Proof against flat earth

[morse86]

Proof against flat earth

There is a very simple proof against flat earth I've never heard anyone mention.

According to flat earth:

1. The sun is small and close to the earth
   
2. It never goes below the horizon
3. As it gets farther away just before night falls, it gets smaller and smaller just like a freight train traveling away on train tracks which recede to a point on the horizon
4. It gets dark because the sun gets shrouded in the haze
5. At night the sun travels in a half circle along the horizon from west to east

The observations disproving flat earth:

1. The sun does not become a point at the horizon just before night falls
2. The sun drops straight down to the horizon; it doesn't ease up to it at an ever smaller and smaller angle
   
3. You can see the sun being "chopped" as it goes behind the earth; first a small piece, later it is a half circle, and etc.

Many fail to understand the point. The point is all the evidence proves it's not a round earth. Nobody knows for sure what the earth looks like. Your observations can be explained a thousand other ways, it doesn't disapprove flat earth at all.

 

[Freodin]

Many fail to understand the point. The point is all the evidence proves it's not a round earth. Nobody knows for sure what the earth looks like. Your observations can be explained a thousand other ways, it doesn't disapprove flat earth at all.

You are right.. all these observations can be explained by a thousand other ways.

That's doesn't say anything about the validity or consistency of these "thousand other ways" though.
It doesn't say anything about the willingness or capability of Flat Earthers to demonstrate these "thousand other ways"... many of which are inconsistent, even contradicting each other.

Another interesiting point here... there are "thousand other ways"... but none of them includes the admission that one of these ways is: "well, it might be round".

No. It cannot be round! Never ever! No one knows for sure what the earth looks like... but they do know for sure what it doesn't look like!

It can look like a thousand other things... perhaps it is shaped like a humorous bunny, or a seven-dimensional cube with little ribbons... but round? No way! All the evidence proves - PROVES! that it is not round... even the evidence that would show that it is round.

 

[ianw16]

Have any of the Flat Earth types ever drawn a 'map' to which we can compare reality? I'd love to see one. I want to work out how I can fly roughly in a NE direction, via Los Angeles, to London, from New Zealand. And then jump on another plane flying roughly SE, and return to NZ via, say, Tokyo.
I'd like to see how this works on a Flat Earth map. Are there two New Zealands?

 

[Freodin]

Have any of the Flat Earth types ever drawn a 'map' to which we can compare reality? I'd love to see one. I want to work out how I can fly roughly in a NE direction, via Los Angeles, to London, from New Zealand. And then jump on another plane flying roughly SE, and return to NZ via, say, Tokyo.
I'd like to see how this works on a Flat Earth map. Are there two New Zealands?

Directions work differently on a Flat Earth... another problem that they didn't manage to solve.

North and South work basically almost like on the globe. North always points towards the pole (the singular north pole), and south just points aways from that, the "true" direction depending on your longitude.
But East and West are tricky. While on the globe, east and west are always in a straight "line" (a great circle), on the flat earth, they have to follow the latitude circles. So east and west curve. That problem becomes very evident when it comes to sunrise and sundowns. Their theoretical positions differ greatly from what we observe in reality.

Most likely some kind of illusion or bending. Flat Earthers are very keen on any kind of bending... just not the one that really exists.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'd like to see how this works on a Flat Earth map. Are there two New Zealands?

Obviously there have to be. Without two we couldn't get the stereoscopic effect and Wellington would appear two dimensional!

 

[ViaCrucis]

The earth is obviously flat, it's hardly fizzy at all. Someone took all the carbonation out of it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doveaman]

There is a very simple proof against flat earth

There is a very simple proof for flat earth:

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've discovered proof of the flat basketball.

As you can see the super tiny green line on top of the basketball is completely straight. If the basketball were round why doesn't the green line curve?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Proof against flat earth

There is a very simple proof against flat earth I've never heard anyone mention.

According to flat earth:

1. The sun is small and close to the earth
   
2. It never goes below the horizon
3. As it gets farther away just before night falls, it gets smaller and smaller just like a freight train traveling away on train tracks which recede to a point on the horizon
4. It gets dark because the sun gets shrouded in the haze
5. At night the sun travels in a half circle along the horizon from west to east

The observations disproving flat earth:

1. The sun does not become a point at the horizon just before night falls
2. The sun drops straight down to the horizon; it doesn't ease up to it at an ever smaller and smaller angle
   
3. You can see the sun being "chopped" as it goes behind the earth; first a small piece, later it is a half circle, and etc.

