Comments by "Scott Wallace" (@therealzilch) on "National Geographic"
channel.
-
336
-
211
-
172
-
@GADAUNEWS To answer your first question, you can't. The Sun is never visible directly overhead from any part of the UK, nor from the southernmost point of South Africa. The highest the Sun ever gets in mainland England is 26.5 degrees below the zenith, at noon on the first day of summer, June 21, seen from Lizard Point. At the same time, the Sun will be about 58.5 degrees below the zenith, that is only 31.5 degrees above the horizon, seen from the southernmost point of South Africa. So your question is based on incorrect premises.
Your second question is simple: frames of reference. The helicopter, just like you and me, the air, and everything else, is moving along with the rotating Earth. You don't fly to the back of the plane at 500 mph when you leave your seat, do you? The helicopter lands on the same spot after hovering for the same reason.
170
-
55
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
35
-
33
-
31
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
@xxx.118 You are right about two things. Yes, we are lied to all the time. And yes, most people believe the Earth is round or flat or whatever because someone told them so- their parents, their schools, their friends, social media. Most kids don't get to experience hands-on how to determine the shape of the Earth for themselves, and it's a pity, because it's very easy to show that the Earth cannot be flat.
There are many ways of doing it, but the easiest is to build an equatorial sundial. This will prove that the Sun moves a constant 15 degrees per hour across the sky, at all times of day or year, from anywhere on Earth. This would not be possible on a flat Earth with a nearby Sun, because the Sun would move faster across the sky at midday when it's close than when it's near the horizon and thus much further away.
No electromagnetism, sonoluminescence, atmospheric lensing, or NASA necessary. Just working eyes and brain.
26
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
20
-
20
-
16
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@True.world91 Oh, and you asked Yuyuko: What would it take for you to look into flat earth for a bit? You scared it’ll change your perspective on the topic?
I'll answer that too. I've looked into the flat Earth more than a bit. I'm quite familiar with Dubay, Jeran, Sargent, Marble, Morgile, DITRH, Skiba (now dead of Covid), Paul on the Plane, Crrow777, and many others. What they say doesn't fit my observations and/or is illogical. Moreover, most of them will ban you if you disagree with them: I've been banned by Dubay and David Weiss for polite comments. Doesn't happen at globe Earth channels- that alone tells you something.
So what observations have you made yourself, outside in the real world, that fit a flat Earth and don't fit a globe?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@slugworth4191 Another comment of yours shows up in the preview, but not here. I don't know whether you deleted it, or it was shadow banned, but I'll answer anyway.
You ask me to elaborate on my sunset theory. First off- sunsets are not a theory, they are a fact. It can be observed that the Sun sets- from our perspective it goes down, is gradually cut off by the horizon, and then it disappears and night falls. Are we in agreement so far?
So, why does this happen? My theory of why the Sun sets is that the Earth rotates, causing the Sun to alternately appear and disappear. Sunset means the Earth rotating and blocking our line of sight to the Sun.
This theory explains sunsets perfectly. No flat Earth theory does, because if the Earth is flat, then the Sun can never go below the horizon, or it would be night everywhere at the same time. Thus, the Earth is not flat.
cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@fepatriot I said nothing about the distance to the Sun, because as far as lines of sight are concerned, distance makes no difference. Explain to me how a Sun that's always above a flat Earth, at whatever distance, can not be in a direct line of sight of an observer on the plane. What would get between them to block the line of sight? Try drawing a sideview of a flat Earth, a horizontal line, with an observer on it and a Sun above it. If you can draw a straight line between then that isn't blocked by the line of the Earth (and you will always be able to), then the Sun will never set.
And I already told you how to measure the curve directly: with a theodolite. And no, it's only flat Earthers who claim that you can use the equation for a parabola to calculate a circle.
The very fact that there is a clear horizon over the ocean (in clear weather) shows that the Earth is curved. In a flat Earth, the water would just fade away in the distance as you see hundreds or thousands of miles through the atmosphere. Or if the air were perfectly clear, you would see Japan from California.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mundaner-1163 Yes, I've been following flat Earthers for years now, and I too have a pretty good idea of what they believe. The question is, why do they believe something that's so obviously false? That's not normal.
In order to be a flat Earther, one must not only believe that all astronomers, pilots, navigators, space agencies, aerospace technicians, climatologists, geologists, and many more educated people all over the world, are all lying and covering up the "truth" about the flat Earth; but also that what anyone can easily see with their own eyes is a trick or an illusion: that the Sun does not "really" set, that "perspective" magically makes the Sun look the same size all the time, and many more simple contradictions of reality.
