Offline JAL

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Flat Earth at the Beach
« on: June 02, 2020, 01:26:41 PM »
Yesterday I spent a few hours at the beach in Whitstable, and found myself thinking about some of the things I've read on this forum. 

The Ship
I took a pair of binoculars and looked at a large ship off shore from the deck of the house I was staying in. It had white letters on the side saying COSCO SHIPPING. It occurred to me that that I could attempt to observe the curvature of the earth myself. I didn’t know how far out the ship was, but it seemed worth a shot. I figured if the earth is round, and the ship is far enough, my view of the letters would be obscured from the bottom up. So I walked down to the water's edge, squatted down, and looked out at the ship. The ship was there but the letters were gone. A clear blue line of water, perfectly aligned with the horizon, was cutting off my view of the bottom of the ship's hull. I walked back up the beach, and looked at it again, while standing: the letters were back. Back and forth, several times, crystal clear. Each time I observed from higher up the beach, I could see the ship and read the letters.  Seconds later, from the waters edge, I could see the ship but not the letters.

The Sun
Whitstable is famous for its sunsets. At sunset, I was sat on the deck with a glass of wine watching the sun go down. It didn't appear to shrink, as it might if it was simply moving further away from me, above a flat earth. And then it was progressively obscurred by the earth as it set. It didn't seem to fade away or slowly dissapear, it set downwards into the earth and was blocked by the earth.

The Moon
Nearly full, and beautiful. Of course it looked much like it always does. The same face of the moon was visible to me last night as when I was a child. I've seen it from 5 continents, always the same face.

Can I reconcile these observations with a flat earth? Yes, but not easily. Based on the Wiki accompanying this forum,  I would need to believe:
   ▪ the sinking ship efffect is caused by refraction;
   ▪ the sunset is a combination of perspective, magnification, and electromagnetic acceleration - a mechanism to the universe that pulls, pushes, or deflects light upwards;
   ▪ the nearside of the moon is always visible because of electromagnetic acceleration as well.

Now, I'm not a scientist, so although they seem fishy I can't dismiss any of those claims out of hand. However, in each case, it seems I am being asked to disregard what my eyes are telling me and instead to accept an explanation that is counterintuitive and convoluted based on some science claims on the internet.

Is that really what flat earthers want me to do? I thought the whole point was to trust your senses and and do your own experiments? Based on my eyes and my own observations at the beach, shouldn't I believe the earth is round? What do I do now?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7034
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2020, 08:03:33 PM »
I see that you have listed some selective observations and 'occam's razor' arguments.

- If you go to a lake or other landlocked body of water on a calm day, rather than an open ocean, you will often see further than should be possible, invalidating the 'sinking ship' proof.

- Watching the Sun move leads us to the direct conclusion that the Sun moves. It does not lead us to the direct conclusion that the Earth is moving. Likewise, watching the light of the Sun set into the Earth leads us to the conclusion that its light has set into the Earth, rather than the Earth moving any way in particular.

- The observation of the Moon's light facing us from multiple points around it leads us to the direct conclusion that its light bends to face us at those scales. It does not lead to the direct conclusion of a distant tidally locked Moon. To get the tidally locked moon we must start assuming things about the straight geometry of light, theories about Moon distance and tidal locking, etc, whereas an observation of light more directly leads us to a conclusion about that light.

It is curious how anyone can get a whirling water globe from any of the above. None of it leads to the direct conclusion of Newtonian, Copernican, or Aristotelian astronomy. That sounds more like special pleading to me.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2020, 10:36:10 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

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2042
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2020, 09:24:45 PM »
If you go to a lake or other landlocked body of water on a calm day, rather than an open ocean, you will often see further than should be possible, invalidating the 'sinking ship' proof.

Do you mean you'll see the land on the other side of that landlocked body of water? Or something else?

What has the sinking ship (in single quotes) got to do with this?   
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2020, 10:25:00 PM »
Toms answers to the points raised are a classic example how flat Earth believers interpret common and everyday observations to suit a belief rather than to provide a logical explanation of what is actually happening. 

Quote
Watching the Sun move leads us to the direct conclusion that the Sun moves.

Back in ancient times when humans first started observing the heavens and became curious about the motions of the Sun and Moon across they saw you could understand the fact that they believed it was the Sun and Moon moving over a stationary Earth because they didn't know anything else. All they had to go on was what they saw. Nowadays we know a bit more about what is actually happening and that is the Earth rotating that causes the motion of the Sun.  An identical situation occurs when you sit on a roundabout in a kids playground. Our brains 'know' that the apparent spinning of the surroundings is caused by the roundabout spinning and we take that for granted.

If we now make the Earth a much bigger roundabout with us minuscule human beings riding on it, the Sun, Moon and stars will now appear to rotate around it.  Since we cannot feel the Earth rotating directly those ancient humans arbitrarily accepted that the Earth was stationary while the heavens rotated around it.  We don't feel the Earth rotating because the rotation velocity is constant.  What we do know now (because measurements have been taken), is that we are slightly heavier at the poles that we are at the equator.  By an amount which is entirely consistent with a rotating Earth. Of course flat Earth believers will have their own explanations for that to suit their beliefs.



Quote
The observation of the Moon's light facing us from multiple points around it leads us to the direct conclusion that its light bends to face us at those scales

No it doesn't. It leads us to the conclusion that the Moon orbits the Earth in the same time that it rotates on its axis. That means the same part of the Moons surface is constantly facing towards Earth. We call it a synchronised or captured orbit. You can go with your 'bendy' light idea if you wish but I think the conventional view is much simpler, verifiable and entirely consistent with real observations. You can verify it yourself.  Put a chair in the middle of a room. Now move around the chair so you are always facing it.  You will rotate through 360 degrees in the same time it takes you to walk around the chair.

Flat Earth believers seem to attach much more significance to the ancient way of thinking (and seeing) compared to our modern understanding.  Perhaps that is because ancient ways of thinking tend to be more compatible with their flat Earth beliefs.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2020, 10:49:04 PM by IronHorse »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7034
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2020, 01:02:26 AM »
You are arguing based on your personal 'logic' and what is 'possible' and what you personally perceive as 'simpler'.

I am arguing on what is directly concluded. The question was why the light of the Moon appears to face us regardless of our position around it. If we observe that the light of the Moon follows to face us when we look at it from different positions around it, the direct conclusion is that the light is following us to face us. A simple, direct conclusion. We are observing light and making a conclusion about what light does.

The alternative RE interpretation is to hypothesize about tidal locking and distant moons and straight line light geometries as underlying assumptions and axioms. It is possible, but does not follow as a direct conclusion from the observation, as it requires a number of further assumptions to be true to construct this explanation.

In regards to the visual movement of the Sun and Earth movement, you are appealing to 'what the ancient people believed' and appeals to absurdity, rather than direct conclusions or evidence for your beliefs. A rather unsatisfactory way of convincing anyone, and shows us that you must argue in this way because the cause and effect and direct conclusions are not in your favor.
"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

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 876
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2020, 01:32:55 AM »
You are arguing based on your personal 'logic' and what is 'possible' and what you personally perceive as 'simpler'.

I am arguing on what is directly concluded. The question was why the light of the Moon appears to face us regardless of our position around it. If we observe that the light of the Moon follows to face us when we look at it from different positions around it, the direct conclusion is that the light is following us to face us. A simple, direct conclusion. We are observing light and making a conclusion about what light does.

The alternative RE interpretation is to hypothesize about tidal locking and distant moons and straight line light geometries as underlying assumptions and axioms. It is possible, but does not follow as a direct conclusion from the observation, as it requires a number of further assumptions to be true to construct this explanation.

In regards to the visual movement of the sun and Earth movement, you are appealing to 'what the ancient people believed' and appeals to absurdity, rather than direct conclusions or evidence for your beliefs. A rather unsatisfactory way of convincing anyone, and shows us that you must argue in this way because the cause and effect and direct conclusions are not in your favor.
The "alternative" you're referring to is also just observation, but with other observations in mind. The flaw you have with just concluding from singular observations in isolation from other observations is that what you see may not directly be explainable. Like using the "look out the window" kind of argument as a proof the world is flat, you can't conclude the shape of the earth from that, you need more information. You can't conclude the shape of the earth just from seeing quite far on a clear day over a large body of water either, not as an isolated observation. What you can do is put all of the observations together to make sense of each one. That's what science is and it works well. The "alternative" is your way of doing things, which evidently from the fe wiki is a fractured mess of isolated information of which doesn't work together. It's kind of like taking random pieces of different jigsaw puzzles and trying to form a complete picture. This, sadly for you, is where you'd need to rely on other peoples observations because you as an individual cannot do it alone.

Lets take OP's sun example, as the sun sets it doesn't move further away or vanish into the distance. If you were completely isolated in this observation you might come to the conclusion the sun or rotating around you, but then people from all locations of the world can feed each other information from which you may find that if the earth were a flat circle, it was rotating around the equator, but now you have the problem that this isn't what all the observations suggest, so in order to keep the world flat you have to have light from the sun bending extremely upward to the point where it's managing a 90 degree arch in either direction. That right there is an assumption based on the idea the earth is flat. and it still doesn't really work, because half the world is covered in sunlight which then you'd have to make an assumption that the light isn't distributing in all directions from the sun equally across the world. That's already two assumptions made in order for the earth to be flat just from observing the sun with other people. And now without those assumptions you might come to a conclusion that the earth is a sphere. Now you watch boats dropping below the horizon and that observation, along with your joint effort observations of the sun, is further evidence to the shape being spherical. Then some people shoot a rocket into the sky and stick people on the ISS and they can see the earth looking rather spherical which is yet another observation that the earth is a sphere. All observations add up to the shape of the earth being spherical. All isolated observations don't add up to anything because they're isolated. You can conclude so many things from that kind of observation. For example, someone born and raised on an island with no technology can from an isolated observation conclude that the universe is an infinite expanse of never ending water with your small island in the middle and I'm sure somewhere out there this has happened, but it's the wrong conclusion.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 01:36:40 AM by ChrisTP »
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7034
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2020, 02:36:19 AM »
The OP asked us to make direct conclusions about the world through observations, and your commentary is along the lines of "it might be possible! You don't know! You can't just say the Earth looks flat! Maybe an illusion!" That is not what was asked. You are supposed to make observations which directly shows that you are correct, not argue that contrary observations might not be correct.

The observation that the Sun moves and not the Earth, that the sinking ship effect is inconsistent, that the Earth is observably flat, all supports the Flat Earth model. I can go outside and readily see these things as in favor of FE. There is very little in the way of phenomena which is compelling for an RE, and certainly nothing direct.

From the Is the Newtonian Astronomy True:

Quote
Next, there is the stereotyped trick of calling the real size, motions, and distance of sun, moon, and stars, apparent; whilst magnitudes, motions, distances, only supposed, are called real. Herschel, by persuading us that our eyes are nothing else but a cheat, would have us believe that what we see moving, stands still, and what stands still rushes faster by far than any express railway engine ; but no astromoner has yet even attempted to prove the globe‘s exact whirl of 1,000 miles an hour, or the fling over the sun of 19 miles per second, any more than that the globe so knowingly preserves the parallelism of its axis at an angle of 23 1/2 degrees. And since a Newtonian is accustomed to hang head down from the earth twelve hours in every 24 hours, may he not, by way of experiment, hang himself by the heels from the ceiling of his bedroom? Isn’t a horse running 50 feet per second reckoned smart, as well as a whale swimming a mile a minute? But a man able to fly 19 miles per second when hooked on by gravity to a big globe, ought surely to be able to bear being tied to a cannon ball and shot from the mouth of an Armstrong gun. Our opponents are challenged to name anything outraging to common sense and reason more than the phantom globe of ancient heathendom.

That's exactly right. There is no direct evidence for such theories. Many things must be taken on faith. RE certainly does not have anything as empirical as "The Sun moves because we see it moving." Instead, its fundamental tenets must be inferred and supposed and assumed, with only indirect evidence given, if any.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 05:06:35 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

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2020, 05:53:04 AM »
(...)
- Watching the Sun move leads us to the direct conclusion that the Sun moves. It does not lead us to the direct conclusion that the Earth is moving. (...)
(...) The observation that the Sun moves and not the Earth, (...)
(...) Many things must be taken on faith. RE certainly does not have anything as empirical as "The Sun moves because we see it moving." (...)

You don't have to be Einstein to understand the principle of relativity of mechanical processes. There's no absolute motion or absolute rest, only relative ones. Suppose observer A stands on an island and observer B stands on a boat. From observer A's perspective, the island stands still and the boat and observer B move; from observer B's perspective, the boat is at rest and the island and obsever A move. The conclusion that the Sun moves is just as valid as the conclusion that the Earth moves, in both the GET and the FET.

(...) Likewise, watching the light of the Sun set into the Earth leads us to the conclusion that its light has set into the Earth,(...)

Yes, and there are different possible explanations for the observed phenomenon, which are more or less consistent with other observations.

By the way, since the Sun and the Moon perform a circular motion, shouldn't a cetripetal/centrifugal force affect them?

(...) You are supposed to make observations which directly shows that you are correct, not argue that contrary observations might not be correct.

(...)

That's exactly right. There is no direct evidence for such theories. (...)

Do you realize that to prove the FET or the GET directly requires observing the Earth and its macroscopic (non-)curvature directly? If you wanted to prove by direct observation that the Earth as a macroscopic object is flat/round you would have to be able to directly observe the majority of its surface at once. (You can do it and it has been done but as far as I know all such evidence has been dismissed as fake by the FES.)
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 05:55:30 AM by Stagiri »
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2020, 07:23:16 AM »
I cannot directly see individual atoms. So I don't have any direct observational evidence that tells me atoms exist. Using Toms logic then, I as an individual should not believe that atoms exist.  But experiments that can be carried out clearly support the hypothesis that atoms exist. So do I acknowledge the results of these experiments or do I simply say no I don't accept that atoms exist until I can personally get to see them?

Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2020, 08:47:41 AM »

- If you go to a lake or other landlocked body of water on a calm day, rather than an open ocean, you will often see further than should be possible, invalidating the 'sinking ship' proof.


Is there some fundamental difference between the water in a lake and in the sea then? What is it?


- Watching the Sun move leads us to the direct conclusion that the Sun moves. It does not lead us to the direct conclusion that the Earth is moving. Likewise, watching the light of the Sun set into the Earth leads us to the conclusion that its light has set into the Earth, rather than the Earth moving any way in particular.


When I wake up from a snooze on an aircraft at cruising altitude in smooth air, I have no sensation of moving whatsoever. I look out the window and see what? The earth is moving slowly beneath me? Should that be my direct conclusion? Is that what I'm supposed to think? Because that inevitably leads to the conclusion that the earth is indeed moving.

In ancient times, the fastest anyone could travel short of jumping off a cliff was by horse. It would be easy to conclude, from riding a galloping horse, that speed can be felt and you'd know if you were moving, that's just common sense unless you know better. Put an ancient Greek on an A380 with the blinds down and try convincing them that they were travelling at 20x the speed of speed of a galloping horse, they wouldn't believe you for a second.

Growing up in the modern world gives you access to a range of different experiences which allows you to rationalise what you see in ways which would confuse someone from the distant past.

Personally, from experience, I'd look at the sun "moving" across the sky or looking down at the ground from an aeroplane and say, at least one of us is moving, no way of knowing which one (or neither) is stationary, however from what I've been taught and from other evidence I find credible, I'm inclined to believe that the earth rotates.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 08:50:28 AM by robinofloxley »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2042
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2020, 09:29:00 AM »
The observation that ...  the sinking ship effect is inconsistent  ... supports the Flat Earth model.

.. but you don't even need the observation of the ship at or beyond the horizon to show that it's Not Flat. Simple observation of ships nearer to the observer, with application of simple geometry to the observations, shows the lack of flatness on the ocean.

