I like seeing them discuss things, it's like a cult/religion of sorts. Every time they fail an experiment/test they keep doubling down. Interesting to see how far they can take it, how high they can keep stacking their ad-hoc explanations even when they seem to contradict each other.
You seem to be here merely to smear the reputation and character of people who consider flat earth as a possibility.
You have presented zero information for any theory, flat, globe or otherwise.
Your post and your comments make glaringly obvious your agenda. Please put effort into your opinions instead of spewing negativity and shitting on people for having different ideas than you.
Your arrogance is off the charts and you will be humbled some day. Good day sir.
The same could be said about people who believe the Earth is round. They only believe it because someone told them the Earth is round. They haven’t done their own empirical research. They are literally just taking someone’s word for it. That’s pretty cult-like to me...
Seriously, keep making posts like this. Spam them all day. Make it even more obvious that there is plenty of worthwhile discussion to be had about the cosmological model as we are handed it.
I see it that way with the believers actually. Vast vast majority wouldn't be able to solve an orbital mechanics or even a simple differential equation problem to save their lives.
It isn't rocket science. Oh wait.... It's funny that to make the mainstream model of the universe correct, they had to make up tons of theoretical math (special relativity, etc.) that even the most intelligent people admit they don't fully understand it.
No experiments are ever done to prove their model of the universe and people are ridiculed to even talk about doing them. The theories and math are all off limits to most average people. Then the educated folk are brainwashed into never questioning the premises of what they learn and are quizzed on. The truly intelligent people may start to question if something is amiss here. But what do I know, I get called a stupid 7th grader all the time for bringing it up!
It's like the Michelson Morely experiment measuring light to see if Earth is moving. It's too bad they concluded Earth is motionless, so Einstein came around and made sure we understood that if the light in the experiment behaved in a way that it shouldn't have, it was surely the instruments themselves shrinking or elongating, whichever way fit the conclusion they wanted.
but we have videos of us visiting other planets so there's your proof.
Hey people claim the Moon Landing was real because they saw it on their TV! Everything is real on the Big Brother Box. And don't worry, the more ridiculous, impossible and fake it looks, the more real it actually is.
Sigh, the fact that you think the null result for the MM experiment proves "the earth is motionless" should already disqualify you from making statements about (astro)physics. It screams "I heard someone talk about this once".
Relativity has never experimentally been tested huh 😂 and the math is off limits 😁 What a joke. I guess that's one way of avoiding putting the effort into understanding it, which in 2018 is accessible to anyone with internet and enough free time.
Absolute zero evidence of earths movement is a big piece to the pie. Every experiment done to try and prove motion failed completely. I thought this couldn't be true but in fact it is.
Except that’s not true at all. Our ability to sucessfully send probes to other bodies orbiting the sun based on our knowledge of how we move relative to each other is definitive proof of that. (Of course there’s tons of other reasons the idea that everything else is moving but not our planet is crazy, but that’s a specific phyiscal action carried out that rellied on our knowledge of the earth’s relative momentum.)
Earths motion is a fairy tale and you've be soaking it up your whole life. Stop believing the lie of the globe. It's nonsense. Einstein came up with relativity after Michelson and Morley proved a motionless earth. If he hadn't proposed relativity there would have been in a FE revolution in the 30s. We don't live on a spinning ball, the moon and sun are close and if you are afraid to look into or thinks it's not important than enjoy being a sheep.
It is detectable. But of course we need to define the frame of reference - what is the Earth moving relative to? Relative to you, it isn't moving (assuming you are standing still). Relative to the sun, it is moving at a rate of precisely 1 orbit per year (~100,000 km/hr). Relative to the center of the Milky Way, it is moving at an approximate rate of 1 orbit per 230 million years (~800,000 km/hr).
So I am sitting down on a park bench and you walk by me. Who is moving?
I am moving relative to you, and you are moving relative to me.
And if we tried to detect movement from you as you walked by it would be impossible.
Of course not, as long as the sensor is measuring relative to the frame of reference we care about. If you mount a sensor to the bench, then it will be detecting movement relative to the bench. And so it would of course detect me moving.
Imagine that you are standing on a moving walkway in an airport that slides along at a rate of 4 mph. Relative to the person standing next to you on the walkway, you are not moving (imagine them pointing a radar gun at you - it would read 0 mph). Now imagine someone is sitting at the airport bar as you glide by. They point their radar gun at you and it reads 4 mph. Now let's say you start walking forward. Relative to the person on the moving walkway behind you, you are now moving at 3 mph. Relative to the person in the bar, you are now moving at 7 mph. Frames of reference - same event, different measurements. Easy :)
Of what practical purpose is Flat Earth Theory? What does it allow us to predict with greater accuracy? What technologies does it enable? In what way does it improve upon a spherical model of the Earth?
I'm going to copy one of my previous comments here to see if you have an answer, since you've clearly thought a lot about this:
How do you explain the fact that different stars are visible in the northern and southern hemispheres, travel in great circles around the sky, and map perfectly to the surface of a sphere?
If you give me your GPS coordinates, I can perfectly predict what the night sky will look like to you at any given time. I can do this using a spherical model of the Earth. Can you do the same with a flat model? If so, I'd love to hear how.
The visuals are an optical effect caused by the curve of the firmament and how perspective works. Start from a false axiom (heliocentrism) and work backwards until you force a model that supports the false axiom. It's how Satan deceives the world into believing the big bang miracle and denying God.
If I were to ask you what the precise positions of the stars will be over Paris at 11pm tonight, could you tell me? If so, how would you work that out?
I personally could not, but an astronomer from say 3000 years ago could by taking notes/documenting celestial movements every night for a long period of time.
