1

Flat Earth Debate / The issue with curvature

« on: July 23, 2018, 02:12:14 AM »

Whenever you venture into the fairytale world of the flat-earther you hear the oft-made lament 'but where is the curvature?'. But of course, the question is rather childish as it seems to infer a vertical curvature which of course would require extreme altitude to see - and not really be vertical anyhow. But the truth is that the curvature is easily visible and literally at sea level.

Go out in a boat (or plane for that matter) away from land and take a look in all directions. What you will of course see it a horizon CURVING its way around you in a perfect CIRCLE and circles are just 360 degree curves. Get in a balloon no higher than the local geography and you will see the exact same thing - a distinct circular horizon where you are in the exact middle. In fact, being able to do this at any point on earth is yet another proof of a sphere as an equidistant horizon is impossible anywhere on the FE other than at the north pole. 

I am sure that FEers have countless ludicrous objections to this, but from my position, curvature is easily visible at any point on the earth and many of them at sea level.

Does anyone else feel the same as me that the 'where is the curvature?' argument is largely based on a chronic misunderstanding of what a curve actually is on a massive object?

2

Flat Earth Debate / The problem with the sun on the flat earth

« on: June 06, 2017, 06:35:37 PM »

THIS IS BEING POSTED AGAIN in debate rather than Q&A.


On youtube I continually see this animation of the sun rotating above a flat earth. Now that might explain it to someone who has never seen a light source before, but isnt it rather obvious that the sun MUST be visible over the entire surface of the earth ALL the time? It might be more distant during the supposed FE 'night' but it should be easily visible. What's more, the light at any point cannot be any less that ~25% of maximum illumination directly below the sun.

So I imagine the sun could have a kind of collar around it so that light only goes to a smallish angle, but even then, anyone who has seen a light fitting knows that you would still see the presence of the light source - and we dont.

Also, Antarctica has periods of sunlight 24 hrs a day and a circling sun simply could not produce that. The most entertaining comment Ive heard on this is that 'light doesn't travel very far' which is possibly the most idiotic thing I've heard yet.

Also, the circling sun around the equator would appear to most of us as a single light source rotating in the sky in a limited circular pattern (dependent on how high the sun is) with no sunrise and no sunset.

So.... thoughts people?  And please... no absurd mis-use of Perspective or thinking that a 'vanishing point' actually has objects literally 'vanish'.

This concept and animation always makes me chuckle as the above point seem rather obvious.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / So how do you answer this one?

« on: June 06, 2017, 12:59:50 AM »

On youtube I continually see this animation of the sun rotating above a flat earth. Now that might explain it to someone who has never seen a light source before, but isnt it rather obvious that the sun MUST be visible over the entire surface of the earth ALL the time? It might be more distant during the supposed FE 'night' but it should be easily visible. What's more, the light at any point cannot be any less that ~25% of maximum illumination directly below the sun.

So I imagine the sun could have a kind of collar around it so that light only goes to a smallish angle, but even then, anyone who has seen a light fitting knows that you would still see the presence of the light source - and we dont.

Also, Antarctica has periods of sunlight 24 hrs a day and a circling sun simply could not produce that. The most entertaining comment Ive heard on this is that 'light doesn't travel very far' which is possibly the most idiotic thing I've heard yet.

Also, the circling sun around the equator would appear to most of us as a single light source rotating in the sky in a limited circular pattern (dependent on how high the sun is) with no sunrise and no sunset.

So.... thoughts people?  And please... no absurd mis-use of Perspective or thinking that a 'vanishing point' actually has objects literally 'vanish'.

This concept and animation always makes me chuckle as the above point seem rather obvious.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers

« on: December 23, 2016, 09:22:33 PM »

There is a general thread among most Flat Earther’s belief systems and that is a literal interpretation of the Bible. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. For the record, I am a born-again Christian who believes the Bible is inerrant, the Word of God and literally true. But from this point, scepti et al and I veer considerably off course in what we think that statement actually means.

Firstly, the Bible is not a book on science, but rather history and the story of God’s relationship with His people. That is not to say that it contradicts science. In fact, with the exception of evolution (a different subject) the Bible does not generally contradict existing scientific beliefs and proofs. And to repeat, the Bible is not a science book and going there for your science will be at best, disappointing.

Now back to the Bible… Scepti et al believe in this flat earth model with a fixed dome and even literal ‘windows’ to heaven and with the flat earth standing on literal pillars. One of the first things you learn when trying to understand the Bible is to recognise what you are reading at the time. When you are reading Jesus’ parables, you are not reading literal events, but rather metaphorical stories. Jesus even stats as much. When the Bible refers to the corners of the world, it says so in the same vein that we even today refer to the ‘four corners of the globe’. There is metaphor, history, poetry and teaching all in the Bible and if you don’t know which one you are reading, then you will end up with silly ideas like a domed earth.

When God asks Job ‘who set the earth on its pillars’, does He mean literal pillars or rather how we describe some people as ‘pillars of society’ without believing that they are literally stone pillars. When the Bible refers to the ‘windows of heaven’ it is not talking about opening and closing literal windows somewhere on a dome, but more like how we say that ‘the eyes are the window to the soul’.
It is easy (and correct) to believe that the entire Bible is inerrant and literally true when you know what you are reading because poetry is LITERALLY poetry and metaphors are LITERALLY metaphors.

I say all this to explain Scepti et al and their absolute refusal (and inability) to accept the real model of the universe and a spherical earth. It is faith. Pure, absolute faith. But faith that is misguided because it is faith not in what the Bible actually says, but rather on a very poor and biased understanding of the Bible. Biblical interpretation can be subjective for some, but only cults and a few peripheral nutters don’t accept that parts of the Bible are actually poetry and metaphor or sometimes historical summaries rather than all literal fact.

The fact that he cannot be shifted is both admirable and pitiful. Steadfastness for the things of God are good, but that implies we must actually know what those things are. When science absolutely and without doubt disproves what you believe you need to check again to see if your faith is actually lining up with God’s Word or simply your own (mis)interpretation. Being steadfast and faithful to error is not admirable at all.

5

The Lounge / Writing a Flat Earth Fiction Novel

« on: August 31, 2016, 01:59:52 AM »

AS I am a published (if poorly sold) fiction novelist, I thought about writing a syfy story about a flat earth. But the key to any alternate universe style of story is that it has to be internally consistent and semi-believable. my psychology texts have literally sold a thousand times as many copies (still disappointingly low volume)

My problem is that I simply cannot construct a plausible flat-earth scenario that wouldn't have readers rolling their eyes by the end of the first couple pages. I am a pragmatist which isnt helping.

Do any ROUNDIES have a few ideas I could build on for a semi-credible flat-earth scenario? I cant even have gravity all the way out to the edges being consistent nevermind an atmosphere that is contained. Good fiction requires you to suspend belief. Bad fiction expects you to suspend internal consistency and credibility. It doesnt have to be a flat EARTH although that would be great, but it does have to be a flat planet of some kind.

Think of it as a thought experiment in how this could be done. First prize is a copy of the ultimate book worth probably $3.99. It's still the best offer you will ever get on here!