# flat earth theory



## Macrosapien

Flat earth go!










This guy explains the theory:






And Exhibit A proof:






So is NASA the devil, astrophysics and astronomy a clever ruse that has been deceiving us this entire time? 

Aspiring scientist and those who love science, are you brave enough to face the truth and taste the future?

Thoughts?


----------



## Loaf




----------



## Macrosapien

Loaf said:


>


heh very serious. this is an actual theory people have who support flat earth,

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Modern_period
[/URL]


----------



## Loaf

Okay, I don't buy it myself, considering old apollo 8 footage clearly shows a curvature of the earth, and water doesn't run off the edges lmao. It's just seems a retarded idea to me, considering science has pretty much proved its round.


----------



## Macrosapien

supposedly it turns out we have all been deceived by NASA, which is where all that footage was created by, See this stuff, to many flat earthers tie into NWO and Illuminati, a spherical earth is one of their slight of hand tactics. not all flat earthers believe this, but only flat earthers do, and those who don't they still think some from of deception is occurring to the masses.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

Math supports oblate spheroid Earth. I trust math over the "common intutuion" of someone. Common intuition says .999 repeating does not equal 1. Math wins.


----------



## Macrosapien

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Math supports oblate spheroid Earth. I trust math over the "common intutuion" of someone. Common intuition says .999 repeating does not equal 1. Math wins.


You even know the correct shape, oblate spheroid, you are Yoda.


----------



## BigApplePi

I believe there is a lesson and meaning to this "flat earth" thing. If one is confined to a certain area the Earth does look flat. Locally there are peaks and valleys but on the average it all evens out. If one has never traveled beyond the local it seems a reasonable theory. What people say outside ones' locality is just hearsay. (Reminds me of those in Plato's cave.)

Now anyone outside this locality who is much more experienced and sophisticated might like to convince the local loco locals they are wrong. This is not doable, is it? Aren't we all like this? That is, we fail to believe what is outside our own sphere of knowledge!


----------



## Macrosapien

This is proof, supposedly, an scientific experiment.


----------



## BigApplePi

What? Gimme that proof again? You say that proves the Earth is flat? I was sure it wasn't but now mebbe you are right. Gee.


----------



## BigApplePi

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Math supports oblate spheroid Earth. I trust math over the "common intutuion" of someone. Common intuition says .999 repeating does not equal 1. Math wins.


Yeah but can you trust math? I once saw one man and one woman walk into an empty house. (I checked it out prior.) I kept a careful eye and nine months later out they walked with a baby. Therefore 1 + 1 = 3 though most would stick to 1 + 1 = 2.


----------



## Clyme

I wasn't able to watch the videos because of my slow internet, but without even referring to the overwhelming evidence for a round Earth, wouldn't it be equally light everywhere on the Earth if it were flat? (While the sun was up, that is).


----------



## BigApplePi

Clyme said:


> I wasn't able to watch the videos because of my slow internet, but without even referring to the overwhelming evidence for a round Earth, wouldn't it be equally light everywhere on the Earth if it were flat? (While the sun was up, that is).


I've yet to look at all that evidence but my impression is that as the Sun moves across the Earth the shadows get longer and you get that dimming at the edges at sunset time.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Anyone who has studied astrophysics/physics knows that bodies tend to minimize the surface area needed to contain a specific volume, which is why planets, water droplets, and bubbles (among many other things) are spherical. To be more specific, for planets and stars, the gravitational potential energy is minimized when they're spheres. Having a flat Earth would go against everything we know about physics.


----------



## Clyme

BigApplePi said:


> I've yet to look at all that evidence but my impression is that as the Sun moves across the Earth the shadows get longer and you get that dimming at the edges at sunset time.


Wait, do you sincerely believe the Earth is flat?
Well, you can be in the United States in broad daylight and speak with someone in Australia who would tell you that it is complete darkness. There's no middle-of-the-road lighting that could be construed as the stretching of shadows.


----------



## Arcane

It is a theory. 

That has been disproved for ages.


----------



## BigApplePi

Clyme said:


> Wait, do you sincerely believe the Earth is flat?


I don't say I believe that but am entertaining how it might be possible.




> Well, you can be in the United States in broad daylight and speak with someone in Australia who would tell you that it is complete darkness. There's no middle-of-the-road lighting that could be construed as the stretching of shadows.


Speaking to an Aussie down under? That's a mighty big streeetch for an ignert fellow like me. I know it gets light and dark where I am. That Aussie must be on the underside. No wonder he can't see anything.


----------



## Roland Khan

It's already been definitevly (sp?) proven it's round, saying anything otherwise is just silly and in some cases stupid (where you should actually know better [no excuse of ignorance] but don't, then it's stupid).

Hell, this was disproven centuries ago with even less direct evidence/knowledge we have now, so yeah to continue believing this goes passed the state of ignorance and into willful ignorance (aka stupid).


----------



## Bahburah

While I do believe that everyone could be tricked like this.


You can see that the earth is round by looking at the ocean or the sky.

Also the fact that you can't see forever because the earth curves.



I also just think that the theme of our universe is roundness. lol

Thats why planets are round, and go in circles, and how life is metaphorically round.


----------



## Bahburah

Loaf said:


> Okay, I don't buy it myself, considering old apollo 8 footage clearly shows a curvature of the earth, and water doesn't run off the edges lmao. It's just seems a retarded idea to me, considering science has pretty much proved its round.


Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but you only have been fead information from the top down.

So quoting science is similar to quoting the bible or something since your just trusting that belief and what you have been told.


----------



## Loaf

Bahburah said:


> Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but you only have been fead information from the top down.
> 
> So quoting science is similar to quoting the bible or something since your just trusting that belief and what you have been told.


But science has proven the bible wrong on a few other things like how we evolved and the how planets and the universe are created and so forth.


----------



## Roland Khan

Get in a plane....fly in a straight line going forward.

Do you end up falling off the earth (going into space) or instead eventually reach the same point you started from? Sure, given the curvature if you fly perfectly straight in a stricter sense of the word then yeah you go into space, but that's not from the earth being flat, it's from you not following the curvature. Yet, if you go straight but remain on the curve, you will eventually reach your starting point, case closed.

Anybody falling for this flat-earth "theory" is gullible and possibly a fool, sorry if that sounds harsh but you* really should know better.:dry:


*not referring to OP as I understand just bringing this up for entertainment and hasn't made any claims of believing it

**but yet you are still seeming to give it some merit by posting this crap for others to fall for :frustrating:


----------



## BigApplePi

Roland787 said:


> Get in a plane....fly in a straight line going forward.
> 
> Do you end up falling off the earth (going into space) or instead eventually reach the same point you started from? Sure, given the curvature if you fly perfectly straight in a stricter sense of the word then yeah you go into space, but that's not from the earth being flat, it's from you not following the curvature. Yet, if you go straight but remain on the curve, you will eventually reach your starting point, case closed.
> 
> Anybody falling for this flat-earth "theory" is gullible and possibly a fool, sorry if that sounds harsh but you* really should know better.:dry:
> 
> 
> *not referring to OP as I understand just bringing this up for entertainment and hasn't made any claims of believing it
> 
> **but yet you are still seeming to give it some merit by posting this crap for others to fall for :frustrating:


Some people have a vested interest in these theories. What could be their motives? Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life and shown the thumbscrews should he publish his works about how the Earth moves.


----------



## Roland Khan

BigApplePi said:


> Some people have a vested interest in these theories. What could be their motives? Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life and shown the thumbscrews should he publish his works about how the Earth moves.


Religious leaders don't appreciate things that contradict their holy text (authority) and back then would commit those who did to death. 

What's the point here?


----------



## Leaf on the Wind

My internet is too crappy to watch the videos.

Which is just as well: I'd rather destroy my brain cells with alcohol then with crackpot flat-earth theory. It's much more fun.


----------



## Bahburah

Loaf said:


> But science has proven the bible wrong on a few other things like how we evolved and the how planets and the universe are created and so forth.


Yes, but you fail to see that science is just another belief system.

While the scientific method is true, most people will just believe in something simply because a scientist says so, and science has been wrong before and there are theories always disproving older theories. So what does that say?

It's no closer to the truth than religion, it just approaches truth in a more realistic way.

