Flat Earth - It's NOT Ridiculous

[Radagast]

Explainable. (Perspective/Atmosphere/EM bending)

None of those things are explainable. To pick just one, here is what sunlight across the world looks like in January, with the day length increasing as you go south. How do you explain that?

 

[lasthero]

That's a great question! First, let's look at the claim, the available evidence, and consider the possibilities. Sound good?

Okay.

So.

Objects have a small but measurable drop in weight as they get further from the poles.

On the round earth, it’s becauseof the rotation of the planet acting against gravity.

On the flat earth, it’s...

 

[Radagast]

Objects have a small but measurable drop in weight as they get further from the poles.

On the round earth, it’s becauseof the rotation of the planet acting against gravity.

1. That's far from being the most convincing reason, and

2. Your explanation isn't quite right -- there's also the fact that the earth's equatorial radius is greater than the polar radius.

In fact, that's the worst "this is why the earth is round" argument I've heard in my life.

 

[A_Thinker]

To give an example of something that I once thought was an indisputable globe proof: the assumption that "ships disappearing over the curve" can't be explained without a globe model. Yes, it can. That was one of the things which made me question my certainty in a spherical world.

I would counter that it can't be consistently explained (i.e. as consistently as it occurs), ... but even if it could, ... that's one point out on many that would need such an explanation.

 

[Radagast]

To give an example of something that I once thought was an indisputable globe proof: the assumption that "ships disappearing over the curve" can't be explained without a globe model. Yes, it can. That was one of the things which made me question my certainty in a spherical world.

No it can't.

 

[Strong in Him]

They could be wrong? Just because something is taught in schools, doesn't make it true. Don't you question what you were taught?

Some things - not this.
I was 8 or 9 when we learnt about planets and the solar system, saw pictures of the earth and tv pictures of men going onto the moon.
If I had said to my teachers,"I believe the earth is flat", they likely would have said, "interesting. We've just shown you otherwise, but let's discuss it, we might learn something; what evidence do you have?"
I had none at the age of 9 and I have none now.

Besides, who sends their kids to school to learn from teachers who are mistaken, will give them false information which, in some circumstances, could lead to their failing an exam?

That's relevant? Your husband could be wrong too. What field of science is he in?

Physics.
No, I'm saying that I trust somebody - actually many people - who know far more about a subject than I will ever know.

It would be like someone, who has never been to the UK, telling me that they believe that the London Eye is not real - when, not only have I seen all the photos, I've been on it.

They could be wrong and they often are. Do you question them?

Question, yes, sometimes; challenge, no.
I have no reason to challenge them and no evidence to produce that will back up my challenge.

Are you certain that's true? If so, why?

Photos, interviews with astronauts, writings, accounts in books of what happened.

It's not allowed, is it?

What isn't allowed, travelling to the edge of the earth?
I don't know; I've never heard anyone say "this is the edge of the earth, don't go there". Or "the edge of the earth is just past NZ; none of our planes fly there or are allowed to go that far."

Furthermore, why assume there is an "edge" anyone could travel to? Have you done any research on the conditions in Antarctica? The international treaty? The massive barriers of ice?

A better question to ask is... "Is there an edge?"

Furthermore, why assume there is an "edge" anyone could travel to?

Well if it's flat, it presumably starts and ends somewhere.
Take an A4 piece of paper and hold it horizontally; that's flat. Screw it into a ball and that's round - ish.

Have you done any research on the conditions in Antarctica? The international treaty? The massive barriers of ice?

No.
I don't want to and have no reason to. The earth is round; it's an established fact found in any science book. And I'm not interested enough in the subject to challenge or research it. Scientists may do, and probably have; I'm not scientific.

A better question to ask is... "Is there an edge?"

Well; is there?
You're the one saying that it is not nonsense to say that the earth is flat - based on what evidence? How do you know that what you say is true? How am I expected to trust, and know, that what you say is true?

 

[A_Thinker]

First, thank you.

1. Explainable. (Perspective/Atmosphere/EM bending)
2. Explainable. (Local solar spiral)
3. Explainable. (Perspective/Atmosphere/Wave stacking)
4. Debatable. (Possible fraud)
5. Needs research. (Assumptions)
6. Needs research. (Assumptions)
7. Unknown
8. Needs research. (Land-based explanation/sateloons/aether suspension/magnetic locking)
9. Plausible. (Common FE model fails/travel restrictions to determine land positions)
10. Explainable. (Atmospheric lensing/EM fields)
11. Needs research. (Unknown)
12. Needs research. (Unknown)
13. Plausible. (Needs research)
14. Unknown. (Explain this?)

The spherical Earth model addresses all of these issues presented here ... and, there is, currently, no flat Earth model that does.

One could note that the spherical Earth model is the product of 2500 years of observations/tests/theorizing, etc. Perhaps it's going to take a significant amount of time before a viable flat Earth model has coalesced.

P.S. The point about the soap bubble ... is that it naturally assumes a spherical shape in the air. Something to consider ...

 

[Radagast]

P.S. The point about the soap bubble ... is that it naturally assumes a spherical shape in the air. Something to consider ...

Actually, that one makes no sense to me.

 

[Radagast]

It would be like someone, who has never been to the UK, telling me that they believe that the London Eye is not real - when, not only have I seen all the photos, I've been on it.

