The flat Earth is round !!!
(media.scored.co)
Comments (10)
sorted by:
What if the flat earth ball was actually a flat ball earth ball flat Frisbee ball pancake banana?
This one should be called The Great Compromise.
Nope, still retarded.
So, what, every "pond" has it's own little sun that goes in a little circle directly above it? Oh, and the suns are actually spotlights that shine straight down and nowhere else, allowing night to happen. And you can't see the beams because the matter in the atmosphere is enough to completely block them when you're far away, but not enough that light is refracted when you're close.
I'll compromise on toroid Earth, that's it.
LOL. I don't know if this is a joke, but I can assure you that mine was definitely a joke. I have got to be the biggest "globetard" here. I have this pathological masochistic tendency of patiently explaining the real physics behind the supposed FE proofs. I rarely get anywhere.
As far as toroidal planets go, I have never really studied them but as far as I understand some very smart people have and it is theoretically possible for a rocky toroidal planetary mass to exist under a balance of self gravitation and rotation. That said, the possibility that earth is toroidal is pretty much 0, just like the possibility that earth is flat or a "pond" on an "ice ball" of significantly larger radius than the conventional earth radius is also 0.
Now, to continue the joke a bit, and "answer" some of your questions, the "many earths as 'ponds' on a giant ice ball" theory actually provides a path for a possible explanation for the 24 hour sun observed in The Final Experiment. In effect, the 24 hour sun at "north pole" is our sun while it is in its northern / inner rotation period. The 24 hour sun in the south pole is the combined effect of our sun while it is in its southern / outer rotation and the suns from nearby "ponds" also at this part of their cycle.
Wow, I may have provided the answer to The Final Experiment.
Man, that sure sounds like something you could easily demonstrate and replicate under controlled conditions.
The reason I say toroid Earth is because that's essentially the only way to have the sun move as we observe it to move without a globe. So literally every other idea is retarded.
To answer your question: no, this is not a joke. This very image was sent to me by someone on this board, years ago, as an apologia for FE. People, who call themselves critical thinkers, actually think this is possible.
I am always polite to FE people. There are a variety of reasons for this, the nicest being that I actually agree that absolutely everything should be open to questioning, which means if someone is suspicious about the shape of the earth they have the right to ask questions. Those people deserve polite and accurate answers. On top of that, I think there are a lot of FE trolls that feed off of people melting down over this stuff, so rather than feed the trolls I provide very factual answers without any controversy.
That said, I personally just find the whole thing insane. I'm an engineer and a big math and physics nerd, so almost every argument sounds to me like a bad joke about physics from someone who wants to be Randall Monroe but is significantly less funny. Like, IMO Eric Dubay could be one of the best "corney jokes about bad physics" web comics ever.
A handful of FE arguments are actually semi correct and deserve a real answer. The most prolific of these is that despite what all the "believe science" shills say, you actually cannot reliably see the curve from the ground. This is just a fact of the small amount of curvature that the earth has and the interference that the earth surface atmosphere has on light propagation. So jackasses like Neal Degrasse Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, etc. are all showing themselves to be clowns. Unfortunately, we just have to tell the FE people that visual measurements restricted to the ground are too noisy to reliably demonstrate earth curvature.
"you actually cannot reliably see the curve from the ground. "
True but i can be tested, which it has thoroughly at a dregration of 8inch per square mile.
All tests show lasers at up to 40miles across a lake in perfect view- weird
All tests do not show items in perfect view on a flat earth. For every FE observation, there are a dozen out there showing the opposite, including even by FEers themselves trying to prove their case (Interesting...)!
I know you want to mix me up with Neal Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, and all these dorks in the media. I don't say stupid shit like these people do. I choose my words carefully, and what the comment you are responding to says is that you cannot reliably demonstrate the curve from observations restricted to the ground. This does not mean that you can use it to demonstrate the flat earth, you cannot. You cannot demonstrate anything.
If for every "flat observation" there is a "round observation" then in science we say that the experimental method is inadequate. This should not be too difficult to understand, since it is not uncommon for people to see large objects literally floating in the air, including ships on the same water you people like to use to prove the flat earth.
Assuming that you don't believe that planes just hover in the air or ships fly a story or two above the ocean, then we now agree that surface restricted observations are subject to deviations from linear trajectories that far exceed the claimed curvature of the earth that we are trying to confirm or refute. This means that the experimental / observational method is inadequate unless there is sufficient control over confounding variables. I don't care if Duvey, Weiss, Oakley, etc. say that this refutes the globe. It does not. Anything that "confirms" ships flying over the ocean does not refute anything.
Incidentally, you have found an example where all the "believe science FE debunkers" are wrong. The only correct statement is that surface observations are too noisy to conclude anything about the claimed earth curvature without careful control over other variables.
Here's one of your guys Neil degrase Tyson calling the shape of earth a "pear" 🤣
I love how the goalpost have to be moved with long winded explanations that only confuse.
When the truth is quite simple...as
https://youtu.be/KB8bawW1am4?si=4sW9Jje3pFiBczkT
This is one of those examples I told you about exhibiting why almost no one takes FEers seriously. However, as is my habit, I will provide you an accurate and polite answer.
NDT is not one of "my guys," he is a celebrity who makes entertainment for the (very stupid) masses. I assume that "goalposts have to be moved" implies that all the scientists are hiding that the globe model is totally failing. In this case what they are hiding is "all the extra land in the southern hemisphere" which is of course consistent with FE. This is typical Duvey / Weiss style nonsense that uses the sloppy language of an entertainer like NDT to make an argument that sounds like it makes sense if you don't know anything about the topic.
TLDR: The "pear" you are referring to is a north pole / south pole difference on the order of 0.000007, not some "secret failure of the globe that the world elite are hiding." Flat earthers finding problems in things like NDT popular interviews is not an argument. If you want to be taken seriously, find a major flaw in modern geodesy.
A long time ago, astronomical observations (i.e. the sun, the stars, etc.) suggested that the earth is round and rotating. The simplest model, then, is a sphere, and rudimentary measurements converge on a rough figure of a sphere of 4000 mile radius. Once a system of mechanics and gravitation was worked out, it was clear that a spinning body under self gravitation must be an oblate speroid. Improved measurements did in fact confirm that the equatorial radius is about 13.4 miles larger than the polar, giving a flattening of about 1/298.2 (~0.00335). The so called "pear shape" in this NDT video is a finding initially from the first satellite orbits in the 1950s. As you can read for yourself, modern measurements put this at a 148 foot difference between the distance to the north pole and the south pole from the center. Compared to the "theoretical polar radius" this is a "pear shape" on the order of ~0.000007. It has also been found that the equator is not circular to a similar order of magnitude. Nowadays, everything is done using the reference ellipsoid and the geoid.