[MOVED] What happens when a non-NASA astronaut is asked about the shape of the earth?

[Yttrium]

gravity?​

Clouds having 1000's of pounds of water, just sitting above my head, for over 30 minutes, before falling to the ground.

Note that water vapor is a gas. Like the air. Your argument applies to the atmosphere too. All that air has a lot of weight. And it's not all crashing to the ground! Isn't that special?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Funny, I saw something similar catching the camera transition right at 4:08, I took a screenshot of both camera views. I identified they were looking right at the same spot due to identical cloud formations, except one camera had a curve and the other did not.

View attachment 277957

I suspect both cameras were slightly fish-eye, so on one side it slightly exaggerated the Earth's curvature, and on the other side it flattened it out. Notice that in the first image the Earth's curvature is sympathetic to 'barrel' distortion and in the second it is anti-sympathetic - the horizon is in roughly the same position on the left of the image in both but reversed from one to the other.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Worth noting that the Crew Dragon Demo 2 docking, preparation for transfer, and crew transfer, showed some long (and dull) uninterrupted sequences of zero-g activity that would be extremely difficult to simulate and were entirely unnecessary to show...

 

[SeventyOne]

So how would my examples regarding the tides and the stars work under a flat earth paradigm?

Again, I was just checking to see if you were making the claim based on your own personal assumptions or not.

 

[SeventyOne]

I suspect both cameras were slightly fish-eye, so on one side it slightly exaggerated the Earth's curvature, and on the other side it flattened it out. Notice that in the first image the Earth's curvature is sympathetic to 'barrel' distortion and in the second it is anti-sympathetic - the horizon is in roughly the same position on the left of the image in both but reversed from one to the other.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that fish-eye lenses were in use. The extent of the effects of which, we can agree to disagree.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I appreciate your acknowledgement that fish-eye lenses were in use. The extent of the effects of which, we can agree to disagree.

It was just a plausible suggestion - I was curious to see whether any counter-argument would be proposed.

Sadly not.

 

[Anthony2019]

Again, I was just checking to see if you were making the claim based on your own personal assumptions or not.

My understanding is primarily based on science as well as observation and logical reasoning.

 

[SeventyOne]

It was just a plausible suggestion - I was curious to see whether any counter-argument would be proposed.

Sadly not.

I already gave my opinion. Nothing you said changed that.

 

[SeventyOne]

My understanding is primarily based on science as well as observation and logical reasoning.

And that's what I'm asking. What science did you use to conclude that it could absolutely never occur in a flat earth paradigm? Did you study the workings of that paradigm and then adequately test your assumptions, or did you just assume you know and add the word 'science' to make it seem legit?

We both know what the answer is. Don't even know why you continue to argue about it.

 

[lasthero]

Worth noting that the Crew Dragon Demo 2 docking, preparation for transfer, and crew transfer, showed some long (and dull) uninterrupted sequences of zero-g activity that would be extremely difficult to simulate and were entirely unnecessary to show...

It's a great cure for insomnia, though.

 

[ewq1938]

 

[Anthony2019]

And that's what I'm asking. What science did you use to conclude that it could absolutely never occur in a flat earth paradigm? Did you study the workings of that paradigm and then adequately test your assumptions, or did you just assume you know and add the word 'science' to make it seem legit?

We both know what the answer is. Don't even know why you continue to argue about it.

What science did I use to prove the earth is a sphere? Astronomy, aviation, meteorology and the physical sciences.
Firstly there are many satellites that have been launched into space. We only need to look at Google Earth to see imagery of our planet.
Through the use of high powered telescopes, we have been able to examine other planets that are spherical.
We also have gravity which we know holds planets in their orbit around the sun, as well as the gravitational pull on the waters caused by alignment of the sun earth and the moon.
We have compasses which align themselves with the earth's magnetic field, which is generated by the spinning of the planet.
Aviation has taught us that if you ascend to 35,000 feet you can see the curvature of the earth. Although it is not possible to see it on ground level, if we sat on a beach and watched a sailing ship sailing off into the distance, the sails would be the last thing to disappear over the horizon.
Sailors, travellers, throughout history have circumnavigated the globe. Even in modern times, people are completing "round the world" trips by aircraft travelling from east to west across the world.
Seasons alternate between the northern and southern hemisphere. The amount of daylight increases and decreases depending on what location of the world you are in. This is caused by the earth's tilt as it orbits around the sun.
Why would I need to study the workings of a flat earth paradigm?

