Can we do an experiment - is the earth flat?

[Silver Pie]

Guys, guys ... if the earth were flat, Cats would have knocked everything off by now.

:)) =))
Written by a person who obviously knows cats.

[Silver Pie]

Is there a consensus among flat earthers on what the Earth actually looks like? I have found many variations so now I'm curious as to which is the approved model.

That's what I was wondering.
Is the earth shaped like a nickel or a quarter?
Or is it like a round loaf of bread, rounded in the middle and going down at the edges?
Does everyone on the planet live on only one side of it?
If so, why doesn't anyone live on the reverse side?
And if everyone lives on only the obverse, why can we travel from Alaska to Russia so quickly (shouldn't Alaska be on one edge and Russia on the edge opposite/farthest away)?
And why can one travel around the world going east or west and end up in the same place where they started?
Why can people in the Pacific travel east to the Americas and west to the "eastern countries"?
And why can people in Japan go to the United States by going east or west?
And how can planes fly over the north or south poles and end up in the opposite hemisphere from where they started?
And, does the earth sit in space or is outer space a fraud, too?
If outer space does not exist, upon what does the earth sit? Hercules shoulders (figuratively or not)?
If it sits in outer space, does it stay still? Twirl? Revolve? Rotate?
Did God just take some change out of his pocket and throw it out into the void and the money became what we think are planets and stars?

Maybe a flat earth isn't round at all. Maybe it's a rectangle. Or a triangle. Or a hexagon or an octagon or a random jumbled mess at the edges. Or is it a rectangle box? Or a square box? Or shaped like a hat box? Maybe we live in the center and don't know it.

Maybe the edges of the universe is where the bottom of the earth is. Maybe there is no universe. Maybe we are in a box and the stars are just holes in the box because God felt sorry for us and wanted to let in a little light. Maybe the daytime is when he peels back a corner of the box and lets the light shine in a little more. Maybe a teensy tiny (to him) lamp/light bulb. Maybe every theory we have is crazy and this is the right one.

Edit: This is not a snarky/sarcastic post. I am serious, even though I don't believe we live in a box.

[BeNotDeceived]

braingrunt,

This is what I did with my blender simulation. As far as I know they haven't done this.

Are you talking about the 3d animation tool? I have been trying to use this to develop 3d objects for 3d printing, with limited success. I have no interest in animation, just 3d rendering. I have struggled with getting dimensions correct and getting objects properly merged.

Do you think I am using the right tool, and just need to persevere, or should I look else where?

Regards,

George Clay

Here's something you can try for free http://www.punchcad.com/trial.aspx

They hooked me for viacad2D/3D version 10, which works great on a mac. :ymparty:

[BroJones]

I wish to say a little more about the observations of earth's curvature by viewing distant objects across water. This is a good method, as I think even flat-earthers will agree.

Here's the problem - they use this over-simplified equation a lot in videos, and it is NOT accurate:

They like to use:
Drop over water horizon ("hidden height") due to earth-curvature = 8 inches X miles-squared.

But this ONLY works if your eyes are at ZERO height above the water! Try to put your eyes or telescope at ZERO inches above the water, and look out at a distant object - can you really do it?

Again, I found and tested this earth-curvature calculator, which even SOME "flat-earthers" use And they all should use -- based on straightforward trigonometry: https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial[/B]

Below are two cases - both with the target object at 3 miles away.

We see that with the eyes at ZERO height above the water, then the drop is indeed
8 inches X (3 miles)^2 = (8 x 9) inches = 72 inches = 6.0 feet

However, if the observer is sitting on a chair in the water, his eye-height will be about 4 feet above the water (take out a measuring tape, sit in a chair - floor to your eyes, I get about 4 feet) --

THEN apply the full equations (link to https://github.com/dizzib/earthcalc for full equations - which I have checked) and we get that the hidden height is NOT 6 feet, but only 0.2 feet, which is a mere 2.4 inches!!

Wow - from 2.4 inches hidden, to 6 FEET hidden - just by moving the eyes 4 feet!

DO NOT trust anyone using the oversimplified 8" times miles-squared formula!!!

SO - by NOT telling us the height of the observer's eyes/telescope above the water, ball-earthers OR flat-earthers may very well OBSCURE THE TRUTH!! Be very cautious - insist on knowing the height of the observer's eyes/telescope above the water - or throw the experiment OUT!!

[gclayjr]

BroJones,

I wish to say a little more about the observations of earth's curvature by viewing distant objects across water. This is a good method, as I think even flat-earthers will agree.

...
Again, I found and tested this earth-curvature calculator, which even SOME "flat-earthers" use And they all should use -- based on straightforward trigonometry:

So is the Earth Flat?

