Earth is flat. Prove me wrong.

kaynight wrote:

You are all mad. Fact.

Facts are hard to come by.

My my... rather pissy I'd say.

They have a nice refutation against the gravitationl attraction, see the page and text below.

How can you refutate this? It is difficult. 

http://wiki.tfes.org/Gravity

Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

You are all fools. Prove me wrong. 

In fact, theory says the entire universe is accelerating upward. There is some debate regarding the actual rate though as the latest measurements indicate galaxies farthest away are traveling faster relative to us.

This would explain why objects crash into each other. There's always a slow poke getting in the way.

That is why their theory is pretty consistent and it is very hard to refute that.

Lots of good explanations for their theory: 

http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Humber_Bridge

Q. If the earth is flat, why do the pylons of the Humber Bridge deviate in height by 36mm?
A. The pylons were built vertically in relation to the earth. The pylons were built to be exactly the same height. The difference in heights is only a theoretical figure for what the difference should be if the earth were a globe.

No physical measurement in heights was ever performed or detected on this or any other bridge. Forum user "Niceguybut" once tried to champion the cause that there was a physical, detected difference on the Humber Bridge. Here were his results:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham discusses the Foucault Pendulum and its movements in Chapter 14, Section 8 of Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham provides additional insight in Chapter 14, Section 21.

Summarily, the line of the pendula must be 25 meters in length to get the minimum effect, and so by necessity, Leon Focault's original experiments between latitudes were conducted outside hung from a tree exposed to the elements. Dr. Rowbotham finds that the variations of the pendula are caused entirely by the contraction and expansion of its line due to temperature variations upon the earth's surface in relation to the nearness of the Sun. These variations match up perfectly with the official published results of Focault's experiments.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Basic_Perspective

A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.

Here's a text about horizon line and eye level, from Chapter 5 from the Perspective Handbook:

"Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level.

It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else."

One easy experiment you can do for yourself is find a computer game which can render large 3D maps. Move your character to one end of the map, center your crosshair on the line of the horizon, and turn on noclip. Without moving the mouse, ascend in height and notice how the line of the horizon will stay centered on the crosshair until you run out of land to see.

While a game is not comparable to life, this easily observable perspective effect is enough to satisfy the observer as to its workings and should be apparent and visible in most modern computer games.

http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall

You can not because of the ICE WALL MODEL:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents

There are several theories concerning the nature and extent of Antarctica, as well as the overall layout of the continents.

Many believe that Antarctica is the Ice Wall encountered by Sir James Clark Ross, whereas some believe that Antarctica is simply a 'rim continent' surrounding the known Earth and that the term Ice Wall is misleading. Others believe that Antarctica is an isolated and distinct continent and that though an Ice Wall exists, it is not Antarctica. The latter model generally assumes that the geography of the Earth is quite different to that outlined in the conventional model.

Below are images of the two Flat Earth geographic models, which convey the different concepts of Antarctica within Flat Earth Theory:

Ice Wall model:

ARE WE REALLY SURE NASA MADE ALL THOSE THINGS?

HOW CAN YOU BE REALLY SURE?

DID YOU GO TO THE MOON?

 http://wiki.tfes.org/Burden_of_Proof

Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on Moller that all of their claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on potential investors and the public to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

Whoops! I should have trademarked this...

http://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter

It's a common misconception that Eratosthenes was measuring the circumference of the round earth in his shadow experiment. Eratosthenes had simply assumed that the earth was a sphere in his experiment, based on the work of Aristotle. He was actually measuring the diameter of the flat earth (distance across), which is a figure identical to the circumference of the round earth (distance around).

We can use Eratosthenes' shadow experiment to determine the diameter of the flat earth.

Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7°12' south of zenith at the other city.

7°12' makes a sweep of 1/25th of the FE's total longitude from 90°N to 90°S (radius).

Therefore we can take the distance of 500 nautical miles, multiply by 25, and find that the radius of the flat earth is about 12,250 nautical miles. Doubling that figure for the diameter we get a figure of 25,000 miles.

The earth is physically much larger, of course. A circle with a diameter of 25,000 nautical miles across is simply the area of land which the light of the sun affects, and represents the area of our known world.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Viewing_Distance

It has been noted that although the earth is flat, distant continents thousands of miles away remain unseen. This is due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. There is a limit to human sight before all lands are faded and obscured by the thickness of the atmosphere.

Atoms and molecules are not transparent and so distant objects will be faded with distance. For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance. That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. When you look through the atmosphere you are looking through a fog of atoms and molecules. If the earth had no atmosphere those distant mountains would be as clear and sharp as the foreground.

Viewing distance into the horizon is directly correlated with pressure, gas constant, temperature, humidity, and pollution. At sea level the average air density is 1.2250 kg/m^3. This sort of density will allow a viewing distance of around 25 miles across the horizon. In New York pollution and humidity are at such high levels that viewing distance is limited to 15 miles.

At higher altitudes the air density drops sharply, allowing the viewer to see far away lands before they are obscured by a blue-white sky. It is for this reason that an observer standing on Mt. Everest can see other mountains hundreds of miles away. Such pristine conditions are rare on the earth, however, only existing at high altitudes and in fidged environments.

Why can we see farther when we increase our altitude?

When you increase your altitude you are changing your perspective lines in relation to the earth, pushing back your vanishing point. The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see. If you increase your height you are changing your perspective lines and thus can see further before all sight is lost to the vanishing point.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:

However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:

The vanishing point acts as the liming point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye.

The same effect is found on a 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. When you increase your altitude you can see farther because you are so much higher than everything else. Your computer's resolution is better able to see something below you than off on the horizon where the pixels are linearly squished.

When you increase your altitude on a plane you have broadened your perspective lines and have pushed your new vanishing point backwards into the distance.

See also: