea to life?

These are just a very few of the assumptions made.  I'm sure that, if I wanted to spend the time, I could find many more.

You seem to know that Occam's Razor exists.  I sincerely doubt that you truly understand how to apply Occam's Razor let alone what it means.
Title: Re: Issue with the horizon arguement
Post by: Randominput on February 06, 2016, 05:34:27 PM
Quote from: Lonesome Crow on February 06, 2016, 12:36:09 AM
Therefore, in trusting our own senses and observations, we can logically conclude we are on a flat surface, and thus a flat earth.
Did you really just do this. The image I posted is from the surface of a round planet one tenth the size of the RE. The horizon of that planet goes down only ~5 pixels, and that's being generous. My whole point is that you can hardly notice that curve on a smaller round planet, so going by simple logic its easy to determine that the curve would be even harder to distinguish on a real planet ten times the size of the one in the image I provided. Further still, real life has atmospheric scattering that'll blur that horizon, making it even harder to spot the curve.