[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 12 KB, 220x220, 220px-Flat_earth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425165 No.5425165[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

Why are they wrong?

>> No.5425171
File: 24 KB, 321x379, 1341049660795.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425171

>>5425165
>Why are they wrong?
coz earth aint flat
>DDDUUUUURRRRRR!!

>> No.5425181

>>5425171
>appeal to common sense

>> No.5425186

>>5425171
Pleb.

You didn't understand the deeper philosophical implications of OP's question. What does it mean to be wrong? What is truth? Does truth universally exist or is it only a social construct?

>> No.5425188
File: 4 KB, 145x130, 1259631398940.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425188

>>5425181
I chuckled.

>> No.5425196
File: 1.52 MB, 2060x2060, Peirce_quincuncial_projection_SW_20W_tiles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425196

I just discovered a song about this.
They think they're right
But they are wrong
Cause baby the world ain't round
It's square.

Also, it's an infinitely repeating pattern.

>> No.5425202
File: 123 KB, 568x570, earthrise.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425202

>>5425181
want visual proof?
<<<

""Earthrise," the first picture taken of planet Earth by people orbiting the moon. This shot was captured by Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders on December 24, 1968, as his spacecraft became the first to fly around the moon."

>> No.5425213

>>5425202
> no_stars.png

>> No.5425220

>>5425213
Because the suns glare was blocking them out, like if you look at a bright light in a dark room, you can't see anything behind it

>> No.5425221

>>5425202
>no stars
>half of earth missing

Looks flat to me.

>> No.5425222

>>5425202
How do you know this is a real photograph?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Conspiracy

>> No.5425227

>>5425202
failed shoop is failed

Half of the earth is missing.

>> No.5425233

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8

>> No.5425243
File: 13 KB, 300x200, Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425243

>>5425221
>>5425222
Want some reasons to prove you wrong?
1. All over celestial bodies we look at, are round, why wouldn't we be?
2. If the earth was flat, sunrise and sunset would not exist.
3.We have photographic proof.
>Hoping you are trolling
>Science facepalm if not

>> No.5425249

>>5425243
>over
FUCK. That's how much this thread hurt me, it made me spell 'other' wrong.

>> No.5425255

>>5425243
1. They're disks on the heavenly vault
2. Sunrise and sunset happen when the sun rotate around the disk, lighting alternatively one side and the other
3. Shops.

>> No.5425268
File: 10 KB, 404x342, 13635679.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425268

>>5425213
oh yeah...
why not?

>> No.5425269

>>5425233
All of those can be explained in the flat earth model. Read the FAQ.

>>5425243
>1. All over celestial bodies we look at, are round, why wouldn't we be?
Faulty inference. All celestial bodies we observe don't have any life on them either.

>2. If the earth was flat, sunrise and sunset would not exist.
Wrong.

>3.We have photographic proof.
Photographs are easily faked.

>> No.5425275
File: 52 KB, 500x391, i-m-out...-640x501_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425275

>>5425255
>Heavenly vault
>'Heavenly'
And you deem your facts to be correct, when it is named after a fictional place which does not exist.
>I'm out.
Fuck this. Ignorance of basic science is ridiculous.

>> No.5425297

>>5425269
One last thing. Whether you think it's true or not, has no effect. Science is the explanation of how and why something is what it is. It's the reasoning for why things work, no matter of anybodies opinion. If i shit on my desk, no matter how hard i believe it's a fine steak, there's still a shit on the desk.

>> No.5425301

All people of logic should follow the rule that "nothing exists until proven to do so". So far a round earth is FAR more likely to exist given all the research that's been done. The scientific method also confirms it and scientists have retested it over and over. Inb4 reply linking to biased results.

>> No.5425308

>>5425275
>And you deem your facts to be correct, when it is named after a fictional place which does not exist.
Words can mean many different things. Learn to understand context.

>Fuck this. Ignorance of basic science is ridiculous.
Who or what made you assert this? You're committing an association fallacy.

>> No.5425309

shut it down

>> No.5425312

>>5425297
What is the relevance of your post?

>Science is the explanation of how and why something is what it is.
Science only explains how, not why. Science cannot tell me why gravity exists. That is left for philosophy.

>> No.5425318

>>5425301
>So far a round earth is FAR more likely to exist given all the research that's been done.
Why? What research?

>The scientific method also confirms it and scientists have retested it over and over.
Show me the research. Until then you're just appealing to an authority.

>> No.5425328

OP here.
do the anons here actually believe this?

>> No.5425339

>>5425328
I'm >>5425255 and I don't.

>> No.5425345
File: 308 KB, 538x552, MAP of Inner Earth .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425345

>>5425339
>>5425328
Because the earth is actually a hollow sphere.

>> No.5425357

>>5425318
If you had even the slightest amount of intelliegnce you would have googled it instead of setting everyone up for a stupid game of "I'm going to show my only two friends how retarded I am - I mean, how good I am at troling."

>> No.5425373

>>5425357
It's not my burden of proof. That's a very emotional insult you have right there.

>> No.5425376

>Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"

>A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon.

Sometimes it's like they're not even trying.

>> No.5425390

The problem with a flat earth model is that It's far more complex and convoluted than it's round Earth counterpart, whilst simultaneously being worse at predicting everything.

Trying to debate them is an excellent exercise in logical reasoning and critical thinking, through.

>> No.5425408

The first implications of the Earth not being flat were from looking at the horizon as ships sailed away. One would think, if the volume of the ship is staying the same in reality, then why am I only beginning to see the top of it until it completely goes out of view? Oh yeah, because of a height difference, which means the curvature of our surface varies, which means it cannot be flat.

>> No.5425409

>>5425345
Oh shit

>> No.5425419

>>5425345
Don't forget the glass sky.

>> No.5425452

I've been to this site and I think there is only a few individuals on the board that actually believe the Earth is flat. However, you'll be surprised at the reasoning they come up with and how much of an argument they can propose against seemingly obvious things that make the Earth round. (For example, the Sun rotates around the North pole of this flat disk, accounting for sunrise and sunset.)

They do rely on the NASA conspiracy way to freaking much, which is probably their biggest weak point.

>> No.5425520

>>5425165
Because we have more than just evidence, we have direct and specific experience of the opposite.

>> No.5425529

>>5425213

If you knew the smallest thing about photography,
you'd know why this is ridiculous.

Also, there are many stars in that photograph.

>> No.5425535

>>5425222

So, they are suggesting not only that something plain to us isn't true, and that all of our experience and knowledge is wrong, but that all of the convincing proof is conspiracy?

Is there ANY point at which you just have to say that their tiny, short little thoughts don't stack up against the massive, interminably convincing and evident other side?

>> No.5425549

>>5425452
>(For example, the Sun rotates around the North pole of this flat disk, accounting for sunrise and sunset.)


Perhaps, but their 'explanation' just leaves massive holes in all other physical events and processes.
How does a disc form, maintain, and not have effects of distance from that solar body?
What makes all other observable bodies spherical, or what holds us flat?
Why should the sun have an orbit so specifically in that pattern? Is there a rule of physics that makes it happen?

The members don't just have to show a way that the observed thing COULD happen; they have to make it fit in with EVERY rule of physics we know. ALL of the rules. Period.

>> No.5425569

>>5425165

for all practical reasons like GPS, other satellites, plane flights, telecommunications etc. etc.

it's more practical and makes the math work when the earth is spherical. so even if it is flat, obviously it aids our understanding if it's round and if it helps us make flight routes then it's practically correct.

at least, this is how I would argue it to a flat earthist.

>> No.5425570

You can argue that any fact is false by saying that you consider the means through which this fact was established to be false.

ie. You flew across the south pole and ended up at the north:

How do you prove that you took this route? Your navigational equipment? We believe your navigational devices are involved in a government conspiracy and provide false information.

Video proof? We believe that this video is edited and faked, and we do not consider it proof.

As someone on this thread said, this is an excellent place to practice how to argue your point of view, but it is a treadmill, you're never going to win.

>> No.5425575
File: 4 KB, 300x57, imag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425575

>>5425570

hence why I would argue from practicality, that even if the earth was flat we should assume it's round because it's more practical. for example flat earthists have really screwed up distances between cities and you can relatively easily verify these distances firsthand in an airplane or something. they would have to argue that the plane was designed to change its speed in accordance with the government conspiracy, which even they couldn't admit. if it was a small plane they could stick their hand out the window and that means the air currents would also have to be a government conspiracy.

>> No.5425586

>>5425575

To them, a flat earth model is more practical. Read some posts, you'll see what i mean. They are also arguing practicality against us.

You also can't measure air currents by putting your hand out the window - because of wind. They'll simply say there was wind blowing behind you making you think you're moving faster than you really are. And you can't prove it wrong with instruments, because all devices are part of the conspiracy, even simple analogue ones.

>> No.5425597

Put a stick in the ground and measure the angle and length of shadow at noon. Travel 200 miles north or south and do the same thing. You now can see that the earth is curve and calculate the circumference. If it's round north and south and round east and west, it's a round object.

if the earth was flat there would be no horizons. everything would be visible on the same plane. there would be no time zones, noon would be the same everywhere. you wouldn't be able to see further by being up higher. and the same stars would be visible at all times

the center of mass of a plane is it's center. so on a plane we'd slide toward the middle.

You can travel on the surface of the earth in a triangle so that each angle is 90 degrees. that can't be done on a flat surface.

All the other planets and moons are round. Why would Earth be different?

All these are independently verifiable. It requires math and a willingness to do the measurements and observations. You don't have to rely on scientists or the bible (which mentions the earth's round shape).

>> No.5425602

>>5425586
>even simple analogue ones

I understand the first part of your post regarding practicality, but this seems excessive. You can, by hand, construct a rudimentary airspeed indicator. By yourself. Assuming you flew between two cities and the distance was consistent with the round earth model, you would have to invalidate the evidence by claiming:

-the air currents were manipulated by the government
-the material properties of the instrument were manipulated by the government

That just seems way too stupid for anyone to postulate, even a flat earthist. Surely if YOU experience it firsthand then it's valid evidence? And if you can invalidate your own observation, then why can you form any opinion at all?

>>5425597

Someone posted pictures of a sailboat sailing over the horizon. The response? Light rays bend. QED motherfucker.

>> No.5425608

>>5425602

Okay, you built a rudimentary airspeed detector.

Present the detector to them, so they can prove that it is in fact working properly

Oh wait, you're arguing on the internet...

>> No.5425609

>>5425602

Also you could get your flat earthist buddies to measure the windspeed while on the ground using similar means.

>> No.5425612

>>5425608
>you built a rudimentary airspeed detector

you'd have to make THEM do it, that's the point. I'm actually a north pole guard hired by the government, I ride polar bears.

>> No.5425613

>>5425602

>posted pictures

Did I say anything about photos? Go do the experiment in person. Besides, lightwaves bend because of gravity. The center of mass of a plane is the center. So the lightwaves would bend more the closer you get to the center of mass. This means the lightwaves wouldn't bend all that much at the edge of the plane. So all they have to do is go sailing around the south pole.

You guys are pretending proving stuff is harder than it has to be. If a person is so skeptical as to deny independent verification then it doesn't matter what the shape of the earth is. there's no use arguing with them.

>> No.5425621

>>5425613
>If a person is so skeptical as to deny independent verification then it doesn't matter what the shape of the earth is. there's no use arguing with them.

I like this statement. But I think most people here are arguing for themselves, not actually to convince others.

>> No.5425625

>>5425165
Because you can travel in a straight line in any direction and return to where you started..

>> No.5425628

>>5425621

>most people here are arguing for themselves, not actually to convince others.

Pretty much. I have no intention of actually arguing with these people, i might as well walk into a church service and shout god isn't real.

>> No.5425633

>>5425621
>>5425628

Why are you arguing for yourselves? Do you not know why the Earth is round? Are you just testing your own knowledge?

>> No.5425638

>>5425165

I thought the Flat Earth Society is a POE.

>> No.5425641

>>5425633

Testing my own ability to argue with bullshit. I'd hate to be caught unprepared by one of these people. And thank god you don't need a license for logical thinking, yet.

>> No.5425700

>>5425641

Bayesian Judo.

You can usually trip them up by exposing the disparity between their expectations and beliefs. When you get in a situation like this:

"The earth is round"
"It is not"
"But you see a ship sailing over the horizon"
"The light is simply curving"
"We have photos from space"
"They're part of the conspiracy"
etc

No matter what you say, they have an excuse ready. This shows that they must know, on some level, that the earth is actually round because they know exactly what evidence to disregard in order to maintain their stance. Someone who has no idea that the earth is round or doesn't expect it to be round can't argue that way. They can't tit-for-tat you. They anticipate that the earth is round or they wouldn't have explanations why you're wrong on hand.

Remember, all the while there is a severe cognitive dissonance going on. They're thinking to themselves "The earth is flat" but then they come face to face with compelling evidence." This causes major frustration.

>> No.5425703
File: 267 KB, 575x358, outpost user sees an unusual trade.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425703

>>5425641
>license for logical thinking

That... actually sounds like a decent idea. Make it an optional but really helpful thing like how driver's licenses are. And make it a nametag. That way whenever someone stupid says something, you can look at their chest and think 'Literally confirmed for retarded.' and save yourself the increased blood pressure of trying to argue with them. Everybody wins!

>> No.5425726

>>5425700

That's actually a very interesting point, thanks for pointing it out.

>> No.5425735
File: 219 KB, 323x320, 1334628552163.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425735

>>5425703

>save yourself the increased blood pressure of trying to argue with them

Oh yes. I feel like I'm going to need medication in a few years. So many of these people around me.

>> No.5425755
File: 104 KB, 800x450, sephiroth on antidepressants.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5425755

>>5425703

>woman gets logic license; misanthropic 4channers at same bureau don't
>man gets license and several women don't
>black guy gets one and several whites don't

Please, please, PLEASE let something like this happen in my lifetime just so I can watch the ensuing fallout.

>> No.5425787

>>5425202
so the earth is semi-circular?
Everyone is half right

>> No.5425794

>>5425181
>nearly chocked to death on hot chocolate
dam lost my cozy

>> No.5425801

Nobody mentions pendulums? lul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

>> No.5425812

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8

Because all of these reasons

>> No.5425840

I've come to the conclusion that is a troll site

>> No.5425868

There is no reasoning with unreasonable people.

>> No.5425869

>>5425243

Perhaps I can be of some assistance here.

It's not so much a process of waking up one day and saying "Huh, well I guess the earth is flat, then" as it is a process of asking one's self "What do I REALLY know about the universe around me?" Once that question got into my brain, there was no turning back.

On to your concerns. It isn't that we don't believe in gravity (well, some don't, but that's another story). Gravity as defined by Newton and as refined by Einstein are fairly rational - however, Einstein may the key discovery that gravity as we know it on earth is identical to acceleration. The large majority of flat earth theorists claim that acceleration, and not gravity (or at least not SOLELY gravity) is the force that holds us onto the surface of the earth.

It is believed that the entire visible universe is being propelled along a singular vector (defined here on earth as "up") by a force known as Dark Energy (or Aetheric Wind), and is in fact accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. The reason for this belief is that on a flat, disc-shaped earth, traditional gravity would tend to pull toward the centre of mass, and not straight downward - in other words, people farther from the centre of the disc would tend to lean, as would trees, structures, etc, to compensate.

There is an alternate model (The Davis Model) that theorizes an infinite plane rather than a disc, and in this model gravity behaves very much as it does in RET, thanks to Gauss' Law. Gravity on an infinite plane does pull straight down, and this has been mathematically proven elsewhere.

As for which model I personally subscribe to, I'm non-committal at the moment. I like the aesthetics of the disc model, but I must admit I'm quite intrigued by the Davis model's elegance. Both are admittedly incomplete, and until my own personal observations can illuminate one over the other, I will refrain from a definite statement of belief.

>> No.5426286

>>5425869
>and in this model gravity behaves very much as it does in RET, thanks to Gauss' Law
This couldn't be right.

>> No.5426297

>>5425869
My uncle visited Amundsen-Scott Station. I don't need more proof than that.

>> No.5426308

Shadows

>> No.5426309

>>5425602
But that makes you part of the conspiracy.