Prove or Disprove Flat Earth Theology

[Ouroboros]

My son works at JPL. He writes software for things that go into space and other planets. If all the science they're using is wrong, he wouldn't have a job.

 

[ChristineM]

I have extracted pictures from Pinterest that may be of interest.

1. A domed flat Earth with closed (frozen) edge like this can hold water. I want you all for homework to inflate a globe-print beach ball, and try to get the ball to hold water. And tell me how it went.

(Yeah, it's easy to write me off as a troll, but I figured out that a sphere doesn't hold water, and you're still struggling with this)

Let's suppose for a second that the reason water doesn't fall off into outer space with a rounded surface, constant spinning, and everything else is that gravity magically holds everything in place. Two new questions must be asked: (1) why do we feel a breeze of 25 mph and in fact get knocked off the ground at above like 90 mph yet feel absolutely nothing of this extremely fast spin? And don't tell me biological adaptation, bookcases also stay put while the substantially lower force of an earthquake knocks them clean over. My mom gets motion sick easily. She should be in constant agony. (2) If gravity is such a strong force that it hold the sky and the clouds in place without a firmament, and also hold water from rising out of the sea, why then is it really very easy to overcome gravity with magnetism? I was at a rock museum, and those magnetite or hemitite or whatever stones, I managed to stack about 15 or so to each other and to a metal table for several minutes straight. Upside down.

These things, btw can both be explained by air bouyancy and density without invoking gravity. A feather flies when air pushes it because it is only slightly more dense than air and can override it. The same for metal with enough magnetism. A bookcase, is much heavier and generally will not lift. Water stays in place because it is contained, and we do not feel anything because the Earth is not rotating. Originally, all religions believed this, not only "backward" Muslims still challenge it. Everyone else is brainwashed to the point of not even understand their own cognitive dissonance.

2. Two areas on opposite eastern/western and norther/southern hemispheres at the same time (given time zones), should not both be able to see the moon. One should be full and the other new, if in fact they are on opposite hemispheres. However, they took this shot on the same night and...

(For that matter, in a round Earth, the eastern and western hemisphere ought to matter nearly as much as the southern and northern. However, northern and southern are seasonally inverted and have different constellations, as I found out when in South Africa their cold months were in the US summer. There however is no discernible difference between east and west)

3. Yeah, uhhh gravity isn't magic. Also, you've been brainwashed.

4. How do compasses work? And how do sundials work?

5. And lastly, this curvature of the Earth thing is just stupid. See below.

Lemme ask you something. You know those laser pointer things? You expect them to be level, and not curve. Enough so that people actually use them to build houses. If you point them in any direction, a curve would begin to show, that is, if there were one to be had. If all light curved with the curve of the Earth, you would not be able to trust a simple flashlight to light your way on a flat hill. It would constantly be curving in an odd line. Yet, if we are expected to believe that somehow a light that very clearly shines in a straight line is straight enough to measure angles for building but is somehow curving, yeah...

The atmosphere is domed, yes. We can figure this one out fairly easily with angles. But all of these things show issues with the surface also being rounded.

On last thing. Here is the Richmond Science Museum. This globe is intended to "prove" the earth is round, by pushing water up it. But you notice what's happening on the bottom? I think since then, they've got it to rotate more vertically. It still drips off. Round Earth... doesn't hold water. (I'm gonna chuckle at that terrible pun all night, btw)

Wow... Just wow

 

[exchemist]

I have extracted pictures from Pinterest that may be of interest.

1. A domed flat Earth with closed (frozen) edge like this can hold water. I want you all for homework to inflate a globe-print beach ball, and try to get the ball to hold water. And tell me how it went.