When you actually sit down to start working it out, you realize that the stars map perfectly to the surface of a sphere - the predictions can be made with perfect accuracy by calculating the orientation of this spherical projection around a spherical Earth. That explains why there are completely different stars visible in the southern hemisphere vs the northern, and why they spin in circles above the horizon (https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/MillerSouthernStarTrails.jpg). Polaris dips below the horizon as you move from the northern hemisphere to the southern. Can you explain these phenomena with a flat earth model? I know you can't, at least beyond calling it a 'trick of perspective'. But you will not be able to explain it further, because no flat earth explanation will square up with all observations.
I'm not a christian, so theological explanations don't carry water as far as I'm concerned. You'll need to explain things with reason, and with events that can be directly observed by anyone. If you can't, then flat earth theory is no more convincing than christian mythology. Of course this would not be an issue for you, but I suspect it would be rather unconvincing for many others.
But you can't explain the perspective issue. You said the sky is a dome? Why is it that someone in Australia sees completely different stars (across the entire sky, horizon to horizon, even standing at the top of a mountain) than someone in Canada?
The sun is traversing the galaxy at over 500,000 mph. Why isn't there a glowing debri field in its wake which should be illuminated before sunrise/ after sunset?
I can't, but I can theorize. Possibly, the curve of the firmament creates a flipped visual of the stars and their rotation above the firmament. The stars in the northern hemisphere are actually in the "middle' or "center" where the firmament is taller and closer to the stars, giving a more accurate representation. The stars in the southern hemisphere and the further south you go are much higher above the firmament, due to its sloped shape. This could cause the visual to "flip" the same way a magnifying glass or other curved lens would when viewing through from a distance.
There isn't a shape you could give a dome that would match the observations. It's not that the stars are 'flipped' - we in fact see completely different stars in each hemisphere. And you say that the firmament is higher at the center? That would introduce many more problems - the first that comes to mind is that water would always move from the 'center' out. But of course that isn't what we observe - there are countless rivers that flow north (the Nile is one such example). And then, theoretically, elevation would increase as you approach the northern hemisphere? In which case you would be able to see more and more stars. That isn't what happens either, of course. But you gave it some thought, and I appreciate it (I hope you'll try to work out a solution to this yourself - perhaps sketching it out would help? I'd love to hear more if you come up with something that makes sense, and an illustration would be great). I'll answer your question now, as agreed.
It is correct to say that our solar system is orbiting the center of the Milky Way at an approximate speed of 800,000 km/hr (all motion is relative, so whenever you talk about something moving, you have to say what it is moving relative to). The sun doesn't leave trails because it is not accelerating - all of its constituent particles (and everything else in our solar system) are also orbiting the center of the galaxy at the same speed. This is why, for instance, you can light a candle on a train traveling at a steady and tremendous speed and it will look the same as it would if you were holding it in the ticket station - all of the particles in the frame of reference we're looking at are moving at the same speed in the same direction. So there is no debris field or wake left by the candle, just as there is no debris field from the sun.
There isn't a shape you could give a dome that would match the observations. It's not that the stars are 'flipped' - we in fact see completely different stars in each hemisphere.
I didn't say they were the same stars in the southern/northern, just that the ones in the south show an inverted rotation.
And you say that the firmament is higher at the center? That would introduce many more problems - the first that comes to mind is that water would always move from the 'center' out. But of course that isn't what we observe - there are countless rivers that flow north (the Nile is one such example). And then, theoretically, elevation would increase as you approach the northern hemisphere? In which case you would be able to see more and more stars. That isn't what happens either, of course.
I said the firmament was taller/higher at the center, not the earth.
But you gave it some thought, and I appreciate it (I hope you'll try to work out a solution to this yourself - perhaps sketching it out would help? I'd love to hear more if you come up with something that makes sense, and an illustration would be great). I'll answer your question now, as agreed.
It is correct to say that our solar system is orbiting the center of the Milky Way at an approximate speed of 800,000 km/hr (all motion is relative, so whenever you talk about something moving, you have to say what it is moving relative *to*). The sun doesn't leave trails because it is not accelerating - all of its constituent particles (and everything else in our solar system) is *also* orbiting the center of the galaxy at the same speed. This is why, for instance, you can light a candle on a train traveling at a steady and tremendous speed and it will look the same as it would if you were holding it in the ticket station - all of the particles in the frame of reference we're looking at are moving at the same speed in the same direction. So there is no debris field or wake left by the candle, just as there is no debris field from the sun.
-the candle is in an enclosed environment and isn't really a viable comparison. The sun is traveling through space and should have a debris trail.
I said the firmament was taller/higher at the center, not the earth.
This still doesn't explain why different stars are visible a the same time on opposite sides of the Earth. Do you recognize that this is a hole in your model?
the candle is in an enclosed environment and isn't really a viable comparison. The sun is traveling through space and should have a debris trail.
First of all, the candle is traveling through space - someone standing on the train platform as it passes by will attest to this. It's a perfectly viable comparison, because 1) space is almost a perfect vacuum, so there nothing for the sun to interact with - there's no substance that it moves through that would cause a wake to form and 2) of the particles that are zooming around our solar system, they too are also orbiting the center of the galaxy - the sun is not moving 800,000 km/hr relative to objects in our solar system, only to the center of the galaxy. But I'll give you another example. Imagine that we replicate the environment in the train car by pumping all of the air out and creating a vacuum. Now imagine that we take a bottle of talcum powder and give it a squeeze inside this vacuum car while the train is in motion. Does a trail form in the direction of the bottle's movement relative to an observer on the train platform? Why or why not?
I said the firmament was taller/higher at the center, not the earth.
This still doesn't explain why different stars are visible a the same time on opposite sides of the Earth. Do you recognize that this is a hole in your model?
perspective... The further something is away, the lower it appears until it is eclipsed by an object in the foreground. It's called "vanishing point".
