Author
|
Topic: Flat Earth Society
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
|
Message 1 of 119 (706265)
09-09-2013 2:53 AM
|
|
|
If anyone thinks some of our members here are amongst the most adept in the world at ignoring evidence that's staring them in the face, try this lot:
Flat earth society forum. Try the "Flat Earth Debate" section, and don't forget to read the FAQs. Does anyone think they can actually prove that the earth is spherical? (Don't forget, your sources of information could all be part of a grand conspiracy).
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
|
Message 3 of 119 (706270)
09-09-2013 5:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by frako 09-09-2013 3:25 AM
|
|
Disc world. No corners.
I think some of them are serious, yes. Of course, the first question in the FAQs is the one I'd expect most people to ask: "Is this site a joke?" It's a disc we live on apparently, by the way, so the concept doesn't seem to have to do with the biblical "four corners of the earth".
This message is a reply to: | | Message 2 by frako, posted 09-09-2013 3:25 AM | | frako has not replied |
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
Re: from the FAQ
arachnophilia writes: near the antarctic should be significantly longer than circumnavigation near the arctic. But you would be measuring the times of voyages making "round earth" assumptions. For example, the standard round earth view of the sun is completely different from the flat earth model, so it cannot be used as a basis for any units of time. And if human devices like clocks (based on R.E. solar assumptions anyway) appear to show a short time for a voyage close to the ice wall, this could be accounted for by the rim-proximity time warp hypothesis, which is part of the model of some flat earthers.
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
|
Message 12 of 119 (706468)
09-12-2013 8:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Dogmafood 09-12-2013 8:26 AM
|
|
ProtoTypical writes: I don't see how we could have day and night at the same time on the same side of a disc. Their spotlight explanation falls a little flat. Something in me hopes the pun was intended. But seriously, optical illusions have to be taken into account, as they are demonstrably common. Here's a discussion on apparent sunrise and sunset you might enjoy.
Sunrise/sunset Third post:
quote:
The sunrise/sunset is an optical illusion brought on by an opaque atmolayer and refraction.
There you have it. Prove him wrong.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 11 by Dogmafood, posted 09-12-2013 8:26 AM | | Dogmafood has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 21 by Dogmafood, posted 09-13-2013 8:49 AM | | bluegenes has replied |
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
Re: from the FAQ
C.S. writes: You could use stakes as markers to determine when you went around once and then figure up the distance you traveled (maybe with a really long wire) and see that its way too short to be the outer edge of the disc. It's often been noted by the society that round earthers will suggest what they think would be experiments which would falsify a flat earth, but that they seem to lack the confidence to actually go out and do them.
Heh, they should have a rim-proximity space warp hypothesis where as you approach the outer edge of the disc, space is warped back around towards itself to a centralized point directly underneath the north pole. We do. We also have a "staked wire distortion hypothesis" which would render your suggested experiment above futile. Along with all that, we have a healthy "the burden of proof is on you" attitude*, based on the obvious point that the earth being flat is the intuitive default position (otherwise we would fall off).
*Sometimes known colloquially as "the mindspawn stance".
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
Hard facts.
arachnophilia writes: no no, not longer time, longer distance. The coastline of the ice wall ("Antarctica") measures 17,968 km. The circuit that Round Earthers consider to be the "equator" measures 6,378 km. Bring in the hard facts, and the RE position quickly becomes untenable.
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
|
Message 23 of 119 (706527)
09-13-2013 11:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Dogmafood 09-13-2013 8:49 AM
|
|
Prototypical writes: Do they explain how the moon can be eclipsed by the earth if the earth is never between the sun and moon? I expect so, but I'm not an expert on the atmolayer, so I can't help. You could always start a topic on it on their board.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 21 by Dogmafood, posted 09-13-2013 8:49 AM | | Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied |
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
Re: Hard facts.
Catholic Scientist writes: According to my geometry, that leaves us a distance of 3,690 km between the ice wall and the equator. That is less than half the length of South America, which is mostly in the southern hemisphe....er, I mean, the outer-half section of the disc. So that can't be right. How did you measure South America? I hope you didn't use your stake and wire method or make RE assumptions.
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
Re: Hard facts.
CS writes: I hiked it with one of these: When we say "flat", we don't mean it so literally that you can measure it by walking up and down the peaks of the Andes all the way from north to south with one of those things.
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
Re: Hard facts.
CS writes: No, you mean it in an even more ridiculous way. Ridiculous eh? We're not the ones suggesting that Australians play cricket while standing upside down, are we? Try doing that yourself if you think it's possible.
|