I fucking love FE theory and those curious enough to question our true nature. If the Earth is flat or not is not the point, it's about the realization that we know nothing about our true nature and until we start asking questions we cannot find the answers.
Would be wild and I have enough questions about our Earth to at least entertain the idea. The ship and horizon observation is one I haven't gotten past yet. I, like many, just assumed it disappeared beyond the horizon. Counter to that, I can't get past the routes this ships would take if the Earth was flat. Makes me entertain spherical Earth as well.
Definitely respect that and am just happy to talk to others asking questions. Have been working on a huge FAQ and general interest post for a while now, check it out if you're interested sometime.
I think you might have _ a word. But I'm gonna guess it was moon?
I personally think the moon is probably just as natural as anything else but there are a number of ancient mythologies that speak of a time before the moon or have similar concepts - I think such legends are generally considered the basis for that idea.
The period when the Earth was Moonless is probably the most remote recollection of mankind. Democritus and Anaxagoras taught that there was a time when the Earth was without the Moon.(1) Aristotle wrote that Arcadia in Greece, before being inhabited by the Hellenes, had a population of Pelasgians, and that these aborigines occupied the land already before there was a moon in the sky above the Earth; for this reason they were called Proselenes.(2)
Apollonius of Rhodes mentioned the time “when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens, before the Danai and Deukalion races came into existence, and only the Arcadians lived, of whom it is said that they dwelt on mountains and fed on acorns, before there was a moon.” (3)
Plutarch wrote in The Roman Questions: “There were Arcadians of Evander’s following, the so-called pre-Lunar people.”(4) Similarly wrote Ovid: “The Arcadians are said to have possessed their land before the birth of Jove, and the folk is older than the Moon.” (5) Hippolytus refers to a legend that “Arcadia brought forth Pelasgus, of greater antiquity than the moon.”(6) Lucian in his Astrology says that “the Arcadians affirm in their folly that they are older than the moon.”(7)
Censorinus also alludes to the time in the past when there was no moon in the sky.(8)
You nailed it. The most important part of Flat Earth is the realisation that we don't know shit because we've never questioned what we get told to believe by TPTB. It's a mind blowing thing to contemplate - how little we truly know about this planet and the origins of life on it.
I agree. We should not immediately disregard a theory just because it seems obscene. There may be certain aspects that piece together other conspiracies.
There's a youtube channel called "Infinite Plane Society" that explains the entire thing as a continuation of the Reformation - he says the heliocentric model is the Catholic Church essentially re-asserting religious control over the masses, and that just as the printing presses originally freed us from their fear and control based religious tyranny by teaching the masses how to read and giving them access to books and written records, the internet is now giving us this opportunity to dispel a lot of the "scientism" and mind control that they've used to attempt to re-constitute their totalitarian control. Not saying I endorse his views completely but definitely interesting imo!
This is why when people complain or tell others to stfu about one theory or another I get upset, no one knows anything, and even those who know only know a grain of sand in an infinite beach of wisdom/knowledge.
And yet they all come out of the woodwork just to be hateful and detract when you start trying to discuss flat earth. Makes me sad but I'm glad there area growing number of people out there questioning, definitely reason to be hopeful.
I don't understand how so many people can be against looking into this theory, especially people who usually question official narratives and TPTB who could perpetuate this conspiracy (if true). They say they only have time for the important conspiracies (which is subjective). Even on r/conspiracy, this topic will only ever appear in "controversial." Is it really that controversial?? I wonder, are people employed to downvote this kind of thing?
I wonder, are people employed to downvote this kind of thing?
Absolutly. There are groups and subreddits created solely to brigade and downvote any thread with the 'flat earth' keyword. That is why the subject always gets immediately downvoted into oblivion if it discusses the subject at all. You will see the same users day in and day out "debunking" in every thread. It is over the top obvious, but the truth is out there and they look more ridiculous everyday trying to suppress the subject.
It might eventually have a Streisand Effect as more people realize that when an idea is desperately being buried, there could be some truth to it or otherwise they wouldn't bother attacking it so ferociously. It tells me someday is trying very hard to hide something. I don't know what that something is, but one possibility could be the space agencies trying to keep their cash cow before people realize those billions in taxpayer money have not put anything in outer space. Or maybe they can't leave earth for whatever reason, such as a flat earth with a hard dome, space being an illusion or not what they say it is, the van allen radiation belts preventing human space travel and thus proving the moon landing was a hoax, or something like that. It's all very curious.
Your entire account history is stalking and harassing /r/conspiracy users, throwing out as many one-liners as possible, supporting mainstream narratives and bullshitting about sports. You have got to be either American or Canadian hahaha lmao
I dunno, I'm just genuinely curious as to how this will go. I also help moderate /r/theworldisflat - I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this and trying to discuss the results once they're in though :)
Not really, all I see is a whole lot of dodging the question, handwaving, and acting like a victim. The best thing about good science is that its results hold up to scrutiny. It's funny watching the flatheads moan and whine and hide behind heavily controlled subs.
Watched and photographed the sunset the other day, clearly drops below the horizon then casts the Belt of Venus opposite. Impossible on a flat Earth. This is unscientific distraction nonsense.
It certainly will be once it demonstrates that the flat Earth theory is nonsense. With a day of observations it will be easy to conclude that the sun is the same size over the course of the day and therefore doesn't vanish due to 'perspective'. Strange how there's so man people 'tracking' the sun, but none of them are photographing it as it would immediately invalidate their theory.
This is the same methodology that Eratosthenes is alleged to have used while taking measurements of shadows at Alexandria and Syene - merely with more points of observation.
So in summary, you only consider this scientific if it fits your preconceived idea? lol :)
This is the same methodology that Eratosthenes is alleged to have used while taking measurements of shadows at Alexandria and Syene - merely with more points of observation. Were his alleged efforts scientific?
With a Sharpie with a tiny shadow? Seriously? Are you even familiar with the experiment? You realize the room for error increases with the smaller size of the experiment? It's incredibly unscientific to use something as sloppy as a Sharpie for something that should be so precise.
Two points of observation vs a dozen - the experiments are clearly not exactly but you're also clearly being very foolish and trying very hard to attack this :)
That what I love about "science", is inexact experiments! Scientists across the globe annually compete to demonstrate how inexact their measurements are!
No need to attack it, it's nonsense. Watching the sunset, Belt of Venus or a Lunar Eclipse or circumpolar stars is enough to disprove it rather than need to attack it.
Right, so as long as the observations fit your preconceived ideas then you validated. Keep in mind, these people have not published these findings yet, they haven't even finished recording or analyzing them - they haven't trimmed the fat, thrown out bad data, any of that - this is the experiment still ongoing. What you're displaying now is that you value your own worldview above discussing this in a credible way - Not exactly "science" but I think I understand now - sorry I won't you with stuff like this that makes you think too hard from now on.
No need to apologize for not being able to explain basic visible phenomena like the Belt of Venus. Society should apologize to you for leaving you so ignorant.
In my experiment I used a thumbtack and a can of spray paint and I ended up with a single dot on my graph - based on this science I can definitively say that the sun doesn't actually move. Wake up, Sheeple!
I've never come across ANY observation that a normal/everyday person can make that contradicts the numerous flat earth observations. Everywhere you look, the earth's horizon is flat as the level of the sea. That's an observation, not a theory. Gravity, in contrast, is a theory...as is globular earth.
I think you mean to say: go study at a university, and you might learn something about globular earth. Irony being what it is, going outside will teach you that the earth is flat as far as the eye can see.
I just gave you a list of observations you can conduct yourself without going to university to confirm the Earth is spherical. Your denialism is troubling.
So, you're absolutely confident that if you step off that building, you will fall.
Why?
Gravity is just a theory... right? Why do you know you'll fall? Is it because your lifetime of observations confirm the existence of a "force" that causes thing to fall?
This force we call "gravity" is not a theory. It is an observable fact. What causes gravity is a theory, but gravity itself is not. Even you know it exists.
This is like the spherical earth. It is not a theory. It is an observable fact. You may want to argue how or why it became spherical, but the fact it is spherical is proved by observation.
The earth has never been observed to be spherical. No where. Ever. [Not yet anyway]. That's the problem. Globular earth is a theory that is taught to children, kinda like the existence of Santa Claus. Just because children believe it, because they've seen artistic renderings of him, doesn't make his existence an observable fact.
It might be helpful to do a basic internet query on gravity. It is not a force that makes you "fall"--that is more-or-less a FE argument of density and buoyancy. Gravity is a force of attraction. No one needs gravity to explain why things fall on an earth that is flat.
Those are artistic renderings, like our maps. Regardless, current science is telling us that the earth is an "oblate spheroid." What you have referenced is a PERFECT sphere. They both can not be true. That's the lie.
The earth is very slightly squashed. But it is very slight.
The difference between the polar radius and the equatorial radius of earth is about 21 kilometres.
To put that in perspective, if the earth was shrunk down so it had a polar radius of about 1 meter, the difference between its polar radius and its equatorial radius would be about 3.5 millimeters.
That is such a small difference I doubt you'd be able to see it.
Regardless, current science is telling us that the earth is an "oblate spheroid." What you have referenced is a PERFECT sphere.
The difference is around 45km, if you think you can tell the difference from a photo that is taken ~35,000km away then you are completely wrong.
You are simply uneducated and uninformed. I gave you a list of things you can see for yourself which demonstrate the Earth to be the shape it is commonly considered to be. You would rather be ignorant than investigate yourself.
I disagree that your list demonstrates what you believe it does. You are free to believe whatever to want, but unless there is a negative, there is no photo. Everything else is cgi.
I have seven degrees from some of the country's top schools. Thanks for asking in such a positive and respectful manner.
I disagree that your list demonstrates what you believe it does. You are free to believe whatever to want, but unless there is a negative, there is no photo. Everything else is cgi.
So you will just deny any evidence that doesn't fit your manufactured requirements because you're a coward afraid of the truth?
All humanity is deserving of respect, especially if you are attempting to engage in a dialogue. You'll find that berating and brow-beating your belief system is ineffective when dealing with others.
You've said that already. Adding another adjective to "ignorant coward" doesn't provide any evidence that legitimately furthers your belief system. Like your missing negatives, your statements lack supporting evidence.
Like your missing negatives, your statements lack supporting evidence.
I just provided evidence, you dismissed it.
I gave you a list of observations you can conduct yourself, you ignored it.
You have to be willing to change if you want to stop being ignorant, you are clearly unwilling to even investigate things yourself and would rather trust unscientific Youtube videos to explain something to you.
You have no proof, no evidence, you merely have the comfort blanket of your ignorance.
The landmass in your picture differs significantly from google earth [from the same perspective], as well does it differ from other nasa composite images throughout time. That is problematic for globe earth theory.
Took me 5 minutes, with more time I'm sure it would be absolutely exact, but again, you're just lying and not looking at the evidence yourself, just regurgitating talking points you've heard before.
Took me 5 minutes, with more time I'm sure it would be absolutely exact, but again, you're just lying and not looking at the evidence yourself, just regurgitating talking points you've heard before.
Pretty close for fiddling for less than 10 minutes, sure I could get it to match exactly with enough time since I'm actually interested in educating myself and not spreading lies.
I thought for sure you would find a way to put at least 5 lies in your last response. Only 3? I'm disappointed. You know, the more you repeat your liar concept, the stronger your argument appears. That is exactly how science works. /s
Close isn't good enough, but, you can keep manipulating the pics if it make you sleep better at night.
Close isn't good enough, but, you can keep manipulating the pics if it make you sleep better at night.
It took 5 minutes of trying to align the angle correctly. Your inability to comprehend even the most basic of topics is truly mind-boggling. At this point I'm forced to believe that your lack of a basic skill set when it comes to critical thinking is somehow intentional.
At least you're now avoiding posting blatantly incorrect statements and are now relying on attacking something other than the content. Unbelievably transparent, but I guess you weren't left with much else after being exposed.
I'll refer you to my previous comment: if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. You and I obviously have very different standards in photorealism. It is a matter of one's attention to detail in the observation process.
I'm asking you to outline the significant differences which you claimed were there. Why is this so difficult for you to understand. Do you understand what the words you used mean?
