The Bible Was Right. The Earth Is Flat.

[Parsimony]

Let's take the flight times example again. On a round Earth, the distance from Buenos Aires, Argentina from Wellington, New Zealand is about 6,208 miles. On a flat Earth, the distance is about 15,374 miles (more than twice as far as on the round Earth model). If you don't trust that figure, feel free to check the distances for yourself: Round Earth Distance Calculator and Flat Earth Map.

Using Google Maps, I was able to find a flight from Buenos Aires to Wellington that takes 18 hours and 5 minutes (with two stops). This means that the average speed of the airplane on a round Earth is above 343 miles per hour (since some of the time will be spent on the ground, the airplane will have to move above this speed in order to account for the lost time). Modern airliners are easily capable of meeting and exceeding this speed, but fall short of the speed of sound. On a flat Earth, however, the required speed of the aircraft is in excess of 850 miles per hour. This is supersonic (the speed of sound at altitude is around 670 miles per hour).

The only airliners capable of meeting this speed were Concorde and the Tu-144, both of which are retired. This cannot be written of as "oh, a 747 can do 850 mph, they just keep that a secret", as the design of the airplane itself prevents this from being the case. The engines are non-afterburning, high-bypass turbofans which cannot produce the needed exhaust velocities to achieve this speed. The laws of physics prevent the aircraft from matching the required flat Earth flight time. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the people who perform experiments on aerodynamics and people who design airplanes are also in on the conspiracy. At this rate, it seems like there are more people involved in the conspiracy than not involved. Not to mention the fact that sonic booms produced would be detectable..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Please see post 175.

In regards to this particular topic, information such as "the shadow on the moon" is circumstantial.

"The shadow on the moon" is direct evidence for ... "the shadow on the moon". It is circumstantial evidence for "the earth must be round".

"The horizon is flat" is also direct evidence "the horizon is flat'. It too, is circumstantial evidence for "the earth must be flat"

Direct evidence for "the earth must be round" or "the earth must be flat" is when I see for myself, that the "earth is round" or "the earth is flat" with my own eyes.

Circumstantial evidence is evdence which doesn't lend credibility to a particular conclusion - it is not any evidence that you arbitrarily can decide is irrelevant. The earth producing a round shadow on the moon is non-circumstantial evidence. The curvature of the earth as observed and measured by countless people is not circumstantial evidence. The ability to circumnavigate the planet is not circumstantial evidence. They all lend credibility to a particular conclusion: the earth is round. As for the video you provided, it's pretty clear that the person who posted that video has a clear agenda in doing so, and that their video can therefore be dismissed in the face of innumerable videos which clearly show the curvature of the earth.

If direct observation is the only thing that counds as "non-circumstantial" evidence, then you miss the entire point of evidence - which is to lend credibility to a given conclusion which cannot otherwise be directly observed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"The horizon is flat" is also direct evidence only for ... "the horizon is flat'. It too, is circumstantial evidence for "the earth must be flat"

The horizon being "flat" only proves your relative position on an object that is very large. And relative position is very important to consider, because it determines our perspective of an object. If you are directly in front of an object, so that you only have a two-dimensional look at one side of an object, right now this object appears as a flat rectangle. But when you change your position to allow for a three-dimensional view of the object, you discover that not only is this object not flat, it's not even a rectangle but a round tube. Another object may only appear as a stick from one angle, but another angle allows you to see that it's not a stick, but a ladder.

 

[buddhist]

Circumstantial evidence is evdence which doesn't lend credibility to a particular conclusion - it is not any evidence that you arbitrarily can decide is irrelevant.

I disagree with your definition. Here's mine: "Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove."

The earth producing a round shadow on the moon is non-circumstantial evidence. The curvature of the earth as observed and measured by countless people is not circumstantial evidence. The ability to circumnavigate the planet is not circumstantial evidence. They all lend credibility to a particular conclusion: the earth is round. As for the video you provided, it's pretty clear that the person who posted that video has a clear agenda in doing so, and that their video can therefore be dismissed in the face of innumerable videos which clearly show the curvature of the earth.

I don't like the use of the word "agenda". Everyone has an agenda. On this particular topic, there are multiple agendas .. those who wish to defend a flat-Earth, and those who wish to defend a round-Earth, and others.

 

[buddhist]

The horizon being "flat" only proves your relative position on an object that is very large. And relative position is very important to consider, because it determines our perspective of an object. If you are directly in front of an object, so that you only have a two-dimensional look at one side of an object, right now this object appears as a flat rectangle. But when you change your position to allow for a three-dimensional view of the object, you discover that not only is this object not flat, it's not even a rectangle but a round tube. Another object may only appear as a stick from one angle, but another angle allows you to see that it's not a stick, but a ladder.

Like I said, it's circumstantial, which it means it can be interpreted differently by different people in relation to a single assertion (shape of the Earth).

 

[buddhist]

My final remark is this: everything presented here has been circumstantial evidence. Until someone can come by and say "yes I've seen the whole of the round/flat/etc. Earth with my own eyes" and show me how I can do the same, it's all arguments about differing interpretations of various circumstantial evidences. This reminds me of the Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

There's nothing else for me to add, so I'll bow out from this thread now, and let other ___-earthers have their time.

 

[outhouse]

I think there's a mix of half-truths and misinterpretations from every direction

Only on your part.

Which could be straight up POE

yet the vast majority of men and woman cannot say that they know for sure what Earth really is, or looks like.

Factually false. Its your POE rhetoric

If someone cannot see the curvature of the planet, they don't have the intellect to write or communicate effectively.

The curvature is obvious with the naked eye viewing the ocean and any ship at sea in the distance.

The earth curves at approximately 8 inches per mile.

 

[Curious George]

On these videos, it is evident to me that the horizon is constantly fluctuating from a convex to a concave shape (especially at the far left and right of the frame), even at low altitudes. I see it beginning at 48 seconds in the first video, and at around the same point in the last video. As a part-time photographer, this is evident to me that a fish-eye lens is being used; in my personal experience a fish-eye lens will always distort what is captured, and things will appear curved. It appears that the GoPro cameras and lenses were used, and the manufacturer even has instructions on how to minimize the curvature effect while using their equipment.

This circumstantial evidence fails my criteria for validity.

Will someone please explain to me how satellites work.

 

[outhouse]

Will someone please explain to me how satellites work.

godidit

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like I said, it's circumstantial, which it means it can be interpreted differently by different people in relation to a single assertion (shape of the Earth).

What I was describing wasn't circumstantial. To use my examples, just because you see a rectangle does not mean the tube is a rectangle nor does it become one when viewed from a different angle. It is, regardless of the perspective, a tube.

 

[Curious George]

Wouldn't we see both sides of the moon when the moon rotated if the earth was flat? How do satellites work?

 

[Skwim]

"You are not putting into consideration just how HUGE the earth actually is. You CAN see the curve but you need a field of view 60 degrees or greater in order to see it from that distance (120,000 ft. where the balloon goes.). Your typical camera does not have that field of view. In order for something with less that 60 degrees field of view, to pick up the curve it would have to be much farther away. That's why we can see it from the ISS. Now if you physically went up 120,000 ft you could see the curve with your own eyes because you have a greater than 60 degrees field of view. Think about this.... Take a regular pencil and Draw a perfect circle that's 20 feet tall and wide... now take a knife and cut out 1 inch of the circle. That individual piece would look like a straight line.... That's what you are looking at when you attempt to search for curvature with that small of a field of view on something so huge. Wake up people. The earth is ****ing ROUND!!!!!
source​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or you could think of a ball. Without any lighting, shading, or any other distinguishing features (a solid color and smooth ball) all we can see is the hemisphere facing us, and because there is nothing to indicate to our brains it is a sphere, all we see is a circle. You can spin this sphere any way you want, but all you can see is a circle.
However the planets have very distinguishing marks. Anyone can look up at the moon and watch the phases of the moon. What else could cause that other the moon revolving around Earth, and Earth revolving around the sun? With a bit of understanding of lighting, it's easy to explain how the phases of the moon happen. But with a flat earth, it doesn't work. The moon you have to go above and under the Earth, and depending on which directions, we'd either have nothing but half moons or every moon phase every night, and eclipses would never happen. Or they would happen, but very frequently or very rarely, and they would be visible from everywhere on the Earth.
And the very fact it's night time here but full day light in other places alone proves the world has to be round. Essentially, even basic art understanding of light proves the Earth must be round based on the fact we have day and night, the nature of lunar cycles, and the existence of solar and lunar eclipses that are not visible to everyone one in the world - the fact they aren't even visible to everyone in the same hemisphere also proves the Earth is large, and round, because the "looking up and out" of one person, especially as something as close as the sun and moon, is not the same "looking up and out" to another.
The very fact that stars appear in different locations in the sky in different parts of the world also prove a round Earth, because the gazing eyes are looking at the stars from different angels. It's not going to make a colossal difference, but even a 1% difference in an angle can grow into something noticeably big.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Why is it so important to you that others must believe in your chosen viewpoint, even though you likely don't know it for yourself?

Because you proliferate the spread of willful stupidity to the next generation. Because refusal to accept such a basic fact as the earth being spherical causes me great concern to your mental status and emotional well-being. Because ignorance -- not knowing one any better -- is expected and forgivable, but willful stupidity is intolerable. Because consciously dismissing or denying just about everything we know about everything to maintain your viewpoint is arrogance to an extreme. Because to demand that you "see it for yourself" is utterly self-centered.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

PS ... it is not my "chosen viewpoint". It is what it is. The earth is spherical. "Choosing" to believe that kangaroos don't exist doesn't cause them to cease to exist. "Choosing" to believe the shape of the earth doesn't make it so. There is no "choice" in the matter. Fact is fact and reality is reality.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Those who spread flat Earth propaganda should be hauled away and admitted to the nearest treatment facility where they will get the help they clearly desperately need. The Earth is NOT flat.

 

[Shad]

All that is circumstantial evidence.

I lean towards my belief because I realize that both sides possess some circumstantial evidence, but I find one side more compelling. On the other hand, you believe that my belief is "not justified" because it appears that you dismiss the circumstantial evidence provided from the side of the flat-earthers, and only accept the circumstantial evidence from the round-earthers.

No it isn't as no inference is required. We have two individuals that travels over part of the Pacific to Japan while another traveled across the Atlantic to Iraq. Hence no gap or edge in either ocean. Iraq and Japan are part of the same landmass. Unless you want to suggest there is an edge between Iraq and Japan. There is a tool used by all 3 that ranges the gap between the two areas. Never mind historical records of travel between these areas such as the Mongols, Muslim expansion to India, etc. You belief is not justified while mine is and is repeatedly justified. Beside even if it were circumstantial evidence does not mean it is invalid at all. You are repeating a pop-culture idea that circumstantial is not valid or even accepted. You are wrong as is your pop-culture. Beside James Cook did travel around the world in his second voyage hence direct evidence from him and his crew. Try again.

 

[buddhist]

Feel free to IM me if you've directly seen, as a whole, the shape of the Earth for yourself.

Not by alleged pictures, photos, videos, or anything second-hand. For yourself.

Until then, any other argument is - by definition - circumstantial and inferential, or are simply personal attacks. I'm not interested in pursuing any of that.

 

[leibowde84]

1.) Gyroscopic navigation successfully used for decades would not be possible upon a spinning globe Earth. The reference gyros would continuously precess and move as the globe Earth spins. Planes, ships, and missles would crash.

Isn't that why satellites associated with this technology constantly have to make adjustments? Also, I apologize if I misunderstood you OP, but we have proof positive evidence that the earth is spherical in the form of video, pictures, 1st hand sight, etc. So, do you just ignore that?

 

[allfoak]

Everything should be questioned.