Suddenly, A Flat Earther Appears!

[AdamSK]

That idea is adequately debunked by other evidence, so I don't believe that it should be under consideration at all.

Nonetheless, this is what is believed by all of the flat earthers I have discussed the issue with.

How can the flat earth hypothesis explain the observed fact that when a ship sails away from shore, its mast is the last thing to disappear over the horizon?

They debate that this is actually what happens at all. I personally have never seen this effect in action; have you? Most people haven't.

How can a flat earth explain the observed fact that the higher from the ground you are, the further you can see?

Less atmospheric haze.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I feel no need to defend a gif of a clip of a tv show version of a story, so I won't. It's a gif. It wasn't intended as anything. It's just Internet. It's the science version of a kitten pic with a bible quote.

Nobody here is claiming it's all of the information. It was presented as a bit of cuteness, an Argument By Gif. It's fact value is somewhere between wookiepedia and weatherbug.


And I pronounce gif with a hard G. So there.

 

[Meadmaker]

We should have seen 'the return of the Flat Earthers' coming over the horizon.

 

[threadworm]

While we're waiting to find out, here's a song from Member #1 of the modern Flat Earth Society:

You're blinding me with science.

 

[Tolls]

And I pronounce gif with a hard G. So there.

Wait a minute, there's another way to pronounce it??

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Wait a minute, there's another way to pronounce it??

Some crummy people think it should be a homophone with a brand of peanut butter, which puts us in a linguistic jam given the words behind the acronym.

 

[AdamSK]

The basis of the debate is that, for words with Latin or French etymology, the standard rule is that "g" is soft when followed by "i". Some people think this rule should apply to acronyms as well.

 

[Trebuchet]

And I pronounce gif with a hard G. So there.

Wait a minute, there's another way to pronounce it??

The Oatmeal discusses the issue.

 

[arthwollipot]

Erastothenes did not prove a spherical earth...

Yes, I understand all that. But under a flat-earth hypothesis, how do you explain the existence of icecaps at both the north and the south poles?

 

[TheGnome]

Yes, I understand all that. But under a flat-earth hypothesis, how do you explain the existence of icecaps at both the north and the south poles?

I really don't get this. Do you really still think I'm arguing for a flat earth?

Ok, let me tell you one more time:
I am NOT arguing for a flat earth. I am arguing against an argument (can't find my thesaurus right now) that was poorly executed.

If we want to educate flat-earthers, we should do it with facts and strong reason, not with somthing that is easily picked apart.

 

[GT/CS]

Yes, I understand all that. But under a flat-earth hypothesis, how do you explain the existence of icecaps at both the north and the south poles?

For a good laugh go to atlanteanconspiracy.com.

 

[Meadmaker]

If we want to educate flat-earthers, we should do it with facts and strong reason, not with somthing that is easily picked apart.

Actually, I only partially agree.

If facts and strong reason were adequate, then there would be no need to argue with them. Even the "poorly executed" argument presented, is perfectly adequate to demonstrate that the Earth is round, whatever flaws it might have.

Most conspiracy theories have, at their heart, a combination of ignorance and mental illness. It might not be extreme mental illness. It might not even be anything that ought to be called mental illness at all. However, it has to be, at the very least, such a strong, unshakable, belief that one can totally ignore all the evidence put forward.

The flat Earth belief is one of the most extreme forms. In order to believe in a flat Earth, you have to be totally kooky. Rational argument isn't going to work in a case like that. Somehow, you have to get at the underlying source of the erroneous belief, and attack that.

I think the approach that I would take is to find some sort of trusted figure in their life, and show that they are actively complicit in the flat Earth conspiracy. It might be a preacher that they watch on TV, and find a clip of him talking about his sermon being broadcast by satellite. They might be sports fans. Point out that when the Yankees are playing on the west coast, the live coverage shows that it is still daylight when the sun has set in New York. (I don't know how or if a flat-earther would explain time zones.)

As for any argument that was based on Eratosthenes or Carl Sagan? A pagan and an atheist? No way will such an argument win, regardless of any existence of minor flaws in the argument.

 

[Tolls]

I really don't get this. Do you really still think I'm arguing for a flat earth?

Welcome to the internet where anything you post can and will be misinterpreted by someone...

 

[AdamSK]

Yes, I understand all that. But under a flat-earth hypothesis, how do you explain the existence of icecaps at both the north and the south poles?

The sun moves in slightly oblique circles around the disk. Neither the central Artictic land mass nor the outer Antarctic ice wall gets as much heat as the part of the ring that the sun moves directly above.

 

[arthwollipot]

The sun moves in slightly oblique circles around the disk. Neither the central Artictic land mass nor the outer Antarctic ice wall gets as much heat as the part of the ring that the sun moves directly above.

That's it. Well done.

Of course, this requires that the sun be both very small and very close, and that it move in a manner that gravity can't explain. Also, it would not produce the shadow effect in the Cosmos extract, which I will just point out here was never intended as a method of convincing flat-earthers that the earth was round.

 

[AdamSK]

That's it. Well done.

Of course, this requires that the sun be both very small and very close, and that it move in a manner that gravity can't explain.

Yep, that's what most of these people believe. And they tend to deny gravity is a thing, period.

Also, it would not produce the shadow effect in the Cosmos extract, which I will just point out here was never intended as a method of convincing flat-earthers that the earth was round.

No, it's consistent with the Cosmos memes. A close sun, as supposed to a sun that is far away, will cast different shadows just based on which city it is more directly above.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yep, that's what most of these people believe. And they tend to deny gravity is a thing, period.

Not just gravity, but they also can't explain how such a small sun can produce so much heat.

No, it's consistent with the Cosmos memes. A close sun, as supposed to a sun that is far away, will cast different shadows just based on which city it is more directly above.

Well, I haven't done the maths, so I'll take your word for it. Seems to me the geometry would produce a different result.

 

[ehcks]

Not just gravity, but they also can't explain how such a small sun can produce so much heat.

If it were closer, we'd get a larger portion of its heat.

Except that with a flat earth, the sun would have to be like a spotlight to prevent the entire planet from being daytime all the time.

The more you think about it, the crazier it gets. I have no idea how anyone gets this idea.

 

[AdamSK]

Well, I haven't done the maths, so I'll take your word for it. Seems to me the geometry would produce a different result.

Yeah, it doesn't hold up once you get into the specifics.

But it works generally. If you take a flat board and stick two toothpicks in it, then hold a light source directly above one toothpick, you can get no shadow on that one and a long shadow on the other. That's as much as the Sagan meme provides for.

 

[AdamSK]

Except that with a flat earth, the sun would have to be like a spotlight to prevent the entire planet from being daytime all the time.

As I mentioned above, it's a matter of atmospheric attenuation due to distance. The sun is a small source of appropriate magnitude, and while there's nothing between you and it when it's on the other side of the disk other than air, there's a LOT of air between you and it, and the distance between you and it is SEVERAL TIMES the distance between you and it when it's right above you.