So, in your view, you think that if the earth is really flat, and everyone believes it's a globe, would not take effort by a secret organisation to cover up the fact that the earth is actually flat, while also making everyone believe it's a globe.
Correct.
Are you sure about your answer?
I am sure that humanity is always stupid and wrong historically, and requires no help for it. We do it all on our own - no conspiracies necessary.
And it sounds like your mind is made up about this hypothetical question too.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there couldn’t be or isn’t a conspiracy (unbelievably large/long, or much more limited/small) to do as you suggest - just that one isn’t necessary/needed. If the world were flat and everyone believed it round, that would not require any conspiracy. If stars were not suns, and instead were lights in the sky of a totally different nature - once again, it would require no conspiracy. Humanity is always stupid and wrong, and we consistently teach those wrong and stupid beliefs (under the guise of “fact” and “science” no less), en masse, from childhood.
Wonder how people can recognise signs they are in cognitive dissonance.
Firstly, everyone is - it’s a human characteristic caused by our “rational” minds. Recognizing it is simple, but an objective external analysis can often help to identify it better than we can internally. Cognitive dissonance is simply holding two or more paradoxical/mutually exclusive/contradictory views simultaneously. Nothing more. A common one is believing they are a law abiding citizen and then speeding. Everyone has cognitive dissonance, it is completely painless, and often invisible to the experiencer (without careful introspection, and/or external help).
You think historical record about humanity is correct?
Lol. Of course not. History is largely stories/mythology. However, it is reasonable to both study and learn from it. Are you suggesting that people aren’t most often wrong and stupid (today and/or in the past) without any external help/conspiracy?
And a normal person would probably conclude that in order for everyone to think it's a globe, but it's actually flat, would take considerable programming, propaganda, and cover up
I think they have been encouraged to think such things through advertising and the myth of progress (modernism and modern “education” pushes this vain belief that we are better and smarter now. we simply couldn’t be wrong about such things because we are so evolved and educated compared to our primitive ancestors). What they misunderstand is that every generation has thoughts like this, and believes they have the truth with very little, if any doubt. That is always the norm, and they are always wrong. If they don’t have an answer, they make one up - the basis of almost all mythology, a lot of which is masquerading as science today. This biological proclivity is connected to that cognitive dissonance. What we cannot rationalize, the brain requires rationalization for, so we “fill in the gaps” with just about anything in order to feel better about our ignorance. This very much includes things which contradict other things we already believe/know.
At a massive level, because you have to cool so many people about something totally obvious and core to our daily experience.
It reminds me of a twain quote and a song lyric with a similar message : “You’ve been educated stupid. And are too dumb to notice. Or maybe just too evil to care.”
We believe LOTS of nonsense as a result of that “education” (really conditioning, by rote, under the guise of education - from childhood), but it also doesn’t really require a conspiracy. People (most of them anyway) teach what they believe (even and perhaps especially when wrong) primarily because they believe it.
So, with that level of manipulation, wouldn't it also be possible to fool you into believing historical records, into believing humanity is the cause for the wars and terror.
Absolutely. And this unquestionably goes on - seen contemporarily and historically. However, it doesn’t - in and of itself - require a conspiracy concerning the shape of the world.
If the earth is flat, it would change everything about how you see the world.
It certainly can, arguably should - but in my view it does not necessarily involve mass conspiracy. Claims of it requiring mass conspiracy/ being “conspiracy theory” are pushed, disingenuously by the heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) flat earth psyop specifically to suppress and prevent people from seriously discussing/researching the valuable subject. Claims of “conspiracy theory” only have that one purpose - discrediting/suppression.
The shape of the world is not a conspiracy, nor is one required for most everyone to be wrong about it. Claims of conspiracy are primarily a distraction from an extremely valuable subject to study.
show that air turns opaque beyond a certain distance.
You see it all the time. It’s the blue sky during the day, the black sky at night, and the horizon itself.
It’s not only air’s opacity at play, but also relative luminosity. The most common example is the stars during the daytime. Because air is NOT transparent, the light scattered by the air closer to you is bright enough to drown out the light from the distant objects.
This happens both when you look straight up, and when you look towards the horizon; however when you look towards the horizon you are looking through a lot more air and the effect is more pronounced as a result.
Air’s opacity is a primary reason that light can’t and doesn’t travel forever. Distant light from objects can’t reach you anymore because it is absorbed/diffracted/blocked by the air in the way. The more of that air, the higher the opacity, until it is effectively opaque. Simple, right?
Air and water are different substances
True, but they both behave as fluids and have remarkably similar properties. For example, if they were very different pascal’s law ought not work for gas - as it is far more compressible than liquid - yet in most instances it does. This is one example of many.
