The Earth is Flat?

[Dotini]

I'm convinced he's only in the thread for the sake of having an argument.

If that's true he's definitely the winner. No one I know who was confident that the Earth was a sphere would waste their time to argue with someone who coyly says it isn't. Not only that, he's hinted over and again that he merely affects or pretends flat Earth, like some dude sporting a pair of flashy, oversize sneakers, or clown shoes, to arouse outraged comment. He says, in effect, his motives are to poke a finger in the eye of stodgy establishment science - perhaps solely to enjoy his individualism, be provocatively different and maybe have some fun sending others into indignant dyspepsias. Kind of like the Pied Piper of Hamlin trying to lead the children of a village off deep into the woods. A fairy tale come true - for him!

 

[Scaff]

If you've watched it, could we have a summary? I'm not sitting through 21 minutes of pants-on-head stupidity just to find out what the core of the argument is.

I suspect it'll turn out to be "we don't know what wide-angle photography is" from a cornucopia of remedials who don't believe dogs exist.

The original video itself is taken from a quite good history of NASA's photography, its been ruined by a load of on-screen text that and edits that attempt to make it all out to be NASA faking everything.

I stopped two minute in when a claim was made that one of the Earth-rise shots form the first moon landings was constructed in Photoshop!

It would be interesting to know how a programme not released until 1990 was used thirty years before hand.

Oh the first few minutes do also show that they don't understand that if you use different cameras, with different film stock, set to capture different things (mainly differing visible and invisible wavelengths to better understand how the sea, etc. is behaving) its going to result in differing colours in an image. That's an even more basic photographic knowledge fail that misunderstanding wide-angle photography, and akin to saying my daughter and her friends don;t exist because they use a quite hideous range of snapchat filters. This is despite the original voice over form the film clearly saying that's why they differ in colour.

 

[kikie]

If you've watched it, could we have a summary? I'm not sitting through 21 minutes of pants-on-head stupidity just to find out what the core of the argument is.

I suspect it'll turn out to be "we don't know what wide-angle photography is" from a cornucopia of remedials who don't believe dogs exist.

I've watched the first few minutes. Not enough to give a summary. I will but first I have to go and buy a CTEK battery charger for my father's very old Mercedes 220D /8. Off Topic, I know.

 

[TexRex]

Off Topic, I know.

 

[SiriusR]

I'm convinced he's only in the thread for the sake of having an argument.

That reminds me...

See you only make a post to show that you disagree with someone. If somebody says that the glass is half full you will see that it is half empty...

Speak about pot calling the kettle black...

 

[TheCracker]

Where is my holiday on either the moon or at least in the orbit, it is about damn time i thing

This simply comes down to cost. The Saturn V rocket that took man to moon used 950,000 gallons of fuel to do so back in the sixties. Modern rockets can get a small payload into orbit using only 76,000 gallons. You can't get around that issue. Fuel will always be expensive and getting into space will always use a lot of fuel. That's why we don't have holidays on the moon or even in orbit. Ans that's all aside from the danger, the complexities and the fact that unlike jet air-travel, it just doesn't benefit humans enough to warrant the enormous complexities and costs to do so.

 

[Famine]

Again you dont need to ignore any scientific methods at all, for a flat earth to work. Just ignore fantastical ones that from what have been up to date of no beneficial use to us.

Everything like electro-magnetism and such seems to still work in what they describe a fe world.

You seem to be confusing things you learn in science classes in school with the scientific method.

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.

FE is outlandish sure, but it does not give you the right to question my sanity

Quote me.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to quote me doing either of the things you've previously stated:

If you were like you said into the FE topic

Quote me.

As this is a thread about FE and I have shared what I think about FE and tried to convey what true flat earther believe in you try to make strange personal attacks.

Quote me.

Still waiting you to quote me from your earlier claim that I said I was "into" FE. Which I didn't.

Gish Gallop doesn't work here. We don't forget what you've already said and won't let you forget it either.

 

[Joey D]

Can we just make a hole in the ground and see where it comes out?
Yes there maybe some magma to deal with but I am sure we have the technology to handle.

The Soviet's tried it in the 70's and 80's and got to over 40,000 feet before they called it off due to temperatures and lack of money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

I'd love to see someone else attempt to go deeper. This sort of stuff fascinates me. I know there are a few oil wells that have a greater length, but I don't think they've surpassed the overall depth of Kola.

 

[Touring Mars]

This sort of stuff fascinates me.

I think it's deeply boring.

 

[wfooshee]

... but first I have to go and buy a CTEK battery charger for my father's very old Mercedes 220D /8. Off Topic, I know.

So the battery's flat??

 

[SiriusR]

So the battery's flat??

The entire Merc is.

 

[Danoff]

Note the destroyed scale in that map. This image of antarctica (McMurdo to the mountain behind) should be roughly like looking from the US rockies to the west coast. Which is, impossible. Australia is also wildly distorted in terms of size. It's as big as Russia!

There's no need to launch yourself into space to eliminate the flat earth theory. Just take a cruise to antarctica. lol, why is the moon never up during the day in the animation. It would be easy to fix but... I mean comeon.

