Debunking the flat Earth model.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (112)
sorted by:
Debunking is exclusively by and for fools. Earnest and capable students/researchers prefer objective (ideally) study instead!
When you assume something to be false (or true!) and then contrive/compile evidence only to support your belief - this is called confirmation bias. It’s what all debunking is.
There are a few problems with your “debunk” beyond that fundamental one above.
First, there is no flat earth model nor map. You can’t refute something which doesn’t exist. The picture shown is, at best, a conceptual aid - and a speculative one to boot.
Second, looking up in the sky to determine the shape of the ground in the opposite direction is unscientific and stupid. The stars can (and) do what they will. The ground is whatever shape it is despite/irrespective of that.
To any with an interest in this subject (for, against, neutral) please join us on flatearthresearch to discuss, explore, and exchange our views on it!
We should all make predictions based on our hypothesis and test to see if those predictions are correct.
Depending on where you are on the Earth (north, south, or equator), the time-lapse celestial image will consistently reflect your location. These results are recreatable by anyone with a time-lapse app or camera.
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
What other shape could have the same results? https://imgur.com/a/kfnyqUN
Not if we want to conduct a scientific investigation, no. Hypotheses can only be tested by experiment, and though they do include prediction they are vastly more rigorous and defined than that. Imagining things (what you call prediction) and then setting out to find observations which support them is mythology - not science. Experiment is never mere observation for this reason.
True, but they have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. They have to do with the repeated patterns in the sky. The earth and its shape is down here! Only a fool looks at the sky, the literal opposite direction, to study the shape of the ground....
Any shape. One shape that could satisfy your many further unvalidated assumptions is a concave sphere. But if you recognize and excise your unscientific bias from astronomy - you will realize the earth and sky are separate and one does not depend on the other.
It's called "topology" and, yes, you can make many predictions about it based on how external objects interact.
For example: if the Earth were a flat disc, and you put a light above the disc, anywhere, it would be visible anywhere on the disc.
If the Earth were a globe, and you have a light at some distance, there will be a point closest to the light, and a circle centered on that point will represent the barrier past which the light is no longer visible due to it being blocked by the curvature of the globe.
It's pretty obvious you're talking out of your ass here...
I agree that the world and the sky have shapes, obviously.
This is a common misunderstanding. Light is not magic, it can’t travel forever for a myriad of reasons, and it is only visible if it reaches you (even when it is, initially, bright enough to do so). One of the primary reasons such light can’t reach you anymore is due to the density gradient in our air which tends to divert light traveling through it convexly towards the ground, but there are many others.
Surely you don’t think you could see a candlelight or small led that was high in the sky - especially not from another country! Like most everything else, this doesn’t vary regardless of the true shape of the world.
Possibly, yes. If the world were a globe that is. If it were not a globe, then this would be a non-real, and incorrect, imagining.
Similarly, those of the “spotlight” view think the same thing happens just without being blocked by any supposed curvature.
I have many alternative and unpopular views, and consider many others. I think i have thought them through and have adequate evidence to support them, the same as you do.
The question is, how can we best determine which of us - (if any!) - is correct?
We all agree there is an atmosphere, right? And how light is effected by it? Are you retarded or ignorant?
“One shape that could satisfy your many further unvalidated assumptions is a concave sphere.”
But NOT a flat Earth, right?
So, do we BOTH disagree with the flat earth theory?
A flat earth would hold no more (necessary) sway on the motion of the sky than any other shape.
Sort of. In my view, there is no flat earth theory - just like there is no round earth theory and for the same reasons. Scientific theories have no purpose in determining the shapes of physical objects.
In my view, the earth is whatever shape it is :) Determining what that shape is with certainty does not involve astronomy. In fact, there is only one way to certainly determine the shape of any physical object - rigorous and repeated measurement of it! (NOT of things that are NOT it, and/or are in the opposite direction of it - like the sky)