Turns out the Earth really is flat*

*Almost, nearly, very close to being flat anyway.

This article probably puts it better than I can, but it really is true. The ancients were "right", and calling the Earth flat even today is (almost entirely) correct. That is, correct in the way that Newton was correct about gravitation (and mostly still is, despite Einstein).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2013/jan/03/flat-earth-science-asimov

The original article by Asimov is also excellent. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

The gist of both is this:

"... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."


Anyone care to comment on this? I'm saying that I'm only slightly more correct in saying the Earth is round. The difference is negligible really. Accepting this put no shame on the FES, on the contrary, it practically puts it on par with Newton! I for one am proud to admit the Earth is (almost completely) flat!

Anyone?

Are we allowed to bump our own threads? 'Cause this thread could really use one.

I am glad that the warmth that exudes from you is more than the hot meal that you have just eaten, which comes from your breath.  I am glad you believe now.

The article is just pointing out that small deviations in measurement are crucial in testing theories; the earth is a sphere, but, on human levels, flatness is a close enough approximation for most actions we might undertake.

I am glad that the warmth that exudes from you is more than the hot meal that you have just eaten, which comes from your breath.  I am glad you believe now.

I'm not really sure if you are sincere or not, however I am quite sure that you sound like a pretentious douche.

The article is just pointing out that small deviations in measurement are crucial in testing theories; the earth is a sphere, but, on human levels, flatness is a close enough approximation for most actions we might undertake.

The article says this, yes, but I think it's also interesting that FE'rs like to point out that "Round Earth Theories" are incomplete or have problems, therefore their theories, such as (ughhhgh) "bendy light" are worthy of equal consideration. The creation vs. evolution debate is also full of this kind of flawed argument. I think Asimov's essay shows why is not true that a round Earth is just as wrong as a flat Earth.

'Round earth' is more true than 'flat earth.'
'Fire is the result of combustion' is more true than 'it is magic.'

Is there any substance to this thread?

'Round earth' is more true than 'flat earth.'
'Fire is the result of combustion' is more true than 'it is magic.'

Is there any substance to this thread?

Flatsies try to make this bad argument all the time, saying that because "Round Earth theory" (meaning actual science basically) does not have all the answers, and neither does FET, therefore FET is just as valid as RET. So I thought I'd make a thread to address it. So far no FE'rs have responded. I was hoping to hear some reasons why FET should be taken seriously other than "RET is wrong".

Quote from: ataraxia on June 11, 2013, 12:47:33 AM

'Round earth' is more true than 'flat earth.'
'Fire is the result of combustion' is more true than 'it is magic.'

Is there any substance to this thread?

Flatsies try to make this bad argument all the time, saying that because "Round Earth theory" (meaning actual science basically) does not have all the answers, and neither does FET, therefore FET is just as valid as RET. So I thought I'd make a thread to address it. So far no FE'rs have responded. I was hoping to hear some reasons why FET should be taken seriously other than "RET is wrong".

FET is only a couple of websites, some outdated books and millions of unanswered questions and flawed demonstration. It' nowhere a theory.

RET might be flawed, but it's by a million miles working better than FET?

Tere's nos such thing as 2 theories as valid as each other.

Quote from: ataraxia on June 11, 2013, 12:47:33 AM

'Round earth' is more true than 'flat earth.'
'Fire is the result of combustion' is more true than 'it is magic.'

Is there any substance to this thread?

Flatsies try to make this bad argument all the time, saying that because "Round Earth theory" (meaning actual science basically) does not have all the answers, and neither does FET, therefore FET is just as valid as RET. So I thought I'd make a thread to address it. So far no FE'rs have responded. I was hoping to hear some reasons why FET should be taken seriously other than "RET is wrong".

But it's quite the opposite. Both RET and FET have a plethora of answers. The truth lies in finding the contradictions, which is different than not having answers in the first place.

Since this thread is still alive I'll comment.

