Support NeoGAF

[Magik85]

Seeing ships sink below the horizon in the distance.
Sailing towards a tall mountain and seeing its top visible before its bottom.
Seeing elevated objects sooner means that you can see them at a greater distance away, which is why lighthouses are tall.
Seeing different patterns in the way the sun and planets behave, and theorizing why that might be, and then confirming it with math via Kepler and Newton's equations.
Seeing how the constellations are different in the northern and southern hemispheres.
Knowing how "line of sight" works.
Seeing how the sun's noon rays make different angles at different parts of the Earth.
Inventing telescopes and seeing how everything else in space is spherical in nature so why the hell wouldn't we be the same too.
Seeing how in nature spheres form quite often as a sphere has the least surface area per volume (e.g. bubbles), and discovering how gravity works and applying that knowledge to the formation of our own planet.
Seeing how time zones work and how we had to develop that concept as humans get the capability to travel across the Earth at greater and greater speeds and that when one side of the Earth is hit by the sun (day_, the other side is dark (night)
Predicting solar and lunar eclipses using gravitational equations.
Seeing how the shadow of the Earth in a lunar eclipse is and has always been a shadow that is cast by a spherical object.


Pick one.

Also:
- Exactly half of the earth being lit by the sun
- Different sky on northern and southern hemisphere
- Sky "moving" in oposite direction on northern and southern hemisphere
- Polar day on antarctica
- Heck....antarctica itself ...on flat earth its coast would be about 4 times longer then it actually is.
- Sunset and sunrise
- ISS being clearly visible with good camera
The list goes on and on and on....

 

[Rentahamster]

I'll settle for a single experiment that can measure the amount of curvature. Can you find that one?

Like this?



You don't find it compelling that that huge list all suggests a round earth?

 

[Magik85]

Simple experiment like Foucault pendulum from 1851 proves the earth rotation. It also lets you calculate latitude pretty precisely.

 

[Rentahamster]

Simple experiment like Foucault pendulum from 1851 proves the earth rotation. It also lets you calculate latitude pretty precisely.

I like this video about that.

 

[Nymphae]

The final experiment in Behind the Curve seemed pretty good. They laid out exactly what they expected to find, exactly what they didn't expect to find and in the end they raised their light and said it was interesting.

I will watch that when I get some time, thank you!

Like this?

We've went over this experiment earlier in the thread. The experiment as conducted does not refute the FE model. Nor does this provide a direct water curvature measurement.

You don't find it compelling that that huge list all suggests a round earth?

Not particularly no, other models can account for observations as well and be mathematically correct.

I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis (top 10 physicist-mathematician-cosmologist and authority on the Big Bang)

“Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation.”- Physicist, Dennis Sciama (British physicist who played a major role in developing British physics after WWII)

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Earth is a spherical shape
Moon landing was most likely faked
Can't really form a haiku

 

[Nymphae]

Simple experiment like Foucault pendulum from 1851 proves the earth rotation. It also lets you calculate latitude pretty precisely.

I have heard of several issues with the experiment, there's some info at the fe wiki:

A common criticism of the Foucault Pendulum is to point out that when the pendulum experiment has been recreated and put into motion, the pendulum has often been seen to rotate in excess, in shortness, or in an opposite direction from the direction it should have traveled according to theory. At times it does not rotate at all. Those scientists who have repeated the experiment have freely admitted that “it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight lateral bias at starting.”

In the unmotorized Foucault Pendulum experiment the pendulum is, as we will read below, generally inconsistent in its movements. Because of air resistance and the impossibility of perpetual motion, the unmotorized pendulum will only move for a limited period before needing to be reset. In motorized Foucault Pendulums, as seen in museum exhibits, it is the repetitive machinery which imparts the repeating lateral bias that creates the regular results seen for the museum's visitors.

Thus, the experiment is entirely invalid as a demonstration of diurnal rotation. That a pendulum on a line can rotate as it swings back and fourth has more to do with the initial conditions which set it into motion than the supposed rotation of the earth.