 

[SeventyOne]

Why would I need to study the workings of a flat earth paradigm?

To make an informed claim.

I think we're done. I prefer a bit more honesty than you seem to be willing to give. Bye.

 

[Anthony2019]

To make an informed claim.

I think we're done. I prefer a bit more honesty than you seem to be willing to give. Bye.

I answered your question as honestly as possible and to the best of my knowledge. I'm sorry you were unhappy with my answers.
Goodbye!

 

[Strathos]

There is no consistent 'flat earth paradigm'. There are tons of different models by different flat earthers, which all fail to explain all of the available evidence. If you try to research how X, Y, or Z is supposed to work on a flat earth, you'll get either multiple contradictory answers, or no answer at all.

Meanwhile, there is only one model for how these things work on a round earth, and it's completely consistent. Yet note that when flat earthers ask such questions, round earthers don't just tell them to look it up (although they easily could), but they actually provide explanations, such as the cloud weight question just discussed.

That says something, don't you think?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Meanwhile, there is only one model for how these things work on a round earth, and it's completely consistent.

Yes, but only if you join Neil deGrasse Tyson in admitting that you're '95% stupid'. He was of course referring to the mystery of 'dark matter/ energy' required in order to prop up your spinning waterball, keep that 'gravity' working against the void, holding down the atmosphere as it hurtles through space at a combined speed of almost 1,000,000 mph. And yet no experiment or observation has ever managed to detect motion.

Are your experts merely '95% stupid'?

 

[Strathos]

Dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. That's like saying you need to understand quantum algebra to figure out that 2+2 = 4.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. That's like saying you need to understand quantum algebra to figure out that 2+2 = 4.

The 'standard model' requires a cast of trillions to prop it up. A whole fake phony dog n pony universe. All amounts to a bad case of googleplexia.

But let's just focus on the curve then, shall we. Why can't you measure it? Flat earthers can consistently measure the lack of it, by means of optical, laser, microwave etc. EM experiments of all kinds showing we see much further than we should. Show me a body of water with a curve in it. Should be straightforward, but you can't do it.

 

[Strathos]

The 'standard model' requires a cast of trillions to prop it up. A whole fake phony dog n pony universe. All amounts to a bad case of googleplexia.

Again, that's like saying that it's impossible to prove that 2+2 = 4 because there are unsolved problems in mathematics.

But let's just focus on the curve then, shall we. Why can't you measure it?

Because every measurement and piece of evidence is dismissed as part of a conspiracy.

Flat earthers can consistently measure the lack of it, by means of optical, laser, microwave etc. EM experiments of all kinds showing we see much further than we should.

That's because you ignore/dismiss all the results that contradict your expectations, and cling to the ones where you made mistakes by not accounting for atmospheric refraction or not understanding how to do basic geometry, or, even worse, deliberately make misleading measurements.

Obviously if you don't understand how to do proper measurements, you're not going to get proper results. When the correct methods are used, even the flat earther 'experiments' disprove their claims, as shown in the 'Behind the Curve' documentary.

Show me a body of water with a curve in it. Should be straightforward, but you can't do it.

 

[SeventyOne]

Obviously if you don't understand how to do proper measurements, you're not going to get proper results. When the correct methods are used, even the flat earther 'experiments' disprove their claims, as shown in the 'Behind the Curve' documentary.

That's the excuse of the lazy. That flat-earther did nothing of the sort. You may want to follow up on it and not rely on the editing of the documentary to do your thinking for you. The answer might surprise you.

Also Lake Pontchartrain. It just depends on what the atmospheric conditions are as of the day of observation. Notice, not only are they not curved, but the far shoreline can also be seen. Like your propaganda picture says, "If the earth is flat, the vanishing point should intersect the horizon line."

WELCOME TO THE FLAT EARTH!!!