I've been seen a lot of hilarious refute against round earth but I never saw evidence about flat Earth.

Can someone prove that??

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9939
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
but I never saw evidence about flat Earth.
Have you tried looking? Anyway, some starting points for you:

Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

but I never saw evidence about flat Earth.
Have you tried looking? Anyway, some starting points for you:


Thanks for showing me evidence which writtrn in like 1850.

And Last, If earth is flat, there are no reasom to hide that. Why government hide that if earth is flar?
And probavly NASA use about 99.8% of their budget for hidng the facts, If there are some unlogical, unaccurate evidence that supports flat earth, however there are billions of evidence that supports round earth.

Why you guys always refute the theory instead of showing flat earth evidence?
--- because it is unnecessary. 
There is no onus upon "you guys" to do anything. 

This is not the Disney Channel Society forum. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
The empirical evidence is clear.  You guys come in and try to refute our evidence with your bombastic and self-aggrandizing shouts of "science!" and make the claim that the empirical evidence is provably false (although your arguments always seem to somehow fall short of what can be considered proof).  That is essentially why there appears to be an emphasis on refutation of round Earth here, because you guys force it.  As the venerable SexWarrior has already pointed out, the evidence is there if you are willing to look for it.  But it all starts with simply looking out your window.

I would also like to point out that many of your arguments originate with a guy who has been dead for close to 300 years.  But you would never see a FEer claim his reasoning was false because it's so old.  How silly.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 08:21:55 PM by Roundy »
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Thanks for showing me evidence which writtrn in like 1850.
I didn't realize the truth had an expiration date.

It doesn't, but the fact that his experiments haven't been repeated and confirmed in 150 years should be a warning sign.


I would also like to point out that many of your arguments originate with a guy who has been dead for close to 300 years.  But you would never see a FEer claim his reasoning was false because it's so old.  How silly.

I have no idea which "guy" you are referring to, but I suspect whoever it is has had his theories confirmed by numerous follow up experiments since then. If no one has followed up or confirmed Mr. guy's arguments in 300 years, then you would have every right to be suspicious.

But it all starts with simply looking out your window.

Unfortunately, that's also where it ends...

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Thanks for showing me evidence which writtrn in like 1850.
I didn't realize the truth had an expiration date.

It doesn't, but the fact that his experiments haven't been repeated and confirmed in 150 years should be a warning sign.


But they have.  Many times.  Do REers think that just saying things makes them true?  It would explain some things.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Thanks for showing me evidence which writtrn in like 1850.
I didn't realize the truth had an expiration date.

It doesn't, but the fact that his experiments haven't been repeated and confirmed in 150 years should be a warning sign.


But they have.  Many times.  Do REers think that just saying things makes them true?  It would explain some things.

There are quite a few crappy youtube videos of people trying to prove the earth is flat. I've never seen one that actually succeeded. Feel free to post one that you think does. Actually, non-youtube format would be preferred. Those long videos can be tedious.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Thanks for showing me evidence which writtrn in like 1850.
I didn't realize the truth had an expiration date.

It doesn't, but the fact that his experiments haven't been repeated and confirmed in 150 years should be a warning sign.


But they have.  Many times.  Do REers think that just saying things makes them true?  It would explain some things.

There are quite a few crappy youtube videos of people trying to prove the earth is flat. I've never seen one that actually succeeded. Feel free to post one that you think does. Actually, non-youtube format would be preferred. Those long videos can be tedious.

Sorry, I forgot that scientific evidence begins and ends with videos on the internet.  Because you can trust everything you see on the internet and there aren't countless shills out there trying to discredit us.  ::)
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

There are quite a few crappy youtube videos of people trying to prove the earth is flat. I've never seen one that actually succeeded. Feel free to post one that you think does. Actually, non-youtube format would be preferred. Those long videos can be tedious.

Sorry, I forgot that scientific evidence begins and ends with videos on the internet.  Because you can trust everything you see on the internet and there aren't countless shills out there trying to discredit us.  ::)

I understand that they are not reliable. I mentioned youtube videos because that seems to be most flat-earthers' preferred format. Like I said, I would prefer a non-youtube formatted experiment, if you have it.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Some starting points for you:

The "experimental evidence" page gives pride of place to the Bedford and the Bishop experiments, a pair of procedurally identical tests which have been repeatedly debunked here and elsewhere.  Both depend upon refraction to produce results which appear to support the flat-earth model; Bedford by placing the scope mere inches off the water and Bishop by specifying a "chilly day" (his words) and again placing the scope quite low.  When atmospheric refraction is controlled for, neither experiment supports the flat earth.

The Kansas 'study' was never meant to be taken in a serious manner, it was tongue in cheek the whole time.  Referring to it for support is roughly equivalent to reading Mad Magazine's 'Spy vs Spy' comic for research in counter intelligence techniques.

Winship's "Zetetic Cosmogony" book (another ancient relic by the way, it seems that no modern works are ever referenced here) I have not fully read yet, but I have to say that he's off to a bad start on page 6 with his utterly incorrect description of what spectrum analysis consists of.  A few pages later he makes great mockery of the fact that the scientists of his day had different ideas about the extent of earth's atmosphere, as well as the existence and extent (if it did exist) of an atmosphere on Mars.  This to him was proof that they were all laboring under a false set of assumptions, while an educated reader would know that's just how science works.  I also find him repeating Rowbotham on some points, so he isn't exactly an original source.

Characterizing Lady Blount's effort as a "peer review" is disingenuous at best.  She might have been a 'peer' of Rowbotham's in the "jury of one's peers" use of the term, but her experiment does not meet the scientific rigor demanded by the modern term "peer review".  And her results have been shown to owe their 'success' to refraction anyway.

The final entry on the Experimental Evidence page is yet another dusty ancient tome, proudly based FIRST on Scripture, second on "reason", and only third and last on "fact".  The fact that the only reviewer of the book is a 9/11 'truther' tells me all I need to know.

I have read "Earth not a Globe" in its entirety.  If that is the best you can do, your efforts to convince us are doomed.  Both "Earth not a Globe" and "A Hundred Proofs" are littered with errors, misunderstandings, and outright lies.  Heck, even calling them a 'hundred' proofs is a lie, many of them are repeats of each other using different words to say the same thing over and over. 
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

A bit more information about the Bishop experiment:

Right off the bat, Tom Bishop has his facts wrong. The actual distance across the bay is about 23 miles, not 33 miles as he claims. He has admitted to this elsewhere in the forums, but he seems to be in no hurry to correct his mistake. Redoing the math with this distance, and taking into account standard refraction, results in about 100 220 feet obscured by the horizon, as opposed to 600 feet claimed by Bishop. This makes it much more likely that a temperature inversion could cause enough refraction to allow the people on the beach to be seen.

Still, Bishop claims that he is able to repeat this experiment regardless of weather. If true, it would indeed be a significant find. However, in my interactions with Bishop on this forum, he has shown an absolutely dismal ability to correctly interpret evidence, and there is no way I would trust just his word that he has conducted these experiments correctly. He needs to show well documented photographic evidence if he wants to be taken seriously. The 10 mile error in the reported distance should be a huge warning sign that his methods are sloppy, at best.

Edit: 100 feet -> 220 feet. Unit conversions, ugh :(
edit edit: Conclusions on the effect of temperature inversion crossed out. I will look into it further when I have the time.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2016, 06:50:22 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

But it all starts with simply looking out your window.

Unfortunately, that's also where it ends...

Is this an admission of defeat?

No, it's an observation that flat-earth "evidence" begins and ends with "look out your window". Beyond this, there is no evidence. Furthermore, anyone with any amount of intelligence would realize that coming to the conclusion that the earth is flat just from eye-balling it out your window is completely silly, given the huge size of the earth.

