try to understand the explanations of the Flat Earth Idea Believers (FEIB)

  • 48 Replies
  • 2282 Views

i try for some time to understand how people can believe in a flat earth.

If the earth would be flat, should there not be an conclusive explanation for all phenomenons?
But if there is a question here how certain thinks work on a flat earth the FEIB come up with some kind of explanation.
This explanation does not fit for a different question, instead the FEIBs come up with a different explanation that even often does not work with other explanations.

How can it be that FEIB do not see these problems?

*

scabbage

  • 95
  • 486f772043616e205370616365204265205265616c20496620596f752041726520412053706f6e6765
Incompetence, paranoia and an inability to admit they're wrong... probably.

I read somewhere that conspiracy theorists get some sort of endorphin kick from having their mind blown, so they dive into conspiracy theories to chase that high. Makes sense as generally Flerfers believe in a myriad of other wacko nonsense, as well as your standard chemtrails and NWO stuff.

I personally can't relate... the physical world is so utterly, astoundingly beautiful to me it makes me wonder why they'd want that in the first place.
c̴̢̧̛͉̰̬͓͙̼̹͚̠̱̱̝̝̠̤̼͎̠̺͔͔̞̼̞̩͖̬̗̼̞̻̖̞̞͙̃̍̄̓̆̂̇̽̊͑̽͆̈́̉̕͘͜͜͝͝a̸̧̛̦͍̘̣͖̮̻̙͖̯̮̼̲͈̖̹͖̘̺̲͙̦͇͍̖̝̾͌̐̉̊̓̔̓̀̀̐͒́͑̔͒͌̊̈́̉͑͛͑́́͗̾͐͗̊̐̌̔́́̽̚̕̚͝͠k̷̡̛̛͕̬̮̯̘̯̜̳͇͓͔̰̮͚͉͈̰͕̮̖̰̟̘̥̦͓̣̪͍̯̺̪̼̟̯͇͚̝̺̹̗̳͒̊̓̂̍̾́͐̃̈́͐̀̐̐͋̓̈́̐̿̽͌͊̌̏̎̈́̿͆̃̓̏̍͑̇́̆͋͑͒̑̀̚͘̚̕̚̚͠͝͝͝͠͝ͅe̶̛̎̅̑̎̂̎̿̔̊̈̒͆̄̎̀̈́̿̀̑͒̀̈́̀͂̓͌͊͛̀͝͠

*

Pezevenk

  • 14276
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Why does Chrome think this page is in Vietnamese?
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

Why does Chrome think this page is in Vietnamese?

i can assure that i wrote the post in english (or at least a kind of  ;D )

*

rabinoz

  • 26277
  • Real Earth Believer

i try for some time to understand how people can believe in a flat earth.

If the earth would be flat, should there not be an conclusive explanation for all phenomenons?
But if there is a question here how certain thinks work on a flat earth the FEIB come up with some kind of explanation.
This explanation does not fit for a different question, instead the FEIBs come up with a different explanation that even often does not work with other explanations.

How can it be that FEIB do not see these problems?
Easy peasy!
Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki
Essentially the reasoning boils down to -
     P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
     P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
     P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
     C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
     P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
     P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
     C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.
They class all these failures and the experimental evidence as personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET and so is fabricated.

Of course in many cases, they themselves or a group of them could easily gather this evidence themselves, but they refuse because the know it would disprove the flat earth.

Well, that's my probably highly biased and fabricated explanation.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
I personally can't relate... the physical world is so utterly, astoundingly beautiful to me it makes me wonder why they'd want that in the first place.

I've had similar thoughts.

Truth is beauty as beauty is truth.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

I personally can't relate... the physical world is so utterly, astoundingly beautiful to me it makes me wonder why they'd want that in the first place.

I've had similar thoughts.

Truth is beauty as beauty is truth.

And why can FEB not see the truth?

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
I personally can't relate... the physical world is so utterly, astoundingly beautiful to me it makes me wonder why they'd want that in the first place.