Close enough doesn't count. It's either a perfect match or it not--your images are not a match. That is significant. You already know that, but you have decided it is close enough for your belief system. The problem is: it doesn't pass the glove test.
A different observation and opinion than you does not equate to a lie. Based on the evidence you have thus far provided, I think that you are wrong--your images are not a match. That, like your bullet BS, is not convincing. But, you already know that.
Here, ill make it easier on you (i.e. since measurements and math are for you a matter of semantics). Here is a random google search: http://testingtheglobe.com/images/BlueMarbles.jpg. They are all visibly different, even for someone like you.
Your images are significantly different, and the glove doesn't fit.
You should be able to see that with your naked eye, but apparently you are having trouble seeing the obvious differences. If it is really that important to you, open up a program and take the measurements yourself--so that you can notice what is obvious to other people. If that is too much work, or you don't really care enough, just take a look at glaringly obvious problems with the other nasa images. Either way, the burden of proof is on you.
You are the one making the claim, not me. Are you too lazy to prove your own claims?
You've shifted your nonsensical goalposts so many times I can understand it can be hard to keep track, so once again, I direct you to your simple claim and ask for your evidence to back it:
The landmass in your picture differs significantly from google earth
Pssss...your glove don't fit. Just look for yourself. You need only your eyes. Or, you could be more technical about it and take actual measurements. I'm just curious, is this how you got people do your homework for you in high school?
Reminder: you are the one claiming the earth is a spinning globular ball. I haven't seen evidence of that yet, but I will keep on looking. The nasa images are all different, so that is a problem, not scientific evidence.
Pssss...your glove don't fit. Just look for yourself. You need only your eyes. Or, you could be more technical about it and take actual measurements.
I readily admitted they weren't perfect since I spent 5 minutes making the comparison. Literally said it was "pretty close".
You said the landmasses were significantly different, which they are not, and you refuse to back up your point, because you know you are wrong.
The nasa images are all different, so that is a problem, not scientific evidence.
The "problem" is that you don't understand how distance works when photographing a spherical object. It's actually shocking that with a human brain you are unable to imagine how photographing a 3-dimensional object from closer or further away can make things appear differently and instead dismiss all other supporting evidence and think the Earth is flat.
Let me ask you a question: what do you think is the single best piece of experimental evidence for the Earth being flat?
I don't claim the earth is flat. Based on my observations, that seems to be the best bet. Personally, I hope we find out the earth is a trapezoid. It doesn't matter to me.
Yes, many people confuse the meaning of "pretty close" and "significant" when speaking of things on a global scale all the time ... you just don't know what your own words mean.
Arguing semantics with you would be meaningless. It is not a matter of comprehension, it is a matter of perspective. In this case, the glove didn't fit (i.e., the images don't match), so it is not evidence you may use to support your theory in a clear and convincing manner.
I never had a theory that the images were exactly the same ... I claimed that they were "pretty close" from the start. You're the one that said the 'landmasses are significantly different' but refuse to post evidence for your claim.
Your reading comprehension is truly embarrassing. This is pointless, you aren't even willing to address the points that you yourself make, and instead keep shifting the goalposts because you are unwilling to take accountability for your own words. It's shameful.
Pretty close is not good enough to use as evidence. They are different, so it is not a match. From what I can observe, they are significantly different. To what degree is a mater of semantics. Your "pretty close" is my "significantly different." Putting numbers and measurements to these semantics doesn't change the fact that all of the images are different--that is extremly problematic. That shouldn't be the case with photography and modern technology.
The point I continue to make is that the glove doesn't fit...you seem to be OK forcing it on there and pretending like everything is functional. It's not.
Pretty close is not good enough to use as evidence.
Then do it yourself instead of lying to people in order to get them to do you work for your. "Pretty close" is definitely better than "significant". If you are uncertain of the definition of words, you should refrain from using them when in a scientific discussion.
They are different, so it is not a match.
I never said they were, you are manufacturing lies.
From what I can observe, they are significantly different.
What percentage of error do you need in order for it not to be "significantly different"? I thought it was "pretty close" and now it's "significantly different".
Putting numbers and measurements to these semantics doesn't change the fact that all of the images are different--that is extremly problematic.
Just because you don't understand 3D space doesn't mean it's problematic for anybody except your uneducated self.
That shouldn't be the case with photography and modern technology.
What kind of magical camera currently exists where the perspective doesn't change the further or closer you are to something??? You are lying yet again!
The details in those composit images are significantly different. It doesn't matter if the accuracy is within 0.1% or 1%, the evidence that you have provided is not convincing and flawed. That is not a lie, that is a qualified opinion. To put things into perspective for you, I have explained that I have seven academic degrees, yet you continue to suggest that makes me uneducated. How many degrees do I need to be educated? Or, perhaps, do I simply need to agree with your belief system?
The details in those composit images are significantly different.
Then why not make your own comparison instead of trolling people until they do it for you because you are too intellectually lazy? Within 5 minutes of fiddling I came pretty close to an exact match, if you want to do better, do it yourself, unless you are too lazy.
It doesn't matter if the accuracy is within 0.1% or 1%, the evidence that you have provided is not convincing and flawed.
It is definitely enough evidence to suggest that the differences aren't significant. Just because you make up your own definitions doesn't mean the rest of the world has to adhere to them.
That is not a lie, that is a qualified opinion.
How is it qualified? What optics training do you have? What about 3D satellite mapping?
To put things into perspective for you, I have explained that I have seven academic degrees, yet you continue to suggest that makes me uneducated.
I don't believe that somebody who has seven academic degress could be incapable of knowing that the perspective of a 3D object differs when the distance between the observer and the object grows. This is something that a keenly observant 5 year-old would be able to figure out, somebody with seven degrees not knowing this is an absolute travesty.
How many degrees do I need to be educated?
A single one that would help you to understand that as you move further or closer from a sphere, then visible portions of that sphere change. So basically, a degree from an elementary school.
Or, perhaps, do I simply need to agree with your belief system?
No, you simply need to bring up a salient point, which you have yet to do. You simply dodge, distract and lie while citing degrees that have left you incapable of comprehending the basics of 3-dimensional space.
It doesn't matter by what measurement or by what percent. They are composite images that all differ. Because of that fact, you may not use that as evidence to brainwash me into accepting your global religion carte blanche. I'm not buying what you are selling in those images. This is not normal.
Certainly is, you don't understand perspective, it's quite troubling that you are so incapable of imagining 3-dimensional space.
The 2002 image was taken by the Terra satellite, from an orbit of approximately 680km.
The 2012 image is taken by the Suomi NPP satellite from an orbit of about 830km.
Now I ask you with a 20% difference in distance, are you able to imagine what kind of difference that makes in terms of how things appear on a sphere? This is something humans managed to figure out centuries years ago, yet you are still somehow clueless as to how perspective works.
This image will be of particular interest, it will hopefully help explain something to you which people have known for centuries. I hope you didn't spend too much money on your "seven degrees" if you still don't understand really fundamental elements of geometric perspective:
I was fortunate to have received performance based scholarships and stipends throughout the entirety of my academic career. Luckily, schools paid me to attend, research, and teach. So, you needn't worry in the slightest that I overspent--never mind the fact that it is none of your business, nor does it doesn't further your argument either way.
I was fortunate to have received performance based scholarships and stipends throughout the entirety of my academic career. Luckily, schools paid me to attend, research, and teach. So, you needn't worry in the slightest that I overspent--never mind the fact that it is none of your business, nor does it doesn't further your argument either way.
Well you've wasted somebody's money that's for sure. Basic spherical geometry is something that Autolycus of Pitane started discovering in 4th century BC. Somehow over 20 centuries later you are unable to comprehend the same thing even with seven degrees.
Calling me ignorant doesn't demonstrate anything about the earth. Neither of the links that you provided give any insight into your bullet BS or why the US looks so dramatically different in size.
Buy a globe and educate yourself. At this point you're simply embarrassing:
You don't need to concern yourself with what other people understand and comprehend. That is hypocritical. You can't expect people to believe in a global religion based on faith, yet in the same breathe attempt to criticize what you think they understand.
It is, indeed, a sad time for education institutions. There are many things wrong with what goes on in higher education. If you have your own personal experience, you are welcome to share, otherwise, I'm not interested.
I just hope you learned something, there's clearly a lot of room for you to do so if you don't understand basic geometric perspective when you're surrounded by it every single waking moment.
It is unimportant what you think other people understand. That is completely irrelevant to your life; it also does nothing to support your argument (i.e., whatever that is). Hypotheses are not confirmed by attempting to belittle other people.
No, unfortunately, you have been unsuccessful in providing any information or concepts that I haven't previously investigated. You literally brought nothing to the table worthy of discussion. Perhaps had you focused on the subject matter, and less on personal insults, you could have better communicated your ideas.
No, unfortunately, you have been unsuccessful in providing any information or concepts that I haven't previously investigated. You literally brought nothing to the table worthy of discussion. Perhaps had you focused on the subject matter, and less on personal insults, you could have better communicated your ideas.
I demonstrated clearly that you don't understand how perspective works. Thanks to that very ignorance you actually demonstrated that you only don't know the Earth is a sphere because of your ignorance. Anybody who views this in the future will see that plain as day.
Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated anything about my comprehension. Why would you even bother? Why would you even care? You don't have enough information to form a meaningful opinion on the matter. Furthermore, you continue to assume what you think I know. What a remarkable waste of one's time.
NEWS FLASH: no one cares about what either of us are writing about. Not not, not in the future...unless you can manufacture a way to get that glove to fit. So far, you have failed. But, don't give up now! We're just getting started.
Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated anything about my comprehension.
I certainly did. In this post you asked "why the US looks so dramatically different in size".
I pointed out, with photographs of a globe, that this is due to perspective and distance when observing spherical objects. You were unable to comprehend how something could appear different in size on a sphere due to perspective. You needed somebody to provide photographs of a globe in order to educate you beyond your complete lack of understanding of perspective.
Why would you even bother? Why would you even care?
Because I consider blinding ignorance to be a plague on society? I care about making the world a better place by educating people who are hopelessly clueless?
Furthermore, you continue to assume what you think I know.
Not at all. You yourself admitted that you were unaware of how something could appear differently due to perspective on a sphere as demonstrated above. I don't need to assume anything, you broadcast your ignorance without even being prodded to do so.
Nope. Sorry. You're projecting. Trying bring something new to the table...or, don't, either way, it doesn't matter. Your fixation is very impressive. Tell me more about that! That is the most interesting aspect of this entire exchange.
I would bring up something new, but I'm still uncertain that you even understand perspective so I don't want to confuse you.
Moreover, with seven degrees (lol), I'm not sure why you need to resort to asking people simple questions on the internet, but I guess if you're over 2,000 years behind common knowledge, then maybe it's your best path forward.
When people have genuine opinions based on their own observations, they never concern themselves whether or not other people can understand them or not. They converse about their experiences from as many different perspectives as they have thus far considered. People with agendas blatantly push forward regardless of logic. That's the difference.
One of the good aspect of higher education is exploring and testing the ideas of others. This is a skill that you have yet to master. In order to understand your own belief system, you need to be willing to challenge it from every angle. It shouldn't trigger you into an emotional response.
When people have genuine opinions based on their own observations, they never concern themselves whether or not other people can understand them or not.
Yes they do, this is what the entire field of education is about. What are you even talking about?
People with agendas blatantly push forward regardless of logic.
Says the person who couldn't logically deduce how perspective has an effect on the appearance of objects on a sphere.
One of the good aspect of higher education is exploring and testing the ideas of others. This is a skill that you have yet to master.
I explored your idea, it demonstrated that you are unable to conceive things that were already resolved by people centuries ago. You refused to believe it until literally presented with a photograph of a globe. It was like training a dog to look at where you point instead of where your finger is.
You don't have any experience training dogs, let alone people. Do you? Browbeating your ideas into others never works. Never. They have to make up their own minds by coming to their own conclusions.
BTW, showing a picture of a globe doesn't prove that the earth is that way. I have a picture of me sitting on the easter bunny's lap. That doesn't make him real. That is how indoctrination works, not education.