For reference, Australia's footprint is similar to the continental US.

 

[kikie]

So the battery's flat??

Nope. Not as flat as the earth is apparently.

If you've watched it, could we have a summary? I'm not sitting through 21 minutes of pants-on-head stupidity just to find out what the core of the argument is.

I suspect it'll turn out to be "we don't know what wide-angle photography is" from a cornucopia of remedials who don't believe dogs exist.

An attempt to summaries this video. Mind you, I'm not that smart a bad writer and not English (first language)
I did not proofread it, so don't mind the spelling, grammar mistakes.

The new released photograph isn’t a photograph at all. It’s a composite of datasets from a bunch of different intruments on satellites circling the globe and they take data from phytoplankton content in the see what colour the ocean is going to be and then there is another instrument that’s looking at the light coming off of the land.



1968 the austronauts saw earth rising and when looking at it in photoshop a big box appears around the earth's photo.



With all the data the make an image (2:59) When taken the data, there are gaps between the ribbons and they photoshop in clouds and stuff (3:19). The next blue marble won’t be photoshopped.



NASA’s Robert Simmons admits he faked globe earth pictures for NASA. He removed the clouds for colouring the image according to how much phytoplankton there is. After that he put the clouds back in but there is a problem. There is a small gap in between each orbit. It is photoshopped but it has tob e (5:40). There is another layer to simulate the atmosphere. Then there is the specular highlight = the reflection of sunlight off of water. Didn’t look realistic >> flat, see through, so he used Command Z a lot (6’).

When bringing the “levels” up in photoshop, using a photo of earth taken in’68 or ’72, a square box appears around the photo of the earth. (6:55)



Watch from 8:20 – 14’: explanation of how they faked the live feed of Apollo 11.



From 14’ on, a part of another flat earth video was edited in the video explaining the exact same thing about the data compiled into an image earth. He also says: “that there is no authentic video of the earht, so you don’t have evidence of a globe earth, so this is one of the biggest flat earth proofs there is”. Until 14:42.

According to him it is a illuminati attempt to brainwash us that we are flying to space on a globe circling the sun to hide what life is, what humanity is what inside a structure that we are living in, a structure that was build for us and that is called earth. Why can’t all the satellites give you a picture of earth, he asked (15:25).

All the pictures of the planets in the solar system are not real either. Pretty much every picture you received from NASA has been a CGI.

According to him, NASA says that the pictures are not real.

Watch from 16’ - : picture taken by DICOVR in 2015. It took over 40 years to take another picture of earth from a million miles away. He then compares wifi in your basement with a picture taken and send from a million miles away. With wifi or your cell phone, you can barely get a signal.

He then starts to talk about the pictures not being real because they are taken at different times and are composites of date, compiled together. So it is photoshop. Because the images are from compiled data, earth can’t be a perfect circle. Yes, he said a PERFECT circle, which of course earth is not (perfect circle I mean) (red.)

Neil Degrasse Tyson (17:35) This guy commenting on the video says that Neil said the the earth is pear-shaped. But Neil said, that due to the spinning the earth is wider at the equator than it does at the poles. So it is actually not a sphere, it’s officially an oblate spheroid. But not only that, it is slightly wider below the equator than above the equator, like it’s peer-shaped. Look at the ridiculous photo in the video at 18’.

Then he goes on that it is not possible for a big bang accident to create such a perfection (showing NASA’s perfect and beautiful photos of the earth (1972 and 2015). He keeps talking about the big bang accident and it can’t create perfect things like this (the NASA photos of earth). He clearly doesn’t understand that Neil explained in the video that the earth is NOT a perfect globe and still he refers to the NASA photos of ’72 and ’15.

READ THE MESSAGE AT (18:52) He keeps repeating that all the pictures of NASA are fake because they are data stitched together. It’s not real and photoshopped and would not be admissible in a court of justice (he said the same thing earlier).

His reasoning is that because it is a collection of data from different satellites it’s not a picture, so it’s not real and NASA is lying and misleading us because NASA doesn’t have pictures.

 

[Liquid]

If a flat earth fantasy relies on the Mercator map projection being reality... ooh boy, then there's no convincing them of learning further.

 

[McLaren]

What a great time waster this thread was, sitting in a doctor’s office. I’m still tickled at how Famine’s questioning of, “Why do scientists have to go into space to measure the sun, but Flat Earthers don’t” was ignored multiple times.

 

[SiriusR]

“Why do scientists have to go into space to measure the sun, but Flat Earthers don’t”

/me brings in a teapot with "Property of Bertrand Russell" written on it.

 

[TexRex]

What a great time waster this thread was

Not to mention a much-needed distraction and source of levity.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Danoff]

That post made me wonder how flat earthers account for lunar illumination at all:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow created from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.

When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

Somehow all of these disc worlds have to be kept perfectly parallel with each other (magically?), which would prevent Neil's eclipse in the flat earth world.

I don't even want to know how they account for half the moon being illuminated when it is at the same altitude as the sun, or how they think the moon gets illuminated at less than half.

 

[kikie]

A shorter and probably better summary:


According flat earth believers, all the photos from NASA are fake. It all comes down to the the fact that NASA photoshopped all photos of the blue marble. NASA makes a photo by using data from different satellites in different orbits, which creates small gaps between each orbit.
The flat earth believers use this as an excuse to say that the photos of the earth are fake. NASA uses this data to create a globe and mislead all of us.


According the animation posted above, the sun and the moon are circling over the flat earth always at the same altitude. So, isn't it so that if the animation is a correct representation, we would see the sun during the day traveliing horizontally and perpendicular to the earth's horizon. We wouldn't see the sun come up in the East and we won't see the sun set in the West. The arch the sun makes during the day is not possible in the animation posted above.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I just noticed that on the disc model Finland seems to get equal day and night... and they're not several months long. Are most flat-earthers based in the US by any chance?

 

[Danoff]

According the animation posted above, the sun and the moon are circling over the flat earth always at the same altitude. So, isn't it so that if the animation is a correct representation, we would see the sun during the day traveliing horizontally and perpendicular to the earth's horizon. We would see the sun come up in the East and we won't see the sun set in the West. The arch the sun makes during the day is not possible in the animation posted above.

They'd say that the "arch" is perspective. As the sun comes overhead its apparent angle with respect to the local horizon changes. I don't know what they think causes the sun's rays to be cast only on a particular region. It's as though they think the sunlight is focused by a spotlight shroud of some sort.

This, of course, would make illumination of the moon impossible... especially when the moon is at a "higher altitude" than the sun, which is supposedly what causes full moons in the first place.

Unless they think the spotlight goes both directions (up and down?) in which case you never get a half moon (I don't know how you get a half moon on a flat disc that is "at the same altitude" as the sun anyway). Or maybe they think the spotlight is only shrouded in a vary narrow and convenient region that causes a band of night on the earth... which would be bizarrely specific.

 

[Famine]

I took some photos earlier that are impossible under Flat Earth...

Half moon rising, during daytime...

 

[Dennisch]

Half moon rising, during daytime...

Here. Have a man explain why you are dumb and completely wrong

 

[Danoff]

Here. Have a man explain why you are dumb and completely wrong

O..M...G.. the moon and sun are spherical but the Earth isn't!!! What!?!?

Ok, so the (spherical apparently) moon is illuminated by the Sun... and the Earth is flat so... we should be able to see the sun AND moon to a certain extent all day long. They should never go below the horizon. There is a direct path of sunlight in this image to every part of the Earth... including Antarctica (the ice ring that holds the ocean in). Look at friggin antarctica in that image! Circumnavigating it would take longer than circumnavigating the globe around the middle (by a factor of 2). The distance around the world at high latitudes is absolutely tiny compared to low latitudes. A plane trip from Portland to Beijing (11.5 hrs) should be absolutely nothing compared to a trip from Punta Arenas (southern tip of Chile) to Sydney (12.5 hrs). It has to be at least 4 times the distance.

 

[Famine]

Ok, so the (spherical apparently) moon is illuminated by the Sun... and the Earth is flat so... we should be able to see the sun AND moon to a certain extent all day long. They should never go below the horizon.

No, because space folds it away...

The sun will then be accross the horizon, but you can't see it then, because it has been 'folded out' by the perspective of space

The higher above the ground we are, the farther we can see. Usually, a man standing on the ground can see the horizon only 10 miles away, after that, space 'folds' away. This is an illusion however, because space keeps going straight. When space 'folds away', it also blocks you from seeing sunlight, and that is why it gets dark at night.

... although that's just an illusion.

Obviously night time is caused by the illusion of space folding the sunlight away...

 

[Danoff]

No, because space folds it away...

... although that's just an illusion.

Obviously night time is caused by the illusion of space folding the sunlight away...

Ok... so then... the stars? They look farther than either the moon or soon from any given point on the disc in that image. They don't get folded?

Ok hang on a sec... if the light from the moon is really light from the sun, then the light from the sun reflected off of the moon reaching you has gone through more folded space than the light coming straight from the sun to you. You should never see the moon unless it's closer to the sun than you are and you can also see the sun (which doesn't ever seem to happen in their graphics).

 

[wfooshee]

Waiting for seasons, eclipses, phases besides half or nearly half or just over half (which is all we would get if that video represented reality,) and the analemma to be explained. It's been made plain to me that I can't get anything from NASA that would explain those things....

 

[SagarisGTB]

Can we just make a hole in the ground and see where it comes out?
Yes there maybe some magma to deal with but I am sure we have the technology to handle.

If you're serious, no, we don't have anywhere near the "technology to handle". The furthest down we have drilled thus far is just over 12 km. The diameter of the earth is over 12 000 km. And the further you drill down, there's increasing heat to dispel at the drill bit (at the end of an increasingly long and increasingly hot shaft that you have to pump your cooling fluids through), increasing pressure that will be acting towards collapsing your drilling well and you'll have an increasingly long and heavy drill string that will require more and more power to rotate. He haven't even reached the mantle yet, drilling straight through is a pipe dream.

 

[Danoff]

pipe dream.

I see what you did there...