We have thousands of meteorites burn up in the atmosphere every day, yet there isn't enough rocks and dust to create a debris trail behind the sun? I'm not buying it
We have thousands of meteorites burn up in the atmosphere every day, yet there isn't enough rocks and dust to create a debris trail behind the sun? I'm not buying it
1) meteoroids do interact with the Sun, but they are minuscule compared to it and so the observable effect from Earth is negligible and
2) the meteoroids are all orbiting the center of the galaxy just like the Sun. And like the molecules in stationary air aboard a moving train, those meteoroids are all moving along in the same direction (around the galaxy) while still moving relative to each other. But they move relative to each other in many different directions, just like molecules of air zooming around more or less at random in the train car. When those objects do hit the Sun they do so from every angle and so do not have a combined effect favoring any particular direction, just like the air molecules on the train interacting with the candle flame do not cause it to form a trail. So even the combined effects of many tiny impacts won't cause the sun to form a debris trail.
The further something is away, the lower it appears until it is eclipsed by an object in the foreground. It's called "vanishing point".
A question: doesn't this mean that, from the west coast of Canada, I should be able to make out the stars visible in Australia by using a high-powered telescope and pointing it towards them, just over the ocean horizon? For good measure let's assume that I'm on top of Mount Fairweather - much taller than any sea swell or wave along the straight line between me and Australia.
This jesus\god myth (and the other uncountable other made up deities) are just stagnating the progress of the human race. The time to jump to the supernatural for things we don't understand is long long past. (And this flat earth thing doesn't even qualify.) We can explain damn near everything about orbital mechanics and can predict with amazing accuracy the locations of objects past and present. The n-body problem is a slight issue but that is a lack of measurement capability and not the supernatural.
Edit....Sorry, but I blocked you. I usually don't engage the trolls, but I just don't have the time and will not dedicate the time to you in the future. Have fun not understanding most of science.
Isn’t questioning whether flat earthers are mentally ill tantamount to asking whether anyone with fundamentalist religious beliefs are also mentally ill?
I'll try to be as unbiased as possible. Somethings are about more than beliefs. For one, being able to question things either seriously or as a thought experiment is a useful skill; it's engaging, fun, and strengthens your mind. Also there is a difference between learned intelligence and experienced intelligence. Having the ability to memorize information and research and being able to repeat it is a skill we should all have. Also important is the ability to analyze the world around yourself and come to conclusions based on your own experience. Sometimes different types of intelligence have different conclusions and we are not often taught the difference between them.
I have an analogy that might be useful...
Say there is an actually mentally handicapped person. 0 social skills, no filter, lost in their own world 90% of the time, and has 0 critical thinking skills. But they are fascinated by quantum mechanics, they read every book on quantum mechanics have studied countless experiments and are more knowledgeable about the subject than anyone you know. If it wasn't for serious mental disabilities they could easily teach college level courses on the subject.
Compare that to a literal genius who experiments with their own perspective and intuitions to shape their views of the world around them. They might actually design experiments to test against popular quantum theories and reach unique conclusions that are backed up by 0 scientific communities and a part of no curriculum. Further, they are proved wrong over and over by newer science and they keep experimenting and coming to impossible theories.
The point is, you can be wrong and have the ability to at least come up with strong evidence as the result of personal experimentation as the devil's advocate or a serious believer in an alternative perspective that almost demands to be disproved and mocked by the "scientific community". You can claim something that you've dwelled over for years and have personal logs of data and be disproved by someone who read the first paragraph of an article. If that article was true in an objective reality the theorist world still be objectivity wrong.
Who's mentally ill on either side? Probably no one. Plenty of people could tell you all about whales without having ever seen one. Plenty of people could properly explain the entire human anatomy with never having dissected a human. Plenty of people could tell you all about our solar system and world geographies without having never been to space. They aren't sheep for believing the world is round, just like they wouldn't be sheep for believing humans have hearts or that Sperm whales live at a depth of 10k feet deep. Alternatively, people aren't mentally ill for questioning if dinosaurs ever existed when they lived 66,000,000 years ago and the first evidence of them was discovered in 1830s. They aren't mentally ill when they perceive the world as flat when they lived 100% of their life on a perceptibly flat plane. They aren't mentally ill for seeing clouds behind the moon even if it's just an optical illusion, because they experienced something first hand rather than being taught something.
Lots of people believe in a lie. People believe their partner is committed when they're not. People believed Americans had amazing eye sight due to a carrot diet when in reality radar was invented in secrecy... who is anyone to arbitrarily decide what's allowed to be questioned and what's not. I think everything should be questioned everything should be tested. We don't know what's true or false based on what we're told by other people. We don't know what's true or not based on what our own eyes see a lot of the time.
This is a conspiracy sub, if people want to question the planet we live on let them. They are still people who came to that conclusion somehow in a way that solidified as truth to them. And people to trash flat earthers are just as susceptible into believing something that is not true as anyone else. The views of others don't need to align with yours to be valid for questioning. They aren't challenging YOU they are challenging themselves. From my experience, everything is a paradox. There's a night a day way view any topic. I don't know why, but there is an absolute polar belief to any belief system. Heliocentric vs Flat Earth. Republican vs Democratic. Scientific vs Religious.
To be honest even on a global earth the fact the flat earth community made it this far and is able to stand up against so many years of scientific study to at least make a stance, to have so many people not just question it, but believe in it means they're probably right about SOMETHING. Somewhere in something their saying, they believe in because it doesn't align with reality. Even if they're wrong about the whole of their belief they are compelled to find evidence that their being fed a lie somewhere, and the only thing that would stop that truth from being discovered is shit like calling them mentally ill for using their minds in a unique way.
That's not to say that there isn't mentally unstable people who gravitate to each and every conspiracy and swallow it as irrefutable proof based on seeing a youtube video. But we have those people on the other side too who believe in everything their science books said in high school because they read it and took a quiz on it. Being in the "safe zone" because it's socially acceptable to believe something doesn't mean they're great minds. It just means they have a lower chance of being wrong because it's supported by the science community, regardless if the person speaking about it has an IQ of 160 or 80.