I've had similar thoughts.

Truth is beauty as beauty is truth.

And why can FEB not see the truth?

The path that can be walked is not the eternal path, the name that can be named is not the eternal name.

No one can teach you the true nature of our existence it has to be learned.

imo.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
I read somewhere that conspiracy theorists get some sort of endorphin kick from having their mind blown, so they dive into conspiracy theories to chase that high.

Obviously they haven't heard of quantum mechanics.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160


i try for some time to understand how people can believe in a flat earth.

If the earth would be flat, should there not be an conclusive explanation for all phenomenons?
But if there is a question here how certain thinks work on a flat earth the FEIB come up with some kind of explanation.
This explanation does not fit for a different question, instead the FEIBs come up with a different explanation that even often does not work with other explanations.

How can it be that FEIB do not see these problems?

"how people can believe in a flat earth."

Easy, the evidence/clues/signs from earth's physical condition says it is motionless and flat.

It is you spherical earthers that are inventing the excuses.



i try for some time to understand how people can believe in a flat earth.

If the earth would be flat, should there not be an conclusive explanation for all phenomenons?
But if there is a question here how certain thinks work on a flat earth the FEIB come up with some kind of explanation.
This explanation does not fit for a different question, instead the FEIBs come up with a different explanation that even often does not work with other explanations.

How can it be that FEIB do not see these problems?

"how people can believe in a flat earth."

Easy, the evidence/clues/signs from earth's physical condition says it is motionless and flat.

It is you spherical earthers that are inventing the excuses.

Which evidence?
There is not one real evidence for flat earth, all I have seen till now is made up batshit.


"how people can believe in a flat earth."

Easy, the evidence/clues/signs from earth's physical condition says it is motionless and flat.

It is you spherical earthers that are inventing the excuses.
No. It doesn't.

While some things are consistent with a flat Earth, like cat's existing for example, they are also consistent with a round Earth.

There is not a single shred of evidence that is capable of distinguishing between a flat or stationary and round moving Earth which indicates that Earth is flat or stationary. All the evidence that can distinguish between the 2 indicate Earth is round and moving.

People that accept reality, and accept that Earth is round and moving, don't need to make up any excuses.
But flat Earthers need excuses for so many things because a flat Earth simply doesn't match reality.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18413
  • Thread Janitor
"how people can believe in a flat earth."

Easy, the evidence/clues/signs from earth's physical condition says it is motionless and flat.

It is you spherical earthers that are inventing the excuses.
No. It doesn't.

While some things are consistent with a flat Earth, like cat's existing for example, they are also consistent with a round Earth.

There is not a single shred of evidence that is capable of distinguishing between a flat or stationary and round moving Earth which indicates that Earth is flat or stationary. All the evidence that can distinguish between the 2 indicate Earth is round and moving.

People that accept reality, and accept that Earth is round and moving, don't need to make up any excuses.
But flat Earthers need excuses for so many things because a flat Earth simply doesn't match reality.


Dark energy and dark matter are not FE constructs.

Dark energy and dark matter are not FE constructs.
And they have no bearing on the shape of Earth.

*

rabinoz

  • 26277
  • Real Earth Believer
Dark energy and dark matter are not FE constructs.
Really?
Quote from: The FLAT EARTH WIKI
Astrophysics

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION
In the Universal Acceleration model, all the celestial bodies including the earth are being accelerated in one uniform direction at roughly 9.81 m/s^2. The proposed method of propulsion is Dark Energy?.

From The FLAT EARTH WIKI, Astrophysics, UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION.

And "dark matter" is simply a hypothetical explanation of so far unexplained effects. Recent evidence seems to suggest that it does nor exist.

Not only that, there is no need of either dark energy or dark matter in the heliocentric explanation of the solar systems. They have only been proposed to explain observations on galactic scales.

But, dark energy or something similar is essential to one of the flat earth explanations of gravity.

