What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers

[luke wilson]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

I don't understand why this topic is generating so much interest. This is just one of many conspiracy theories that hold no water. I haven't seen multi-page threads about lizard people, fake moon landings, underground cities, hollow earth theory etc etc... What's so special about the flat earth conspiracy theory?

I mean, I sort of get that it shows that some people ( :D) aren't educated in terms of physics and mechanics but the interest it has generated is quite astonishing.

 

[Duke]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Did I miss something?? Did anyone ACTUALLY argue that the earth IS flat? Or is it that this was even posted in the first place?
Offshore fishing out far enough to not see any land will prove the curvature issue just fine. We have an island out off the east coast that is a peak of rock running straight up for 100 feet of so and we look for it on the way back in and YES you see the top first!!

 

[Laura]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Some HD images of earth from the moon. Of course, the flat earthers will say they are faked.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...mg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://<iframe width="560" height="...Ts" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Richs]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Ok, I have watched nearly all of the video and will begin refuting some of the things claimed in it. One of the first things mentioned is that of 'going far North to get to a location instead of simply going there along a straight line on the Earth'.

Apparently the author of the video never heard of Great Circle Routes for long-distance voyages, whether in the air or on the sea. Here is a description of this from Wickipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance

"This article is about shortest-distance on a sphere. For the shortest distance on an ellipsoid, see geodesics on an ellipsoid.
The great-circle or orthodromic distance is the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere, measured along the surface of the sphere (as opposed to a straight line through the sphere's interior). The distance between two points in Euclidean space is the length of a straight line between them, but on the sphere there are no straight lines. In non-Euclidean geometry, straight lines are replaced with geodesics. Geodesics on the sphere are the great circles (circles on the sphere whose centers coincide with the center of the sphere).

Through any two points on a sphere which are not directly opposite each other, there is a unique great circle. The two points separate the great circle into two arcs. The length of the shorter arc is the great-circle distance between the points. A great circle endowed with such a distance is the Riemannian circle.

Between two points which are directly opposite each other, called antipodal points, there are infinitely many great circles, but all great circle arcs between antipodal points have the same length, i.e. half the circumference of the circle, or \pi r, where r is the radius of the sphere.

The Earth is nearly spherical (see Earth radius) so great-circle distance formulas give the distance between points on the surface of the Earth (as the crow flies) correct to within 0.5% or so.[1]"

The article continues by showing the spherical trigonometry methods used to calculate a great circle route, and there are several methods which can be used for this.

Here are many examples of Great Circle Routes:
_http://tinyurl.com/orusw6u

Thjis guys's assumption that these kinds of routes are taken to obscure the fact that we all live on a flat Earth and that there is a giant conspiracy to conceal that idea is nothing but nonsense.

Edit: spelling

 

[Duke]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Luke your questions are what I first was hoping to have a discussion about. But it's been a fast passed discussion about nonsense. Can't keep up!!!

 

[Chu]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

The thinking behind flat earth is interesting and harkens back to the old monotheistic 'centre of the universe' idea. As Laura and others have repeatedly explained, it is much easier for some people to believe in a smaller, more predictable world where everything is controlled (even if it's controlled by evil powers), than a vast open universe that stretches on and up into vastness and complexity beyond words.

In fact I think it is really that simple. A child mind wants a simple, enclosed, predictable system to grow up in. The adult mind can understand uncertainty, non-linearity and an infinite progression. Due to the traumatizing nature of this world, many people never grow out of child mind. Stockholm syndrome.

Very well said. And that's what Lobaczewski meant by:

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors.

Maybe this is a bit of a strech, but it reminded me of "The Prehistory of the Mind", by Steve Mithen, and his Cathedral analogy:

In my view, the early human mind may have been similar to a Romanesque cathedral. These are characterised by having several chapels separated from each other by thick walls and low vaults, so that the sounds of services in one chapel are almost inaudible elsewhere in the cathedral. The intelligence that early humans used to make stone tools, or to understand animal behaviour or the social world, may have been `trapped' in parts of the mind like these chapels, unable to be heard in the rest of the mind.

One consequence of having this `Romanesque' mental architecture, where thought is conducted in isolated chapels devoted to specific domains of behaviour, is that early humans would have had difficulty conceiving of just those things that are missing from the archaeological record - things such as tools specifically designed for particular animals, or artefacts made from parts of animals themselves. All of these require an integration of knowledge from different `cognitive domains'.

The metaphor of the cathedral can, in my view, be extended to explain the development of more modern minds. In later Gothic cathedrals, sound and light emanating from different parts of the building are allowed to flow freely, unimpeded by walls and vaults, to produce a sense of almost unlimited space. Compare the modern mind, in which ideas and knowledge combine to produce the possibility of almost unlimited imagination and inventiveness. The modern mind is one in which the thick walls that had previously separated thought into isolated chapels are knocked down.