Your argument is nonsensical.
It’s not an argument. It is a simple analogy to help you understand. I see you are committed not to, and i cannot (and would not if i could) force you to learn anything.
Of course, clear glass is opaque.
Yes, of course it is (in the same way we are figuratively using the word opaque to mean translucent). Transparent isn’t really a thing in reality. Most everything we consider transparent is in fact translucent, and a thicker layer of it will be - effectively - opaque. Why you don’t want to know this easily demonstrable fact is intriguing to me. I think it should intrigue you as well.
Imagine for a second, the earth really is flat. It would take a huge cover up, right?
Not in my view, no.
Humanity requires no help (grand conspiracy or otherwise) to be consistently wrong and stupid, as it historically always is.
Rains come from the sky, I know it must have water in it.
Not.
That is correct - including today. Wether you believe that water is coming from gods tear ducts or the slits/vaults in the sky letting the heavenly oceans flow down doesn’t change the soundness of the (simple) logic.
I hate dumb Flat Earthers. Hate their stupidity. They are so utterly dumb.
You are intended to. The heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop presents them as offensively stupid so that you will never seriously consider/research the valuable subject. In reality, only a very small percentage of humanity is as ostensibly stupid as the common “flat earthers”; that we are intended to believe are both real and common. They are neither.
It's almost laughable at the obvious autism.
Exactly as contrived and advertised by the psyop.
You can observe gravity. Therefore there is gravity.
True. Gravity is a scientific law, millennia old. It is the phenomenon of falling, nothing more. Now gravitation - that is a very different matter and only a few centuries old.
In science you always start with an observation, then you develop a hypothesis and then you verify it through experiments and formulate a conclusion.
Spot on. Though what an experiment is, how it works, and what constitutes a valid hypothesis are woefully misunderstood. Scientific illiteracy is ubiquitous.
For example, you think there is an experiment which confirms the hypothesis for how gravitation causes gravity - but there isn’t and never was.
For example, you claim that air gets opaque beyond a certain distance. That claim is not based on any kind of observation or evidence
Of course it is. The question you should be asking is why you don’t want it to be true. The air is opaque (technically translucent; ultimately effectively opaque when there is enough of it) for the same reasons the water is. Why cant you see the shark swimming out in the ocean from underwater near the shore? It’s too far away, and the water is opaque (ultimately/effectively). That’s the reason sharks “see” by their skin - they get much better range that way.
Unfortunately, I already know that you won;t understand what I just explained and will most likely just reply with another video.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with videos (or any media, including text) - but i also prefer discussion and more or less ignore the videos (because they most often just waste time).
If some ancient Greek could do it over 2000 years ago, why can't you?
That’s just it. They couldn’t and didn’t. We were just mistaught that they could/did. The ancient greeks simply guessed.
I bet you felt very enlightened writing this.
I don’t choose to discuss rather than argue like a fool to feel enlightened. I do it to avoid being foolish, wasting time, and manipulating others! Argument is for idiots. It isn’t a path to enlightenment, and i am not sharing this fact with you to feel better about myself.
Capable students avoid base argument/debate (because it is a foolish, and self indulgent as well as manipulative, waste of time) and instead focus on earnest rational discourse and rigorous research. I encourage all to be better students.
you are not able and willing to have a discussion
Lol. I created an entire community here explicitly because i am especially willing (and able, besides) to have discussions on this subject. What i won’t have are debates/arguments.
You're just another flat earther who has no argument or evidence and hides behind bullshit excuses.
Says the coward running away from the conversation :(
You would do well to consider why you so desperately want/need this to be true. It will help you identify your bias, so that you can work to countermand/suppress it.
There are no flat earthers, just products and agents of a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop. You are not talking to them right now. You are talking to me.
There is plenty of evidence to discuss, when and if you are ever ready. I am not going anywhere, and there is a whole community i created here for you to ask questions, levy criticisms, and otherwise exchange your views with others.
Just like I predicted.
You can pat yourself on the back and declare yourself “right”/“the winner” alone in a room offline.
I want to discuss it here.
I don’t think that is true. I think you want to “ask” disingenuous “questions” for rhetorical purpose only and have no genuine interest in discussing or understanding the existing answers to them. If I am wrong, then what do you care where the discussion occurs?
Are you just promoting your shitty website here
Lol, it’s a community on THIS site specifically for conversations like this. You can browse the existing conversations (this topic has been discussed many times, and all the answers to your questions are already there), or create a new one.
The benefit is that there are other earnest researchers who - now and in the future - may be interested in seeing and/or contributing their perspectives to your question(s).
