#### shootingstar

##### Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: January 10, 2019, 02:54:09 PM »
One of the most common responses given by flat Earth believers to the FAQ 'Why do you believe the Earth is flat?' is because it looks flat. I believe that Tom once answered this question along the lines of

"If I emerged from my cave for the very first time and looked at the mammoths cavorting on a broad expanse of tundra, I surely wouldn't quickly assume I was standing on a sphere"

I quite agree with that comment. I am pretty sure many of the present day indiginous tribes of remote parts of the world who have never travelled more than a few miles away from their settlements would agree too if the question was put to them.  They have not been educated with any skills and knowledge beyond what they need to survive day to day and year to year. As long as those people can catch food, have shelter and can live their lives in relative safety and comfort I am sure it doesn't matter to them what shape or size the planet they live on is.

The perception of the world that these people have is limited to their experience of it. If we were to show them photos or videos of big cities, high mountains, the polar regions or even the oceans they would seem completely alien to them. Why? Because they have never experienced them. I have a limited view of the world from my window and if I had never read a book, switched on my radio, TV, or computer then my knowledge of the world would be limited to what I can see. Would that give me justification to assume whatever I see outside of my window is much the same as what everyone else in the world sees outside of their windows?  How does someone who is blind from birth prove the Earth is round or flat.  The answer is they can't so they have to rely on information given to them by others. Why should they believe or trust what they are told?

Those who say that the Earth is round will give a measured value of the diameter of the Earth of 8000 miles give or take a few. That equates to a circumference of 26,000 miles again, give or take a few. A civilian airliner will cruise at an altitude of about 38,000ft. That is about 0.1% of 8000 miles.  Not enough to make visible any curvature of the Earth to the naked eye. Especially when you take into account that from 38,000ft you don't have a clear view (or should I say a clear enough view) to make an accurate judgement of what shape the Earth surface looks.

Given flat Earth believers don't acknowledge that anyone has been higher than about that altitude they have no reason to believe the Earth has a curved surface. They haven't seen it for themselves. RET believers on the other hand will take into account the images and video taken by astronauts on the ISS. The ISS is orbitting at an average height of 250 miles which is 3.1% of the diameter of Earth, or 31x the height of a civilian airliner at 38,000ft. That brings in enough of the Earths surface at once to now see the curvature. If seeing is believing then quite clearly they have good reason to believe the Earth is round.  They have seen a view of the Earth that many of us will never have and never will.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 03:02:53 PM by shootingstar »

#### stack

• 1452
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2019, 08:03:26 AM »
Earth is big. Our eyeballs are very small in comparison. I always liked this simple demonstration for the "Well, it looks flat," remark:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7247
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2019, 02:01:00 PM »
The earth is observably flat by default. The possibility of it being a big ball, or whatever you imagine it to be, needs to be proven. It simply doesn't matter if you scream "you can't see it because it's an illusion!!1"

The fact that when we look at the matter closer and we find contradicting observations into the distance which support sinking and non-sinking is pretty telling. The fact that we have seen multiple long term timelapse of the horizon which show that the light is constantly curving in the distance to make things appear to sink, and sometimes to unsink, is also telling. The fact that the famous sinking photos don't even match up with the stated curvature for the round earth, which we have looked at, is telling still.

There is no real evidence for the ball earth. Aristotile's proofs for a globe based on sinking ships and lunar eclipses are unsupportable.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 02:10:09 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### shootingstar

##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2019, 02:58:07 PM »
Quote
There is no real evidence for the ball earth. Aristotile's proofs for a globe based on sinking ships and lunar eclipses are unsupportable.

And why is that then Tom? Just because you are not willing to accept those as proof of a round Earth?  You have already described them as 'proofs'.  What would you accept as 'proof'?  So given that you accept that the Earth looks flat by default, you cannot actually say as you have done before, that the best evidence for a flat Earth is because it looks flat.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 03:01:29 PM by shootingstar »

#### ChrisTP

• 913
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2019, 03:25:57 PM »
The earth is observably flat by default. The possibility of it being a big ball, or whatever you imagine it to be, needs to be proven. It simply doesn't matter if you scream "you can't see it because it's an illusion!!1"

The fact that when we look at the matter closer and we find contradicting observations into the distance which support sinking and non-sinking is pretty telling. The fact that we have seen multiple long term timelapse of the horizon which show that the light is constantly curving in the distance to make things appear to sink, and sometimes to unsink, is also telling. The fact that the famous sinking photos don't even match up with the stated curvature for the round earth, which we have looked at, is telling still.

