The Earth is Flat?

[Robin]

There is, we haven't made contact with them yet

 

[Dennisch]

I'm pretty confident that they're just trolls, at least the twitter account.

 

[eran0004]

This is a funny argument. When flying level, a plane is constantly course corrected to stay at the same altitude. And if it weren't it would end up in a phugoid cycle, where it would lose speed as it climbs, pitch down because of the reduced speed, pick up speed as it descends, pitch up as the speed increases and then keep repeating that pattern. So even without constant course correction, the plane would naturally follow the curvature of the Earth.

The reason why you don't notice this constant course correction is because it's describing an arc with a radius of about 6380 kilometers, which at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour gives a centripetal acceleration ("cornering force") of 0.0008g, or approximately a quarter of the cornering force you experience from the rotation of Earth if you stand at the equator.

The "artificial horizon" argument is also bogus, since the instrument doesn't display a horizon located at a point ahead of the plane, but rather the angle that is perpendicular to the force of gravity, which means that it also follows the curvature of the Earth.

 

[Danoff]

I'm pretty confident that they're just trolls, at least the twitter account.

Apparently it has been verified that this is the actual FES twitter account.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Apparently it has been verified that this is the actual FES twitter account.

That just links through to their Twitter which shows the blue tick. That's not verification of their views or stance, just that they're actually that organisation. Clearly it's a spoof and many of their retweets are sensible rebuttals of Flat Earth Bobbins.

EDIT: They retweet Stacey McStationary a lot, a self-professed non-parody account that clearly is a parody account. A great read

 

[Danoff]

That just links through to their Twitter which shows the blue tick. That's not verification of their views or stance, just that they're actually that organisation. Clearly it's a spoof and many of their retweets are sensible rebuttals of Flat Earth Bobbins.

It's confirming that the twitter account corresponds to tfes.org. I don't know how deep the trolling might go on this one, but it would have to go at least that deep. What did you see that made it clear to you that it's a spoof?

 

[polysmut]

What did you see that made it clear to you that it's a spoof?

Probably when they said the earth is flat. I'm convinced everyone who says that is taking the 🤬.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's confirming that the twitter account corresponds to tfes.org. I don't know how deep the trolling might go on this one, but it would have to go at least that deep. What did you see that made it clear to you that it's a spoof?

The sardonic tone of many of the posts. They don't seem to be the same people as the other Flat Earth Society, the one from early 20C rekindled a few years ago.

 

[wfooshee]

This is like the video where the guy took a spirit level on a flight, set it on his seat tray and recorded it for 20-some minutes. The nose never dipped to follow the alleged curvature of the Earth.

So gravity comes from somewhere under the Earth, as opposed to the Earth itself? Oh, yeah, that's why people on "the other side" of the Earth would fall off if it were a ball, again proving it's flat. I keep forgetting, sorry.

Something else from this flat-earth map, with the "north pole" at the center and Antarctica at the edges... how do they explain east-west distances being so large the farther south you are? A tip around the equator should be about 25,000 miles, give or take. That would make a trip around Antarctica somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000, wouldn't it? Why, then, is the equator actually the longest circumnavigation compared to other latitudes?

I'll add that to my list of questions, after seasons, analemma, eclipses, and moon phases. (No, I don't accept the explanation for phases given in an earlier posting; nearly everyone on Earth would see a mostly half-moon, and the phase would be different on different parts of the Earth! Really??)

 

[Dennisch]

The earth is Poland.

 

[TB]

Following @Danoff's link leads to this beauty.

 

[UKMikey]

Following @Danoff's link leads to this beauty.

@Dennisch already posted this upthread.

 

[kikie]

I'm surprised to see that the earth is still flat and that this thread is still alive and kicking.

Question to all GTP spinning bal believers, inclucding me; what if science, NASA, ET's or whatever official authoritative source proofs without a doubt with 100% certainty that the earth is indeed flat, would you except it or would you still be stubborn and say; "nope, no way, the earth is a globe?


I'd except accept it.

 

[Dennisch]

Question to all GTP spinning bal believers, inclucding me; what if science, NASA, ET's or whatever official authoritative source proofs without a doubt with 100% certainty that the earth is indeed flat, would you except it or would you still be stubborn and say; "nope, no way, the earth is a globe?

