My birthday is Aug 21, Flat Earthers.. How do you explain Spherical earthers ability to Predict what is going to happen?

[gclayjr]

Yes, I is true. I was born on Aug 21, 1951.

It is predicted that on August 21, of this year, The universe will celebrate my birthday, with a complete solar eclipse visible across the United states. You flat earthers have a conspiracy theory for every bit of the mountains of proof that the earth is spherical, that you can't see with your own eyes. So I have 3 questions for you

1. ) How can us evil conspiring spherical earthers predict in advance the fact that there is going to be complete eclipse of the sun, and exactly when and were it can be seen?

2.) how come it can only be seen on a special path on 1 side of the earth?

3) How do you guys explain solar eclipses?

Robin Hood: Is it putting your head in the sand if you stay in Britain, and don't come over here on my birthday and see it for yourself, and then maintain the argument that you didn't actually see it yourself?



Regards,

George Clay

[gclayjr]

All I hear are crickets.

Does that mean that Flat Earthers have no formula for calculating when and where there will be a solar eclipse?

Do you have any explanation for what is happening?

Hey, if you live in the continental United States, this is something you can see with your own eyes.

Regards,

George Clay

[Ezra]

All I hear are crickets.

Does that mean that Flat Earthers have no formula for calculating when and where there will be a solar eclipse?

Do you have any explanation for what is happening?

Hey, if you live in the continental United States, this is something you can see with your own eyes.

Regards,

George Clay

I will have a front row seat to the eclipse from my front porch overlooking the lake. I'm dead center of the full eclipse path across My part of Oregon. The towns around here have all the rooms booked solid for the eclipse. Some charging 1000$ for rooms.

People keep telling me I should rent some camp spots for the eclipse.

[SmallFarm]

All I hear are crickets.

Does that mean that Flat Earthers have no formula for calculating when and where there will be a solar eclipse?

Do you have any explanation for what is happening?

Hey, if you live in the continental United States, this is something you can see with your own eyes.

Regards,

George Clay

I will have a front row seat to the eclipse from my front porch overlooking the lake. I'm dead center of the full eclipse path across My part of Oregon. The towns around here have all the rooms booked solid for the eclipse. Some charging 1000$ for rooms.

People keep telling me I should rent some camp spots for the eclipse.

Lucky. I want to go really bad but my mom is freaking out because she thinks there is some kind of earthquake going to happen. I might go anyway but I don't want to ride the bus.

[harakim]

Yes, I is true. I was born on Aug 21, 1951.

It is predicted that on August 21, of this year, The universe will celebrate my birthday, with a complete solar eclipse visible across the United states. You flat earthers have a conspiracy theory for every bit of the mountains of proof that the earth is spherical, that you can't see with your own eyes. So I have 3 questions for you

1. ) How can us evil conspiring spherical earthers predict in advance the fact that there is going to be complete eclipse of the sun, and exactly when and were it can be seen?

2.) how come it can only be seen on a special path on 1 side of the earth?

3) How do you guys explain solar eclipses?

Robin Hood: Is it putting your head in the sand if you stay in Britain, and don't come over here on my birthday and see it for yourself, and then maintain the argument that you didn't actually see it yourself?

Regards,

George Clay

I have refuted all three of these points. If you transform the spherical coordinates of a spherical earth to cartesian coordinates of a flat earth, the formulas work out the same. I still don't believe in flat earth, but the arguments against are still disappointing. I have devised an experiment to find out for sure if the earth is flat or round. A better, but still not conclusive question would be, how can there be both solar and lunar eclipses?

[gclayjr]

harakim

I have refuted all three of these points. If you transform the spherical coordinates of a spherical earth to cartesian coordinates of a flat earth, the formulas work out the same. I still don't believe in flat earth, but the arguments against are still disappointing. I have devised an experiment to find out for sure if the earth is flat or round. A better, but still not conclusive question would be, how can there be both solar and lunar eclipses?

You did add a good question

What formulas are the same? If I understand correctly, the flat earthers have dramatically different calculations for distance from earth to moon, and earth to sun. This is necessary for their explanation as to how it can be dark in Australia, and light in Britain at the same time. They also have to invent some rules about light which don't exist either.

My questions are in regards to how they can calculate when and where the eclipses occur. If you have those calculations which can be used to project this, please repost so I can evaluate them, and see how the Eclipse of August 21, can be predicted, both time and path. I'm OK if you could just diagram the periodic motions which would be used for the calculations. In fact if you find a flat earth web page with this prediction and description of how it was predicted, that would be a start.