Either provide arguments or shut up.
Lol. Arguments are for fools. Rational discourse and rigorous research are, instead, for the learned.
I have no arguments, only my research (which includes answers to your questions).
The answer to your latest question is weight. Understanding that answer will take further discussion, which is better served on a forum specifically for such discussions (i.e. flatearthresearch).
A globe earth easily explains freefall.
In your learned beliefs, arguably. But even in those learned beliefs, the world does not need to be spherical in order for things to fall. Things fall, regardless of what the shape of the world is. That is true in your view, and in mine.
How does flat earth explain freefall without invoking magic?
As i recommended initially, if you are earnestly interested in answers to questions like this - please join us on flatearthresearch to discuss/explore them! It is actually your worldview that invokes magic to explain freefall, but i know you can’t/won’t recognize that currently.
“Flat earth” is not a person or a thing - it doesn’t say/explain anything. Flat earth researchers have varying explanations for freefall, and none of them that i have encountered so far involve magic.
You are almost there.
Lol, says the person that thinks falling is motionless. Hydrostatics is the study of water at rest, not falling.
How can it be in freefall in orbit if the earth is flat?
Freefall demonstrably does exist, and it does not depend on the earth being any particular shape. Your belief that it does is a learned/encouraged bias.
What force is applied to water in zero gravity?
Leaving aside the fact that zero gravity is a misnomer/misunderstanding, the answer is air pressure.
How is water in zero gravity "falling"?
Because “zero gravity” is not a thing. The water in the video is in freefall (even if you believe in orbit) and still very much under the force of gravitation (to use your parlance).
Think very carefully about your answer. You are almost there.
Practice what you preach! If you earnestly care to learn, you’ll get there eventually.
Fun.
Do you think water that is falling is at rest (And do you think that this is not a demonstration of surface tension artifacts, besides)?
The above is a demonstration of isostatic air pressure and surface tension. Water can indeed take any shape when force is applied to it. Its surface only takes the one at rest (barring negligible surface tension artifacts and under natural condition; qualifiers added to stifle pedantry).
The laws of science are established down here on earth, where all science is practiced.
The evidence for a flat Earth that you claim exists
You misunderstand. I was saying that there is legitimate evidence and research regarding the posit (and for some, conclusion) of a flat earth which does not involve vague claims and 5 hour youtube infotainment drivel.
The best evidence that the world cannot be spherical comes from hydrostatics - specifically the study of the surface of still water. It cannot and does not, under natural conditions, curve convexly in the manner the globe model requires. The reason we know this is because we have measured it - repeatedly. The surface of still water at rest (barring negligible surface tension artifacts) is always flat, level, and horizontal. It’s been a scientific law for more than 3 centuries now. If the world is covered in water the way currently believed/depicted - it cannot be spherical as a result.
You won't do it of course because there is no such thing.
You still aren’t hearing me. Everyone has evidence for everything (that they want). It’s trivial. You have evidence for the things you believe, just like everyone else has evidence for the things they believe. That doesn’t make the things they believe correct! I hope you can understand what i’m saying, and if not - ask questions!
You will instead again post some meaningless drivel
If it is meaningless to you, it is because you don’t understand it. When you don’t understand, ask questions!
You are wrong for two main reasons.
- There aren’t any flat earthers - you have fallen for a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop.
- Evidence is trivial. They have evidence just like you do. The flaws most often lie in the interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself.
Anyhow, the chip on your shoulder is called bias/prejudice and it makes objective study (and discussion) impossible. I recommend casting it aside if you can.
As much as i would like to matrix-style “brain dump” it to you, we lack the technology to do so.
Discussing things takes time. It’s a bit like demanding someone to present all their knowledge on any subject ... where to begin?
Specific questions are the best way forward - what specifically do you want “presented”?
No, it does not. You are lying
I’m not lying - you aren’t listening :(
You are claiming that you have evidence in flight details that the world must be spherical (or at least, can’t be flat). There are others who claim to have evidence from flight details that it is flat (and other shapes besides).
In my view, you both have evidence. And you are both misinterpreting it to come to flawed conclusions which don’t follow from the evidence.
That does NOT mean that you (or them) do not have evidence! You both have evidence! But that does not make either of you correct about the conclusions drawn from said evidence.
you make bullshit excuses for not showing it.
You’re just misunderstanding me. An argumentative approach/demeanor is never the right one when trying to effectively communicate. It only gets in the way.
The evidence that you claim exists.
The evidence does exist, just like the evidence which convicts innocent people or leads people to other incorrect (scientific or otherwise) conclusions/theories exists.