Write a script for Google Earth to match the exact position and angle of the satellite photos then. I've already demonstrated why there is a slight discrepancy which highlighted the fact that you dont' understand the basics of perspective. Something that people have understood for nearly 2,500 years.
You don't have any experience training dogs, let alone people. Do you? Browbeating your ideas into others never works. Never. They have to make up their own minds by coming to their own conclusions.
You have demonstrated that you lack the capacity for logical and critical thought. I'd be scared what kind of conclusions you would reach left to your own devices of ignorance.
BTW, showing a picture of a globe doesn't prove that the earth is that way. I have a picture of me sitting on the easter bunny's lap. That doesn't make him real. That is how indoctrination works, not education.
It was to demonstrate that you don't understand perspective. Apparently you still don't ...
Are you still trying to command and goad me into doing something?!? Wow... that is fascinating. Let's explore that some more. I am curious to see how far you are willing to go with that.
Are you still trying to command and goad me into doing something?!?
Not at all, it's clear that you lack the capacity to do anything yourself, which is why you needed somebody to spoon-feed you knowledge that has existed for nearly 2,500 years.
Spoon-feeding knowledge isn't possible. Words are complicated. But, you're trying to imply spoon-feeding information. There is a difference, which is important to understand in the context of this lovely discussion.
Hey, BTW, bullet trajectory and space images aren't 2,500 years old. But, who's counting. Right?
3.a. To provide (another) with knowledge or information in an oversimplified way.
Keep trying.
Hey, BTW, bullet trajectory and space images aren't 2,500 years old. But, who's counting. Right?
This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand of you not understanding how perspective changes the size of objects on a sphere, which has been known for almost 2,500 years.
Knowledge is gained through personal experience. It is not something that you can indoctrinated. That is information. There is a significant difference.
LOL...2,500 year old space images. BTW, it is not a sphere, it is an oblate spheroid. Stop spreading lies and disinformation!!!
Knowledge is gained through personal experience. It is not something that you can indoctrinated. That is information. There is a significant difference.
So you still didn't acquire the knowlege of how perspective can have an effect on the appearance of the objects on a sphere? Seriously? Even with the photographs of the globe? How is this even remotely possible? It is absolutely mind-boggling that you still don't understand this even when presented with clear examples.
LOL...2,500 year old space images.
You asked how it was possible that two images of the same spherical object could differ. You don't need to travel to space to understand the basics of perspective.
BTW, it is not a sphere, it is an oblate spheroid. Stop spreading lies and disinformation!!!
You are really starting to fail to represent yourself in a positive way here ...
My understanding is that the earth is apparently a pudgy, oblate pear-shaped spheroid. You seem to be propagating the misinformation that it is a sphere, based on photography of children's toy. Well, as long as you have a picture, it must be true.
My understanding is that the earth is apparently a pudgy, oblate pear-shaped spheroid.
An oblate spheroid is in fact the most accurate way to describe the Earth as it bulges at the equator around 40km which amounts to a difference of about 0.33% between the diameter at the equatorial plane and the diameter at the poles. Just because you take some pop-scientists word as literal gospel without investigating it yourself, doesn't mean that you should inexplicably take it to the ultimate extreme.
You seem to be propagating the misinformation that it is a sphere, based on photography of children's toy.
I used the globe to demonstrate to you how perspective works on a sphere. Do you finally understand?
Well, as long as you have a picture, it must be true.
Yes, the picture demonstrates how perspective works on a sphere, a truth which has been known for centuries. You are finally catching on.
The problem is, a sphere is not an oblate spheroid. Words matter. Like when I say: a child's toy is not a proof of concept. Neither is your 2500 year old photographical perspective, which apparently you believe has been known for centuries.
The problem is, a sphere is not an oblate spheroid.
An oblate spheroid is spherical.
Like when I say: a child's toy is not a proof of concept.
It is proof of the concept that you didn't understand perspective. The question is whether you do now.
Neither is your 2500 year old photographical perspective, which apparently you believe has been known for centuries.
Knowledge of perspective doesn't require photographs. You seem to be forgetting that your original question regarding the two different photographs stemmed from a complete lack of knowledge regarding 3-dimensional perspective.
Oh...I get it: you don't know what a rhetorical question is! I see where the misunderstanding comes from now. I wouldn't have seriously asked you a question expecting a usable answer.
Until I see or can personally measure evidence that the earth is spherical, there is nothing for me to confirm. That's the problem, and the bases, of the global religion.
Thanks, but you've literally added nothing new to my understanding of geometric concepts. The only insight you've provided is in human psychology. It's been fascinating.
I'm touched by your concern with my educational wellbeing, but the pictures you submitted of your children's toy doesn't explain the nasa images. It was a good effort, but the glove doesn't fit, and as the saying goes: you must acquit...or in your case, maybe your should just give up and quit. Or not, either way. Surely, there are thousands of ways to demonstrate that the earth is a globe.
You get an A for effort (i.e., it is an excellent attempt), but the details, when examined more closely, does not fit. :-(
You may think it does, and your are entitled to your religious beliefs, but it is not my responsibility to convince you beyond all reasonable doubt that you are wrong. Your photos do not explain nasa's images.
You get an A for effort (i.e., it is an excellent attempt), but the details, when examined more closely, do not fit.
Then point them out.
Your photos do not explain nasa's images.
They absolutely do, and anybody not blanketed in denial will see the same. Of the 7+ billion people on Earth, you are the only person in existence who could come out of the other side of this conversation and still not understand that.
Which are easily explained by perspective differences as I've tried to demonstrate numerous times, with diagrams and photographs, yet you still somehow are incapable of understanding basic geometry.
Sadly, just because you say something is so, doesn't make it true. Very little is explained by your photos of your children's toy. I understand what you are trying so desperately hard to explain, but you are wrong. But, hey, that's nothing new, right?
I don't understand how this is possible, it's as if you're deliberately avoiding acknowledging a fact staring you in the fact.
You presented two images of the Earth asking "why the US looks so dramatically different in size"
These two images were taken at different distances from the Earth (~700km vs. ~820km) - verified here and here
I've demonstrated that the viewing distance of a sphere can produce the exact effect that you were unable to explain
You are being intentionally ignorant at this point, there is no other reason that you could still be unable to understand this very basic geometric fact.
It was a rhetorical question. I wasn't asking you anything. But, thanks for trying. I understand the art of photographing 3-D objects, as it is a hobby of mine. Your photos literally didn't show me anything new--that I haven't seen with my own experiences. There are other errors/discrepancies that aren't explained by your perspective.
I've shown more than enough to clearly demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have yet to provide anything of relevance and have resorted to intellectual laziness and intentional obtuseness.
If you are unwilling to accept fundamental geometric science which dates back centuries, then there is literally nothing I can provide that will convince you otherwise.
The earth has never been observed to be spherical. No where.
You'll need to be more specific with your language. When you say "observed", do you mean "seen with someone's eyes"? Because that's what astronauts see all the time.
Of course, you refuse to believe their observations, so you must mean "seen with your eyes", which of course means that until you experience extreme high altitude flight you will never see it and can go on refusing to believe it, no matter how many other people tell you they have seen it with their own eyes.
If by "observe" you mean you can carry out observations that prove the earth is spherical, then you're wrong. It's quite easy to do if you're willing to actually try.
At least the guys on this stream are wiling to try, but I'm sure they are not going to share the results of their experiment (or will find some excuse to explain them away).
The simple fact is, there are a multitude of different ways you can make observations that will tell you if the earth is spherical or not, and when you compare all of them, they come up with the same answer - the earth is a rotating sphere.
It is not a force that makes you "fall"--that is more-or-less a FE argument of density and buoyancy. Gravity is a force of attraction.
You're right.. sort of.. in reality you and the earth are both being "attracted" to your combined center of gravity. The thing is, the difference in mass between you and the earth means that the center of gravity between you and the earth is extremely close to the center of gravity of the earth by itself.
So in effect, you fall onto the earth.
The reason things float is because they are less dense than the thing they are floating on so gravity pulls the more dense material downwards, forcing the less dense material upwards.
Without gravity, there is no buoyancy. You can't replace gravity with an effect that relies on gravity to even happen.
No one needs gravity to explain why things fall on an earth that is flat.
Yes, they do. They just think they don't because they are too ignorant to understand the things they are talking about.
How many astronauts do you know? How many have you spoken with personally? Unless you have spoken with a few different astronauts about this topic, then you have absolutely no clue what they have or haven't seen.
To put things into perspective, I just came back from a visit with one of my astronaut friends. Most of the pictures in the house that were taken up there had been edited, but a few weren't. You know how I could tell the difference? The ones that weren't edited had no curvature.
How many astronauts do you know? How many have you spoken with personally? Unless you have spoken with a few different astronauts about this topic, then you have absolutely no clue what they have or haven't seen.
I see how this works... you assume there is a major conspiracy to lie to you, and nothing short of first hand experience will satisfy you.
BUT
You won't do anything that might actually prove your assumptions wrong, unlike the people in the stream this thread is linked to. At least they seem to be willing to risk being proved wrong.
To put things into perspective, I just came back from a visit with one of my astronaut friends.
Uh huh...
Most of the pictures in the house that were taken up there had been edited, but a few weren't. You know how I could tell the difference? The ones that weren't edited had no curvature.
Oh, so the "proof" photos had been edited was that they didn't show what you wanted them to show, but if they did, then they clearly weren't edited? That's how your mind works?
"If it agrees with my preconceived notions, it's real. If it doesn't then it's a hoax". So sayeth the flat earther.
This is the same methodology that Eratosthenes is alleged to have used while taking measurements of shadows at Alexandria and Syene when he is alleged to have given proof of the heliocentric model - This is his experiment merely with more points of observation. Were his alleged efforts scientific?
Is it possible that you only consider something to be "scientific" if it fits your preconceived conclusions? lol :)
This is the same methodology that Eratosthenes is alleged to have used while taking measurements of shadows at Alexandria and Syene (albeit without Sharpies) when he is alleged to have given proof of the heliocentric model - This is his experiment merely with more points of observation. Were his alleged efforts scientific?
They were far more scientific than this. Using a Sharpie to try and make a detailed account of something so precise is incredibly unscientific.
Why don't you hang out and discuss, at the very least you can agree that our true nature is a total mystery. There has to be a nagging question or deep curiosity that you've carried around with you...no human ever has ever put complete faith in science, we all know there is more to this
I'm not sure I believe the Earth is flat but I also don't see a reason to call those interested liars and shills. The discussion has to stary somewhere homey. We have no idea who we are or where we are and to me that is mind blowing
Gravity is a theory and we science holds dearly onto a theory born from that theory. Got to keep asking questions, because is we don't there will be no room for science at all
I'm on topic. Science is your religion, which is fine, but it seems to have left you with an assured sense of right which can be taken advantage of if you are not careful. Keep asking questions brother on the off chance that your science has betrayed you
Science isn't a religion, it's the opposite. I would suggest reading something regarding the philosophy of science in order to avoid conflating two completely unrelated ideas.
Surely you understand that you're putting faith in an entity
Nope, I've made observations myself which confirm the Earth to be spherical which was then further confirmed by countless other experiments by numerous other 'entities' for centuries. There is no faith required when believing in a spherical Earth because reality proudly displays itself on a day-to-day basis.
There is no faith required for things that I observe on a daily basis. You can try and shoehorn your argument in all you want, the fact of the matter is that basic observations demonstrate the Earth to be spherical, it isn't faith, it's opening your eyes and observing the things around you.
I acknowledge it every day by observing the reality around me. I don't need to invent superstitions to support my ignorance. Go do your own research instead of attacking people for trying to educate themselves and not blindly believe preposterous nonsense.
But you said science is the opposite of religion, can you not see the irony in that statement? It seems you do not and that's why I say be careful. They are on the same side of the coin
It is, religion has no observational proof. You have an embarrassing lack of knowledge regarding philosophy of science or the scientific method, it borders on dangerous but is simply another product of the weaponized ignorance sweeping Western society.
Just because you don't understand basic facts doesn't make them dangerous, in fact it's the opposite, your overwhelming ignorance and faith in nonsense is what is dangerous.
Please educate yourself before you do some actual harm.
