The flat Earth is round !!!
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (11)
sorted by:
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.
Finally some good one open to question everything