Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory

  • 14 Replies
  • 1171 Views
Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« on: October 10, 2017, 01:29:45 PM »
I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense.
Ever since ancient times people have used math and science to figure out that the Earth is a globe. It baffles me as to how we became so backwards and began believing something that even B.C people knew to be false. Here are some main points that keep me from believing that the Earth is flat.

1) Ordinary people today can obtain a telescope and observe that literally every other planet, star, or moon is a globe shape. Why is Earth the exception?

2) Let's suppose that the Earth is flat and the sun is directly overhead, however far Flat-Earthers believe the sun to be above the Earth. Where do other planets get their source of light and warmth? Somehow we can see other planets in space because the light comes from somewhere, but Where? It can't isn't our sun, If the light from our sun was brilliant enough to reach Saturn, Neptune, or Uranus, then surely we would be blinded by the sun's light here on earth.

3) In Antarctica, there are certain times where it experiences constant daylight hours and others when it experiences constant night time hours. The explanation for this is the tilt of the earth. During certain times, Antarctica is tilted away from the earth, therefore experiencing constant daylight or night.

Thank you, Have a good day  :)

Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2017, 01:55:59 PM »
These are based upon another key point, how the solar system works.

We can measure the apparent position of various objects in the sky from various locations on Earth.

This shows these objects to be very distant and shows that from our point of view, the entire sky appears to rotate around an axis passes through Earth, both a location due north and due south, which is explained the simplest by Earth rotating.
Once you remove this rotation you are left with an apparent motion of the sun of orbiting Earth, and all the planets orbiting some point (the sun) orbiting Earth.
This is explained the simplest by Earth orbiting the sun along with the other planets. And thus Earth should be a planet.

It is only when you get here that point 1 falls into place. This establishes Earth as a planet and thus it should share properties with other planets.

This also links to point 2, with other planets sharing properties with Earth, the key one here being that they are illuminated by the sun.

Without the above planets are seen as orbs in the sky nothing like Earth.

Issue 3 is merely a manifestation of the greater issue of the sun's apparent position. It makes no sense at all in the FE models.

Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2017, 12:32:19 AM »
Unfortunately (for the human race) and as a massive indictment of the failures of our educational systems, and most likely a healthy dose of self delusion, Flat Earthers have chosen to ignore all that evidence and 2000 years of scientific work for "it looks flat to me".

In order for them to maintain this delusion they have to insist that
1. Only 500 years ago with the establishment of NASA (go figure that out) did the belief of a round earth begin
2. Gravity cannot make a body the size of the earth into a sphere because there is no gravity
3. What you see when you look into a telescope isn't what you see because there is no space, there are no star systems, galaxies and all the rest. It's either you see "condensation" on the dome or worse "it's all in your head"

They choose to believe all this because it makes them feel a part of the elite. It feeds their ego that they can discern a conspiracy that has blinded over 99%of the human race. When in reality they just bought Eric Dubay's snake oil and are to dumb or embarrassed to admit it.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16473
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2017, 12:48:41 AM »
I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense.
Ever since ancient times people have used math and science to figure out that the Earth is a globe. It baffles me as to how we became so backwards and began believing something that even B.C people knew to be false. Here are some main points that keep me from believing that the Earth is flat.

1) Ordinary people today can obtain a telescope and observe that literally every other planet, star, or moon is a globe shape. Why is Earth the exception?
Popper relates the question somewhat like this: 'If we look out our window each day, and see a white goose, we would be led to believe it is all white geese out there. But any day, perhapenstance, we might stumble upon a white goose.'

There are many things that make the earth unique, aside from us being able to ask this question and discussion this here; more than that, I question your premise. Many celestial bodies are not spherical.

Quote
2) Let's suppose that the Earth is flat and the sun is directly overhead, however far Flat-Earthers believe the sun to be above the Earth. Where do other planets get their source of light and warmth? Somehow we can see other planets in space because the light comes from somewhere, but Where? It can't isn't our sun, If the light from our sun was brilliant enough to reach Saturn, Neptune, or Uranus, then surely we would be blinded by the sun's light here on earth.
It depends on the believer. The Taoists and Rowbothamist's placed it close; some anti-coppernicus folks a bit further. The truth is, the astronomer has no more sense of distance, than an aristocrat has to the cost of a banana.
Quote
3) In Antarctica, there are certain times where it experiences constant daylight hours and others when it experiences constant night time hours. The explanation for this is the tilt of the earth. During certain times, Antarctica is tilted away from the earth, therefore experiencing constant daylight or night.

Thank you, Have a good day  :)
Constant daylight or nighttime is completely coherent with the relativistic flat earth model.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2017, 01:12:44 AM »
Many celestial bodies are not spherical.
By that do you mean they are slightly oblate?
If not, how many of them are similar in size to Earth (or larger)?

It depends on the believer. The Taoists and Rowbothamist's placed it close; some anti-coppernicus folks a bit further. The truth is, the astronomer has no more sense of distance, than an aristocrat has to the cost of a banana.
No, the truth is the astronomer has a good sense of distance, at least for relatively close objects like the sun, and they know that the sun (and the stars) are very far away.

Constant daylight or nighttime is completely coherent with the relativistic flat earth model.
No, the relativistic flat earth model isn't coherent by itself.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16473
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2017, 01:17:52 AM »
Many celestial bodies are not spherical.
By that do you mean they are slightly oblate?
If not, how many of them are similar in size to Earth (or larger)?
Most of them are similar to size of earth, or larger.
Quote
It depends on the believer. The Taoists and Rowbothamist's placed it close; some anti-coppernicus folks a bit further. The truth is, the astronomer has no more sense of distance, than an aristocrat has to the cost of a banana.
No, the truth is the astronomer has a good sense of distance, at least for relatively close objects like the sun, and they know that the sun (and the stars) are very far away.
Is it? And how do they gain such clairvoyance?
Quote
Constant daylight or nighttime is completely coherent with the relativistic flat earth model.
No, the relativistic flat earth model isn't coherent by itself.
In what way?
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2017, 01:36:27 AM »
Most of them are similar to size of earth, or larger.
Such as?


Is it? And how do they gain such clairvoyance?
It isn't clarevoyance.
But there is a multitude of ways. The fact that these objects do not change size or distort with their position indicate their distance from us does not significantly change.
This means they are much further away than Earth is large to make any motion on Earth insignificant compared to the distance.

They can observe slight differences in the apparent position of the moon (corrected for the curvature of Earth) to determine the distance to the moon.
They can then use the angular difference between the moon when half full and the sun to determine the distance to the sun.

In what way?
In a multitude of ways, like requiring on infinitesimally small reference frames which makes any discussion of shape meaningless.

Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2017, 05:42:14 AM »
I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense.
Ever since ancient times people have used math and science to figure out that the Earth is a globe. It baffles me as to how we became so backwards and began believing something that even B.C people knew to be false. Here are some main points that keep me from believing that the Earth is flat.

1) Ordinary people today can obtain a telescope and observe that literally every other planet, star, or moon is a globe shape. Why is Earth the exception?
Popper relates the question somewhat like this: 'If we look out our window each day, and see a white goose, we would be led to believe it is all white geese out there. But any day, perhapenstance, we might stumble upon a white goose.'

There are many things that make the earth unique, aside from us being able to ask this question and discussion this here; more than that, I question your premise. Many celestial bodies are not spherical.
When people ask a question like, "Why is Earth the exception?" they are looking for physical and mechanical reasons, not what basically comes down to, "Why not?"

"Why can birds fly?" is answered by an aerodynamic analysis of their bodies and physical movements.  "Many insects can fly, why shouldn't birds?" is a wholly unacceptable answer. 