Why are people so angry about people who believe the earth is or may be flat.
I mean, who gives a shit? It’s not hurting anyone & they may be right.
It certainly doesn’t seem for sure the earth is round. All photos are admittedly fake conposite photoshopped from NASA & Antarctica is fucking off limits lol which is fucking insane so it doesn’t seem to be a slam dunk either way.
Calling flat earthers mentally ill would be only based as an opposing view point to the Round earthers belief, who is to say that is indefinitely the Truth and could be then deemed mental illness. Having an opinion whether it's a bit out of the ordinary or different than the norm doesn't make someone mentally ill. Mental illness is the "hive mind" who follow the crowd without daring to stand alone if required to stay true to their beliefs. Some of the most intelligent people have had some outlandish beliefs which is a big reason why we have some of the inventions and technology today ( Tesla, Einstein).There is so much conspiracy happening that honestly if someone wants to believe that than what difference does it make. It doesn't have to interfere with someone's opposing belief. Agree to Disagree! Let's be thankful there are still people who aren't complete zombies and putting an effort into insight and forethought instead of sitting on Fake Book ..I mean Face Book all day! Listen to their viewpoint and take it or leave it and respect their belief whether you disagree or not. At the end of the day it isn't going to change what's meant to be.
its not CIA, its 'outsourced', the flat earth society is a British London affair.
the Flat Earth Society was gag club that advertised membership in Punch and Private Eye magazines in the 70s. $5 got you a fancy membership card that you could put in your wallet.
Terry Pratchett with his forty Discworld novels from England might also be a subtle hint that this psy-op is of British origin.
The Flat Earth Society is controlled opposition. It's the Alex Jones of Flat Earth. No one who is an actual flat earth researcher is a fan. They show up as a top result when you Google "flat earth." They endorse ridiculous beliefs that no one really thinks, such as the idea of earth being a disc floating in space or rising at 9.8 meters per second.
Why would a psy-op need a psy-op within the psy-op to be controlled opposition for the psy-op? That doesn't make sense.
Seriously, keep making posts like this. Spam them all day. Make it even more obvious that there is plenty of worthwhile discussion to be had about the cosmological model as we are handed it.
I see it that way with the believers actually. Vast vast majority wouldn't be able to solve an orbital mechanics or even a simple differential equation problem to save their lives.
When you actually sit down to start working it out, you realize that the stars map perfectly to the surface of a sphere - the predictions can be made with perfect accuracy by calculating the orientation of this spherical projection around a spherical Earth. That explains why there are completely different stars visible in the southern hemisphere vs the northern, and why they spin in circles above the horizon (https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/MillerSouthernStarTrails.jpg). Polaris dips below the horizon as you move from the northern hemisphere to the southern. Can you explain these phenomena with a flat earth model? I know you can't, at least beyond calling it a 'trick of perspective'. But you will not be able to explain it further, because no flat earth explanation will square up with all observations.
I'm not a christian, so theological explanations don't carry water as far as I'm concerned. You'll need to explain things with reason, and with events that can be directly observed by anyone. If you can't, then flat earth theory is no more convincing than christian mythology. Of course this would not be an issue for you, but I suspect it would be rather unconvincing for many others.
There isn't a shape you could give a dome that would match the observations. It's not that the stars are 'flipped' - we in fact see completely different stars in each hemisphere.
I didn't say they were the same stars in the southern/northern, just that the ones in the south show an inverted rotation.
And you say that the firmament is higher at the center? That would introduce many more problems - the first that comes to mind is that water would always move from the 'center' out. But of course that isn't what we observe - there are countless rivers that flow north (the Nile is one such example). And then, theoretically, elevation would increase as you approach the northern hemisphere? In which case you would be able to see more and more stars. That isn't what happens either, of course.
I said the firmament was taller/higher at the center, not the earth.
But you gave it some thought, and I appreciate it (I hope you'll try to work out a solution to this yourself - perhaps sketching it out would help? I'd love to hear more if you come up with something that makes sense, and an illustration would be great). I'll answer your question now, as agreed.
It is correct to say that our solar system is orbiting the center of the Milky Way at an approximate speed of 800,000 km/hr (all motion is relative, so whenever you talk about something moving, you have to say what it is moving relative *to*). The sun doesn't leave trails because it is not accelerating - all of its constituent particles (and everything else in our solar system) is *also* orbiting the center of the galaxy at the same speed. This is why, for instance, you can light a candle on a train traveling at a steady and tremendous speed and it will look the same as it would if you were holding it in the ticket station - all of the particles in the frame of reference we're looking at are moving at the same speed in the same direction. So there is no debris field or wake left by the candle, just as there is no debris field from the sun.
-the candle is in an enclosed environment and isn't really a viable comparison. The sun is traveling through space and should have a debris trail.
128 comments
13 viperean 2018-07-21
Honestly, this is the perfect place for them to discuss it though. This sub is conspiracy. Even if you find it absurd this is the place for it.
1 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
I like seeing them discuss things, it's like a cult/religion of sorts. Every time they fail an experiment/test they keep doubling down. Interesting to see how far they can take it, how high they can keep stacking their ad-hoc explanations even when they seem to contradict each other.
8 NonThinkingPeeOn 2018-07-21
You seem to be here merely to smear the reputation and character of people who consider flat earth as a possibility.
You have presented zero information for any theory, flat, globe or otherwise.
Your post and your comments make glaringly obvious your agenda. Please put effort into your opinions instead of spewing negativity and shitting on people for having different ideas than you.
Your arrogance is off the charts and you will be humbled some day. Good day sir.
-4 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
I don't need to smear any one, they are perfectly capable of doing that themselves.
-2 DerkDerkinson 2018-07-21
The same could be said about people who believe the Earth is round. They only believe it because someone told them the Earth is round. They haven’t done their own empirical research. They are literally just taking someone’s word for it. That’s pretty cult-like to me...