There is no real evidence for the ball earth. Aristotile's proofs for a globe based on sinking ships and lunar eclipses are unsupportable.
The double standards here... So much evidence of flat earth is contradicting. Misinterpreting data of a spheroid earth does not mean it's flat. Likewise, proving the earth isn't flat doesn't then make it spheroid either. This argument of "Must be flat because it isn't round" is getting old. Almost any flat earth evidence can be debunked.

Try telling a blind man the earth is flat... Under your own methods he is someone who cannot take your word for it because he doesn't see what you see. Because the blind man doesn't see a flat earth does that mean it's not flat? No, it means he simply cannot see if it's flat. Nor can he see it's round either. Should he trust his senses that tell him the world is a black void with no visibility? If so does that then mean that for everyone who isn't blind, their whole visible reality does not exist because that blind man said there's nothing visible?

The whole sinking ship thing is ridiculously anecdotal for everyone who tries it one or even a few times, there are so many factors that may change their results. elevation, tide, weather. Show me contradictory footage of sinking ships that are all under the exact same conditions otherwise it's pointless footage as evidence for either round or flat.

The sky is a clear indicator, we can observe other planets orbiting the sun and we can take our own positions into account to show we also orbit the sun. We can observe the moon orbiting us as well as other planets having their own moons. Where in any data regarding planetary movements contradicts the fact that earth is a planet? What do all planetary bodies look like?  spherical. How is that contradictory to the idea of earth being a spherical planet?

Looking out around the world it looks flat, this is what we expect to see on a giant sphere the size of earth compared to the size of humans. This isn't contradictory and we can easily see this to be the case simply by getting a camera and zooming in on a football/basketball/any kind of ball.

From what I can see there isn't much contradicting evidence of earth being a sphere, just cherry picked and misunderstood information. Meanwhile, you yourself switched from the standard flat earth model to a bi-polar model just yesterday to try to prove your point, both models completely contradicting each other while still both being inaccurate, then have the audacity to call anyone else evidence contradictory? Come on now...

If seeing is undeniably believing in your case then does that mean any magician is actually using real magic? All of documented history never happened and earth began the second you were born and opened your eyes?

A wise person once said if they cant agree on such basic stuff, then don't trust them on anything. So why if flat earthers cannot agree on basic stuff among themselves and with themselves, should we trust you on anything? Just looking at the flat earth wiki has so much content that does not agree with other content of the wiki. Why then should I trust your interpretation of any of the data that provides evidence of flat or round earth?

That wise person was Pete talking about NASA

So yeah, the earth looks flat if you simply look out. That doesn't mean it is flat though, a curve has been witnessed however inconsistently with the sinking ship effect, showing that not all is as it seems and that optical illusions exist with a simple glance so why then should you trust your own vision on this matter?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2019, 03:39:07 PM »
The thing that baffles me is that it is openly admitted that other planets are round.  Of course, their argument is that the earth is not a planet and is unique.  Why is this so? Why wouldnt there be other planets that are flat?
BobLawBlah.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3358
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2019, 04:20:59 PM »
The earth is observably flat by default. The possibility of it being a big ball, or whatever you imagine it to be, needs to be proven.
Correct. And it has been proven.
We have photos from space from multiple sources.
It simply doesn’t matter if you scream “they’re fake”. Hundreds of people and have been into space and seen it for themselves. 7 of those people are private citizens who have paid for the privilege. The ISS can be seen from earth. Satellite TV works. GPS works.

You have shown repeatedly that your understanding of physics is extremely limited. Your objections are simply you not understanding things and, worse, you refuse to listen to explanations.