Claiming that such evidence doesn’t exist is silly, and plainly false. Claiming that the evidence which is purported to exist is wrong is a very different matter...
So, show it
You don’t seem to be understanding what i’m saying. Perhaps re-reading it (assuming you are not a bot) may help.
Evidence is easy/trivial. Having it or not having it is largely meaningless. There are many examples (some of which i’ve already listed) in which evidence exists and the conclusions drawn from it are wrong.
Claiming that such evidence doesn’t exist, is both silly and wrong. There are many who claim that flight paths prove the world one shape or another. analysis of those flight paths (and diversions from them during emergencies) are their evidence - and that evidence obviously exists.
why they will not present actual evidence.
Again, you are missing the point. Having or lacking evidence doesn’t make you correct or incorrect. Besides, explanation/logic/reasoning - “long winded” or not - is evidence (or at least can be).
And here you are, demonstrating how right I was.
You can pat yourself on the back - declaring how right you are - in a silent room, all alone. However, you will not receive help from others to recognize when you are wrong (being which is both unavoidable, and frequent).
So, where is it?
It is largely obfuscated by the flat earth psyop. You have to dig a little deeper.
One of the places i can recommend to explore and discuss the subject is the community i created here for that purpose; flatearthresearch.
It’s just the way it is.
If i spoonfeed you the answer, i make you weak and bias you towards MY answers.
I want you to be a better student, not a worse one. You need to learn to fish for yourself, and to know - acutely - why you must.
Then present it.
Present what? I can’t help you find something if i don’t even know what you’re looking for. And i won’t help you find something if you don’t earnestly try to research/search for it first and fail. If i feed you fish, i make you a slave.
You won't because
you know thatit doesn't exist.
Understanding why you so desperately need this to be the case that you make silly proclamations like this will help you to identify your biases and be a better researcher. Assuming you are a human being, and earnest, i am happy to help when you are ready.
Then present it.
Present what? Have you not understood anything I’ve said?
Bots can’t understand what they read either :(
Do better if you can, and try responding to specific content!
You won't because you know that it doesn't exist.
I won’t because i don’t want to make you an even worse student than you already are. If you earnestly go looking for such evidence (of which there is, at least ostensibly, a lot) and fail then i’m happy to help you. Where have you tried looking? Or did you just assume and proclaim without doing any research at all ... :(
Sure, but i would make you a less capable student - and risk further biasing you - if i spoonfed it to you.
Do you honestly doubt that the things which recede from us appear to shrink in size as a result? Do you honestly doubt that distortion caused by the air and things in it can (and does) affect the apparent size of the sun? Do you honestly believe that the sun is NOT changing distance from us (i.e. the observer) over the course of the day and/or year?
If the answer to all the above is, “No” - as i expect it ought to be ... then you don’t really need any “supporting documentation” in any case. Right?
Anyway, have you tried looking for such measurements already and failed to find them? Where have you looked, and what have you been looking for (search terms / etc.)?
That’s the way real life is.
The burden to validate claims encountered (facts are merely one type of claim) before accepting them always falls on us, the students.
If you need help validating (or refuting!) a claim after failing to do so on your own, please let me know and i’m happy to help!
None of the “claims” above should be hard for you to research. Let me know if you have trouble, and what you tried so far!
I have presented evidence, and provided examples and analogies to help you understand. What you don’t understand is that evidence is trivial, and you have no trouble discarding/ignoring it when you want to. Having evidence isn’t nearly as important as being correct, and being able to validate it. Evidence frequently, perhaps most often, leads to incorrect conclusions.
There aren’t any flat earthers, just products and/or agents of a heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) psyop. You are not talking to them right now. You are talking to me.
Personally i avoid argument because it is exclusively for and by idiots hoping to manipulate. I don’t want to convince (i.e. manipulate) you. I want you to understand. I want you to discover for yourself, and to know why you must.
From the top of everest looking straight towards the horizon it is a few hundred miles. At sea level, again looking towards the hozion through the densest and most laden air, it is only a few.
When you make long distance observations of things, you will see a haze/distortion on them caused by the air in between. Ultimately this haze becomes impenetrable, and roughly this is one of the primary causes of the horizon line we see.
The evidence comes from observation, scale testing, and scientific principles (notably optics).
You need to understand that in the context of distant objects no longer being visible - full opacity is not required. As i explained already, it just needs to be opaque enough to prevent the distant light from that object from reaching you and/or becoming drowned out by the local luminosity.
You already know that air isn’t completely transparent, and that light doesn’t travel forever through it as a result. You can do an observation with a large field and a small candle if you have doubts.