The Popular and Scientific Reception of the Foucault Pendulum in the United States
by Michael F. Conlin, Ph.D. (bio)
Full Text Link

History professor Michael Conlin gives us a historical account of the Foucault Pendulum and its reception. We read that, although the Foucault Pendulum was publicly supported by Royal Astronomer George Airy and others, it was privately rejected:

p.185

“ In private correspondence, Airy had repeatedly dismissed the Foucault pendulum experiment as a "fraud." He regarded the latitude-dependent formula for the period of the apparent precession of the pendulum as a "mathematical curiosity having no application whatever to the soi-disant experiment." Attending no demonstrations, Airy based his conclusion on oral accounts of the experiment. Concurring with Airy, Powell accepted the theory but held that as a "practical question" the experiment was "doubtless open to every kind of doubt." After learning of successful demonstrations by British scientists, Airy conducted his own experiments. Although it was possible to conduct the experiment properly, he concluded that the "difficulty of starting a free pendulum, so as to make it vibrate at first in a plane, is extremely great."

Although Airy and Powell kept their opinions private, popular journals learned of their rejection of the experiment. Linking Airy's and Powell's doubts to recent unsuccessful popular demonstrations of the experiment, these journals questioned the validity of the Foucault pendulum. The London Literary Gazette recommended caution to those who would attempt the experiment because "persons unqualified by previous habits of research and accurate investigation" had failed. The Literary Gazette knew of several exhibitions "in which, to the horror of the spectators, the earth has been shown to turn the wrong way." The Illustrated London News expressed similar reservations, observing that the "experiment is now giving rise to much controversy, and it is hard to conceive that there is not some fallacy lurking at the bottom of it."

p.193

“ In Newark C. Dowden, a correspondent of the AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science], conducted an unsuccessful repetition in July. In an article for Appletons' Mechanics' and Engineers' Journal, Dowden explained that scientists had "jumped to a hasty and premature conclusion" in asserting that a vibrating pendulum could provide a visible proof of the earth's rotation because of two "unjustifiable" assumptions: that friction at the point of suspension was nothing and that the pendulum could vibrate independently of the earth's motion. Dr. William Kitchell, a member of the AAAS, and two other gentlemen repeated the experiment with a pendulum thirty feet in length at the New Jersey Art-Union Gallery in Newark. After numerous trials made over several days, they reported to the Newark Advertiser that the result was "invariably ELLIPTICAL MOTION!" While it might have been theoretically possible to take sufficient precautions to repeat the experiment successfully, they "reluctantly" concluded that air resistance and the impossibility of bringing the pendulum completely to rest before starting were "insuperable obstacles to its practical performance. "After consultation with Dowden, Kitchell reasoned that Foucault's demonstration at the Pantheon and subsequent American exhibitions must have been "vitiated" by "unobserved errors." They boldly proposed another method to demonstrate the earth's motion with a pendulum by measuring the deviance between the calculated motion and the observed motion of the apsides of the ellipse. They hoped that Strong would determine the angular motion of the ellipse of a given pendulum so that they might perform the experiment. Assuring them that the Foucault pendulum demonstrated the earth's rotation, Strong offered to repeat the experiment for doubters. Dowden remained unconvinced, believing that he had a "positive duty" to reject the Foucault pendulum because its "advocates cannot agree among themselves," its proofs were "impossible," and its workings "absolutely absurd."2 ”

Prof. A.C. Longden of Knox College found that the pendulum was subject to mechanical errors and bias. From "On the Irregularities of Motion of the Foucault Pendulum" in the April 1919 edition of The Physical Review we read:

“ Neverless the pendulum behaves as if it had two periods. Furthermore it always started rotating clockwise, never counterclockwise. This fact remained a puzzle until another wire was substituted for the wire which I had been using. The two wires were cut from the same piece, and were certainly as nearly alike as two wires could well be, and yet the pendulum now invariably started rotating counterclockwise--never clockwise.

...After starting the pendulum a number of times with the new wire and always getting the same results, counterclockwise motion at the start, I rotated the wire 180 degrees on its own axis, without disturbing either the pendulum ball or the support. The wire may be rotated by turning the screw G, Fig. 7, without disturbing the hanger, and a similar arrangement at the bottom enables us to rotate the wire without rotating the ball. Now, the pendulum started rotating clockwise. ”

When the wire was replaced or rotated, the pendulum moved in the opposite direction. This may be a reason for why some who have performed this experiment have claimed to see consistency in direction.

In Earth Not a Globe Samuel Birley Rowbotham informs us that the variation of the pendulum is often non-uniform and unpredictable:

“ First, when a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M. Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often variable – not always. The variation when it does occur, is not uniform – is not always the same in the same place; nor always the same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be used in favor of or against any given proposition. It therefore is not evidence and proves nothing!

Secondly, if the plane of vibration is observed to change, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the Earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum, and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other?