Reported for harassment - seems like a pretty clear violation of the rules on the sidebar to me - hope the mods see this kind of thing. Doesn't seem fair that you can't discuss an experiment regarding a conspiracy on /r/conspiracy without open harassment.
If you want to discuss the validity of the experiment or flat earth concepts that's one thing - you are attempting to attack and derail. Not helpful.
I'm not harassing you, just giving you a heads up that I tagged you.
Saying the earth is flat contradicts all of science and makes no sense to anyone with a critical mind. Please denounce this theory as it will only serve to make you and everyone in this sub look like fools.
If I come into a thread on /r/macpowerusers (A sub which you moderate) and tell the author of the thread I'm tagging them as "A Mac fanboy" who is objectively wrong about everything and merely following corporate shills without any evidence or attempts to discuss the ideas he was posting about that would be harassment, right? Seems like that's what you're doing to me here.
With a critical mind, please tell us where one can measure and observe the curvature of the earth. As far as I can see, no matter where I am, the earth seems to be as flat as can be.
Flat earth is an observation that anyone can make from anywhere on earth. An observation, BTW, is not a theory. It is unhelpful to confuse the two. It doesn't matter if there is one edge or none, as we are prohibited from making those observations for ourselves. That is a significant problem for humanity.
I've been all over the world, and I can't seem to observe the curvature anywhere. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it simply means I haven't been able to in anyway measure or observe a curve. Everything I have seen indicates that the earth is flat. Until I can make a scientific observation otherwise, flat earth is a safe bet.
I've been all over the world, and I can't seem to observe the curvature anywhere.
Oh I see.. your idea of a measurement is "seeing it". This stream is an attempt to measure the curvature. The people doing it expect to be able to prove that the earth is actually flat, but they are actually measuring the curvature.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it simply means I haven't been able to in anyway measure or observe a curve.
It is clear that you do not understand what "measure" means. The reason you can't observe the curve is because it is so slight when viewed from sea level. However, it can be observed and measured in other ways.
No. That is not how you use the scientific method to observe the curvature of the earth, nor prove that the earth is a rotating sphere. There are numerous/obvious flaws in your methodology.
That is not how you use the scientific method to observe the curvature of the earth
You wouldn't know the "scientific method" if it was explained to you.
There are numerous/obvious flaws in your methodology.
You just can't tell us any of them...
Let's just focus on the shooting experiment. The explanation for the difference in impact between firing west and east is explained by the rotation of the earth causing the target to rise or drop slightly while the bullet is in flight.
On a flat earth, the target would remain at the same height, whether you're firing east or west. So what explains the difference in the point of impact?
You can explain part of it by saying the earth is moving horizontally west to east, causing the distance between firing east and west to be different.. but then we should feel that movement, according to the flat earthers.
There is no other way to explain the difference in height of the bullet impact. Either the surface of the earth is moving laterally, or there should be no difference between shooting east and west.
Here is the thing... we can calculate the exact trajectory of the bullet, so we know if the bullet flies for x amount of time, it will drop y amount of distance. Here is the problem for flat earth. When we do that, we find that the bullet still hits higher (or lower) than it should based on the time it was in flight.
The only way this can happen is if the target is also changing height relative to where it was when the bullet was fired.
That means the earth must be spherical. As the target moves away from the shooter it also drops relative to its location when the shot was fired. As the target moves towards the shooter, it raises relative to its location when the shot was fired.
When we run all the calculations we find that the only way to accurately predict the impact of the bullet is if we treat the earth as a rotating spheroid. That alone busts the "flat earth" myth.
They are not measuring the time the bullet is in flight. That is one of the glaring problems with a methodology like that. Besides, in order to do an experiment like that, you'd need a controlled environment facing in all cardinal directions [not just east/west]. Both the prevailing wind and temperature difference account for the observation in that video.
Time of flight in a controlled environment would prove/disprove the hypothesis. Moreover, if the effect applies to bullets, the physics would also have to apply to airplanes. That doesn't appear to be the case.
A researcher's responsibility is to isolate as much experimental noise at possible. That is the entire point of doing experiments. It is a step-by-step process in order to test a hypothesis.
Physics don't change between planes and bullets. What effects one will effect the other, in terms of globular spinning.
A researcher's responsibility is to isolate as much experimental noise at possible
And it's their job to point out which variables matter. You've yet to actually explain why, beyond simply stating "well they're variables"
If one were to invoke such an all encompassing view of uncertainty, stating that everything is a variable that needs controlling, then one could just as easily assert this phenomenon is affected by the number of people currently farting in South Bend Indiana.
Fortunately, our understanding of physics means that this "variable" is irrelevant to our result.
Physics don't change between planes and bullets.
Bullets aren't airplanes. Their flight mechanics are different. It's funny that you'd harp on "variables" but leave out the largest one.
What?!? You seriously want me to explain to you how wind and temperature effect trajectory? That is the cool part about science: I don't have to--you control those variables, including the people in South Bend, and then you'll know what matters and what doesn't. That's how the scientific method works.
What?!? You seriously want me to explain to you how wind and temperature effect trajectory
No, you need to explain how it confounds the findings, and how significant such obfuscation is.
That is the cool part about science: I don't have to--you control those variables, including the people in South Bend, and then you'll know what matters and what doesn't.
So then your assertion should be elementary. Go ahead and explain.
That's how the scientific method works.
You'd be laughed out of any thesis defense with such a preposterous appeal.
It's funny that you invoke the "scientific method" and completely ignore its principles.
Or you know, all the work confirmed and preformed via the scientific principle whilst you flatties don't even understand the difference between powered flight and basic ballistic trajectory.
Or that the sun disappears behind the horizon.
Or any other number of scientifically supported phenomenon. Unlike precisely zero of the models, calculations and predictions offered by flatters.
Why would you continue to think you could simply command someone to do something? I'm not your search engine. Google trajectory and wind and read for yourself about that variable. If you don't think wind is a factor. OK. Fine. It's a moot point. I believe it matters significantly, but I say that from my own experience with firearms and archery. I personally do not account for the spin of the earth in my practice.
If it is not a universal phenomenon, then earth spin isn't what accounts for what is seen in that video...it must be something different.
Human experiences absolutely do matter. It is through our experiences, and the experiences of others, than we know what may matter in our experimentation. Then we test for it, and observe. Then we test again. It is a process of elimination.
If the earth is spinning, then it can't be universal (e.g., equator spinning faster etc.). Regardless, without experiences, you would obviously be testing the flatulence in South Bend. I know words can complicated, but try not to confuse their meaning. You need human experiences to know what to test for. It's the observations during testing which is what humans base their argument on. It's really a straight forward process.
If the earth is spinning, then it can't be universal (e.g., equator spinning faster etc.).
Yes. That's called the coriolis effect.
Regardless, without experiences, you would obviously be testing the flatulence in South Bend. I know words can complicated, but try not to confuse their meanin
I see you're still unable to support your assertions.
Read more carefully, take a moment to think about what you read, and then you'll how and why assertions have been supported in the way that they have. You don't have to like it, but it is disingenuous to ignore it.
These "contributers" won't answer your questions - they're just here to be hateful and try to detract. Just report them on move on imo but I appreciate your attempts to bring reason.
You know how it is theorized that intention or will plus certainty equals reality? What if the world really was flat because everyone just believed it was. And then as others questioned the model a shift in consciousness created the reality we perceive now. I just find it so odd that people go out of their way to ridicule people about a conspiracy theory on a sub meant for it. Why not just ignore or at least try to have a decent conversation to convince them of your point of view?
Perhaps they fight the flat earth theory so hard because they do not want humans to realize the collective consciousness can shape reality. "The Powers That Be" sure put a lot of effort in controlling our world view and it just makes me wonder. If there is a lot more to the spiritual and occult side of life than we are programmed to believe.
Yeah agreed - it always irks me when people show up in threads just to detract. If the flat earth were so easily falsifiable it wouldn't be experiencing such a huge revival.
Bahaha... just heard the funniest thing. One guy is showing his results, which do not match what these guys were expecting to see, and then you hear someone speak up and say "we'll just have to keep repeating the experiment"
They'll keep doing this until it shows what they want it to show... or they eventually give up on their bullshit beliefs.
Your entire account history is stalking and harassing /r/conspiracy users, throwing out as many one-liners as possible, supporting mainstream narratives and bullshitting about sports. You have got to be either American or Canadian hahaha lmao
Surely you understand that you're putting faith in an entity
Nope, I've made observations myself which confirm the Earth to be spherical which was then further confirmed by countless other experiments by numerous other 'entities' for centuries. There is no faith required when believing in a spherical Earth because reality proudly displays itself on a day-to-day basis.
No. That is not how you use the scientific method to observe the curvature of the earth, nor prove that the earth is a rotating sphere. There are numerous/obvious flaws in your methodology.
How many astronauts do you know? How many have you spoken with personally? Unless you have spoken with a few different astronauts about this topic, then you have absolutely no clue what they have or haven't seen.
To put things into perspective, I just came back from a visit with one of my astronaut friends. Most of the pictures in the house that were taken up there had been edited, but a few weren't. You know how I could tell the difference? The ones that weren't edited had no curvature.
They are not measuring the time the bullet is in flight. That is one of the glaring problems with a methodology like that. Besides, in order to do an experiment like that, you'd need a controlled environment facing in all cardinal directions [not just east/west]. Both the prevailing wind and temperature difference account for the observation in that video.
Yes, many people confuse the meaning of "pretty close" and "significant" when speaking of things on a global scale all the time ... you just don't know what your own words mean.
If the earth is spinning, then it can't be universal (e.g., equator spinning faster etc.).
Yes. That's called the coriolis effect.
Regardless, without experiences, you would obviously be testing the flatulence in South Bend. I know words can complicated, but try not to confuse their meanin
I see you're still unable to support your assertions.
I don't understand how this is possible, it's as if you're deliberately avoiding acknowledging a fact staring you in the fact.
You presented two images of the Earth asking "why the US looks so dramatically different in size"
These two images were taken at different distances from the Earth (~700km vs. ~820km) - verified here and here
I've demonstrated that the viewing distance of a sphere can produce the exact effect that you were unable to explain
You are being intentionally ignorant at this point, there is no other reason that you could still be unable to understand this very basic geometric fact.
159 comments
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
I fucking love FE theory and those curious enough to question our true nature. If the Earth is flat or not is not the point, it's about the realization that we know nothing about our true nature and until we start asking questions we cannot find the answers.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
^ great attitude - I think it's def flat though :)
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Would be wild and I have enough questions about our Earth to at least entertain the idea. The ship and horizon observation is one I haven't gotten past yet. I, like many, just assumed it disappeared beyond the horizon. Counter to that, I can't get past the routes this ships would take if the Earth was flat. Makes me entertain spherical Earth as well.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
Definitely respect that and am just happy to talk to others asking questions. Have been working on a huge FAQ and general interest post for a while now, check it out if you're interested sometime.
http://np.reddit.com/r/theworldisflat/comments/63p1nm/welcome_statement_of_purpose_guidelines_and/
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Subbed. I believe the could be an artificial satellite, any thread to pull there in relation to FE?
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
I think you might have _ a word. But I'm gonna guess it was moon?
I personally think the moon is probably just as natural as anything else but there are a number of ancient mythologies that speak of a time before the moon or have similar concepts - I think such legends are generally considered the basis for that idea.
