Flat Earth - It's NOT Ridiculous

[Kaon]

The main problem with a difference between a "plane" earth (in whatever form) and a "spherical" earth is one of distance.
The surface of a sphere is a finite, but unlimited surface. The surface of a "plane" earth would be finite and limited.

That means that for every point on a sphere, at any distance and direction on that surface, you would land on another point on that surface.
On a planar earth, you would have an "edge"... a set of points where in some direction and distances, you would (mathematically) leave that plane.

There is no evidence of such an "edge" on our planet. It is not an observation that needs to be explained by mathematical systems.
Flat Earther's like to claim that we are prevented from finding this edge. Beyond the practical problems of such a proposal... this IS the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Why does the plane have to be finite?

Edges of a plane of existence are dimensions tangent to the plane.

 

[Freodin]

Why does the plane have to be finite?

Edges of a plane of existence are dimensions tangent to the plane.

If it is "bound" by any kind of "dome", it would be finite.

If it is not... it would both be infinite and unlimited. Again something we do not observe on our earth.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What is the distance on a flat Earth from Australia to South Africa to Argentina to Australia? Because on a globe it is about 10,383 km, 7,681 km, and 12,697 km.

 

[Lost4words]

I think that if you took 50 FE believers into space and they could see the earth was a sphere they would return and say it wasnt real!

 

[Subduction Zone]

In light of current discoveries, I would say Flat Earth is a fad belief that allows for a unique club to share fringe ideas.

Much like the fad beliefs of not going to the moon, 9/11 was facilitated by bombs placed throughout the building, and Elvis being alive.

Or creationism, you might be right.

 

[Kaon]

If it is "bound" by any kind of "dome", it would be finite.

If it is not... it would both be infinite and unlimited. Again something we do not observe on our earth.

The volume of a hemispherical dome *may* be finite; the surface area would be infinite.

The area of the plane (terra firma) would also be infinite, as the "radius" is infinite.

 

[Zetetica]

Perhaps we do, but it won't sell well (yet) on a consumer basis. Besides, too many people wouldn't be able to handle that paradigm shift now: look at the culture and class war we have with each other.

If you remember about sci-fi films, they don't allow people into the Galactic Federation (brotherhood of space, etc) unless 1) you are a warp society/capable of FTL travel, and 2) you are "at one" on the planet - meaning the world is globalized.

What we are witnessing in the world today (wars, greed, hate, ignorance) are the things that have to happen in order to get us to that point at which we already reside - which is deceptively utopian, and in reality is dystopian.

False peace, brought about through intimidation, deception, and ultimately, force. Yet, many people love space fantasy. It's distraction. Space launches, organized sports, mainstream "journalism", and the "us verses them" propaganda; it's all the gladiatorial games of Rome. It's all bread and circus, intended to keep the masses full but not nourished, neither in mind or body, and certainly not in heart.

 

[Paulos23]

I wonder what you researched then. For me, it was as simple as having my core and later reasons for accepting the globe rendered either inconclusive or invalid.

I started with the basic observations I had and then compared them to the claims of FE. The FE claims did not hold up for long against the globe model for long, mostly because the globe model works so well for things like seasons, time zones, sun rise and set, only able to see some of the stars and the changing of the stars shown through the seasons. Each one of those would get it's own explanation under FE (and some of them would be in conflict with other each other), while the globe model would be consistent in explaining all of them.

I do remember on claim that made me go, ah-ha explan that one science. It had to do with the artificial horizon in a plane. Since it used a gyroscope, how could it stay level on a round Earth. I looked it up and found that artificial horizons have switches that are activated by gravity so they stay level to the Earth. This is fast enough to keep up with a plane traveling across the planet, but slow enough so it doesn't correct when the plane banks and pitches.

And that is an example of what I found when I looked into FE claims. Lots of quick explanations that don't hold up to further examination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are pilots who are FE.
There are satellite TV subscribers and technicians who are FE.
There are plenty of people who have GPS who are FE.

Yes, there all sorts of people that are ignorant and have contradicting beliefs. That does not support your beliefs. That is not a rational reason to believe.

 

[A Realist]

I think that if you took 50 FE believers into space and they could see the earth was a sphere they would return and say it wasnt real!

LOL....I already beat you to it:

Forget it, folks. If you took a flat-earther up in space and showed them the global earth from space, they'd be convinced that they were being somehow tricked and lied to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I certainly mocked FE around 9 months ago but I didn't go to forums about it and call people names. I did my best to research it, though that alone was difficult, even to debunk it. Obviously, I failed to debunk it. However, FE gave me humility. Nothing humbles someone like everything they thought they knew, being totally false (at least in my case). ImI now among those I thought insane. Fun! *Eye roll* Meh, least l have my humor and ... well... God. That's a wonderful thing FE brought me. Christianity.

An inability to demonstrate that something is wrong is not a valid reason to believe either. That may simply mean that you do not know enough. I asked you earlier about Behind the Curve. That was not the recent mockumentary. The mockumentary was by a person that pretended to be Flat Earther, this was not the case with Behind the Curve. During that video two prominent Flat Earthers refuted their own beliefs with tests that they said were valid. What answer do you have for that?

 

[lasthero]

We've not left LEO in... 60 years? Talk to NASA, would you? Show me a manned mission ANYWHERE beyond LEO since the manned moon missions.

You didn’t say ‘in 60 years’ and you didn’t specify manned missions.

At any rate, why do you feel that’s at all noteworthy?

 

[Freodin]

The volume of a hemispherical dome would be finite; the surface area would be infinite.

The area of the plane (terra firma) would also be infinite, as the "radius" is infinite.

Again, something that is not observed on our real world.
I asked you repeatedly to present the points that would make such a model necessary, but you refuse to do so.

It's not very helpful. But regardless. As in the other thread: thanks for your time. I won't bother you anymore with my questions.

 

[A Realist]

You didn’t say ‘in 60 years’ and you didn’t specify manned missions.

It wouldn't matter if we had a manned mission that left low earth orbit last week. The FE'ers would say it was being faked.

 

[lasthero]

It wouldn't matter if we had a manned mission that left low earth orbit last week. The FE'ers would say it was being faked.

That is something I’ve noticed - flat earthers asking for information and things that wouldn’t matter to them if they did exist.

 

[A Realist]

That is something I’ve noticed - flat earthers asking for information and things that wouldn’t matter to them if they did exist.

Yup, and if you provide verifiable proof they said didn't exist, they just ignore it and don't respond.

 

[Freodin]

That is something I’ve noticed - flat earthers asking for information and things that wouldn’t matter to them if they did exist.

And at the same time fawning over things that are nowhere in evidence.

 

[A Realist]

And at the same time fawning over things that are nowhere in evidence.

Skewed thought processes. That's the only explanation I can think of. Even when the evidence (for a global earth) is staring at them right in their face. Gotta be in their DNA.

 

[A Realist]

DP

 

[Kaon]

Again, something that is not observed on our real world.
I asked you repeatedly to present the points that would make such a model necessary, but you refuse to do so.

It's not very helpful. But regardless. As in the other thread: thanks for your time. I won't bother you anymore with my questions.

I give my model based on Socratic and didactic means, but these are things easily found in texts. As far as anything constructive to oppose or confirm any theory: I refuse. That doesn't mean anything except I refuse to contribute positively to either side in an academic way. It isn't personal.

I would say that we have not observed all space to know whether or not an infinite plane of existence is observable, and possible. Mathematics has no problem with this; physics would reject infinity on principle, so that doesn't really help either (especially since infinity is a generator, not a number.)

I appreciate your feedback, even though we vehemently disagree. I don't recall you insulting me, so that is a bit refreshing. I don't have all the answers, but the ones I do have I am very confident in. I will just leave it at that.

Cheers.