If it is any consolation, there are some good arguments put forward by FE. And a retort like Makow does, by pointing out what still needs to be explained in an FE model is not a retort at all.
When Galileo put forward his Heliocentric worldview, those with a geocentric worldview had their consciousness challenged. A Danish scientist did not fully agree with Galileo. Tycho Brahe developed a system that did perfectly explain observed movements of heavenly bodies.
Kepler decided on the side of Galileo, after having spent thousands of hours calculating.
When Erastothenes when down to Seyene, to measure the difference of length of shadow on the noon of a certain day of the year, what is often overlooked is he measure the north- south direction, based on the idea of parallel rays of a distant light source (sun) on a curved surface.
This we can replicate ourselves if we would care to put in the money to do so.
It does not proof the earth to be a globe in all directions. That is something that needs to come from different tests that can be replicated with correct observations.
So, it may take some time to develop the idea further. I can only, in the furtherance of general knowledge, encourage that inquiry.
The question then becomes: what works?
As I said before in another response: as a mariner, the heading for Buenaventura from Auckland is different on a globe to a flat plane. For all practical purposes: the globe system works.
I see no convincing arguments here, although I agree that many of the arguments put forward indeed are quite childish.
I personally keep an open mind, as I do not profess to know, as my experience is limited in many respects.
So, when I find an argument or two that leaves me shy an answer, and no one else has taken up the cause of answering it, I remain open to the idea that I cannot answer that particular question.
It does not mean the total system of FE is correct. But what does conform to our observations, see the Tycho Brahe system, does not by default means that it is a correct definition of our reality.
Don't ask me dude. I am not FE. I am merely saying: the globe system works because, as a mariner, the heading for buenaventura is quite different on a globe than on a flat plane. Note, I am writing this as a mariner. Meaning: a practical dude, going from A-B, using standard navigation equipment: compass + tables and sextant. (I know old school, but at least I know, right)
See my comment where I go into the nitty gritty.
The question, positive question, is how is it possible to send a laser light to a location that is supposed to be below the curvature, and receive it on the same height where it originated, I cannot answer. I would love to know the answer though.
One might say, that is because the earth's surface is on a flat plane, instead of a globe like surface.
When we tie in your question, in a globe situation it is quite apparent. And to FE people, well, their system does not really supply an answer without supposing another layer of complexity, which needs explaining, testing and proving.
In the mean time, while looking for the answer to the laser question, we might try to send a laser beam across longer distances both north-south and east-west. We maybe find an answer in certain electromagnetic properties, or maybe, the world is bigger than we think it is, or something else!
By the same token: when shooting (again, I am a practical guy) at long distance, when taking out a target, why does one have to take the coriolis effect into account, IF we were to be in an FE situation instead of a spinning globe situation. See, it works in a globe system, not on a flat plane situation.
And this is what I would want for us to do:
To make clear by experiment the true nature of reality. Science is all about practical experimentation and replication. And we forget that sometimes with all the very big questions on galaxies and universes and string theories, God, who was first.
We should stop the infighting, and listen to practical things.
It is like the bible book: Proverbs advocating for practical wisdom. wisdom and knowledge you can employ for day to day experience. That is the NOW. And that is what unites us.
If it is any consolation, there are some good arguments put forward by FE. And a retort like Makow does, by pointing out what still needs to be explained in an FE model is not a retort at all.
When Galileo put forward his Heliocentric worldview, those with a geocentric worldview had their consciousness challenged. A Danish scientist did not fully agree with Galileo. Tycho Brahe developed a system that did perfectly explain observed movements of heavenly bodies.
Kepler decided on the side of Galileo, after having spent thousands of hours calculating.
When Erastothenes when down to Seyene, to measure the difference of length of shadow on the noon of a certain day of the year, what is often overlooked is he measure the north- south direction, based on the idea of parallel rays of a distant light source (sun) on a curved surface.
This we can replicate ourselves if we would care to put in the money to do so.
It does not proof the earth to be a globe in all directions. That is something that needs to come from different tests that can be replicated with correct observations.
So, it may take some time to develop the idea further. I can only, in the furtherance of general knowledge, encourage that inquiry.
The question then becomes: what works?
As I said before in another response: as a mariner, the heading for Buenaventura from Auckland is different on a globe to a flat plane. For all practical purposes: the globe system works.
There are zero good arguments for flat earth that a 7 year old with a basket ball and a flashlight can’t disprove.
I see no convincing arguments here, although I agree that many of the arguments put forward indeed are quite childish.
I personally keep an open mind, as I do not profess to know, as my experience is limited in many respects.
So, when I find an argument or two that leaves me shy an answer, and no one else has taken up the cause of answering it, I remain open to the idea that I cannot answer that particular question.
It does not mean the total system of FE is correct. But what does conform to our observations, see the Tycho Brahe system, does not by default means that it is a correct definition of our reality.
Maybe that is just to subtle for you.
When it’s daytime in the United States why can’t you see the sun when you’re in China if the world is flat?
Don't ask me dude. I am not FE. I am merely saying: the globe system works because, as a mariner, the heading for buenaventura is quite different on a globe than on a flat plane. Note, I am writing this as a mariner. Meaning: a practical dude, going from A-B, using standard navigation equipment: compass + tables and sextant. (I know old school, but at least I know, right)
See my comment where I go into the nitty gritty.
The question, positive question, is how is it possible to send a laser light to a location that is supposed to be below the curvature, and receive it on the same height where it originated, I cannot answer. I would love to know the answer though.
One might say, that is because the earth's surface is on a flat plane, instead of a globe like surface.
When we tie in your question, in a globe situation it is quite apparent. And to FE people, well, their system does not really supply an answer without supposing another layer of complexity, which needs explaining, testing and proving.
In the mean time, while looking for the answer to the laser question, we might try to send a laser beam across longer distances both north-south and east-west. We maybe find an answer in certain electromagnetic properties, or maybe, the world is bigger than we think it is, or something else!
By the same token: when shooting (again, I am a practical guy) at long distance, when taking out a target, why does one have to take the coriolis effect into account, IF we were to be in an FE situation instead of a spinning globe situation. See, it works in a globe system, not on a flat plane situation.
And this is what I would want for us to do: To make clear by experiment the true nature of reality. Science is all about practical experimentation and replication. And we forget that sometimes with all the very big questions on galaxies and universes and string theories, God, who was first.
We should stop the infighting, and listen to practical things.
It is like the bible book: Proverbs advocating for practical wisdom. wisdom and knowledge you can employ for day to day experience. That is the NOW. And that is what unites us.