This is not normal. It's extremely paranoid and lacks even ther rudiments of critical thinking. It may seem harmless, but I don't see any good coming from such a strong dissociation from reality, especially if they vote.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@clintlbrown2597 I'm afraid that would be an exercise in futility, Mr. Brown. I'm well aware that flat Earthers have many items of what they consider evidence for their worldview. The way to get to the truth, though, is not by counting claims, but by evaluating them against real-world observations. If you want to discuss evidence, I suggest starting with just one claim and comparing it to what we see.
My one claim is that a sunset over the ocean shows that the Earth cannot be flat. If the Earth were flat, and the Sun above it all the time, as it must be if you admit that it's never night over the entire Earth at the same time, then the Sun would always be visible in the sky from anywhere on Earth. That is, if you're not in a valley or behind some trees or buildings- that's why I stipulate a sunset over the ocean.
For instance, if the Sun is about 3000 miles above the flat Earth (a commonly given figure), then it can never get closer to the horizon than about 20 degrees above it, no matter where you are on Earth. You can draw a model and see for yourself. No amount of atmospheric distortion can explain this, and perspective, often cited by flat Earthers, has nothing to do with not being able to see a bright object that is in our line of sight, as the Sun would be at all times.
No flat Earther has been able to explain this, and I've watched many videos looking for explanations. Can you explain it to me? Please, no links, tell me in your own words.
Thanks and cheers from icy Vienna, Scott
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mickeywicked478 The pleasure is all mine. I'm just a dude in Vienna. Metaconspiracies are fun, but don't tell us much about the way things are. The Earth is not flat. Doesn't matter what Dubay, Sargent, Jeran, Paul on the Plane, D. Marble, DITRH, NASA, the Bible, the Zendavesta, or I say: the Earth says it's not flat. You can check it out yourself with the Earth. The conspiracies, metaconspiracies, metametaconspiracies, and so on, stop there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Zesta Zesta It may be hard to visualize, but it's not really a puzzle. If you are exactly at the North Pole, you are not moving in a circle over 24 hours the way the rest of us are, but turning in place. That makes everything in the sky, including the Sun, seem to turn in a circle around you, just as your surroundings do when you're in the middle of a merry-go-round.
The same thing is true, of course, at the South Pole. Why the South Pole in summer also has the Sun in the sky for months at a time, always going in circles, is something flat Earthers cannot explain.
cheers from cloudy Vienna, Scott
2
-
2
-
@bengrizzlyadams6187 Why do you say the Lunar Module is "cardboard and curtain rods"? Because it doesn't look like the rockets on the Jetsons? Show me some evidence that it was made of cardboard and curtain rods.
But NASA is a red herring in any case. We've known for more than two thousand years that the Earth is a globe. The authors of the Bible didn't get the memo, though, and they foisted the flat Earth on us, an undead zombie that science can't completely banish, since it's not based on reason, but on a Bronze Age religion.
You may have missed a critical difference between sailboats and Moon rockets. Moon rockets are a lot bigger, a lot more complicated, and thus a lot more expensive, even more expensive than America's Cup boats with Kevlar sails and foils. NASA's budget was slashed in 1972 and was never high enough afterwards to afford the big boosters necessary to get past LEO.
We now know, not everything by a long shot, but quite a bit about the planets. But forget NASA- in any case, we've known since the Renaissance as the latest that the planets are bodies more or less similar to the Earth in important aspects: they are all (fairly) spherical, and they behave the way Newton said they would: they are massive objects in orbit around the Sun, and the Earth is one of them.
If they are just lights, why do they behave this way? How are these lights powered, how are they projected? And "sonoluminescene"? That's one of the silliest arguments, even from flat Earthers. It's entirely based on the superficial similarity of sonoluminescence photos with the out-of-focus and severely atmospherically disturbed images of stars and planets made by flat Earthers, not knowing that their precious Nikon zoom cameras are incapable of autofocussing on such dim objects. This is really a case of worshiping one's own ignorance. And calling it by a sciency sounding word they don't understand.
Flat Earthers have nothing but superstition, paranoia, and an overweening sense of their own entitlement to present their ignorance as though it were the truth. Sad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Эльдарен Your explanation is correct as far as it goes: an object can either disappear behind something, say over the curve of the globe Earth, or it can disappear because of perspective, when it becomes too small to resolve. But notice that there is a difference in what we see. When we see, say, a ship disappear over the horizon, it is getting smaller (very slowly) because of perspective, but it's still big enough to resolve, and we see the hull disappear bottom first.
When a ship disappears because of perspective, it simply gets smaller as a whole until it's no longer visible.
What has clearly happened in this video is that the lower stripes have been covered up by the water in front of them, but the top of the boat is still visible. While this is somewhat obscured by the fact that refraction has created a second horizon behind the first, it's still clear to see that perspective is not causing the disappearance, but rather the curve of the water caused by the curve of the Earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ReallyReall Are you sure you didn't delete your post accidentally? I seriously doubt YouTube would delete it, there was nothing objectionable about it. But YouTube does move in mysterious ways sometimes.
Anyway, if you're still interested in sunsets.... The problem with saying that the flat Earth Sun just "goes away" at sunset is perspective. Everything that moves away from us seems to get smaller, right? If the Sun were really as close and small as flat Earthers say it is, then it would be roughly twice as far away from us when it's near the horizon than at midday, and the apparent size of the disk would thus be half the size near the horizon. But we don't see this: the apparent size of the Sun stays the same all day, no matter what the season or where you are. You can test this for yourself with a piece of dark glass.
And if the Sun were always above the flat Earth, then it would also never set. It would appear to get closer to the horizon as it went away, but never touch it. This is simple geometry and also intuitively true: how can something disappear, when you can always draw a straight line to it?
Another problem with the flat Earth Sun is that it should not only appear smaller when further away, but also appear to move more slowly across the sky, just as cars that are far away appear to move slower than nearby ones. But again, this is not the case: the Sun moves 15 degrees across the sky at all times. You can easily prove this to yourself by building an equatorial sundial (instructions online, takes about five minutes).
The Earth really cannot be flat. But I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely.
cheers from icy Vienna, Scott
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@অরুণাভদাস I've been following flat Earthers for years, and I'm all too well acquainted with Eric Dubay, who banned me some time ago for politely disagreeing with him. So no thanks, I won't go through his 200 "proofs" again.
My belief in the globe has nothing to do with inner peace, although the vast Universe revealed by science does give me a sense of awe. I'm afraid that I'm quite immune to the charms of the tiny flat Earth under a goldfish bowl, whatever they might be, because I started at a young age to look carefully at the world.
My father built an equatorial sundial with my brother and me when we were little, and I got hooked on astronomy. At 18 I built my first telescope, grinding the mirror myself. Since then, I've spent a great deal of time observing the skies.
Astronomy is far simpler than anything to do with biology. The math involved is hard, but that's only for the theoretical physics and cosmology parts of it. Everything to do with the shape of the Earth is very simple, high school science at best. In biology, the way living things metabolize, reproduce, evolve, and behave, are so complex and dependent on circumstance, that they can very seldom be reduced to any sort of mathematical formula except very roughly in statistical ways. The motions of the Solar System, and the basic shapes of the bodies in it, can be almost entirely described with math.
For someone like me, belief in a flat Earth is puzzling, because it's so obviously wrong in so many ways. It simply doesn't fit what we see at all. The shape and size of the Earth have been known pretty well for more than two thousand years, with no sign or even imaginable possibility of change.
But believe what you want. I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely.
Cheers from cool Vienna, Scott
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dannysmith821 Why should there be a limit to how far away we can see? The Sun can be determined to be around 93 million miles away by a number of methods, none of which I have any reason to doubt.
And yes, the Earth can indeed be determined to be spinning, by the method I pointed out, or the Eötvös Effect, known for more that a hundred years: objects moving eastward weigh less than objects moving westward. Or by a Foucault pendulum.
Sorry, I've seen my fill of flat Earther videos, and I've chatted with Jeran. He's wrong. I'll trust mathematics, logic, and my own observations, thanks.
Have a good one, Scott
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tbrown3356 Your advice to the flatties dealing with globies: Simply ask them for a scientific hypothesis (independent variable and dependent variable). [...] You'll win the argument every time. Lol.
Sorry, you don't get to define what a scientific hypothesis must be. It can have independent variables and dependent variables, but doesn't have to. Variables apply to phenomena that are variable, such as, say, rates of crime. Your hypothesis might be "rates of crime go down when schools get more money". In this case, the amount of money schools get would be the independent variable, the rates of crime the dependent variable.
If your hypothesis is however simply a description of a non-variable state of affairs, such as the relative hardness of a substance, then these variables don't exist. "A steel knife is harder than butter" is a perfectly good scientific hypothesis. LIkewise "the Earth is a globe". Yes, of course the Earth didn't always exist, and its shape changes all the time. But only very little, not affecting the basic distinction between flat and spherical.
So my advice to anyone confused by this is: look into it yourself. Don't take anyone's word for it. Turn off your devices. Go outside in the real world. Build a sundial. Take the altitude of Polaris from three different latitudes. Observe the Moon, the Sun, the planets, the stars, eclipses. And see which model of the Earth they fit better: a flat Earth or a globe.
cheers from cool Vienna, Scott
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mjvictoriano You suggest that R Co should look up what flat Earthers say. Have you ever thought that it might be possible that R Co (and the rest of us here) have already done so and found their arguments lacking? I've watched many dozens of flat Earth videos and chatted with many hundreds of flat Earthers, and their claims don't fit observations, physics, or even common sense. If you disagree, please give us one single example of an observation that fits a flat Earth but not a globe.