 ;D But we can hardly expect a Bull Moose to be aware of subtleties like this.  ;D

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18413
  • Thread Janitor
Dark energy and dark matter are not FE constructs.
Really?
Quote from: The FLAT EARTH WIKI
Astrophysics

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION
In the Universal Acceleration model, all the celestial bodies including the earth are being accelerated in one uniform direction at roughly 9.81 m/s^2. The proposed method of propulsion is Dark Energy?.

From The FLAT EARTH WIKI, Astrophysics, UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION.

And "dark matter" is simply a hypothetical explanation of so far unexplained effects. Recent evidence seems to suggest that it does nor exist.

Not only that, there is no need of either dark energy or dark matter in the heliocentric explanation of the solar systems. They have only been proposed to explain observations on galactic scales.

But, dark energy or something similar is essential to one of the flat earth explanations of gravity.

 ;D But we can hardly expect a Bull Moose to be aware of subtleties like this.  ;D



 :P

I just joined this forum and I can tell after just 2 to 3 days that most people here are just sick talking, unscientificly and absolutly not differentiated. All natural phenomena can be explained on round spinning and a flat earth. The experiments which are supposed to prove the earths rotation are a joke. The only way you can explain a spherical earth is to use gravitational force which is not understood yet. No one knows what it is. You only know what it does. I heard of experiments with something like a water filled telescope to analyse to light that falls in better to make calculations on the relative movement of the earth compaired to the stars. Maybe someone here knows about it. All evidence you can bring up from the earth face can never entirely prove its shape. So basicly as long as there is no space institute that provides the world with some better moving picture footage of a spinning globe in its full pride like NASA did, no one can tell. That little Clip on the NASA from 30 years ago is a joke, like much else they put out. There is a idiom we use here,, who lies ones, you dont believe in".

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18413
  • Thread Janitor

I heard of experiments with something like a water filled telescope to analyse to light that falls in better to make calculations on the relative movement of the earth compaired to the stars.



I would enjoy reading more about this.


*

rabinoz

  • 26277
  • Real Earth Believer

I heard of experiments with something like a water filled telescope to analyse to light that falls in better to make calculations on the relative movement of the earth compaired to the stars.


I would enjoy reading more about this.
Read up on what Flat Earthers commonly call "Airy's Failure", except that it was not a "failure"
but simply an experiment that yielded a "Null result" as did the "Michelson Morley Experiment".

The so-called "Airy's Failure" is completely consistent with Special Relativity.  Take a look at:
Water-filled telescopes
Einstein 1905 Relativity, Why we believe in Special Relativity: Experimental Support for Einsteinís Theory

I'll try to dig up some better references when I get time.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18413
  • Thread Janitor

I heard of experiments with something like a water filled telescope to analyse to light that falls in better to make calculations on the relative movement of the earth compaired to the stars.


I would enjoy reading more about this.
Read up on what Flat Earthers commonly call "Airy's Failure", except that it was not a "failure"
but simply an experiment that yielded a "Null result" as did the "Michelson Morley Experiment".

The so-called "Airy's Failure" is completely consistent with Special Relativity.  Take a look at:
Water-filled telescopes
Einstein 1905 Relativity, Why we believe in Special Relativity: Experimental Support for Einsteinís Theory

I'll try to dig up some better references when I get time.


I normally don't click links. I always click yours.

'Michelson Morley' was not a failure. It was a turning point.

Ye that's the good stuff  :D

I just joined this forum and I can tell after just 2 to 3 days that most people here are just sick talking, unscientificly and absolutly not differentiated. All natural phenomena can be explained on round spinning and a flat earth. The experiments which are supposed to prove the earths rotation are a joke. The only way you can explain a spherical earth is to use gravitational force which is not understood yet. No one knows what it is. You only know what it does. I heard of experiments with something like a water filled telescope to analyse to light that falls in better to make calculations on the relative movement of the earth compaired to the stars. Maybe someone here knows about it. All evidence you can bring up from the earth face can never entirely prove its shape. So basicly as long as there is no space institute that provides the world with some better moving picture footage of a spinning globe in its full pride like NASA did, no one can tell. That little Clip on the NASA from 30 years ago is a joke, like much else they put out. There is a idiom we use here,, who lies ones, you dont believe in".