In the case of people who prefer to believe in these smaller, predictable, more controlled theories, it could be said that they don't have a good connectivity between the "chapels" either. They cannot conceive of non-linear ideas, abstract concepts. Using that same analogy, the world may seem so scary that they need something "tangible". And in doing so, they are literally trapped in a small (and 2D "flat") chapel (a theory that they buy into), and miss the wonder of the entire cathedral (the world/reality).

I would say that this would make them VERY susceptible to actually believing whatever a schizoidal psychopath may say, since they don't have the developed capacity to connect dots by themselves. They would need to make huge efforts (if the ability is there to begin with) to see beyond "flat" theories and expand their minds. It would explain a lot of denial that goes on today in the world, as well as how some people think they are knowledgeable about things they are completely ignorant about. They just don't see that there can be more beyond the confinement of what resides inside the walls of that "chapel".

 

[Gaby]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

I like this one:

http://<iframe width="853" height="...=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It helps to get oriented in space :)

 

[Keyhole]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

The thinking behind flat earth is interesting and harkens back to the old monotheistic 'centre of the universe' idea. As Laura and others have repeatedly explained, it is much easier for some people to believe in a smaller, more predictable world where everything is controlled (even if it's controlled by evil powers), than a vast open universe that stretches on and up into vastness and complexity beyond words.

Agreed. It's also an extremely anthropocentric, materialistic way of viewing existence. It claims to be an alternative for the "open minded" people offering answers to those who are apparently seeking truth. However, from what I can see, this way of thinking is even more dense than the official narrative! They are essentially saying : "If you can't see it, it doesn't exist. It's that simple!" which is a complete denial of a large chunk of reality (which will probably come and bite them in the bottom at some point I think). This is hardcore religous dogma at its best! It's basically scientific materialism that has been tweaked a little and painted in different colours

 

[Scottie]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Luke your questions are what I first was hoping to have a discussion about. But it's been a fast passed discussion about nonsense. Can't keep up!!!

Are you sure? This was your first post in this thread:

I'm very surprised that nobody watched the whole video....I went on to have a look at some other stuff that he has done and was quite impressed. I don't agree or disagree because I haven't put the "work" into either point of view.
Yes, Laura I have seen the things you stated. And still I come back to ask myself why would a plane only fly north 'so to speak" If the earth is a globe { got no idea either way} why wouldn't you just fly across the Antarctic instead right around the top??
I found this interesting -- if nothing else. More information to keep in mind while learning and living........FWIW

Luke is asking why this topic has even generated the posts that it has, given that it's nothing new in terms of all the crazy theories out there (correct me if I'm wrong, Luke).

You could have answered your question yourself by some simple searching, which you admit you haven't put the work into. If you don't want to do any work to learn something, then it's highly unlikely you will ever learn anything.

Now you say the whole fast-paced discussion is "about nonsense", but that the "why" Luke speaks of is exactly what you wanted to know in the first place - which is clearly not true, because you wanted somebody to explain, "...why would a plane only fly north 'so to speak'..."

I would say that your posts answer the "why" of Luke's question: Because this entire topic, the resulting maelstrom of posts, and trying to answer people's questions (which often change) is a huge investment of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere.

It isn't the topic that is important; it's the "interest", the flurry of posts, the confused and contradictory questions and thinking, and so on...

Maybe somebody else can say it better than I can, but that's it in a nutshell, IMO.

 

[Persej]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

If a person just watched one ten minute science video every day, it would add up to a serious education in a few months time!

It seems that we really need a modern version of this Soviet calendar. :)

http://www.1tv.ru/news/social/168459

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33071.msg590942.html#msg590942

 

[cubbex]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

For the folks who didn't have much science education, here are a few youtube channels with really great, entertaining, science videos. Some of the stuff is really crazy and obscure, but it sure is educational!

Oh my god I love vsauce, I also recommend these channels:

ThunderboltsProject
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA

MIT Open Course Ware
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEBb1b_L6zDS3xTUrIALZOw

Suspicious Observers
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ

My most favourity YT channel:

World Science Festival
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A

The internet is full of weird ideas but it makes education easy to access, even videogames exist for that purpose:

Universe Sandbox
https://youtu.be/dhY6G3iNiQ4

 

[luke wilson]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Luke your questions are what I first was hoping to have a discussion about. But it's been a fast passed discussion about nonsense. Can't keep up!!!

