Challenge for...well...anyone.

[Freodin]

I don't think it's likely to be a profitable argument against a flat Earth, given the uncertainties with flat Earth scenarios - for example, how could it form? how would gravity work on it? what would happen to the atmosphere? Could life as we know it develop at all?

If you throw out fundamental physics, and just make stuff up, anything goes... but you have to ignore all the available evidence and invoke vast planet-wide conspiracies.

There are far better observation-based arguments against a flat Earth.

One of the problems with Flat Earth models is... that there are no Flat Earth models.

Flat Earthers are quick to disregard all sorts of established systems of physics... but they can offer no alternatives. All of their proposals are vague and undefined, and if they eventually settle for an exact value or formula, it is instantly denied by other Flat Earthers, because it contradicts their own preferred explanations.

Even the "best" Flat Earth systems is just a bunch of pseudo-science babble, just using terms and concepts of established science, but without any content. The rest, the majority of Flat Earth talk is just denial, ignorance and lies.

 

[SeventyOne]

One of the problems with Flat Earth models is... that there are no Flat Earth models.

Flat Earthers are quick to disregard all sorts of established systems of physics... but they can offer no alternatives. All of their proposals are vague and undefined, and if they eventually settle for an exact value or formula, it is instantly denied by other Flat Earthers, because it contradicts their own preferred explanations.

Even the "best" Flat Earth systems is just a bunch of pseudo-science babble, just using terms and concepts of established science, but without any content. The rest, the majority of Flat Earth talk is just denial, ignorance and lies.

You don't know much about it obviously. When the curvature of the earth we are told to expect under the current globe paradigm is tested and retested over and over and fails consistently, then it's obvious what we are told isn't true as well.

Is it flat? I'm not positive, but I do know it's not what we've been told. Which brings up the problem of realization that the globe-earthers don't currently have a viable model either. Their issue is that they are mostly ignorant of this fact and just parrot what they've been told they must believe all their life.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So...I have been recently reading about some flat earth ideas, out of curiosity. My challenge is for somebody to come up with a coherent, logical chain of events which show that we would not, presently, have the ability to discuss such matters on an internet, with computers, and all that technology, UNLESS we know that the earth is round.

I think it can be done, but possess not the expertise to make it happen.

I will be ultra critical of all attempts.

Perhaps someone should explain what you don't understand? I mean, the point is: the earth is round. We have technology and internet. Is there a way to show that such advances (in technology) would not be possible if the earth was flat?

Absolutely not. In fact it might show the opposite.... Since TV, radio, microwave, etc transmission is by line of sight..... Unless you get luck and get atmospheric reflection of a just right day....

Ask anyone that has been a gunner in the Navy if they ever corrected for earth curvature......

 

[SeventyOne]

Absolutely not. In fact it might show the opposite.... Since TV, radio, microwave, etc transmission is by line of sight..... Unless you get luck and get atmospheric reflection of a just right day....

Ask anyone that has been a gunner in the Navy if they ever corrected for earth curvature......

Did you see this? New line of sight microwave transmission record, It was around 146 miles equating to over 2.5 miles of missing curve.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Did you see this? New line of sight microwave transmission record, It was around 146 miles equating to over 2.5 miles of missing curve.

You do know I could argue that even on a globe this is possible do you not?

Draw a globe with two landmasses 146 miles apart, then instead of curving the water between them, draw it flat from one point to the next. remember, sea depth is calculated from the surface, so the depths would be from the flat surface, not the curved surface......

As I said, I can't prove it is a globe, nor can I prove it is flat......

I'll let you figure out the flaw in that....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did you see this? New line of sight microwave transmission record, It was around 146 miles equating to over 2.5 miles of missing curve.

It's not difficult to find elevated line-of-sight locations between Cyprus and Lebanon that are 146 miles apart - for example, these. There are even photographs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not difficult to find elevated line-of-sight locations between Cyprus and Lebanon that are 146 miles apart - for example, these. There are even photographs.

And yet both are 50 feet above sea level. Not 50 ft above the highest elevation..... And there goes that 3000 ft bulge a globe demands..... So if you wanted to dispel a globe, you are going about it the right way

 

[Chesterton]

My apologies all. Apparently I had a couple too many beers and was not in the best of moods last night.

Well I apologize if my posts came across snarky. I was just trying to say in a funny way that I didn't understand the OP.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And yet both are 50 feet above sea level. Not 50 ft above the highest elevation...

Says who?

