Flat Earthers: What They Believe and Why

[Michie]

How to Convince Your Flat-Earth Friends the World Is Round

Two experiments you can do yourself to finally, definitively put this question to rest.

www.wired.com

 

[Jipsah]

How to Convince Your Flat-Earth Friends the World Is Round

Two experiments you can do yourself to finally, definitively put this question to rest.

www.wired.com

FWIW, in Christian matters, the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, must be taken literally as long as: A) it doesn't conflict with any of our favorite doctrines, and B) the Catholics don't take it literally

 

[Michie]

Sweet!

 

[Apple Sky]

Without God there would be no science....

Without God we wouldn't have this beautiful level earth we all live on.

 

[trophy33]

Without God we wouldn't have this beautiful level earth we all live on.

We live on a globe. The flat Earth is logically impossible and only in your fantasy, thats why you cannot explain anything, like in a fantasy world.

 

[Lost4words]

Without God we wouldn't have this beautiful level earth we all live on.

Its level where i am standing!

 

[prodromos]

Without God we wouldn't have this beautiful level earth we all live on.

Level = equidistant from the centre of the earth.

 

[Apple Sky]

thats why you cannot explain anything, like in a fantasy world

Why would I want to ?

 

[trophy33]

Why would I want to ?

Because its the point. If your model does not have any value for our daily life, its useless for the understanding of our universe and we have no guide how to use the world and how to take care of it/rule it.

Not to mention that your model is also nonsensical, logically impossible. Not just useless, but also a nonsense.

Another problem is that your model leads you to immoral, antiChristian behavior and to the web of crazy conspiracies.

 

[prodromos]

Please note the definition of "level"

 

[lifepsyop]

If your model does not have any value for our daily life, its useless for the understanding of our universe and we have no guide how to use the world and how to take care of it/rule it.

You are describing standard Einsteinian relativity Big-Bang cosmology perfectly.

Not to mention that your model is also nonsensical, logically impossible. Not just useless, but also a nonsense.

Flat-earth actually comports elegantly with virtually everything we see and observe.

Another problem is that your model leads you to immoral, antiChristian behavior and to the web of crazy conspiracies.

even if that were true, which I doubt it is... by those standards, your cosmological model has led to a widespread conversion to atheism and agnosticism (and all its associate social and moral behaviors)

It could even be argued that a generation of education under the state education of your cosmological model led to boys and girls not knowing whether they're male or female. I don't know any flat-earthers without a healthy respect for commands God has ordained in nature like the male and female. But the "Science Rocks!" people frequently seem to struggle with basic realities like this. Am I wrong?


There is something about the idea that we came from billions of years of exploding stardust that makes people wonder if we had a creator at all.


Also, the Flat-Earth model, (generally speaking, i.e. Biblical cosmology), harmonizes beautifully with scripture. It's rewarding to simply believe that God did what he said he did.

 

[trophy33]

You are describing standard Einsteinian relativity Big-Bang cosmology perfectly.




Flat-earth actually comports elegantly with virtually everything we see and observe.

even if that were true, which I doubt it is... by those standards, your cosmological model has led to a widespread conversion to atheism and agnosticism (and all its associate social and moral behaviors)

It could even be argued that a generation of education under the state education of your cosmological model led to boys and girls not knowing whether they're male or female. I don't know any flat-earthers without a healthy respect for commands God has ordained in nature like the male and female. But the "Science Rocks!" people frequently seem to struggle with basic realities like this. Am I wrong?


There is something about the idea that we came from billions of years of exploding stardust that makes people wonder if we had a creator at all.


Also, the Flat-Earth model, (generally speaking, i.e. Biblical cosmology), harmonizes beautifully with scripture. It's rewarding to simply believe that God did what he said he did.

Explain to me in your words how eclipses and sunsets work. And what math you propose to use to predict them and to calculate the trajectories of planets, comets and of moons.

 

[prodromos]

Flat-earth actually comports elegantly with virtually everything we see and observe.