No. They can't.
There are various phenomenon which make perfect sense and are completely explained on a spinning round Earth, which make no sense at all on a flat Earth, stationary.
For example, the Coriolis effect (and things like Foucault's pendulum), make complete sense on a round spinning Earth, with movement over large distances resulting in an apparent curve, or an apparent rotation of the pendulum.
You have the stars as well, with them appearing to rotate around celestial poles, with stars in the north rotating around a northern one and stars in the south rotating around a southern one, and these are 180 degrees apart, regardless of where you are.
You have the sun, rising due east and setting due west for everywhere on Earth on the equinox, and providing 12 hours of daylight. This requires the sun to be very far away, yet it also goes directly over head the equator. The only way for that to work is for the equator and the sun to be in the same plane on the equinox, with the surface of Earth being perpendicular to that plane. Then there is the issue of the southern summer, where the sun rises from the south east, while on the FE model it remains to the north.
You have things setting behind the horizon rather than just disappearing off into the distance.
Even at 90 degrees south, Polaris should still be significantly above the horizon on a flat Earth, yet it isn't.
And associated with that lack of falling, on a flat Earth with close objects, their brightness should change dramatically, but it doesn't, indicating they need to be much much further away, so their apparent angle wouldn't change on a flat Earth.
And we have distances, where the distance between any 2 lines of longitudes decrease as you get further away from the equator, once again indicating Earth is round.

So no, only by completely discarding reality can all natural phenomena be explained on a flat Earth.

We don't completely understand any force, as we don't know the origin of things like charge.
Gravity is as well known as electromagnetism and the like. We know it exists, we just don't know everything about it, but like you said, we do know what it does, and it indicates Earth should be round, and that is just to explain its origin. It doesn't matter if we know its origin or not, we have enough evidence to indicate it is round.

Yes, Earth's surface does indicate Earth's shape, quite conclusively, with things disappearing behind the horizon and distances matching a globe.

As for the experiment, it failed to take into consideration the effect of light entering a dense medium which moves. Air isn't a significant problem due to its low density and refractive index of effectively 1, but water is much denser with a significantly greater refractive index, which means you do need to consider its movement.
So that experiment failed.

The experiment that worked was comparing the apparent position of a star at different times of the year. Unlike parallax, this effects all starts (in approximately the same location) the same.
This showed that Earth was moving, and changed its motion, or the stars were somehow moving around in small circles for no reason at all.

Why do you need a video of moving Earth?
How about a time lapse series of photos of a moving Earth?

NASA has very little (if any) reason to provide a video of Earth spinning, but they did from the ISS, you just can't see a lot of it.
What is the point? People like you will just deny it and claim it is fake.
If you want to see Earth spin, use EPIC, a camera on DSCOVR located at the Earth sun L1, which can observe Earth rotating by comparing the pictures taken at different times.

Here is a link for you:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

I always wonder how a simple pendulum can prove earth rotation when we have a moon that is pulling the tides with his gravitational field. The movement of the moon and sun can be explained on a disk. Everything that is apprehended close to the horizon near earths surface is highly affected by perspective, density, temperature. I agree with the length of the longitudes but what's about the earth surface under them.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
From my experience people only accept the evidence they want to believe, if someone dearly wants to believe something, often facts logic and science aren't enough we can't really debunk people's desires.

Canadabear chill out and stop being such a n00b and you might learn something, look at the information on this thread alone, this is what the F.E.S can offer you. If you don't like it here and just want to call people stupid / crazy, then please, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Actually these guys would love to have you.

www.cluesforum.info

Edit. That was rough, sorry, man I hate those guys.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 01:02:08 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
I always wonder how a simple pendulum can prove earth rotation when we have a moon that is pulling the tides with his gravitational field. The movement of the moon and sun can be explained on a disk. Everything that is apprehended close to the horizon near earths surface is highly affected by perspective, density, temperature. I agree with the length of the longitudes but what's about the earth surface under them.

Apparently a gyroscope can "prove" the earths rotation, but it's really tricky to set up.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

I always wonder how a simple pendulum can prove earth rotation when we have a moon that is pulling the tides with his gravitational field. The movement of the moon and sun can be explained on a disk. Everything that is apprehended close to the horizon near earths surface is highly affected by perspective, density, temperature. I agree with the length of the longitudes but what's about the earth surface under them.

It isn't a simple pendulum, it is a Foucault's pendulum.
Unlike a simple pendulum, it is free to swing in any direction with no bias.
This proves it because it is moving back and forth continually while Earth spins underneath it. It is always experiencing a force due to the Coriolis effect and that adds up over time.

The moon pulling water to make tides doesn't have anything to do with that.

The movement of the moon and sun CANNOT be explained on a disk.
If you wish to assert it can, tell me how it rises in the south east during the southern summer, while it is meant to be to the north.
Tell me how it rises due east on the equinox and sets due west, and passes directly overhead for people at the equator.
If you are unable to do that, stop asserting it can be explained.

It isn't the length of the longitudes, it is the distance between them.
If Earth was a disc, noting that these lines are straight, they would all radiate out from a single point.
This means if you move further south, away from the centre, the distance should increase.
But in reality, as you go past the equator and continue south, the distance between them decreases.

It also doesn't match a disc if you just focus on the northern hemisphere. It is quite close at the pole, but then as you go further south (towards the equator), the increase in the distance gets smaller, until at the equator, it stops increasing and starts decreasing.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
Just out of curiosity, speaking of pendulums, Jack. What are your opinions on the allais effect? User / experimental error or a genuine phenomenon?

I want to check for myself next solar eclipse in August I think.

I know it's one of Sandokhans arguments but I think it's fascinating.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Just out of curiosity, speaking of pendulums, Jack. What are your opinions on the allais effect? User / experimental error or a genuine phenomenon?

I want to check for myself next solar eclipse in August I think.

I know it's one of Sandokhans arguments but I think it's fascinating.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
I would say user/experimental error, especially as the results are all over the place.
If there is a genuine effect, then it is likely going to be very small and the reported results are still mainly due to error.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
I came to the same conclusion after reading the measured results.

I'll still try it but as you say I very much doubt I'll see anything interesting.

Thanks.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

rabinoz

  • 26277
  • Real Earth Believer
Just out of curiosity, speaking of pendulums, Jack. What are your opinions on the allais effect? User / experimental error or a genuine phenomenon?

I want to check for myself next solar eclipse in August I think.

I know it's one of Sandokhans arguments but I think it's fascinating.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
I don't that there is something in it. NASA took it seriously enough in 1999, see:
Science@NASA, Decrypting the Eclipse, A Solar Eclipse, Global Measurements and a Mystery
Then you will find plenty of speculation about "push/shadowing" from Blaze Labs I think, see:
TESTING GRAVITON GRAVITY AGAINST GENERAL RELATIVITY GRAVITY by Clark M. Thomas and
Allais Gravitational Anomaly Resolved by Clark M. Thomas
With plenty written disputing that material.
Physics Furums, Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstream science?

I simply do not have the background to judge this sort of thing objectively, but the following questions always come up.
  • Why is the gravitational effect to precisely related to the masses and separation distance of the objects? And not to the type or density of the matter involved.

  • In the case of the Allais effect, why is the effect only when the Sun, Earth and moon in perfect alignment? When at other times the Foucault pendulum seems only affected by the earth's rotation.

Maybe there are simple answers, but one thing is for sure. Those writing about "push gravity" and the "Allais effect certainly believe in the heliocentric globe and the current cosmology - not in a flat earth.

But, in the meantime, at least for local calculations and even Solar System-wide calculations, Newtonian gravitation is extremely accurate. And, it is what is used in all but the most precise or extreme situations.