Another Argument Against Flat Earth

[A_Thinker]

Look it up online folks. Tell me what altitude curvature is visible. I'll wait and then you can all eat your words. See what NASA says while you're at it.

Certainly from the ISS, at 255 miles up ...

 

[Lazarus Short]

Certainly from the ISS, at 255 miles up ...

I just laid a straightedge on the image...and the horizon is CURVED.

 

[pitabread]

I just laid a straightedge on the image...and the horizon is CURVED.

That's just an optical illusion caused by distortion on your monitor.

 

[jayem]

The consensus is that the horizon doesn't appear curved until you're over 50,000 feet while most commercial flights are well under 40,000.

I've seen a curve flying at 35-38,000 ft. It's a gentle curve, but it's definitely visible. The horizon is absolutely not flat.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Look it up online folks. Tell me what altitude curvature is visible. I'll wait and then you can all eat your words. See what NASA says while you're at it.

You can see it from 0 feet/metres. The curved shadow on the moon during lunar eclipse is only possible with a sphere.

 

[USincognito]

I've seen a curve flying at 35-38,000 ft. It's a gentle curve, but it's definitely visible. The horizon is absolutely not flat.

I'm just saying that the curve really doesn't become noticeable until about 50,000 feet. I have flown many times over the year and don't recall ever seeing a noticeable curve.

 

[USincognito]

Look it up online folks. Tell me what altitude curvature is visible. I'll wait and then you can all eat your words. See what NASA says while you're at it.

What is it with flat earthers and the fetishizing of NASA? I know they've got this whole mythology of how Masonic NASA is trying to do X, Y and Z, but in order to do that they have to ignore the fact that:
- There are numerous other space agencies besides NASA.
- One of their beloved PRATTs, Operation Fishbowl, was run by the military, not NASA.
- Antarctica does have some NASA astronomers working there, there but operations are run by the NSA and that's just for the Americans.

 

[USincognito]

Mountains of evidence? No, there aren't mountains of evidence for a spinning globe and 93 million mile away Sun. Is there some? Perhaps. I've not yet found it though. Will I? Perhaps.

Of course there is plenty of it. The thing is flat earthers don't take an honest approach.
1. They claim satellites and spacecraft are impossible therefore any photos from satellites or spacecraft are fake.
1.a. The problem with this deduction is this doesn't actually show that satellites and spacecraft are impossible. It only makes a claim and then uses the claim to "support" the conclusion.
2. They ignore the fact that the sun and moon do not change diameter as they set which they would have to do do if they were disappearing into the distance on Flerf.
3. They ignore the fact that we can observe the sun as a rotating spherical object from terrestrial telescopes meaning that the sunlight emits in all directions.
3.a. This falisifies the "spotlight" sun they claim exists on Flerf. The sun radiates light in all directions and thus would possibly dim at a distance, but would not disappear or cease to be visible.
3.b. The same goes for the moon since they claim it emits it's own light on Flerf.
4. Parallax wouldn't work on Flerf.
5. The movement of stars and constellations wouldn't work on Flerf.

 

[USincognito]

I'm afraid I can't bring myself to accept the existence of people who think the Earth is flat. Not in this day and age.

You know how we often have to explain to Creationists their personal incredulity does not effect reality?

Guess what...

 

[USincognito]

I have two astronomical questions for flat earthers.

1. How do comets work on Flerf?
2. Why is there not a single permanent celestial object that moves west to east? If there was a few of them, they would create a big problem for science.

 

[JackRT]

Over the last while I have been pondering a phenomenon that has actually been going for a very long time. I am referring to Denialists and Conspiracy Theorists. While they might seem to be different behaviours, I think they have a commonality in the sort of mind that subscribes to them. What also struck me as curious is the number of them that are centered around science, technology and medicine. Let me list a few.

>> the link between tobacco and cancer, particularly lung cancer

>> the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay

>> the role of chlorofluorinated hydrocarbons in the deterioration of the ozone layer

>> the build up of DDT in the food chain and its effect on both reproduction success in birds and human health.

>> the link between HIV and AIDS

>> the role of vaccination in causing other health issues

>> the historicity of the moon landings

>>UFOs and aliens

>>flat earth

>> chemtrails

>> the human role in CO2 production and climate change

This is hardly an exhaustive list and it is easy to also point out others that have very little, if any, linkage to science, technology or medicine. For example, the historicity of the Holocaust, of the Twin Towers, of the assassination of President Kennedy and of both President Obama's birth place and religion.

What most puzzles me most is the state of mind of both those who advocate these theories and those who so readily subscribe to them. I will throw out a few random thoughts here in the hope that they will generate some discussion.

>> fear and powerlessness --- people feel overwhelmed by events that are beyond their control and require a scapegoat on which to pin their frustration and their anger.

>> fear and ignorance --- people are frightened by their own lack of understanding of the concepts and issues involved and suggest that 'the intellectuals' are trying to put one over on them.

>> the 'little guy syndrome' --- people fear big organizations, big government in particular, and feel the need to lash out at them by suggesting that the little guy is being somehow exploited.

>>contrarianism --- some people love to be different just for the sake of it

>>special knowledge syndrome --- a form of elitism where people like to feel they have some special or secret knowledge that makes them feel smarter and/or better informed than the rest, even if it doesn't have much practical application.

>> religion and political ideologies --- in at least a few cases the culprit is viewed as challenging religious and/or political beliefs.

To illustrate this last point we could look at two examples.

Political --- the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay was opposed as a tactic by communists to poison the whole nation. This was particularly effective in the days of the 'red menace' but has a modern counterpart in the paranoia surrounding international terrorism.

Religious --- new technologies are viewed as challenging religious understandings. This goes back a long way in history. Two hundred years ago Timothy Dwight, Presbyterian minister and president of Yale University wrote “If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination.” Today we see an echo of that religious fear in the debate surrounding stem cell research.

My final observation is that it seems to me that denialists, conspiracy theorists, and biblical fundamentalists / creationists are often the same people.

 

[A_Thinker]

Over the last while I have been pondering a phenomenon that has actually been going for a very long time. I am referring to Denialists and Conspiracy Theorists. While they might seem to be different behaviours, I think they have a commonality in the sort of mind that subscribes to them. What also struck me as curious is the number of them that are centered around science, technology and medicine. Let me list a few.

>> the link between tobacco and cancer, particularly lung cancer

>> the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay

>> the role of chlorofluorinated hydrocarbons in the deterioration of the ozone layer

>> the build up of DDT in the food chain and its effect on both reproduction success in birds and human health.

>> the link between HIV and AIDS

>> the role of vaccination in causing other health issues

>> the historicity of the moon landings

>>UFOs and aliens

>>flat earth

>> chemtrails

>> the human role in CO2 production and climate change

This is hardly an exhaustive list and it is easy to also point out others that have very little, if any, linkage to science, technology or medicine. For example, the historicity of the Holocaust, of the Twin Towers, of the assassination of President Kennedy and of both President Obama's birth place and religion.

What most puzzles me most is the state of mind of both those who advocate these theories and those who so readily subscribe to them. I will throw out a few random thoughts here in the hope that they will generate some discussion.

>> fear and powerlessness --- people feel overwhelmed by events that are beyond their control and require a scapegoat on which to pin their frustration and their anger.

>> fear and ignorance --- people are frightened by their own lack of understanding of the concepts and issues involved and suggest that 'the intellectuals' are trying to put one over on them.

>> the 'little guy syndrome' --- people fear big organizations, big government in particular, and feel the need to lash out at them by suggesting that the little guy is being somehow exploited.

>>contrarianism --- some people love to be different just for the sake of it

>>special knowledge syndrome --- a form of elitism where people like to feel they have some special or secret knowledge that makes them feel smarter and/or better informed than the rest, even if it doesn't have much practical application.

>> religion and political ideologies --- in at least a few cases the culprit is viewed as challenging religious and/or political beliefs.

To illustrate this last point we could look at two examples.

Political --- the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay was opposed as a tactic by communists to poison the whole nation. This was particularly effective in the days of the 'red menace' but has a modern counterpart in the paranoia surrounding international terrorism.

Religious --- new technologies are viewed as challenging religious understandings. This goes back a long way in history. Two hundred years ago Timothy Dwight, Presbyterian minister and president of Yale University wrote “If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination.” Today we see an echo of that religious fear in the debate surrounding stem cell research.