I noticed that no one has posted one of the "many" experiments that have confirmed Rowbotham's findings. Of course, you are under no obligation to post them. But until someone DOES post them, I can confidently say that they don't exist.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 206
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Thanks for showing me evidence which writtrn in like 1850.
I didn't realize the truth had an expiration date.

It doesn't, but the fact that his experiments haven't been repeated and confirmed in 150 years should be a warning sign.


Well to be fair you can get the same results as rowbothan. You just have work out the correct height distance and temperature to get atmospheric refraction to compensate for the curvature of the Earth.

geckothegeek

I've been seen a lot of hilarious refute against round earth but I never saw evidence about flat Earth.

Can someone prove that??

Question :Why doesn't someone show evidence about flat earth ?
Answer : Because there is none !

No, it's an observation that flat-earth "evidence" begins and ends with "look out your window". Beyond this, there is no evidence. Furthermore, anyone with any amount of intelligence would realize that coming to the conclusion that the earth is flat just from eye-balling it out your window is completely silly, given the huge size of the earth.

Unless evidence is presented which contradicts them, we have no reason to dismiss what our immediate senses tell us. The Earth appears to be relatively flat no matter where you happen to find yourself upon it.

My point is that both models predict that the earth will look flat just from eyeballing it out your window. In the absence of further evidence, either model could be correct. 

Quote
If the debate truly cannot proceed after a quick glance out of the window, that is only indicative of the shortcomings of RET.

But it can proceed! There is tons of evidence that the earth is round! We are in the process of collecting it here. (Please don't start a debate in that thread. Start a separate debate thread and link to it.)

If you want hard evidence that the earth is round, I recommend starting with this: the sun and moon stay the same size throughout the day. I have yet to see a decent flat earth explanation for this phenomenon.

Quote
I noticed that no one has posted one of the "many" experiments that have confirmed Rowbotham's findings.

Check out Lady Anne Blount.

Rounder already touched on Lady Blount's experiment a few posts up. But let's take a closer look at it, shall we? I will assume this is the experiment you are talking about:

Quote
    ...
    The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904,
    photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in
    the zetetic faith hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the
    Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at
    one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some
    scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the
    bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera
    lens two feet above the water level
, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and
    found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was
    an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the
    bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph
    showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified
    in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular
    theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to
    maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water
    present a level surface."

First of all, as usual, there is a math error. Assuming the bottom of the sheet was in fact at water level, it should be only 8 feet (assuming standard refraction) below his line of sight, not 20 feet. 12 feet if you completely discount all refraction. Whoever did the math clearly forgot to take into account that the camera was 2 feet above water level.

That being said, if everything else they said were true, and if refraction was non existent, then they would certainly have an interesting find! However, we have no way of knowing how careful they were with their measurements, since there doesn't seem to be any photographic documentation. They already proved they were sloppy with their math. Why should we trust that everything else was correct?

Secondly, refraction does exist. The above scenario can easily be explained by a temperature inversion.

Thirdly, the Bedford Canal is just that... a canal. There is no reason to believe that the entire length is at the same altitude. So what's the point of doing an experiment there? Even if an experiment did manage to prove that it is completely flat, it wouldn't matter...

Lastly, we have tons of modern photographic evidence that the earth does curve, which directly contradicts the conclusions of the experiment

edit: post got cut off somehow.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 05:35:31 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

geckothegeek

No, it's an observation that flat-earth "evidence" begins and ends with "look out your window". Beyond this, there is no evidence. Furthermore, anyone with any amount of intelligence would realize that coming to the conclusion that the earth is flat just from eye-balling it out your window is completely silly, given the huge size of the earth.

Unless evidence is presented which contradicts them, we have no reason to dismiss what our immediate senses tell us. The Earth appears to be relatively flat no matter where you happen to find yourself upon it. If the debate truly cannot proceed after a quick glance out of the window, that is only indicative of the shortcomings of RET.

I noticed that no one has posted one of the "many" experiments that have confirmed Rowbotham's findings.

Check out Lady Anne Blount.

Have you never been to sea or on a shore at the sea ?