Has anyone actually addressed the OP yet? I see no evidence.

Just to add some math to the thread (even though I don't think Flat Earther's "believe" in math):

If the Earth was flat, the sun would never touch the horizon because it would always be high up in the sky.

If the Sun is 3000 miles above the flat Earth disc, then in order for the Sun to get within 5 degrees of the horizon from an observer on the disc, it needs to be more than 34000 miles away from the observer.

In order for the sun to touch the horizon, it has to be infinitely distant.

Clearly, the sun touches the horizon every day without becoming a tiny speck of light on the horizon.

I think Flat Earthers could get around this by claiming that light rays bend in such a way that it makes the sun appear to sink below the horizon before it actually does. But I have never seen anyone draw a diagram of how this would work.

 

[Freodin]

There is a very simple proof for flat earth:
...

If that is all it takes...
... here's the very simple proof that the Earth is not flat.

 

[Freodin]

Has anyone actually addressed the OP yet? I see no evidence.

Just to add some math to the thread (even though I don't think Flat Earther's "believe" in math):

If the Earth was flat, the sun would never touch the horizon because it would always be high up in the sky.

If the Sun is 3000 miles above the flat Earth disc, then in order for the Sun to get within 5 degrees of the horizon from an observer on the disc, it needs to be more than 34000 miles away from the observer.

In order for the sun to touch the horizon, it has to be infinitely distant.

Clearly, the sun touches the horizon every day without becoming a tiny speck of light on the horizon.

I think Flat Earthers could get around this by claiming that light rays bend in such a way that it makes the sun appear to sink below the horizon before it actually does. But I have never seen anyone draw a diagram of how this would work.

Contrary to what they may claim, flat earthers aren't diligent searchers for answers to open questions. They are not skeptically questioning authorities, and scientifically looking for the truth.

No, they have been "woke", have seen the "truth", see behind the "lies" and "deceptions" and "conspiracies" to keep them in the dark... they are dogmatists. Eager to embrace every authority that seems to agree with them, eager to accept every lie, every deception, every conspiracy that supports their idea.

Their main battle cry is "Where is the curvature? Show me the curvature!"... and when they are shown the curvature, they cry foul. They find solutions that requires everything to be curved... except the Earth.


The real bummer here: they are not completely wrong. There are lensing effects and light does get bend by the atmosphere.

"See?", cry the Flat Earthers, "You agree! That proves it! The Earth is flat, and it's the light that bends!"

But because they don't believe in any "science" that doesn't support their preconceived ideas... they never bother to research the really existing phenomena. If they did, they would find that these effects would never work to bring the results we observe in reality.

 

[USincognito]

I believe the large amount of proof you are referring to is just a by product of the authority of NASA and government (one and the same),

NASA is heavily populated with contractors. Just look at the logos on the clean suits worn by these technicians. See the Rockwell logo on one of them? To suggest that the Apollo program (or NASA in general) is a purely a "government" entity simply isn't supported by the facts.


Also, science doesn't do proof. There's no such thing as scientific proof nor are things ever scientifically proven. When you're discussing science, you might want to avoid using proof/proven/etc.

Why haven't we been back to the moon Nasa agents are asked? Because we destroyed the tech and we dont have the money to rebuild it. That makes no sense.

First, NASA isn't the only agency to send craft to the Moon nor were Apollo 11-17 the only missions. There were 18 successful Soviet missions including impactors, orbiters and landers. Some of those missions returned samples and deployed 2 Lunakhod rovers. Second, it's wrong to say we haven't been back to the Moon since. Starting in 1994 numerous orbiter, impactor and lander missions (all unmanned) have been sent by NASA, Japan's space agency, the ESA, the Chinese, India and LuxSpace a European consortium.
List of missions to the Moon - Wikipedia

Finally, it makes sense because we took our remaining Saturn Vs, canceled Apollo 18-20, and used them to build Skylab. We didn't have the will to continue the program or to spend the money. Once the program was ended and all the engineers and contractors moved on to different jobs/projects, we would have to create a completely new launch/lander system. There's a lot more to a lunar mission than just rolling out the blueprints and building some more.

Why don't we have an actual snapshot photo of Earth, like we can snap the moon (EVERY single image of Earth is a composite, photoshopped image)?

That simply isn't true. There was no digital photography in the late 60s/early 70s. There were plenty of photos and video taken back then. Here's earth rise during Apollo 10.

And here's a 2008 earthrise from the KAGUYA orbiter.

 

[tas8831]

see also Immanuel Velikovsky’s “Worlds in Collision.”