My final observation is that it seems to me that denialists, conspiracy theorists, and biblical fundamentalists / creationists are often the same people.

Good observations ...

 

[Strathos]

1. Regarding distrust in science, I can understand the issues with accepting the ToE. We're talking about science that is a bit more esoteric once one gets into the details and where conceptualization of things like the evolution of complexity can be difficult. So I can understand people having challenges there.

But the science behind the Earth's curvature is a lot more straightforward and subject to immediate observation. Unless people who believe in a flat Earth have never traveled, ventured much above sea level or looked at the night sky, I have trouble accepting that they are *that* closed off from basic observation.

2. I understand the appeal of conspiracy theories, but I'm not seeing the hook for Flat Earthism as a conspiracy. It consequence free. As I said, so what if NASA convinced everyone the world is flat? There's no point. It's a weak sauce conspiracy theory without any meat to it.

3. I'll admit I'm not as familiar with the Biblical literalist side of this. Heck, I have trouble believing creationists are serious most of the time, so to take it a step further into geocentrism or flat Earthism seems almost too absurd to be real.

Considering the propensity for people to also troll on the Internet, it seems more plausible to me that your average Internet flat-Earther may be just doing it for the fun of it. I mean, how would you ever tell otherwise?

Generally their 'reasoning' seems to go like this:

- (They believe) the Bible describes a flat earth.
- Satan/atheists/whoever want to do everything possible to undermine the Bible and belief in God
- So they invented a huge lie about the earth being round, and got almost the entire world to believe it, and that was the first step to pushing theories like heliocentrism, evolution, and eventually alien life, with the end goal being to claim they've proven that God doesn't exist and trick everyone into going to Hell.

 

[jayem]

I'm just saying that the curve really doesn't become noticeable until about 50,000 feet. I have flown many times over the year and don't recall ever seeing a noticeable curve.

Just for the record, there's another piece of evidence that's not difficult to see. My wife and I took a cruise to French Polynesia some years ago. There's a distinctive twin-peaked mountain on Bora Bora. We sailed in on a nice clear day and I was on the deck with a pair of binocs. So what did I see as we were approaching? At first, all you can see is the very top of the highest peak. As you get closer, you can see both peaks. A little later, you see the mass of the mountain. When you're closer still, the base of the mountain is in view. And finally, you can see the island itself. If the surface of the planet were flat, you would always see the entire island as you came within viewing range. A tiny image at first, then getting larger and more detailed as you came nearer. But that doesn't happen. The island always appears in stages from the highest point downward. That can only happen if you are approaching it on a convex curved surface. What other explanation can there be?

 

[A_Thinker]

It appears that Flat Earth promoter Eric Dubay is a Holocaust Denier.

Why the Holocaust Denial?

I wonder if Flat Earth enthusiasts understand that Dubay is the source for most of their arguments for Flat Earth and against the Globe Earth ?

Some of these are ...

"The horizon appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around ... "
"The horizon always rises to one's eye-level."
"Water always finds its level."
"Surveyors, engineers, and architects do not take curve into account."
"Planes would need to constantly dip their noses on a Globe Earth."

Dubay also references Airy's Failure, the Michelson_Morley and Sagnac experiments, and his incredulity regarding the ability of gravity to hold the oceans to a globe, while simultaneously allowing for bird and butterfly flight.

Just about every Flat Earth argument can find it's origin in Eric Dubay's "200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball"

The PDF can be downloaded at the link below ...

http://www.freepdf.info/index.php?post/Eric-Dubay-200-proofs-earth-is-not-a-spinning-ball

 

[patrick jane]

120,000 Feet Liars !!!

 

[patrick jane]

Certainly from the ISS, at 255 miles up ...

Fake

 

[A_Thinker]

Fake

So original ...

 

[Lazarus Short]

120,000 Feet Liars !!!

Every bit as fake. Why are we never told the focal length of the lens used?

 

[A_Thinker]

120,000 Feet Liars !!!

You can see a convex curve at 10 and 14 seconds, and in the latter part of the video, ... and a lot of concavity at other points, which simply means that the videography is not showing a consistent profile of the horizon.