But scientific reality is only based on theory and speculation of what is happening, much like religion. lol


----------



## Loaf

Bahburah said:


> Yes, but you fail to see that science is just another belief system.
> 
> While the scientific method is true, most people will just believe in something simply because a scientist says so, and science has been wrong before and there are theories always disproving older theories. So what does that say?
> 
> It's no closer to the truth than religion, it just approaches truth in a more realistic way.
> 
> But scientific reality is only based on theory and speculation of what is happening, much like religion. lol



Yes, but it is more believable than religion.


----------



## Roland Khan

Bahburah said:


> It's no closer to the truth than religion, it just approaches truth in a more realistic way.


Really?



:laughing::laughing::laughing:





I'm not saying it's perfect or infallible, but to go as far as saying it's "no closer to the truth than religion" is just naive.


----------



## Clyme

BigApplePi said:


> I don't say I believe that but am entertaining how it might be possible.
> 
> 
> Speaking to an Aussie down under? That's a mighty big streeetch for an ignert fellow like me. I know it gets light and dark where I am. That Aussie must be on the underside. No wonder he can't see anything.


Ah, my bad. I had made the assumption that you proposed, with the world being flat, that all locations on the Earth (like continents and so forth) were on the top. Which places do you believe are on the bottom and which places do you believe are on the top? How do you draw this conclusion?


----------



## Macrosapien

Bahburah said:


> While I do believe that everyone could be tricked like this.
> 
> 
> You can see that the earth is round by looking at the ocean or the sky.
> 
> Also the fact that you can't see forever because the earth curves.
> 
> 
> 
> I also just think that the theme of our universe is roundness. lol
> 
> Thats why planets are round, and go in circles, and how life is metaphorically round.


 A co-worker brought all this stuff up, that he was a flat earther etc. I gave him many things to think about. I said do you believe in the planets, he said yes. I said to him, well, if the moon, sun, and other planets are circular shapes that you can distinctively see and not flat domes, why is earth any different? And his eyes got big and he was like, yeah that is a good point. lol. Then I mentioned and why does everything that fall to the surface or atmosphere of earth have a spherical formation, like meteors.... again he didnt know. 

Later on I had asked him, how does the moon have phases (if it has its own light, doesn't reflect the light of the sun, and if it is a disk), but he had no answer... and i asked him, why is it hotter in some places and not in others? A spherical earth shows that the earth is not a perfect circle, and at the point of the equator, the earth sticks out more, thus it is closer to the sun.... but if the earth is flat this doesn't exist, so wouldnt every place be the same temperature? Again no answer... I WAS going to mention emission spectrum, as he doesn't believe in galaxy and other planets outside of our solar system, when of course we can see the light emission spectrum of elements of other planets, and we can know what elements make up the planet, and how similar these elements are to our own earth, our sun, our moon, and so forth.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Your coworker is stupid. End of story.


----------



## BigApplePi

Roland787 said:


> Religious leaders don't appreciate things that contradict their holy text (authority) and back then would commit those who did to death.
> 
> What's the point here?


I am looking for a general point and didn't means to get into religious motives. It has to do with motives and action in general. All those points about ignorance and stupidity are valid. But I'm after this: Any time one has a motive to do or believe something, be it stupid or smart, there is the need to shut out alternatives. When a soldier charges a hill, he abandons other alternatives even if those alternatives may save his life. Same here. A flat earther may have motives we don't know about. We may decide the motive is to remain ignorant and remain stupid, but in the general case, that does not apply.

This is possible even though unlikely: A flat earther could be that way tongue-in-cheek trying to test other people's skills in proving him wrong. Look at this thread to find evidence. It's like being the devil's advocate.


----------



## Roland Khan




----------



## Hiemal

I'll just place this here.


----------



## Roland Khan

BigApplePi said:


> I am looking for a general point and didn't means to get into religious motives. It has to do with motives and action in general. All those points about ignorance and stupidity are valid. But I'm after this: Any time one has a motive to do or believe something, be it stupid or smart, there is the need to shut out alternatives. When a soldier charges a hill, he abandons other alternatives even if those alternatives may save his life. Same here. A flat earther may have motives we don't know about. We may decide the motive is to remain ignorant and remain stupid, but in the general case, that does not apply.
> 
> This is possible even though unlikely: A flat earther could be that way tongue-in-cheek trying to test other people's skills in proving him wrong. Look at this thread to find evidence. It's like being the devil's advocate.


Yeah I understand, I even pointed out that I wasn't directing said criticism at the OP because I understood he was just playing devil's advocate here. 



Thing is though, we have definitive proof the earth is round and in fact is not flat, so to still believe it's flat or to even give any merit to the claim *is* stupid...but I suppose it may be entertainment, but it would be the same as my playing devil's advocate saying that the sky is red, utterly pointless and not really a debate or anything.

Maybe this thread is just a test to see if it can draw out any of the stupid (yes, I do mean that, not going to dumb it down in order to spare people's feelings who choose to remain ignorant) people here who actually believe it?



"I want to play devil's advocate and have a fun debate. The earth is flat..."

*insert proof earth is round*

/End of debate

*insert masterdebater joke*


----------



## Macrosapien

Hiemal said:


> I'll just place this here.


Fake. the earth must be incredibly small for this to occur, or that ship is actually sinking, a clever trick indeed.


----------



## Roland Khan

Yeah, the ship would've started to appear much smaller before it started to dip below the horizon...in this video it appears to be sinking some and then eventually goes below the horizon later, but even then the video seems off somehow...it's possible I'm looking at it wrong or not thinking of something, but the video does seem "doctored".


----------



## Hiemal

Roland787 said:


> Yeah, the ship would've started to appear much smaller before it started to dip below the horizon...in this video it appears to be sinking some and then eventually goes below the horizon later, but even then the video seems off somehow...it's possible I'm looking at it wrong or not thinking of something, but the video does seem "doctored".


What prompted me to search for the video in the first place to place here is because I've witnessed this same phenomenon occur several times before. 

This happens regardless of the debate on whether or not earth is flat or round because it is observable. You can observe this for yourself at a coastal area if you are willing to wait the time it takes for the ship to go from a point to below the horizon.

Now, whether or not the observation is a mirage or another phenomena, is a different question entirely.


----------



## Uralian Hamster

It was probably sinking, they used to do this to retired ships. The earth is definitely flat.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

Question: Is it also believed that asteroids, and meteorites are flat?


----------



## Macrosapien

Roland787 said:


> Regarding France I can *know* (for as close to being able to know anything is possible) it exists and has it's own government and citizens, however I can't *know* as confidently what goes on there, only what I read about what goes on and then the understanding of knowing that different people will have differing opinions on what the things that happen there are like and from different biases and whatnot.


Well, its nothing wrong with not failing to suspect. Unless you are in France, you can't know the experience of France. And often what we see on the media isn't an actual reflection often of what maybe happening, a lot of the stuff we come to believe in has a good message of faith in it and knowledge, what we read out of books, is nearly entirely faith-based, there is a bunch of experts on various topics even though they have never been to nor even seen the subject manner they speak so confidently about. 

What I said on France could be viewed a number of ways. I can read articles on France, I can watch documentaries, and watch news related to it, this gives me a sense of having a awareness of what happens in France. Although of course, I don't know how genuine, factual, complete, or not this information is. At the same time, "France" may exists only in our own concept of it, but France does not exists as a thing, it is a human invention, and in relation to the life of the earth, it has no real quantitative reality. But what is true, beyond all doubt, I don't know what is occurring in France unless I am there, I can not say what has happened, unless I see it. My experiences are arbitrary, I rise and sleep with my own consciousness, and as a result I can only know what I have experienced directly. For instance, I can look at documentaries on North Korea, and I can come to two conclusions, that this is how North Korea is, or this is likely how North Korea is, I pick the later, as I don't know how much I can believe in reports or documented stories, although it seems likely to me, given the rhetoric of North Korea, that this is what occurs, after all why would survivors need to lie? But the Media needs to, they have an agenda they are painting. People see America around the world very different than Americans. I know people who think America is such a dangerous place, but is this a fact as a whole? Crime has been steadily going down since the 80's, so why do they think this way? The media. 

As far as the earth being round, LOL, it's just entirely logical, with what we know about what takes place in the earth, which makes no sense with a flat earth theory, unless you are putting "God" in it or coming up with some outrageous explanation of gravity. But at the same time some aspects of flat earth theory is logical to the naked eye, from the perspective of where you are. All of this is perspective, all of this depends on your positional and experimental advantage or disadvantage. Like someone mentioned plato's cave, the perspective of the world of the cave is a lot different than the reality outside of it, but it isnt that those in the cave are necessarily wrong, what they see, is related to where they are at, their perspective -- and of that little which is seen, people project their ideas, their beliefs which they form based on what is available to their based vision. So flat earth is true, it's just a lesser truth, that is explained, and appears different at a higher vantage point, which then makes the lesser truth appear different. So, while I have NOT seen the sun from the perspective of space with my own eyes directly,nor the earth, it is very probable that the earth is a Oblate Spheriod, that is spinning in its orbit around the earth. It is highly likely that the phases of moon are not just some think God does for the recording of signs lol. Knowing what I do abut Christianity, that whole foundation is flawed, and the religion is not what fundamentalist look at it today.


----------



## donkeybals

Roland787 said:


> I'm not angry, lol. Just find it kind of stupid to actually believe otherwise. It'd be the same if I were to claim the sky is red, but everybody's sight is deceiving them and scientists just want us to believe what they say about lightwaves so we think they so smart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry some bother to be offended by it, but it's my opinion so therefore I'm completely justified in thinking it's true and telling others.:shocked::laughing:


Ya, does not seem you are angry I didn't mean you ha. Also, thought about the different color thing, it wouldn't surprise me if others saw colors slightly different from myself. Completely different how would I know? Just saying there is nothing wrong with a difference of thought or idea. At least I don't think so, I wish more people would investigate things instead of just being fed them. I mean, theoretically if everyone accepts the accepted beliefs there would be no progressive ideas and such. I'm not asking for you to agree with me either, but its nice to have a talk about an idea without calling each other idiots. You know? No problems here @Roland787


----------



## WitchPuddin

@donkeybals 
To my understanding, we know that we see the same colors because we all have the same variety of cone cells in our eyes (unless someone is color blind), but that's just a really quick summary.






I watched this awhile ago, but I feel like it covers that question of 'do you see what i see'.


----------



## donkeybals

^ Ya, but honestly, how could you or I verify this? How could anyone. As to why I'm saying our thoughts and ideas mainly come from a trusted source. AKA government officials, whom have lied to us before. Why can't they lie to us about this, how would you prove it? You and I or anyone else know nothing about this sh*t, its a very small group of people who we haven't even come in contact with. How do they know my life? Let alone the colors I see..... lol. See what I'm getting at? Theoterically "they" could make claims that it is proven that we've discovered intellegent life on another planet, and the source is immediately trusted based on no self investigation. You see, these telescopes and such prove xyz behavior and no one knows what the f*** they are talking about and trust the source somehow? Its all propaganda.


----------



## donkeybals

And I'm not finished lol. XD Also, just thinking about the facts here. For some reason, they have convinced me us America, that there is a hierachy system here. Blacks are below us. Mexicans are below us. Indians are way below us. And people from Iraq are terrorists. Its all bullsh*t, in my eyes, I have black friends who are made to feel inferior for no reason. Same with Iraq. I just say, why do they make us think this way? All propaganda and TV f*ck your racist jokes, they mean nothing to me. I like animals and plants also...................


----------



## Clyme

BigApplePi said:


> The internet narrative has its limitations. I probably muffed my reply.
> 
> People who believe in flat Earth are special people. I was trying to address what some might say are "closed" minds but I'm not ready to use that term. I was interested in investigating the nature of and motive for this closure. I don't think a flat Earth believer would say they have a closed mind. They have something else which deserves a closer look and may be different for different people.


They're special people?
Well, I personally wouldn't so hastily classify any group of people who believe a proposition as closed-minded. It doesn't matter whether someone is a Christian, flat-earth believer, or someone who believes evolution occurred. Whatever it is, I will never so hastily claim someone is closed-minded based purely on their belief. If they, however, refuse to alter their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then I would call them closed-minded. I'd call them delusional as well.



BigApplePi said:


> I believe you are addressing here: How do we know things? How can we look at the nature of belief/knowledge and how it is arrived at? I think belief has to do not just with quantity of "evidence" but how it is woven into a consistent picture that somehow floods the brain. If someone says they've traveled to another location, they could be lying. We look at what they say and how they paint the picture. A good actor can paint such a picture so that is not enough. However interaction and asking questions goes into detail. Even a good actor can't predict all the analytical questions you are going to ask. When we receive their answer, we check what he says against the picture in our minds for consistency. Then we believe accordingly.


Yes, I'm addressing an issue of epistemology. You're right, somebody could be lying, and eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable, but if you're willing to dismiss every piece of evidence contrary to your own conclusion, then you're simply ignoring evidence. By using the standards you're applying to this particular case, you're able to rationalize believing anything with nay more a reason than "I like how that conclusion sounds". It's all arbitrary belief with no reason. I'll concede that I wasn't positing very strong evidence for the Earth being round because I didn't quite take you seriously to begin with, but at the end of the day, if you're going to arbitrarily set what standards of evidence count for this particular case, you're both making an argument from ignorance and potentially committing a fallacy of special pleading as well.


----------



## BigApplePi

I believe universal truths are few and hard to find. Even though evidence can seem to be overwhelming, looking for exceptions can blow the universality of a prospective truth.


Clyme said:


> They're special people?If they, however, refuse to alter their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then I would call them closed-minded. I'd call them delusional as well.
> 
> Yes, I'm addressing an issue of epistemology. You're right, somebody could be lying, and eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable, but if you're willing to dismiss every piece of evidence contrary to your own conclusion, then you're simply ignoring evidence. By using the standards you're applying to this particular case, you're able to rationalize believing anything with nay more a reason than "I like how that conclusion sounds". It's all arbitrary belief with no reason. I'll concede that I wasn't positing very strong evidence for the Earth being round because I didn't quite take you seriously to begin with, but at the end of the day,


Since this is a flat Earth thread, let's use that as an example though defining what this is an example of may not be so easy. Let's suppose we have a flat Earther. Four assumptions:

(1) His friends and relatives are all also flat Earthers.
(2) His narrow and possibly misguided evidence is the Earth is flat.
(3) He loves his parents and doesn't want to disappoint his friends.
(4) He never took a course in epistemology and doesn't know what the word means.

1-4 cause him to reject all new evidence. Can he still be labeled as "delusional" or is he just being practical?




> if you're going to arbitrarily set what standards of evidence count for this particular case, you're both making an argument from ignorance and potentially committing a fallacy of special pleading as well.


My (I'm INTP) standards are very different from many other people's (say INFJs) standards.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

Telescopes, they've been around since 1608 and you can buy them at online retailer or yoyour closest science department. Also the earth casts a shadow on the moon at times while casting a light on it at other times. The form of the shadow/light takes the form of earths shape that's facing towards the moon. A flat earth would casts differnt shapes on the moon.


----------



## Clyme

BigApplePi said:


> I believe universal truths are few and hard to find.


I believe that universal truths exist (that is, universal truths directly correspond to reality), but they cannot be known with absolute certainty (because we cannot hope to know everything there is to know). I don't think we can find a universal truth with absolute certainty. I'm not sure if that dismisses its universality or you simply mean 'truth' (by universal). It matters not though. It doesn't detract from our discussion.



BigApplePi said:


> Since this is a flat Earth thread, let's use that as an example though defining what this is an example of may not be so easy. Let's suppose we have a flat Earther. Four assumptions:
> 
> (1) His friends and relatives are all also flat Earthers.
> (2) His narrow and possibly misguided evidence is the Earth is flat.
> (3) He loves his parents and doesn't want to disappoint his friends.
> (4) He never took a course in epistemology and doesn't know what the word means.
> 
> 1-4 cause him to reject all new evidence. Can he still be labeled as "delusional" or is he just being practical?


If he believes in a flat-earth based on propositions 1-4, then I wouldn't label him as delusional or ignorant. Though some of those reasons for believing are fallacious, believing on available evidence is what we all must do. I would label him as ignorant or potentially delusional (depending on the degree) at the point that he denies new evidence. It is the point that we close ourselves down to new evidence that we enter the realm of ignorance.




BigApplePi said:


> My (I'm INTP) standards are very different from many other people's (say INFJs) standards.


Regardless of differing standards, certain standards lead to reliable and accurate conclusions (like applying logic) and others do not (such as believing what feels good).


----------



## Kavik

I didn't read the whole thread but uh, there is math to back up the earth is round and you can physically see the curvature of the earth when you look across an unobstructed distance like over the ocean. When you look it you see a dome. Not to mention there are photos from space and the reason it's faster to travel around the top of the earth rather than the middle is because a sphere has less distance around at the top and bottom. Airlines use this for faster flight times. 