Velikovsky believed that 'manna from heaven' was hydrocarbons from the tail of a comet.

 

[tas8831]

Their main battle cry is "Where is the curvature? Show me the curvature!"... and when they are shown the curvature, they cry foul. They find solutions that requires everything to be curved... except the Earth.

I had one fellow declare that NASA photos from the 60s and 70s showing curvature were really artifacts because - and he really made this claim - the pictures were taken with 'Go Pros' using fish eye lenses.

When I informed him that 1, Go Pros did not exist then and 2, presented a picture actually using a fish eye lens that did indeed produce curvature, but in the opposite direction of his claim, he accused me of being 'arrogant' and part of the conspiracy.

 

[Freodin]

I just don't get Flat Earthers. What motivates them? Considering their stance regarding explanations and answers to their question, it is not the quest for knowledge.
Considering their claims regarding "conspiracies, deceptions and lies", it is not a quest for truth.

I guess being able to claim "special knowledge" gives them importance, makes them feel superiour to the "sheep". Perhaps for the first time, they have found something where they can shine, where they can impress other people.

And I guess for some people, a little adoration and a lot of ridicule is better that complete anonymity.

 

[bhsmte]

I just don't get Flat Earthers. What motivates them? Considering their stance regarding explanations and answers to their question, it is not the quest for knowledge.
Considering their claims regarding "conspiracies, deceptions and lies", it is not a quest for truth.

I guess being able to claim "special knowledge" gives them importance, makes them feel superiour to the "sheep". Perhaps for the first time, they have found something where they can shine, where they can impress other people.

And I guess for some people, a little adoration and a lot of ridicule is better that complete anonymity.

IMO, a lot of the goofy conspiracy theories, are driven by personal paranoia and fear.

 

[Freodin]

IMO, a lot of the goofy conspiracy theories, are driven by personal paranoia and fear.

I can understand that for conspiracies that in some way threaten you. Chem trails to poison you, black helicopters to imprison you, shadowy figures who are after you...

But what is there to fear about living on a global earth? Falling off it, if you happen to live on the "down" half?

 

[ianw16]

Velikovsky believed that 'manna from heaven' was hydrocarbons from the tail of a comet.

Velikovsky was a moron. Not just your average, garden variety moron - a world class moron. Anybody that takes any of his woo seriously is essentially hanging a great big sign around their necks, saying, "I am scientifically illiterate. Ignore me."

 

[Freodin]

Another problem with the "conspiracy" part.
These people believe that there is a literally "global" conspiracy... all over the world, all the "elite" is bound to defend this "lie" about the earth being a globe. Governments, space agencies, scientists, universities, media concerns, even the churches... they are all in on it... or being subdued by the might of those that are.
The Illuminati/Jesuits/Zionists/Reptiloids spend billions of dollars to spread this lie. They have done that for thousands of years. They control everything.

But here we have a plucky human being, who, with his trusty P900 camera and an internet access, can make videos of the Earth being flat... and Youtube even pays him for that.

Isn't Nikon controlled by the Globalists? Isn't Youtube part of this conspiracy? Why do they allow that? Why aren't these Youtubers visited by some anonymous NASA enforcer, either offering them a million bucks to shut up, or threaten them with unspeakable horrors?

If I was a Flat Earther, I would be trembling in my basement, fearing the might of the Globalist conspiracy.

 

[tas8831]

Another problem with the "conspiracy" part.
These people believe that there is a literally "global" conspiracy... all over the world, all the "elite" is bound to defend this "lie" about the earth being a globe. Governments, space agencies, scientists, universities, media concerns, even the churches... they are all in on it... or being subdued by the might of those that are.
The Illuminati/Jesuits/Zionists/Reptiloids spend billions of dollars to spread this lie. They have done that for thousands of years. They control everything.

But here we have a plucky human being, who, with his trusty P900 camera and an internet access, can make videos of the Earth being flat... and Youtube even pays him for that.

Isn't Nikon controlled by the Globalists? Isn't Youtube part of this conspiracy? Why do they allow that? Why aren't these Youtubers visited by some anonymous NASA enforcer, either offering them a million bucks to shut up, or threaten them with unspeakable horrors?

If I was a Flat Earther, I would be trembling in my basement, fearing the might of the Globalist conspiracy.

Exactly - to what end? Same with moon landing deniers - whom does it serve?

They, like moon hoaxers and anti-vaxxers, think they are "woke" and thus possess special knowledge, making them 'better' than others. That is certainly how many of them act...