The earth is flat!!!

[BelgianPup]

If Earth is flat, where does gravity come from?

Photography exists (the last I heard), but why has no one produced a photo of the edge of the Earth?

Are all of the photographs supposedly taken of Earth (rotating) from space fake?

 

[peteg59]

Waaaaaaay too much photographic "proof" that earth is round.
It is my belief that anyone that believes differently on the subject, is argumentative at best.
Idiotic at worst...

 

[rruff]

Are all of the photographs supposedly taken of Earth (rotating) from space fake?

Yes... FEers believe it's a huge conspiracy involving millions of people and lasting hundreds of years. It's all fake.

 

[Happy Camper]

You guys have no idea how much it costs to hang all of those satellites in the air. The cable costs alone are crazy.

 

[CosmickGold]

Personally, I love a good debate. If I tell you the sky is green and you debate me that it's blue. I respect that. If you roll your eyes and walk away, then I think less of you. Some people take the position that you should not waste your time debating with idiots, but debate is necessary in our world. It makes me sad to see so many things that you can't talk about these days.

I agree with what you said. But in this case, I'm the one saying "The sky is green", at least sometimes, just as truly as it's blue many times.



According to this news article on today.com, these pictures were not doctored in any way. The sky really was (and sometimes is) green, not blue!

My point is that everything is true, in some way, at some time. I find it hard to tell anyone they are "wrong", knowing that in some time and way -- which maybe I'll never see -- what they say is right! But two people just shouting at each other "I'm right and you're wrong!" is meaningless. I've "rolled my eyes and walked away" over that. For a debate to be meaningful, each position needs to be backup up with solid evidence, such as the link I gave you for the news article above.

 

[rruff]

I got up in the wee hours one morning to see the ISS pass overhead. That was pretty awesome! Ya, lots of time and money wasted faking all this space stuff... they might just as well do it for real!

 

[CosmickGold]

Yes... FEers believe it's a huge conspiracy involving millions of people and lasting hundreds of years. It's all fake.

But wait. What if the "millions of people" is another lie? Have you actually seen those millions of people, other than through digital creations? And who's lived long enough to know it's really been "hundreds of years"? Maybe it's a very ingeniously executed "small" conspiracy, just big enough to get the job done.

 

[rruff]

Some say the sky can turn all sorts of colors at once. What on earth could explain such a bizarre phenomena? Sounds like a hoax to me...

 

[rruff]

But wait. What if the "millions of people" is another lie? Have you actually seen those millions of people, other than through digital creations? And who's lived long enough to know it's really been "hundreds of years"? Maybe it's very ingeniously executed "small" conspiracy, just big enough to get the job done.

I agree with you there. As Jim Jefferies said in one of his acts, .... Maybe I just think I'm up here on a stage talking to all of you. Maybe I'm really wearing a straight jacket in a padded cell, staring at a wall, going "bleeb! bluoth! blaaaw!" etc...

Or maybe the whole thing is a convincing simulation and nothing is "real" at all. Oddly even if this was the case, the flat earth would still be proven false... because whoever made this simulation gave it consistent physical laws... and we know what they are.

 

[thebarefootbadger]

I pondered what would be the easiest ways to convince a FE believer that the world is round. There are a lot of them, but... I realized that a sincere desire to believe coupled with a ready excuse like "it's fake", or "it's caused by distortion" would make this a lot harder. Maybe no evidence would suffice? I hope we don't revert to the dark ages....

Hang a cd from the ceiling. Spread your arms and be an airplane. (You can even make a shoooooosh noise as you fly around it, if you want.). Notice, the actual shape, the outline your eye sees, changes from round to oblong to a thin line. It happens if you jump over the cd or crawl under it, fly clockwise or counter. Even if you get so close your eyeball is nearly touching it, the perceived outline changes. Now hang a baseball there. You can follow a changing red stripe, but the outline remains the same. It's always a sphere, round. Screw astronaut footage if you must. Get in a real airplane yourself. Which experience is more like your experiment?

Have I had experiences I can't explain? Yes. Does that cause me to doubt the baseline of well documented physics, chemistry and mathematics, not to mention my own physical feedback, for no other reason than the fact that mysteries exist? It does not.

 

[CosmickGold]

The problem appears to be that . . . . you deem any alternative "theory" as equally valid or maybe more valid just because you like the sound of it. . . . Why do you believe "scientists have not been able to find a way around these proofs"?

For starters, I don't always "like the sound of it" regarding such things. But yes, I find this theory "equally valid" because I find it stated not by just this one guy, but in many places on the web, and have not found ANY site able to discredit the data. For example, this online article says:

"In 2005, data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey showed us that galaxies are arranged in concentric spheres with Earth and the Milky Way galaxy at the center.

In 1975, it was discovered that quasars are arranged in 57 concentric spheres with Earth at the center. Looking at gamma ray bursts, we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma ray bursts sources and this distribution does have an outer edge, and we are at the center of the sphere. In short, we must stop clinging to outdated Galilean heliocentricity and pay more attention to what 21st century technology is teaching us about the universe."

There are two comments below the above article. One says ". . . .really dumb **** heads. . ." and the other says ". . . . What a bunch of fucking horse shit. . . ." Such comments are meaningless when they make no attempt to explain HOW the data is wrong. The preponderance of opposing data doesn't make it wrong when the data itself cannot be debunked.

his dogmatic belief [is] that the earth is the center of the universe, because it says so in the Bible...

I understand he chose and organized his data out of a desire to support the Bible, but that doesn't matter to me. I'm looking for what makes each of his data pieces valid or disprovable. Great amounts of opposing data don't make this data wrong if it can not be debunked.

Physicists who are experts in their field and know way more about it than you, are busy using those theories to make things that actually work every day.

I'm very happy to be using the things that their theories make work, the heater keeping me warm, the computer I'm typing on, and endlessly more. So I have no interest in saying (or even thinking) such physicists are wrong. I'm wanting to know why the "center of the universe" theory continues to show evidence of being true that seemingly no one can disprove. I'm at the point of thinking (for rather mystical reasons) that BOTH viewpoints are somehow correct.

 

[Walt]

If the Earth is flat, why can you see the mast on a large sailing ship before you can see the ship itself?

Short answer is because your eyeballs are round. Long answer involves ginesinosis.

 

[CosmickGold]

I did a little research on this topic. First it would be good to realize that religious people have been very uncomfortable with this passage from near the beginning... because it does not fit the dogma they teach. Some in the early days actually edited it out. Even Luke for instance who used Mark as a source for his gospel decided to omit that part. Matthew left it in (Mark was the first gospel written, and Matthew and Luke used it as a source). Some actually edit the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic words, but others have been content with just reinterpreting it.

There is a recent "theory" that Jesus spoke a northern dialect of Aramaic that the listener didn't understand, and that his voice wasn't clear, and that he meant something completely different than what was written down. I would respond that if the author of Mark got it wrong, then that disproves Biblical infallibility. You can't have it both ways. At any rate this is a very fringe theory that most scholars dismiss even though it fits better with their dogma. And unlike most things in science, there will never be a way to prove it one way or another.

I'm fine with the original since it shows Jesus's humanity, and fits quite well with the Garden of Gethsemane scene. No matter how "identified with God" a person might be, severe physical abuse and imminent death, can weaken that connection and bring focus back to a different level. No shame in having a brief feeling of abandonment at a time like that.

That's a really good analysis with new info I didn't have.

I don't believe the Bible is infallible. Consider the verse in Isaiah 55:12 which says ". . . . the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands." I assume most would say this is obviously a poetic statement not meant to be taken literally. But the Bible doesn't say it's not literally true, and I've heard of those who believe it IS literally true just because the Bible says it. So that begs the question: Since the Bible doesn't spell out what's literally true and what was stated just for the visual and emotional effect, where do we draw the line? How do we know which lines are literally true and which are not? Every verse in the Bible becomes suspect. Who's to say the story of Jesus dying on the cross was not told for the intense effect of such a thought? After all, God would not allow His own son to die, who is part of the Trinity and all that is Holy, would He?

I have had experiences that prove to me the future already exists; so for me, its current existence is a "fact", not a "theory". And in that context, I believe the writers of the Bible (at least many of them) could sense (inwardly feel/see) how their words would affect people in the future, which guided them in what they chose to write, and how best to say it. So in a very real way, the words of the Bible are indeed inspired by the Spirit.

 

[CosmickGold]

I tried looking at "Mast disappearing over the horizon" videos since they are said to be evidence that the earth is round. What I found is truly astonishing, at least to me.


The above video is the best I found for a vanishing sailboat mast. Unfortunately, there is too much haze over the sea to watch even the top of the sail go out of site, due to looking across the water for quite a few miles. So I kept looking.
Find the original video here.


What I found next is truly astonishing. The video claims that whether the ship disappears down below the sea's edge or rises above it depends on whether the colder air layer is above or below the warmer air layer. This shows me no one can not prove whether the earth is round or flat by looking at boats on the sea. As the saying goes, "It's all done with mirrors", even when nature is the one holding the mirror!
Find the original video here.


This third video is of a windmill farm about 29 miles away. It shows how the hot and cold layers of air bend the light in weird ways like a sea monster rising! Parts of the blades go up while other parts of them go down, and the middle section just disappears! No way to prove whether the earth is round or flat by any of this! Who knows?
Find the original video here.

 

[maki2]

If the earth is flat at least people will easily be able to tell up from down, solving a lifelong problem for many.

 

[rruff]

But yes, I find this theory "equally valid" because I find it stated not by just this one guy, but in many places on the web, and have not found ANY site able to discredit the data. For example, this online article says:

You don't need to find an article to discredit his claims. You think scientists have nothing better to do than whack every hair-brained scheme that someone puts on the internet? And what would be the point, since the people sucking that up wouldn't realize it had been debunked anyway?

Apply some reason and logic, clear thinking.

First step... does this person cite sources? None. Does he show any analysis of the data he is talking about. Nope. Does he give any evidence that the data he is claiming exists actually exist? None. Can you find any evidence that the data exists anywhere on the internet? I couldn't. If you can, let me know.

The article is a big nothing. Zero. A thousand people singing the same tune (telling the same lie) does not give it any more credence.

There is no reason to continue, but I did google his name. He mostly writes articles claiming that man-made global warming is a hoax, and "claiming science is wrong" to support biblical dogma... and never bothers to provide actual evidence or analysis. He owns a business in Delhi, MN (population 70) that has two employees and a gross revenue of $87,843 per year. Looks like it's a house next to the "Meadow Farmer's Co-op Elevator". This is his article-writing business I guess? Just him and his mom? I couldn't find anything regarding his background or education.

I understand he chose and organized his data out of a desire to support the Bible, but that doesn't matter to me. I'm looking for what makes each of his data pieces valid or disprovable. Great amounts of opposing data don't make this data wrong if it can not be debunked.

What?! Didn't I disprove it? Or rather show that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein (and a bunch of other real scientists) disproved it? What more do you need? The guy is being blatantly dishonest. The thing he is calling evidence was never evidence at all.

If you bother to look up who he is, he is a biblical apologist. That's what he does for a living. That means that he conjures up creative BS in an attempt to preserve religious dogma. His arguments are intended to assuage the conscious of the faithful only, who don't need much assuaging... because they really want to believe what he is saying.

 

[rruff]

Camera's see it too (even those that are not "round"). Here's a perfect example:

What was that supposed to show?

 

[Zerpersande]

Personally, I love a good debate. If I tell you the sky is green and you debate me that it's blue. I respect that.

That’s not a debate but entering an argument with a troll.

Some people take the position that you should not waste your time debating with idiots, but debate is necessary in our world.

An idiot, by definition, lacks the necessary mental ability to grasp certain concepts. Mark Twain‘s advice applies…’Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.’

It makes me sad to see so many things that you can't talk about these days.

On this I agree with you.

 

[CosmickGold]

What was that supposed to show?

OK. I understood you to mean my comment #54 was more confusing than helpful. So I replaced it with three short videos that include an explanation under each.

 

[paulrh]

For starters, I don't always "like the sound of it" regarding such things. But yes, I find this theory "equally valid" because I find it stated not by just this one guy, but in many places on the web, and have not found ANY site able to discredit the data. For example, this online article says:

"In 2005, data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey showed us that galaxies are arranged in concentric spheres with Earth and the Milky Way galaxy at the center.

In 1975, it was discovered that quasars are arranged in 57 concentric spheres with Earth at the center. Looking at gamma ray bursts, we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma ray bursts sources and this distribution does have an outer edge, and we are at the center of the sphere. In short, we must stop clinging to outdated Galilean heliocentricity and pay more attention to what 21st century technology is teaching us about the universe."

There are two comments below the above article. One says ". . . .really dumb **** heads. . ." and the other says ". . . . What a bunch of fucking horse shit. . . ." Such comments are meaningless when they make no attempt to explain HOW the data is wrong. The preponderance of opposing data doesn't make it wrong when the data itself cannot be debunked.


I understand he chose and organized his data out of a desire to support the Bible, but that doesn't matter to me. I'm looking for what makes each of his data pieces valid or disprovable. Great amounts of opposing data don't make this data wrong if it can not be debunked.


I'm very happy to be using the things that their theories make work, the heater keeping me warm, the computer I'm typing on, and endlessly more. So I have no interest in saying (or even thinking) such physicists are wrong. I'm wanting to know why the "center of the universe" theory continues to show evidence of being true that seemingly no one can disprove. I'm at the point of thinking (for rather mystical reasons) that BOTH viewpoints are somehow correct.

The more outlandish conspiracies, of which the earth being at the centre of the universe is one, will not be "debunked" by experts in this field as they are simply not interested in having anything to do or waste time on those that purport such ideas. There are videos of flat earthers chasing astronauts shouting questions along the lines of "which studio was the moon landing filmed in?". To even acknowledge these people gives credence, in their minds, to their crackpot theories.

There will always be a tiny minority of seemingly qualified "experts" that forward a different opinion but this is largely due to other influences ie religious belief.

Mainstream science tells us the earth is towards the outer edge of a galaxy of 400 billion stars in an observable universe of 2 trillion galaxies. Totally insignificant to anything but ourselves.