The Globe Earth is Heresy - let's talk!

[Alien826]

High marks for creativity are about all I can give the proponents of these things. But historically, very interesting.

Psychologically, even more so.

“Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'

I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!”​

 

[Alien826]

Sure but we don't want to let them know that we know nod nod wink wink say no more

A total divergence from the OP, but I think we've (thankfully) gotten to the humor phase of the thread.

I don't know how many of you read the Xanth books by Piers Anthony? They had the "adult conspiracy", which was keeping the secret of "summoning the stork" (sex) from children. There was also the "chlidren's conspiracy" which was children hiding the fact that they knew perfectly well but didn't want to upset adults by letting them know.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

No.

Could Earth become flat as a pancake in the future for whatever unknown reason, maybe, but there is no reason to assume that to be the case.

I don't get the impression that you really understood what I was trying to explain.

In one of the other replies, I wrote this to you "Science doesn't simply prove something right or wrong, it is a misunderstanding a lot of people make. Science tells us what is definitely not true".

That the Earth is flat falls in the category of something "definitely not being true". A lot of people (educated) already knew this back then.

Have you ever heard of Eratosthenes?

If not then he was the first to calculate the circumference of the Earth and based on wiki he was born in 276 BC and died in 194 BC. But his experiment can be seen here.
View attachment 79838

What it shows is him measuring the shadows at two places, Alexandria and Syrene at the same time. Based on that he could calculate the circumference of the Earth. You can read more about this experiment if you want to know all the details. But the interesting thing is, that the way the shadows fall at these two places demonstrates that the Earth is round, they couldn't fall like that on a flat Earth.

This experiment was done almost 2500 years ago and our equipment for measuring these things has become much better, so if the Earth was flat we would know.

So Earth is definitely not flat!!, that doesn't mean that it will stay spherical forever, that is again what I mean by science not working in absolutes.

If you want to have any chance of convincing anyone that the Earth is flat, you have to demonstrate it. Make a testable experiment (using correct science, as flat earth people often use the wrong ones) that demonstrates that the Earth is flat. As I also told you earlier, nothing is gained from disproving the main science, it doesn't automatically make you correct, you still have to demonstrate your own theory. And if Earth is indeed flat, then it should be fairly easy to come up with an experiment that demonstrates it.

Ya, but... Dinchya know? We're just gullible sheep willing to believe everything they and the government tells us. They've washed our minds with the radio frequencies they deem illegal and their oligarchical media propaganda... DUH!

The world is ACTUALLY a vinyl record, the solar system is VERIFIABLY the turntable, and the universe is EVIDENTLY God's lounge, where he's grooving to the tunes of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

Could Earth become flat as a pancake in the future for whatever unknown reason, maybe, but there is no reason to assume that to be the case.

I don't get the impression that you really understood what I was trying to explain.

In one of the other replies, I wrote this to you "Science doesn't simply prove something right or wrong, it is a misunderstanding a lot of people make. Science tells us what is definitely not true".

That the Earth is flat falls in the category of something "definitely not being true". A lot of people (educated) already knew this back then.

Have you ever heard of Eratosthenes?

If not then he was the first to calculate the circumference of the Earth and based on wiki he was born in 276 BC and died in 194 BC. But his experiment can be seen here.
View attachment 79838

What it shows is him measuring the shadows at two places, Alexandria and Syrene at the same time. Based on that he could calculate the circumference of the Earth. You can read more about this experiment if you want to know all the details. But the interesting thing is, that the way the shadows fall at these two places demonstrates that the Earth is round, they couldn't fall like that on a flat Earth.

This experiment was done almost 2500 years ago and our equipment for measuring these things has become much better, so if the Earth was flat we would know.

So Earth is definitely not flat!!, that doesn't mean that it will stay spherical forever, that is again what I mean by science not working in absolutes.

If you want to have any chance of convincing anyone that the Earth is flat, you have to demonstrate it. Make a testable experiment (using correct science, as flat earth people often use the wrong ones) that demonstrates that the Earth is flat. As I also told you earlier, nothing is gained from disproving the main science, it doesn't automatically make you correct, you still have to demonstrate your own theory. And if Earth is indeed flat, then it should be fairly easy to come up with an experiment that demonstrates it.