Here's an observation of mine. A couple of years ago, I spent a night at the Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania, two degrees south of the Equator. We had a beautiful dark sky, 360 degrees of visibility, and Polaris was not visible. How can it be, if Polaris is directly above the North Pole, that it was not visible from there? I should add that I'm an amateur astronomer, so I know exactly where to look in the sky for Polaris. And that point was below the horizon. Try to explain that on a flat Earth, please.
cheers from springy Vienna, Scott
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danaugustin4504 Oh, I've experimented plenty for myself. You are right about the illusion of sinking caused by a receding object that's actually at a constant height above a plane. But that apparent sinking has a limit, and that limit is the horizon. It has nothing to do with your eyes, it's caused by perspective, which is purely mathematical. An object at a constant height above a plane appears at an angle above the plane that's inversely related to its distance from the observer. So if the Sun moves twice as far away, then it appears at half the previous angle above the plane. But you notice that there's a limit: they Sun would only appear to be at no angle above the ground, that is just touching the horizon,when it's infinitely far away. And no matter how small the angle, it's always positive, so the flat Earth Sun would never appear to go behind the horizon.
And that's not the only problem here. Again because of perspective, the nearby flat Earth Sun would appear larger at midday than when near the horizon, by roughly a factor of two, given the usual flat Earther figures of being 3000 miles up and 32 miles in diameter. But it doesn't- the Sun remains a constant size the whole day.
There are many other simple observations you can make that fit a globe but don't fit a flat Earth. Try measuring the altitude of Polaris, for instance. Or build a sundial. Watch the shadows on the Equinoxes.
But believe what you want. I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Beyond_Belief534 Everyone who's been following this thread, and any of the many others you've started and abandoned, can see that you've been offered many different examples of measurable, reproducible, practical, proofs that the Earth is a globe. And you've simply responded as you are doing now: by rejecting them, based on your claim that anything you can't touch is meaningless.
As such, you are a good case study for where globe deniers end up, when they are afraid to divulge any concrete beliefs, and refuse to accept any evidence: at least the public face of your worldview is reduced to practically nothing but denial. As I said, that's amusing, but it's a hard sell. Good luck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chancethinkabout1519 No, actually, I believe in quite a few things I can't see or touch. Yes, I do believe in electromagnetic radiation, even those portions of the spectrum (UV, radio waves, microwaves, etc) that I can't see. But the thing is- there's evidence that they exist. There's no evidence that demons exist, as far as I know, except in people's imaginations.
Grüße aus verregnetem Wien, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@6RingzDaLacKing The rocket you watched started flying horizontally like an airplane because that's the optimal trajectory for deep space missions: that way, the rocket gets to take advantage of the "slingshot effect" of the Earth's rotation, to propel it much faster and thus save fuel.
And we don't need pictures of the Earth from space, or of Antarctica, to see that the Earth is a ball. One sunset over the ocean shows that the Earth is not flat. Or taking the altitude of Polaris from three different latitudes. Or building a sundial. Or measuring the size of the Sun's disk through a day. There are many such simple tests that show the shape of the Earth.
You are right: for most people, most of the time, it doesn't really matter what shape they believe the Earth is. It does however matter to some people: pilots, navigators, astronomers, surveyors, geologists, climatologists.... and to anyone who cares about what kind of world they live in.
cheers from cool Vienna, good luck in your quest, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bryann25 In addition to all the other observations mentioned here, there are very simple ones. One sunset is actually enough to show that the Earth cannot be flat, given our knowledge that it's not ever night over the entire Earth at once. The flat Earth sun would always be in a direct line of sight from anywhere on Earth at all times, unless you happen to be behind a mountain or a tree or something. Flat Earthers have no explanation for this that doesn't invoke magic in the form of light bending in ways we know it doesn't.
Another simple disproof: the apparent size and motion of the Sun. Our Sun can easily be observed to maintain the same size, within very small limits, at all times and from everywhere on Earth. You can check it out for yourself with a piece of appropriate dark glass. Also, the motion of the Sun across the sky is 15 degrees an hour, also within very small limits, at all times and from everywhere on Earth. You can easily check this out for yourself too, by building an equatorial sundial.
Neither of these simple observations would happen on a flat Earth with a nearby sun. The flat Earth sun, which is commonly supposed to be 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the Earth, would appear to move only about half as fast and look only about half the size when it's near the horizon, compared to when it's overhead at midday. None of this happens. Again, flat Earthers have no explanation for this except magic.