Hydrostatic equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to say the earth is flat from some other dimension and that's just getting into weird metaphysics and imaginative speculation.


----------



## Kavik

double post.


----------



## Macrosapien

Kavik said:


> I didn't read the whole thread but uh, there is math to back up the earth is round and you can physically see the curvature of the earth when you look across an unobstructed distance like over the ocean. When you look it you see a dome. Not to mention there are photos from space and the reason it's faster to travel around the top of the earth rather than the middle is because a sphere has less distance around at the top and bottom. Airlines use this for faster flight times.
> 
> Hydrostatic equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If you want to say the earth is flat from some other dimension and that's just getting into weird metaphysics and imaginative speculation.


The airplane goes faster because God below on it, he is in the clouds, you know. Until I see hydrostatic equilibrium myself, I will not believe it! If I must go by faith I will go by my earth on God pillars, suspended in empty space, with the Light of the sun and the moon, which has its light. 

This is not metaphysics, but God physics. There is a difference @Kavik


----------



## Kavik

LookingGlass said:


> The airplane goes faster because God below on it, he is in the clouds, you know. Until I see hydrostatic equilibrium myself, I will not believe it! If I must go by faith I will go by my earth on God pillars, suspended in empty space, with the Light of the sun and the moon, which has its light.
> 
> This is not metaphysics, but God physics. There is a difference @Kavik


Uh wow. Okay mr. troll if you say so. Not even subtle.


----------



## BigApplePi

Clyme said:


> If he believes in a flat-earth based on propositions 1-4, then I wouldn't label him as delusional or ignorant. Though some of those reasons for believing are fallacious, believing on available evidence is what we all must do. I would label him as ignorant or potentially delusional (depending on the degree) at the point that he denies new evidence. It is the point that we close ourselves down to new evidence that we enter the realm of ignorance.


Sometimes I have an intuition I want to say something but get bogged down in the trees of the forest and find myself staring at the wrong trees.

What I would like to do is propose this "flat Earther" is not only being reasonable but has a good reason for ignoring the reasons of logic and what others try to present to his senses.

Let's looks again at the four reasons I gave and see what they might mean:
(1) His friends and relatives are all also flat Earthers.
(2) His narrow and possibly misguided evidence is the Earth is flat.
(3) He loves his parents and doesn't want to disappoint his friends.
(4) He never took a course in epistemology and doesn't know what the word means.

His "reasonableness" is based on where he is at. He has a loyalty to his friends and relatives. To go against them would be a betrayal, loss of his fellows and land him in isolation. He is not a scientist and is not interested in hard science as you and I might be. When some such science oriented stranger comes along and threatens him with loss of his friends that becomes all important. The information attempted to be thrust at him is therefore dangerous in the face of what he knows to be much more valuable.

He actually has in common what we all have: namely we value truth that has high value and avoid truth with low or negative value.


----------



## Clyme

BigApplePi said:


> His "reasonableness" is based on where he is at.


Alright, let's see.



BigApplePi said:


> He has a loyalty to his friends and relatives. To go against them would be a betrayal, loss of his fellows and land him in isolation.


This does not equate truth. This is a bandwagon fallacy and an appeal to emotions.



BigApplePi said:


> He is not a scientist and is not interested in hard science as you and I might be.


Reworded, he isn't interested in being reasonable. His disinterest in being reasonable does not make his rejection of new evidence reasonable. It's still unreasonable. We can understand the logical consequence of being disinterested in reasonableness, but this does not make such consequences reasonable.



BigApplePi said:


> When some such science oriented stranger comes along and threatens him with loss of his friends that becomes all important.


And this is still bringing up a bandwagon fallacy and an appeal to emotions. It does not equate truth. It is still unreasonable.



BigApplePi said:


> The information attempted to be thrust at him is therefore dangerous in the face of what he knows to be much more valuable.


I'll grant you the hypothetical scenario that the presentation of new information is forceful and "thrust at him". Essentially though, you're saying here that it's more reasonable to live in denial. Maybe it is more reasonable to live in denial if the truth is so damaging, but the moment one does that is the moment one needs to remove themselves from any serious discussion. They lose the right to speak publicly because they will no adhere to honesty.



BigApplePi said:


> He actually has in common what we all have: namely we value truth that has high value and avoid truth with low or negative value.


Is that what you value? I value truth, positive or negative. I would rather know what the truth is, no matter how uncomfortable, rather than living a lie. I don't value information that makes me feel good. I value information that is honest and accurate. I'm sure that honesty is not such an alien value to most people. Essentially though, you're advocating that dishonesty is a reasonable policy because it makes us feel good. I'd argue that dishonesty is more harmful even if the truth is unpleasant at first. Dishonesty gets in the way of progress, human connection, and cooperation, and it prevents us from having discussions about real things that really matter.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I do agree that most people could be fooled by this. I could be. How do I know that this gravity and mass thing, is right? It works, but doesn't mean it is right. I know how gravity works. Supposedly. It proves the Earth is like that. The Earth and the Moon fall around each other. Like throw a baseball fast enough, without atmosphere. It will never touch the ground. The Earth will curve underneath it. But gravity will hold it there. That is how I understand it. That is just heuristics though.


----------



## BigApplePi

Clyme said:


> Is that what you value? I value truth, positive or negative. I would rather know what the truth is, no matter how uncomfortable, rather than living a lie. I don't value information that makes me feel good. I value information that is honest and accurate. I'm sure that honesty is not such an alien value to most people. Essentially though, you're advocating that dishonesty is a reasonable policy because it makes us feel good. I'd argue that dishonesty is more harmful even if the truth is unpleasant at first. Dishonesty gets in the way of progress, human connection, and cooperation, and it prevents us from having discussions about real things that really matter.


Those are strong words. 

Are you going to deny there is such a thing as emotional truth? Even the coolest scientist in the lab seeks scientific truth. "Seeking" is an emotion ... or maybe a feeling. To check that out, try taking away the scientists funding. He will be upset or at least disappointed ... more emotion. We could say that scientist is in denial of that he should stay cool and accept he can no longer do science. 

My point here is there is emotional truth not just factual truth.


----------



## Clyme

BigApplePi said:


> Those are strong words.
> 
> Are you going to deny there is such a thing as emotional truth? Even the coolest scientist in the lab seeks scientific truth. "Seeking" is an emotion ... or maybe a feeling. To check that out, try taking away the scientists funding. He will be upset or at least disappointed ... more emotion. We could say that scientist is in denial of that he should stay cool and accept he can no longer do science.
> 
> My point here is there is emotional truth not just factual truth.


Truth is just truth. You can have facts about emotions and facts about other aspects of reality, but you do not get to change facts based on one's emotions. So, it can be a fact that someone is distressed about the removal of funding and a fact that this then causes him to pursue a different career, but someone's distress over the world being round does not make a flat-earth factual. Truth is truth.

Also, seeking is not an emotion. Anger, happiness, love, sorrow, etc., are emotions. Seeking is the act of, well, searching for something (to use a synonym). It can be attached to an emotion, but it isn't one itself. It's an action.


----------



## BigApplePi

Clyme said:


> Truth is just truth. You can have facts about emotions and facts about other aspects of reality, but you do not get to change facts based on one's emotions. So, it can be a fact that someone is distressed about the removal of funding and a fact that this then causes him to pursue a different career, but someone's distress over the world being round does not make a flat-earth factual. Truth is truth.
> 
> Also, seeking is not an emotion. Anger, happiness, love, sorrow, etc., are emotions. Seeking is the act of, well, searching for something (to use a synonym). It can be attached to an emotion, but it isn't one itself. It's an action.


Things suddenly got complicated. You are talking about truth, emotion and action. I like those three variables because they say different things. 

We can put a high value on truth, but not all do so. As a matter of fact salespersons, politicians and propagandists can place a higher value on deception. Those who stand for truth must either explain themselves or the flat Earth people have to be given credit for their position.


----------



## Clyme

BigApplePi said:


> Things suddenly got complicated. You are talking about truth, emotion and action. I like those three variables because they say different things.
> 
> We can put a high value on truth, but not all do so. As a matter of fact salespersons, politicians and propagandists can place a higher value on deception. Those who stand for truth must either explain themselves or the flat Earth people have to be given credit for their position.


