Is the Earth Flat?

[Hans Blaster]

This is complete utter nonsense as it is based on a circular argument.
My explanations based on evidence lead to the conclusion the Earth is not flat.
You don't start off with the conclusion and work backwards looking for explanations the earth is flat, particularly when the evidence contradicts the conclusion.

The Earth is more likely to be a kosher baby garlic dill than flat.

 

[sjastro]

Here are two approaches in refuting flat earthers reflecting different attitudes.
The first video is based on the attitude flat earthers are imbeciles.

The second video claims not all flat earthers are idiots and tries to make sense how this pre-medieval nonsense still exists in the 21st century.

 

[Lost4words]

I have proof that deep down flat earthers truly believe that the earth is a sphere!!!!

How?

Their arguments always go around and around and around!

 

[Gene2memE]

You are still mentioning atheists, but science is from Christians. The search for truth in a stable creation is historically the Christian worldview.

And interestingly enough, the highest percentage of Christian scientists is in astronomy.

I would argue that that it's not exclusively (or necessarily) a Christian worldview, or one that even originated with Christianity (or Judaism).

I'd argue that the origins of the concept of a stable reality based on natural laws can be traced back at least as far as the pre-Socratic philosophers of the six to fifth centuries BC. It likely has older origins still (many of the pre-Soctratics acknowledge Mesopotamian and Egyptian influences, for instance), but no direct records of those writings are known to have survived.

I will acknowledge that early Christian thinkers (second and third centuries) were important though in spreading the concept of a uniform 'creation' through what eventually became the Western world, and setting up some of the intellectual traditions that eventually paved they way for the Enlightenment.

 

[prodromos]

Here are two approaches in refuting flat earthers reflecting different attitudes.
The first video is based on the attitude flat earthers are imbeciles.

To be fair to Professor Dave, his video was in response to imbecilic attacks on one of his earlier videos.

 

[sjastro]

To be fair to Professor Dave, his video was in response to imbecilic attacks on one of his earlier videos.

The video is characteristic of Professor Dave's style.
In the ten challenges video to flat earthers he was referring to, is equally abrasive as with other pseudoscience nonsense such as the electric universe and plasma cosmology.

Frankly I think as science communicator his manner is a distraction as viewers are more likely to focus on how he presents the information rather than on the information itself.
Sabine Hossenfelder's video is far more more measured and presents the problems of a flat earth without the insults.

 

[PIckleRelations]

This is complete utter nonsense as it is based on a circular argument.
My explanations based on evidence lead to the conclusion the Earth is not flat.
You don't start off with the conclusion and work backwards looking for explanations the earth is flat, particularly when the evidence contradicts the conclusion.

Oh, please. You're making an argument based on an assumption the earth is round. The only difference is that your starting assumption is wrong and mine is not.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Do you believe the Earth is flat? If so, to what degree do you believe the Earth is flat?

It's flat where I'm standing. That's because the diameter of the earth is so vast that its curvature is undetectable. It is also possible the least important subject for Christians to get involved with. What does bother me is the total inability of Flerthers to see logic and reason. They also have to slander those who have seen the rotating globe with their own eyes, calling them liars. I find it interesting that the decline of Christianity in the Western world corresponds with the rise conspiracy theories and the FE brigade.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Oh, please. You're making an argument based on an assumption the earth is round. The only difference is that your starting assumption is wrong and mine is not.

Arrogant garbage.

 

[prodromos]

Oh, please. You're making an argument based on an assumption the earth is round.

No he isn't.

 

[PIckleRelations]

Arrogant garbage.

Just being honest. The earth is flat. That's just the facts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just being honest. The earth is flat. That's just the facts.

Only in the Phantom Zone, Zod.

 

[trophy33]

I would argue that that it's not exclusively (or necessarily) a Christian worldview, or one that even originated with Christianity (or Judaism).

I'd argue that the origins of the concept of a stable reality based on natural laws can be traced back at least as far as the pre-Socratic philosophers of the six to fifth centuries BC. It likely has older origins still (many of the pre-Soctratics acknowledge Mesopotamian and Egyptian influences, for instance), but no direct records of those writings are known to have survived.

I will acknowledge that early Christian thinkers (second and third centuries) were important though in spreading the concept of a uniform 'creation' through what eventually became the Western world, and setting up some of the intellectual traditions that eventually paved they way for the Enlightenment.

I think that Christian thought, philosophy and theology provides what is needed for the empirical science to thrive:

1. Our universe is created by choice by a rational being
- that means our world is rational and that we can search what choices in creation God made; this leads to experiments
2. Our creation is good
- its worthy to study it
3. Creation itself is not God
- so its permissible to experiment on it
4. Humans are given responsibility and authority over creation
- so we are motivated to understand how it works
5. Our rationality is from the Creator
- that means that our thinking can (at least in some level) reflect and understand the world


China, India, Islamic countries were even more technologically or culturally advanced than Europe, but they did not get there.

​

I would also add:

6. Our senses are from the Creator
- that means they give us acceptably good and reliable signals from the world around us
7. The creation is real (not a dream, not an illusion...).
8. God keeps it in the existence
- we can suppose that if a law or experiment was valid yesterday, it will also be valid tomorrow

 

[trophy33]

I found this an interesting and surprising comment.

Do you have a link to the survey/poll which shows this? I recall seeing something suggesting that biologists may have been the least Christian but I don't recollect where astronomers sat.

OB

Sadly, I am unable to find the article where I read it... I also recall biologists to be the least Christian or religious.

 

[sjastro]

Oh, please. You're making an argument based on an assumption the earth is round. The only difference is that your starting assumption is wrong and mine is not.

Then clearly you don't have the comprehension skills to differentiate between an assumption and a conclusion based on evidence.
As posters have pointed out the Earth is not a perfect sphere but has an equatorial diameter of 12,756 km and a polar diameter of 12,714 km.
Where do you think these numbers came from assumptions pulled out of thin air because they look impressive?

Eratosthenes in the third century BC was able to calculate the Earth's circumference to within 1% of the current value by noting at midday at the summer solstice vertical pillars at Syene in Egypt cast no shadows where as at the same time in Alexandria to the north vertical pillars from a sundial cast a definite shadow.
If the Earth was flat there would be no difference.

As far as "local" evidence is concerned here are a couple of images of one of my telescopes.

The telescope is mounted on a clock driven equatorial fork mount to track the apparent motion of stars.
To work properly the mount axis passing through the arm of the mount must be aligned to the Earth's axis of rotation.
When the telescope is pointed straight up the declination reading illustrated must correspond to the latitude at where the telescope is located.

​

In this case the latitude is -37⁰ 45’.
If the Earth was flat the mount would be completely useless, there is no polar axis to align to and the declination value would read the same anywhere on the Earth's surface.

 

[prodromos]

Just being honest.

No you're not. You are behaving in exactly the same manner in which you complained that those who defend the globe earth position behave.

The earth is flat.

Only in the minds of the rationally challenged.

That's just the facts.

You claiming something does not make it so.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think that Christian thought, philosophy and theology provides what is needed for the empirical science to thrive:

1. Our universe is created by choice by a rational being
- that means our world is rational and that we can search what choices in creation God made; this leads to experiments
2. Our creation is good
- its worthy to study it
3. Creation itself is not God
- so its permissible to experiment on it
4. Humans are given responsibility and authority over creation
- so we are motivated to understand how it works
5. Our rationality is from the Creator
- that means that our thinking can (at least in some level) reflect and understand the world

Literally *NONE* of those claims *ever* came up in my scientific training, or in my subsequent professional work.

And no, it's not because science ignores any "creator deity". We make no assumption about intentional creation (by a rational being or otherwise). We make no judgement about the Universe being "good". We certainly didn't label the Universe itself or the patterns of nature as "gods". We didn't assume we had "authority over" or "responsibility" for the Universe. We didn't concern ourselves about the origin of rationality. (We weren't neurobiologists, psychologists, or [spit] philosophers after all.)

We studied the things contained within the Universe because we wanted to understand them. We assumed regularity of nature, but we were always on the lookout for ways to test that regularity. The only bit of "philosophy" I keep in mind is this aphorism "phenomenon/property X is what it is and it doesn't care if you like it or not."

 

[trophy33]

Literally *NONE* of those claims *ever* came up in my scientific training, or in my subsequent professional work.

And no, it's not because science ignores any "creator deity". We make no assumption about intentional creation (by a rational being or otherwise). We make no judgement about the Universe being "good". We certainly didn't label the Universe itself or the patterns of nature as "gods". We didn't assume we had "authority over" or "responsibility" for the Universe. We didn't concern ourselves about the origin of rationality. (We weren't neurobiologists, psychologists, or [spit] philosophers after all.)

We studied the things contained within the Universe because we wanted to understand them. We assumed regularity of nature, but we were always on the lookout for ways to test that regularity. The only bit of "philosophy" I keep in mind is this aphorism "phenomenon/property X is what it is and it doesn't care if you like it or not."

I am talking about what lead to science to thrive in Christian Europe instead of in more advanced societies.

I am not talking about what you were told in your scientific training. You can use a phone without understanding how it came to be. So also you can use the scientific principles without understanding all the complexity of why you have them.

 

[prodromos]

Eratosthenes in the third century BC was able to calculate the Earth's circumference to within 1% of the current value by noting at midday at the summer solstice vertical pillars at Syene in Egypt cast no shadows where as at the same time in Alexandria to the north vertical pillars from a sundial cast a definite shadow.
If the Earth was flat there would be no difference.

Actually there would be a difference, just like someone standing under a street lamp would cast no shadow while a person a few feet away would cast a shadow. Remember that flat earthers believe (without any basis) that the sun and moon are objects relatively close to the earth's surface. They won't provide any means of measuring the distance even though they could easily collaborate with their co-believers to triangulate the distance by observing the angle of the sun from their respective locations at an agreed time.
What is required as proof of the globe is to measure the angle to the sun from multiple different locations along the same longitude at the same time of day. There is already an international experiment organized by Dr Angelos Lazoudis in Greece called the Eratosthenes Experiment which schools all over the world take part in every year. The results cannot be made to fit on a flat plane.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am talking about what lead to science to thrive in Christian Europe instead of in more advanced societies.

I am not talking about what you were told in your scientific training. You can use a phone without understanding how it came to be. So also you can use the scientific principles without understanding all the complexity of why you have them.

Science was suppressed in Christian Europe for about a millennium.