If that was the case, we would be ridiculing Globe Earthers now.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm surprised to see that the earth is still flat and that this thread is still alive and kicking.

Question to all GTP spinning bal believers, inclucding me; what if science, NASA, ET's or whatever official authoritative source proofs without a doubt with 100% certainty that the earth is indeed flat, would you except it or would you still be stubborn and say; "nope, no way, the earth is a globe?


I'd except it.

I wouldn't except it at all - in fact I'd probably accept it. Bear in mind that this proof (given that we're discussing a form where the proof is obtainable because it's true) would have a myriad of other observable effects that we'd also be aware of. Interestingly it's the very lack of those observable effects that much of the Flat Earth community doesn't seem to want to discuss.

 

[Famine]

spinning bal believers

While I'm sure that some people believe in it, the fact is that it's not necessary to do so because literally every available piece of evidence (including that which you can gather yourself) shows that the planet is spheroid - whether you believe it or not.

what if science, NASA, ET's or whatever official authoritative source

"Science" isn't a source. It's a process for acquiring knowledge. The process for acquiring knowledge

proofs without a doubt with 100% certainty

There is no way to do this. Core of the scientific process is that there isn't really such a thing as a fact. There are observations, experiments, conclusions, and theories, but ultimately all knowledge is one disproof away from being wrong. There is always room for doubt, and never 100% proof.

All theories must account for all relevant knowledge. If new knowledge arrives that says previous knowledge, and theory, was wrong, the new theory must account for the updated knowledge.

that the earth is indeed flat, would you except it or would you still be stubborn and say; "nope, no way, the earth is a globe?

Bearing in mind all that I have said above, your question is really the following:

"If new objective evidence arose that showed the Earth was not spheroid but flat, would you accept an adjusted theory?"

And the answer is obviously yes. Because otherwise the shape of the Earth would be a belief that you hold by rejecting, misinterpreting or denying knowledge.


Which is what Flat Earthists do:

The scientific method is the tool we use to understand all things. It is a set process that eliminates the observer's preconceived notions as much as is possible. I already explained the process to you a couple of times in this thread, but you don't seem to have grasped it.

The process starts with an observation.
*From there you create a hypothesis to explain the observation.
*You then assume that the hypothesis you came up with is wrong.
*You then create a test to prove that the hypothesis is wrong.
-> If you succeed, the hypothesis is wrong, and you need to create a new hypothesis.
-> If you fail, you've found a way not to prove the hypothesis is wrong, and need to create a new test.
-> If you continue to fail until you run out of ways to prove the hypothesis is wrong, you can assume that the hypothesis is right - and publish your findings and methods.
*Other people can then try to prove your hypothesis wrong.
-> If they succeed, the hypothesis is wrong, and you need to create a new hypothesis.
-> If they fail, and continue to fail, you've all found ways not to prove the hypothesis is wrong, and the hypothesis becomes knowledge.
*Knowledge only remains knowledge until someone comes up with a way to prove it wrong.
*With enough knowledge, you can formulate a theory. A theory is an explanation of all knowledge about the observation.
*If any piece of knowledge within a theory is proven wrong, the theory must be reformulated

And that's the scientific method.

Flat Earth requires the scientific method to be ignored. The first step in Flat Earth - and Intelligent Design - is not to assume the hypothesis is wrong and try to prove it wrong, but to assume that it is right and try to prove it right.

Any test that proves it wrong is ignored. Any evidence that proves it wrong is explained away as faked, or a conspiracy by [insert bogeyman here]. The "theory" - the explanation of all knowledge - never changes, because no knowledge in it is ever changed, because anything that can prove it wrong is ignored or rejected as fake.

 

[Dotini]

Dunno, if the "holographic universe" is still a concept that is in vogue or held tenable. But if so, that is a state in which flat and round would take on different, more subtle meanings.

 

[TheCracker]

I'm surprised to see that the earth is still flat and that this thread is still alive and kicking.

Question to all GTP spinning bal believers, inclucding me; what if science, NASA, ET's or whatever official authoritative source proofs without a doubt with 100% certainty that the earth is indeed flat, would you except it or would you still be stubborn and say; "nope, no way, the earth is a globe?


I'd except it.

I wouldn't except it.

I've seen the curvature of the earth from an airplane window. I've seen the shadow of a globe-earth on a crescent moon. I've seen a partially obscured ship on the ocean from sea-level. All stuff i've observed with my own eyes.

 

[Famine]

I've seen the curvature of the earth from an airplane window. I've seen the shadow of a globe-earth on a crescent moon. I've seen a partially obscured ship on the ocean from sea-level.

I've seen C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate...


Nevertheless, if it were incontrovertible that the Earth was flat, we'd need to come up with some other explanation for these observations (and literally every other piece of evidence) than a spheroid Earth. Perhaps that batcrap crazy atmospheric bending phenomenon "detailed" in an earlier post.

 

[eran0004]

I'm surprised to see that the earth is still flat and that this thread is still alive and kicking.

Question to all GTP spinning bal believers, inclucding me; what if science, NASA, ET's or whatever official authoritative source proofs without a doubt with 100% certainty that the earth is indeed flat, would you except it or would you still be stubborn and say; "nope, no way, the earth is a globe?


I'd except it.

No. The proper thing to do then is to look for where they got their calculations wrong. A round Earth is an integral part of our understanding of the universe and you can't just simply replace that with a flat Earth theory without also razing the past 2000 years of progress in the fields of physics, geography and nature philosophy. Which for one thing means that we no longer have an explanation for how 99% of our technology actually works. The chance that we got such a thing like nuclear power to work by pure luck is infinitely small, especially compared to the chance that some guy at science, NASA, ET's or whatever screwed up their flat Earth calculations somewhere.

 

[Danoff]

I'm surprised to see that the earth is still flat and that this thread is still alive and kicking.

Question to all GTP spinning bal believers, inclucding me; what if science, NASA, ET's or whatever official authoritative source proofs without a doubt with 100% certainty that the earth is indeed flat, would you except it or would you still be stubborn and say; "nope, no way, the earth is a globe?


I'd except it.

This has already been covered at length by the members above. I thought I'd make a few slightly different comments though. The Earth being flat causes so many problems. What's a lunar eclipse? Why can we see sunlight from the moon at night but not sunlight from the sun? Why is australia the wrong size. Why can we fly south from chile to australia? Why do sunrise sunset times exist the way they do at every city south of the equator? Why does gravity not behave radially? Why can we see stars? Does the universe exist outside of the flat earth? or does it start at the edge of antarctica? If there's a universe dome, what happens when you bump into it? If not, what happens when you jump off the edge of antarctica? Why do weather patters act as though the earth is round? Why is it possible for a cloud to exist spanning the south pole? How does the south pole exist?

We'd need a new theory of gravity, a new process for ocean currents, weather, tides, the earth's magnetic field, solar radiation, satellite orbits, formation of the earth, age of the earth, fossil record dating, evolution. We'd need to understand what keeps mars orbiting? Certainly not the sun. All of geology is ruined. All of celestial mechanics is ruined. Newtonian motion is ruined. Magnetism is ruined, and that affects our understanding of electricity.

You're talking about nothing less than the complete and utter destruction of almost all human knowledge of the physical world. It affects how computers work, how cars work, basic mechanical advantage. If you're talking about overturning Newton, Einstein, Maxwell and all of the rest of them (which you pretty much have to be), we can't even understand why the cross beam over your head is capable of bearing the load of the roof.

So it's kinda hard to imagine this scenario.

 

[kikie]

I wouldn't except it at all - in fact I'd probably accept it. Bear in mind that this proof (given that we're discussing a form where the proof is obtainable because it's true) would have a myriad of other observable effects that we'd also be aware of. Interestingly it's the very lack of those observable effects that much of the Flat Earth community doesn't seem to want to discuss.

Thanks. That is what I always wanted; English speaking people to correct my mistakes. 👍

"Science" isn't a source. It's a process for acquiring knowledge. The process for acquiring knowledge

Yep I know, I read your previous posts. Thanks for pointing it out once more.
You can clearly see that your smartness is up there, unreachable for someone like me.

There is no way to do this. Core of the scientific process is that there isn't really such a thing as a fact. There are observations, experiments, conclusions, and theories, but ultimately all knowledge is one disproof away from being wrong. There is always room for doubt, and never 100% proof.

Even I know that there is no such thing as 100% in this case. It was only a hypothetical question and I didn't think it through.

Bearing in mind all that I have said above, your question is really the following:

"If new objective evidence arose that showed the Earth was not spheroid but flat, would you accept an adjusted theory?"

Yes, that is what I wanted to ask/say. Again, I'm no match for your smarthess, so please bear with me.

And the answer is obviously yes. Because otherwise the shape of the Earth would be a belief that you hold by rejecting, misinterpreting or denying knowledge.

Exactly what I was thinking.

I wouldn't except it.

I've seen the curvature of the earth from an airplane window. I've seen the shadow of a globe-earth on a crescent moon. I've seen a partially obscured ship on the ocean from sea-level. All stuff i've observed with my own eyes.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake but please, correct me next time. It helps me improving my English.

My question was not if the earth is a oblate spheroid or flat but (see how @Famine formulated it)

No. The proper thing to do then is to look for where they got their calculations wrong. A round Earth is an integral part of our understanding of the universe and you can't just simply replace that with a flat Earth theory without also razing the past 2000 years of progress in the fields of physics, geography and nature philosophy. Which for one thing means that we no longer have an explanation for how 99% of our technology actually works. The chance that we got such a thing like nuclear power to work by pure luck is infinitely small, especially compared to the chance that some guy at science, NASA, ET's or whatever screwed up their flat Earth calculations somewhere.

Again, not my question. Would you or would't you accept this new flat eart theory if the oblate spheroid theory is wrong (not that I'm saying it is wrong)?
Or would you as be headstrong as the flat earth believers and stick to the idea that the earth is flat, eventhough it isn't?

This has already been covered at length by the members above. I thought I'd make a few slightly different comments though. The Earth being flat causes so many problems. What's a lunar eclipse? Why can we see sunlight from the moon at night but not sunlight from the sun? Why is australia the wrong size. Why can we fly south from chile to australia? Why do sunrise sunset times exist the way they do at every city south of the equator? Why does gravity not behave radially? Why can we see stars? Does the universe exist outside of the flat earth? or does it start at the edge of antarctica? If there's a universe dome, what happens when you bump into it? If not, what happens when you jump off the edge of antarctica? Why do weather patters act as though the earth is round? Why is it possible for a cloud to exist spanning the south pole? How does the south pole exist?

We'd need a new theory of gravity, a new process for ocean currents, weather, tides, the earth's magnetic field, solar radiation, satellite orbits, formation of the earth, age of the earth, fossil record dating, evolution. We'd need to understand what keeps mars orbiting? Certainly not the sun. All of geology is ruined. All of celestial mechanics is ruined. Newtonian motion is ruined. Magnetism is ruined, and that effects our understanding of electricity.

You're talking about nothing less than the complete and utter destruction of almost all human knowledge of the physical world. It affects how computers work, how cars work, basic mechanical advantage. If you're talking about overturning Newton, Einstein, Maxwell and all of the rest of them (which you pretty much have to be), we can't even understand why the cross beam over your head is capable of bearing the load of the roof.

So it's kinda hard to imagine this scenario.

Agreed but again, not my question. See above. I know it is a stupid question but the other day, I had a discussion with a flat earth believer on youtube (religious person), whom said that I made up my mind and would not accept the earth being flat if there was such evicence. I said that he is wrong.
I rarely comment on youtube flat earth videos but this time I couldn't resist.





So would all of you or some of you be so stubborn to stick with the earth being an oblate spheroid if the earth seems to be flat indeed or would you accept it, eveythough it changes all your beliefs (flat earth vs oblate spheroid)? This question is actually not relevant but I was curious how all of you would react if the foundation of your beliefs was turned up side down.

 

[Danoff]

So would all of you or some of you be so stubborn to stick with the earth being an oblate spheroid if the earth seems to be flat indeed or would you accept it, eveythough it changes all your beliefs (flat earth vs oblate spheroid)? This question is actually not relevant but I was curious how all of you would react if the foundation of your beliefs was turned up side down.

If there was a cohesive set of physics behind the Earth being flat (like, all of the stuff i mentioned above), it would be as absurd for me to insist that the Earth is round in those circumstances as it is to insist that the Earth is flat in our current circumstances.

Edit:

You kinda have to pretend you're in an alternate reality and timeline though to do this thought experiment. Because there's no way that a flat earth theory does what @Exorcet describes below and explains everything we observe now and more... mostly because it's incompatible with observations now. You'd have to pretend that you had never seen any of the stuff we've seen, and instead, seen different things. They're incompatible physical models.

 

[Exorcet]

So it's kinda hard to imagine this scenario.

The only explanation I can really come up with is that we're living in a simulation. Like you said, it's really hard to make flat earth fit into reality. Many flat earth believers do it by only considering isolated problems and never trying to fit them together into a working theory.

Agreed but again, not my question. See above. I know it is a stupid question but the other day, I had a discussion with a flat earth believer (religious person), whom said that I made up my mind and would not accept the earth being flat. I said that he is wrong.





So would all of you or some of you be so stubborn to stick with the earth being an oblate spheroid if the earth seems to be flat indeed or would you accept it, eveythough it changes all your beliefs (flat earth vs oblate spheroid)? This question is actually not relevant but I was curious how all of you would react if the foundation of your beliefs was turned up side down.

It's kind of hard to separate the two points though. Flat Earth is rejected because it doesn't make any sense. If NASA announced flat earth tomorrow, it still would not make sense, and the most relevant response would be to question NASA. They don't get a pass just because they're NASA. If it turned out that, somehow, the world is flat beyond any doubt then there is no decision to make. That would be the truth and it would need to be accepted.

More important than defining the shape of earth is figuring out how to actually model reality. What I usually say to flat earthers is to put aside the shape and ideas about brainwashing or close mindedness. If flat earth is going to succeed it needs to be a better model of the universe than what we currently use. Flat earth supporters need to show us that their model can describe things that current physics can't, as well as describe things that current physics can. If they can do that, then flat earth is validated as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Scaff]

So would all of you or some of you be so stubborn to stick with the earth being an oblate spheroid if the earth seems to be flat indeed or would you accept it, eveythough it changes all your beliefs (flat earth vs oblate spheroid)? This question is actually not relevant but I was curious how all of you would react if the foundation of your beliefs was turned up side down.

Mine is not based on belief, so my answer is the same as it is for the god(s) thread.

Will convert for evidence.

 

[eran0004]

@kikie You asked what I would do, and I told you what I would do. I wouldn't accept it. Not because of being stubborn, but because it has most likely been an error in the analysis somewhere.

If I can't find any error, it still wouldn't convince me and I would say that the actual shape of the Earth is disputed, because on one hand there are a ton of evidence for a round Earth and on the other there is some new evidence for a flat Earth.

To be able to convince me, it would have to be one heck of a theory, because it would have a lot to explain.

This situation is not similar to flat Earthers though, because there is no evidence at all for a flat Earth and the flat Earth theory doesn't fit in with any of the other accepted theories that explain the world we're living in.

 

[kikie]

I've got my answers. Thanks. And as I expected, not everybody would accept it. I have to say that most of you overthink my simple, non relevant and stupid question. I don't have to be convinced that the earth is not flat.

It is not a question if it is possible that the earth is flat or not but it is a question if would you accept it or not. Just like the flat earth believers won't accept all the evidence that the earth is not flat.

 

[p-coletray]

Flat Earthers are great. It's like saying oxygen is fake. "I don't see protons or neutrons." Embarrassing to the human race that this little cult has re emerged from the dark ages. Right next to blood-letting and inbred Royal lineages. Just stop flat Earthers, go to school. The ones with educated people. Educated people build rockets, make medicine, etc. Listen to them. We want to look intelligent when the asteroid rapture apocalypse occurs as Scientology saves us to be transported to the mothership in 7th heaven where Elvis can sing a song about the real 9th gate of area 51. That's all true, but the flat Earth thing is embarrassing.

 

[Danoff]

It is not a question if it is possible that the earth is flat or not but it is a question if would you accept it or not.

Coming up with a scenario under which I would accept it requires... a lot of thinking.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Coming up with a scenario under which I would accept it requires... a lot of thinking.

That's the abstract though; we're presented with a scenario where NASA can prove the Earth is flat. In that scenario the Earth actually is flat, it's the only way the scenario can work. As I said earlier there would be lots of proof that we'd be able to observe ourselves. In that sci-fi fantasy I'd believe NASA but not just cus NASA... the proof would be everywhere.

Rather like the real scenario where the world is actually round