"When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. "

This is a ridiculous statement. Does he/she mean to say "when people thought the earth was a sphere"? And that it's technically bulgy? Because the Earth is spherical. It's very spherical.

When you take into account the whole earth there is nothing flat about it, but when you think on a scale of human-size, yes it's very flat. I think this is what the article is getting at but it did a very poor job of it IMO.

Since this thread is still alive I'll comment.

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 27, 2013, 07:10:52 PM

"When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. "

This is a ridiculous statement. Does he/she mean to say "when people thought the earth was a sphere"? And that it's technically bulgy? Because the Earth is spherical. It's very spherical.

When you take into account the whole earth there is nothing flat about it, but when you think on a scale of human-size, yes it's very flat. I think this is what the article is getting at but it did a very poor job of it IMO.

So perceived shape depends on vantage point. Makes me wonder how many things we think are true because of our size.

Since this thread is still alive I'll comment.

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 27, 2013, 07:10:52 PM

"When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. "

This is a ridiculous statement. Does he/she mean to say "when people thought the earth was a sphere"? And that it's technically bulgy? Because the Earth is spherical. It's very spherical.

When you take into account the whole earth there is nothing flat about it, but when you think on a scale of human-size, yes it's very flat. I think this is what the article is getting at but it did a very poor job of it IMO.

If you are referring to the Asimov essay, then I disagree. It is very clear in its meaning. It says that a FE theory is wrong but not very wrong in that the average curvature is extremely close to 0. However, to say the Earth is a sphere is also wrong, since the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid. But ultimately, saying the Earth is round is closer to the truth than saying it is flat, and so they are not equivalently wrong theories.

Since this thread is still alive I'll comment.

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 27, 2013, 07:10:52 PM

"When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. "

This is a ridiculous statement. Does he/she mean to say "when people thought the earth was a sphere"? And that it's technically bulgy? Because the Earth is spherical. It's very spherical.

When you take into account the whole earth there is nothing flat about it, but when you think on a scale of human-size, yes it's very flat. I think this is what the article is getting at but it did a very poor job of it IMO.

I guess meant perfectly spherical? Maybe I missed something - could an oblate spheriod be properly called spherical?

And yes, spheres are spheres. Of course it's all about the human sense of scale. That's the whole Flatsy argument - it looks flat, therefore it's completely flat. But for nearly any human scale engineering project, for example, you may as well call it flat and things work fine if you make that assumption (of course "human-scale" means something different that it did 100 years ago).

My point remains; while there is some truth to the statement "the Earth is flat" (true on small scales) and there is some untruth to the statement "the Earth is a sphere", this doesn't mean that the Earth is a flat disc.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 11, 2013, 10:33:30 AM

Quote from: ataraxia on June 11, 2013, 12:47:33 AM

'Round earth' is more true than 'flat earth.'
'Fire is the result of combustion' is more true than 'it is magic.'

Is there any substance to this thread?

Flatsies try to make this bad argument all the time, saying that because "Round Earth theory" (meaning actual science basically) does not have all the answers, and neither does FET, therefore FET is just as valid as RET. So I thought I'd make a thread to address it. So far no FE'rs have responded. I was hoping to hear some reasons why FET should be taken seriously other than "RET is wrong".

FET is only a couple of websites, some outdated books and millions of unanswered questions and flawed demonstration. It' nowhere a theory.

RET might be flawed, but it's by a million miles working better than FET?

Tere's nos such thing as 2 theories as valid as each other.

This is exactly right but unfortunately it's exactly what many Flatsies (not to mention young earth creationists) are saying all the time.

Quote from: FlatOrange on June 11, 2013, 04:14:07 PM

Since this thread is still alive I'll comment.

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 27, 2013, 07:10:52 PM

"When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. "

This is a ridiculous statement. Does he/she mean to say "when people thought the earth was a sphere"? And that it's technically bulgy? Because the Earth is spherical. It's very spherical.

When you take into account the whole earth there is nothing flat about it, but when you think on a scale of human-size, yes it's very flat. I think this is what the article is getting at but it did a very poor job of it IMO.