It doesn't have to be the highest elevation, just high enough; and considering the company involved knows very well that elevation is necessary to avoid the curve of the Earth (I saw a quote from their website saying as much), it seems perverse that they wouldn't take advantage of convenient and suitable terrain.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Says who?

It doesn't have to be the highest elevation, just high enough; and considering the company involved knows very well that elevation is necessary to avoid the curve of the Earth (I saw a quote from their website saying as much), it seems perverse that they wouldn't take advantage of convenient and suitable terrain.

You are correct. When two people say different things I always research, and it seems the claim they were at 50 feet is incorrect.

https://blog.aviatnetworks.com/from-the-field/the-worlds-longest-all-ip-microwave-link/

So I guess the FE supporters need to redo their math and see if towers located at 1600 meters and 250 meters respectively, allow line of sight in a globe model....

 

[46AND2]

Well I apologize if my posts came across snarky. I was just trying to say in a funny way that I didn't understand the OP.

No worries. Ill-conceived thread; entirely my fault.

 

[Anguspure]

You forgot to add 'I assume' in there. Besides, the question basically was 'can tech and the Internet only work on round earth, thus disproving a flat one'. The answer is no, planes and cables would work on either.

But tech and internet do infact rely upon satellite technology that does not work unless the world is a sphere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But tech and internet do infact rely upon satellite technology that does not work unless the world is a sphere.

Why?

Are you claiming satellites can not be launched up high on a flat earth?

 

[Freodin]

Why?

Are you claiming satellites can not be launched up high on a flat earth?

Oh, they can be launched. But they would not stay up.

 

[juvenissun]

So...I have been recently reading about some flat earth ideas, out of curiosity. My challenge is for somebody to come up with a coherent, logical chain of events which show that we would not, presently, have the ability to discuss such matters on an internet, with computers, and all that technology, UNLESS we know that the earth is round.

I think it can be done, but possess not the expertise to make it happen.

I will be ultra critical of all attempts.

Any argument about a flat earth is boring and pointless. Many people, include you, appeared to have too much time.

 

[Anguspure]

Why?

Are you claiming satellites can not be launched up high on a flat earth?

Yes. Satellites are launched into an orbit that is calculated on the basis of a spherical planet, and the trajectory also takes into account the variations in gravity of our speherical planet. If the planet is not a spheroid then satellites woul not achieve the intended orbit and be useless for the intended purpose.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't think it's likely to be a profitable argument against a flat Earth, given the uncertainties with flat Earth scenarios - for example, how could it form? how would gravity work on it? what would happen to the atmosphere? Could life as we know it develop at all?

We are not even sure we understand how planetary systems form any longer. Observations of other planets by light eclipsing in other systems has all but destroyed our models of solar system and planetary formation. Now I agree people continue to talk about them as if nothing is wrong........

If you throw out fundamental physics, and just make stuff up, anything goes... but you have to ignore all the available evidence and invoke vast planet-wide conspiracies.

Agreed. If you throw out the fundemental physics for a universe composed of 99.9% plasma, you end up having to just make stuff up..... Hence a theory we all understand has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy in the solar system (without made up stuff) requires 95% made up stuff to work outside the solar system, because it is not the DOMINANT force in plasma, as every plasma experiment in every laboratory has proven over and over for 200+ years. So as long as we throw out the fundamental physics, we have to make stuff up....

There are far better observation-based arguments against a flat Earth.

I see none presented.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, they can be launched. But they would not stay up.

Why not? A claim is baseless without supporting facts.... Even in a globe model above a certain height gravity is so pitifully weak we call it zero-G.....

 

[Job 33:6]

So...I have been recently reading about some flat earth ideas, out of curiosity. My challenge is for somebody to come up with a coherent, logical chain of events which show that we would not, presently, have the ability to discuss such matters on an internet, with computers, and all that technology, UNLESS we know that the earth is round.

I think it can be done, but possess not the expertise to make it happen.

I will be ultra critical of all attempts.

Well a lot of us use wireless signals to communicate via wifi. Those signals are connected to satellites which orbit our planet. Satellites cannot and do not orbit a flat planet.

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

Perhaps someone should explain what you don't understand? I mean, the point is: the earth is round. We have technology and internet. Is there a way to show that such advances (in technology) would not be possible if the earth was flat?

We could still have the internet even if the earth was flat. Build tall towers and let them communicate with each other. But because of the satellites and space travel used in inventing the (real) internet, we can take pictures of the spherical earth. What better proof than that?