I'm not debating that some people don't value honesty and truth, but reality doesn't change simply because you wish not to accept it. It wouldn't be reality otherwise. Similarly, if somebody believes a proposition because it makes them feel good while denying contradictory evidence, they do not suddenly become reasonable just because it makes them feel good, nor are their views justified. I suppose you're trying to say that it may be understandable that someone would cast out truth because it makes them feel better, and it is, but being reasonable quite strictly means to apply reason. Such an approach does not apply reason. It is therefor unreasonable. We can understand how one may choose their social comforts over believing what's more logical (I've known people in this position), but it does not mean that their beliefs are reasonable. This is one thing that cannot be claimed.

Your base argument is that it is reasonable to believe things because they feel good. This is illogical. It is, quite simply, unreasonable, and there's no way around that. You can empathize with people who do this, but such actions are not actions of reason.


----------



## Knight of Ender

Welp, that proves it. I'm out of here.


----------



## BigApplePi

I had no idea believing the Earth is flat could be so upsetting. After all, one would the think plain geometry we had in high school would have taught us something: flat is good; round isn't sound.


----------



## Roland Khan

Not so much that it's upsetting, just that it's hard to accept the gullibility of people sometimes. At least with religion it's unfalsifiable so therefore never been disproven. This however takes it even a step further, however it's not as upsetting or frustrating as religion because it doesn't influence our politics or social policies so if you guys want to go on believing this by all means....just don't be surprised if you're called out on it. Many of us would say the same shit to bigfoot and astrology believers, it's gullible and at a certain point, stupid. :sad:


----------



## Macrosapien

look at all these people on their pseudo-intellectual high horses, as if it is so impossible or doubtful that they could have been led astray by the scientific community that they give their, so critical mind over too, like a little kid who having tasted candy for the first time, is now entranced by the sensations which a sugar high can give. But it is just that, a meager high, nothing nourishing, and it will leave you with a stomach ache in the end. And now we see so many people here with intellectual stomach aches. 

Ask yourself one thing, and one thing alone... have personally been up in space, and have literally seen the earth from that perspective? As well as the moon, the sun, the galaxy, and so called universe? Have you? No. But who has? GAWD? You take the faith that what you receive from NASA is true and not doctored. But how can you know for sure? Can you? No. Until you are able to travel through space yourself, is the only time you should be positively sure. For instance, if I tell you about a particular sound which an ancient unknown instrument can produce and I even try to reproduce the sound for you, would this transmit to you actually having experienced the sound and instrument directly? No. Why should you live by my words? No matter what I say I can not transfer my experience, nor my understanding to you... the best I can do is give a rough explanation, and then tell you how to get to that place to hear it for yourself, and only then will it be knowing. So don't act all shocked and insult us flat earthers, when in fact its us who are the logical ones, and you sphere earth guys the illogical "intuitive" types. Think about it, its very logical to think the earth is flat, look at everything from our perspective, how it looks is how it looks. right? But you guys, such imagination such intuition to envision an oblate Spheriod, where there is this thing called gravity, were things are continually falling? This invisible thing? Us flat earthers look at things the way it looks, we use logic, you guys use imagination and intuition. Why do things fall down? Where n a flat surface, so what comes up most inevitably come down! What's the need for gravity, it's totally logical for things just to fall down. For us the earth is flat, Antarctica is a large ice wall that surrounds all of flat earth, the sun and moon have an orbit right above us (time zone explanation, CHECK), like flat diskette incandescent bulbs powered by God mojo or what Einstein would say, spooky movement at a distance. Why is it that this is so unbelievable, when you have no direct proof that any of it is real. none of you have experiential knowledge of it, just pictures, videos, and real time filming that could have been doctored. And I wont believe until I see it directly. Hydrogen my [email protected]# ! The sun aint made of no Hydrogen, how do you really know? Emission Spectroscopy? NASA scientist can just make up any terminology and yall just eat it up. YOU DONT KNOW, YOU DONT HAVE THE ANSWERS.


----------



## Roland Khan

It's not only the shit we get from NASA, there's so many other things that show the earth is round. There comes a point where you leave your mind too open and it starts to fall out....you know just how difficult it would be for such a conspiracy to be kept in the dark like you guys are claiming, not to mention all the technology we have that works precisely because of this knowledge, it goes beyond being open-minded and into gullibility. And then there's all the evidence/proof that is seen with the naked eye, we knew the earth was round long before we ever been to space.


----------



## BigApplePi

@*LookingGlass*.

Suppose all you say is true. Just about all of us haven't had direct evidence while flat Earthers have. How do you explain 99+ percent believe the Earth is round?


----------



## Clyme

Roland787 said:


> It's not only the shit we get from NASA, there's so many other things that show the earth is round. There comes a point where you leave your mind too open and it starts to fall out....you know just how difficult it would be for such a conspiracy to be kept in the dark like you guys are claiming, not to mention all the technology we have that works precisely because of this knowledge, it goes beyond being open-minded and into gullibility. And then there's all the evidence/proof that is seen with the naked eye, we knew the earth was round long before we ever been to space.


Additionally, it gets delusional at a certain point. By claiming all this contradictory evidence is a conspiracy, essentially the whole world is a conspiracy. You might as well go on believing any crazy thing at that point.

Delusion (n.): A false belief held despite strong evidence against it.

What about this isn't delusional?


----------



## Macrosapien

BigApplePi said:


> @*LookingGlass*.
> 
> Suppose all you say is true. Just about all of us haven't had direct evidence while flat Earthers have. How do you explain 99+ percent believe the Earth is round?


Flat earthers, the real logic users, look at what is distinguishable from our, a humans perspective, and what our investigations deduce is that the earth is flat. LOGICAL. All you gotta do is go outside BigApplePi, go ahead go outside take your phone with you, look to the horizon, what do you see, flat earth. 

I can't explain 99+ percent as I don't know 99+ percent of people, that's 6 billion people. Do you know 6 billion people or are you judging the whole population based on your relatively small number of associates you have in life that you have been exposed to, in regards their beliefs? I'm guessing no. But even if 99+ percent felt the earth is spheriod, that doesn't make it true. If 99+ percent of people felt it was reasonable to jump off a cliff, would you do it? 99+ percent of people have always been WRONG, it is commonly accepted that group mindsets often lead to failure. If you want to embrace the limitations and weakness weaknesses of groups, don't expect me too. My eyes have been opened to logical deduction, not intuitive imagination... round earth, Ha. 

Have you see the earth from the space perspective? hmmmmm?? Nope. but you know who has, take a guess? Jehovah God, that''s who. And he said the four corners of the earth are held up by pillars, and that it is a circle hanging in empty space. flat earth proof. No gravity, and if there even was, it just means flat earth is moving upwards at an incredibly fast acceleration. Imagine a man turning pizza dough, and through it up in the air, kinda like that, so obviously nothing would fall off into empty space.


----------



## Macrosapien

Clyme said:


> Additionally, it gets delusional at a certain point. By claiming all this contradictory evidence is a conspiracy, essentially the whole world is a conspiracy. You might as well go on believing any crazy thing at that point.
> 
> Delusion (n.): A false belief held despite strong evidence against it.
> 
> What about this isn't delusional?


Ahhhh... my boy, NOW YOU ARE GETTING IT.


----------



## Roland Khan

"Logic"










And now you're bringing god and the bible into this argument, I believe you just lost this argument.


----------



## Macrosapien

Roland787 said:


> It's not only the shit we get from NASA, there's so many other things that show the earth is round. There comes a point where you leave your mind too open and it starts to fall out....you know just how difficult it would be for such a conspiracy to be kept in the dark like you guys are claiming, not to mention all the technology we have that works precisely because of this knowledge, it goes beyond being open-minded and into gullibility. And then there's all the evidence/proof that is seen with the naked eye, we knew the earth was round long before we ever been to space.


Or there is a point you leave your mind too closed, and it only exists in darkness, and who can see anything without the light. Just like flat earth. We see flat earth in the light, you see sphere earth in the darkness. My brain was once in a box, all I saw was darkness, and in that darkness i could see anything and be susceptible to any suggestion or idea, as long as it had scientist next to it. But I opened that brain box, and the light came through, and just like seeing the horizon, and seeing a clear flat earth, I saw the truth. 

It's all a NWO conspiracy. Do you know how powerful the NWO is? DO YA!!


----------



## Brodir

Find a mathematician who is also a flat-earther.


----------



## Macrosapien

Roland787 said:


> "Logic"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now you're bringing god and the bible into this argument, I believe you just lost this argument.


logically I know what I see is, is beyond any shadow of a doubt, empirical. Go outside and you will see flat earth, the same as I, but go outside and see spherical earth? Highly unlikely. LOGIC.


----------



## Roland Khan

It *appears* flat, but yet you can't see beyond the horizon. If it was flat, we would at least see some kind of mass beyond it, even if we couldn't make it out, but instead everything goes under the horizon and the *sky* is seen at eye level....seriously dude, this is just conspiracy nut territory.


----------



## Macrosapien

Brodir said:


> Find a mathematician who is also a flat-earther.


even better, Flat Earth Geometry | Mathematics under the Microscope @Brodir 's brain just exploded, KABOOM!


----------



## IncoherentBabbler

LookingGlass said:


> heh very serious. this is an actual theory people have who support flat earth,
> 
> Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Awesome link. The map on that page has an awesome title: "This map is the bible map of the world", supported by 400 passenges in the bible. XD


----------



## Macrosapien

LOL this thread has been more successful than I thought. I'm just holding the fort until Zero11 comes back.


----------



## BigApplePi

@*Clyme *I can hardly blame you for wanting to throw up your hands at this. We seem to be working at cross purposes and I have to be blamed for that. I am notorious for going off on apparent tangents but my intention is to ultimately lead back to something productive. Let me see if I have your point correct and you can decide if you want to continue or not.

If I have you right, you admit there are lots of beliefs. But ignoring facts and the logic of those facts has no place in evaluating truth. Emotion or feelings about things have no place in making judgments about whether something is true or not. It's like they request in court ... the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Scientists use the scientific method and that is the proper method for arriving at truth.


----------



## Macrosapien

Roland787 said:


> It *appears* flat, but yet you can't see beyond the horizon. If it was flat, we would at least see some kind of mass beyond it, even if we couldn't make it out, but instead everything goes under the horizon and the *sky* is seen at eye level....seriously dude, this is just conspiracy nut territory.


it appears as it is. it is nut territory, but you got to break the shell to get to dat nut. nothing goes under the horizon, there just maybe slight variations in the surface. it isn't flat in its entirety... there are hills, attitude changes. you see this and call it something else do to illuminati scientist. open your box brain and allow your brain to taste the fine dish that that plate of flat earth is giving.


----------



## Roland Khan

Before I open mine any further, you might want to try to find yours and scoop it back in.

Call us deceived all you want, yet you're the one falling for claims made on the internet and bad highly discredited evidence.


----------



## xisnotx

lol

when i look at the earth from earth, i see that the earth is flat.
when i look at the earth from space, i see that the earth is round.

space is relative.


----------



## Strostkovy

BigApplePi said:


> Yes. *There are people on either side.* Some seem to believe they have the answer while others say the theory is still being worked out. I say the issue is very much like arguing Newtonian physics versus Einsteinian physics. If you have an answer please post it on this thread.


What? No. People would fall off the other side.


----------



## Roland Khan

Murdock said:


> What? No. People would fall off the other side.


Not what he was referring to I don't think, however I do think I remember an argument being made that the earth is flat and there is a top and bottom, but don't remember who said that and the argument falls off if they also make the argument that gravity is caused by the earth moving upward really fast (and all the water and everything is held in by a giant ice wall surrounding the earth, lol) because then the people on the bottom side would just fall off....then again, none of the flat earth "theory" really makes any sense


----------



## BigApplePi

pernoctator said:


> You seem to be defending the argument from ignorance. The problem is Flat Earth is not only an argument from ignorance; it also proposes its own _new_ theory of the world -- a theory supported by no evidence.


I want to make a point ... a very unusual one. (at first I thought you said, "for ignorance", not "from ignorance.") What I am doing is unusual and I'm trying to lead into what that point might be to see if you will possibly buy it. As an INTP I survey the land for various kinds of reason and look to see what might be missing, if anything. In the process of locating that missing item I suppose I'm acting like an INTJ which is not ultimately my purpose.

I hear everyone saying "be reasonable." We know the Earth is round. No. I'm actually describing ignorance. Everyone on the surface is after knowledge. But ignorance is a fact and an important one. (I'm not promoting ignorance, just describing it.) Unless one understands that one cannot fully appreciate knowledge. After all knowledge is not merely a static fact. It is a process and that process is not always an easy one. That's why I'm fond of the theme of this thread. I actually wonder if that doesn't linger in the minds of those on this thread who would defend a flat Earth.

Ignorance. Knowledge. Knowledge is something we believe we know. When we know it we don't just sit around and check the theme off our list and leave it. We use knowledge as a force of action. 

Ignorance also carries weight. By remaining ignorant we act conservatively. We avoid change. I have to ask, is this always a bad thing? Denial protects us from change. This is my intuition so I'm not ready with good examples.

Hold on. Here's one: A mother denies her son could have done the murder even though the evidence says he did. This does do a service: to protect motherhood. It doesn't do anyone else a service, except to protect motherhood values. Believing in a flat Earth protects local values in spite of distant evidence to the contrary.

I suppose there could be more to be said about ignorance but that is leading this thread too far astray ... or is it?


----------



## pernoctator

@BigApplePi I think I got the point. My point is Flat Earth people _aren't_ just passively unknowing. I can respect ignorance... I _can't_ respect the alternative geography, cartography, navigation, and physics asserted by Flat Earth theory.

If the mother believes there must be another explanation because she trusts her son, she's hopeful. If she testifies that someone else did it, she's a liar.


----------



## BigApplePi

pernoctator said:


> @_BigApplePi_ I think I got the point. My point is Flat Earth people _aren't_ just passively unknowing. I can respect ignorance... I _can't_ respect the alternative geography, cartography, navigation, and physics asserted by Flat Earth theory.
> 
> If the mother believes there must be another explanation because she trusts her son, she's hopeful. If she testifies that someone else did it, she's a liar.


You've nailed something. There is a difference between avoiding the truth and falsifying the truth.


----------



## Zero11

pernoctator said:


> I think I got the point. My point is Flat Earth people _aren't_ just passively unknowing. I can respect ignorance... I _can't_ respect *the alternative*


very telling



Roland787 said:


> because then the people on the bottom side would just fall off....then again, none of the flat earth "theory" really makes any sense


People on the bottom?


----------



## Bahburah

Wow this thread is still going.


I gotta hand it to the OP.


----------



## Tzara

xisnotx said:


> lol
> 
> when i look at the earth from earth, i see that the earth is flat.
> when i look at the earth from space, i see that the earth is round.
> 
> space is relative.


But what if the space is curved in such a way it makes you see earth as round?
#Optics #Science #FlatEarth


----------



## BigApplePi

Bahburah said:


> Wow this thread is still going. I gotta hand it to the OP.


And why do you think that is?


----------



## pernoctator

Tzara said:


> But what if the space is curved in such a way it makes you see earth as round?
> #Optics #Science #FlatEarth


Then Earth would still need to be cylindrical, at the very least. Otherwise this would never have happened. The east-west circle could theoretically be over a flat surface that curved-space causes you to travel along, but a similar north-south circle can't exist simultaneously. This is geometrically impossible with any 2 dimensional shape.


----------



## Tzara

pernoctator said:


> Then Earth would still need to be cylindrical, at the very least. Otherwise this would never have happened. The east-west circle could theoretically be over a flat surface that curved-space causes you to travel along, but a similar north-south circle can't exist simultaneously. This is geometrically impossible with any 2 dimensional shape.


Oh look someone up for a really pointless debate. I'll come back in about 5 hours.. need to attend a signal system exam. :tongue:


----------



## BigApplePi

Tzara said:


> Oh look someone up for a really pointless debate. I'll come back in about 5 hours.. need to attend a signal system exam. :tongue:


I'm finally getting around to flat out telling you no debate is pointless when one has a lot of time on their hands.:wink:


----------



## Bahburah

BigApplePi said:


> And why do you think that is?


Click bait.


----------



## pernoctator

Tzara said:


> Oh look someone up for a really pointless debate. I'll come back in about 5 hours.. need to attend a signal system exam. :tongue:


Okey dokey.


----------



## BigApplePi

Bahburah said:


> Click bait.


It must be enticing. Lots of other kinds of baits are rejected.


----------



## Tzara

pernoctator said:


> Then Earth would still need to be cylindrical, at the very least. Otherwise this would never have happened. The east-west circle could theoretically be over a flat surface that curved-space causes you to travel along, but a similar north-south circle can't exist simultaneously. This is geometrically impossible with any 2 dimensional shape.