Quote
There is no real evidence for the ball earth.
Only if you continue to not understand the evidence or call the bits you do understand fake. But you could do that about anything.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

#### RonJ

• 1110
• ACTA NON VERBA
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2019, 04:34:21 PM »
Far out at sea the earth looks flat.  The horizon is flat, the water is flat, everything looks flat.  However, hour after hour, day after day......I see other big ships coming up over the horizon.  You see the very tops first then more & more of the hulls become visible.  Sometimes whole cities and mountains rise up out of the sea like magic. The same thing is seen on the radars as well.  First you only see just a little single pip once in a while, then slowly more & more return echos hit the screen.  You see this over & over, day after day.  After a while you consult your charts.  Sometimes you do a sighting of a heavenly body and do a little celestial navigation.  The thing here is that all the calculations you do are based upon spherical trigonometry.  All the calculations are based upon the earth being spherical.  Does this conflict with what your eyes actually see?  Yes, some.  What is the unavoidable overall conclusion?  The earth must be spherical.  If you look deep down into the technical operations of the commercial GPS receivers used aboard ships you will see that the software just uses spherical trigonometry to compute your position.  What you used to do by hand now is just done by the computer internal to the GPS receiver.  It's just another indication of the spherical nature of the earth.

The Zetetic way is for everyone to verify for themselves how things are in the real world.  Don't believe what I've witnessed with my own eyes as evidence of the spherical earth.  Actually do some experiments for yourselves.  Will this probably happen? No.  Most people just don't care enough to spend the time, money, and effort to get it done.  I was lucky. I was trained at a major university as an engineer and got to go to sea and traveled all around the globe for many, many years.  Lots of neat equipment was used to probe the properties of the earth.  When that equipment malfunctioned it was my job to tear into it and get things working again.  To do this the basics of operation had to be understood.  For me it was great fun.  I was doing this kind of thing as a hobby also so often I poked around more than was really necessary just to get a good feeling for how everything really, really worked.  Of course what isn't really well understood is that if you rely on GPS for an accurate position fix you are really just proving to yourself that the earth is a sphere.

Use the Zetetic method, dig into the actual operation of the GPS for yourself.  If you do sufficient work, you can see the curvature of the earth thru the eyes of the instruments you are working with because you can't see it with your own eyes unless you go into space.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 04:36:17 PM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

#### robinofloxley

• 199
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2019, 05:17:10 PM »
The earth is observably flat by default.

My little finger is observably larger than the tree I can see out of my window, but a bit of logic, education and critical thinking (and a short walk) convinces me that a simplistic "it looks this way, so that's the way it is" is in this case a false conclusion, so objectively I can't always rely simply on what I see.

If I sit in a small boat in the middle of the sea and turn around in a circle, I'll see the horizon at a constant distance away no matter where I look, so from this observation I can perhaps conclude the world is a flat disk maybe 10 miles in diameter. Problem is I move the boat 10 miles away and I'm still in the centre of a circle. This is a puzzle which needs explaining away. I can go down the route of atmospheric effects or perspective or whatever, but from a purely geometric standpoint, me being on top of a very large sphere explains things very easily indeed.

A (large) rotating globe earth provides a very straightforward explanation for all sorts of otherwise awkward to explain observations, It has to be large enough for me not to notice the curvature, sure, but so what, doesn't mean it isn't there. At the other end of the visibility scale, I'm quite convinced there are bacteria and viruses, but I've never personally seen any.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7247
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2019, 05:59:47 PM »
The earth is observably flat by default.

My little finger is observably larger than the tree I can see out of my window, but a bit of logic, education and critical thinking (and a short walk) convinces me that a simplistic "it looks this way, so that's the way it is" is in this case a false conclusion, so objectively I can't always rely simply on what I see.

An evidence-less argument for an illusion is a weak argument. You need to demonstrate it.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 06:09:37 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### inquisitive

• 1066
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2019, 06:17:44 PM »
The earth is observably flat by default.

My little finger is observably larger than the tree I can see out of my window, but a bit of logic, education and critical thinking (and a short walk) convinces me that a simplistic "it looks this way, so that's the way it is" is in this case a false conclusion, so objectively I can't always rely simply on what I see.