I've summarised this in a YouTube video, but whilst it seems acceptable for me to post the same diagrams and text that I used IN the video, if I post a link to my own video, I get post removed or banned for "spamming the forums" ...

Do you want to look at this video, Tom? 
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2020, 11:44:16 AM »
- If you go to a lake or other landlocked body of water on a calm day, rather than an open ocean, you will often see further than should be possible, invalidating the 'sinking ship' proof.

Yes. Because refraction is a thing. But it doesn't invalidate that proof. FE often straw mans RE with this sort of argument:
"Hey, but you said that things sink over the curve of the earth, but look! This observation doesn't match with a calculator even if I account for standard refraction". OK. So maybe the conditions were different from standard refraction that day then, it is not a controversial idea that refraction can vary - you've provided timelapse videos demonstrating that exact thing.
But look at something like the Turning Torso video and you quite clearly see that
1) Parts of the building are obscured by the curve of the earth and
2) The amount of the building which is obscured increases with distance.

You can argue whether 100ft is hidden when it "should" have been 130ft, or whatever - but it cannot be denied that parts of the building are hidden. What are they hidden by on a FE? I have never seen a FE Turning Torso video which shows the entire building at all the distances. Why not?

Quote
- Watching the Sun move leads us to the direct conclusion that the Sun moves. It does not lead us to the direct conclusion that the Earth is moving.

Right. If I grew up on a remote island with no access to technology or contact with other civilisation then without knowing anything else I'd probably conclude that the sun is moving. But if the earth is rotating then you understand that we'd see the exact same thing as if the sun was going around us? So which is it? That observation alone is not enough to distinguish between those two possibilities.
Ancient civilisations who believed in a FE surely thought that the sun goes up around the sky during the day and then sinks under the earth at night. That's what it looks like and without being aware of distant lands which are still in sunlight that's what the observations would lead you to believe - day is day everywhere and night is night everywhere.

The RE model explains why we observe consistent angular speed and size throughout the day, it explains the path of the sun across the sky in different locations - including polar regions with the 24 hour sun in the extreme north in their summer and the extreme south in theirs.
FE has to invent concepts like EA and some magnification effect to explain some of these things - this is surely at odds with your philosophy of making as few assumptions as possible and trusting your eyes. And with the monopole model the southern 24 sun has no explanation so it is simply denied. Or you invoke the bi-polar model but I've no idea how the sun is supposed to move in that model to match observations.
You also have to have some unexplained mechanism for how the sun actually keeps shining, given how small it is - what is powering it? And there has to be some unexplained mechanism to keep it going in a circle - which will require a force - and some mechanism which causes the diameter of the sun's orbit to keep changing throughout the year to explain seasons. Again, something the RE model explains quite simply with the axis of rotation being tilted.

I wont go into your assertion about the moon in details suffice to say we have observed tidal locking with moons orbiting other planets.
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.

Offline JAL

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2020, 11:55:11 AM »
Hi Tom,

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my post. I’m not sure I understand everything you’ve said but maybe we can talk some more and I can learn.

The Ship
The sea at Whitstable is pretty calm- its on the Thames estuary protected by land on most sides. Hence it is popular for sailing and windsurfing but not for actual surfing - there are no waves big enough. The visibility has been particularly good these past few weeks, across the water to Essex on the other side, and out to the East over the estuary.

Now you say I should go and try it on a calm lake instead. Suppose I agree to do that. How should I know what counts as further than should be possible? That isn't something I can tell with my eyes. I suppose you want me to do some math? Could you lay it out for me?

At the beach I didn't have to do any math. I didn't even have to know the distance to the boat. I just saw the letters on the boat disappear behind the water and then re-appear when I looked from higher up. I had good binoculars and the view was sharp and clear - no funny business. It looked like the boat had gone up over a hill. Only, a hill made of water. Now you want me to trust some math over my own eyes on that?

The Sun
I think I agree with you here - watching the sun appear to move across the sky could lead to the direct conclusion that the sun is moving. That's why I could watch the sun travel across the sky at the beach and easily picture it travelling above the flat surface of the ground. That makes sense as a direct conclusion, just like you say.