So perceived shape depends on vantage point. Makes me wonder how many things we think are true because of our size.

This is why science seeks to take human biases out of its observations. So it would be more scientific to look out the window and say e.g. "I don't see any curvature in the 5 distance I can see from my 3' square window" versus "yup looks flat, guess the Earth is flat".

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 11, 2013, 10:33:30 AM

Quote from: ataraxia on June 11, 2013, 12:47:33 AM

'Round earth' is more true than 'flat earth.'
'Fire is the result of combustion' is more true than 'it is magic.'

Is there any substance to this thread?

Flatsies try to make this bad argument all the time, saying that because "Round Earth theory" (meaning actual science basically) does not have all the answers, and neither does FET, therefore FET is just as valid as RET. So I thought I'd make a thread to address it. So far no FE'rs have responded. I was hoping to hear some reasons why FET should be taken seriously other than "RET is wrong".

But it's quite the opposite. Both RET and FET have a plethora of answers. The truth lies in finding the contradictions, which is different than not having answers in the first place.

If by contradictions you mean where observations contradict a theory, then I I agree. As it turns out, AFAIK, more observation would contradict a Flat Earth model than a Round Earth Model.

I'm not sure why you say "quite the opposite" though. I see people make this bad argument a lot: the two theories are both incomplete therefore either could be true.

Yeah I guess that is what I'm getting at. Just bc one is more right than the other doesn't necessarily mean that the more right one is right.

Yeah I guess that is what I'm getting at. Just bc one is more right than the other doesn't necessarily mean that the more right one is right.

That doesn't seem to make much sense.

"My point remains; while there is some truth to the statement "the Earth is flat" (true on small scales) and there is some untruth to the statement "the Earth is a sphere", this doesn't mean that the Earth is a flat disc"

You said it better than asimov. Saying there is some untruth to saying the earth is a sphere which implies a perfect shape makes more sense than what Asimov said.

Asimov said saying the earth is spherical is wrong. Spherical means "shaped like a sphere."  The earth is definitely "shaped like a sphere." ^[1][2]

[1]http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html
[2]http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/geodesyearthsize.htm

"My point remains; while there is some truth to the statement "the Earth is flat" (true on small scales) and there is some untruth to the statement "the Earth is a sphere", this doesn't mean that the Earth is a flat disc"

You said it better than asimov. Saying there is some untruth to saying the earth is a sphere which implies a perfect shape makes more sense than what Asimov said.

Asimov said saying the earth is spherical is wrong. Spherical means "shaped like a sphere."  The earth is definitely "shaped like a sphere." ^[1][2]

[1]http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html
[2]http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/geodesyearthsize.htm

It's not every day I get favorably compared to Isaac Asimov. I'll take it.

Yes... though, instead of saying he was wrong, I should say you were more right than he.

Quote from: ataraxia on June 11, 2013, 06:08:16 PM

Yeah I guess that is what I'm getting at. Just bc one is more right than the other doesn't necessarily mean that the more right one is right.

That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Why not? The progression of science in general follows that path. You improve upon a theory until it is observed everywhere to be true.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 11, 2013, 06:23:20 PM

Quote from: ataraxia on June 11, 2013, 06:08:16 PM

Yeah I guess that is what I'm getting at. Just bc one is more right than the other doesn't necessarily mean that the more right one is right.

That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Why not? The progression of science in general follows that path. You improve upon a theory until it is observed everywhere to be true.

Does it not follow suit that if one theory is more correct than another, but may not be correct, that the less correct theory is wrong?

Does it not follow suit that if one theory is more correct than another, but may not be correct, that the less correct theory is wrong?

Not necessarily.  It depends on your definitions of "correct" and "wrong" as they apply to theories.  Typically, the correctness of a scientific theory is not regarded as an absolute.  For example, even though Newton's gravity is less correct than Einstein's gravity, Newton's gravity is still held in high regard and is used widely in real world engineering applications.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 11, 2013, 06:23:20 PM

Quote from: ataraxia on June 11, 2013, 06:08:16 PM

Yeah I guess that is what I'm getting at. Just bc one is more right than the other doesn't necessarily mean that the more right one is right.