From https://www.varchive.org/itb/sansmoon.htm :
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Yes, the moon, sorry. And thanks for the response. I've been caught up on the moon big time
n/a PsychedelicPhlegm 2017-04-08
You nailed it. The most important part of Flat Earth is the realisation that we don't know shit because we've never questioned what we get told to believe by TPTB. It's a mind blowing thing to contemplate - how little we truly know about this planet and the origins of life on it.
n/a usdsean 2017-04-08
I agree. We should not immediately disregard a theory just because it seems obscene. There may be certain aspects that piece together other conspiracies.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
There's a youtube channel called "Infinite Plane Society" that explains the entire thing as a continuation of the Reformation - he says the heliocentric model is the Catholic Church essentially re-asserting religious control over the masses, and that just as the printing presses originally freed us from their fear and control based religious tyranny by teaching the masses how to read and giving them access to books and written records, the internet is now giving us this opportunity to dispel a lot of the "scientism" and mind control that they've used to attempt to re-constitute their totalitarian control. Not saying I endorse his views completely but definitely interesting imo!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiqocvn0bn4IvmNCwXgUiiQ/videos
n/a Glassclose 2017-04-08
This is why when people complain or tell others to stfu about one theory or another I get upset, no one knows anything, and even those who know only know a grain of sand in an infinite beach of wisdom/knowledge.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
And yet they all come out of the woodwork just to be hateful and detract when you start trying to discuss flat earth. Makes me sad but I'm glad there area growing number of people out there questioning, definitely reason to be hopeful.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Whine more ;)
n/a dandroid1_0 2017-04-08
I don't understand how so many people can be against looking into this theory, especially people who usually question official narratives and TPTB who could perpetuate this conspiracy (if true). They say they only have time for the important conspiracies (which is subjective). Even on r/conspiracy, this topic will only ever appear in "controversial." Is it really that controversial?? I wonder, are people employed to downvote this kind of thing?
n/a eschaton777 2017-04-08
Absolutly. There are groups and subreddits created solely to brigade and downvote any thread with the 'flat earth' keyword. That is why the subject always gets immediately downvoted into oblivion if it discusses the subject at all. You will see the same users day in and day out "debunking" in every thread. It is over the top obvious, but the truth is out there and they look more ridiculous everyday trying to suppress the subject.
n/a dandroid1_0 2017-04-08
It might eventually have a Streisand Effect as more people realize that when an idea is desperately being buried, there could be some truth to it or otherwise they wouldn't bother attacking it so ferociously. It tells me someday is trying very hard to hide something. I don't know what that something is, but one possibility could be the space agencies trying to keep their cash cow before people realize those billions in taxpayer money have not put anything in outer space. Or maybe they can't leave earth for whatever reason, such as a flat earth with a hard dome, space being an illusion or not what they say it is, the van allen radiation belts preventing human space travel and thus proving the moon landing was a hoax, or something like that. It's all very curious.
n/a chickenshitmchammers 2017-04-08
Well put.
n/a Chokaholic 2017-04-08
It's so refreshing to see this as the top comment of a FE thread. It's about time.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
this....this is too good
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
Your entire account history is stalking and harassing /r/conspiracy users, throwing out as many one-liners as possible, supporting mainstream narratives and bullshitting about sports. You have got to be either American or Canadian hahaha lmao
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
he he he ha ha ha
n/a chickenshitmchammers 2017-04-08
Cuttin these muthafuckas down. I like your style.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
that guy has actually been reddit-stalking me for days so I was ready :)
n/a chickenshitmchammers 2017-04-08
Just caught that. So are they gonna distribute the results some kinda way?
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
I dunno, I'm just genuinely curious as to how this will go. I also help moderate /r/theworldisflat - I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this and trying to discuss the results once they're in though :)
n/a chickenshitmchammers 2017-04-08
Just subbed. Imma keep an eye out.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Not really, all I see is a whole lot of dodging the question, handwaving, and acting like a victim. The best thing about good science is that its results hold up to scrutiny. It's funny watching the flatheads moan and whine and hide behind heavily controlled subs.
n/a chickenshitmchammers 2017-04-08
Damn... that's really sad bruh. Keep laughing though. You'd think the same joke wouldn't be funny after awhile.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Watched and photographed the sunset the other day, clearly drops below the horizon then casts the Belt of Venus opposite. Impossible on a flat Earth. This is unscientific distraction nonsense.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
What exactly is unscientific about using equipment and taking measurements? hahaha
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
The entire flat Earth movement in general is unscientific and filled with liars and trolls.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
Ah, okay. But these guys are just taking measurements right now, that qualifies scientific, right /u/science_positive?
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
It certainly will be once it demonstrates that the flat Earth theory is nonsense. With a day of observations it will be easy to conclude that the sun is the same size over the course of the day and therefore doesn't vanish due to 'perspective'. Strange how there's so man people 'tracking' the sun, but none of them are photographing it as it would immediately invalidate their theory.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
This is the same methodology that Eratosthenes is alleged to have used while taking measurements of shadows at Alexandria and Syene - merely with more points of observation.
So in summary, you only consider this scientific if it fits your preconceived idea? lol :)
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
With a Sharpie with a tiny shadow? Seriously? Are you even familiar with the experiment? You realize the room for error increases with the smaller size of the experiment? It's incredibly unscientific to use something as sloppy as a Sharpie for something that should be so precise.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
Two points of observation vs a dozen - the experiments are clearly not exactly but you're also clearly being very foolish and trying very hard to attack this :)
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
That what I love about "science", is inexact experiments! Scientists across the globe annually compete to demonstrate how inexact their measurements are!
No need to attack it, it's nonsense. Watching the sunset, Belt of Venus or a Lunar Eclipse or circumpolar stars is enough to disprove it rather than need to attack it.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
Right, so as long as the observations fit your preconceived ideas then you validated. Keep in mind, these people have not published these findings yet, they haven't even finished recording or analyzing them - they haven't trimmed the fat, thrown out bad data, any of that - this is the experiment still ongoing. What you're displaying now is that you value your own worldview above discussing this in a credible way - Not exactly "science" but I think I understand now - sorry I won't you with stuff like this that makes you think too hard from now on.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
No need to apologize for not being able to explain basic visible phenomena like the Belt of Venus. Society should apologize to you for leaving you so ignorant.
n/a MyFartAir 2017-04-08
In my experiment I used a thumbtack and a can of spray paint and I ended up with a single dot on my graph - based on this science I can definitively say that the sun doesn't actually move. Wake up, Sheeple!
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Far more scientific than me, I dropped a can of paint on a pebble, definitely shows the Earth is flat!
n/a MyFartAir 2017-04-08
I have evidence that pebbles are flat, too. PM for details - we must spread the truth!!!!11!
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Flat earth is not a theory, it's an observation. There is a difference.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
No it's not. Numerous observations directly contradict the very notion of a flat Earth.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I've never come across ANY observation that a normal/everyday person can make that contradicts the numerous flat earth observations. Everywhere you look, the earth's horizon is flat as the level of the sea. That's an observation, not a theory. Gravity, in contrast, is a theory...as is globular earth.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Seriously you should get out more then.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Nope.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Great argument. Go outside once in a while, you might learn something.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I think you mean to say: go study at a university, and you might learn something about globular earth. Irony being what it is, going outside will teach you that the earth is flat as far as the eye can see.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I just gave you a list of observations you can conduct yourself without going to university to confirm the Earth is spherical. Your denialism is troubling.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
hey more deflection, surprise surprise.
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
I suggest you test the theory by finding a 10 story building and stepping off the roof.
See if you think it's a theory then.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Are you seriously suggesting that I kill myself?
Regardless of the outcome of my downfall, gravity will still be a theory, and not a universal law.
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
So, you're absolutely confident that if you step off that building, you will fall.
Why?
Gravity is just a theory... right? Why do you know you'll fall? Is it because your lifetime of observations confirm the existence of a "force" that causes thing to fall?
This force we call "gravity" is not a theory. It is an observable fact. What causes gravity is a theory, but gravity itself is not. Even you know it exists.
This is like the spherical earth. It is not a theory. It is an observable fact. You may want to argue how or why it became spherical, but the fact it is spherical is proved by observation.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
The earth has never been observed to be spherical. No where. Ever. [Not yet anyway]. That's the problem. Globular earth is a theory that is taught to children, kinda like the existence of Santa Claus. Just because children believe it, because they've seen artistic renderings of him, doesn't make his existence an observable fact.
It might be helpful to do a basic internet query on gravity. It is not a force that makes you "fall"--that is more-or-less a FE argument of density and buoyancy. Gravity is a force of attraction. No one needs gravity to explain why things fall on an earth that is flat.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
lies
http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/himawari-8.asp
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Those are artistic renderings, like our maps. Regardless, current science is telling us that the earth is an "oblate spheroid." What you have referenced is a PERFECT sphere. They both can not be true. That's the lie.
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
Nothing in that link shows a perfect sphere.
The earth is very slightly squashed. But it is very slight.
The difference between the polar radius and the equatorial radius of earth is about 21 kilometres.
To put that in perspective, if the earth was shrunk down so it had a polar radius of about 1 meter, the difference between its polar radius and its equatorial radius would be about 3.5 millimeters.
That is such a small difference I doubt you'd be able to see it.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
No they aren't, you are spreading lies.
The difference is around 45km, if you think you can tell the difference from a photo that is taken ~35,000km away then you are completely wrong.
You are simply uneducated and uninformed. I gave you a list of things you can see for yourself which demonstrate the Earth to be the shape it is commonly considered to be. You would rather be ignorant than investigate yourself.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I disagree that your list demonstrates what you believe it does. You are free to believe whatever to want, but unless there is a negative, there is no photo. Everything else is cgi.
I have seven degrees from some of the country's top schools. Thanks for asking in such a positive and respectful manner.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
So you will just deny any evidence that doesn't fit your manufactured requirements because you're a coward afraid of the truth?
I'm sure you'll dismiss this as well:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2145727/Pictured-The-camera-took-iconic-colour-picture-Earth-space--Neil-Armstrong-exploring-moon.html
Several others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise
Many of them with film. Sure you'll dismiss it all, coward.
Liar.
I see no reason to treat pathological liars with respect.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
All humanity is deserving of respect, especially if you are attempting to engage in a dialogue. You'll find that berating and brow-beating your belief system is ineffective when dealing with others.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
You're the one that isn't engaging in a dialogue, you're lying and ignoring evidence to suit the cowardice of your ignorance.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
A picture is not evidence of an original unedited negative.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
hahahahaahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahah
You're an absolutely hopeless ignorant coward, carry on.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
You've said that already. Adding another adjective to "ignorant coward" doesn't provide any evidence that legitimately furthers your belief system. Like your missing negatives, your statements lack supporting evidence.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I just provided evidence, you dismissed it.
I gave you a list of observations you can conduct yourself, you ignored it.
You have to be willing to change if you want to stop being ignorant, you are clearly unwilling to even investigate things yourself and would rather trust unscientific Youtube videos to explain something to you.
You have no proof, no evidence, you merely have the comfort blanket of your ignorance.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
A negative is evidence, you have submitted none.
The landmass in your picture differs significantly from google earth [from the same perspective], as well does it differ from other nasa composite images throughout time. That is problematic for globe earth theory.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Nope, try again, or at least stop lying:
Zond image
Google Earth
overlay
Took me 5 minutes, with more time I'm sure it would be absolutely exact, but again, you're just lying and not looking at the evidence yourself, just regurgitating talking points you've heard before.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
No it doesn't, you are lying. Show your comparison, here is mine:
Zond image
Google Earth
overlay
Took me 5 minutes, with more time I'm sure it would be absolutely exact, but again, you're just lying and not looking at the evidence yourself, just regurgitating talking points you've heard before.
Please stop lying.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Your aforementioned is not match for "the real thing." These aren't talking points, they are your examples that don't stand up to scrutiny.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Your quote:
This is a lie.
Do your own homework instead of being a liar. Again, it took me 5 minutes to disprove your lies:
Zond image
Google Earth image
Overlay
Pretty close for fiddling for less than 10 minutes, sure I could get it to match exactly with enough time since I'm actually interested in educating myself and not spreading lies.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I thought for sure you would find a way to put at least 5 lies in your last response. Only 3? I'm disappointed. You know, the more you repeat your liar concept, the stronger your argument appears. That is exactly how science works. /s
Close isn't good enough, but, you can keep manipulating the pics if it make you sleep better at night.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
It took 5 minutes of trying to align the angle correctly. Your inability to comprehend even the most basic of topics is truly mind-boggling. At this point I'm forced to believe that your lack of a basic skill set when it comes to critical thinking is somehow intentional.
At least you're now avoiding posting blatantly incorrect statements and are now relying on attacking something other than the content. Unbelievably transparent, but I guess you weren't left with much else after being exposed.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Let me boggle your mind some more: your pictures are not a match.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Point out the "significant differences" then.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Significant or otherwise, your pictures are not a match. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. That's how the system works.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Sorry, this is your claim, not mine:
So please, point out the significant differences which you yourself claimed were there.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I'll refer you to my previous comment: if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. You and I obviously have very different standards in photorealism. It is a matter of one's attention to detail in the observation process.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I'm asking you to outline the significant differences which you claimed were there. Why is this so difficult for you to understand. Do you understand what the words you used mean?