The problem with Eratosthenes's experiment is that even though it does support a spherical Earth and it does give us a fairly accurate measurement of the size of the Earth is that it does not prove that the Earth is a sphere.

I know, BLASPHEMY!! Right? The problem is that only two points were used. With a Sun that is near a Flat Earth one could get the same results. One needs a third point on the sphere or the Flat. Then one or the other would be refuted. And that of course has happened. It can more easily be done with the North Star since one does hot have to wait for a particular day to run the experiment. With a near Earth Polaris one would could still replicate the observations of any two points on a spherical Earth. But one will not get the same results using a flat Earth if the Earth is a sphere. Also if the Earth was flat one would find that the distance between lines of latitude would vary. But we know from endless tests that the distances between lines of latitude are constant. That is mathematical proof of a spherical Earth. The concept of Nautical Miles is based upon the observation that the distances between lines of latitude are consistent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Umbra and penumbra exist because the light from the sun is not parallel, do you agree?
Just for you I'm opening a new thread for Eratosthenes then we can stay on topic here.

ERATOSTHENES DID NOT PROVE THE EARTH IS A GLOBE!

The Eratosthenes experiment works on a flat earth with a small local light source. The Eratosthenes experiment depended on all the light from the sun being parallel, but even the globe model claims it is not!

www.religiousforums.com

Wow! An amazing example that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Yes, two points only do not prove a spherical Earth. It would take three points to do that. Do you seriously think that the concept has not been tested with multiple lines. As I pointed out in my prior post, lines of latitude prove you wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, yes I have very much heard of Eratosthenes!

Are you willing to sacrifice his claim to the light from the sun being parallel or sacrifice how umbra and penumbra work?
View attachment 79839
We can open an entire thread dedicated to that topic if you wish.

Okay, so you do not understand what a margin of error is. For almost all practical purposes the rays of the Sun's rays are parallel when they hit the Earth. There are rare exceptions when that minor error from perfectly parallel matter.

Here is a question for you: How common are Solar Eclipses? Do they happen every day? No? Okay, at least once a month? Oh still not. Rats well at least once a year? Oh still no. The Moon's orbit is not exactly in the same ecliptic as our orbit around the Sun. Various factors keep that shadow from always hitting the Earth. Those events are very rare so for most cases we can ignore them when talking about the Sun's rays. Do we always have to write "So close to being parallel that the difference does not really matter" when talking about experiments like that of Erasthones?

 

[Nimos]

The problem with Eratosthenes's experiment is that even though it does support a spherical Earth and it does give us a fairly accurate measurement of the size of the Earth is that it does not prove that the Earth is a sphere.

I know, BLASPHEMY!! Right? The problem is that only two points were used. With a Sun that is near a Flat Earth one could get the same results. One needs a third point on the sphere or the Flat. Then one or the other would be refuted. And that of course has happened. It can more easily be done with the North Star since one does hot have to wait for a particular day to run the experiment. With a near Earth Polaris one would could still replicate the observations of any two points on a spherical Earth. But one will not get the same results using a flat Earth if the Earth is a sphere. Also if the Earth was flat one would find that the distance between lines of latitude would vary. But we know from endless tests that the distances between lines of latitude are constant. That is mathematical proof of a spherical Earth. The concept of Nautical Miles is based upon the observation that the distances between lines of latitude are consistent.

But if you increase the distance between the places you measure, the shadow would change on a spherical Earth compared to that on a flat earth, right?

If we assume you dug two holes 50 km apart and then measured the angle on both a spherical Earth and a flat Earth you would probably get the same result. But if you increase the distance between the two holes so one is dug on the curvature of the Earth then they wouldn't give the same result, would they?

Just to explain what I mean, let's just say that there are 100 units between the holes and given that one of them is on the curvature of the earth whereas the other is on a flat earth, then the angle of the shadow would be different between the two holes or did I misunderstand that? (Not the best at math to be honest )

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Okay, so you do not understand what a margin of error is. For almost all practical purposes the rays of the Sun's rays are parallel when they hit the Earth. There are rare exceptions when that minor error from perfectly parallel matter.

Here is a question for you: How common are Solar Eclipses? Do they happen every day? No? Okay, at least once a month? Oh still not. Rats well at least once a year? Oh still no. The Moon's orbit is not exactly in the same ecliptic as our orbit around the Sun. Various factors keep that shadow from always hitting the Earth. Those events are very rare so for most cases we can ignore them when talking about the Sun's rays. Do we always have to write "So close to being parallel that the difference does not really matter" when talking about experiments like that of Erasthones?

April 2024 is the next Great American total solar eclipse!!!

I bought a solar filter for my telescope 2 years ago, specifically for it. Watching the sunspot size and quantity is interesting in itself:

 

[Subduction Zone]

But if you increase the distance between the places you measure, the shadow would change on a spherical Earth compared to that on a flat earth, right?

If we assume you dug two holes 50 km apart and then measured the angle on both a spherical Earth and a flat Earth you would probably get the same result. But if you increase the distance between the two holes so one is dug on the curvature of the Earth then they wouldn't give the same result, would they?
View attachment 79881
Just to explain what I mean, let's just say that there are 100 units between the holes and given that one of them is at the curvature of the earth whereas the other is on a flat earth, then the angle of the shadow would be different between the two holes or did I misunderstand that? (Not the best at math to be honest )

I do not like your illustration because it incorrectly represents what happens. The Sun distance in the globe model is so far away as to make all rays of light from it parallel. In the illustration your model has an angle due to the Sun's rays not being parallel.

What you can do with a flat Earth and a very (very very) close sun is mimic the same angles as one gets on the globe Earth when one uses only two points. I need to find a pen and paper to work out specific examples. Are you aware that the distance between ten degrees of latitude is the same anywhere on the globe? That is something that the Flat Earth cannot explain.

 

[Nimos]

I do not like your illustration because it incorrectly represents what happens. The Sun distance in the globe model is so far away as to make all rays of light from it parallel. In the illustration your model has an angle due to the Sun's rays not being parallel.

What you can do with a flat Earth and a very (very very) close sun is mimic the same angles as one gets on the globe Earth when one uses only two points. I need to find a pen and paper to work out specific examples. Are you aware that the distance between ten degrees of latitude is the same anywhere on the globe? That is something that the Flat Earth cannot explain.

No I wasn't aware that the distance was the same. But would it matter whether the rays are parallel or not?

The angle in the hole would still be different (the blue angle) compared to that on a flat earth as the distance between the holes is increased, obviously, the position, distance and size of the sun etc. have to be the same in both experiments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I wasn't aware that the distance was the same. But would it matter whether the rays are parallel or not?

View attachment 79886
The angle in the hole would still be different (the blue angle) compared to that on a flat earth as the distance between the holes is increased, obviously, the position, distance and size of the sun etc. have to be the same in both experiments.

Yes, it makes a huge difference because now in this case you are misrepresenting the Flat Earth model. They do not have parallel rays in their model. To compare the two you need to compare the models accurately.

The globe Earth model has the Sun so far away that the angles are caused by the shape of the Earth. In the Flat Earth model the Sun is verry very close. And the difference in angles are due to the different angles to the Sun.

I have not found the image that I want yet but take a look at this one, this is how Flat Earthers would measure the height of the Sun:

 

[Nimos]

Yes, it makes a huge difference because now in this case you are misrepresenting the Flat Earth model. They do not have parallel rays in their model. To compare the two you need to compare the models accurately.

The globe Earth model has the Sun so far away that the angles are caused by the shape of the Earth. In the Flat Earth model the Sun is verry very close. And the difference in angles are due to the different angles to the Sun.

I have not found the image that I want yet but take a look at this one, this is how Flat Earthers would measure the height of the Sun:

View attachment 79887

But in that case, the sun would have to visibly change in size, depending on where you make the measurement from. If person B in your image moved closer to the E, then he would be closer to the sun and it would appear much larger for him than Person A. How do they account for that when it's not like that in the real world?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But in that case, the sun would have to visibly change in size, depending on where you make the measurement from. If person B in your image moved closer to the E, then he would be closer to the sun and it would appear much larger for him than Person A. How do they account for that not being the case in the real world?

Yep, the Flat Earth model fails again and again and again.

My only correction was that just two points are not enough to "prove the Goble" One needs at least three. And in reality it has been done millions of times.