Yeah like stuff cant orbit around flatland. Have you even read Dante's Paradiso? Duh..


----------



## Bahburah

BigApplePi said:


> It must be enticing. Lots of other kinds of baits are rejected.


lol Probably because the OP wasn't _trying_ to bait.


----------



## pernoctator

Tzara said:


> Yeah like stuff cant orbit around flatland. Have you even read Dante's Paradiso? Duh..


I haven't, but I'm also not saying orbit around flatland is impossible. I'm saying it can only be on one axis. Are we talking about this Earth model?


----------



## Tzara

pernoctator said:


> I haven't, but I'm also not saying orbit around flatland is impossible. I'm saying it can *only be on one axis.* Are we talking about this Earth model?


Yes, obviously that model. That is the only model that fits reality.

Earth is flat. Space is not. Flat objects can have 3D *orbits.*

Take a paper(simulating flat land) orbit with your hand around the XZ plane, then do the same on the YZ plane.
See its very very possible.


----------



## pernoctator

Tzara said:


> Yes, obviously that model. That is the only model that fits reality.
> 
> Earth is flat. Space is not. Flat objects can have 3D *orbits.*
> 
> Take a paper(simulating flat land) orbit with your hand around the XZ plane, then do the same on the YZ plane.
> See its very very possible.


Are you sure we're talking about that model? Doesn't your theory acknowledge the reality of space photography? That model doesn't seem compatible with yours... it's dependent on the theories that all space programs are hoaxes and that Antarctica doesn't exist.

Anyway, the fact that it's possible to orbit past the edge of the plane is irrelevant, because that's clearly not what any existing satellites are doing. Your premise was that space is curved such that a flat Earth could appear to be spherical in orbit. This means that orbits that seem to be going "around" the planet are in fact circling about _above_ it and looking down. It is impossible for this to work on two axes at once.


----------



## Tzara

pernoctator said:


> Are you sure we're talking about that model? Doesn't your theory acknowledge the reality of space photography? That model doesn't seem compatible with yours... it's dependent on the theories that all space programs are hoaxes and that Antarctica doesn't exist.


Take a picture of an ugly girl in a parking lot.
Use photoshop to make the girl pretty.
Doesnt mean the parking lot isnt real.




> Anyway, the fact that it's possible to orbit past the edge of the plane is irrelevant, because that's clearly not what any existing satellites are doing. Your premise was that space is curved such that a flat Earth could appear to be spherical in orbit. This means that orbits that seem to be going "around" the planet are in fact circling about _above_ it and looking down. It is impossible for this to work on two axes at once.


Did you ever take a picture from a satallite? How do you know that they are any more real than the pictures of a flat earth?
I can easily claim a flat earth picture was taken by a satellite.


----------



## Macrosapien

I was talking to a friend of mine about flat earth theory two days ago. And literally we talked about it for 2 hours straight. hahah. Because she just couldnt get her head around it, how someone could actually believe this. We were looking at the moon and the sky, and she said, but the moon has a curvature, you can see darker points that suggests its shape, and how at different phases the position of those points change lol. I said, well for thousands of years they didnt notice this. And I explained the gravity ROFL but I always laugh when I explain their way around gravity, how the plat earth is moving at an extremely fast rate upwards. 

I dont think I laughed that much in a long time. everyone I tell the flat earth theory too, they are just beyond shocked and cant help but to think about it haha. 

It's amazing that this thread went this far HAHAH, honestly. I had no idea that it would still be going even now, but that is the power of flat earth theory.


----------



## pernoctator

Tzara said:


> Take a picture of an ugly girl in a parking lot.
> Use photoshop to make the girl pretty.
> Doesnt mean the parking lot isnt real.
> 
> Did you ever take a picture from a satallite? How do you know that they are any more real than the pictures of a flat earth?
> I can easily claim a flat earth picture was taken by a satellite.


Alright, so in other words you're completely changing your theory to the boring old conspiracy one. If the photos are faked, there is no need for curved space. :dry:


----------



## Tzara

pernoctator said:


> Alright, so in other words you're completely changing your theory to the boring old conspiracy one. If the photos are faked, there is no need for curved space. :dry:


Hold up a sec. I'm not saying the photos are faked. I'm saying if they arent faked, there could be a curved space.


----------



## pernoctator

Tzara said:


> I'm saying if they arent faked, there could be a curved space.


If this is what you're saying then your previous post was pointless. The fact that they _could_ be faked has absolutely no relevance to what could be possible _if they aren't_. I'm saying that _if they aren't_ then curved space _is not_ a possible explanation. The closest possibility would be a cylindrical Earth _in addition_ to curved space.


----------



## Tzara

pernoctator said:


> If this is what you're saying then your previous post was pointless. The fact that they _could_ be faked has absolutely no relevance to what could be possible _if they aren't_. I'm saying that _if they aren't_ then curved space _is not_ a possible explanation. The closest possibility would be a cylindrical Earth _in addition_ to curved space.


Ok so before any further explanation: Flat earth = cylindrical. Proof: We can dig into the ground...
"How thick?" is an entirely different topic.


----------



## pernoctator

Tzara said:


> Ok so before any further explanation: Flat earth = cylindrical. Proof: We can dig into the ground...
> "How thick?" is an entirely different topic.


Okay, you clearly don't understand the problem here. I tell you you can't orbit on two axes and you say we can go underneath a paper. I tell you we need a cylinder and you show me the thickness of Flat Earth. No, this isn't helping. Again, here is the premise:

1. Our satellite photography is legitimate.
2. Earth is flat.

This means the satellites MUST always stay "on top". They must NEVER orbit around the edge, otherwise we would be seeing photos of the Earth's mantle right next to Europe. The type of cylinder we need is like what you'd get by rolling up a map. The surface, and only the surface, must be visible throughout the full orbit.

Now the flat model I posted makes a circular trip above Flatland possible, and curving could theoretically make this appear to be a west to east orbit. But to make south to north possible, you need to change the model. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Tzara

pernoctator said:


> Okay, you clearly don't understand the problem here. I tell you you can't orbit on two axes and you say we can go underneath a paper. I tell you we need a cylinder and you show me the thickness of Flat Earth. No, this isn't helping. Again, here is the premise:
> 
> 1. Our satellite photography is legitimate.
> 2. Earth is flat.
> 
> This means the satellites MUST always stay "on top". They must NEVER orbit around the edge, otherwise we would be seeing photos of the Earth's mantle right next to Europe. The type of cylinder we need is like what you'd get by rolling up a map. The surface, and only the surface, must be visible throughout the full orbit.
> 
> Now the flat model I posted makes a circular trip above Flatland possible, and curving could theoretically make this appear to be a west to east orbit. But to make south to north possible, you need to change the model. You can't have it both ways.


Oh, now I see your point.

Yeah but think about a bent universe that has the focal point of flat earths center.
Add a layer of collision/loop kinda structure around earth. And voila! Flat earth, just seen as a spherical one.

I'm not sure if I can draw it or find a drawing of it.


----------



## pernoctator

Tzara said:


> Oh, now I see your point.
> 
> Yeah but think about a bent universe that has the focal point of flat earths center.
> Add a layer of collision/loop kinda structure around earth. And voila! Flat earth, just seen as a spherical one.
> 
> I'm not sure if I can draw it or find a drawing of it.


It sounds like you're talking about reverse-engineering the projection (oh, yeah, the Flat Earth "model" is actually just a blatant rip-off of a polar azimuthal equidistant projection), but this would take a lot more than just "bending". Each circle coming out from the center would need to somehow move faster than the one before it. And how do you move from an edge to the opposite edge?


----------



## S33K3RZ

For the skeptical; here is a list of ways you can tell using common sense / science that the earth is not flat.

Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat | SmarterThanThat

If you are still in denial, pay your 10 bucks: The Flat Earth Society

Make sure you wear your official name tag around so I can be sure to never hire you for anything. Belief in the earth being flat is irrational even with almost no exposure to science.


----------



## BigApplePi

@*S33K3RZ . *


S33K3RZ said:


> For the skeptical; here is a list of ways you can tell using common sense / science that the earth is not flat.
> 
> Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat | SmarterThanThat


I am so sorry. I have never stuck two sticks in the ground at the same time and have never been out of my time zone here in Kansas. Those are fairly convincing arguments though if you could only show me. Until you do I will have to continue believing as I do. You, obviously have never seen the prairie. It is I who should show you my proof. Thank you very much. 