Thirdly, why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its possible influence upon the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored that a ‘ball-and-socket’ joint is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other? ”

From The Romance of Science (8-10) we read:

“ We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we can only describe the show and showman as deceptions. A thing so childish as this ‘pendulum proof’ that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts to gull the public that has ever been conceived.

…It has been said that the pendulum experiment proves the rotation of the earth, but this is quite impossible, for one pendulum turns one way; and sometimes, another pendulum turns in the opposite direction. Now we ask does the earth rotate in opposite directions at different places at one and the same time? We should like to know. Perhaps the experimenters will kindly enlighten us on this point.

…If the earth had the terrible motions attributed to it, there would be some sensible effects of such motions. But we neither feel the motion, see it, nor hear it. And how people can stand watching the pendulum vibrate, and think that they are seeing a proof of the motions of the earth, almost passes comprehension. They are, however, brought up to believe it, and it is thought to be ‘scientific’ to believe what the astronomers teach. ”

Dr. Schoepffer, an eye-witness of the experiment, says:

“ In an introductory speech Dr. Menzzer at Quedlinburg showed that until then there had been no proof for the Copernican hypothesis, the so-called proofs being, after close investigation, just as many confutations, until the Foucault pendulum showed the rotation of the earth uncontrovertibly. The pendulum was tied, the string was burnt, the swingings began, but the pendulum deviated to the left, instead of to the right. It was hastily brought to rest. New burning of the string. This time the deviation was the one desired, and we were invited again to be present in the church the next morning at eight o’clock, to be convinced that the deviation agrees with the theory. On the following morning, however, we saw that the pendulum during the night had changed its mind, and had from the deviation to the right again returned to the left. To me this new proof did not seem to be quite in order. My belief in the Copernican doctrine was shaken by the speech of Dr. Menzzer, and I concluded to go to Berlin for an explanation.

After seeing the pendulum-experiment here also and, strangely, again with a deviation to the left, I went to Alexander v. Humboldt, who was indeed ever the first refuge of those seeking information. He received me very friendly and spoke the memorable words: "I have known, too, for a long time, that as yet we have no proof for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will but bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude."

Furthermore, I have found, by careful experiments, that a skillful experimenter can let the pendulum deviate either to the left or to the right. And we must not overlook the fact that the deviations may be caused by air-currents, electricity, earth-magnetism, special apparatus, and perhaps many other causes. Blunt and Cox observed the most curious and contrary swingings. Phillips of New York found very great hourly deviations in the swinging-line. Walker observed a peculiarly swift deviation when the pendulum swings in the magnetic meridian. D’Oliveira at Rio de Janeiro stated that the pendulum deviates to the right in the direction of the meridian, but to the left in the direction of the parallel. This deviation, diametrically opposed to the theory, was seen very often. And sometimes the pendulum does not deviate at all. Much more could be said against this “beautiful experiment.” Though beautiful it may seem to the theorist, it certainly is far from being irrefragable evidence for the earth’s motion. ”

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

I believe the meniscus is cause by gravity. I can't see it being different in the oceans?

What is it that you want to prove or theorise on?

I think the water bulge near the equator is the result of the earth's spin

Predicting solar and lunar eclipses using gravitational equations.

flat earthers claimed eclipse predictions were the results of using the saros cycle, but it seems some have debunked those claims(https://flatearth.ws/eclipse-prediction).

 

[Rentahamster]

I think the water bulge near the equator is the result of the earth's spin

The Earth doesn't spin fast enough for that to happen. If the water was being affected THAT much by Earth's spin, we and everything else would be too.

 

[Rentahamster]

We've went over this experiment earlier in the thread. The experiment as conducted does not refute the FE model. Nor does this provide a direct water curvature measurement.

Not particularly no, other models can account for observations as well and be mathematically correct.

You are cherry picking a lot of things that lay a somewhat tenuous support for your argument, and ignoring the boatloads of evidence in favor of a round earth.

That is a red flag, you know. Take a step back and think about what you'd think of a person who does that. You are applying standards of evidence to this one outlandish thing that you don't apply to anything else.

 

[Nymphae]

You are cherry picking a lot of things that lay a somewhat tenuous support for your argument, and ignoring the boatloads of evidence in favor of a round earth.

It's not really cherry picking, I found quotes from scientists that found problems with the experimental methodology, and results. If you can find some other sources that account for these issues, I'd be happy to look at them.

 

[Nymphae]

The Earth doesn't spin fast enough for that to happen. If the water was being affected THAT much by Earth's spin, we and everything else would be too.

Interesting point!

 

[Rentahamster]

I found quotes from scientists that found problems with the experimental methodology

And the relatively enormous amounts of quotes from the vast majority of scientists, engineers, pilots, sailors, and basically everyone in a profession which requires knowledge of the nature of our planet in order to function properly, means nothing to you?

 

[Nymphae]

And the relatively enormous amounts of quotes from the vast majority of scientists, engineers, pilots, sailors, and basically everyone in a profession which requires knowledge of the nature of our planet in order to function properly, means nothing to you?

You're just appealing to authority and not refuting the arguments I presented. I asked for sources that can dispute the issues raised in the quotes I provided. I will read them if you can find them.

 

[Rentahamster]

Interesting point!

What do you mean?

 

[Nymphae]

What do you mean?

It's not hard lol. Wikipedia tells us the equitorial bulge is in fact caused by the rotation of the earth, or more accurately the centrifugal force created by the spin. You claimed that if that were the case, we and everything else would be affected by that force too, which is an interesting thought. Because science says no.

 

[Rentahamster]

You're just appealing to authority

I found quotes from scientists that found problems with the experimental methodology, and results

Uh huh.

not refuting the arguments I presented.

Seeing ships sink below the horizon in the distance.
Sailing towards a tall mountain and seeing its top visible before its bottom.
Seeing elevated objects sooner means that you can see them at a greater distance away, which is why lighthouses are tall.
Seeing different patterns in the way the sun and planets behave, and theorizing why that might be, and then confirming it with math via Kepler and Newton's equations.
Seeing how the constellations are different in the northern and southern hemispheres.
Knowing how "line of sight" works.
Seeing how the sun's noon rays make different angles at different parts of the Earth.
Inventing telescopes and seeing how everything else in space is spherical in nature so why the hell wouldn't we be the same too.
Seeing how in nature spheres form quite often as a sphere has the least surface area per volume (e.g. bubbles), and discovering how gravity works and applying that knowledge to the formation of our own planet.
Seeing how time zones work and how we had to develop that concept as humans get the capability to travel across the Earth at greater and greater speeds and that when one side of the Earth is hit by the sun (day_, the other side is dark (night)
Predicting solar and lunar eclipses using gravitational equations.
Seeing how the shadow of the Earth in a lunar eclipse is and has always been a shadow that is cast by a spherical object.


Pick one.

Also:
- Exactly half of the earth being lit by the sun
- Different sky on northern and southern hemisphere
- Sky "moving" in oposite direction on northern and southern hemisphere
- Polar day on antarctica
- Heck....antarctica itself ...on flat earth its coast would be about 4 times longer then it actually is.
- Sunset and sunrise
- ISS being clearly visible with good camera
The list goes on and on and on....

Uh huh.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's not hard lol. Wikipedia tells us the equitorial bulge is in fact caused by the rotation of the earth, or more accurately the centrifugal force created by the spin. You claimed that if that were the case, we and everything else would be affected by that force too, which is an interesting thought. Because science says no.

And you're taking Wikipedia as an authority now? You should look up what they have to say about a spherical earth.

In regards to the subject at hand, the fact that you don't understand the difference between that article and what I was talking about demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the subject.

 

[Nymphae]

Uh huh.
Uh huh.

Bro, I'm happy to read arguments that actually address the FE criticisms. 2 of you just drop the Foucault pendulum videos and call it a day. I bring up some issues people have with the methodology, and you give up.

 

[Rentahamster]

Bro, I'm happy to read arguments that actually address the FE criticisms. 2 of you just drop the Foucault pendulum videos and call it a day. I bring up some issues people have with the methodology, and you give up.

And you're the one not giving up on the mountains of scientific history and physics lessons we've posted in this thread?

 

[Nymphae]

And you're taking Wikipedia as an authority now? You should look up what they have to say about a spherical earth.

Of course not lol, but it reflects the commonly accepted knowledge of the mainstream scientific community. It was to show you that your notion that the equitorial bulge is not cause by rotation is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, so I don't know where you think the bulge comes from otherwise.

 

[Nymphae]

And you're the one not giving up on the mountains of scientific history and physics lessons we've posted in this thread?

I'm happy to read what I asked for if you can ever find it. Specific refutations of presented criticisms.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

The Earth doesn't spin fast enough for that to happen. If the water was being affected THAT much by Earth's spin, we and everything else would be too.

The bulge should go across the oceans too. I hear Neil De Grasse say the earth is a bit pear shaped.

Here's a flat earth video with the quote.


Though I think it is basically spherical, the bulge near the equator should be very very subtle.

 

[Rentahamster]

The bulge should go across the oceans too.

The bulge is caused by tidal forces with mostly the moon, and slightly by the sun.

The elliptical shape of the overall planet caused by rotational forces is minuscule by comparison. This is why no one really noticed that the Earth is elliptical until recently, but we've been observing tides since ancient times.

 

[Rentahamster]

We've went over this experiment earlier in the thread.

It's not refuted. Is this about assuming the sun is closer than we think? It's not.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

It's not refuted. Is this about assuming the sun is closer than we think? It's not.

That's the issue without 3 wells a small local sun also works for the experiment with just 2 wells. The flat earthers claim the sun is local and small.

 

[Rentahamster]

That's the issue without 3 wells a small local sun also works for the experiment with just 2 wells. The flat earthers claim the sun is local and small.

The problem is, there's no evidence that the sun is local and small, whereas there's tons of evidence that the sun is huge and far away. Even hobbyist level astrophotographers take photographs of the sun nowadays.

We take learned that all elements emit specific frequencies of light. We theorized that the sun might be a huge fusion ball of hydrogen. Then we put two and two together, and proved the theory right.

There is so much evidence already pointing in one direction that our current understanding of the solar system is pretty accurate (until the time comes when we make better observations using better technology and then improve our understanding even further).

 

[Magik85]

It's not hard lol. Wikipedia tells us the equitorial bulge is in fact caused by the rotation of the earth, or more accurately the centrifugal force created by the spin. You claimed that if that were the case, we and everything else would be affected by that force too, which is an interesting thought. Because science says no.

And everything else is affected by that actually.
For example the atmosphere is noticably thicker on equator.
We are affected by that also. On equator you will weight less than on poles.

 

[mckmas8808]

Hold on.......are people still debating that the Earth is flat?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

The problem is, there's no evidence that the sun is local and small, whereas there's tons of evidence that the sun is huge and far away. Even hobbyist level astrophotographers take photographs of the sun nowadays.

We take learned that all elements emit specific frequencies of light. We theorized that the sun might be a huge fusion ball of hydrogen. Then we put two and two together, and proved the theory right.

There is so much evidence already pointing in one direction that our current understanding of the solar system is pretty accurate (until the time comes when we make better observations using better technology and then improve our understanding even further).

I think flat earth is most likely false given all the evidence for roundness, but it can potentially work somewhat if combined with a simulation hypothesis. As within a simulation, things like modifying the memories or equipment of even millions of scientists is possible.

Much easier to simulate one planet than an entire universe, and it may be easier still to simulate a flat stationary surface than a spinning planet. One would have to ask game developers who've worked with round planets, how big of an advantage you get from using stationary flat surface vs an entire moving planet.

Hold on.......are people still debating that the Earth is flat?

This thread is for two conspiracies, moon hoax conspiracy(those who think we likely didn't go to the moon) and flat earth conspiracy(those who believe that the earth is likely flat.)

 

[Grinchy]

If the earth was round, you wouldn't even be able to stand on it! Think about standing on a basketball. My grandma can't do that shit, but she can go to church every sunday by walking flat-footed on the flat surface of the Earth.

 

[Stouffers]

This thread is a trap isn’t it? Like “to catch a predator” but with pinheaded idiots.

 

[Rentahamster]

I think flat earth is most likely false given all the evidence for roundness, but it can potentially work somewhat if combined with a simulation hypothesis. As within a simulation, things like modifying the memories or equipment of even millions of scientists is possible.

Much easier to simulate one planet than an entire universe, and it may be easier still to simulate a flat stationary surface than a spinning planet. One would have to ask game developers who've worked with round planets, how big of an advantage you get from using stationary flat surface vs an entire moving planet.

If the universe is a simulation, then ultimately the argument is moot since anything is possible.

Besides, even if the simulation was only recreating local space as any one person would perceive at any given moment (which would appear flat since a tiny spot on a huge round surface appears flat), all of the information fed to us regarding the nature of the simulated space suggests a round Earth on the macro view.

So it wouldn't make a difference either way.

 

[Rentahamster]

I read this Onion article, and couldn't help but think of our boy Weilthein.