An evidence-less argument for an illusion is a weak argument. You need to demonstrate it.
How would you propose determining the shape and size of the earth?

#### ChrisTP

• 913
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2019, 06:23:47 PM »
The earth is observably flat by default.

My little finger is observably larger than the tree I can see out of my window, but a bit of logic, education and critical thinking (and a short walk) convinces me that a simplistic "it looks this way, so that's the way it is" is in this case a false conclusion, so objectively I can't always rely simply on what I see.

An evidence-less argument for an illusion is a weak argument. You need to demonstrate it.
Do you see everything in orthographic? It'll take two seconds to test this yourself with your own finger but sure, no evidence for it. The problem is right in your quote. You refuse to acknowledge any evidence that goes against you for absolutely no reason and then you say no one presents any evidence... And you think we're trying to avoid the topic?

Tom, do you or do you not agree that our visible view on the ground level of the earth would look the same if it were flat or ball?

Now, do you or do you not agree that our own senses can be deceived with optical illusions ?

Now, do you agree that we cannot rely on our own senses for everything, including sight? For example, most people have body dysmorphia, they see their own body completely differently to everyone else. Do you agree with this phenomenon?

« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 06:26:46 PM by ChrisTP »
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

#### shootingstar

##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2019, 07:09:03 PM »
What I want from the Zetetic side is an example from them of some evidence that applies only if the Earth is flat. They are very good at declaring evidence as meaningless but that is easy to do. Since Tom has already admitted that the Earth looking flat does not prove that it is flat, I want to know what evidence he does accept that convinces him of his convictions.

We are of course as free to discredit his evidence as he is to discredit ours.

#### stack

• 1452
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2019, 10:41:59 PM »
The earth is observably flat by default. The possibility of it being a big ball, or whatever you imagine it to be, needs to be proven. It simply doesn't matter if you scream "you can't see it because it's an illusion!!1"

I wasn't aware that math is an 'illusion'.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### robinofloxley

• 199
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2019, 11:03:08 PM »
The earth is observably flat by default.

My little finger is observably larger than the tree I can see out of my window, but a bit of logic, education and critical thinking (and a short walk) convinces me that a simplistic "it looks this way, so that's the way it is" is in this case a false conclusion, so objectively I can't always rely simply on what I see.

An evidence-less argument for an illusion is a weak argument. You need to demonstrate it.

My objection is the use of the phrase "by default", implying that without any further evidence, yours is the stronger claim. By the same token I can surely claim my finger is "observably larger than a tree by default". "It looks flat" means nothing to me since I believe this to be indistinguishable from "it looks like a very large globe viewed from on or near the surface".

I quite agree that an argument without evidence is weak, but I don't see that "flat by default" can be taken any more seriously.

For me, a photo from space is compelling (albeit not conclusive) evidence. You will of course dismiss such images as fake, but that inevitably leads us down a rabbit hole of conspiracy that ends up pulling in tens of thousands of people from countries all over the world - something I personally find incredible.

The accepted position in reality is that the earth is a globe. You want to overturn that, fine, in which case, I contend that the burden is on you to convince through evidence. It's the way science works, anyone who challenges the accepted wisdom of the day must necessarily do all the work and provide the necessary evidence to change peoples minds. As an outsider with radical ideas, Einstein would not have got very far by simply asserting Newton was wrong and demanding the establishment provide evidence to the contrary.

#### J-Man

• 689
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2019, 12:33:07 AM »
No one is seeing any curvature because it doesn't exist. Lets present the History Channel facts when building the Suez Canal. 120 miles long connecting to different seas with no difference in elevation at opposing ends. In a fake curved earth there should be a 9,600 ft. drop at one sea entrance. That's OVER 1.8 miles of curve. Not there folks, wasn't built for curvature and as History Channel explains "The surveyors’ faulty calculations were enough to scare Napoleon away from the project, and plans for a canal stalled until 1847, when a team of researchers finally confirmed that there was no serious difference in altitude between the Mediterranean and Red Seas."

So please stop the madness, you've been programmed.

https://www.history.com/news/9-fascinating-facts-about-the-suez-canal
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

#### shootingstar

##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2019, 12:34:46 AM »
Quote
The earth is observably flat by default. The possibility of it being a big ball, or whatever you imagine it to be, needs to be proven

Those of the zetitic way of thinking would probably say that only what they believe in can be proven. Their way of dealing with evidence which presents a different way of thinking is to simply overlook it, ignore it or say whatever they deem appropriate in denial. The classic analogy is politicians who are renowned for their abilities to side step a direct question or answer it in a way which makes it sound like they are giving an answer but when you examine the language used you realise they actually haven't.

#### stack

• 1452
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2019, 01:15:14 AM »
No one is seeing any curvature because it doesn't exist. Lets present the History Channel facts when building the Suez Canal. 120 miles long connecting to different seas with no difference in elevation at opposing ends. In a fake curved earth there should be a 9,600 ft. drop at one sea entrance. That's OVER 1.8 miles of curve. Not there folks, wasn't built for curvature and as History Channel explains "The surveyors’ faulty calculations were enough to scare Napoleon away from the project, and plans for a canal stalled until 1847, when a team of researchers finally confirmed that there was no serious difference in altitude between the Mediterranean and Red Seas."

So please stop the madness, you've been programmed.

https://www.history.com/news/9-fascinating-facts-about-the-suez-canal

Seemingly, you don't know enough about globe earth theory to properly attempt to refute it. You might want to find some other 'evidence' rather than two points 120 miles apart are at the same elevation with a trench inbetween.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### robinofloxley

• 199
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2019, 08:22:37 AM »
No one is seeing any curvature because it doesn't exist. Lets present the History Channel facts when building the Suez Canal. 120 miles long connecting to different seas with no difference in elevation at opposing ends. In a fake curved earth there should be a 9,600 ft. drop at one sea entrance. That's OVER 1.8 miles of curve. Not there folks, wasn't built for curvature and as History Channel explains "The surveyors’ faulty calculations were enough to scare Napoleon away from the project, and plans for a canal stalled until 1847, when a team of researchers finally confirmed that there was no serious difference in altitude between the Mediterranean and Red Seas."

So please stop the madness, you've been programmed.

https://www.history.com/news/9-fascinating-facts-about-the-suez-canal

OK, try this experiment at home. Take a basketball and a sugar cube and a ruler. Place the sugar cube on top of the basketball. Measure the elevation (height) of the sugar cube - about 1cm correct? Now place the sugar cube on the side of the basketball. Measure its elevation - about 1cm right? Or is your definition of elevation somehow different or perhaps your sugar cube mysteriously grows when you move it.

#### J-Man

• 689
##### Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2019, 03:44:46 PM »
No one is seeing any curvature because it doesn't exist. Lets present the History Channel facts when building the Suez Canal. 120 miles long connecting to different seas with no difference in elevation at opposing ends. In a fake curved earth there should be a 9,600 ft. drop at one sea entrance. That's OVER 1.8 miles of curve. Not there folks, wasn't built for curvature and as History Channel explains "The surveyors’ faulty calculations were enough to scare Napoleon away from the project, and plans for a canal stalled until 1847, when a team of researchers finally confirmed that there was no serious difference in altitude between the Mediterranean and Red Seas."

So please stop the madness, you've been programmed.

https://www.history.com/news/9-fascinating-facts-about-the-suez-canal

OK, try this experiment at home. Take a basketball and a sugar cube and a ruler. Place the sugar cube on top of the basketball. Measure the elevation (height) of the sugar cube - about 1cm correct? Now place the sugar cube on the side of the basketball. Measure its elevation - about 1cm right? Or is your definition of elevation somehow different or perhaps your sugar cube mysteriously grows when you move it.

As a licensed builder you might want to take that stupid idea once step further. Since we are talking about building a 120 mile long canal based on a datum line.

NOW take a string of dental floss and stretch it tightly from the two sugary cubes. Bummer fricking basketball in the way to get a straight plum line. Learn to read the article, learn a trade, something as simple as masonry where string lines are mandatory with levels.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.