Debunking Flat Earth

[Whyayeman]

'The existence of the dome'.
Wow! Now we are in La-La Land. This goes beyond the flat earth theory. All astronomy is repudiated in this one phrase.

 

[46AND2]

Radio waves and other line of sight stuff like radar travel further than they should. How do you explain that?

Easy. They don't.

How do you explain this:

Video is only a minute long:

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Genesis? No mention of flatness anywhere in Bk 1. (Or globe shape either.)

Now I've got an atheist telling me about the Bible. Most humble man in the room, no doubt.

most obviously explained as the result of the earth's rotation.

Ok, find me proof of the other 95% of the universe to prop up your spinning ball theory.

There could be no night and day if both the sun and the earth are fixed and static.

Agreed. Probably why Joshua commanded the sun to stand still.

The mechanics of the orthodox view of an orbiting, rotating spherical earth are simple, observable and actually quite elegant.

Copernicus' model was much more complicated than Ptolemy's in terms of motions. Geocentrism is a far simpler coordinate system, and that's why it's used by just about everyone.

Again, where's all this dark stuff that's needed to make the standard model work?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Easy. They don't.

You'll find navy radar operators and others will disagree.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Video is only a minute long:

Nice graphics. Where's the atmosphere, and how's it attached?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

All astronomy is repudiated in this one phrase.

Enjoy your billions of light years and nuclear stars.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

This is why long-wave radio was (and still is to some extent) used in naval communications - it bends.

Only in theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Right, whatever that's called - the reverse fata morgana.

I don't know of such a thing - do you have a link, reference, citation, or an explanation of the science behind it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Radio waves and other line of sight stuff like radar travel further than they should. How do you explain that?

They don't travel further than they should, they travel varying distances in different ways according to their frequency and the atmospheric conditions - Wikipedia has a good overview, see Radio Propagation Modes.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I don't know of such a thing - do you have a link, reference, citation, or an explanation of the science behind it?

Don't know what it's called, see it all the time. Objects appear to melt into the horizon.
The argument's overtaken by the fact that a good zoom lens will restore it.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

They don't travel further than they should, they travel varying distances in different ways according to their frequency and the atmospheric conditions -

They certainly do, I posted the Klinkerbein WWII video above. Fritz had Dad's Army scratching their heads, eh what.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... where's all this dark stuff that's needed to make the standard model work?

We have unequivocal observational evidence of dark gravitating material in quantities that match the Standard Model predictions and the cosmic microwave background anisotropy. We know it's there, we just don't yet know what it's made of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Shrewd Manager]

We have unequivocal observational evidence of dark gravitating material in quantities that match the Standard Model predictions and the cosmic microwave background anisotropy. We know it's there, we just don't yet know what it's made of

Sure you do, buddy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Don't know what it's called, see it all the time. Objects appear to melt into the horizon.
The argument's overtaken by the fact that a good zoom lens will restore it.

OK, so it's an unsubstantiated assertion. Hitchen's Razor applies - what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Freodin]

It's apparent height is minimal, that's where the effect takes place, in the eye of the beholder.

That's not how optics work.

No, just a layer ought to do it. *lens.

Yes, a "layer" should do it. A very specific "layer", with very specific optical properties. Very consistent properties, that result in a optical phenomenon that always, at all situations, times, positions and observers results in a sunset that looks exactly like a sunset on a globular earth with 6,371km radius.

What a coincidence.

I think the existence of the dome creates various effects of which science hasn't pinpointed, because we've been working with the wrong model. Sundogs, rainbows and the like, all of which can be experimentally reproduced in a snowglobe.

Yes, I know that special Flat Earth dogma. Every observed phenomenon can be the result of anything. Some weird optical illusion. Some strange method of "perspective". Some physical event that we don't have "pinpointed". Holograms. Reflections. Warped space. Local sunlight. Personal lines of sight.

There is absolutely no explanation that is too far-fetched to explain what we see all around us.

Except the explanation that we live on a globe. That would be ridiculous.

You should really reconsider why you think what you think.

 

[Strathos]

How long do you think the coastline of Antarctica is?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure you do, buddy.

That's right. There are lots of articles explaining it out there, for example: Dark Matter Exists.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

OK, so it's an unsubstantiated assertion. Hitchen's Razor applies - what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Whatever. As I said, it must be an optical effect, because we can retrieve the object after it's lost to the eye. Logical proof. Follow?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That's not how optics work.


Yes, a "layer" should do it. A very specific "layer", with very specific optical properties. Very consistent properties, that result in a optical phenomenon that always, at all situations, times, positions and observers results in a sunset that looks exactly like a sunset on a globular earth with 6,371km radius.

What a coincidence.


Yes, I know that special Flat Earth dogma. Every observed phenomenon can be the result of anything. Some weird optical illusion. Some strange method of "perspective". Some physical event that we don't have "pinpointed". Holograms. Reflections. Warped space. Local sunlight. Personal lines of sight.

There is absolutely no explanation that is too far-fetched to explain what we see all around us.

Except the explanation that we live on a globe. That would be ridiculous.

You should really reconsider why you think what you think.

Happy to do that, when someone can present me with some actual physical evidence of curvature or motion.

Meantime, I won't pretend my model's perfect when my own top scientists even admit to being '95% stupid'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Whatever. As I said, it must be an optical effect, because we can retrieve the object after it's lost to the eye. Logical proof. Follow?

For a logical proof to be sound (true), the premises must be true. You'd need to demonstrate that "we can retrieve the object after it's lost to the eye" rather than just asserting it.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That's right. There are lots of articles explaining it out there, for example: Dark Matter Exists.

That's the way, spinning galaxies and computer simulations, satellites buzzing through the endless night. Fairy tales, my man.