So if you have already done this, I suppose it wouldn't be to difficult to demonstrate it again.

Regards,

George Clay

[brianj]

I just want a good explanation of time zones from a flat earth person.

[brianj]

I have refuted all three of these points. If you transform the spherical coordinates of a spherical earth to cartesian coordinates of a flat earth, the formulas work out the same. I still don't believe in flat earth, but the arguments against are still disappointing. I have devised an experiment to find out for sure if the earth is flat or round. A better, but still not conclusive question would be, how can there be both solar and lunar eclipses?

I would like to see your equations. I have familiarity with single variable calculus and spherical geometry so I'm up to the math if you are.

[gclayjr]

Harakim,

I have a degree in a field of applied mathematics, so I can probably follow the math also.

Regards,

George Clay

[h_p]

Googled it for you, G.

[gclayjr]

h_p,

Thank you for that Video. I guess this shows how to dig delusional holes, when everybody is given their own personal CGI. It is interesting that just as the old analogy of how when I point the accusing finger at you, there are always 3 fingers pointing back at me. In the same way, as they make ridiculous claims about NASA, and the rest of the scientific community using CGI to describe a false universe, they also rely on CGI to describe s a universe that is not only false, but does not even begin to describe what each individual can see for themselves.

If you look at the video, what you see are 2 small spheres (disks?... I'm not sure whether the flat earthers think the sun and moon are disks or spheres or not, but at this point that is irrelevant) chasing each other in small circles as they circle the flat disk of the earth.

Now ask yourself this simple question (which I have posed before, in a situation where the supposed defense is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as in this model)

How can it be dark, and one see the moon, in Australia at the same time that it is day, and you can see the sun in Britain? I personally think that their story of how the sun is only maybe a few thousand miles away instead 93 million miles away, and how light can only travel so far before it mysteriously stops, already, not only defies the laws of physics, but reason also, but hey.. OK give them their explanation.

The reason that I challenged them to show how one could PREDICT a solar eclipse, was because that while I was sure that some flat earther could come up with some explanation as how to put the moon in front of the sun. They could not do it in a predictable manner that would model anything at all like what someone on the earth could observe.

This model is even more ridiculous, because what it models, not only does not model what is observed during an eclipse, but doesn't even come close to modeling what people on earth observe every day.

Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

The thing is George, as far as flat-earth believers are concerned, the onus is on ball-earthers to prove the earth is spherical. Not on them to prove it is flat.
The reason for this is quite logical. In terms of human experience the earth appears to be flat, the Sun and Moon appear to travel across the sky, and the earth appears to be stationary. Therefore, if the earth is in fact a sphere, and travels around a stationary Sun (but not the Moon), and spins at 1000 mph, it is up to those who claim this to demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt.

Flat-earthers claim that attempts to do this have been unsuccessful to date.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

Actually, if I understand correctly, spherical earthers, have proven way beyond any shadow of a doubt that the earth is spherical. The problem for flat earthers, which you have agreed with yourself, is that do to the possibility of a massive conspiracy, everything could be faked. So the spherical earthers need to demonstrate a proof, that can be observed by each individual for themselves.

Now I believe that what happens during a solar eclipse pretty much does it. Now I agree that if the flat earthers could model how, what is observed, including what happens leading up to and going away from an eclipse can happen in a flat earth environment, they may have made a reasonable case for the earth being flat, then their theory would not be demonstrably shown to the whole world to be impossible.

I suppose one could always come up with a story. Maybe Satan hypnotizes the whole earth, or maybe there is a giant bunny in the sky that puts its paw in front of the sun. However, I do believe that to show how the earth COULD be flat to even to the fevered who want to pound scripture to the point of believing that God created the whole universe in 144 earth hours, they at least need to be able to describe something that remotely reflects what we can observe FOR OURSELVES.

Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

Robin Hood,

Actually, if I understand correctly, spherical earthers, have proven way beyond any shadow of a doubt that the earth is spherical. The problem for flat earthers, which you have agreed with yourself, is that do to the possibility of a massive conspiracy, everything could be faked. So the spherical earthers need to demonstrate a proof, that can be observed by each individual for themselves.

Now I believe that what happens during a solar eclipse pretty much does it. Now I agree that if the flat earthers could model how, what is observed, including what happens leading up to and going away from an eclipse can happen in a flat earth environment, they may have made a reasonable case for the earth being flat, then their theory would not be demonstrably shown to the whole world to be impossible.

I suppose one could always come up with a story. Maybe Satan hypnotizes the whole earth, or maybe there is a giant bunny in the sky that puts its paw in front of the sun. However, I do believe that to show how the earth COULD be flat to even to the fevered who want to pound scripture to the point of believing that God created the whole universe in 144 earth hours, they at least need to be able to describe something that remotely reflects what we can observe FOR OURSELVES.

Regards,

George Clay

That's their point. They claim that evidence demonstrating the spherical nature of the earth, doesn't.
They claim that observable phenomena such as an eclipse can be explained on a flat earth model and that you and I wouldn't associate an eclipse with a spherical earth if we hadn't been indoctrinated, practically from birth, regarding the shape of the planet.

In my view, they have a point. We tend to look at things through "spherical" eyes and see what we are told we are seeing. I get that.
Not only that, but if we question it we are labeled as stupid, mentally retarded, or worse (the sheeple policing themselves again).

In my view there is absolutely no doubt that the globe-earthers over egg the evidence (see my previous comments regarding the disappearing ships and the curvature of the earth).
Equally, there is no doubt that some of the conspiracy theories promoted by flat-earthers are beyond ridiculous.

But to a flat-earther the claim that the earth is spherical because... well... it just is, stupid! is a pathetic argument. However, it is the one they encounter most frequently.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

They claim that observable phenomena such as an eclipse can be explained on a flat earth model and that you and I wouldn't associate an eclipse with a spherical earth if we hadn't been indoctrinated, practically from birth, regarding the shape of the planet.

In my view, they have a point. We tend to look at things through "spherical" eyes and see what we are told we are seeing. I get that.
Not only that, but if we question it we are labeled as stupid, mentally retarded, or worse (the sheeple policing themselves again).

That is exactly my point and challenge. I say that if they cannot describe what happens during an eclipse, then they have been proven wrong, and their theory unsustainable, even with their ridiculous paradigm. For this challenge, I am accepting their ridiculous paradigm

1) observable by virtually all humans themselves

2) describe how it happens.

The problem is that they need to have a story that explains what is seen. I submit that they don't. They have described how a moon can cover the sun, but what we see is more than that. In order to describe how the moon covers the sun, they destroy any explanation as to how it can be dark in Australia, and you see the moon, and be light in Great Britain, and you can see the sun at the same time. I think, even giving them their own ridiculous conditions, asking to show that much is not asking too much.

Regards,

George Clay

[captainfearnot]

RH, the FE position sounds reasonable, and even scientific, on its face. Yes, the RE theory needs to be supported by sufficient evidence. That's not an unreasonable request by any means, in fact that's how science is done. So the naive RE student starts to assemble several of the most convincing proofs from the mountain of evidence available.

As he attempts to persuade his FE brethren, however, he soon discovers that they aren't playing with a full deck. All this stuff about the burden of proof and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is just window dressing, as it soon becomes clear that FE is not about science but ad hoc apologia. It's just a game to them, a form of mental masturbation to see how well they can come up with rebuttals to every shred of evidence for RE. They're no different than fanboys of Tolkein or Star Wars who like to sit around and come up with theories to paper over every plot hole and internal inconsistency in those imaginary universes, as if to prove that they could actually be real. The RE student, who embarked on this venture in good faith, comes away feeling he has just been trolled.

What continues to baffle me is why you seem to be impressed by FE theory, even though you don't necessarily believe in it. You seem to think that they have made some real headway questioning the status quo, helping us to understand that scientists don't know as much as they think they know, and that we are too trusting of them.

All they've really done is come up with an unfalsifiable theory, which sounds hard but is actually quite easy. You'd think that unfalsifiability would be a good attribute—it sounds strong, like invincible or bulletproof. But that's not the case. Unfalsifiable theories are child's play, and they're always utterly worthless. What we are looking for in science are theories that are eminently falsifiable, but which haven't yet been proven wrong despite our best efforts.

[AI2.0]

Even post-apocalyptic stone age people know the earth is round. :-w

PS This is from Horizon Zero Dawn--great game. Happy Birthday in a couple of months...

[bbsion]

I believe the earth is a sphere. But if I found out the earth was flat, my whole world would be turned upside down.

Honestly, nothing in my life would change. I do not care if it is spherical or flat. Does anyone know what would be the purpose of lying about the shape of the earth?

I feel like the "flat earth theory" and stuff like aliens and lizard people is just disinformation spread by secret combinations in an attempt to group all "conspiracy theorists" together and label them all as "tin-foil hat wearing nut jobs."

That way they can come up with bogus "official stories" for red flag events (911) and the general public will eat it up and be afraid to question anything the government spits out.

[Robin Hood]

RH, the FE position sounds reasonable, and even scientific, on its face. Yes, the RE theory needs to be supported by sufficient evidence. That's not an unreasonable request by any means, in fact that's how science is done. So the naive RE student starts to assemble several of the most convincing proofs from the mountain of evidence available.

As he attempts to persuade his FE brethren, however, he soon discovers that they aren't playing with a full deck. All this stuff about the burden of proof and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is just window dressing, as it soon becomes clear that FE is not about science but ad hoc apologia. It's just a game to them, a form of mental masturbation to see how well they can come up with rebuttals to every shred of evidence for RE. They're no different than fanboys of Tolkein or Star Wars who like to sit around and come up with theories to paper over every plot hole and internal inconsistency in those imaginary universes, as if to prove that they could actually be real. The RE student, who embarked on this venture in good faith, comes away feeling he has just been trolled.

What continues to baffle me is why you seem to be impressed by FE theory, even though you don't necessarily believe in it. You seem to think that they have made some real headway questioning the status quo, helping us to understand that scientists don't know as much as they think they know, and that we are too trusting of them.

All they've really done is come up with an unfalsifiable theory, which sounds hard but is actually quite easy. You'd think that unfalsifiability would be a good attribute—it sounds strong, like invincible or bulletproof. But that's not the case. Unfalsifiable theories are child's play, and they're always utterly worthless. What we are looking for in science are theories that are eminently falsifiable, but which haven't yet been proven wrong despite our best efforts.

I'm sorry I baffle you.
I suppose what impresses me with some flat earthers, such as Eric Doubray, is that they are prepared to question the perceived wisdom. I like that, always have. I am a contrary person. If someone says it's white I will consider the possibility it might be black. If they then agree it is actually black, I would most likely then argue for it being white after all!
I just like to push things.
I used to be a nightmare in gospel doctrine class. Maybe I was called to be the bishop so I would be too busy during the sunday school period!

With regards to the flat earth issue specifically, the fact that everyone believes the earth is a globe because that is what they havr been told, and never question it even though their daily experience is of a flat stationary plane, is interesting to me. What else do we believe simply because we have been told it from a very young age? There must be lots of things.

[AI2.0]

Robin Hood, it isn't that everyone 'believes' it's a globe, the earth IS a globe.

Just like the fact that God exists and 'all things testify that there is a God'. It doesn't matter if people believe it or don't believe it, it doesn't change things as they really are.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

I suppose what impresses me with some flat earthers, such as Eric Doubray, is that they are prepared to question the perceived wisdom.

I have an appreciation for contrarian out of the box thinking too. We need people to question accepted wisdom. But arguing just to argue makes you much more ridiculous than the the lemmings you are questioning.

I would have some respect if they could put up a reasonable argument for their case.

Problem number 1, is that even the best argument for their case relies on insane conspiracy thinking that I would hope would daunt even the most wacko conspiracy theorists who haunt this board.

The second problem is that they cannot, even make a reasonable scientific case for their position. I am willing to give them a chance. I have even accepted the insane amount of conspiracy that must exist so that you cannot believe anything except what you can personally see. My challenge to them is to explain how, in a flat earth environment, they can even explain that which we all can see. I have seen nothing that does it. I do believe that simply showing a model that shows a possibility of movement where the moon covers the sun, but ignores everything else we can each personally observe doesn't do it.

I guess maybe that is the difference between you and me. I will give some respect for a contrarian idea if it is coherent and makes sense. You, I guess are in love so much with contrarian thinking that you would even be in awe of someone who believes that there is a giant bunny in outer space moving things around to make the illusion of the sky we see. I think such people are idiots!

Regards,

George Clay

PS: At least with the giant bunny theory, I can come up with a story that describes what we can all see for ourselves! The flat earthers can't even do that!

[h_p]

With regards to the flat earth issue specifically, the fact that everyone believes the earth is a globe because that is what they havr been told, and never question it even though their daily experience is of a flat stationary plane, is interesting to me. What else do we believe simply because we have been told it from a very young age? There must be lots of things.