If you can't explain physically or mechanically what processes have led the Earth to become flat when other observed bodies are approximately spherical, then you don't have an answer to the question and should just say so.  Instead of deflecting and misdirecting with comments about ways in which the Earth is unique and hey, why not one more.

I'm glad we can agree that "looking out the window" isn't really a valid method of gathering evidence, and hopefully I don't have to see people trotting that out anymore as a reason the Earth is flat.

Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2017, 01:54:16 AM »
Many celestial bodies are not spherical.
By that do you mean they are slightly oblate?
If not, how many of them are similar in size to Earth (or larger)?
Most of them are similar to size of earth, or larger.
Quote
It depends on the believer. The Taoists and Rowbothamist's placed it close; some anti-coppernicus folks a bit further. The truth is, the astronomer has no more sense of distance, than an aristocrat has to the cost of a banana.
No, the truth is the astronomer has a good sense of distance, at least for relatively close objects like the sun, and they know that the sun (and the stars) are very far away.
Is it? And how do they gain such clairvoyance?
Quote
Constant daylight or nighttime is completely coherent with the relativistic flat earth model.
No, the relativistic flat earth model isn't coherent by itself.
In what way?

We really want a single example of a non round celestial body with solid mass that is not round or oblate, galaxies flatten out due to conservation of angular momentum and started in a ball of gas

Do flat Earthers not claim a distance from the Sun and Moon? did someone take a tape measure or did they also use clairvoyance?

FE people have nothing to fear but sphere itself

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18109
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2017, 02:24:03 AM »

I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense.


We're used to n00ms™



1) Ordinary people today can obtain a telescope and observe that literally every other planet, star, or moon is a globe shape. Why is Earth the exception?


No telescope has ever resolved a star into anything but a point source.



2) Let's suppose that the Earth is flat and the sun is directly overhead, however far Flat-Earthers believe the sun to be above the Earth. Where do other planets get their source of light and warmth? Somehow we can see other planets in space because the light comes from somewhere, but Where? It can't isn't our sun, If the light from our sun was brilliant enough to reach Saturn, Neptune, or Uranus, then surely we would be blinded by the sun's light here on earth.


I can't extract a question from that.



3) In Antarctica, there are certain times where it experiences constant daylight hours and others when it experiences constant night time hours. The explanation for this is the tilt of the earth. During certain times, Antarctica is tilted away from the earth, therefore experiencing constant daylight or night.


When, exactly, is Antarctica tilted away from Earth?



Thank you, Have a good day  :)


Stay in school.   ;)


Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2017, 02:29:19 AM »
No telescope has ever resolved a star into anything but a point source.
Not true.
Here is a list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_with_resolved_images

The most obvious one is the sun which can be resolved by the clothed eye.

2) Let's suppose that the Earth is flat and the sun is directly overhead, however far Flat-Earthers believe the sun to be above the Earth. Where do other planets get their source of light and warmth? Somehow we can see other planets in space because the light comes from somewhere, but Where? It can't isn't our sun, If the light from our sun was brilliant enough to reach Saturn, Neptune, or Uranus, then surely we would be blinded by the sun's light here on earth.
I can't extract a question from that.
Really? It is quite simple: What is illuminating the other planets.
It is also easily addressed (to some extent):
As you discard the distance to the sun when you take up a FE "model", the other planets are likewise much closer.
As such, there is no massive distance to Saturn in the FE "model".

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16473
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2017, 01:03:50 PM »
Earth is not the exception and stop listening to you high school teach3r.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2017, 01:13:22 PM »
Earth is not the exception and stop listening to you high school teach3r.
That's right. Earth is not the exception. It is round, just like other large bodies.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16473
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2017, 01:14:43 PM »
Yes. They are all the same.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Some problems I have with the flat Earth theory
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2017, 10:43:39 AM »
Earth is not the exception and stop listening to you high school teach3r.

Quite sure if you listened to your high school teacher, I mean REALLY listened, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.