Can we do an experiment - is the earth flat?

[BeNotDeceived]

The FE rebuttals I've heard to flight time evidence vary. Some say there is a vast conspiracy and flight times and routes are manipulated in order to create the illusion of a round earth. Others say that this may indeed be evidence against the map favored by most FE believers, but that just means more research must be done in order to determine the correct map.

But at the root of it all is circular reasoning. They know the earth is flat. That's the obvious fact to them. So they know that any evidence presented against that fact is wrong somehow. Figuring out and explaining exactly how it's wrong is often superfluous to them.

I believe Flat Earthers have Flat Heads. #-o

How do they prove me wrong?

[freedomforall]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

[Silver Pie]

The FE rebuttals I've heard to flight time evidence vary. Some say there is a vast conspiracy and flight times and routes are manipulated in order to create the illusion of a round earth.

That's a heckuva lot of energy devoted to a conspiracy that yields so little in power and wealth. And if literally thousands upon thousands of people were in on it (all the employers and employees of companies that "know" the earth is flat), the "truth" would come out. People aren't really that good at keeping secrets. That's why the best kept secrets are only known by a handful of people, if that many. Besides that, they'd have to alter everyone's watches who were on the planes if they didn't really fly as many hours as claimed. It borders on insanity, it seems.

[braingrunt]

There's no REASON to believe in a flat earth, when you reason too hard it falls apart or at least gets profoundly messy.
There might be FAITH to believe in a flat earth, but as far as I'm concerned, the BOM doesn't even give me room for that either.

Neither reason nor faith can lead me to a belief in the flat earth. I don't know why a single mormon would believe it.

Yet it fascinates me. I wonder if KitKat for example could begin to see that the spirit she has been hearkening to, has not been honest with her about the shape of the earth or at least the supporting theories (which to be be blunt are piles of steaming crap). If that could happen maybe she could take a step toward hearkening to the Spirit of Truth.

[Kitkat]

There's no REASON to believe in a flat earth, when you reason too hard it falls apart or at least gets profoundly messy.
There might be FAITH to believe in a flat earth, but as far as I'm concerned, the BOM doesn't even give me room for that either.

Neither reason nor faith can lead me to a belief in the flat earth. I don't know why a single mormon would believe it.

Yet it fascinates me. I wonder if KitKat for example could begin to see that the spirit she has been hearkening to, has not been honest with her about the shape of the earth or at least the supporting theories (which to be be blunt are piles of steaming crap). If that could happen maybe she could take a step toward hearkening to the Spirit of Truth.

I wonder if the spirit braingrunt has been hearkening to told him to say, "piles of steaming crap" - if so, maybe he could take a step toward hearkening to the Spirit of Truth... ;)

What an irony.

[braingrunt]

I wonder if the spirit braingrunt has been hearkening to told him to say, "piles of steaming crap" - if so, maybe he could take a step toward hearkening to the Spirit of Truth... ;)

What an irony.

Well, I didn't directly bash any people which the spirit told me not to do. Now I know it stings me when people call my beliefs crap, and it's hard not to take it as a personal judgement. But, I'm getting good practice at it.

At first when I discussed this topic, I tried to suppress inflammatory language or feeling. I think this is still something I often strive for. But here's the thing: feeling is very core to flat-earthers. Many of the videos feature cussing, ridicule, repetition, warped sounds or images, exaggeration, cinematic styling, powerful music, high (cinematic) production value, all hiding low argument rigor and outright misrepresentations (such as when they show a picture claiming to be the 100+ miles of danyang kunshun bridge, which is actually a pants-on-fire lie. There are other instances of pure anti-truth which refuse to stop circulating.) Then they often crown their video with a "boo-yah in yo face".

So when I use cold logic I feel like it's not engaging a flat-earther in their domain. I'm not actually talking to them so they can hear. The temptation becomes strong to battle emotionally. Yet I've also seen round earthers who battle emotionally, to no effect. They will debunk a specific flat-earth idea, in clear simple-to-understand ways: seriously my 8 year old would understand the rebuttal... which can't fail to make a person feel vulnerable to the insults they toss out at the same time. Yet it doesn't accomplish anything either.

So I try to take the middle ground. I want to show the ideas are bad without insulting people. Seriously the ideas are bad. I can't deny what God gave me the ability to see. They. are. bad. The Spirit of Truth has shown me things which I understand in my mind and heart. So even though people may be insulted, I cannot do better than to communicate reality.

The fact that I can understand these things does not make me a better or even more productive person than them. I do not mean to tear them down as a person. It just that, on this topic, they stop thinking at exactly the wrong moment. I do this sometimes myself.

[Kitkat]

The Spirit of Truth has shown me things which I understand in my mind and heart. So even though people may be insulted, I cannot do better than to communicate reality.

The Spirit of Truth has shown me things which no man considers which I understand in mind and heart. So even though people may be insulted and feel only they have the "true" spirit in the "true" church, I cannot do better than to communicate reality.

Round and around and around we go. weeeeeeeee.

There is one voice we should hearken to according to Christ. That voice is His voice, the Spirit. When we put men in front of that voice (ie. follow the prophet or you'll be lead astray) we are prone to deception.

