Is the earth flat?

[El Kabong]

The Earth isn't flat

No practical demonstrations of the affirmative claims of the globe using tangible substance there sorry mate.

OK then.....define "flat"

Nice work on asking for definitions, I ask but usually get ignored.

Do you mean "level"? If so, then sure:

No deviation in elevation from your starting point across to your following point

Well there's obviously flat PARTS of Earth as it were. It's by no means level you can see that quite easily and measure it easily. To me, "flat" in this context would mean the Earth would be a shape that has less depth to it than the sphere/globe shape.


So what kind of shape do you believe the Earth is?


I tend to believe it's a globe shape because I happen to have conversed with a few astronauts and what with the satellite images and all it just seems that it is....also having flown to Europe if the Earth was "flat" then why would the flight path arc? Shortest distance between 2 points on a flat surface would be a straight line, that would change on a curved surface.

[Alpha]

The Earth isn't flat

No practical demonstrations of the affirmative claims of the globe using tangible substance there sorry mate.

OK then.....define "flat"

Nice work on asking for definitions, I ask but usually get ignored.

Do you mean "level"? If so, then sure:

No deviation in elevation from your starting point across to your following point

Well there's obviously flat PARTS of Earth as it were. It's by no means level you can see that quite easily and measure it easily. To me, "flat" in this context would mean the Earth would be a shape that has less depth to it than the sphere/globe shape.


So what kind of shape do you believe the Earth is?


I tend to believe it's a globe shape because I happen to have conversed with a few astronauts and what with the satellite images and all it just seems that it is....also having flown to Europe if the Earth was "flat" then why would the flight path arc? Shortest distance between 2 points on a flat surface would be a straight line, that would change on a curved surface.

You started so well, then fell off. You ask for a definition, I gave you my definition of level. Do you agree with that definition?

My enquiry is into the affirmative claim that we have all been born into and taught that we live on a globe. When I applied my attention to the globe model, I found it was pseudoscience. It was an image backed by sophisticated language, thats it, it's not an objective truth.

So you prefer to have faith in the words of others and images, rather than the physics of a tangible substance in your reality?

[Fatboxingfan]

You didn't answer a single question that El kabong ask you

[El Kabong]

You started so well, then fell off. You ask for a definition, I gave you my definition of level. Do you agree with that definition?

My enquiry is into the affirmative claim that we have all been born into and taught that we live on a globe. When I applied my attention to the globe model, I found it was pseudoscience. It was an image backed by sophisticated language, thats it, it's not an objective truth.

So you prefer to have faith in the words of others and images, rather than the physics of a tangible substance in your reality?

I agree with the definition of level, but I asked about "flat" the crux of the thread is "Is the Earth flat?".


One COULD balance a level at the tippy top of Mt Everest or at the deepest depth of Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench, but it wouldn't mean the Earth itself is level and just those two spots alone would have one easily of the belief that the world is not "flat" at least not in a manner in which humans measure it or experience it. That said if you pull back away from Earth far enough the surface, peaks and valleys and all will eventually smooth out like the surface of a marble.


Are we not "looking big enough" in your opinion? Is that it?


I'm afraid I do not understand what direction you wish to take the discussion. I was merely being flippant about climate change in my first post in this thread.

[Alpha]

You started so well, then fell off. You ask for a definition, I gave you my definition of level. Do you agree with that definition?

My enquiry is into the affirmative claim that we have all been born into and taught that we live on a globe. When I applied my attention to the globe model, I found it was pseudoscience. It was an image backed by sophisticated language, thats it, it's not an objective truth.

So you prefer to have faith in the words of others and images, rather than the physics of a tangible substance in your reality?

I agree with the definition of level, but I asked about "flat" the crux of the thread is "Is the Earth flat?".


One COULD balance a level at the tippy top of Mt Everest or at the deepest depth of Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench, but it wouldn't mean the Earth itself is level and just those two spots alone would have one easily of the belief that the world is not "flat" at least not in a manner in which humans measure it or experience it. That said if you pull back away from Earth far enough the surface, peaks and valleys and all will eventually smooth out like the surface of a marble.


Are we not "looking big enough" in your opinion? Is that it?


I'm afraid I do not understand what direction you wish to take the discussion. I was merely being flippant about climate change in my first post in this thread.

I never started the thread, so the title is out of my control. I would have called it "Questioning the claims of the globe".

I cut out your stuff about climate change and only replied to the bit about the earth, stating that there were no practical demonstrations proving the affirmative claims of the globe in what you wrote.

You used hearsay, images and riding in a plane as reasons for your belief in the globe, I use natural science, and practical demonstrations using tangible substances to show the globe is not reality. Not really much to discuss, unless you've got something practical to bring to the table.

[El Kabong]

I never started the thread, so the title is out of my control. I would have called it "Questioning the claims of the globe".

I cut out your stuff about climate change and only replied to the bit about the earth, stating that there were no practical demonstrations proving the affirmative claims of the globe in what you wrote.

You used hearsay, images and riding in a plane as reasons for your belief in the globe, I use natural science, and practical demonstrations using tangible substances to show the globe is not reality. Not really much to discuss, unless you've got something practical to bring to the table.

That's fine.

Well the climate change part was all I really wanted to say it was a joke.


What shape do you believe the Earth is? What's your hypothesis about it?

[Fatboxingfan]

Get off it El Kabby, the Earth is flat.

[palmerq]

Get off it El Kabby, the Earth is flat.

Change your name to flatboxingfan then.