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Close enough doesn't count. It's either a perfect match or it not--your images are not a match. That is significant. You already know that, but you have decided it is close enough for your belief system. The problem is: it doesn't pass the glove test.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Then point the significant differences in the landmasses out, should be easy if they're so significant.
Otherwise you've been caught in a lie.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
A different observation and opinion than you does not equate to a lie. Based on the evidence you have thus far provided, I think that you are wrong--your images are not a match. That, like your bullet BS, is not convincing. But, you already know that.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Then point out instances where the "landmass in your picture differs significantly from google earth". Quit dodging and just post it.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Here, ill make it easier on you (i.e. since measurements and math are for you a matter of semantics). Here is a random google search: http://testingtheglobe.com/images/BlueMarbles.jpg. They are all visibly different, even for someone like you.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
This has nothing to do with your original claim. Once again, your original claim as seen here was that:
Please point out where the landmasses significantly differ and quit changing the topic. Why is this so complicated???
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Your images are significantly different, and the glove doesn't fit.
You should be able to see that with your naked eye, but apparently you are having trouble seeing the obvious differences. If it is really that important to you, open up a program and take the measurements yourself--so that you can notice what is obvious to other people. If that is too much work, or you don't really care enough, just take a look at glaringly obvious problems with the other nasa images. Either way, the burden of proof is on you.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
You are the one making the claim, not me. Are you too lazy to prove your own claims?
You've shifted your nonsensical goalposts so many times I can understand it can be hard to keep track, so once again, I direct you to your simple claim and ask for your evidence to back it:
Put up already.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Pssss...your glove don't fit. Just look for yourself. You need only your eyes. Or, you could be more technical about it and take actual measurements. I'm just curious, is this how you got people do your homework for you in high school?
Reminder: you are the one claiming the earth is a spinning globular ball. I haven't seen evidence of that yet, but I will keep on looking. The nasa images are all different, so that is a problem, not scientific evidence.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I readily admitted they weren't perfect since I spent 5 minutes making the comparison. Literally said it was "pretty close".
You said the landmasses were significantly different, which they are not, and you refuse to back up your point, because you know you are wrong.
The "problem" is that you don't understand how distance works when photographing a spherical object. It's actually shocking that with a human brain you are unable to imagine how photographing a 3-dimensional object from closer or further away can make things appear differently and instead dismiss all other supporting evidence and think the Earth is flat.
Let me ask you a question: what do you think is the single best piece of experimental evidence for the Earth being flat?
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Pretty close is a difference of semantics.
I don't claim the earth is flat. Based on my observations, that seems to be the best bet. Personally, I hope we find out the earth is a trapezoid. It doesn't matter to me.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Yes, many people confuse the meaning of "pretty close" and "significant" when speaking of things on a global scale all the time ... you just don't know what your own words mean.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Arguing semantics with you would be meaningless. It is not a matter of comprehension, it is a matter of perspective. In this case, the glove didn't fit (i.e., the images don't match), so it is not evidence you may use to support your theory in a clear and convincing manner.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I never had a theory that the images were exactly the same ... I claimed that they were "pretty close" from the start. You're the one that said the 'landmasses are significantly different' but refuse to post evidence for your claim.
Your reading comprehension is truly embarrassing. This is pointless, you aren't even willing to address the points that you yourself make, and instead keep shifting the goalposts because you are unwilling to take accountability for your own words. It's shameful.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Pretty close is not good enough to use as evidence. They are different, so it is not a match. From what I can observe, they are significantly different. To what degree is a mater of semantics. Your "pretty close" is my "significantly different." Putting numbers and measurements to these semantics doesn't change the fact that all of the images are different--that is extremly problematic. That shouldn't be the case with photography and modern technology.
The point I continue to make is that the glove doesn't fit...you seem to be OK forcing it on there and pretending like everything is functional. It's not.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Then do it yourself instead of lying to people in order to get them to do you work for your. "Pretty close" is definitely better than "significant". If you are uncertain of the definition of words, you should refrain from using them when in a scientific discussion.
I never said they were, you are manufacturing lies.
What percentage of error do you need in order for it not to be "significantly different"? I thought it was "pretty close" and now it's "significantly different".
Just because you don't understand 3D space doesn't mean it's problematic for anybody except your uneducated self.
What kind of magical camera currently exists where the perspective doesn't change the further or closer you are to something??? You are lying yet again!
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
The details in those composit images are significantly different. It doesn't matter if the accuracy is within 0.1% or 1%, the evidence that you have provided is not convincing and flawed. That is not a lie, that is a qualified opinion. To put things into perspective for you, I have explained that I have seven academic degrees, yet you continue to suggest that makes me uneducated. How many degrees do I need to be educated? Or, perhaps, do I simply need to agree with your belief system?
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Then why not make your own comparison instead of trolling people until they do it for you because you are too intellectually lazy? Within 5 minutes of fiddling I came pretty close to an exact match, if you want to do better, do it yourself, unless you are too lazy.
It is definitely enough evidence to suggest that the differences aren't significant. Just because you make up your own definitions doesn't mean the rest of the world has to adhere to them.
How is it qualified? What optics training do you have? What about 3D satellite mapping?
I don't believe that somebody who has seven academic degress could be incapable of knowing that the perspective of a 3D object differs when the distance between the observer and the object grows. This is something that a keenly observant 5 year-old would be able to figure out, somebody with seven degrees not knowing this is an absolute travesty.
A single one that would help you to understand that as you move further or closer from a sphere, then visible portions of that sphere change. So basically, a degree from an elementary school.
No, you simply need to bring up a salient point, which you have yet to do. You simply dodge, distract and lie while citing degrees that have left you incapable of comprehending the basics of 3-dimensional space.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Your glove doesn't fit.
It doesn't matter by what measurement or by what percent. They are composite images that all differ. Because of that fact, you may not use that as evidence to brainwash me into accepting your global religion carte blanche. I'm not buying what you are selling in those images. This is not normal.
What else do you got?
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Certainly is, you don't understand perspective, it's quite troubling that you are so incapable of imagining 3-dimensional space.
The 2002 image was taken by the Terra satellite, from an orbit of approximately 680km.
The 2012 image is taken by the Suomi NPP satellite from an orbit of about 830km.
Now I ask you with a 20% difference in distance, are you able to imagine what kind of difference that makes in terms of how things appear on a sphere? This is something humans managed to figure out centuries years ago, yet you are still somehow clueless as to how perspective works.
It is actually scary how ignorant you are.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Here is some information for you if you ever become interested in educating yourself:
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect5.html
This image will be of particular interest, it will hopefully help explain something to you which people have known for centuries. I hope you didn't spend too much money on your "seven degrees" if you still don't understand really fundamental elements of geometric perspective:
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/IMG/LPR/sphere.gif
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I was fortunate to have received performance based scholarships and stipends throughout the entirety of my academic career. Luckily, schools paid me to attend, research, and teach. So, you needn't worry in the slightest that I overspent--never mind the fact that it is none of your business, nor does it doesn't further your argument either way.
Calling me ignorant doesn't demonstrate anything about the earth. Neither of the links that you provided give any insight into your bullet BS or why the US looks so dramatically different in size.
Your glove doesn't fit. But, please, by all means, keep on trying though.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Well you've wasted somebody's money that's for sure. Basic spherical geometry is something that Autolycus of Pitane started discovering in 4th century BC. Somehow over 20 centuries later you are unable to comprehend the same thing even with seven degrees.
Buy a globe and educate yourself. At this point you're simply embarrassing:
Further: https://i.imgur.com/5vZ0RTv.jpg
Closer: https://i.imgur.com/AASpUzh.jpg
This is truly a sad time for any of the educational institutions you supposedly attended ... I would be ashamed of myself if I were you.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
You don't need to concern yourself with what other people understand and comprehend. That is hypocritical. You can't expect people to believe in a global religion based on faith, yet in the same breathe attempt to criticize what you think they understand.
It is, indeed, a sad time for education institutions. There are many things wrong with what goes on in higher education. If you have your own personal experience, you are welcome to share, otherwise, I'm not interested.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I just hope you learned something, there's clearly a lot of room for you to do so if you don't understand basic geometric perspective when you're surrounded by it every single waking moment.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
It is unimportant what you think other people understand. That is completely irrelevant to your life; it also does nothing to support your argument (i.e., whatever that is). Hypotheses are not confirmed by attempting to belittle other people.
No, unfortunately, you have been unsuccessful in providing any information or concepts that I haven't previously investigated. You literally brought nothing to the table worthy of discussion. Perhaps had you focused on the subject matter, and less on personal insults, you could have better communicated your ideas.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I demonstrated clearly that you don't understand how perspective works. Thanks to that very ignorance you actually demonstrated that you only don't know the Earth is a sphere because of your ignorance. Anybody who views this in the future will see that plain as day.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated anything about my comprehension. Why would you even bother? Why would you even care? You don't have enough information to form a meaningful opinion on the matter. Furthermore, you continue to assume what you think I know. What a remarkable waste of one's time.
NEWS FLASH: no one cares about what either of us are writing about. Not not, not in the future...unless you can manufacture a way to get that glove to fit. So far, you have failed. But, don't give up now! We're just getting started.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I certainly did. In this post you asked "why the US looks so dramatically different in size".
I pointed out, with photographs of a globe, that this is due to perspective and distance when observing spherical objects. You were unable to comprehend how something could appear different in size on a sphere due to perspective. You needed somebody to provide photographs of a globe in order to educate you beyond your complete lack of understanding of perspective.
Because I consider blinding ignorance to be a plague on society? I care about making the world a better place by educating people who are hopelessly clueless?
Not at all. You yourself admitted that you were unaware of how something could appear differently due to perspective on a sphere as demonstrated above. I don't need to assume anything, you broadcast your ignorance without even being prodded to do so.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Nope. Sorry. You're projecting. Trying bring something new to the table...or, don't, either way, it doesn't matter. Your fixation is very impressive. Tell me more about that! That is the most interesting aspect of this entire exchange.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I would bring up something new, but I'm still uncertain that you even understand perspective so I don't want to confuse you.
Moreover, with seven degrees (lol), I'm not sure why you need to resort to asking people simple questions on the internet, but I guess if you're over 2,000 years behind common knowledge, then maybe it's your best path forward.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
When people have genuine opinions based on their own observations, they never concern themselves whether or not other people can understand them or not. They converse about their experiences from as many different perspectives as they have thus far considered. People with agendas blatantly push forward regardless of logic. That's the difference.
One of the good aspect of higher education is exploring and testing the ideas of others. This is a skill that you have yet to master. In order to understand your own belief system, you need to be willing to challenge it from every angle. It shouldn't trigger you into an emotional response.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Yes they do, this is what the entire field of education is about. What are you even talking about?
Says the person who couldn't logically deduce how perspective has an effect on the appearance of objects on a sphere.
I explored your idea, it demonstrated that you are unable to conceive things that were already resolved by people centuries ago. You refused to believe it until literally presented with a photograph of a globe. It was like training a dog to look at where you point instead of where your finger is.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Remember the glove? It still doesn't fit...
You don't have any experience training dogs, let alone people. Do you? Browbeating your ideas into others never works. Never. They have to make up their own minds by coming to their own conclusions.
BTW, showing a picture of a globe doesn't prove that the earth is that way. I have a picture of me sitting on the easter bunny's lap. That doesn't make him real. That is how indoctrination works, not education.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Write a script for Google Earth to match the exact position and angle of the satellite photos then. I've already demonstrated why there is a slight discrepancy which highlighted the fact that you dont' understand the basics of perspective. Something that people have understood for nearly 2,500 years.
You have demonstrated that you lack the capacity for logical and critical thought. I'd be scared what kind of conclusions you would reach left to your own devices of ignorance.
It was to demonstrate that you don't understand perspective. Apparently you still don't ...