0 Rainulf99 2018-07-21
you only need a smart phone to prove the earth is round for yourself.
or, if you don't have a phone, a nice straight stick will work
0 DerkDerkinson 2018-07-21
If only it were that simple.
10 joe_jaywalker 2018-07-21
All I see from people who denounce and ridicule flat earth theory is the Dunning-Kruger effect in full display.
12 [deleted] 2018-07-21
[deleted]
7 joe_jaywalker 2018-07-21
Seriously, keep making posts like this. Spam them all day. Make it even more obvious that there is plenty of worthwhile discussion to be had about the cosmological model as we are handed it.
3 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
I see it that way with the believers actually. Vast vast majority wouldn't be able to solve an orbital mechanics or even a simple differential equation problem to save their lives.
3 joe_jaywalker 2018-07-21
Implying that most Globies can "solve an orbital mechanics or even a simple differential equation problem to save their lives."
2 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
The majority of my class did pass the DE exam so...
0 ristar_23 2018-07-21
It isn't rocket science. Oh wait.... It's funny that to make the mainstream model of the universe correct, they had to make up tons of theoretical math (special relativity, etc.) that even the most intelligent people admit they don't fully understand it.
No experiments are ever done to prove their model of the universe and people are ridiculed to even talk about doing them. The theories and math are all off limits to most average people. Then the educated folk are brainwashed into never questioning the premises of what they learn and are quizzed on. The truly intelligent people may start to question if something is amiss here. But what do I know, I get called a stupid 7th grader all the time for bringing it up!
1 [deleted] 2018-07-21
[deleted]
1 ristar_23 2018-07-21
It's like the Michelson Morely experiment measuring light to see if Earth is moving. It's too bad they concluded Earth is motionless, so Einstein came around and made sure we understood that if the light in the experiment behaved in a way that it shouldn't have, it was surely the instruments themselves shrinking or elongating, whichever way fit the conclusion they wanted.
Hey people claim the Moon Landing was real because they saw it on their TV! Everything is real on the Big Brother Box. And don't worry, the more ridiculous, impossible and fake it looks, the more real it actually is.
2 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
Sigh, the fact that you think the null result for the MM experiment proves "the earth is motionless" should already disqualify you from making statements about (astro)physics. It screams "I heard someone talk about this once".
Relativity has never experimentally been tested huh 😂 and the math is off limits 😁 What a joke. I guess that's one way of avoiding putting the effort into understanding it, which in 2018 is accessible to anyone with internet and enough free time.
9 treemanjunior 2018-07-21
Absolute zero evidence of earths movement is a big piece to the pie. Every experiment done to try and prove motion failed completely. I thought this couldn't be true but in fact it is.
3 SymmetricColoration 2018-07-21
Except that’s not true at all. Our ability to sucessfully send probes to other bodies orbiting the sun based on our knowledge of how we move relative to each other is definitive proof of that. (Of course there’s tons of other reasons the idea that everything else is moving but not our planet is crazy, but that’s a specific phyiscal action carried out that rellied on our knowledge of the earth’s relative momentum.)
0 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
Found Eddie Bravo's account. Muh mickelson Morley proves FE!!1!
-2 procgen 2018-07-21
All motion is relative. Think about it: what does it mean for an object to move?
2 treemanjunior 2018-07-21
Earths motion is a fairy tale and you've be soaking it up your whole life. Stop believing the lie of the globe. It's nonsense. Einstein came up with relativity after Michelson and Morley proved a motionless earth. If he hadn't proposed relativity there would have been in a FE revolution in the 30s. We don't live on a spinning ball, the moon and sun are close and if you are afraid to look into or thinks it's not important than enjoy being a sheep.
1 procgen 2018-07-21
Everything is simultaneously in motion and at rest, depending on the frame of reference.
2 [deleted] 2018-07-21
[deleted]
0 procgen 2018-07-21
It is detectable. But of course we need to define the frame of reference - what is the Earth moving relative to? Relative to you, it isn't moving (assuming you are standing still). Relative to the sun, it is moving at a rate of precisely 1 orbit per year (~100,000 km/hr). Relative to the center of the Milky Way, it is moving at an approximate rate of 1 orbit per 230 million years (~800,000 km/hr).
I am moving relative to you, and you are moving relative to me.
Of course not, as long as the sensor is measuring relative to the frame of reference we care about. If you mount a sensor to the bench, then it will be detecting movement relative to the bench. And so it would of course detect me moving.
Imagine that you are standing on a moving walkway in an airport that slides along at a rate of 4 mph. Relative to the person standing next to you on the walkway, you are not moving (imagine them pointing a radar gun at you - it would read 0 mph). Now imagine someone is sitting at the airport bar as you glide by. They point their radar gun at you and it reads 4 mph. Now let's say you start walking forward. Relative to the person on the moving walkway behind you, you are now moving at 3 mph. Relative to the person in the bar, you are now moving at 7 mph. Frames of reference - same event, different measurements. Easy :)
1 procgen 2018-07-21
Of what practical purpose is Flat Earth Theory? What does it allow us to predict with greater accuracy? What technologies does it enable? In what way does it improve upon a spherical model of the Earth?
2 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-07-21
Personally, it turned me from an agnostic/atheist into a believer of salvation through Christ Jesus, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
2 procgen 2018-07-21
I'm going to copy one of my previous comments here to see if you have an answer, since you've clearly thought a lot about this:
How do you explain the fact that different stars are visible in the northern and southern hemispheres, travel in great circles around the sky, and map perfectly to the surface of a sphere?
If you give me your GPS coordinates, I can perfectly predict what the night sky will look like to you at any given time. I can do this using a spherical model of the Earth. Can you do the same with a flat model? If so, I'd love to hear how.
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-07-21
The visuals are an optical effect caused by the curve of the firmament and how perspective works. Start from a false axiom (heliocentrism) and work backwards until you force a model that supports the false axiom. It's how Satan deceives the world into believing the big bang miracle and denying God.