NASA Launches Really Nice Nikon DSLR Camera Strapped To Rocket To Gather Photos Of Sun

CAPE CANAVERAL—Expressing excitement about the collaborative mission with the European Space Agency, NASA officials announced Monday the successful launch of a really nice Nikon DSLR camera strapped to a rocket to gather photos of the sun. “Thus far, we’ve been limited in our ability to take...

www.theonion.com

CAPE CANAVERAL—Expressing excitement about the collaborative mission with the European Space Agency, NASA officials announced Monday the successful launch of a really nice Nikon DSLR camera strapped to a rocket to gather photos of the sun. “Thus far, we’ve been limited in our ability to take images of the sun, but this baby is a top-of-the-line camera, which, according to a number of Amazon reviews, takes really great pics,” said NASA senior project manager Melissa Bolton, browsing through the high-quality images of trees and birds that her solar launch team had shot at a nearby park with the Nikon D810A.

Sure, the Nikon is a little pricey, but you don’t need to be a professional to take great pictures. It’s nice because the camera is pretty much idiot proof.” At press time, NASA engineers were panicking after realizing that they had forgotten to remove the lens cap.

Cheers to you, Weilthein. I hope you're well, wherever you are.

 

[Halo is Back]

I read this Onion article, and couldn't help but think of our boy Weilthein.

NASA Launches Really Nice Nikon DSLR Camera Strapped To Rocket To Gather Photos Of Sun

CAPE CANAVERAL—Expressing excitement about the collaborative mission with the European Space Agency, NASA officials announced Monday the successful launch of a really nice Nikon DSLR camera strapped to a rocket to gather photos of the sun. “Thus far, we’ve been limited in our ability to take...

www.theonion.com

Cheers to you, Weilthein. I hope you're well, wherever you are.

He is just busy working on his flat earth model

 

[Lionel Richie]

The Earth IS flat, we're living in a projection.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

The Earth IS flat, we're living in a projection.

How does the ocean and sky work

 

[Paasei]

If there are people who somehow believe the earth is flat, do they then also think this way about the moon and other planets?

 

[Kamina]

If there are people who somehow believe the earth is flat, do they then also think this way about the moon and other planets?

Most of them think the moon is just a lamp, like the sun.

 

[Husky]

If there are people who somehow believe the earth is flat, do they then also think this way about the moon and other planets?

Depends on their model of the flat earth (and some might just confess that they have no idea). To some, other celestial objects are round—though sometimes they're not even perceived as celestial. And to others, they're flat projections on the firmament, as matches biblical cosmology, and is probably somewhat like the dome from The Truman Show.

In some models of the flat earth, there are lands beyond the ice wall at the antarctic. I do hope some flat earthers eventually make an expedition there, just so we can see their (flat) world fall apart. So far this idea's been avoided by the crafting of a narrative that, actually, uh, there's a military blockade of Antarctica! There's no way through! So inconvenient.

 

[Spukc]

So do you guys still drink tap water in 2020?

 

[Husky]

So do you guys still drink tap water in 2020?

I only drink orange juice, gourmet hot chocolate, strawberry smoothies, and Canada Dry ginger ale

And occasionally, a cinnamon coke, because tbh that cinnamon kick is fuckin killer dude

 

[Ornlu]

We gotta climb over the icewall around the flat earth, bros...we need to reach the dark side so we can properly gauge the threat from the darksiders!

 

[Thurible]

I don't really get the reason why people believe in a flat earth as it defies all known science and logic. I remember seeing a few people arguing for it on Gaf like Weilthan, and whenever they were proven wrong they just doubled down. This whole flat earth thing is a joke (I hope), right?​

 

[Lionel Richie]

How does the ocean and sky work

It's all part of the simulation, just wait for the glitch.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

it just depends on scale.

on a local scale, the Earth is flat. most humans don't see the curvature of the Earth.

on a larger scale, say in a plane or spaceship, you can see the curve. at this point the Earth is round.

on a still larger scale, say out past Jupiter, you can't see any defining features at all, and the Earth is a single dot. not flat, not round, just a dot.

so it all depends on the certain point of view.

 

[GeorgPrime]

Are Donut Earthers allowed on here too?

 

[#Phonepunk#]

got to give a huge shout out to Behold a Pale Horse, one of the most influential of the 70s conspiracy tomes

been a long time since i read but im pretty sure he talks about there being bases on the moon and stuff.

 

[mckmas8808]

it just depends on scale.

on a local scale, the Earth is flat. most humans don't see the curvature of the Earth.

on a larger scale, say in a plane or spaceship, you can see the curve. at this point the Earth is round.

on a still larger scale, say out past Jupiter, you can't see any defining features at all, and the Earth is a single dot. not flat, not round, just a dot.

so it all depends on the certain point of view.

Oh wow! LOL! This was a funny one.

 

[Phunkydiabetic]

Are Donut Earthers allowed on here too?