Are you sure? This was your first post in this thread:

I'm very surprised that nobody watched the whole video....I went on to have a look at some other stuff that he has done and was quite impressed. I don't agree or disagree because I haven't put the "work" into either point of view.
Yes, Laura I have seen the things you stated. And still I come back to ask myself why would a plane only fly north 'so to speak" If the earth is a globe { got no idea either way} why wouldn't you just fly across the Antarctic instead right around the top??
I found this interesting -- if nothing else. More information to keep in mind while learning and living........FWIW

Luke is asking why this topic has even generated the posts that it has, given that it's nothing new in terms of all the crazy theories out there (correct me if I'm wrong, Luke).

You could have answered your question yourself by some simple searching, which you admit you haven't put the work into. If you don't want to do any work to learn something, then it's highly unlikely you will ever learn anything.

Now you say the whole fast-paced discussion is "about nonsense", but that the "why" Luke speaks of is exactly what you wanted to know in the first place - which is clearly not true, because you wanted somebody to explain, "...why would a plane only fly north 'so to speak'..."

I would say that your posts answer the "why" of Luke's question: Because this entire topic, the resulting maelstrom of posts, and trying to answer people's questions (which often change) is a huge investment of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere.

It isn't the topic that is important; it's the "interest", the flurry of posts, the confused and contradictory questions and thinking, and so on...

Maybe somebody else can say it better than I can, but that's it in a nutshell, IMO.

You are correct about my question i.e. it's nothing new in terms of all the crazy theories.

I learnt something from the thread... why planes don't fly off the globe (thanks buddy!)... :D in all seriousness, I knew there was a reason why they didn't (otherwise they'd be flying off every day!) and it wasn't because the earth was flat (otherwise all astronauts have been lying!), just didn't know what it was... lol. But I didn't put much thought to it, it was not even my question, I'm just the middle man! It was a flat earther's question... Never had to think about it before. Didn't even know about the flat earth theory! And my physics class didn't talk about this... I remember learning about newtons laws of motion in mechanics and about gravity and all that but I'd be lying if I said I hadn't forgotten most of those equations and theories.

Regarding about escaping the planetary gravitational pull and such about planetary motions and stuff, we touched upon it but it didn't make up a core part of the syllabus unless you wanted to specialise (if I can remember correctly). So, pretty dumb when it comes to physics and mechanics, even at an elementary level. Months ago I was sat down trying to help my sibling with her trig homework and it dawned on me how much of trigonometry I had forgotten!! Just trying to say I have a tendency of forgetting stuff that I no longer use.. :(

 

[David]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

I don't understand why this topic is generating so much interest.

{snip}

Maybe because it seems to be a reflection of the actual world we live in... for me it's entertaining, educational, and depressing all at the same time.

Sometimes I don’t know if I’m going to start crying or laughing... the world might as well be flat, though overall it looks to be in bad shape...

 

[Kisito]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=212&v=P5LzJrVKmBk
Obviously I do not understand all .. I do not have the skills to contradict this video 22 minutes of the flat earth ..

Mod note: Link deactivated. Please deactivate links to known or possible sources of disinformation.

 

[paralleloscope]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

I've given this whole problem some thought and it occurs to me that this is a great opportunity to educate folks. So, let's bring on the claims of the flat earthers and do some work.

That means that those of you who have watched the videos need to bring up the questions that are relevant.

Here are some of observations that have puzzled me, not having considered them before looking into the topic:

If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

From _http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball!.pdf

I understand that a plane wouldn’t just fly off into outer space because of atmospheric density, and gravity could be maintaining it at attained altitude, parallel to the curvature. But how does gravity correct the nose dip?
...

The Notre Dame Antwerp spire stands 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!

There are many of these examples of objects and landmasses seen at impossible distances, which should be occluded by curvature. Atmospheric refraction would be the answer, but as that is a function of temperature gradients, pressure, and humidity, it does become a lot more impressive how the image of light travels far around the bend, more or less intact through those varying factors along the way?
...

Polaris, which according to wiki is a temporary pole star (there allegedly was a different pole star before AD, will be different again in some amount of years). The pole star is always visible due north and makes for some pretty pictures with long exposure, in which all the other stars seem to revolve around. The spinning globe travels trillions of miles through space each year, yet Polaris maintains its central position. This is explained by the immense distances to it, which have been extended over the years as to correct the model, and now it’s apparently estimated to be between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles away, a difference of 666,000,000,000,000, over six hundred trillion miles). How does Polaris stay aligned with our globes traveled distances?

It's almost unfathomable that there is no parallax in the zodiac (fixed constellations) or movement of the pole star with the distances traveled in millennia, even though we are in the same galaxy. Maybe it’s just a problem of imagining the distances of space, (and a bit of a grudge against ad hoc'ing to make things fit, even though it's not the same as inventing 'dark matter'). Also:

There are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were a rotating, revolving, wobbling ball. For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a ball-Earth the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky.

Despite having a 32.5 degree tilt this should not be possible (according to stellarium)?