(Yeah, it's easy to write me off as a troll, but I figured out that a sphere doesn't hold water, and you're still struggling with this)

Let's suppose for a second that the reason water doesn't fall off into outer space with a rounded surface, constant spinning, and everything else is that gravity magically holds everything in place. Two new questions must be asked: (1) why do we feel a breeze of 25 mph and in fact get knocked off the ground at above like 90 mph yet feel absolutely nothing of this extremely fast spin? And don't tell me biological adaptation, bookcases also stay put while the substantially lower force of an earthquake knocks them clean over. My mom gets motion sick easily. She should be in constant agony. (2) If gravity is such a strong force that it hold the sky and the clouds in place without a firmament, and also hold water from rising out of the sea, why then is it really very easy to overcome gravity with magnetism? I was at a rock museum, and those magnetite or hemitite or whatever stones, I managed to stack about 15 or so to each other and to a metal table for several minutes straight. Upside down.

These things, btw can both be explained by air bouyancy and density without invoking gravity. A feather flies when air pushes it because it is only slightly more dense than air and can override it. The same for metal with enough magnetism. A bookcase, is much heavier and generally will not lift. Water stays in place because it is contained, and we do not feel anything because the Earth is not rotating. Originally, all religions believed this, not only "backward" Muslims still challenge it. Everyone else is brainwashed to the point of not even understand their own cognitive dissonance.

2. Two areas on opposite eastern/western and norther/southern hemispheres at the same time (given time zones), should not both be able to see the moon. One should be full and the other new, if in fact they are on opposite hemispheres. However, they took this shot on the same night and...

(For that matter, in a round Earth, the eastern and western hemisphere ought to matter nearly as much as the southern and northern. However, northern and southern are seasonally inverted and have different constellations, as I found out when in South Africa their cold months were in the US summer. There however is no discernible difference between east and west)

3. Yeah, uhhh gravity isn't magic. Also, you've been brainwashed.

4. How do compasses work? And how do sundials work?

5. And lastly, this curvature of the Earth thing is just stupid. See below.

Lemme ask you something. You know those laser pointer things? You expect them to be level, and not curve. Enough so that people actually use them to build houses. If you point them in any direction, a curve would begin to show, that is, if there were one to be had. If all light curved with the curve of the Earth, you would not be able to trust a simple flashlight to light your way on a flat hill. It would constantly be curving in an odd line. Yet, if we are expected to believe that somehow a light that very clearly shines in a straight line is straight enough to measure angles for building but is somehow curving, yeah...

The atmosphere is domed, yes. We can figure this one out fairly easily with angles. But all of these things show issues with the surface also being rounded.

On last thing. Here is the Richmond Science Museum. This globe is intended to "prove" the earth is round, by pushing water up it. But you notice what's happening on the bottom? I think since then, they've got it to rotate more vertically. It still drips off. Round Earth... doesn't hold water. (I'm gonna chuckle at that terrible pun all night, btw)

Ah, so you really are a troll, then. Useful to know for the future, I suppose.

 

[Darkforbid]

Ah, so you really are a troll, then. Useful to know for the future, I suppose.

If it's addressing the OP, how can it be trolling?

 

[exchemist]

If it's addressing the OP, how can it be trolling?

If a troll starts a thread to troll the forum and then keeps the thread going by adding further troll material, that is troll behaviour. If it were not, any troll could start a thread and then be entitled to keep it going indefinitely, on the basis that it was on-topic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Livestreams of the earth from Space:

ISS HD Earth Viewing Experiment

Flat earth disproved.

Thread done.

 

[Darkforbid]

I'm sad that flat earth nonsense has made it onto RF.

Don't give this funny ratings, I mean I'm genuinely sad.

It's topics like this that ensure we have trolls.

Yes it does,,

Please don't troll with strawman arguments/

Made zilch effort, just trolling

Ah, so you really are a troll, then. Useful to know for the future, I suppose.

Claiming troll to justify trolling is the worst kind of troll

 

[exchemist]

Please don't troll with strawman arguments/

I reckon "Samantha" is a 220lb male truck driver, covered in tattoos.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Btw, you cannot by definition troll your own thread. And a strawman is something that one makes a position that is easy to defeat. Such as calling someone a troll and telling them they are making a strawman argument. These were simply abbreviated arguments through pictures.

My son works at JPL. He writes software for things that go into space and other planets. If all the science they're using is wrong, he wouldn't have a job.

And my grandpa worked for NASA designing suits. It's not like they don't give people stuff to do. But they deceive their own workers, because their agenda is the following.