Now THAT is a sentiment I can agree with in this debate.

[nvr]

I'm sorry I baffle you.
I suppose what impresses me with some flat earthers, such as Eric Doubray, is that they are prepared to question the perceived wisdom. I like that, always have. I am a contrary person. If someone says it's white I will consider the possibility it might be black. If they then agree it is actually black, I would most likely then argue for it being white after all!
I just like to push things.
I used to be a nightmare in gospel doctrine class. Maybe I was called to be the bishop so I would be too busy during the sunday school period!

With regards to the flat earth issue specifically, the fact that everyone believes the earth is a globe because that is what they havr been told, and never question it even though their daily experience is of a flat stationary plane, is interesting to me. What else do we believe simply because we have been told it from a very young age? There must be lots of things.

To think in terms of economics, how do you explain the existence of multiple dozens of companies profitably sending out satellites year after year based on orbital physics? These companies churn through thousands of engineers and physicists - have any of these former employees turned up to report that they were in on a hoax? I've had multiple co-workers who developed software for satellite companies or worked in the 'Star Wars' defense program. They seemed pretty honest to me when they described their work. There's similar employees or ex-employees all over the Phoenix area, in other states and in multiple countries.
How did the physics equations they used, based on the earth-globe model, actually succeed in putting satellites in orbit? Are GPS and other communication satellites for real? I suppose my GPS functions off some other principle?

[captainfearnot]

With regards to the flat earth issue specifically, the fact that everyone believes the earth is a globe because that is what they havr been told, and never question it even though their daily experience is of a flat stationary plane, is interesting to me. What else do we believe simply because we have been told it from a very young age? There must be lots of things.

We've been down this road before. I (and several others on this thread) are absolutely on board with you as far as this goes. Yes, we should be skeptical of everything we've been taught all our lives. Yes, we should question science and religion and everything else we've been taught. Put it all to the test and find out for ourselves.

It's just that Flat Earth-ism is such a lousy example of this. Like I said above, they posture as if they are questioning from an intellectual and scientific curiosity. "Let's not take our teachers' (and NASA's, etc.) word for it, let's find out for ourselves." Great! It's only when you get into the nitty-gritty with them that you discover that they have no interest in honest intellectual inquiry. It's pure anti-intellectual polemics.

Carl Sagan tells the story of the dragon living in his garage:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

In this analogy, RH, I would commend you for not dismissing outright the possibility that a dragon might exist, despite the fact that we've been indoctrinated all our lives that they are mythical creatures. We should all be that open-minded, because you never know.

But after witnessing the agile machinations of ad hoc apologia for why there is no actual evidence of said dragon, instead of seeing this for what it is, you come away impressed. Look at this guy, how brave he is to stand up against the anti-dragon establishment. And no one can prove him wrong! That's where you lose me. It's not impressive how easily FE types are able to wave off all the evidence for the Round Earth. It's weak. Anyone could to that about any belief if they aren't committed to scientific integrity.

That last part gets back to the OP's initial point, I think. What's the difference between a dragon with none of the physical properties of a dragon, and no dragon at all? What's the difference between a Flat Earth model that doesn't deliver anything that a working model of the earth's surface ought to deliver, and no model at all? The flat earth model doesn't predict eclipses any better or more accurately than the round earth model, if at all. The flat earth theory can't even chart the earth's surface accurately. That's the biggest advantage the flat earth would provide, two-dimensional maps that are perfectly accurate and precise in all respects, and FE can't even deliver that. What good is it, then?

The FE theory reminds me of the dark sucker theory. Yes, it's possible to re-imagine electromagnetic theory as if darkness, not light, is the energy that fills the universe. Light bulbs do not emit light at at all, rather they absorb darkness. We ought to instead call them dark suckers. It's interesting and amusing to look at things like that from another perspective, but that's about all. No one would seriously entertain this as a viable theory because it falls apart under any real scientific rigor. Just like the Flat Earth.

[Robin Hood]

In this analogy, RH, I would commend you for not dismissing outright the possibility that a dragon might exist, despite the fact that we've been indoctrinated all our lives that they are mythical creatures.

Not a particularly good analogy given that I believe dragons are certainly not mythical creatures.

What I like about the flat-earth people is that they say, in effect "don't take my word for it; go out and do your own observations and experiments". I really like that approach. It's a refreshing change from all the PhD's and "ologists" who say "believe what I say because I went to school and am good at repeating the stuff I was told there".