1 procgen 2018-07-21
If I were to ask you what the precise positions of the stars will be over Paris at 11pm tonight, could you tell me? If so, how would you work that out?
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-07-21
I personally could not, but an astronomer from say 3000 years ago could by taking notes/documenting celestial movements every night for a long period of time.
Edit- try looking into the history of blood moons occurring on Jewish feast days. It's happened several times. http://www.christiantruthcenter.com/significance-of-four-blood-moons-coinciding-with-jewish-feasts-passover-and-sukkot/
1 procgen 2018-07-21
When you actually sit down to start working it out, you realize that the stars map perfectly to the surface of a sphere - the predictions can be made with perfect accuracy by calculating the orientation of this spherical projection around a spherical Earth. That explains why there are completely different stars visible in the southern hemisphere vs the northern, and why they spin in circles above the horizon (https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/MillerSouthernStarTrails.jpg). Polaris dips below the horizon as you move from the northern hemisphere to the southern. Can you explain these phenomena with a flat earth model? I know you can't, at least beyond calling it a 'trick of perspective'. But you will not be able to explain it further, because no flat earth explanation will square up with all observations.
I'm not a christian, so theological explanations don't carry water as far as I'm concerned. You'll need to explain things with reason, and with events that can be directly observed by anyone. If you can't, then flat earth theory is no more convincing than christian mythology. Of course this would not be an issue for you, but I suspect it would be rather unconvincing for many others.
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-07-21
It's a visual /perspective issue so this is a nonsensical conversation.
1 procgen 2018-07-21
But you can't explain the perspective issue. You said the sky is a dome? Why is it that someone in Australia sees completely different stars (across the entire sky, horizon to horizon, even standing at the top of a mountain) than someone in Canada?
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-07-21
The sun is traversing the galaxy at over 500,000 mph. Why isn't there a glowing debri field in its wake which should be illuminated before sunrise/ after sunset?
1 procgen 2018-07-21
Hold on there, bud. I'll answer yours after you answer mine. You're also allowed to say "I can't explain that."
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-07-21
I can't, but I can theorize. Possibly, the curve of the firmament creates a flipped visual of the stars and their rotation above the firmament. The stars in the northern hemisphere are actually in the "middle' or "center" where the firmament is taller and closer to the stars, giving a more accurate representation. The stars in the southern hemisphere and the further south you go are much higher above the firmament, due to its sloped shape. This could cause the visual to "flip" the same way a magnifying glass or other curved lens would when viewing through from a distance.
1 procgen 2018-07-21
There isn't a shape you could give a dome that would match the observations. It's not that the stars are 'flipped' - we in fact see completely different stars in each hemisphere. And you say that the firmament is higher at the center? That would introduce many more problems - the first that comes to mind is that water would always move from the 'center' out. But of course that isn't what we observe - there are countless rivers that flow north (the Nile is one such example). And then, theoretically, elevation would increase as you approach the northern hemisphere? In which case you would be able to see more and more stars. That isn't what happens either, of course. But you gave it some thought, and I appreciate it (I hope you'll try to work out a solution to this yourself - perhaps sketching it out would help? I'd love to hear more if you come up with something that makes sense, and an illustration would be great). I'll answer your question now, as agreed.
It is correct to say that our solar system is orbiting the center of the Milky Way at an approximate speed of 800,000 km/hr (all motion is relative, so whenever you talk about something moving, you have to say what it is moving relative to). The sun doesn't leave trails because it is not accelerating - all of its constituent particles (and everything else in our solar system) are also orbiting the center of the galaxy at the same speed. This is why, for instance, you can light a candle on a train traveling at a steady and tremendous speed and it will look the same as it would if you were holding it in the ticket station - all of the particles in the frame of reference we're looking at are moving at the same speed in the same direction. So there is no debris field or wake left by the candle, just as there is no debris field from the sun.
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-07-21
-the candle is in an enclosed environment and isn't really a viable comparison. The sun is traveling through space and should have a debris trail.
Edit- formatting
1 procgen 2018-07-21
This still doesn't explain why different stars are visible a the same time on opposite sides of the Earth. Do you recognize that this is a hole in your model?
First of all, the candle is traveling through space - someone standing on the train platform as it passes by will attest to this. It's a perfectly viable comparison, because 1) space is almost a perfect vacuum, so there nothing for the sun to interact with - there's no substance that it moves through that would cause a wake to form and 2) of the particles that are zooming around our solar system, they too are also orbiting the center of the galaxy - the sun is not moving 800,000 km/hr relative to objects in our solar system, only to the center of the galaxy. But I'll give you another example. Imagine that we replicate the environment in the train car by pumping all of the air out and creating a vacuum. Now imagine that we take a bottle of talcum powder and give it a squeeze inside this vacuum car while the train is in motion. Does a trail form in the direction of the bottle's movement relative to an observer on the train platform? Why or why not?
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-07-21
We have thousands of meteorites burn up in the atmosphere every day, yet there isn't enough rocks and dust to create a debris trail behind the sun? I'm not buying it
1 procgen 2018-07-21
1) meteoroids do interact with the Sun, but they are minuscule compared to it and so the observable effect from Earth is negligible and 2) the meteoroids are all orbiting the center of the galaxy just like the Sun. And like the molecules in stationary air aboard a moving train, those meteoroids are all moving along in the same direction (around the galaxy) while still moving relative to each other. But they move relative to each other in many different directions, just like molecules of air zooming around more or less at random in the train car. When those objects do hit the Sun they do so from every angle and so do not have a combined effect favoring any particular direction, just like the air molecules on the train interacting with the candle flame do not cause it to form a trail. So even the combined effects of many tiny impacts won't cause the sun to form a debris trail.