I do not deny that outer space exists, necessarily. I do deny however that a rounded unenclosed plane can hold water.

But since we're talking NASA pictures, three things:
1. Stop motion filming and/or green screen
2. Timestamp manipulation
3. Voice overs.

All of these not only possible but easy to do. Hell, Hollywood in the 1920s could make people ride in cars and mess with backgrounds. So forgive me if I raise eyebrows on this "livestream" from space. How difficult would it be to re-record a tweaked live video? So I asked the internet.

How can I create a fake live video?
YouTube is overrun with fake livestreams

Yeah, uhhhh. Forgive me if I'm still not convinced.

I am not 220 lb nor a truck driver, sorry.

I found this today.

Military projectile equations assume a flat earth. Tell me, why would you assume a flat earth if you're on a spinning ball?

And NASA themselves put out at least one of these. Assuming you're using equations to get into space, why go to the trouble of... oh wait, I already told you. Are there possibly other planets which do not in fact have a flat Earth? Maybe so, but they would be significantly more inclined to crash space shuttles than a non-rotating flat Earth, where you just need the right angle of entry.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Btw, you cannot by definition troll your own thread. And a strawman is something that one makes a position that is easy to defeat. Such as calling someone a troll and telling them they are making a strawman argument. These were simply abbreviated arguments through pictures.



And my grandpa worked for NASA designing suits. It's not like they don't give people stuff to do. But they deceive their own workers, because their agenda is the following.

I do not deny that outer space exists, necessarily. I do deny however that a rounded unenclosed plane can hold water.

But since we're talking NASA pictures, three things:
1. Stop motion filming and/or green screen
2. Timestamp manipulation
3. Voice overs.

All of these not only possible but easy to do. Hell, Hollywood in the 1920s could make people ride in cars and mess with backgrounds. So forgive me if I raise eyebrows on this "livestream" from space. How difficult would it be to re-record a tweaked live video? So I asked the internet.

How can I create a fake live video?
YouTube is overrun with fake livestreams

Yeah, uhhhh. Forgive me if I'm still not convinced.

I am not 220 lb nor a truck driver, sorry.

I found this today.

Put the YouTube videos and memes away. They are warping your mind. Try some science instead.
Seriously, you're convinced by a strangely worded internet meme created by some random person but disbelieve carefully measured scientific findings and observations? Think about that for a minute.

 

[Ouroboros]

Btw, you cannot by definition troll your own thread. And a strawman is something that one makes a position that is easy to defeat. Such as calling someone a troll and telling them they are making a strawman argument. These were simply abbreviated arguments through pictures.

It would be hard to deceive my son since he's been working on things like transfer protocols of pictures from the cameras... Unless he's deceiving himself or part of the conspiracy

 

[night912]

It would be hard to deceive my son since he's been working on things like transfer protocols of pictures from the cameras... Unless he's deceiving himself or part of the conspiracy

You should know by now what the answer is. He's part of the conspiracy. Conspiracies solves everything when someone can't accept the facts and only wants to believe what they believe.

 

[night912]

Btw, you cannot by definition troll your own thread. And a strawman is something that one makes a position that is easy to defeat. Such as calling someone a troll and telling them they are making a strawman argument. These were simply abbreviated arguments through pictures.

Of course you can. Anything is possible, unless if you are part of the conspiracy to make people think that you can't troll your own thread.
And my grandpa worked for NASA designing suits. It's not like they don't give people stuff to do. But they deceive their own workers, because their agenda is the following.
That's it. You've solved it. The answer to all the arguments. Your grandpa designing suits proves that the earth is flat, NASA is just covering it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Put the YouTube videos and memes away. They are warping your mind. Try some science instead.
Seriously, you're convinced by a strangely worded internet meme created by some random person but disbelieve carefully measured scientific findings and observations? Think about that for a minute.

Some people cannot do science or math and as a result it looks like so much magic to them. I am betting that the OP cannot do math beyond very basic algebra, if that. Definitely trigonometry and calculus are beyond her present grasp.