Look into it for yourself. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pablosdog2808 I'm sure you have. I've seen them too. Most of them are simply done without a solar filter, so the Sun appears as a huge ball of glare when still far from the horizon, but gradually gets smaller as it gets dimmer and less overexposed. At least one such video I've seen, though, was an out and out fraud, with the image of the Sun obviously manipulated.
Have you ever seen this effect in real life? Look for yourself, with some dark glass. I've never seen it, and I've seen many sunsets from many places. But don't take my word for it- go outside and do it yourself.
Oh, and vanishing points don't exist. They are a mathematical construct, the point where lines of perspective theoretically meet, at an infinite distance from the observer. They can't make things vanish, they have no physical existence.
Cheers from cloudy Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@predrag1 The Earth is 24,000 miles in circumference. One revolution every 24 hours means a linear speed of 1000 mph at the Equator.
We don't feel this because we can't feel motion, only acceleration in the physicist's sense: speeding up, slowing down, or going around a curve. Do you feel the speed of an airplane from inside it? You can stand up, pour tea, juggle, and everything's the same, at 500 mph, as long as you're flying straight at a steady speed. Same in a car or a train.
Yes, we are going around a curve with the rotation of the Earth. But it's a very slow curve: only 1/4 of a degree per minute. That's just enough to make things weigh about 0.3% less at the Equator than at the Poles.
1
-
@predrag1 If a drone goes straight up, hovers for hours, and then comes straight down, it should land on the same spot, for the same reason that if you jump in an airplane, you don't go flying back to the end, but also land back on the same spot of the plane's floor: conservation of momentum. The drone is moving with the Earth, and you are moving with the plane.
If the Earth were moving in a straight line and not rotating, there would be no direct way of detecting the motion, because there would be no acceleration. As it is, the rotation of the Earth around its axis can be demonstrated in a number of ways. The centrifugal force is enough that objects weigh about 0.3% less at the Equator than at the Poles. Objects moving to the east weigh a tiny bit less than objects moving to the west, because they are going the same direction the Earth is turning and thus increasing this centrifugal force (the Eötvös effect, which Newton predicted- smart guy). Foucault pendulums act as gyroscopes and precess at different rates depending on latitude. And the Coriolis force causes hurricanes to rotate counterclockwise in the Northern hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern.
All these effects are well known and measured, and flat Earthers have no explanation for any of them.
1
-
@predrag1 That's a rather complicated question to answer. To start with, the only place you could "sit" to see the Earth rotate once in 24 hours is at one of the Lagrange points, the closest two of which are about five times farther away from the Earth than the Moon is. Anywhere else and you have to be powered somehow, because you would not be in a stable orbit.
If you want to see the Earth's surface whizzing by at the greatest angular velocity possible, then you want to be right next to the surface at the Equator, on a straight line between the Earth and the Sun, as the first two Lagrange points are. This has the twin problems that you will get hit by every mountain that goes by, and will have to fight constant 1000 mph winds. But the surface will whizz by very quickly.
A little further out, say at about the height of the ISS but somehow powered up to prevent falling, you would see the Earth's surface going by at a more leisurely pace- still 1000 mph, but because it's further away, it crosses your field of view more slowly. And moving further away, say at the height of the geosynchronous satellites (but still powered up, because you can't orbit there at one revolution a year around the Earth) you will see nearly the whole one side of the Earth- but it's only rotating half the speed of the hour hand of a clock, so although that's still 1000 mph at the Equator, you are so far away that you probably wouldn't be able to detect the motion with your eye.
I hope that helps explain things. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LuLu-pu2xf Okay, I have a bit more time now. The problem I see with simply saying "God did it"as an answer to any and all questions about why things are the way we are, is that it simply passes the buck. Even supposing we believe in God in the first place (I don't), we haven't explained anything by saying God did it, and I'm interested in explanations that help us do stuff- for instance, feed more people, or go to the Moon. Science can help us here- God can't, as far as I can see, except perhaps by inspiring people to do their best.
But in any case, I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely. Many of my friends believe in God and that's fine with me.
cheers from cool Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MercyAlwyz23 I sound really stupid? Does your God teach you to be rude? You'll notice that I, even though I'm an atheist, have been perfectly polite in addressing you.
And no, what you describe is not what we observe. If the Sun is always above the flat Earth, it will always be visible to everyone on the planet, unless they're behind a mountain or something. On the usual flat Earth model with a Sun 3000 miles above us, the Sun will never appear lower in the sky than about 25 degrees above the horizon.
And there's no trick of "perception" or "perspective" that can change that. Even if you say the Sun is like a spotlight with a giant lampshade, we would still see it in the sky when it's far away, just as we can see a spotlight at night even when we're not in its cone of light.