It's hardly fair you have run those experiments while I have not that you should win out. I was taught in science class that experiments should be repeatable. Please repeat those experiments for me but I insist I be present. Send me a train ticket to the coast, let me borrow your telescope and I'll be there at your convenience.



> Make sure you wear your official name tag around so I can be sure to never hire you for anything. Belief in the earth being flat is irrational even with almost no exposure to science.


I almost got an A in science and I believe my view, limited though it may be, is rational so maybe you should hire me anyway. I will take minimum wage or higher or maybe even higher yet for a better view.:wink:


----------



## pernoctator

BigApplePi said:


> Please repeat those experiments for me but I insist I be present. Send me a train ticket to the coast, let me borrow your telescope and I'll be there at your convenience.


Not this shit again. Knowing the shape of the Earth _is not_ a modern marvel, people. You don't need to take it on faith, and you don't need money or privilege or technology to discover it for yourself, only patience. You can do it the same way everyone else did it thousands of years before trains and telescopes existed. Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BigApplePi

@*pernoctator *and anyone else interested in science.

There is a puzzle here as to why this thread goes on. It must be baffling when so much round Earth evidence is presented. The reason for this is *two very different scientific truths *are presented.

One of those truths is, convincing evidence is supplied that the Earth is round. The other truth is, as long as evidence is not communicated to a human being, that human being can come up with an opposing theory of their own. This is the task of the adult round Earth believer if the person is say, four years old. A four year old will not understand the round Earth proofs. How would a proof be gotten across to a four year old who has access only to your voice and may not even be able to read? I don't think it's easily done.


----------



## Strostkovy

BigApplePi said:


> @*pernoctator *and anyone else interested in science.
> 
> There is a puzzle here as to why this thread goes on. It must be baffling when so much round Earth evidence is presented. The reason for this is *two very different scientific truths *are presented.
> 
> One of those truths is, convincing evidence is supplied that the Earth is round. The other truth is, as long as evidence is not communicated to a human being, that human being can come up with an opposing theory of their own. This is the task of the adult round Earth believer if the person is say, four years old. A four year old will not understand the round Earth proofs. How would a proof be gotten across to a four year old who has access only to your voice and may not even be able to read? I don't think it's easily done.


So, in essence, we are trying to get four year olds to understand the world.


----------



## pernoctator

BigApplePi said:


> @*pernoctator *and anyone else interested in science.
> 
> There is a puzzle here as to why this thread goes on. It must be baffling when so much round Earth evidence is presented. The reason for this is *two very different scientific truths *are presented.
> 
> One of those truths is, convincing evidence is supplied that the Earth is round. The other truth is, as long as evidence is not communicated to a human being, that human being can come up with an opposing theory of their own. This is the task of the adult round Earth believer if the person is say, four years old. A four year old will not understand the round Earth proofs. How would a proof be gotten across to a four year old who has access only to your voice and may not even be able to read? I don't think it's easily done.


Sorry, what? What's the point of the four year old analogy? Or are you actually expecting us to tailor the explanation to a literal four year old?

You are _not_ four, nor is anyone else here. This evidence _is_ accessible to you.


----------



## BigApplePi

Murdock said:


> So, in essence, we are trying to get four year olds to understand the world.


That four year old was an example. It could be expanded to any primitive who lives isolated from the rest of the world.

Now we could ask if we want to leave such primitives alone and let them remain happy in their isolated worlds or do we demand they be educated and change them?


----------



## pernoctator

BigApplePi said:


> That four year old was an example. It could be expanded to any primitive who lives isolated from the rest of the world.
> 
> Now we could ask if we want to leave such primitives alone and let them remain happy in their isolated worlds or do we demand they be educated and change them?


You realize that the Flat Earth Society is not comprised of such primitives, yes?


----------



## Zero11

S33K3RZ said:


> For the skeptical; here is a list of ways you can tell using common sense / science that the earth is not flat.
> 
> Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat | SmarterThanThat



page 09 #86 already disproved that nonsense


----------



## Roland Khan

Zero11 said:


> page 09 #86 already disproved that nonsense


No it didn't.


----------



## BigApplePi

Doesn't that picture prove that part is not flat?


----------



## Paulie

BigApplePi said:


> Doesn't that picture prove that part is not flat?


We don't talk about that part. Anyhow, that's where the gravity challenged people live. You do know about the gravity challenged, don't you? Poor saps, not their fault really. Very sad, sniff sniff.


----------



## Strostkovy

Paulie said:


> Irrefutable proof:


There should be a motivational (demotivational?) poster with this image except that their is a steam boat chugging as hard as it can to not fall off.


----------



## BigApplePi

Paulie said:


>


This is proof the Earth is neither round nor flat. All textbooks must be revised and the falsehood must be exposed.


----------



## Strostkovy

BigApplePi said:


> This is proof the Earth is neither round nor flat. All textbooks must be revised and the falsehood must be exposed.


So what is it then? a cube? a hexahedron? a hypotesseract? a square prism? A regular rhombohedron?
Or are you implying it's an oblate spheroid plus local topography? 
Come on man, don't leave us hanging.


----------



## Paulie

Murdock said:


> So what is it then? a cube? a hexahedron? a hypotesseract? a square prism? A regular rhombohedron?
> Or are you implying it's an oblate spheroid plus local topography?
> Come on man, don't leave us hanging.


I know, I hate it when Pi does that!


----------



## Lakigigar

hexagon ftw !


----------



## tanstaafl28

Paulie said:


> If the Earth wasn't flat, you'd never be able to make a long distance call because the signal would be blocked. (lol!)


Please tell me you're joking; otherwise, that makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## BigApplePi

Murdock said:


> So what is it then? a cube? a hexahedron? a hypotesseract? a square prism? A regular rhombohedron?
> Or are you implying it's an oblate spheroid plus local topography?
> Come on man, don't leave us hanging.


None of the above. Local topography would be under possible consideration if it weren't for the fact that local conditions here can't be everywhere. *You must thimk outside of the box.*


----------



## LibertyPrime

Hurrrr....


----------



## Engelsstaub

I am a member of one Polish Facebook group of astronomy fans. The group likes to troll the Flat Earth Society group with hilarious posts faking their "arguments". The main problem is to discern trolling posts from genuine entries of FES fans.


----------



## Vast Silence

The Earth is spherical and revolves around the sun.

Don't believe me. Buy a telescope, notebook, calculator, and register for astronomy and physics 101.
Shouldn't cost more than 1000$.

Pay attention in class and take good notes.
Apply what you learn.

Conclude:
The Earth is spherical and revolves around the sun.


----------



## Paulie

Yes, but how long is a piece of string theory? Long enough to go from one flat side to another flat side? And how many quantum car mechanics does it take to engineer said piece of string? And from what material is it made???


----------



## Roland Khan

This thread rarely fails to amuse :kitteh:







:dry:


----------



## Paulie

Here's a smuggled photo of workers in an underground bunker maintaining Earth's plano' plain of trajectory, based somewhat on Gauss's gravy train theory of umbrella and penumbrella.


----------



## Strostkovy

Paulie said:


> Yes, but how long is a piece of string theory? Long enough to go from one flat side to another flat side? And how many quantum car mechanics does it take to engineer said piece of string? And from what material is it made???


Metric or imperial string theory? 
Usually 7, but that depends on how long you want to wait.
Unobtanium nanotubes, no doubt.


----------



## pernoctator

Engelsstaub said:


> I am a member of one Polish Facebook group of astronomy fans. The group likes to troll the Flat Earth Society group with hilarious posts faking their "arguments". The main problem is to discern trolling posts from genuine entries of FES fans.


What's Tom Bishop up to these days?


----------



## BigApplePi

If you believe the Earth is round, then High School Plane Geometry has got to be round! Of course not. High School Plane Geometry is flatter than a pancake. If you want to go round, you must study Solid Geometry. Plane Geometry takes priority. Everyone must know that.


----------



## pernoctator

BigApplePi said:


> If you believe the Earth is round, then High School Plane Geometry has got to be round! Of course not. High School Plane Geometry is flatter than a pancake. If you want to go round, you must study Solid Geometry. Plane Geometry takes priority. Everyone must know that.


If they really wanted to promote flat earth geometry they should be focusing on circles, as we all know the earth is a disc and all movement revolves around the center. Instead the higher priority seems to be trigonometry. What else would you expect from the illuminati?


----------