 

[exchemist]

Some people cannot do science or math and as a result it looks like so much magic to them. I am betting that the OP cannot do math beyond very basic algebra, if that. Definitely trigonometry and calculus are beyond her present grasp.

But there's far more to it than inability to do maths. Every school child from the age of about six knows the Earth is a sphere and it is gravity that keeps in place the water and the objects on the surface. You even see the curvature of the Earth when you look out to sea from the beach, and then again from a cliff top. For example you can see France from the cliffs at Dover but not from the beach. Eratosthenes knew the Earth was round in 300BC, dammit. Not surprising: the Greek were sailors. And so did the early church. So this is a sort of deliberate regression, to a world of imagined stupidity that never existed.

https://strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/

This person is either trolling (i.e. is putting on an act, to get a rise out of the rest of us), or is mad as a box of frogs. I think it is the former, but it is only an opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But there's far more to it than inability to do maths. Every school child from the age of about six knows the Earth is a sphere and it is gravity that keeps in place the water and the objects on the surface. You even see the curvature of the Earth when you look out to sea from the beach, and then again from a cliff top. For example you can see France from the cliffs at Dover but not from the beach. Eratosthenes knew the Earth was round in 300BC, dammit. Not surprising: the Greek were sailors. And so did the early church. So this is a sort of deliberate regression, to a world of imagined stupidity that never existed.

https://strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/

This person is either trolling (i.e. is putting on an act, to get a rise out of the rest of us), or is mad as a box of frogs. I think it is the former, but it is only an opinion.

Perhaps you are right. She did use some of the most brain dead arguments of Flerfers.

And the Christian church may have never taught the Flat Earth, in fact I find that claim to very likely to be true. But the Old Testament is written as if the Earth were flat. Kudos to early Christians or not treating the Old Testament as a book that had to be read literally.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps you are right. She did use some of the most brain dead arguments of Flerfers.

And the Christian church may have never taught the Flat Earth, in fact I find that claim to very likely to be true. But the Old Testament is written as if the Earth were flat. Kudos to early Christians or not treating the Old Testament as a book that had to be read literally.

Early Christians had the benefit of Greek thought, of course. I believe I have seen Christianity described as resting on a synthesis of Judaism with Greek philosophy. And indeed, they did not take the OT all literally. Early Christian thinkers knew their Greek myths and were familiar with allegory as a literary device. (I usually quite Origen at this point, but you've seen the quote before.) Anyway, suffice it to say that these people were not stupid.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Put the YouTube videos and memes away. They are warping your mind. Try some science instead.
Seriously, you're convinced by a strangely worded internet meme created by some random person but disbelieve carefully measured scientific findings and observations? Think about that for a minute.

Should I put "science" in scare quotes?

I just explained earlier how if the Earth is spinning... 1,037.5646 miles per hour
How Fast Does the Earth Rotate on Its Axis and Orbit the Sun?
while also traveling 66,660 miles per hour around the Sun, it should be possible for is to notice it. But sure, let's go with the theory that somehow humans have acclimated, much like a person on Everest to the thin air, or a man who does roofing for a living.

This does not account for inanimate objects. Which by all rights should be flopping all over the place. But somehow gravity not only equals a magical force that lets people hang upside-down (which totally means we ought to be able to climb stairs Escher-style) but also halts all movement that humans should be able to feel, because we're assuming it is divided by the size of the Earth. For the record, I have thought about how this would work.

Lemme ask you something. Do you trust completely these "carefully recorded scientific findings"? Because I personally found myself underprepared for a Horticulture science fair. I discovered that I had forgot to actually measure many (okay, all) of the growth recordings, having just mainly compared the growth rate of one batch to another. Looking around at the other students, I quickly drew a chart, and faked my way through. After that, I have never trusted so-called scientific results blindly but always asked, "Is there an agenda here?" For instance, a climate change study could be used by politicians to justify some new tax to make our lives miserable. I think I'll ignore that study, thank you. Especially, when those same politicians use 32x the amount of carbon as the average household (*ahem* Al Gore).

