Suddenly, A Flat Earther Appears!

AdamSK said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not quite - if you move the light source away from directly above that toothpick, you'll find that the shadows go in different directions. On either the flat or the spherical model, they'll go in the same direction - corrected for spherical geometry, of course. On a big enough sphere, they'll go in pretty close to the same direction.

The demonstration from Cosmos only covered a single aspect of Eratosthenes' result because it was simply pointing out that it happened, not as an argument to convince anyone. When combined with a number of other observations, it may form part of an argument, but it was never intended to convince someone.
 
arthwollipot said:
Not quite - if you move the light source away from directly above that toothpick, you'll find that the shadows go in different directions.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point! The disk model with the close sun should definitely have situations where there are shadows in strongly opposite directions due to the sun being "between" them. The far-away sun of reality doesn't do this.
 
arthwollipot said:
I've seen that explained. I wonder if TheGnome will explain it in the same way.
Click to expand...

The Gnome is quite right in saying that experiment ALONE cannot be used to demonstrate a spherical Earth.

In fact, polar ice caps obviously can´t be used as final proof, by themselves, of a spherical Earth.

Suppose the Sun was really like 500km above the Earth surface or some nonsense like that. The shadows would be explained by that. And the polar ice caps too. The more distant from the equator, the highest the angle you get solar energy, and thus less energy per sq meter.


Some much better explanations are for example the 6 months of day and night near the poles.

Along with plenty of other stuff, like airplanes AND SHIPS doing circunavigation of the Globe, etc.

I mean... what kind of imbecile thinks the Conspiracy started with portuguese sailor Magellan and NASA, JAXA, ESA, Roscosmos, CNSA, INRO, etc, just picked it up?
 
arthwollipot said:
The demonstration from Cosmos only covered a single aspect of Eratosthenes' result because it was simply pointing out that it happened, not as an argument to convince anyone. When combined with a number of other observations, it may form part of an argument, but it was never intended to convince someone.
Click to expand...

obviously not, but TheGnome was commenting on the SET OF GIFS being used as proof of a Spherical Earth, nothing more.


it's important to note this point, because when trying to prove Flat Earthers something, someone might use THAT set of gifs as ultimate proof, and a Flat Earther may point the same thing we did, but as proof to his belief: "we KNOW that, that's why we say the Sun is close to the flat Earth"



you can´t counter imbecile nonsensical Conspiracy Theories without trying at least a little to enter their idiotic mindset.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





That said, I must point out that NO conspiracy theory is annoying me more than Flat Earthers nowaday. They are spamming ALL space-related videos on Youtube. There is not a SINGLE ISS video on Youtube where flat-earthers are not there spamming saying it's all fake.


Just another day, I was searching for a video to explain a child how gravity works on the planet, so people are not "upside down" anywhere on the planet, because down is always the center of the planet, but all combination of words I could think resulted in PAGES of Flat-Earther videos.



I am starting to think Flat Earthers are really the Conspiracy themselves. A conspiracy of trolls trying to mock, with the most absurd thing ever, other Conspiracy Theorists.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


anyway, if any of you ever meet a Flat Earther telling about there are no good images of Earth from far away, showing the entire planet, etc, etc.


point them to the Deep Space Climate Observatory website.


Sitting at Lagrange Point 1, it´s located ALWAYS between Earth and the Sun, and thus it always photographs only the illuminated side of Earth. It´s from a distance of about 1.5 million km, so it has quite a zoom to show the entire planet in a cropped image (a normal 35mm photo would already show Earth small even when seen from the Surface of the Moon, 400k km away)

Now, it´s true that the DSCO is not real time (no use for that! It costs bandwidth and ENERGY to send imagery across 1.5 million km)


But it has more than a DOZEN new photos of the spherical planet EVERY SINGLE DAY.

http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/



obviously, they will say that it´s fake. But oh well... they complain that there are no images of Earth from far away showing it in it's entirety. Then you show this, they will say it´s not real time. We all know if NASA put a real time camera at L1, then they would say it´s fake CGI.


but it may be a good argument for anyone just midly stupid, that is ALMOST falling prey to Flat Earthers, but still not fully convinced.
 
Last edited:
AcesHigh said:
Along with plenty of other stuff, like airplanes AND SHIPS doing circunavigation of the Globe, etc.
Click to expand...

Again, circumnavigation can be done on the disk that they believe the Earth is. It doesn't require a conspiracy by European explorers - just a belief that the compass points towards the center of a flat disk.
 
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...

you clearly have no experience arguing with flat earthers.


it gets more ridiculous than you can imagine.

they say gravity does not exists.

The Earth is actually a disk in perpetual acceleration upwards due to dark energy.

So it's not that things are pulled down by gravity, but that thing "dropped" actually stay motionless, and the Earth below, being "accelerated", hits those things.

Not sure about their explanation why dark energy/whatever doesn´t also affects the objects themselves, accelerating them upwards.

Nor the lack of inertia of these objects when dropped. Or maybe they take it into account in some crazy way.