A question: doesn't this mean that, from the west coast of Canada, I should be able to make out the stars visible in Australia by using a high-powered telescope and pointing it towards them, just over the ocean horizon? For good measure let's assume that I'm on top of Mount Fairweather - much taller than any sea swell or wave along the straight line between me and Australia.
2 ima_coder 2018-07-21
This jesus\god myth (and the other uncountable other made up deities) are just stagnating the progress of the human race. The time to jump to the supernatural for things we don't understand is long long past. (And this flat earth thing doesn't even qualify.) We can explain damn near everything about orbital mechanics and can predict with amazing accuracy the locations of objects past and present. The n-body problem is a slight issue but that is a lack of measurement capability and not the supernatural.
Edit....Sorry, but I blocked you. I usually don't engage the trolls, but I just don't have the time and will not dedicate the time to you in the future. Have fun not understanding most of science.
1 procgen 2018-07-21
Did you have a response to my comment below? I noticed that you deleted yours.
1 procgen 2018-07-21
I guess you gave up. Pity! I was rather looking forward to watching you attempt to dig yourself out of your hole.
6 irrelevantappelation 2018-07-21
Isn’t questioning whether flat earthers are mentally ill tantamount to asking whether anyone with fundamentalist religious beliefs are also mentally ill?
1 vishix 2018-07-21
I'll prove the earth is round. U prove God doesnt exist.
1 irrelevantappelation 2018-07-21
Deal
-3 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
....yes?
1 irrelevantappelation 2018-07-21
Well go ahead and talk freely and openly about that wherever you like.
2 ima_coder 2018-07-21
I wouldn't want to soil the label of "mentally ill" with the will full ignorance that is FE.
3 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
It's not always wilful though
2 ima_coder 2018-07-21
It has to be. I just can't understand how someone could dismiss 99% of evidence put in front of them.
1 aohare94 2018-07-21
I'll try to be as unbiased as possible. Somethings are about more than beliefs. For one, being able to question things either seriously or as a thought experiment is a useful skill; it's engaging, fun, and strengthens your mind. Also there is a difference between learned intelligence and experienced intelligence. Having the ability to memorize information and research and being able to repeat it is a skill we should all have. Also important is the ability to analyze the world around yourself and come to conclusions based on your own experience. Sometimes different types of intelligence have different conclusions and we are not often taught the difference between them.
I have an analogy that might be useful...
Say there is an actually mentally handicapped person. 0 social skills, no filter, lost in their own world 90% of the time, and has 0 critical thinking skills. But they are fascinated by quantum mechanics, they read every book on quantum mechanics have studied countless experiments and are more knowledgeable about the subject than anyone you know. If it wasn't for serious mental disabilities they could easily teach college level courses on the subject.
Compare that to a literal genius who experiments with their own perspective and intuitions to shape their views of the world around them. They might actually design experiments to test against popular quantum theories and reach unique conclusions that are backed up by 0 scientific communities and a part of no curriculum. Further, they are proved wrong over and over by newer science and they keep experimenting and coming to impossible theories.
The point is, you can be wrong and have the ability to at least come up with strong evidence as the result of personal experimentation as the devil's advocate or a serious believer in an alternative perspective that almost demands to be disproved and mocked by the "scientific community". You can claim something that you've dwelled over for years and have personal logs of data and be disproved by someone who read the first paragraph of an article. If that article was true in an objective reality the theorist world still be objectivity wrong.
Who's mentally ill on either side? Probably no one. Plenty of people could tell you all about whales without having ever seen one. Plenty of people could properly explain the entire human anatomy with never having dissected a human. Plenty of people could tell you all about our solar system and world geographies without having never been to space. They aren't sheep for believing the world is round, just like they wouldn't be sheep for believing humans have hearts or that Sperm whales live at a depth of 10k feet deep. Alternatively, people aren't mentally ill for questioning if dinosaurs ever existed when they lived 66,000,000 years ago and the first evidence of them was discovered in 1830s. They aren't mentally ill when they perceive the world as flat when they lived 100% of their life on a perceptibly flat plane. They aren't mentally ill for seeing clouds behind the moon even if it's just an optical illusion, because they experienced something first hand rather than being taught something.
Lots of people believe in a lie. People believe their partner is committed when they're not. People believed Americans had amazing eye sight due to a carrot diet when in reality radar was invented in secrecy... who is anyone to arbitrarily decide what's allowed to be questioned and what's not. I think everything should be questioned everything should be tested. We don't know what's true or false based on what we're told by other people. We don't know what's true or not based on what our own eyes see a lot of the time.
This is a conspiracy sub, if people want to question the planet we live on let them. They are still people who came to that conclusion somehow in a way that solidified as truth to them. And people to trash flat earthers are just as susceptible into believing something that is not true as anyone else. The views of others don't need to align with yours to be valid for questioning. They aren't challenging YOU they are challenging themselves. From my experience, everything is a paradox. There's a night a day way view any topic. I don't know why, but there is an absolute polar belief to any belief system. Heliocentric vs Flat Earth. Republican vs Democratic. Scientific vs Religious.
To be honest even on a global earth the fact the flat earth community made it this far and is able to stand up against so many years of scientific study to at least make a stance, to have so many people not just question it, but believe in it means they're probably right about SOMETHING. Somewhere in something their saying, they believe in because it doesn't align with reality. Even if they're wrong about the whole of their belief they are compelled to find evidence that their being fed a lie somewhere, and the only thing that would stop that truth from being discovered is shit like calling them mentally ill for using their minds in a unique way.
That's not to say that there isn't mentally unstable people who gravitate to each and every conspiracy and swallow it as irrefutable proof based on seeing a youtube video. But we have those people on the other side too who believe in everything their science books said in high school because they read it and took a quiz on it. Being in the "safe zone" because it's socially acceptable to believe something doesn't mean they're great minds. It just means they have a lower chance of being wrong because it's supported by the science community, regardless if the person speaking about it has an IQ of 160 or 80.