But then it went down behind the ground, and you haven't said anything about that part. So if I'm trusting my eyes and drawing direct conclusions, then the sun goes around the earth, doesn’t it? But that isn't what the picture in the Wiki looks like? Why should I trust my eyes that it moves, but not trust my eyes as to where it goes?

The Moon
I’ve said that everywhere I go, I see the same face of the moon. Now you want me to draw the most direct conclusions I can from this. Well, okay, I'll try to do that.

If I saw an 8-ball, like from a pool table, in the sky from my garden this morning, and it looked like the the 8 was facing me, my direct conclusion would be that the ball is facing me. If tomorrow I'm on the other side of town, and I see the same ball, and the 8 is facing me again, then maybe it turned to face me.

If, though, all my friends also saw the 8 ball in the sky at the same time, and my mom and dad at their house across town saw it too, and all of them say they saw the 8 facing them too, what would I think? Well, it must've been facing all of us at the same time, right? That means it must have been far away.

That's my direct observation with my own eyes, and only my friends and parents to help. I don't see how bending light comes into it. And I don't seem to need any bending light to make sense of it.

Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2020, 12:07:58 PM »
Quote
You are supposed to make observations which directly shows that you are correct

OK then Tom. Can you describe to me a single observation that you have made which directly shows you that the Earth is flat? You must be able to because you have to base your belief on something. So in your case, what observation have you made which directly shows you that the Earth is flat and is so compelling that it leaves no room for any alternative possibility? Is a belief based on real observations or is it based on nothing more than blind faith?

Science does not set out to prove that we are correct about anything. Rather it sets out to provide the most likely explanation for a given observation or experiment.  What the zetetic approach seems to do is rest upon directly observed evidence along about that is true and what isn't. You might say well unless I can see it or feel it directly then it doesn't exist.

You are a flat Earth believer but that doesn't mean you know the Earth is flat. I'm sure that you can give me an example of an observation which to you proves in your own mind that the Earth is flat. Otherwise why would you hold that belief?  It then comes down to personal interpretation.  You would say that because we watch the Sun and Moon traverse the sky while we don't feel the Earth moving that must prove that the Earth is stationary because that's what our senses tell us.  That is what zeteticism is all about isn't it.. relying on nothing more than our senses.  But does that prove the Earth is stationary? No it doesn't.  We cannot always rely entirely on what our senses tell us is true otherwise there would be no such thing as an optical illusion would there.

All this has of course been discussed before countless times. We are told that we must make our own minds up from our own experiments, our own observations and so on.  I would agree with that and my own interpretation is that the mainstream view on the solar system is the correct one. That is based on my own observations of the sky over time.

Science doesn't always get it right first time so models, theories and hypothesis are made and changed as and when necessary. But everything that FE theory states seems to be based on a fundamental belief that the Earth is flat. Yet so much of the FE Wiki is obviously wrong.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2020, 02:03:55 PM by IronHorse »

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 876
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2020, 03:58:32 PM »
Quote
your commentary is along the lines of "it might be possible! You don't know! You can't just say the Earth looks flat! Maybe an illusion!
No tom, my point was that you can't conclude the shape of the earth from singular, isolated observations. It's crazy that you read that and thought that equated to illusions... Or you were trying to go for the character assassination route yet again.. . You really do seem to enjoy doing that. I'll say it again if you like. You can't come to the conclusion of the earth's shape from isolated observations. Nowhere did I say what you see is illusions. You really do need to stop putting words in my mouth. This is what, the 3rd time in a row now that I've pointed this out? Stop doing it.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2020, 06:10:16 PM »
Quote
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my post. I’m not sure I understand everything you’ve said but maybe we can talk some more and I can learn.

From reading your original post you are not doing too badly as it is.  Everything you mentioned and point out is pretty sound in my view.  You are making observations that you can make from near to your home and using your own judgements about those observations to reach a common sense conclusion without any preconceived assumptions or beliefs.

If you are after a good (unbiased) teacher then Tom wouldn't be my first choice.