That's exactly what it's like. Flat-earthers keep telling me that what I see out of my window here in Australia isn't real, and that the aeroplane flights I've taken aren't real either.

 

[Radagast]

Have you done any research on the conditions in Antarctica?

I have friends who have been there.

The international treaty?

The misunderstood treaty.

The massive barriers of ice?

The imaginary barriers of ice.

 

[A_Thinker]

It's not allowed, is it?

What isn't allowed, travelling to the edge of the earth?

I don't know; I've never heard anyone say "this is the edge of the earth, don't go there". Or "the edge of the earth is just past NZ; none of our planes fly there or are allowed to go that far."

There were recent reports (right after Christmas) about 2 athletes completing a crossing of Antarctica (across the South Pole). These reports were complete with pictures, television interviews, etc.

One of the things that saddens me about many flat Earth proponents ... is that they find it necessary to declare all manner of astronauts, scientists, astronomers, geodisists, pilots, explorers, etc. ... "liars" ... simply because their work supports the spherical Earth model.

Zealous flat Earthers won't hesitate to label those who don't convert to their cause as ... unwitting and lazy pawns for supporting the globe Earth deception.

 

[Lost4words]

Science can prove the earth is a sphere. Pictures can. Humans can.

Flat earth believers dont like the truth when it shoots down their wild conspiracy theories.

 

[A_Thinker]

Actually, that one makes no sense to me.

Well, for one, ... the soap bubble is an example of the effects of equally applied force, similar to the force of gravity on the Earth.

The soap bubble is also a great example of water bending, something that flat Earthers are loathe to admit that water will do.

Some speculate that the sphere is the natural default shape in the universe ...

From ...
From soap bubbles to Einstein — Einstein Online

The math of soap bubbles

Mathematically speaking, the question of what shape the surface of a soap bubble should have is a minimization problem (the surface area must be as small as possible) with a constraint (the volume must remain constant). For this kind of problem, mathematics offers versatile tools, collectively known as the calculus of variations, with which mathematicians can derive an equation that characterizes the surfaces of soap bubbles.

From these equations, one can derive that the only solutions in ordinary three-dimensional space (more precisely: in Euclidean space) are spherical surfaces. That is the mathematical reason behind the fact that soap bubbles are spherical. (However, for real soap bubbles here on Earth, this solution is only an approximation, as it does not take into account the effect of the Earth's gravity. In a space station, far away from all masses and their gravitational influence, soap bubbles should be perfect spheres.)

 

[Zetetica]

None of those things are explainable. To pick just one, here is what sunlight across the world looks like in January, with the day length increasing as you go south. How do you explain that?

View attachment 250693

Have you actually researched any FE models? Like... any?

 

[tulc]

...now I want to start a Lovecraft thread about "non-Euclidean space/angles" and the Great Old Ones...
tulc(...maybe not...)

 

[Zetetica]

The spherical Earth model addresses all of these issues presented here ... and, there is, currently, no flat Earth model that does.

One could note that the spherical Earth model is the product of 2500 years of observations/tests/theorizing, etc. Perhaps it's going to take a significant amount of time before a viable flat Earth model has coalesced.

P.S. The point about the soap bubble ... is that it naturally assumes a spherical shape in the air. Something to consider ...[/QUOTE]

Surface tension...

 

[Zetetica]

That's exactly what it's like. Flat-earthers keep telling me that what I see out of my window here in Australia isn't real, and that the aeroplane flights I've taken aren't real either.

Uh? What do you see out your window?

 

[Zetetica]

I have friends who have been there.



The misunderstood treaty.



The imaginary barriers of ice.

They aren't imaginary. I obviously am not referring to a 360 degree Iice wall around the world but high glacial shelves do exist. It's appropriate to call them barriers.

 

[Zetetica]

Science can prove the earth is a sphere. Pictures can. Humans can.

Flat earth believers dont like the truth when it shoots down their wild conspiracy theories.

I'm just fine if FE isn't correct. I don't pin everything on it being true either. I don't know any FEs who do either. We're just people. Wrong? Perhaps. Still, we're people.

 

[Zetetica]

Well, for one, ... the soap bubble is an example of the effects of equally applied force, similar to the force of gravity on the Earth.

The soap bubble is also a great example of water bending, something that flat Earthers are loathe to admit that water will do.

Some speculate that the sphere is the natural default shape in the universe ...

From ...
From soap bubbles to Einstein — Einstein Online

The math of soap bubbles

Mathematically speaking, the question of what shape the surface of a soap bubble should have is a minimization problem (the surface area must be as small as possible) with a constraint (the volume must remain constant). For this kind of problem, mathematics offers versatile tools, collectively known as the calculus of variations, with which mathematicians can derive an equation that characterizes the surfaces of soap bubbles.

From these equations, one can derive that the only solutions in ordinary three-dimensional space (more precisely: in Euclidean space) are spherical surfaces. That is the mathematical reason behind the fact that soap bubbles are spherical. (However, for real soap bubbles here on Earth, this solution is only an approximation, as it does not take into account the effect of the Earth's gravity. In a space station, far away from all masses and their gravitational influence, soap bubbles should be perfect spheres.)

Water bends and I don't know one FE who says it outright NEVER bends.

Examples:

• Surface tension - Spheres (bubbles, rain drops, water on a zero G flight)

• Surface tension - Curving (Water in a glass, surface of still water)

• Moving water (waterfalls, rivers)