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Are you still trying to command and goad me into doing something?!? Wow... that is fascinating. Let's explore that some more. I am curious to see how far you are willing to go with that.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Not at all, it's clear that you lack the capacity to do anything yourself, which is why you needed somebody to spoon-feed you knowledge that has existed for nearly 2,500 years.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Spoon-feeding knowledge isn't possible. Words are complicated. But, you're trying to imply spoon-feeding information. There is a difference, which is important to understand in the context of this lovely discussion.
Hey, BTW, bullet trajectory and space images aren't 2,500 years old. But, who's counting. Right?
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spoon-feed
Keep trying.
This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand of you not understanding how perspective changes the size of objects on a sphere, which has been known for almost 2,500 years.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Knowledge is gained through personal experience. It is not something that you can indoctrinated. That is information. There is a significant difference.
LOL...2,500 year old space images. BTW, it is not a sphere, it is an oblate spheroid. Stop spreading lies and disinformation!!!
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
So you still didn't acquire the knowlege of how perspective can have an effect on the appearance of the objects on a sphere? Seriously? Even with the photographs of the globe? How is this even remotely possible? It is absolutely mind-boggling that you still don't understand this even when presented with clear examples.
You asked how it was possible that two images of the same spherical object could differ. You don't need to travel to space to understand the basics of perspective.
You are really starting to fail to represent yourself in a positive way here ...
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
My understanding is that the earth is apparently a pudgy, oblate pear-shaped spheroid. You seem to be propagating the misinformation that it is a sphere, based on photography of children's toy. Well, as long as you have a picture, it must be true.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
An oblate spheroid is in fact the most accurate way to describe the Earth as it bulges at the equator around 40km which amounts to a difference of about 0.33% between the diameter at the equatorial plane and the diameter at the poles. Just because you take some pop-scientists word as literal gospel without investigating it yourself, doesn't mean that you should inexplicably take it to the ultimate extreme.
I used the globe to demonstrate to you how perspective works on a sphere. Do you finally understand?
Yes, the picture demonstrates how perspective works on a sphere, a truth which has been known for centuries. You are finally catching on.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
The problem is, a sphere is not an oblate spheroid. Words matter. Like when I say: a child's toy is not a proof of concept. Neither is your 2500 year old photographical perspective, which apparently you believe has been known for centuries.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
An oblate spheroid is spherical.
It is proof of the concept that you didn't understand perspective. The question is whether you do now.
Knowledge of perspective doesn't require photographs. You seem to be forgetting that your original question regarding the two different photographs stemmed from a complete lack of knowledge regarding 3-dimensional perspective.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Oh...I get it: you don't know what a rhetorical question is! I see where the misunderstanding comes from now. I wouldn't have seriously asked you a question expecting a usable answer.
Until I see or can personally measure evidence that the earth is spherical, there is nothing for me to confirm. That's the problem, and the bases, of the global religion.
...a one-eyed 3-dimensional perspective, no less.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Well, at least you've hopefully started to understand some 2,500 year-old geometric concepts. Congratulations.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Thanks, but you've literally added nothing new to my understanding of geometric concepts. The only insight you've provided is in human psychology. It's been fascinating.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Seems strange that you still haven't learned how perspective works then, you truly aren't willing to learn anything.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I'm touched by your concern with my educational wellbeing, but the pictures you submitted of your children's toy doesn't explain the nasa images. It was a good effort, but the glove doesn't fit, and as the saying goes: you must acquit...or in your case, maybe your should just give up and quit. Or not, either way. Surely, there are thousands of ways to demonstrate that the earth is a globe.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
It absolutely does, at this point the fact that you are incapable of admitting to or recognizing this fact is quite frankly incredibly troubling.
The fact that you lack the logical capacity to draw obvious parallels between this and this is absolutely mind-numbing.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
You get an A for effort (i.e., it is an excellent attempt), but the details, when examined more closely, does not fit. :-(
You may think it does, and your are entitled to your religious beliefs, but it is not my responsibility to convince you beyond all reasonable doubt that you are wrong. Your photos do not explain nasa's images.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Then point them out.
They absolutely do, and anybody not blanketed in denial will see the same. Of the 7+ billion people on Earth, you are the only person in existence who could come out of the other side of this conversation and still not understand that.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Don't be silly. If you went through all that effort, surly you can notice the problems.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Which are easily explained by perspective differences as I've tried to demonstrate numerous times, with diagrams and photographs, yet you still somehow are incapable of understanding basic geometry.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Sadly, just because you say something is so, doesn't make it true. Very little is explained by your photos of your children's toy. I understand what you are trying so desperately hard to explain, but you are wrong. But, hey, that's nothing new, right?
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I don't understand how this is possible, it's as if you're deliberately avoiding acknowledging a fact staring you in the fact.
You are being intentionally ignorant at this point, there is no other reason that you could still be unable to understand this very basic geometric fact.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
It was a rhetorical question. I wasn't asking you anything. But, thanks for trying. I understand the art of photographing 3-D objects, as it is a hobby of mine. Your photos literally didn't show me anything new--that I haven't seen with my own experiences. There are other errors/discrepancies that aren't explained by your perspective.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Not a rhetorcal question, you were looking for insight into "why the US looks so dramatically different in size."
Then point them out.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
A rhetorical question is what it is, regardless of whether or not you can detect the sarcasm contained therein. With that said: what else you got?
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I've shown more than enough to clearly demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have yet to provide anything of relevance and have resorted to intellectual laziness and intentional obtuseness.
If you are unwilling to accept fundamental geometric science which dates back centuries, then there is literally nothing I can provide that will convince you otherwise.
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
You'll need to be more specific with your language. When you say "observed", do you mean "seen with someone's eyes"? Because that's what astronauts see all the time.
Of course, you refuse to believe their observations, so you must mean "seen with your eyes", which of course means that until you experience extreme high altitude flight you will never see it and can go on refusing to believe it, no matter how many other people tell you they have seen it with their own eyes.
If by "observe" you mean you can carry out observations that prove the earth is spherical, then you're wrong. It's quite easy to do if you're willing to actually try.
At least the guys on this stream are wiling to try, but I'm sure they are not going to share the results of their experiment (or will find some excuse to explain them away).
The simple fact is, there are a multitude of different ways you can make observations that will tell you if the earth is spherical or not, and when you compare all of them, they come up with the same answer - the earth is a rotating sphere.
You're right.. sort of.. in reality you and the earth are both being "attracted" to your combined center of gravity. The thing is, the difference in mass between you and the earth means that the center of gravity between you and the earth is extremely close to the center of gravity of the earth by itself.
So in effect, you fall onto the earth.
The reason things float is because they are less dense than the thing they are floating on so gravity pulls the more dense material downwards, forcing the less dense material upwards.
Without gravity, there is no buoyancy. You can't replace gravity with an effect that relies on gravity to even happen.
Yes, they do. They just think they don't because they are too ignorant to understand the things they are talking about.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
How many astronauts do you know? How many have you spoken with personally? Unless you have spoken with a few different astronauts about this topic, then you have absolutely no clue what they have or haven't seen.
To put things into perspective, I just came back from a visit with one of my astronaut friends. Most of the pictures in the house that were taken up there had been edited, but a few weren't. You know how I could tell the difference? The ones that weren't edited had no curvature.
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
I see how this works... you assume there is a major conspiracy to lie to you, and nothing short of first hand experience will satisfy you.
BUT
You won't do anything that might actually prove your assumptions wrong, unlike the people in the stream this thread is linked to. At least they seem to be willing to risk being proved wrong.
Uh huh...
Oh, so the "proof" photos had been edited was that they didn't show what you wanted them to show, but if they did, then they clearly weren't edited? That's how your mind works?
"If it agrees with my preconceived notions, it's real. If it doesn't then it's a hoax". So sayeth the flat earther.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I don't assume anything. Furthermore, I have no problem being wrong.
The pictures were edited, because the curvature was slightly different in every single photo.
BTW, you don't need to label people. In truth, that is very uncouth.
n/a Real_Johnny_Utah 2017-04-08
No it's a theory
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Love how they're taking exact measurements with a massive Sharpie, super scientific!
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
This is the same methodology that Eratosthenes is alleged to have used while taking measurements of shadows at Alexandria and Syene when he is alleged to have given proof of the heliocentric model - This is his experiment merely with more points of observation. Were his alleged efforts scientific? Is it possible that you only consider something to be "scientific" if it fits your preconceived conclusions? lol :)
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
They were far more scientific than this. Using a Sharpie to try and make a detailed account of something so precise is incredibly unscientific.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Why don't you hang out and discuss, at the very least you can agree that our true nature is a total mystery. There has to be a nagging question or deep curiosity that you've carried around with you...no human ever has ever put complete faith in science, we all know there is more to this
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I am hanging out and discussing. Explain how the Belt of Venus works on a flat Earth.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
I'm not sure I believe the Earth is flat but I also don't see a reason to call those interested liars and shills. The discussion has to stary somewhere homey. We have no idea who we are or where we are and to me that is mind blowing
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Yes we do, we know we're on a spherical Earth in the Milky Way. To deny that by manufacturing easily debunked 'evidence' is absolutely lying.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Eeesh, honestly I'll never think in absolutes like that. Fuck, if we all thought like that we wouldn't even need science. Careful brother, careful.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Sounds strange to not be able to critically evaluate actual evidence and reach the most likely conclusion.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Gravity is a theory and we science holds dearly onto a theory born from that theory. Got to keep asking questions, because is we don't there will be no room for science at all
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
That has nothing to do with basic observations which demonstrate the Earth to be a sphere, but keep trying to change the topic.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
I'm on topic. Science is your religion, which is fine, but it seems to have left you with an assured sense of right which can be taken advantage of if you are not careful. Keep asking questions brother on the off chance that your science has betrayed you
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Science isn't a religion, it's the opposite. I would suggest reading something regarding the philosophy of science in order to avoid conflating two completely unrelated ideas.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Surely you understand that you're putting faith in an entity
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Nope, I've made observations myself which confirm the Earth to be spherical which was then further confirmed by countless other experiments by numerous other 'entities' for centuries. There is no faith required when believing in a spherical Earth because reality proudly displays itself on a day-to-day basis.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
I speak to your faith in science
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
There is no faith required for things that I observe on a daily basis. You can try and shoehorn your argument in all you want, the fact of the matter is that basic observations demonstrate the Earth to be spherical, it isn't faith, it's opening your eyes and observing the things around you.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Damn dude, just be careful
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Don't worry, I don't fear reality, not sure why you do.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
I'm talking about your faith and why you refuse to acknowledge it
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I acknowledge it every day by observing the reality around me. I don't need to invent superstitions to support my ignorance. Go do your own research instead of attacking people for trying to educate themselves and not blindly believe preposterous nonsense.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
But you said science is the opposite of religion, can you not see the irony in that statement? It seems you do not and that's why I say be careful. They are on the same side of the coin
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
It is, religion has no observational proof. You have an embarrassing lack of knowledge regarding philosophy of science or the scientific method, it borders on dangerous but is simply another product of the weaponized ignorance sweeping Western society.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Again eeesh. Dangerous way to think
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Just because you don't understand basic facts doesn't make them dangerous, in fact it's the opposite, your overwhelming ignorance and faith in nonsense is what is dangerous.
Please educate yourself before you do some actual harm.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Indeed, "complex ideas" are dangerous for the ignorant. In their world, not understanding something means that thing is wrong.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-04-08
Science can be tested. A god can not.
n/a Onyyyyy 2017-04-08
Flat earth is so 2016. Everyone knows the earth is a trapezoid.
n/a dsannes 2017-04-08
a useful excersize in cognitive dissonance and resolution. its like a philosophical puzzle for some.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
It's fascinating to watch.
n/a TRAIN_WRECK_0 2017-04-08
Tagged as flat earth kook. You may actually believe it but usually the only ones pushing this theory are shills.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
Reported for harassment - seems like a pretty clear violation of the rules on the sidebar to me - hope the mods see this kind of thing. Doesn't seem fair that you can't discuss an experiment regarding a conspiracy on /r/conspiracy without open harassment.