1 turtlew0rk 2018-07-21
I dont think so. I dont buy it, but also thru history whatever science was known and "absolute" has turned out to not be. So anything is possible.
1 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
I think donut earth is more likely because everything is possible mayhng
2 turtlew0rk 2018-07-21
Its F'd up what they did to you bra
1 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
Just some high dose christianity
1 turtlew0rk 2018-07-21
huh?
1 1winter_night 2018-07-21
Being wrong about something is not a mental illness.
1 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
What if you think everyone is talking about you in particular everywhere you go?
1 MMPRDCR1 2018-07-21
Why are people so angry about people who believe the earth is or may be flat.
I mean, who gives a shit? It’s not hurting anyone & they may be right.
It certainly doesn’t seem for sure the earth is round. All photos are admittedly fake conposite photoshopped from NASA & Antarctica is fucking off limits lol which is fucking insane so it doesn’t seem to be a slam dunk either way.
1 lolly0011 2018-07-21
Calling flat earthers mentally ill would be only based as an opposing view point to the Round earthers belief, who is to say that is indefinitely the Truth and could be then deemed mental illness. Having an opinion whether it's a bit out of the ordinary or different than the norm doesn't make someone mentally ill. Mental illness is the "hive mind" who follow the crowd without daring to stand alone if required to stay true to their beliefs. Some of the most intelligent people have had some outlandish beliefs which is a big reason why we have some of the inventions and technology today ( Tesla, Einstein).There is so much conspiracy happening that honestly if someone wants to believe that than what difference does it make. It doesn't have to interfere with someone's opposing belief. Agree to Disagree! Let's be thankful there are still people who aren't complete zombies and putting an effort into insight and forethought instead of sitting on Fake Book ..I mean Face Book all day! Listen to their viewpoint and take it or leave it and respect their belief whether you disagree or not. At the end of the day it isn't going to change what's meant to be.
0 tehlolman1337 2018-07-21
Uneducated people fall into the flat earth trap, they're not necessarily mentally ill.
You wanna see mental illness? Try gangstalking.
3 ogrelin 2018-07-21
Religion tends to blind folks into following that belief as well.
1 DonnaGail 2018-07-21
I agree with you that gangstalking victims are mentally ill.
0 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
Are you still on the FE bandwagon?
1 DonnaGail 2018-07-21
No. I've never believed the earth is flat.
0 theawesomethatis 2018-07-21
We don't have the public systems in place to deal with that level of mental illness.
So you're asking for a big fat check from everyone else for a problem pretty far down the dangerous mental illness scale.
meh.
0 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
I didn't mean it in terms of being covered by insurance, just how we (this sub?) classify it.
0 DerkDerkinson 2018-07-21
Should posts that are only a title be banned?
Are you capable of typing more than one sentence?
1 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
Who knows. Maybe even two.
-1 ItsWorthReading 2018-07-21
Nope. That is a slippery slope. Flat Earth believers should just be recognized as gullible victims of a CIA psy-op.
3 joe_jaywalker 2018-07-21
I always invite people who make this claim to trace FE back to the CIA, but for some reason they never can.
-1 perfect_pickles 2018-07-21
its not CIA, its 'outsourced', the flat earth society is a British London affair.
the Flat Earth Society was gag club that advertised membership in Punch and Private Eye magazines in the 70s. $5 got you a fancy membership card that you could put in your wallet.
Terry Pratchett with his forty Discworld novels from England might also be a subtle hint that this psy-op is of British origin.
4 joe_jaywalker 2018-07-21
The Flat Earth Society is controlled opposition. It's the Alex Jones of Flat Earth. No one who is an actual flat earth researcher is a fan. They show up as a top result when you Google "flat earth." They endorse ridiculous beliefs that no one really thinks, such as the idea of earth being a disc floating in space or rising at 9.8 meters per second.
Why would a psy-op need a psy-op within the psy-op to be controlled opposition for the psy-op? That doesn't make sense.
2 laybak 2018-07-21
Thinking the phony flat earth society has anything to do with the current flat earth movement only shows you haven't looked in to it
-1 oswald__mosley 2018-07-21
Or the earth is hollow
-1 meatforthebeast 2018-07-21
and filled with clowns
2 jcash21 2018-07-21
Definitely filled with clowns on the surface.
7 joe_jaywalker 2018-07-21
Seriously, keep making posts like this. Spam them all day. Make it even more obvious that there is plenty of worthwhile discussion to be had about the cosmological model as we are handed it.
3 Seth__Rich 2018-07-21
I see it that way with the believers actually. Vast vast majority wouldn't be able to solve an orbital mechanics or even a simple differential equation problem to save their lives.
3 joe_jaywalker 2018-07-21
Implying that most Globies can "solve an orbital mechanics or even a simple differential equation problem to save their lives."
2 turtlew0rk 2018-07-21
Its F'd up what they did to you bra
1 procgen 2018-07-21
When you actually sit down to start working it out, you realize that the stars map perfectly to the surface of a sphere - the predictions can be made with perfect accuracy by calculating the orientation of this spherical projection around a spherical Earth. That explains why there are completely different stars visible in the southern hemisphere vs the northern, and why they spin in circles above the horizon (https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/MillerSouthernStarTrails.jpg). Polaris dips below the horizon as you move from the northern hemisphere to the southern. Can you explain these phenomena with a flat earth model? I know you can't, at least beyond calling it a 'trick of perspective'. But you will not be able to explain it further, because no flat earth explanation will square up with all observations.
I'm not a christian, so theological explanations don't carry water as far as I'm concerned. You'll need to explain things with reason, and with events that can be directly observed by anyone. If you can't, then flat earth theory is no more convincing than christian mythology. Of course this would not be an issue for you, but I suspect it would be rather unconvincing for many others.
1 BillNyeScienceLies 2018-07-21
-the candle is in an enclosed environment and isn't really a viable comparison. The sun is traveling through space and should have a debris trail.
Edit- formatting