The globe Earth model is different: sunsets are not caused by some sort of magical "flerspective", but by the Earth rotating and imposing itself between the observer and the Sun. That fits what we see: the Sun's disk stays the same size all day,.and is gradually cut off, starting from below, by the horizon, until it is no longer visible.
Thus, among many other reasons, the Earth cannot be flat. But believe what you want- I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely.
cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnsmith-zv8ws No magic necessary, just gravity. Think for a moment what causes water to slosh. It's not motion. Does your coffee slosh when on an airplane at 500 mph, as long as it's flying straight, not speeding up or slowing down, and not dealing with turbulence? Are you hurled to the back of the plane when you get out of your seat to go to the john?
No. Moving in a straight line at a constant speed, no matter how fast, is undetectable to us in terms of the forces we feel. You can pour tea, juggle, jump up and down, and none of those tell you whether you are moving or not. What you can feel, and what causes water to slosh, is acceleration, in the physicists' sense of the word: speeding up, slowing down, or turning.
Now, the Earth in all its various motions may be moving quickly, but it's not accelerating much, because all these motions go around curves that are very big. You mention that we're going 1000 mph. But how fast are we turning? One revolution every 24 hours, or 1/4 degree per minute. A quarter of a degree turn a minute is almost a straight line. The acceleration imparted by the Earth's rotating on its axis is just enough to make objects (or water, or you and me) about 0.3% lighter at the Equator than at the Poles. Not really enough to feel or slosh water much.
All the other motions- the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the Sun's path through the Galaxy, might be faster, but they're way bigger curves and their accelerations are not detectable on Earth even by extraordinary means.
Gravity is not perfectly understood. You might want to call that magic. But the numbers add up. With a sensitive electronic scale, you can measure the difference in weight of an object at two locations, one of which is a couple hundred miles further from the Equator than the other. It's been done, the numbers match the theory, and no flat Earther has an explanation for it.
If you disagree with any of this, please let me know exactly where I went wrong. Cheers from rainy Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandywood3481 Thanks for your lengthy reply, but I'm afraid it doesn't fit what I see at all. The Earth is not immeasurable- we know all the distances between all the points on it to an accuracy of a few feet. Ask any pilot or navigator. And the distances only fit a globe- you can't make a flat Earth map that doesn't have great distortions.
The Moon does not "glow", it reflects the light of the Sun, just as a bright sunlit surface on the Earth does. The dark part of the Moon, the part not lit up at any given time by the Sun, is not visible during the day, because it's dark, but our bit of sky in front of it is lit up and thus looks blue like the rest of the sky. When the astronauts were on the Moon, the surface they walked on was about as bright as sunlit pavement on Earth.
Our atmosphere rotates with the Earth, so if we discount winds, clouds also move along with everything else. We can't feel this rotation, because we don't feel motion as such, only changes in speed or direction.
The trouble with the Sun and Moon turning counterclockwise around the dome is that they don't turn counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere, but clockwise. Same for the stars and everything else. That can only be explained by the Earth being a globe.
The Bible is a mixture of good advice (the Golden Rule), bad advice (it's okay to keep slaves if they're not Hebrews), some real history (the destruction of the Temple) some fake (the Captivity in Egypt), some good science (washing your hands) and some bad science (pretty much all of Genesis). But as I said: I don't care what you believe, as long as you behave nicely.
cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jellysso3255 Excellent questions. Why the Sun should not be visible all the time, if it's always above the flat Earth, is a real problem. Usually, they have some combination of what they call "perspective" and "vanishing points", which they claim makes objects disappear in the distance for some unknown reason. Or they say that we just can't see that far through the air. Of course, anyone who spends any amount of time outside can easily see that these explanations are simply not true.
No flat Earther I know of has an explanation for the tides, except that they are not caused by the Moon. Auroras are dismissed (if mentioned at all) as some sort of "electromagnetic" phenomenon. "Electromagnetism" is somehow also responsible for keeping the Sun and Moon from simply falling into the Earth, and also for making them go on the spiral paths over the surface of the Earth.
Gravity does not exist; it's just density and buoyancy. No explanation for why down is a special direction. If you point out that flat Earth maps are inaccurate, they claim that all the navigators and pilots are lying, or say that they're still "working on it".
As you can see, flat Earthers don't have a coherent system that works to explain what we can see. I'm continually amazed that anyone of normal intelligence believes it.
cheers from cloudy Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dannysmith821 Good questions, fair enough. My reasons for believing that the Earth is a globe are based on my experience, in many different ways. One- I know that the Sun is much further away than any flat Earth model shows, because it moves across the sky (as shown on a sundial) at a constant 15 degrees an hour, no matter what time of day, day of year, or place on Earth. This is impossible if the Sun is close as flat Earth models require.
Also, I've measured the altitude of Polaris from many different places on Earth. Where I grew up in California, it was 38 degrees above the horizon. Here in Vienna, it's 48 degrees above the horizon. In Tanzania, it was just below the horizon, invisible. Again, this does not fit with any flat Earth model, but fits the globe perfectly.
Another thing: I'm an amateur astronomer, and I've built my own telescope, grinding trhe mirror myself. With this telescope, I can see that the planets are spheres. Why would the Earth not also be a sphere?
About the Earth's movement: the rotation of the Earth is only one revolution every 24 hours. That imparts enough centrifugal force so that objects at the Equator weigh about 0.3% less than at the Poles. This can be measured with accurate scales, and there's no flat Earth explanation for it.
I have no reason to believe the Earth is flat, and many reasons to believe the Earth is a globe. But believe what you want.
cheers from cool Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dropwiz What about parallax? I don't know what your question is here.
Water bends all the time: look at raindrops, fountains, how it fits a glass, etc. Water responds to the forces acting on it.
Water adheres to the exterior face of a spinning ball, the Earth, for two reasons: one, gravity holds it down. Two- the spin of the Earth is only one revolution every 24 hours, so the centrifugal force is not great.
Water, and everything else, is only flung outward enough at the Equator to weigh about 0.3% less than at the Poles. You can test this for yourself, as many have done, with a weight and a sensitive scale. Don't need to go to the Equator or the Poles- a couple hundred miles difference north to south is enough to see a difference in weight.
cheers from rainy Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dangalangman7379 How am I a smartass? I'm just politely stating the facts as I see them. I've never been to space and seen the globe, no. Have you been to space, or to the firmament, and seen the flat Earth? I didn't think so. So how do you know it's flat? I know it's not flat the same way the ancients did: by watching sunsets, sundials, the Moon, stars, and planets. So can you.
And no, I've never been to Antarctica, because it's too expensive. My best friend from school spent two weeks at the South Pole doing astronomical research. He didn't see an edge, or a wall, or a dome.
But go ahead and believe what you want. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christianpulido8360 No there aren't. You haven't actually read any of these documents, have you? You've just read what some flat Earther said about them. Because if you'd actually read any of them, you would have seen that none state that the Earth is flat and stationary, but rather they assume the Earth is flat and stationary to start out with, in order to simplify calculations.
These are flight manuals for beginners, and it's hard enough to learn without including the curve and rotation of the Earth in the initial calculations. If you'd actually read any of these documents, you would have seen that they also assume other simplifying counterfactuals, such as a perfectly rigid airframe, no wind, no weight loss during flight because of fuel consumption, etc. Go look up these documents and read them yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JustMe.001 I've read the KJV. But I've also spent many hours observing the Earth and skies, from many different places. The Earth is not flat, no matter what you think the Bible says.
You might want to look up "mirage". They are caused by atmospheric refraction, and can appear upside down, right side up, or complex mixture of layers, depending on distance and conditions. The phenomena is well understood, it often allows us to see objects that are a bit over the horizon, and is not in any way a problem for the globe model.
Sunsets are a problem for the flat Earth. So is the altitude of Polaris from three different latitudes. So are sundials. Not to mention that the known distances between and sizes of the continents fit a globe perfectly and cannot be made to fit a plane.
So far, the only evidence you've presented for the flat Earth is atmospheric refraction, which I explained, and the KJV, which is not at all clear on the shape of the Earth, and which in any case is no science book. Can you explain sunsets on a flat Earth? Eclipses? The altitude of Polaris? Why no flat Earth map is correct?
1
-
@JustMe.001 What makes you think I don't know about the Van Allen belts? But they have nothing to do with the many observations that show the Earth to be a globe, which have been made starting more than two thousand years ago.
And as I said: I've done lots of research. Not on YouTube, but outside in the real world. Here's one example: a couple of years ago, I was at the Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania, two degrees south of the Equator. And Polaris was not visible from there. How can you explain that, on a flat Earth? We had perfect dark skies, bright stars, with 360 degree visibility, and I know exactly where to look for Polaris- and that spot was below the horizon. Can you explain why a star supposedly directly above the North Pole would not be in the sky from there?
About the skyline of Chicago being visible from across Lake Michigan: have you seen it yourself? It's only visible very rarely under conditions of high atmospheric refraction, and then only the tops of the buildings. I was there one clear day, and nothing of Chicago was visible. As I explained, refraction can make things appear from further away than you would expect. But not too much further: no one can see the Sun after it's completely set, no matter what telescope they have.