That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Why not? The progression of science in general follows that path. You improve upon a theory until it is observed everywhere to be true.

Flat Earth theory has had to "improve" upon itself an absurd amount of times, and it still can't get it right.

Quote from: ataraxia on June 11, 2013, 08:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 11, 2013, 06:23:20 PM

Quote from: ataraxia on June 11, 2013, 06:08:16 PM

Yeah I guess that is what I'm getting at. Just bc one is more right than the other doesn't necessarily mean that the more right one is right.

That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Why not? The progression of science in general follows that path. You improve upon a theory until it is observed everywhere to be true.

Flat Earth theory has had to "improve" upon itself an absurd amount of times, and it still can't get it right.

The difference being that science improves by making more accurate measurements and modifying the theory to better fit reality, whereas things like FET and creationism come up with imaginative hypotheses that are as unfalsifiable as possible.

If FET were merely the theory that the Earth is flat on small scales, they would be doing fine (but this forum would be a lot less interesting). Of course RET already contains this concept so there wouldn't be any need for the FES.

Asimov argues semantics. The world is flat its true shape is something resembling a disk. However, FE needs a different map, not a flattened globe that we have now. I personally think that there are dimensional factors that we or scientists simply do not grasp. Ships and airplanes navigate the earth using RE model and it works well. But this does not indicate that the earth is a sphere. There is an an obvious dimensional distortion (space/time related) in the southern part of the earth. (below equator) I also think that perhaps northern part is mapped incorrectly. I think the arctic sea is a lot larger and Atlantic ocean is much wider. Atlantis was a continent between Americas and the "old world" There was also still plenty of sea between Europe and Atlantis. On a current globe there would be very little water between Atlantis Africa and Europe. A lot more research is needed into creating new FE map.

Asimov argues semantics. The world is flat its true shape is something resembling a disk. However, FE needs a different map, not a flattened globe that we have now. I personally think that there are dimensional factors that we or scientists simply do not grasp. Ships and airplanes navigate the earth using RE model and it works well. But this does not indicate that the earth is a sphere. There is an an obvious dimensional distortion (space/time related) in the southern part of the earth. (below equator) I also think that perhaps northern part is mapped incorrectly. I think the arctic sea is a lot larger and Atlantic ocean is much wider. Atlantis was a continent between Americas and the "old world" There was also still plenty of sea between Europe and Atlantis. On a current globe there would be very little water between Atlantis Africa and Europe. A lot more research is needed into creating new FE map.

There is dimensional distortion in the southern hemisphere, its called being a sphere.  Bringing in alternate dimensions to address the map distortion is a novel idea, but the fact that we regularly travel without any apparent shift in dimensions should tell you something about that.  Atlantis is also not confirmed to have existed, not to mention that the amount of ocean between North America and Europe is quite vast when you speak of ancient sea travel.

Asimov argues semantics. The world is flat its true shape is something resembling a disk. However, FE needs a different map, not a flattened globe that we have now. I personally think that there are dimensional factors that we or scientists simply do not grasp. Ships and airplanes navigate the earth using RE model and it works well. But this does not indicate that the earth is a sphere. There is an an obvious dimensional distortion (space/time related) in the southern part of the earth. (below equator) I also think that perhaps northern part is mapped incorrectly. I think the arctic sea is a lot larger and Atlantic ocean is much wider. Atlantis was a continent between Americas and the "old world" There was also still plenty of sea between Europe and Atlantis. On a current globe there would be very little water between Atlantis Africa and Europe. A lot more research is needed into creating new FE map.

Didn't you once hold the position that this Earth is spherical and that the flat Earth is a land infinitely big and infinitely resourceful, with luxurious time travel that you enter by going to the south pole and switching dimensions/universes?