Disagree.
I find it an excellent exercise in proving something with my own knowledge and skills.
One thing the FE crowd gets right is that too many people place their faith in "experts" and systems and don't actually think for themselves (unfortunately, they aren't very self aware).
I enjoy finding new and creative ways in which FE can't possible be true.
How about the North Pole?
If the sun goes in a circular orbit (around something) approximately above the equator, that would mean that an observer at the North Pole would either see the sun travel in a complete circle at the same elevation (about 20°) or not see it at all because "the light isn't bright enough to see that far away".
The only way the sun could rise or set at the north pole is if it's orbit shifted north and south on the same day. Ignoring the obvious problem of how, that north/south shift is how seasons are supposed to work sooo...how do seasons work?
I always argued using the model of the sun rising over the circumference of the earth because even though that's obviously stupid, it's much less stupid than the idea that the sun spins in a constantly changing orbit directly above us and we don't see it at night because it's too small.
Oh wait, how about this?
If I'm at the north pole, and the sun orbits the equator, then the distance is fixed. Either I would always see it, spining in complete circles around the sky at the same angle, or I would never see it because it's too far away.
Here's some napkin math to try on for size.
The distance from pole to pole is approximately 20,000 miles; the diameter of FE, then, is about 40,000 miles.
If the sun is only 7000 miles up, you can make a right angle triangle from where you are standing, to directly below the sun, up to the sun.
For a right angle triangle:
tantheta = (the height of the sun) ÷ (the distance to the point directly below the sun)
Where theta is the angle of the height of the sun versus the ground from where you're standing.
If you're at the outer circumference of the FE, and the sun is over the opposite side of the circumference, theta is 10°. Which is to say, the sun never goes beneath 10°.
But wait, the sun orbits above the equator, so the max distance is 30k (pole to pole, plus half again to the far equator).
So the lowest the sun can go, according to this model, is 15°.
Of course, by this point the sun should have faded due to distance, so the actual minimum angle is necessarily higher.
Therefore, if I observe the sun below 15°, at any time, this FE model is false.
he sun is small and light from the sun is not visible all the way across the earth, even though it is flat
So the argument is that the sun fades in and out everyday?
Why do we not see gradients, then? (edit)
If that's true, the sun should be brightest when it's directly overhead then noticeably fade until it's gone, like car lights in fog. But that's not what happens.
Every single day the sun is completely visible (barring clouds) from the moment it rises above the horizon to the moment it sets. The only effect of the atmosphere on visibility is to shift the visible light towards the red side of the spectrum and to reflect small amounts of light when it's barely hidden. If the sun "fades out", sunset should take hours, not minutes.
Ok, I'll bite: what is the arching path described in the FE model?
Because, first off, any path over a flat Earth would have to have the same sunrise time across the entire planet, which we know doesn't happen.
Second, on any given day, the sun would rise and set in completely opposite directions in NA and Asia, which we know it doesn't.
Third, the "equator" is completely meaningless in FE. If the sun arches "away from you" in New Zealand, to the South, it will also arch "away from you" in Alaska, just further away. Furthermore, it would arch "away from you" to the north if you were in Chile on the same day ie still in the southern hemisphere but on the opposite side of the Earth as the Sun. Which we know doesn't happen.
My hypothesis is that real flat-Earthers (not the trolls or feds) simply can't evaluate evidence. They just don't have the capacity to do so. This is why 39 out of 40 get into it because of videos (and why they always try to share videos and articles instead of ever explaining anything); FE is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. You need to be persuaded, not convinced.
To a certain extent, I sympathize. If you can't determine truth for yourself, what are your options? It's not stupid, in that case, to go along with the crowd, or a trusted authority; they're far more likely to be right than a random guess. But they're fallible and, particularily these days, corrupt and spread misinformation.
So they FE types throw the baby out with the bathwater. If they're lying about one thing, they must be lying about everything, all the way to the shape of the planet and the physical systems that govern it.
And they're not entirely wrong, either. I can't prove who did 9/11, but I have no faith in the official explanation. They basically admitted to JFK and even the moon landing could very well be fabricated; it's just the kind of deceptive theater that they do.
But, at the end of the day, the FE crowd is making wild guesses. That I don't mind. What I mind is that they think they should be taken seriously when they literally don't understand anything they're talking about; they're just out to trip you up with obscure factoids and gotcha questions which, if you can't answer off the top of your head, supposedly prove FE.
Love the shift from "3D printed meat" (yeah, okay, same stuff but cruelty free) to "3D printed plant meat" ie "not actually meat, it's just phoney baloney fancied up".
Assets (markets and real estate) will deflate, and the cost of goods and labor will inflate...
Sounds good to me?
That's basically what I'm waiting for; housing prices to drop and wages to meet inflation, then I'll go back to work. Otherwise it's not worth it.
Yeah, but the list you're on is the employee roster.
I don't know about here, but I've noticed a large surge in handshake posting on other subs over the last few days.
I figured it wasn't important, but now TD is unbanning en mass...
One problem: Russian bombed nearly every one of these labs (or at least nearby) in the first few bombing salvos of the war. Wouldn't that risk destroying evidence?
That's why decentralizing is so important, globalism relies on central power over everything.
Friendly reminder: more infectious correlates to less deadly per capita unless the virus is specifically engineered by humans to be more deadly.
Natural selection pressures viruses to keep their host alive (both to spread for longer and to reinfect later) and to spread more easily.
The dangerous viruses are the ones that can live in other animals without harming them, because then there's no selection pressure to be less dangerous to humans; we're incidental. The Black Death was spread by fleas who were hardly affected by it.
Yeah, them talking about "accountability" raised some flags; he wasn't held accountable for anything, he just ignored them, which he can, because they have no teeth.
It's all very cathartic without having any actual effect, which is what I would expect of a staged performance, especially given what we're hearing about certain (((other))) alternative media orgs recently.
I'm wondering now if the whole WEF is being setup as a fall guy; it was a secret for nearly 50 years so why make it public now, when everyone is pissed off at a global conspiracy? All they need to do is quietly setup another org for meetings while everyone watches the spectacle in Davos.
120um is the printing resolution; the actual antennas are over a centimeter squared.
No paper that includes the phrase "assigned female at birth" can be considered credible science.
The only reason to join the army is to steal a tank, godspeed.
Approximately 15% of Canadians didn't get jabbed, study checks out.
Why not troll them directly?
Get a buddy to call the cops and tell them "my friend is talking about covid conspiracies", then take the phone and start dropping pills on them.
It's almost like "the news" can post anything they like, regardless of veracity, without consequence.
I lost the source, it was posted elsewhere. It is good; and goes in depth into how women and children have been separated from their men and are being exploited because of it.
Also, the headline is fake.
Psst, stupid scientists.
Chads believe in schitzo-fed-posts on youtube, and that's it.
Dorsey added that next week he would begin handing out $1million in grants per-year for engineers developing algorithms and platforms that would make the internet a freer place, a project he called 'open internet development.'
Getting some serious Bill Gates "have vaccines, Africans, because I'm such a nice guy" vibes...
Does that matter?
Ultimately yes, but the fact is that even if the globe model is wrong (rather than you simply not understanding it), FE is definitively wrong. There is no way the FE is correct based on observable data, basic math, and common sense. We don't use the globe model because we were "spoon fed", we use it because it explains everything we need it to and no other theory does so.
You can go ahead and try to find a new model, but until you find one that explains everything that the globe model does as well as additional observable phenomenon, there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously.