Flat Earth theory

[Dan Epstein]

Facepalms coming my way again, all in good spirits, and not in holy spirits I hope

 

[justjoinedtopost]

No, the opposite. It's a prime example of Poe's Law. The history of the movement points back to people using a flat Earth theory as a way to mock science denial. After all, what could be a more protected statement of fact than "the Earth is a sphere"? However, as is the way with the oversaturation of information, and the failure of classification between that and misinformation & disinformation on the internet, no facts are safe from alternates anymore. Thus, flat-Earthers go from an inside joke to an elaborate troll, to a real movement based mostly in paranoia over information control.

This is pretty much what I have seen so far.

Now there may be a truth, or perhaps even several, down in that clearly poisoned well. Unfortunately, my brain is incapable of envisioning objects that exist beyond the dimensions that we all agree on, so I doubt I would even recognize any truths I ran across as such.

 

[TokenGesture]

It's a bit odd though. You'd think the Flat Earthers would be putting up some social media pics of their super fun Bungee Jumping weekends out at the edge. Guess they're keeping it quiet, not wanting the resorts to become too crowded. Bet it's great fun - no restrictions on cord length.

 

[Mila_]

Aw man i was kinda curious. Less so, tbh about how credible flat earth theory is but more so about apparently the infighting between groups. Like apparently these crazy theories about Australia being actors lol... are not what a large group of flat earthers believe im interested to hear ehat they actually do believe.

I'll do my own reading but i do appreciate that this thread popped up.

I've never read anything really about the flat earth stuff. The only people I know talking about it are anti-vaxx, holocaust denial, chemtrail, antisemitism hardcore. I thought it was just one of their buzzword topic things. Was it initially science based theory and hijacked a bit by these people? What about the moon?

Okay since I love both of you and you are interested I will make the effort.

Personally I do love reading about people's beliefs. People who believe in something and are invested in it often have sound reasons to do so even when their beliefs might seem crazy insane at first. People are not stupid or irrational so when they believe in something there tends to be at least one nugget of truth hidden in it. Say.. scientology. It's crazy, it's insane.. why do they believe in this? After reading a lot about it I found it's because on the surface there is a very positive aspect of scientology that's about self improvement, fighting addiction, standing on your own 2 feet and doing positive things for humanity. These are all positive things.. and someone who might be struggling with personal problems can initially be attracted to scientology based on these promises of self improvement. They then find a community there and stick to it and when they finally get to the part about Xenu the Universe Evil Overlord.. 20 years and a million bucks are too much to backpedal.

With Flat Earth there is something interesting about them and it's the fact that contrary to the impressions we all have of them they are the opposite of irrational, crazy and nonsensical. Many of them are engineers or high skilled technicians, others are just very skeptical people. And in the end, if you listen carefully to their arguments some of them do make sense and there is no refutation from astronomers, academia, etc.

Here is the argument that I find most difficult to reconcile with the globe earth model.. if the Earth is a globe, then it has curvature. This curvature is imperceptible to the naked eye from where we stand, BUT if you stand on the shore and watch a ship sailing away into the horizon, it is SUPPOSED to disappear in a very particular way: first the hull of the ship disappears, then the body, and finally the mast. This is because on a round Earth when something travels on it's surface it is both traveling horizontally AND vertically as it moves away from you. On a flat surface the objects disappear in the distance because of the vanishing point all at once. On a spherical surface, they disappear from the bottom up. When astronomers tell you about physical proof of the Earth being a globe they tell you precisely this "look at a ship sailing into the horizon it disappears hull first blabla" But.. this doesn't happen. There are a million videos on Youtube made with a Nikon p900 where you can see the full ship miles and miles away in the distance.