If you want to discuss the validity of the experiment or flat earth concepts that's one thing - you are attempting to attack and derail. Not helpful.
n/a TRAIN_WRECK_0 2017-04-08
I'm not harassing you, just giving you a heads up that I tagged you.
Saying the earth is flat contradicts all of science and makes no sense to anyone with a critical mind. Please denounce this theory as it will only serve to make you and everyone in this sub look like fools.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
If I come into a thread on /r/macpowerusers (A sub which you moderate) and tell the author of the thread I'm tagging them as "A Mac fanboy" who is objectively wrong about everything and merely following corporate shills without any evidence or attempts to discuss the ideas he was posting about that would be harassment, right? Seems like that's what you're doing to me here.
n/a TRAIN_WRECK_0 2017-04-08
Dude, just drop this theory. It makes no sense. You have just as much evidence for flat earth theory as I do for triangular prism earth theory.
n/a chickenshitmchammers 2017-04-08
Why are you here? Why do you care so much? If you don't believe, it shouldn't affect your life at all. I think you should drop it, bud.
n/a Real_Johnny_Utah 2017-04-08
You're spreading nonsense we want to evolve as a species not go backwards
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
With a critical mind, please tell us where one can measure and observe the curvature of the earth. As far as I can see, no matter where I am, the earth seems to be as flat as can be.
n/a TRAIN_WRECK_0 2017-04-08
So if the earth is flat, where is the edge of the earth? Keep walking and let me know when you find it.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I'd love to be able to let you know, but we're not allowed to walk around the Antarctic unescorted like that. Maybe someday...
n/a TRAIN_WRECK_0 2017-04-08
So earth has only one edge in this theory?
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Flat earth is an observation that anyone can make from anywhere on earth. An observation, BTW, is not a theory. It is unhelpful to confuse the two. It doesn't matter if there is one edge or none, as we are prohibited from making those observations for ourselves. That is a significant problem for humanity.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Proof?
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
You can do it anywhere. These guys on this stream are about to do it, assuming they publish their findings.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
I've been all over the world, and I can't seem to observe the curvature anywhere. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it simply means I haven't been able to in anyway measure or observe a curve. Everything I have seen indicates that the earth is flat. Until I can make a scientific observation otherwise, flat earth is a safe bet.
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
Oh I see.. your idea of a measurement is "seeing it". This stream is an attempt to measure the curvature. The people doing it expect to be able to prove that the earth is actually flat, but they are actually measuring the curvature.
It is clear that you do not understand what "measure" means. The reason you can't observe the curve is because it is so slight when viewed from sea level. However, it can be observed and measured in other ways.
Here is an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IIVfoDuVIw
You can go there and do that experiment yourself and prove that the earth is a rotating sphere.
Here is another video that shows this effect in a different way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs
In this case, it shows that a bullet behaves differently depending on whether you're facing east or west.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
No. That is not how you use the scientific method to observe the curvature of the earth, nor prove that the earth is a rotating sphere. There are numerous/obvious flaws in your methodology.
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
You wouldn't know the "scientific method" if it was explained to you.
You just can't tell us any of them...
Let's just focus on the shooting experiment. The explanation for the difference in impact between firing west and east is explained by the rotation of the earth causing the target to rise or drop slightly while the bullet is in flight.
On a flat earth, the target would remain at the same height, whether you're firing east or west. So what explains the difference in the point of impact?
You can explain part of it by saying the earth is moving horizontally west to east, causing the distance between firing east and west to be different.. but then we should feel that movement, according to the flat earthers.
There is no other way to explain the difference in height of the bullet impact. Either the surface of the earth is moving laterally, or there should be no difference between shooting east and west.
Here is the thing... we can calculate the exact trajectory of the bullet, so we know if the bullet flies for x amount of time, it will drop y amount of distance. Here is the problem for flat earth. When we do that, we find that the bullet still hits higher (or lower) than it should based on the time it was in flight.
The only way this can happen is if the target is also changing height relative to where it was when the bullet was fired.
That means the earth must be spherical. As the target moves away from the shooter it also drops relative to its location when the shot was fired. As the target moves towards the shooter, it raises relative to its location when the shot was fired.
When we run all the calculations we find that the only way to accurately predict the impact of the bullet is if we treat the earth as a rotating spheroid. That alone busts the "flat earth" myth.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
such as?
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
They are not measuring the time the bullet is in flight. That is one of the glaring problems with a methodology like that. Besides, in order to do an experiment like that, you'd need a controlled environment facing in all cardinal directions [not just east/west]. Both the prevailing wind and temperature difference account for the observation in that video.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
So?
How so?
You've looked to see if this is the only way this experiment has taken place?
You don't think that the shooting experts may already know how to control for this?
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Time of flight in a controlled environment would prove/disprove the hypothesis. Moreover, if the effect applies to bullets, the physics would also have to apply to airplanes. That doesn't appear to be the case.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Why?
You can't just throw out variables and state they are experimental noise without saying why
Again, why? Planes =/= bullets.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
A researcher's responsibility is to isolate as much experimental noise at possible. That is the entire point of doing experiments. It is a step-by-step process in order to test a hypothesis.
Physics don't change between planes and bullets. What effects one will effect the other, in terms of globular spinning.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
And it's their job to point out which variables matter. You've yet to actually explain why, beyond simply stating "well they're variables"
If one were to invoke such an all encompassing view of uncertainty, stating that everything is a variable that needs controlling, then one could just as easily assert this phenomenon is affected by the number of people currently farting in South Bend Indiana.
Fortunately, our understanding of physics means that this "variable" is irrelevant to our result.
Bullets aren't airplanes. Their flight mechanics are different. It's funny that you'd harp on "variables" but leave out the largest one.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
What?!? You seriously want me to explain to you how wind and temperature effect trajectory? That is the cool part about science: I don't have to--you control those variables, including the people in South Bend, and then you'll know what matters and what doesn't. That's how the scientific method works.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
No, you need to explain how it confounds the findings, and how significant such obfuscation is.
So then your assertion should be elementary. Go ahead and explain.
You'd be laughed out of any thesis defense with such a preposterous appeal.
It's funny that you invoke the "scientific method" and completely ignore its principles.
Or you know, all the work confirmed and preformed via the scientific principle whilst you flatties don't even understand the difference between powered flight and basic ballistic trajectory.
Or that the sun disappears behind the horizon.
Or any other number of scientifically supported phenomenon. Unlike precisely zero of the models, calculations and predictions offered by flatters.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Again, I'm not a flatty. Nonetheless, you really think that kind of strategy helps your argument? Seems a bit contrived.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
-no response. typical.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Why would you continue to think you could simply command someone to do something? I'm not your search engine. Google trajectory and wind and read for yourself about that variable. If you don't think wind is a factor. OK. Fine. It's a moot point. I believe it matters significantly, but I say that from my own experience with firearms and archery. I personally do not account for the spin of the earth in my practice.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Ok so your point is worthless then. Much as I suspected. I love all this dodging and handwaving.
And?
Go ahead prove its a significant enough variable for the original point not to matter.
Great. So it's an issue of you having a terribly small worldview then. Pretty great to claim your experience explains the whole.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
The spin of the earth doesn't effect me in my practice. Again, you're trying to make a glove fit that doesn't. It is not a universal phenomenon.
I am human, and my experiences matter. You can't diminish that by being divisive.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Great.
Not very relevant.
No. you're trying to use your ignorance as a tool.
Never claimed anything as such.
Largely they don't. Not when trying explain things scientifically.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
If it is not a universal phenomenon, then earth spin isn't what accounts for what is seen in that video...it must be something different.
Human experiences absolutely do matter. It is through our experiences, and the experiences of others, than we know what may matter in our experimentation. Then we test for it, and observe. Then we test again. It is a process of elimination.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Since the Earth is spinning, its effects are universal.
Or you know, something like scale is important.
Not really. Not in trying to describe a phenomena. That's why avoiding things like "well in my experience" is a piss poor way to base an argument.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
If the earth is spinning, then it can't be universal (e.g., equator spinning faster etc.). Regardless, without experiences, you would obviously be testing the flatulence in South Bend. I know words can complicated, but try not to confuse their meaning. You need human experiences to know what to test for. It's the observations during testing which is what humans base their argument on. It's really a straight forward process.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Yes. That's called the coriolis effect.
I see you're still unable to support your assertions.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Read more carefully, take a moment to think about what you read, and then you'll how and why assertions have been supported in the way that they have. You don't have to like it, but it is disingenuous to ignore it.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Again, more dodging the question, handwaving and not backing yourself up. Great
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
Nothings been dodged. If you don't like what and how I write, that's something for you to deal with.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Lmao . "I'm illiterate but that's your fault"
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
These "contributers" won't answer your questions - they're just here to be hateful and try to detract. Just report them on move on imo but I appreciate your attempts to bring reason.
n/a TheMadBonger 2017-04-08
You know how it is theorized that intention or will plus certainty equals reality? What if the world really was flat because everyone just believed it was. And then as others questioned the model a shift in consciousness created the reality we perceive now. I just find it so odd that people go out of their way to ridicule people about a conspiracy theory on a sub meant for it. Why not just ignore or at least try to have a decent conversation to convince them of your point of view?
Perhaps they fight the flat earth theory so hard because they do not want humans to realize the collective consciousness can shape reality. "The Powers That Be" sure put a lot of effort in controlling our world view and it just makes me wonder. If there is a lot more to the spiritual and occult side of life than we are programmed to believe.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
Yeah agreed - it always irks me when people show up in threads just to detract. If the flat earth were so easily falsifiable it wouldn't be experiencing such a huge revival.
n/a Real_Johnny_Utah 2017-04-08
A huge revival by morons and stupid celebrities.
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
First stream has ended. They have another one going now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRD3tphZCQg
This is going to be hilarious.
Watch as they do the maths and then suddenly go quiet.
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
Thanks will update the OP
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-04-08
Bahaha... just heard the funniest thing. One guy is showing his results, which do not match what these guys were expecting to see, and then you hear someone speak up and say "we'll just have to keep repeating the experiment"
They'll keep doing this until it shows what they want it to show... or they eventually give up on their bullshit beliefs.
Which one do you think will happen first?
n/a natavism 2017-04-08
Your entire account history is stalking and harassing /r/conspiracy users, throwing out as many one-liners as possible, supporting mainstream narratives and bullshitting about sports. You have got to be either American or Canadian hahaha lmao
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Subbed. I believe the could be an artificial satellite, any thread to pull there in relation to FE?
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
Surely you understand that you're putting faith in an entity
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Nope, I've made observations myself which confirm the Earth to be spherical which was then further confirmed by countless other experiments by numerous other 'entities' for centuries. There is no faith required when believing in a spherical Earth because reality proudly displays itself on a day-to-day basis.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-04-08
I'm talking about your faith and why you refuse to acknowledge it
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
No. That is not how you use the scientific method to observe the curvature of the earth, nor prove that the earth is a rotating sphere. There are numerous/obvious flaws in your methodology.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
How many astronauts do you know? How many have you spoken with personally? Unless you have spoken with a few different astronauts about this topic, then you have absolutely no clue what they have or haven't seen.
To put things into perspective, I just came back from a visit with one of my astronaut friends. Most of the pictures in the house that were taken up there had been edited, but a few weren't. You know how I could tell the difference? The ones that weren't edited had no curvature.
n/a chiup 2017-04-08
They are not measuring the time the bullet is in flight. That is one of the glaring problems with a methodology like that. Besides, in order to do an experiment like that, you'd need a controlled environment facing in all cardinal directions [not just east/west]. Both the prevailing wind and temperature difference account for the observation in that video.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-04-08
Science can be tested. A god can not.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
You're the one that isn't engaging in a dialogue, you're lying and ignoring evidence to suit the cowardice of your ignorance.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
Yes, many people confuse the meaning of "pretty close" and "significant" when speaking of things on a global scale all the time ... you just don't know what your own words mean.
n/a goodsmellsman 2017-04-08
Yes. That's called the coriolis effect.
I see you're still unable to support your assertions.
n/a science_positive 2017-04-08
I don't understand how this is possible, it's as if you're deliberately avoiding acknowledging a fact staring you in the fact.
You are being intentionally ignorant at this point, there is no other reason that you could still be unable to understand this very basic geometric fact.