Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flat Earth Society
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 1 of 119 (706265)
09-09-2013 2:53 AM


If anyone thinks some of our members here are amongst the most adept in the world at ignoring evidence that's staring them in the face, try this lot:
Flat earth society forum.
Try the "Flat Earth Debate" section, and don't forget to read the FAQs.
Does anyone think they can actually prove that the earth is spherical? (Don't forget, your sources of information could all be part of a grand conspiracy).

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by frako, posted 09-09-2013 3:25 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 09-09-2013 9:17 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 09-09-2013 12:47 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-09-2013 1:31 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 11 by Dogmafood, posted 09-12-2013 8:26 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 38 by CRR, posted 09-04-2017 8:06 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 3 of 119 (706270)
09-09-2013 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by frako
09-09-2013 3:25 AM


Disc world. No corners.
I think some of them are serious, yes. Of course, the first question in the FAQs is the one I'd expect most people to ask: "Is this site a joke?"
It's a disc we live on apparently, by the way, so the concept doesn't seem to have to do with the biblical "four corners of the earth".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by frako, posted 09-09-2013 3:25 AM frako has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 10 of 119 (706461)
09-12-2013 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by arachnophilia
09-11-2013 8:59 PM


Re: from the FAQ
arachnophilia writes:
near the antarctic should be significantly longer than circumnavigation near the arctic.
But you would be measuring the times of voyages making "round earth" assumptions. For example, the standard round earth view of the sun is completely different from the flat earth model, so it cannot be used as a basis for any units of time. And if human devices like clocks (based on R.E. solar assumptions anyway) appear to show a short time for a voyage close to the ice wall, this could be accounted for by the rim-proximity time warp hypothesis, which is part of the model of some flat earthers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 09-11-2013 8:59 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2013 10:05 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2013 4:13 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 12 of 119 (706468)
09-12-2013 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dogmafood
09-12-2013 8:26 AM


ProtoTypical writes:
I don't see how we could have day and night at the same time on the same side of a disc. Their spotlight explanation falls a little flat.
Something in me hopes the pun was intended.
But seriously, optical illusions have to be taken into account, as they are demonstrably common. Here's a discussion on apparent sunrise and sunset you might enjoy.
Sunrise/sunset
Third post:
quote:
The sunrise/sunset is an optical illusion brought on by an opaque atmolayer and refraction.
There you have it. Prove him wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dogmafood, posted 09-12-2013 8:26 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dogmafood, posted 09-13-2013 8:49 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 14 of 119 (706476)
09-12-2013 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
09-12-2013 10:05 AM


Re: from the FAQ
C.S. writes:
You could use stakes as markers to determine when you went around once and then figure up the distance you traveled (maybe with a really long wire) and see that its way too short to be the outer edge of the disc.
It's often been noted by the society that round earthers will suggest what they think would be experiments which would falsify a flat earth, but that they seem to lack the confidence to actually go out and do them.
Heh, they should have a rim-proximity space warp hypothesis where as you approach the outer edge of the disc, space is warped back around towards itself to a centralized point directly underneath the north pole.
We do. We also have a "staked wire distortion hypothesis" which would render your suggested experiment above futile.
Along with all that, we have a healthy "the burden of proof is on you" attitude*, based on the obvious point that the earth being flat is the intuitive default position (otherwise we would fall off).
*Sometimes known colloquially as "the mindspawn stance".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2013 10:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2013 11:01 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 09-12-2013 12:23 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 20 of 119 (706513)
09-13-2013 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
09-12-2013 4:13 PM


Hard facts.
arachnophilia writes:
no no, not longer time, longer distance.
The coastline of the ice wall ("Antarctica") measures 17,968 km.
The circuit that Round Earthers consider to be the "equator" measures 6,378 km.
Bring in the hard facts, and the RE position quickly becomes untenable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2013 4:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2013 10:03 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 33 by arachnophilia, posted 09-13-2013 9:52 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 23 of 119 (706527)
09-13-2013 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dogmafood
09-13-2013 8:49 AM


Prototypical writes:
Do they explain how the moon can be eclipsed by the earth if the earth is never between the sun and moon?
I expect so, but I'm not an expert on the atmolayer, so I can't help. You could always start a topic on it on their board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dogmafood, posted 09-13-2013 8:49 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 24 of 119 (706528)
09-13-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2013 10:03 AM


Re: Hard facts.
Catholic Scientist writes:
According to my geometry, that leaves us a distance of 3,690 km between the ice wall and the equator. That is less than half the length of South America, which is mostly in the southern hemisphe....er, I mean, the outer-half section of the disc.
So that can't be right.
How did you measure South America? I hope you didn't use your stake and wire method or make RE assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2013 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2013 11:24 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 26 of 119 (706537)
09-13-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2013 11:24 AM


Re: Hard facts.
CS writes:
I hiked it with one of these:
When we say "flat", we don't mean it so literally that you can measure it by walking up and down the peaks of the Andes all the way from north to south with one of those things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2013 11:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2013 12:14 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 31 of 119 (706542)
09-13-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2013 12:14 PM


Re: Hard facts.
CS writes:
No, you mean it in an even more ridiculous way.
Ridiculous eh? We're not the ones suggesting that Australians play cricket while standing upside down, are we? Try doing that yourself if you think it's possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2013 12:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024