I've also watched many flat Earther videos, and they all make the same mistakes. The Earth is not flat, no matter what you think the Bible says.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rftkohiah9136 You could only "notice" that you don't hear reports of other animals losing habitat when you don't pay any attention to what scientists say. Many animals are losing habitat: all the big cats, apes, monkeys, lemurs, many other mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish.... I don't know where you get your news, but it's not from the scientific community.
And sorry, no, apes are real. I had an orangutan clean my fingernails once in the SF zoo, and it wasn't an actor in a fur suit. She did it the same way we humans do, cleaning under the nails with other nails.
What a bizarre set of beliefs, you are one of a kind. Why do you hate koalas?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ilhandurmus Er, no. The amount of static electric charge that can build up in an object is greater at higher altitudes because the air is thinner and thus insulates better. But this cannot be used to measure altitude, because the conductivity of the air is also affected by humidity- that's why we see more static sparks in the winter, when the air is dryer. Before GPS, altitude was measured by a barometer, which simply measures air pressure.
Air pressure is caused by gravity, not by static charges. The air at the surface is pushed down by the weight of all the air above it and is thus compressed. Higher up, there's less air and thus less pressure.
The tides are also caused by gravity, in this case the pull of the Moon (and to a small extent, the Sun) on the Earth. The fact that the tides are synchronized with the position of the Moon, and the spring and neap tides with the phases of the Moon, is yet another proof that the Earth is not flat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muttonchop said it. Those documents were not declassified; they were never classified in the first place, because they are training manuals using standard protocols known to everyone. The reason they assume (not claim) a flat Earth, a perfectly rigid airframe, no weight loss due to fuel consumption, etc, is to simplify calculation. For getting an approximate answer, especially for short flights, you don't need to factor these effects in, and the math is much easier for beginners.
This does not mean that NASA ignores the actual shape of the Earth (and weight loss due to fuel consumption, etc) when calculating, say, Moon shots. Read these manuals yourself. Carefully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@salembahij1795 Thanks, I've already watched many flat Earther videos, by Eric Dubay, Mark Sargent, Phuket Word, Rob Skiba, DIRTH, Jeran, among many others. They are all based on mistakes in logic, math, and observations, cherry picking, and sometimes lies.
I put my trust rather in what I see with my own eyes and what I understand with my own brain. But to each his own.
Cheers from starry Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vvindovvz4726 I ask about sunsets because I've looked at many dozens of flat Earther sites, and asked hundreds of flat Earthers, and none of them can give me an answer that fits observations and doesn't invoke magic. Not Dubay, not Sargent, not Jeran, not DITRH, not Paul on the Plane, not Phuket, not D. Marble, not Crrow777, or any others. But since you're a physicist, perhaps you can tell me. How can the Sun set and night fall, if the Sun is always above a flat Earth?
It's a simple enough question. I can tell you how the Sun sets on a globe Earth very easily: the Earth rotates and blocks our view of the Sun. So how about you tell me how it works on a flat Earth?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nautilus3074 Interesting, I never knew that. Did you know that there's debate among English linguists whether or not we should change the name, as the German speaking people did, to "Neandertal" instead of "Neanderthal"?
I read a lot of old German texts, and it's funny to see Thal, Thier, thun, etc. These words I write following the new Rechtschreibung, but I draw the line at a couple of silly changes. I stick with daß, Stengel, and Sauerstofflasche, for instance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alkivari9491 You are absolutely correct, gravity is what holds the heliocentric system together. It's one of the most successful of all scientific theories in terms of providing very precise predictions, for instance of eclipses.
We do not know everything there is to know about gravity. But we do know a great deal about it, especially how it behaves in our heliocentric system. Thus, gravitational theory, although incomplete, is the best model we have to date of how bodies in our Solar System, and beyond, move.
Flat Earthers have no model and no predictions to offer. They are not only incomplete, but simply wrong.
But believe what you want. Cheers from cool Vienna, Scott
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xxx.118 You are right about two things. Yes, we are lied to all the time. And yes, most people believe the Earth is round or flat or whatever because someone told them so- their parents, their schools, their friends, social media. Most kids don't get to experience hands-on how to determine the shape of the Earth for themselves, and it's a pity, because it's very easy to show that the Earth cannot be flat.
There are many ways of doing it, but the easiest is to build an equatorial sundial. This will prove that the Sun moves a constant 15 degrees per hour across the sky, at all times of day or year, from anywhere on Earth. This would not be possible on a flat Earth with a nearby Sun, because the Sun would move faster across the sky at midday when it's close than when it's near the horizon and thus much further away.
No electromagnetism, sonoluminescence, atmospheric lensing, or NASA necessary. Just working eyes and brain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1