[mikmas]

First - do you believe that (for example) Spain exists? Why? You didn't see it. Maybe photos of Rome is just a fake?

Now for real. Distance from A and B (for example 400km). For car it will be... 400km. But if you believe in GPS - measure this distance in plane. It will be much longer. Why? If earth is flat then distance should be nearly equal. Why it doesn't? Because plane high - which is just radius of CIRCLE - is longer. Simple proof of curvation of earth

If noone land on the moon why there are mirrors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

If you are really believe it - proove it by REAL evidences (f.e. build jet drone, which can reach stratosphere and make photos of _curvation flat earth)

[Pete Svarrior]

Spain

Rome

I take it geography is not one of your strong subjects.

Now for real. Distance from A and B (for example 400km). For car it will be... 400km. But if you believe in GPS - measure this distance in plane. It will be much longer. Why? If earth is flat then distance should be nearly equal. Why it doesn't? Because plane high - which is just radius of CIRCLE - is longer. Simple proof of curvation of earth

An interesting hypothesis. Let's put it to a simple test.

For the sake of the discussion, let's assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere with the circumference of and the radius of . This should allow for a satisfactory degree of precision, but you're welcome to provide more accurate calculations if you object to this.

For simplicity, let's take a ground-level great-circle distance of 400.75km - 1% of the circumference. Since we're dealing with a perfect sphere, the angle created by point A, the centre of the sphere, and point B will thus be or .

Most commercial planes cannot fly higher than 12km (See: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-technology/rockets.html). So, let's try to figure out the great-circle distance between the points above A and above B.

Since we're now constantly above the surface of the sphere, the radius of the relevant circle will be , giving us a circumference of . The length of an arc of this circle delimited by an angle of will therefore be - a difference of approximately 1% from the original number.

This also means that if we were to circumnavigate the entire sphere, the difference in distance travelled on the ground and 12km up in the air would only be 75km - hardly a big deal. Now, bear in mind that we've introduced a lot of simplifications - the round Earth model does not postulate that the Earth is a perfect sphere, nor is it possible to traverse long distances on the ground along a great circle. Aeroplanes do not magically pop up 12km above the ground but rather gain their height over time, and they also do not travel in a great circle.

Overall, this is very simple geometry. The fact that you posted your assertion here without even taking the 10 minutes it takes to verify your claim is a testament to how blindly people can believe what they were indoctrinated into.

[jroa]

If the moon reflectors are required to shine a laser at the moon and detect photons back here on Earth, then, why is it that they were shining lasers at the moon and claiming to calculate the distance almost a decade before the first supposed moon landing?  Something is not adding up here. 

[Rama Set]

If the moon reflectors are required to shine a laser at the moon and detect photons back here on Earth, then, why is it that they were shining lasers at the moon and claiming to calculate the distance almost a decade before the first supposed moon landing?  Something is not adding up here. 

Who said they are required?  They make reflection more effective, but they are by no means required.

[Tau]

If noone land on the moon why there are mirrors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

If you are really believe it - proove it by REAL evidences (f.e. build jet drone, which can reach stratosphere and make photos of _curvation flat earth)

A wikipedia page does not equal proof, unfortunately. Neither do pictures, as they cannot reach the precision necessary to differentiate between such slightly differing theories (due to refraction, lens issues, compression, etc).

I'm inclined to assume that Spain exists, because of Occam's razor. However, if you were to provide evidence that it didn't I would certainly be willing to change my views. You have to understand that FET isn't about stubbornly refusing to believe things. It's just a more realistic interpretation of a wider variety of evidence. RET was based on assumptions- FET is based on evidence and is therefore superior.

[Rama Set]

I noticed you said RET was based on assumptions. Why the past tense?

[Tau]

I noticed you said RET was based on assumptions. Why the past tense?

RET is a fairly static, well-established theory already. There isn't much research going into it and it doesn't change very much over time. FET is still very fluid and is still being researched. If they were languages RET would be Latin and FET would be English. It seemed appropriate to refer to the development of RET in the past tense, and FET is the present.

[Gulliver]

I noticed you said RET was based on assumptions. Why the past tense?

RET is a fairly static, well-established theory already. There isn't much research going into it and it doesn't change very much over time. FET is still very fluid and is still being researched. If they were languages RET would be Latin and FET would be English. It seemed appropriate to refer to the development of RET in the past tense, and FET is the present.

Are you saying that the current research into gravity is not researching RET, including  https://www.facebook.com/MangalyaanMission's astounding use of the earth's?

[Tau]

I noticed you said RET was based on assumptions. Why the past tense?

RET is a fairly static, well-established theory already. There isn't much research going into it and it doesn't change very much over time. FET is still very fluid and is still being researched. If they were languages RET would be Latin and FET would be English. It seemed appropriate to refer to the development of RET in the past tense, and FET is the present.

Are you saying that the current research into gravity is not researching RET, including  https://www.facebook.com/MangalyaanMission's astounding use of the earth's?

I mean, I suppose it is. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into it. It was a minor shift in wording meant to solidify the idea that FET is an actual thing that actual people are actively working on. I wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition.

[Rama Set]

I noticed you said RET was based on assumptions. Why the past tense?

RET is a fairly static, well-established theory already. There isn't much research going into it and it doesn't change very much over time. FET is still very fluid and is still being researched. If they were languages RET would be Latin and FET would be English. It seemed appropriate to refer to the development of RET in the past tense, and FET is the present.

Are you saying that the current research into gravity is not researching RET, including  https://www.facebook.com/MangalyaanMission's astounding use of the earth's?

I mean, I suppose it is. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into it. It was a minor shift in wording meant to solidify the idea that FET is an actual thing that actual people are actively working on. I wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition.

You always get so defensive when there is no need. Anyway, there is an entire field of study devoted to the shape of the Earth, so I think it is safe to refer to both theories in the present tense.

[Tau]

I noticed you said RET was based on assumptions. Why the past tense?

RET is a fairly static, well-established theory already. There isn't much research going into it and it doesn't change very much over time. FET is still very fluid and is still being researched. If they were languages RET would be Latin and FET would be English. It seemed appropriate to refer to the development of RET in the past tense, and FET is the present.

Are you saying that the current research into gravity is not researching RET, including  https://www.facebook.com/MangalyaanMission's astounding use of the earth's?

I mean, I suppose it is. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into it. It was a minor shift in wording meant to solidify the idea that FET is an actual thing that actual people are actively working on. I wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition.

You always get so defensive when there is no need. Anyway, there is an entire field of study devoted to the shape of the Earth, so I think it is safe to refer to both theories in the present tense.

Tone doesn't come across well over the internet. I was just trying to make a reference to this:

Anyway, fair enough

[Rama Set]

Hehe. Fair enough.