Similarly... I cant recall the exact size of the Earth but using the formula for curvature with the Earth's size, then the Earth should curve on a proportion of 8 inches per mile. That means that if you had a perfectly straight 1 mile ruler and you step on it where you are standing, there should be an 8 inch gap on the other end of it between the ruler and the floor. For 2 miles the gap is 16 inches, and so on and so on. So... in great distances objects on the other side disappear from the bottom up at a predictable rate. For example.. it should be IMPOSSIBLE to see Oahu's shoreline from Kauai because there is a 90 mile distance between the 2 islands. That's a 60 feet dip on the other side so you should only be able to see the tip of the mountains. Problem is... you can see the full shoreline top to bottom no problem. Nobody explains this.

There are a few more arguments like this but I need to have some time to sit down and write the whole thing down.

 

[Mila_]

It's a bit odd though. You'd think the Flat Earthers would be putting up some social media pics of their super fun Bungee Jumping weekends out at the edge. Guess they're keeping it quiet, not wanting the resorts to become too crowded. Bet it's great fun - no restrictions on cord length.

View attachment 78745

They don't believe the Earth has an edge.

 

[SaffronBurke]

They don't believe the Earth has an edge.

One version I've heard is that Antarctica forms an ice wall around the world, and it's too large for humans to cross. Another is that it's not an "edge" edge, it's kinda like how water can slip past the edge of a disc-shaped object and instead of falling, it just slides onto the bottom.

The theories and explanations are definitely interesting, but I still don't think there are enough facts to back it up.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Problem is... you can see the full shoreline top to bottom no problem. Nobody explains this.

I'm an ignorant fool who had to trace a line around a Mobius strip for a good half hour when I first was shown one.

Seeing = light
Can light be bent? I am told it can be.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

there is no refutation from astronomers, academia, etc.

Quite the opposite actually. Also we should add that simple and basic geometry teaches us that between two points, on a flat base or level, the shortest distance is a straight line. Fun fact, known by everyone who has taken a flight in his life, on a sphere the shortest distance is covered by an ideal curve. And that's how planes fly.

 

[Mila_]

Quite the opposite actually. Also we should add that simple and basic geometry teaches us that between two points, on a flat base or level, the shortest distance is a straight line. Fun fact, known by everyone who has taken a flight in his life, on a sphere the shortest distance is covered by an ideal curve. And that's how planes fly.

Are you just spouting random words? What does this have to do with anything I said?

 

[cammingcouple]

Similarly... I cant recall the exact size of the Earth but using the formula for curvature with the Earth's size, then the Earth should curve on a proportion of 8 inches per mile. That means that if you had a perfectly straight 1 mile ruler and you step on it where you are standing, there should be an 8 inch gap on the other end of it between the ruler and the floor. For 2 miles the gap is 16 inches, and so on and so on. So... in great distances objects on the other side disappear from the bottom up at a predictable rate. For example.. it should be IMPOSSIBLE to see Oahu's shoreline from Kauai because there is a 90 mile distance between the 2 islands. That's a 60 feet dip on the other side so you should only be able to see the tip of the mountains. Problem is... you can see the full shoreline top to bottom no problem. Nobody explains this.

I looked at the pictures (at least the ones I found) and it looked like what I would expect to see. The highest points are over 4000 ft. Not sure how 60 ft being obscured would mean you can only see the tip of the mountains. Also, look at a terrain map of Oahu, you'll see the shoreline quickly rises to several hundred feet. Even the valley that runs down the center of the island is over 800 ft. With the vast majority of the island being hundreds of feet in elevation, I would expect to see exactly what the photos show.

On the other hand, the highest point on Hawaii is 13,800 ft. If the earth was flat, why can we not see that from California using a telescope?

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Are you just spouting random words? What does this have to do with anything I said?

No. It has to do with the fact that you've stated that there's no refutation of the so called flat earth theory.

 

[cammingcouple]

I looked at the pictures (at least the ones I found) and it looked like what I would expect to see. The highest points are over 4000 ft. Not sure how 60 ft being obscured would mean you can only see the tip of the mountains. Also, look at a terrain map of Oahu, you'll see the shoreline quickly rises to several hundred feet. Even the valley that runs down the center of the island is over 800 ft. With the vast majority of the island being hundreds of feet in elevation, I would expect to see exactly what the photos show.

On the other hand, the highest point on Hawaii is 13,800 ft. If the earth was flat, why can we not see that from California using a telescope?

Ahh, nevermind, it's 8 inches per mile squared. So, it would theoretically obscure 3600 ft. That makes more sense.

 

[Mila_]

No. It has to do with the fact that you've stated that there's no refutation of the so called flat earth theory.

That’s not what I said, I said some of their arguments have no refutation as far as I have been able to see. I’ve been watching videos and reading stuff about this for 2 weeks and you would think there would be astronomer vídeos addressing the curvature problem but all you can find is astronomers mocking them.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

That’s not what I said, I said some of their arguments have no refutation as far as I have been able to see. I’ve been watching videos and reading stuff about this for 2 weeks and you would think there would be astronomer vídeos addressing the curvature problem but all you can find is astronomers mocking them.

Can you link to one of the more persuasive videos?

 

[Mila_]

Ahh, nevermind, it's 8 inches per mile squared. So, it would theoretically obscure 3600 ft. That makes more sense.

Yeah, sorry I suck at numbers and math in general... so my formula was wrong cause i forgot to square the distance and since I am european and we use kilometers I couldn’t tell the result was so wrong

Anyway.. there is a picture of Chicago skyline taken from the opposite shore of Michigan Lake. There's 59 miles between the 2 points. Chicago should be about 1000 feet below the horizon. This image is the only explanation of the lack of curvature I have found. The official explanation is that what we are seeing is supposed to be "a mirage" caused by hot air circulating over the lake. Problem is if this was a mirage the image would be inverted, distorted and blurry, it would only last for brief period of time and it shouldn’t move. But the image of Chicago from the opposite shore is a still Taken from a video that’s hours long, it’s not inverted, it’s crystal clear AND you can clearly see cars lights moving and buildings lighting on and off. If this is a mirage it’s a very rare one.

 

[zippypinhead]

Post the evidence, @Mila_ -- don't just describe it. You're the one making the claims that contradict conventional knowledge -- planets are spheres, and that includes the Earth -- and the mountains of physical and theoretical evidence that supports it. You're the one for whom there is a burden of proof. You have to prove your claim. It's not our responsibility to disprove it.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Post the evidence, @Mila_ -- don't just describe it. You're the one making the claims that contradict conventional knowledge -- planets are spheres, and that includes the Earth -- and the mountains of physical and theoretical evidence that supports it. You're the one for whom there is a burden of proof. You have to prove your claim. It's not our responsibility to disprove it.

Shes not claiming it lol. shes explaining why her research lead to some reasonable doubts.

Honestly, i know conspiracy theories and related things are funny but you guys need to chill out on Mila. She's just posting a topic to discuss and it turns into a joke thread or a "prove the earth is flat!" Argument. Mila never said she believes the earth is flat. She said that the people who do believe the earth is flat make interest points that shes struggling to debunk and this is creating doubt in her mind.

I feel like no one in this damn world knows how to have a discussion anymore. Everything has to be a challenge, a battle to prove who is the most right. In the end its just all of us taking turns talking at each other.
@Mila_
Ty for sharing the info. ❤ i learned some interesting today about flat eath ppl.

 

[Mila_]

Post the evidence, @Mila_ -- don't just describe it. You're the one making the claims that contradict conventional knowledge -- planets are spheres, and that includes the Earth -- and the mountains of physical and theoretical evidence that supports it. You're the one for whom there is a burden of proof. You have to prove your claim. It's not our responsibility to disprove it.

It isn't my claim, I am just telling you what they believe and the arguments they use to support their theory. Have you been reading the thread at all?

An simple Google search will do as well... here we go.

Oahu from Kauai:



Chicago from the opposite shore of Michigan Lake

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Yeah, sorry I suck at numbers and math in general... so my formula was wrong cause i forgot to square the distance and since I am european and we use kilometers I couldn’t tell the result was so wrong

Anyway.. there is a picture of Chicago skyline taken from the opposite shore of Michigan Lake. There's 59 miles between the 2 points. Chicago should be about 1000 feet below the horizon. This image is the only explanation of the lack of curvature I have found. The official explanation is that what we are seeing is supposed to be "a mirage" caused by hot air circulating over the lake. Problem is if this was a mirage the image would be inverted, distorted and blurry, it would only last for brief period of time and it shouldn’t move. But the image of Chicago from the opposite shore is a still Taken from a video that’s hours long, it’s not inverted, it’s crystal clear AND you can clearly see cars lights moving and buildings lighting on and off. If this is a mirage it’s a very rare one.

Well, science depends on numbers and math, so you might want to stick to mind-reading and camming. Chicago actually should be 2,320' below the horizon (59^2 * ~8 inches/mile)/12 inches/foot. The tallest building Chicago, the Sears tower is 1453 feet or almost 800' below the horizon.

First, let's take this obvious fact. If the earth was flat than on any clear day you should easily be able to see the 59 miles across Lake Michigan to Chicago impressive skyline. The fact that being able to see Chicago is such a rare event that makes the local news and requires 2- minute explanation by the meteorologist of shows just how unusual it is it. Similarly, if the earth was flat somebody who lived in a flat state like Kansas should be able to see the Kansas city skyline almost anywhere in the state. Likewise, Jicky who lives in Florida should be able to see the hotels and attractions of Orlando. Not being able to see tall object in the distance is the reason you should be skeptical flat Earthers claims.

I imagine this a shorter version of the video you saw. The meteorologist does a perfectly good job explaining why this occurs, in between the flat-earthers annoying BS button.

It is not a mirage, nor is the hot air circulating over. The lake is cold and cooling the air near the surface. What caused it was an inversion layer (I can understand how that would make you think the image would be inverted but that's not the case.) An inversion layer simply refers to a layer of warm air trapped between colder air layers. This is opposite (inverted) from the normal atmospheric conditions where the higher up you go the cooler it is. Light is refracted (bent) differently depending on the density (which is largely a product of the temperature) of the atmosphere. So rather than having a nice smooth bending of the light, the inversion cause the light to bend upward and moved the skyline upward. The reason they could film it for hours is because inversion layers can last for days. If you ever in a place like Los Angeles that experiences them a lot you'll notice that skyline looks weird during days there are inversion layers. (Inversion layers also trap particles in the air causing smog and reducing visibility,but over Lake Michigan this pollution didn't exist)


A good example of this is looking at down at an object underwater. If you try to pick it up it is not where you think it will be. That's because water is denser than air and it slows light down changing the angle of refraction. The inversion layer did the opposite of water.

 

[Mila_]

Aw all these flavors and you choose salty @HiGirlsRHot

Regardless, thank you for the explanation, I will read it slowly like the dumb dumb camgirl I am.

 

[AmberCutie]

While I am a big supporter of siding with science in any conspiracy theory, and agree with this:

conventional knowledge -- planets are spheres, and that includes the Earth

I also appreciate this thread because it's a fun topic to talk about, and I appreciate @Mila_'s curiosity and acknowledgement of why someone would challenge this conventional knowledge.

So I wish if people wanted to disagree and state their own facts and opinions, they could leave the personal jabs and stabs out of it.

 

[AmberCutie]

A good example of this is looking at down at an object underwater. If you try to pick it up it is not where you think it will be. That's because water is denser than air and it slows light down changing the angle of refraction. The inversion layer did the opposite of water.

Quoting this without the asshole comment at the beginning... ahem.

That's a good explanation. And also, holy shit that video is annoying. What did the segment about the space potty have to do with anything?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

So I looked Terry Robinson video on seeing Oahu from Kauai. I live on Oahu. If you look at the video you can are looking at the mountains of Oahu, not the shore. I've lived here 20 years so you'll have trust me that's not Oahu's north shore shoreline that 's Koolua mountain range. So again if the earth was flat you should be able to see the shore from his vantage point of 200' above the ocean.

Also I'll ask my friend who lived in Kauai for 30 years how often she saw Oahu, I think it is exceeding rare.

Amber, you're right that was an asshole comment, my apologies.

But I'm pretty serious that you really can't understand science without math. Or perhaps more accurately you can't understand when somebody is bullshit without understanding the math.

So what these guys do is sound all science while doing very simple math calculations to show, if the earth is was round you couldn't see X from Y.

But they skip and complete ignore the complicated math that explains how light works. Which would involve calculation of indexes of refraction and bunch of other stuff I vaguely remember from physics course and then my meteorology I had to learn to get my pilots license. I'm staring at my two physics text from college and remembering how much my brain hurt and that's why I don't want to get them out.

 

[Mila_]

Quoting this without the asshole comment at the beginning... ahem.

That's a good explanation. And also, holy shit that video is annoying. What did the segment about the space potty have to do with anything?

Flat earthers believe NASA videos are staged.

 

[zippypinhead]

I keep getting quoted as if I've made my responses personal. Asking for evidence to support strong claims (and @Mila_ has definitely made claims regarding what should and should not be visible on the horizon) is not a personal attack.

Flat earthers believe NASA videos are staged.

So, this wouldn't be a scientific discussion at all. Rather, it's a rhetorical argument. Sure is convenient to be able to counter any and all presented findings by people working in the field by calling it fake.

 

[Mila_]

I keep getting quoted as if I've made my responses personal. Asking for evidence to support strong claims (and @Mila_ has definitely made claims regarding what should and should not be visible on the horizon) is not a personal attack.



So, this wouldn't be a scientific discussion at all. Rather, it's a rhetorical argument. Sure is convenient to be able to counter any and all presented findings by people working in the field by calling it fake.

I never claimed this would be a scientific discussion, this thread is not to prove or disprove flat Earth... I am simply explaining what flat-earthers believe because it is a bit of a hobby of mine to understand different people's beliefs. Now.. if you truly want to understand someone else you can't see them from above, you wont understand them. You have to consider yourself their equal and see them eye to eye, think like they think and have a lot of respect for their thoughts and their belief system. This way you will gain a better understanding when you open yourself up to their thoughts.

Consider this thread an anthropological view of flat earthers instead of "Myth busters: flat earth!" It is like discussing Charles Manson cult ideas, Heaven's Gate, greek mythology or the Bible. We could have a 10 page discussion on whether it would have been possible to have rain for 40 nights and 40 days straight or if all the animals in the world fit inside a ship, but isn't that a little silly and besides the point when you want to understand Noah's Ark?

On my OP I said a few of their arguments have made me doubt the globe model, and I decided to talk to you about these 2 points first because I found them very intriguing and I figured there was a chance someone on this forum with more of a scientific background would explain to me why the arguments are wrong, but that wasn't the purpose of the thread.

 

[dilligaf0]

Shes not claiming it lol. shes explaining why her research lead to some reasonable doubts.

Honestly, i know conspiracy theories and related things are funny but you guys need to chill out on Mila. She's just posting a topic to discuss and it turns into a joke thread or a "prove the earth is flat!" Argument. Mila never said she believes the earth is flat. She said that the people who do believe the earth is flat make interest points that shes struggling to debunk and this is creating doubt in her mind.

I feel like no one in this damn world knows how to have a discussion anymore. Everything has to be a challenge, a battle to prove who is the most right. In the end its just all of us taking turns talking at each other.
@Mila_
Ty for sharing the info. ❤ i learned some interesting today about flat eath ppl.

Since they no longer have Guy to treat like this, they must find someone else to go bat-shit crazy on.

 

[zippypinhead]

What happened to Guy?

 

[curvyredhead]

not all flat-earthers believe the same things

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Here is what I wondered about the flat earth thing....why? I mean I remember hearing about flat earthers, hollow earthers, planet X stuff like that 20 years ago. Struck me as silly then, and when it started popping up again a couple years ago, it pretty much seemed like contentious bickering was the only real goal. Or at least outcome.

Truthfully, I wonder more about the celebrity endorsements it received than anything else.