My grandpa worked for military designing planes, then switched to Hamilton Standard (where he kinda designed toilets). They got subcontracted by NASA to design the suits. Personally, it's irrelevant to me whether outer space exists. It could exist, and it would be fascinating to go other places. And the idea of a flat Earth with a firmament is not mutually exclusive, but I think I personally do believe in a holographic universe. Let me explain something though...

Aerodynamics. A rocket, is designed suspiciously like the vehicle in Le Voyage Dans La Lune, almost bullet shaped. In a rounded, constantly moving Earth, as it rotates, it will (A) flip the thing upside down or to the side resulting in a crash landing, (B) the moving Earth, regardless of speed cannot catch up the the Earth, and this is before thing supposedly slows to orbit and lands in the bell-shaped pod, or (C) collide with the shuttle and have the speed and size difference splatter the pod.

An average rocket goes about 17000 mph in order to leave the orbit. Hmmm, Earth goes 66k mph. Let's take out a few zeroes, and revert the size and speed differential to human terms. A horse goes maybe 17 mph, and a bus filled with people goes about 60 mph. Only the "bus" in question is significantly larger than the "horse" (3,958.8 mi radius vs size of a shuttle, closer to the difference between a 18-wheel truck and a fly). I can't just see them asking for volunteers. "When you go up, you're gonna have to go 17000 mph, but the Earth will be spinning crosswise at 1000 mph, harsher than any wind on Earth and will probably knock you completely upside-down. You won't be able to react in time and will probably head-on collide with land. When you re-enter, you might get hit by the Earth itself, and you'll die instantly. Now raise your hand if you want to go into outer space!" All hands go down. Or... "To leave the atmosphere, you just have to make a mild ascent, so you need to turn a straight-up motion into a gentler angled ascent, so you won't burn up from going too fast. To make reentry, you need to reenter at the right angle, too steep and you against burn up, too shallow and you wind up missing the Earth." Says virtually every movie ever.

A curved object like a flying saucer, would have multiple rotation points, averting A (but not necessarily B or C). It gets turned aside by the rotation but continues to land, using its aerodynamic curved design to rotate in a smooth orbit, but it still runs afoul of the other two. On the other hand, if the object in question is a fixed flat plane that only has to worry about precise entry and exit, most of what we hear about in space flight stories and movies suddenly makes perfect sense. Entry and exit is difficult because you burn up or leave orbit, but you aren't trying to hit a large moving object (which zero movies mention, probably because it isn't a thing). Yet, for a fixed object with a dome atmosphere, a pointed nose makes perfect sense.
------------------------------------------

You know, all of you are like "Hahaha, you're so stupid (so is practically the entire internet and most classrooms, the latter which tell people absurd things like that Flat Earthers all believe there were dragons or that you'd fall off the edge)." But not one of you has explained any science, you're just parroting teachers, representatives of NASA, and other "experts" who know.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

You're also using consensus rather than figuring out why it could or souldn't be the case.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Authority fallacy plus consensus fallacy. Yup, someone famous said it, so I'm gonna trust them. And everyone agrees so it must be true. Despite the fact that your own senses all say otherwise (if you are standing on shore, and a boat passes by, you can generally tell the difference between moving by something at great speed, and having it move by you, to say nothing of motion feeling). So let's ask, how can we tell something else is moving and not us? Get into a car and look out the window, you see everything moving behind you. On the other hand, a car rushing past while you sit on a chair is moving past, and is the only only thing moving past. Simple. So, when we look in the sky, if we are going enormous distances every second, the sun as a fixed object should appear to be a blur. If the sun alone is racing by, it should appear much faster than all around it. But neither us, nor the sun does this. Therefore, either the sun is also moving extremely fast, or the sun is actually a near orbit, not nearly as hot as we are told, and completes its movement around the Earth relatively easily.

Despite that some of the assertions, to be true, make no sense, the head of NASA said it, and so did my school teacher, and I've been told people always believed it. Yes, and? People believe stupid things, and consensus doesn't equal veracity. It just means there are many people on a bandwagon unable or unwilling to ask, "Okay, how do I know what I've been told is true? What if the people who told me this are idiots?"

 

[night912]

Some people cannot do science or math and as a result it looks like so much magic to them. I am betting that the OP cannot do math beyond very basic algebra, if that. Definitely trigonometry and calculus are beyond her present grasp.