I see your favorite youtuber is still making uncredited use of Walter Bislin's personal dome simulation as if it is a real thing, even though Bislin states on his website that it is impossible because light cannot bend like that.

Flat Earth Dome Model

Here is an interactive Flat Earth Model that can show Sunrise, Sunset, Moonrise, Moonset, Moon Phases, Moon s apparent rotation, Sun s position on Equinox, Seasons, some aspects of Solar and Lunar Eclipses, Star trails, 24 hours Day Night at the Northpole and Antarctica, Celestial Poles, why...

walter.bislins.ch

 

[lifepsyop]

I see your favorite youtuber is still making uncredited use of Walter Bislin's personal dome simulation as if it is a real thing, even though Bislin states on his website that it is impossible because light cannot bend like that.

Flat Earth Dome Model

Here is an interactive Flat Earth Model that can show Sunrise, Sunset, Moonrise, Moonset, Moon Phases, Moon s apparent rotation, Sun s position on Equinox, Seasons, some aspects of Solar and Lunar Eclipses, Star trails, 24 hours Day Night at the Northpole and Antarctica, Celestial Poles, why...

walter.bislins.ch

You're making an appeal to authority invoking Bislin's name. You have to present Bislin's actual arguments or evidence, which I'm assuming you agree with?

I hear globe defenders complaining about "bendy light" a lot but have not heard them explain what the actual problem is.

 

[lifepsyop]

I see your favorite youtuber is still making uncredited use of Walter Bislin's personal dome simulation as if it is a real thing, even though Bislin states on his website that it is impossible because light cannot bend like that.

Flat Earth Dome Model

Here is an interactive Flat Earth Model that can show Sunrise, Sunset, Moonrise, Moonset, Moon Phases, Moon s apparent rotation, Sun s position on Equinox, Seasons, some aspects of Solar and Lunar Eclipses, Star trails, 24 hours Day Night at the Northpole and Antarctica, Celestial Poles, why...

walter.bislins.ch

Okay I found this from your link.

"This Model requires that light bends different depending on the observers location. There is no known physics that explains how this could happen. How does your "azimuthal grid of vision" know the location of the observer so it knows how to bend light as required for the personal observation, Witsit, Shane, any flat earther?"

This is a strangely undefined argument by globe defenders.

Your visual perspective doesn't have to "know" anything, does it?

For example, from where I'm standing, a setting sun may be illuminating distant clouds giving them a reddish color. However, someone else might be standing directly underneath those same clouds and not see the coloration. Is our visual space conspiring to give us different appearances of the cloud, or is it just because we are looking from different locations?

"Light-Bending: This Model shows how light rays from the Dome onto the Flat Earth have to be bent to match the apparent size and positions of Sun, Moon and Star constellations and to produce the tracks, Star trails and Day-Night terminator as observed in reality for each time and location on earth. Only by bending the light rays as shown by this Model it is possible that Sun, Moon and Stars can go apparently down below the horizon, while they are still above the Flat Earth.

Such light bending can not be explained by any known physics."

Under this standard, you'd have to argue that the light from all objects are "bending" as they drop down towards our horizon the further away they are.

His arguments seem poorly defined and big on assertions.

 

[prodromos]

You're making an appeal to authority invoking Bislin's name. You have to present Bislin's actual arguments or evidence, which I'm assuming you agree with?

No, I'm stating a fact. Walter Bislin created the "flat earth personal dome" simulation which he explains in detail in the above link. A number of flat earthers then used the simulation as their own, claiming it was proof of the flat earth view, the youtuber you posted above being one of them.

I hear globe defenders complaining about "bendy light" a lot but have not heard them explain what the actual problem is.

We know in detail how atmospheric refraction works. Bislin's simulation had to bend light differently depending on location in ways that are physically impossible. You can read about it in the webpage I linked above, or you can carry on being complicit in the falsehoods being pushed by Shane St Pierre.

 

[prodromos]

Okay I found this from your link.



This is a strangely undefined argument by globe defenders.

Your visual perspective doesn't have to "know" anything, does it?

For example, from where I'm standing, a setting sun may be illuminating distant clouds giving them a reddish color. However, someone else might be standing directly underneath those same clouds and not see the coloration. Is our visual space conspiring to give us different appearances of the cloud, or is it just because we are looking from different locations?




Under this standard, you'd have to argue that the light from all objects are "bending" as they drop down towards our horizon the further away they are.

His arguments seem poorly defined and big on assertions.

He wrote the simulation. He is the authority on his simulation, yet you seem to want to imply he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Such incredible hubris.

You also fail to acknowledge that Shane St Pierre is using Bislin's simulation without credit and is passing it off as a real thing. He is a liar and a fraud, yet you present him as an authority.

 

[lifepsyop]

He wrote the simulation. He is the authority on his simulation, yet you seem to want to imply he doesn't know what he is talking about.

But if I understand correctly, Bislin's problem is not with the simulation software itself. Instead, he complains that reality can't do what the simulation shows, but he doesn't present much of an argument aside from complaining about "bendy light"... where's the argument?

You also fail to acknowledge that Shane St Pierre is using Bislin's simulation without credit and is passing it off as a real thing. He is a liar and a fraud, yet you present him as an authority.

Shane's reasoning and demonstration seems sound to me. I think that's why you want to talk about Bislin, because you can't actually dispute anything Shane is presenting.

 

[prodromos]

But if I understand correctly, Bislin's problem is not with the simulation software itself. Instead, he complains that reality can't do what the simulation shows, but he doesn't present much of an argument aside from complaining about "bendy light"... where's the argument?

The "personal dome" is fiction. It was created by Bislin to allow projection of the heliocentric view into a flat earth view. What part of "fiction" do you not understand? Bislin isn't complaining, he is explaining the limitations of simulation.
As I have stated multiple times on these threads, atmospheric refraction is an extremely well understood phenomenon. We know how the pressure gradient of the atmosphere bends light. We know that apart from anomalies caused by warm air above a hot surface, the refraction of light by the pressure gradient of the atmosphere is consistent. Surveyors account for it when measuring elevations at a distance of greater than 120m from their survey point. For Bislin to be able to project the globe view into a flat earth 'personal dome', he had to ignore the reality of atmospheric refraction and calculate entirely different values depending on the location of the viewpoint chosen.

Shane's reasoning and demonstration seems sound to me.

Of course it does, to you. You won't challenge it because it is what you want to believe

I think that's why you want to talk about Bislin, because you can't actually dispute anything Shane is presenting.

Of course you do, and you would be wrong. I just can't be bothered wasting my time disputing nonsense. You still haven't acknowledged that Shane is using Bislin's simulation without reference to Bislin's work, passing it off as his own. You put your trust in liars. That does not lead to truth.

 

[lifepsyop]

The "personal dome" is fiction. It was created by Bislin to allow projection of the heliocentric view into a flat earth view. What part of "fiction" do you not understand? Bislin isn't complaining, he is explaining the limitations of simulation.

Your "personal dome" is simply the visual space from one's point of view. Nothing strange about it at all, and it accords exactly with our observation.

The only reason it would have to be fiction for someone is if they are committed to a belief in helio-globe.

As I have stated multiple times on these threads, atmospheric refraction is an extremely well understood phenomenon. We know how the pressure gradient of the atmosphere bends light. We know that apart from anomalies caused by warm air above a hot surface, the refraction of light by the pressure gradient of the atmosphere is consistent. Surveyors account for it when measuring elevations at a distance of greater than 120m from their survey point. For Bislin to be able to project the globe view into a flat earth 'personal dome', he had to ignore the reality of atmospheric refraction and calculate entirely different values depending on the location of the viewpoint chosen.

If the model is matching exactly what a person observes, then it is observationally correct by definition. No way around that.

This means it is challenging the axiom of how we interpret visual space.