To go further into all this nonsense, I would need to watch pathetic long videos that take 20 minutes to make a single conclusion... I do not have that time.
 
AdamSK said:
Again, circumnavigation can be done on the disk that they believe the Earth is. It doesn't require a conspiracy by European explorers - just a belief that the compass points towards the center of a flat disk.
Click to expand...

Flat_earth.png



I guess flat-earthers don´t believe we brazilians, and also Australians, to be real.

I mean, distances are quite greater greater here in the "east-west" direction than we noticed!!!!


here in southern Brazil, I never noticed it took thrice the time to travel 100 km to the west than 100km to the north.

Obviously my car (fabricated by some Illuminatti owned company) knows it and compensates in some mysterous way.:rolleyes:
 
AcesHigh said:
you clearly have no experience arguing with flat earthers.


it gets more ridiculous than you can imagine.

they say gravity does not exists.

The Earth is actually a disk in perpetual acceleration upwards due to dark energy.

So it's not that things are pulled down by gravity, but that thing "dropped" actually stay motionless, and the Earth below, being "accelerated", hits those things.

Not sure about their explanation why dark energy/whatever doesn´t also affects the objects themselves, accelerating them upwards.

Nor the lack of inertia of these objects when dropped. Or maybe they take it into account in some crazy way.

To go further into all this nonsense, I would need to watch pathetic long videos that take 20 minutes to make a single conclusion... I do not have that time.
Click to expand...

:D

I remember seeing something similiar on a debunking forum. The reason why they thought the earth was flat, is because of some flight between San Francisco to Canterbury that took 6 hours or something.

Thus, meaning that planes are going from one part of "the disk" to the other part, otherwise the planes would fly in outer space...

:boggled:
 
tinribmancer said:
:D

I remember seeing something similiar on a debunking forum. The reason why they thought the earth was flat, is because of some flight between San Francisco to Canterbury that took 6 hours or something.

Thus, meaning that planes are going from one part of "the disk" to the other part, otherwise the planes would fly in outer space...

:boggled:
Click to expand...
I have wondered how they explain (as I have no doubt they have some way to 'explain') why it doesn't take 3 or 4 times as long to fly from Buenos Aires to Cape Town as it takes to fly from, say, New York to Paris.
 
Something I find a bit unsactisfactory with many arguments against flat earth is that they use our, sane, physics to make a point when they should use flat-earthian physics instead.

To illustrate, let's take a well known example:

Newton's theorie of physics is consistent, with no known antinomy (at least I think so). But today we know it's wrong (wrong used in the mathematical sense) and is replaced by the general theory of relativity.

Now when debating a newtonian who is in complete denial of GTR, we do not argue from within GTR. We use newtonian physics instead and show that sooner or later its predictions lead to a clash with reality.

I don't know much about flat earth and its champions and consequently don't know if they have something that even remotely approaches a coherent theory of physics. Thus this approach may just not be possible.

What to us seems very compelling evidence, to them may be just a distortion of the true laws.

I vaguely remember a weird model of the universe. The surface of the earth is on the inner surface of a huge hollow sphere, with the rest of the cosmos contained within. The space is very non-euclidian, the physics very non-newtonian. The pathways of light are bent like crazy. Yet it correctly explains many observations. You have to delve quite deep into it before discovering any discrepancies to what we see.

But to evaluate it you have to use its inherent laws.
 
I would say it's maybe a case similar to heliocentric hypothesis.

People in ancient times thought orbits were circular, not elliptical. And circular orbits did not match planets movements in a heliocentric universe. Thus the universe could not be heliocentric, Earth was at its center. And guess what, they produced models and even complex machinery that could accurately make predictions about positions of planets, etc, based on the false assumptions of a geocentric, circular orbits universe
 
arthwollipot said:
No they don't.
Click to expand...

Yes they do :p

Of course they do.

Just one simple example: The Galilean transformation gets it wrong. It is outperformed by the Lorentz transformation.

That's no clash with reality then, according to you?

So what's your point exactly? Your bare assertion doesn't tell me anything about it.
 
AcesHigh said:
[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png[/qimg]


I guess flat-earthers don´t believe we brazilians, and also Australians, to be real.

I mean, distances are quite greater greater here in the "east-west" direction than we noticed!!!!


here in southern Brazil, I never noticed it took thrice the time to travel 100 km to the west than 100km to the north.

Obviously my car (fabricated by some Illuminatti owned company) knows it and compensates in some mysterous way.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they leave the land masses as charted and just expand the ocean distances, rather than stretching the land masses themselves.
 
AdamSK said:
Pretty sure they leave the land masses as charted and just expand the ocean distances, rather than stretching the land masses themselves.
Click to expand...

it must cost a fortune to keep all those fishermen and sailors quiet for so many decades/centuries.
 
AcesHigh said:
it must cost a fortune to keep all those fishermen and sailors quiet for so many decades/centuries.
Click to expand...

Not a lot of fisherman moving between continents, and the vast majority of trade routes for most of history have stayed along the coast when near "the outside of the disk." Not as much conspiracy actually required as you might think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom