The Earth is Flat?
- Thread starter Corsa
- 1,439 comments
- 65,657 views
- 5,071
- Panama City, FL
When have you seen farther? You gave an example of a 1,000-ft peak at 40 miles, and when you finally posted a map of your viewing point and the mountain, it was nearly twice as high as you'd claimed and only 3/4 as distant. Your other claim of a ship 20 miles away is simply a guess. You had no idea how far away that ship was. So there is no "known fact" demonstrated here.
- 6,838
- Europe
- GTP_Slim
- PzR Slim
- 19,652
- Alabamamania
Is the US in the center of the flat earth? I need some perspective in case I fall off the edge, or worse yet, eaten by sea dragons on my next voyage for a pirate-free trading route to Indianapolis. I don't have fantastic creature insurance because of the conspiracy by risk management firms to reduce payouts after the Manticore Outbreak of 1982.
- 13,873
- Adelaide
- Neomone
You know, if the earth was flat then that would explain why everything here in Australia isn't upside down. On a flat earth, we're pointing the same way up as you in the northern hemisphere.
I always thought that was a bit of a flaw in the round earth argument. How can it be round when I can clearly see that I'm not standing on the bottom? Or rather, hanging off the bottom like a bat?
- 534
- Norway
- WhiteFlight1
- 13,873
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Stop beating around the bush. You're saying it proves that the earth is flat. And you haven't given enough information to even attempt to make that claim. Your fjord is 20 miles wide? Great. Point us to it. Get a camera and film your observations. If you're correct, you will be world famous for proving the falsehood of the round earth conspiracy.
But don't expect anyone to actually believe that you have the first clue of what you're talking about if you can't at the very least describe clearly what you've seen, where and when. That's fundamental observation, like we teach to primary school students.
- 29,779
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
"I'm not saying, I'm just saying."
- 534
- Norway
- WhiteFlight1
You should know there a lot of observations like that even in the video i posted. None of them are world famous, cause its not definitive proof anyway. Do you think it proves a flat earth if it was true?
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
I'd just like to point out one more time, that if the world was flat, you could stand on the top of the world trade center and see big ben with a strong enough telescope... when that happens, I'll revisit this silly theory.
- 534
- Norway
- WhiteFlight1
- 13,873
- Adelaide
- Neomone
You misunderstand how proof works. You're not trying to prove a flat earth. You're trying to disprove all other hypotheses.
Think about these two questions.
1. What repeatable observation could you make that would disprove the round earth hypothesis?
2. What repeatable observation could you make that would disprove the flat earth hypothesis?
I would then suggest that you attempt to make those observations and see what you see. It is likely that at least one of those observations will prove impossible in practice. You can then present this information to others and have them make the same observations and see if their experience matches with yours. If so, then they will agree with you. If not, then there's room for investigation to find out why not.
Welcome to basic science 101.
- 534
- Norway
- WhiteFlight1
So let me rephrase: If you saw an object that according to the curvature calculator should be hidden behind the curve. Would that disprove the globe earth if it was repeatable?
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
I could be wrong (it's likely; I'm no scientist) but I would expect very slight variations compared to the calculator. The Earth is not a perfect sphere after all (even assuming everything at water level), so it would depend on which direction you're looking.
I can't imagine it would vary by dozens of feet in the visible height of the distant object, however.
I can't imagine it would vary by dozens of feet in the visible height of the distant object, however.
- 534
- Norway
- WhiteFlight1
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
No; it just means there are variances.
If, however, any amount of the object becomes obscured by the horizon, it disproves the flat earth claim.
- 7,602
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Realistically, the issue then would be the calculator. The globe is the only thing that works with established facts. Gravity is related to not only our perception of up and down, but also the energy we get to sustain ourselves from the Sun and how we've managed to stay in within an acceptable range of the Sun for life to exist. Astronomy as we observe it doesn't work on a flat earth. We have two celestial poles. We have night and day with relatively fixed angular dimensions for the major celestial bodies of each.
A flat earth would require more evidence and explanation than its believers have tried to cover so far.
- 534
- Norway
- WhiteFlight1
Thats a fair answer to which i agree.
- 29,779
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Yes, he has said that, but he's also elaborated on that.
The sphere is actually oblate, so that the distance through the center from pole to pole is less than that from two points along the equator. The difference is small, but it's there. @TheGeologist could probably shed more light on the following than I, but I'm given to understand that Earth's composition isn't singular, and some areas between the core and the surface aren't as dense as others, a difference that results in gravity acting upon the mineral composition thereby resulting in variances that go beyond geological formations such as mountains.
Citing comments out of context is demonstrative of a weak argument.
- 13,873
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Let's begin with the fact that you wouldn't be using a calculator with unknown variables in it. You would do your own math, with values that you know. If you want to do this properly then you can't be accepting black box calculations from others. You need to understand the curvature calculation to be able to do it yourself. But let's say you do that. Depending on your mathematical ability it could take a while, but it's not really that hard.
Let's say you're able to view a 1 foot sphere on the same level as you (and there's a whole raft of assumptions in the idea of "same level" as well) from 100km away. That observation would probably not fit with a globe earth of the radius that we typically expect the earth to be, and so that could be seen as evidence that the globe earth hypothesis is false.
Realistically, it would be more likely that there was some form of experimental error in the observation or the calculation and so you'd check those things first. Whenever you get an odd result, you always check for how you've screwed it up first. 9/10 times your earth-shattering discovery turns out to be some sort of error. But plausibly if you got through all that you could make an observation in such a way as to disprove the globe earth hypothesis, yes.
At least below a certain radius of globe, anyway. Which is all you're ever going to be able to do, how do you tell the difference between a flat surface and the surface of a 10 million light year sphere? But this is getting a bit into the weeds, we're trying to compare the hypotheses of a flat plane versus a sphere of about 6-7000km radius.
So good, we've got that. That seems practical in the real world. What's your observation to disprove a flat earth? What observation could you make that you wouldn't expect to if the earth were flat?
- 534
- Norway
- WhiteFlight1
- 29,779
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that you were, and that you admit such lends credence to my final statement. I was compelled to post what I did, not in an attempt to inform you specifically, but to include the context that you left out.
- 534
- Norway
- WhiteFlight1
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Another thing that may mess with the calculator is actual atmosphere. I am pretty sure water and gases in the air and other things, I am fuzzy on the science, but some things cause a sort of parallax effect.
Ok, so, let's set up another one. See if you can stand on Mt Rainier and see the Rockies or Appalachians.
Even easier. Go to your closest mountain and drive away from it, and watch as it dips behind the horizon. You can actually see for yourself that not only does it shrink, but it dips down around the horizon. If the earth were flat, that wouldnt happen. It would just shrink.
Ok, so, let's set up another one. See if you can stand on Mt Rainier and see the Rockies or Appalachians.
Even easier. Go to your closest mountain and drive away from it, and watch as it dips behind the horizon. You can actually see for yourself that not only does it shrink, but it dips down around the horizon. If the earth were flat, that wouldnt happen. It would just shrink.
- 534
- Norway
- WhiteFlight1
Similar threads
- Poll