I disagree. I can't do those advanced math, but still grasp the concept.

 

[exchemist]

Should I put "science" in scare quotes?

I just explained earlier how if the Earth is spinning... 1,037.5646 miles per hour
How Fast Does the Earth Rotate on Its Axis and Orbit the Sun?
while also traveling 66,660 miles per hour around the Sun, it should be possible for is to notice it. But sure, let's go with the theory that somehow humans have acclimated, much like a person on Everest to the thin air, or a man who does roofing for a living.

This does not account for inanimate objects. Which by all rights should be flopping all over the place. But somehow gravity not only equals a magical force that lets people hang upside-down (which totally means we ought to be able to climb stairs Escher-style) but also halts all movement that humans should be able to feel, because we're assuming it is divided by the size of the Earth. For the record, I have thought about how this would work.

Lemme ask you something. Do you trust completely these "carefully recorded scientific findings"? Because I personally found myself underprepared for a Horticulture science fair. I discovered that I had forgot to actually measure many (okay, all) of the growth recordings, having just mainly compared the growth rate of one batch to another. Looking around at the other students, I quickly drew a chart, and faked my way through. After that, I have never trusted so-called scientific results blindly but always asked, "Is there an agenda here?" For instance, a climate change study could be used by politicians to justify some new tax to make our lives miserable. I think I'll ignore that study, thank you. Especially, when those same politicians use 32x the amount of carbon as the average household (*ahem* Al Gore).

My grandpa worked for military designing planes, then switched to Hamilton Standard (where he kinda designed toilets). They got subcontracted by NASA to design the suits. Personally, it's irrelevant to me whether outer space exists. It could exist, and it would be fascinating to go other places. And the idea of a flat Earth with a firmament is not mutually exclusive, but I think I personally do believe in a holographic universe. Let me explain something though...

Aerodynamics. A rocket, is designed suspiciously like the vehicle in Le Voyage Dans La Lune, almost bullet shaped. In a rounded, constantly moving Earth, as it rotates, it will (A) flip the thing upside down or to the side resulting in a crash landing, (B) the moving Earth, regardless of speed cannot catch up the the Earth, and this is before thing supposedly slows to orbit and lands in the bell-shaped pod, or (C) collide with the shuttle and have the speed and size difference splatter the pod.

An average rocket goes about 17000 mph in order to leave the orbit. Hmmm, Earth goes 66k mph. Let's take out a few zeroes, and revert the size and speed differential to human terms. A horse goes maybe 17 mph, and a bus filled with people goes about 60 mph. Only the "bus" in question is significantly larger than the "horse" (3,958.8 mi radius vs size of a shuttle, closer to the difference between a 18-wheel truck and a fly). I can't just see them asking for volunteers. "When you go up, you're gonna have to go 17000 mph, but the Earth will be spinning crosswise at 1000 mph, harsher than any wind on Earth and will probably knock you completely upside-down. You won't be able to react in time and will probably head-on collide with land. When you re-enter, you might get hit by the Earth itself, and you'll die instantly. Now raise your hand if you want to go into outer space!" All hands go down. Or... "To leave the atmosphere, you just have to make a mild ascent, so you need to turn a straight-up motion into a gentler angled ascent, so you won't burn up from going too fast. To make reentry, you need to reenter at the right angle, too steep and you against burn up, too shallow and you wind up missing the Earth." Says virtually every movie ever.

A curved object like a flying saucer, would have multiple rotation points, averting A (but not necessarily B or C). It gets turned aside by the rotation but continues to land, using its aerodynamic curved design to rotate in a smooth orbit, but it still runs afoul of the other two. On the other hand, if the object in question is a fixed flat plane that only has to worry about precise entry and exit, most of what we hear about in space flight stories and movies suddenly makes perfect sense. Entry and exit is difficult because you burn up or leave orbit, but you aren't trying to hit a large moving object (which zero movies mention, probably because it isn't a thing). Yet, for a fixed object with a dome atmosphere, a pointed nose makes perfect sense.

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.