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 ...
Upvote
0
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 ...
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.
You can see it from 0 feet/metres. The curved shadow on the moon during lunar eclipse is only possible with a sphere.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
FakeCertainly from the ISS, at 255 miles up ...
Every bit as fake. Why are we never told the focal length of the lens used?120,000 Feet Liars !!!
120,000 Feet Liars !!!