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:
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)
“(NOT of things that are NOT it, and/or are in the opposite direction of it - like the sky)”
Do you also not believe in algebra? Algebra is the process of determining the value of “X” by comparing “X” to the known values of things around it.
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth, disproves the flat Earth theory.
We can all see and test this. It does NOT fit into the flat Earth model.
Algebra is real, and like most all real things - requires no belief!
Assuming this were true, and “the flat earth theory” were a real thing (it isn’t for the same reasons the “globe earth theory” is not a real thing), it would not disprove or prove anything about the shape of the world. It would establish (“proove”) the patterns in the sky! If you want to know the shape of something, you have to measure it!
Agreed.
I prefer the word “conception” - because there is no flat earth model (certainly in a scientific understanding of that word).
The only reason you feel this way is due to MANY other biases. Putting them aside, and just establishing that the shape and the motion of the sky are as you describe “proves” things about the sky! The inferences you make beyond that are simply that - unsound “leaps of logic”. Looking at the sky to determine the shape of the world is incredibly silly, and is only believed reasonable thanks to bias/influence from (the pseudoscience/religion/mythology of) astronomy.