In the illustration that I gave, besides the Sun changing size, The amount that the angles change if you keep going out another 240 feet. and they do not change by the same amount. On the Earth the distances between lines of latitude, which would be equal changes in angle, are the same. (with only a slight difference due to the Earth being oblate, rather than a perfect sphere.

The distance between 0 and 10 degrees N of latitude is the same as the difference between the distanc3 between 40 and 50 degrees N of latitude. The degrees of latitude are equal to the degrees above the horizon of the North Star. The Flat Earth Model cannot explain that. The globe model can.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It sounds like you really trust the government then. Am I correct to assume you are triple vaxxed by now?

If you're wondering whether I trust the government, my response is not really, but I trust it considerably more than a flat-earther and an anti-vaxxer.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

If you're wondering whether I trust the government, my response is not really, but I trust it considerably more than a flat-earther and an anti-vaxxer.

If you don't trust the CIA, FBI, or FDA, what makes NASA special enough to trust them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you don't trust the CIA, FBI, or FDA, what makes NASA special enough to trust them?

Who says that we don't? They are all trustable to a degree. The CIA will generally be honest, but if the information could harm the US's security it will either be not given or sometimes even wrong on purpose. The FBI tends to be much more reliable today. They get in trouble for lying. The CIA has a valid excuse for sometimes lying. Who on Earth thinks that the FDA is part of any conspiracy? I have only seen science deniers make that foolish claim. And the same for NASA.


And what is it with flat Earth believers and NASA? We knew that the Earth was a globe long long before NASA came along. Flerfs just hate NASA because they can show pictures of the Earth from space.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Who says that we don't?

I do.

I seldom afford trust to the 'alphabet groups' of the world governments, with a particular bias against the ones I'm subject to in the USA. If there is a shadow of doubt that they may be acting nefariously or for political/societal gains, any trust is rescinded.

FDA: Criticism of the FDA - Wikipedia Cares more about profits and padding the pockets of lobbyists and pharmaceutical companies than it cares about what it was created for. Monsanto, err.. Bayer and their Roundup product being one of the more recent examples.

CIA: List of CIA controversies - Wikipedia

FBI: List of FBI controversies - Wikipedia

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[Nimos]

This is Neil de'Grasse Tyson's diagram. He even acknowledged the shadows still work on a flat earth if the sun's rays were not parallel - which they aren't as demonstrated by the existence of umbra and penumbra. I explained this in the OP.

I had that discussion with someone above but that is correct, you would need three holes from what I understood.

But if one extra hole is all that is needed for the flat earth model to fall apart it is not really all that sound and doesn't change the original issue. Which is that all experiments and observations have to support a flat earth otherwise it is not valid.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I had that discussion with someone above but that is correct, you would need three holes from what I understood.

But if one extra hole is all that is needed for the flat earth model to fall apart it is not really all that sound and doesn't change the original issue. Which is that all experiments and observations have to support a flat earth otherwise it is not valid.

Let's keep the Eratosthenes conversation on the Eratosthenes thread. I directly refuted the 3 hole argument there.

ERATOSTHENES DID NOT PROVE THE EARTH IS A GLOBE!

The Eratosthenes experiment works on a flat earth with a small local light source. The Eratosthenes experiment depended on all the light from the sun being parallel, but even the globe model claims it is not!

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do.

I seldom afford trust to the 'alphabet groups' of the world governments, with a particular bias against the ones I'm subject to in the USA. If there is a shadow of doubt that they may be acting nefariously or for political/societal gains, any trust is rescinded.

FDA: Criticism of the FDA - Wikipedia Cares more about profits and padding the pockets of lobbyists and pharmaceutical companies than it cares about what it was created for. Monsanto, err.. Bayer and their Roundup product being one of the more recent examples.

CIA: List of CIA controversies - Wikipedia

FBI: List of FBI controversies - Wikipedia

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

This is Neil de'Grasse Tyson's diagram. He even acknowledged the shadows still work on a flat earth if the sun's rays were not parallel - which they aren't as demonstrated by the existence of umbra and penumbra. I explained this in the OP.
View attachment 79934 View attachment 79935

But you keep ignoring the fact that they do not work if one has three different points.