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!
Do you think that I am asking for a physical model like a diorama?
Lol. There is a lot of equivocation fallacy (often unintentional) surrounding the use of the word “model”. Most people have no idea what a scientific model is, how it is made, or why. For instance, you are under the (common/popularized) misapprehension that they are used, or can be used, to prove things about reality (either inside of science or outside of it).
None of that seems to exist for a flat earth
In the scientific sense/use of the word “model”, no. There are many maps, conceptions, physical “dioramas” etc. available, however - but that is NOT the same thing, as you correctly point out.
What you are missing is that having or not having a model is meaningless. The earth remains the shape it is regardless of what our contrived models depict. Did you understand the point i was making about the geocentric model?
Just vague claims and 5-hour long videos with more vague claims.
There is more than that (what you describe above, which i generally consider the flat earth psyop) but the heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop obfuscates it. That is one of its major purposes, ostensibly.
Earnest researchers, what i call flat earth researchers, do exist - and like most researchers - often do not make any videos. In any case, i loathe the 5 hour infotainment junk too.
They have claims but no evidence.
So you want to believe.
Evidence is easy. There’s evidence available for almost anything, very much including things which are wrong/untrue. Just think about all the people who are wrongly convicted and sentenced for crimes they didn’t commit. Or virtually every scientific conclusion/belief of prior generations. Evidence abounds, but it doesn’t usually lead to truth (and often leads away from it).
You may disagree, or otherwise find fault with, their evidence - but they certainly have it (at least, as i said, ostensibly).
Has anyone observed and measured the sun changing size?
Yes.
It’s important to recognize that we are talking about apparent size change (though in the standard view of the sun being a star powered by fusion - the sun does change actual size as well)
The apparent size of the sun changes due to refraction/diffraction (typically at sunrise/sunset) as well as distance to us (typically over a yearly period, though obviously it is changing distance over the day too - so its apparent size is also changing daily even if we currently lack the precision to detect such a change)
How would that even work?
Often it is done with an ND filter (to get rid of the glare and only measure the sun) and a photodetector (ccd/camera etc.).
Is there any evidence that they are either lighter than air or immaterial?
Yes, quite a bit. Some of the most compelling, perhaps, comes from astronomy where the interactions of distant galaxies defies all our understandings/models. Arguably other compelling examples are when comets (believed to be made of dust and ice) travel through the sun unscathed.
The fact that they consistently float above and never fall is a good evidence, in and of itself, that they likely cannot be very dense - but this is a bit too obvious for the average “educated” mind to grasp. To the uneducated or the properly educated, it is a perfectly reasonable assertion - however.
If they are immaterial, where does the light come from?
The air they are comprised of/surrounded by/interacting with! There are some intriguing videos of people showing that a combination of a just a few ionized gasses is responsible for the primary spectrum of colors in daylight.
Of course, your next question could/should be - where does the power come from to ionize the gasses... That is the real question. Sadly most questions don’t have answers, and the contrived answers we are taught to believe, in lieu of the correct answer, are consistently (and wildly) wrong generation after generation. You learn to live with it ;)
You misunderstand.
Models are not for explanation.
Consider the geocentric model. We have it, and it still works very well today. Does that prove that the universe is geocentric?
Models are not for explanation - they are for (limited) use!
Having a model or not having a model is meaningless. Analogously, having an explanation or lacking one is equally meaningless. Furthermore, contriving explanation is trivial; Almost all mythology is explanation... What matters is if the explanations are correct!
If i had a model of a flat world (trivial, but time consuming, to create), surely that wouldn’t prove the world flat - right? For the exact same reasons the geocentric model doesn’t (and can’t, fundamentally) prove that the earth is the center of the universe.
There aren’t really any flat earthers. You are operating under a misconception. They are largely products and/or agents of a psyop.
The answer is, it doesn’t stay the same size. The sun does change (apparent) size during the day and over the course of the year. Wether the world is flat or spherical has no bearing on that. All things that recede appear to shrink (assuming no magnification/distortion in the way that obscures that optical law)
There are 2 major possibilities (and many others besides)
- They are lighter than the surrounding air they displace (aka low density).
- They aren’t material, but light/luminaries.
Though to be fair, i am not a flat earther.
If you, or anyone, are earnestly interested in questions like these - please join us over on flatearthresearch to discuss!
If you (or anyone) are ever earnestly interested in questions like this, please join us over on flatearthresearch!
How does the climate work on a flat earth? Why does it get colder the further north or south or up you go?
This is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated/biased to recognize, but almost nothing depends on the believed sphericity of the world. Neither the climate or the colder latitudes require the world to be a sphere. The climate works the same way it does now (generally driven by the sun as far as we know)
- Trust the tv
- Trust the us government (moon rocks)
- Trust the art department at NASA (Lunar footprints, Over 8,000 photos documenting our trips, Scientific equipment we’ve installed on the Moon)
- Repeat what you heard
Proof!
There are many who claim this is not the case and have ostensible evidence to support their claims.
However, you seem to have missed my point.
IF the world is flat, then obviously all flights happen over a flat earth.
The whole “flight paths prove” premise is essentially nonsense - regardless of the shape of the world they are claimed to prove.
Surely IF the world is flat, then no flights that currently exist are impossible...
It’s a tautology.
I find some of the flight path analysis arguments slightly interesting, but fundamentally flawed in regards to determining the shape of the world in most every way - regardless of what shape it actually is.
I’m not sure about a “red pill”, but i am a fan of their graphics/musings (and music selection!).
My two cents are :
-
War is really only about two things - topography, and subterfuge. The idea that today is somehow different and common people are permitted to have correct maps is extremely naive.
-
The aristocracy knew about and had maps detailing the “new world” for centuries (at least) prior to when most are taught migration from europe first began. What happened the moment those poor slaves knew there was a place to go to escape their miserable lot?
For further exploration/discussion on the topic, please join us over on flatearthresearch!
“Good info” - i’m not sure, but i can share my view.
As far as i can tell the myth of atlantis is from plato. That is the first and primary source. Supposedly he picked up the story from the egyptians.
Generally it was an advanced seafaring society organized into concentric rings containing all the known animals of the world. Then it was destroyed by sudden cataclysm.
Then there is the modern american (as far as i can tell/trace) revival of the myth where atlantis sunk but somehow survived the sinking and is still down there.
In my view, the atlantis myth is just another retelling of the biblical flood myth (perhaps even, its source). Atlantis wasn’t a country, nation, or continent - it was the entirety of the world prior to the global flood. Advanced and organized into concentric circles like we do today (latitude).
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.