To beat a dead horse. Lehi illustrates in his vision what happens when we follow any man in a white robe. In the same vision we learn about cleaving to CHRIST not men-prophets. We learn about going to the tree of life, God's love - not great and spacious building filled to the brim with every lot of life, but the keyword I think for LDS is in EXCEEDINGLY FINE DRESS. Truth stings indeed. We wore exceeding fine dress every sunday feeling like we were on the Lord's errand. He was sure gracious to us, we even felt his love often (mistaken all too often to mean the church is true, whatever that means - the grass is just as true as the church), and we felt inspired from amazing people. The exact same thing exists outside the church (shock and awe) now that we followed his voice out of the attempt to correlate the true gospel restored and His spirit. Guess what, we don't need exceeding fine sunday best to find Christ's church (his people), in fact, we ought to sell those clothes and give to the poor and quit building endless temples to work on the dead when the living perish all around us, not to mention grinding up on the face of the poor by celebrating yet another millions upon millions costly temple to worship GOD? Truth hurts.

We never would have understood those passages had we not learned to heed His voice over the voices of men-prophets clamoring for us to follow them as they will never lead us astray, God won't allow it. We were right there until we kept trusting his voice in spite of authorities (bishops) telling us otherwise.

We had one really wise stake president, very young, in his late 30s, upon us telling him what the voice of the Lord was telling us, the spirit filled the room and he opened up and was able to show us things most members couldn't relate to because of close mindedness and darkness of minds for trusting to much in the brethren, including and not limited to how the Lord has to allow some of the older generation to pass on in order to bring about changes that are coming soon when He sets his house in order.

An invite to seek the Lord's counsel on exceeding fine dress in great and spacious conference centers - start there. You'll be blown away.

[Robin Hood]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

[davedan]

Talk with ham radio satellite. If the Earth was flat, it wouldn't drop below horizon. Program exactly predicts passes.

Foucault Pendulum at planetarium

Sun dial will cast different shadow at different locations. Use web cam to capture real-time sundial shadows from different time zones with compass showing orientation.

[freedomforall]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

Why do auto's have round steering wheels instead of square ones.
Why aren't hockey pucks square?
Why are obese people considered to be in shape? Because round is a shape!
If space ships were square would we then call them flying blocks? Or OFB's?

[Robin Hood]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

Why do auto's have round steering wheels instead of square ones.
Why aren't hockey pucks not square?
Why are obese people considered to be in shape? Because round is a shape!
If space ships were square would we then call them flying blocks? Or OFB's?

Eh?

[freedomforall]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

Why do auto's have round steering wheels instead of square ones.
Why aren't hockey pucks not square?
Why are obese people considered to be in shape? Because round is a shape!
If space ships were square would we then call them flying blocks? Or OFB's?

Eh?

edit

[Silver Pie]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

He was joking around.

[NinjaForJesus]

Food for thought on the matter of the appearance and disappearance of ships at sea. I am getting many of these interesting points I'll be sharing by reading through the book, Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet, Proved from Scripture, Reason, and Fact, per the invite of some beloved friends.

Professor Huxley

We assume the convexity of water, because we have no other way to explain the appearance and disappearance of ships at sea.

London Journal July 1857 (balloon observation)

The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon,at a considerable elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye, at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the Earth to appear concave in stead of convex, and to recede during the rapidity of ascent, while the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationery.

Mr. Glaisher (in a balloon)

The horizon always appears on a level with the eye.

Mr. Elliot (American Aeronaut)

I don't know if I ever hinted heretofore that the aeronaut may well be the most skeptical man about the rotundity of the Earth. Philosophy impresses the truth upon us, but the view of the Earth from the elevation is that of a vast terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is that directly under one's feet.

As we ascend, the Earth seems to recede, actually to sink away further and further to the line that at the highest elevation seems to close with the sky. Thus, upon a clear day, the aeronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue oceanic concave above and the equally expanded basin below.

Zetetes, Ships at Sea October 1893, Number of "The Earth (not a Globe) Review"

In the diagrams of ships at sea, given in Astronomical works, Why are the ships placed near the top and not under? Why is the first ship not placed on the top, why near the top, and always to go up first, and then to go down afterwards?

Has any object in Nature ever been seen to rise perspectively as it recedes, and then, remaining at the same altitude, to descend? By whom? When? Where? Is not the observer always on the top of the Earth? If not, why not? If the Earth were a globe, would not the horizon be a tangent to the sphere at the point of the observation? If so, ought not a ship begin to descend at once as soon as it leaves the observer? Why does a vessel not suit is behaviour to the globular theory? Is it because it is only a theory? Why do astronomers violate the law of Perspective when they make diagrams of ships at sea? And now, when the tricks of the so-called Astronomical 'Science' are exposed, why should not all our readers believe the plain truth, that the Earth and the sea from one vast outstretched and circular plane?

[NinjaForJesus]

Food for thought on the Lunar Eclipse

It seems even the Chaldeans calculated these eclipses thousands of years ago, and Aristarchus and Ptolemy could also predict them as well as Newton or La Place.

Somerville in Physical Sciences pg 46

No particular theory is required to calculate Eclipses, and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy, independent of every theory.

Collumpton, Devonshire, 19th March 1848

The appearances were as usual till twenty minutes past nine; at that period, and for the space of the next hour, instead of an Eclipse, or the shadow (umbra) of the Earth being the cause of the total obscurity of the Moon, the whole phase of that body became very quickly and most beautifully illuminated, and assumed the appearance of the glowing heat of fire from the furnace rather than tinged with a deep red. . . . The whole disc of the Moon being as perfect with light as if there had been no Eclipse whatever. . . . The Moon positively gave good light from its disc during the total Eclipse.

During an Eclipse of the Moon its surface has repeatedly been seen during the whole time it lasted, proving that its Eclipse could not have been caused by the shadow of the Earth.

[NinjaForJesus]

Anyone serious about proving a Globe or Flat earth might read the following:
Parallax, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth not a Globe"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

also, an interesting read (from which I am getting many of these quotes)

Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet, Proved From Scripture, Reason, And Fact
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031764594

[NinjaForJesus]

Doctrine of Assumption party to blame for Flat Earth?

An interesting quote by Professor George Biddell Airy maybe giving some proof as to why one might need proof of a globe Earth, giving more reason to doubt the accepted science as just the theories they are.

Newton was the first person who made calculations of the figure of the Earth, in the theory of gravitation. He took the following supposition as the only one to which his theory could be applied. He assumed the Earth to be a fluid. This fluid he assumed to be equally dense in every part.
. . . For trial of his theory he supposed the fluid Earth to be a spheroid. In this manner he inferred that the form of the Earth would be a spheroid in which the length of the shorter is to the length of the longer or equatorial diameter in the proportion of 229 to 230.

Here's another by Sir Norman Lockyer

You have to take it as proved that the Earth moves.

Another by Sir John Herschel

We shall take for granted from the outset the Copernican system of the world.

Modern astronomers seem to declare Newton's theory of the globularity of the Earth as a true deduction from exact experiment.

[NinjaForJesus]

Revolution of the Earth Around the Sun Experiment

Mr. Laing, on page 122 of "Modern Science and Modern Thought" tells us that,

The distance of the Earth from the Sun being 93 million miles, and its orbit an ellipse nearly circular, it follows that in Mid-Winter, in round numbers it is 186 million miles distant from teh spot where it was in Mid-Summer"

Such revolution of the Earth is altogether fabulous. If it were true there would, by observation, be discovered a difference in the relative position of the stars, but there is not.

This fact was one of Tycho Brahe's chief objections against the theory of a revolving Earth.

Experiments were tried in his day at intervals of six months to test if there was any difference, but, after the keenest scrutiny, none was found, thus proving the Earth to be stationary. Tycho Brahe was not only a great Astronomer, but an honest man, and dared in spite of all opposition, to speak what he believed to be true. Would that we had a few more like him now; in such case there would soon be a change in Astronomic and Geographic text-books, as far as regards to the figure of the world.

Mr. Laing attempts an explanation, as follows -

Their (the stars) distance is so vastly greater than 186 million miles, that a change of basis to this extent makes no change perceptible to the most refined instruments in their bearing as seen from the Earth

[freedomforall]

To the OP, no, neither is my stomach.

[NinjaForJesus]

Let's start a kickstarter program and send Dr. Jones up in a fighter Jet to see what he can see.

http://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights.html

What do you say Dr. Jones? I'll chip in.

[gclayjr]

NinjaForJesus,

Let's start a kickstarter program and send Dr. Jones up in a fighter Jet to see what he can see.

I don't think that Dr. Jones would appreciate that. If he was able to see for himself, and have to witness that he saw that the earth was a sphere, then he would become one of the "conspirators". I don't think that is a label he would like.

Regards,

George Clay

[Silver Pie]

I know Dr. Jones from when I was A Random Phrase. If he went up and said it was a sphere, I would believe him without hesitation. (I believe it is a sphere anyway, but I have such great respect for him that if I did not believe it, but he saw it and said it was, I would change my mind.)

[BroJones]

Thanks, Silver Pie - I'm back, I guess.

The thread is interesting, how people approach the problem of convincing another - or themselves - while remaining civil (or not).

In another forum, we've been working up a straightforward set of experiments - that's what interests me... Experiments most everyone can do with binoculars or a decent camera and mount.

And then to see whether a person will be convinced when he or she observes with his/her OWN EYES the results of the experiment they are involved in.

That's a big part of the experiment!

More later...

[braingrunt]

I'm starting to see that there's a growing acceptance among flat-earthers that significant refraction is needed in order to explain their observations of sun and horizon. Without refraction, the only experiment you need is to see whether the sun sets tonight.

So if an experiment can be devised to help eliminate refraction from the experiment, I think this would be good.

[Spaced_Out]

AS has been stated a few times it is not possible to make a flat earth map that conforms to reality.
It is 2017 where is your flat earth map that is accurate for all places on the earth.

Below is the map I go for that is both accurate as to distance size shape etc.... and perfectly maps ocean currents, earthquake crustal zones etc...