If Flat Earthers agree with this calculation, what does it demonstrate?

How do Flat Earthers explain it?

Regards,

George Clay

[braingrunt]

Tests over water are, at first glance, promising. We have high confidence in the lack of complicated geometry, and high confidence in the shape of that geometry: flat earthers would wish it was "flat" while globe earthers would call it "flat potential" otherwise known as spherical on earth. So this common ground lets us talk.
But soon we have reason to doubt any particular experiment. Refraction on rare occasions has made chicago visible from michigan shoreline:
http://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chi ... -shoreline
now refraction that extreme is rare, but it is not awfully rare for certain bodies of water to create an inversion layer especially at certain times of the day: cold air below warm air, which can and does throw results into question.
So in this case, water itself become the problem, which is a shame because it started out by making our lives easier.

And according to this
http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html
a standard refraction is usually in effect which makes the earth look flatter than it really is: about 7% flatter is what the people at metabunk tend to toss around. So the simple geometry calculators are not good enough; in some of the "drop" discussions over on metabunk, viewer height is by far the most important factor in flat earther-error, of "why can I see X". However, in some instances applying a 7% refraction is required to make complete sense of the image they are analyzing.

So, round earthers have stuff that looks like hand-waving to flat earthers who aren't willing to accept any complicating factors.

Meanwhile, flat earthers do hand-waving of their own. The very picture which they use to show lack of curvature often has SOME of the bottom missing. They have some magic perspective which does that, they say. We get stuck. They say, "why can we see anything?" and we say "view height and refraction". We counter "why can't you see the whole thing?" and they reply "perspective fool!" In the end we really don't have anything to talk about, because we can't find common ground in the explanations we accept.

So why do I insist on trying to talk to them? Well, perhaps because I'm a fool

[gclayjr]

Braingrunt,

In the end we really don't have anything to talk about, because we can't find common ground in the explanations we accept.

So why do I insist on trying to talk to them? Well, perhaps because I'm a fool

I agree. I do believe that you have to stand up, even recognizing that they will accept nothing. The main reason, I engage in dialog with flat earther's, wild eyed conspiracy folks, or those with radically heretical religious beliefs is not because I actually expect to persuade them, no matter how clear and factual the argument is, but because I know there are others who are reading these poss, who might not be particularly well informed and might be persuaded by an apparently slick argument.


Regards,

George Clay

PS: When I am wondering how a post of mine is doing, I don't look at replies, I look at views

[captainfearnot]

I've been mulling the OP, and I think experimental evidence is probably the wrong approach with these guys. There is already a mountain of evidence, but that's of no avail when the theory itself is dedicated to discounting such evidence.

So instead maybe a theoretical approach would be more convincing.

FE theorists favor the North Pole azimuthal projection, as if that were a literal representation of the earth's surface.



But why decide that the North Pole is the center of the Flat Earth? It's completely arbitrary. We could just as easily say that the South Pole is the center of the Flat Earth, and work from a completely different azimuthal projection.



Every FE construct that is modeled on the North Pole map works just as well on the South Pole map. However, I'm willing to be that most FE theorists would reject the South Pole map because they live in the Northern Hemisphere and don't like the way it distorts their side of the planet. But maybe, as they try to come up with concrete reasons why one would be valid and not the other—and ultimately fail—the exercise will help them understand what it means for a theory to be unfalsifiable and why that is a problem.

Then again, this is probably just more wishful thinking on my part.

[h_p]

FE theorists favor the North Pole azimuthal projection, as if that were a literal representation of the earth's surface.

According to Google Maps, it's roughly the same distance from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg South Africa, as it is from Sao Paulo to Washington DC (4647 miles vs. 4610, respectively). You can tell the measurements follow the great circles of the earth if you measure it on their website, therefore, assume a globe, so this would mean Google is also part of the Great Conspiracy.

But if Flat Earth is real, all the major airlines of the world would have to be in on it, too, right? Here's some direct flights from Sao Paulo to both cities. You can see that it's actually less flight time, by 1 1/2 hours, to go from Sao Paulo to Johannesburg than to Washington DC. But according to the Flat Earther's map, admittedly just eyeballing it, Sao Paulo to Johannesburg is like twice the distance. How do they explain this? Are the airlines so bought into the flat earth conspiracy that they slow down north-south flights to match southern hemisphere east-west flights? Or does the latter all fly supersonic?

How could the airlines possibly benefit from this madness? How deep does this conspiracy have to go? And at what point do you have to admit a round earth model just simply makes more sense?

For what it's worth, here's the breakdown, according to round earth theory. I'd like to see some comparisons from the flat earthers that would support their model without having to resort to a global, all-powerful death cult to explain it all.

Sao Paulo --> Johannesburg: 4,650 miles, 8.5 hours, avg speed 546 mph
Sao Paulo --> Washington DC: 4,610 miles, 10.0 hours, avg speed 461 mph

sao paulo br to washington dc.gif (9.55 KiB) Viewed 2227 times

brazil-to-southafrica.gif (26.19 KiB) Viewed 2227 times

[ETA] Here's one of those flights on flightaware.com, so you can see what the airline claims is the flight path, flight time, and distance. I would think this could be easily verifiable with a little money: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAA ... /SBGR/FAOR

[captainfearnot]

The FE rebuttals I've heard to flight time evidence vary. Some say there is a vast conspiracy and flight times and routes are manipulated in order to create the illusion of a round earth. Others say that this may indeed be evidence against the map favored by most FE believers, but that just means more research must be done in order to determine the correct map.

But at the root of it all is circular reasoning. They know the earth is flat. That's the obvious fact to them. So they know that any evidence presented against that fact is wrong somehow. Figuring out and explaining exactly how it's wrong is often superfluous to them.

[BeNotDeceived]

The FE rebuttals I've heard to flight time evidence vary. Some say there is a vast conspiracy and flight times and routes are manipulated in order to create the illusion of a round earth. Others say that this may indeed be evidence against the map favored by most FE believers, but that just means more research must be done in order to determine the correct map.

But at the root of it all is circular reasoning. They know the earth is flat. That's the obvious fact to them. So they know that any evidence presented against that fact is wrong somehow. Figuring out and explaining exactly how it's wrong is often superfluous to them.

I believe Flat Earthers have Flat Heads. #-o

How do they prove me wrong?

[freedomforall]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

[Silver Pie]

The FE rebuttals I've heard to flight time evidence vary. Some say there is a vast conspiracy and flight times and routes are manipulated in order to create the illusion of a round earth.

That's a heckuva lot of energy devoted to a conspiracy that yields so little in power and wealth. And if literally thousands upon thousands of people were in on it (all the employers and employees of companies that "know" the earth is flat), the "truth" would come out. People aren't really that good at keeping secrets. That's why the best kept secrets are only known by a handful of people, if that many. Besides that, they'd have to alter everyone's watches who were on the planes if they didn't really fly as many hours as claimed. It borders on insanity, it seems.

[braingrunt]

There's no REASON to believe in a flat earth, when you reason too hard it falls apart or at least gets profoundly messy.
There might be FAITH to believe in a flat earth, but as far as I'm concerned, the BOM doesn't even give me room for that either.

Neither reason nor faith can lead me to a belief in the flat earth. I don't know why a single mormon would believe it.

Yet it fascinates me. I wonder if KitKat for example could begin to see that the spirit she has been hearkening to, has not been honest with her about the shape of the earth or at least the supporting theories (which to be be blunt are piles of steaming crap). If that could happen maybe she could take a step toward hearkening to the Spirit of Truth.

[Kitkat]

There's no REASON to believe in a flat earth, when you reason too hard it falls apart or at least gets profoundly messy.
There might be FAITH to believe in a flat earth, but as far as I'm concerned, the BOM doesn't even give me room for that either.

Neither reason nor faith can lead me to a belief in the flat earth. I don't know why a single mormon would believe it.

Yet it fascinates me. I wonder if KitKat for example could begin to see that the spirit she has been hearkening to, has not been honest with her about the shape of the earth or at least the supporting theories (which to be be blunt are piles of steaming crap). If that could happen maybe she could take a step toward hearkening to the Spirit of Truth.

I wonder if the spirit braingrunt has been hearkening to told him to say, "piles of steaming crap" - if so, maybe he could take a step toward hearkening to the Spirit of Truth... ;)

What an irony.

[braingrunt]

I wonder if the spirit braingrunt has been hearkening to told him to say, "piles of steaming crap" - if so, maybe he could take a step toward hearkening to the Spirit of Truth... ;)

What an irony.

Well, I didn't directly bash any people which the spirit told me not to do. Now I know it stings me when people call my beliefs crap, and it's hard not to take it as a personal judgement. But, I'm getting good practice at it.

At first when I discussed this topic, I tried to suppress inflammatory language or feeling. I think this is still something I often strive for. But here's the thing: feeling is very core to flat-earthers. Many of the videos feature cussing, ridicule, repetition, warped sounds or images, exaggeration, cinematic styling, powerful music, high (cinematic) production value, all hiding low argument rigor and outright misrepresentations (such as when they show a picture claiming to be the 100+ miles of danyang kunshun bridge, which is actually a pants-on-fire lie. There are other instances of pure anti-truth which refuse to stop circulating.) Then they often crown their video with a "boo-yah in yo face".

So when I use cold logic I feel like it's not engaging a flat-earther in their domain. I'm not actually talking to them so they can hear. The temptation becomes strong to battle emotionally. Yet I've also seen round earthers who battle emotionally, to no effect. They will debunk a specific flat-earth idea, in clear simple-to-understand ways: seriously my 8 year old would understand the rebuttal... which can't fail to make a person feel vulnerable to the insults they toss out at the same time. Yet it doesn't accomplish anything either.

So I try to take the middle ground. I want to show the ideas are bad without insulting people. Seriously the ideas are bad. I can't deny what God gave me the ability to see. They. are. bad. The Spirit of Truth has shown me things which I understand in my mind and heart. So even though people may be insulted, I cannot do better than to communicate reality.

The fact that I can understand these things does not make me a better or even more productive person than them. I do not mean to tear them down as a person. It just that, on this topic, they stop thinking at exactly the wrong moment. I do this sometimes myself.

[Kitkat]

The Spirit of Truth has shown me things which I understand in my mind and heart. So even though people may be insulted, I cannot do better than to communicate reality.

The Spirit of Truth has shown me things which no man considers which I understand in mind and heart. So even though people may be insulted and feel only they have the "true" spirit in the "true" church, I cannot do better than to communicate reality.

Round and around and around we go. weeeeeeeee.

There is one voice we should hearken to according to Christ. That voice is His voice, the Spirit. When we put men in front of that voice (ie. follow the prophet or you'll be lead astray) we are prone to deception.

To beat a dead horse. Lehi illustrates in his vision what happens when we follow any man in a white robe. In the same vision we learn about cleaving to CHRIST not men-prophets. We learn about going to the tree of life, God's love - not great and spacious building filled to the brim with every lot of life, but the keyword I think for LDS is in EXCEEDINGLY FINE DRESS. Truth stings indeed. We wore exceeding fine dress every sunday feeling like we were on the Lord's errand. He was sure gracious to us, we even felt his love often (mistaken all too often to mean the church is true, whatever that means - the grass is just as true as the church), and we felt inspired from amazing people. The exact same thing exists outside the church (shock and awe) now that we followed his voice out of the attempt to correlate the true gospel restored and His spirit. Guess what, we don't need exceeding fine sunday best to find Christ's church (his people), in fact, we ought to sell those clothes and give to the poor and quit building endless temples to work on the dead when the living perish all around us, not to mention grinding up on the face of the poor by celebrating yet another millions upon millions costly temple to worship GOD? Truth hurts.

We never would have understood those passages had we not learned to heed His voice over the voices of men-prophets clamoring for us to follow them as they will never lead us astray, God won't allow it. We were right there until we kept trusting his voice in spite of authorities (bishops) telling us otherwise.

We had one really wise stake president, very young, in his late 30s, upon us telling him what the voice of the Lord was telling us, the spirit filled the room and he opened up and was able to show us things most members couldn't relate to because of close mindedness and darkness of minds for trusting to much in the brethren, including and not limited to how the Lord has to allow some of the older generation to pass on in order to bring about changes that are coming soon when He sets his house in order.

An invite to seek the Lord's counsel on exceeding fine dress in great and spacious conference centers - start there. You'll be blown away.

[Robin Hood]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

[davedan]

Talk with ham radio satellite. If the Earth was flat, it wouldn't drop below horizon. Program exactly predicts passes.

Foucault Pendulum at planetarium

Sun dial will cast different shadow at different locations. Use web cam to capture real-time sundial shadows from different time zones with compass showing orientation.

[freedomforall]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

Why do auto's have round steering wheels instead of square ones.
Why aren't hockey pucks square?
Why are obese people considered to be in shape? Because round is a shape!
If space ships were square would we then call them flying blocks? Or OFB's?

[Robin Hood]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

Why do auto's have round steering wheels instead of square ones.
Why aren't hockey pucks not square?
Why are obese people considered to be in shape? Because round is a shape!
If space ships were square would we then call them flying blocks? Or OFB's?

Eh?

[freedomforall]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

Why do auto's have round steering wheels instead of square ones.
Why aren't hockey pucks not square?
Why are obese people considered to be in shape? Because round is a shape!
If space ships were square would we then call them flying blocks? Or OFB's?

Eh?

edit

[Silver Pie]

If earth is flat, then why are our heads round? Why do some bellies overhang the owners belts? Why can't we see our backsides as well as ahead of us? Why are all the rest of the planets presumed round based on Hubble photos and the earth flat based on the unbelieving?

Using that reasoning, the pool table can't possibly be flat because the balls aren't.

He was joking around.

[NinjaForJesus]

Food for thought on the matter of the appearance and disappearance of ships at sea. I am getting many of these interesting points I'll be sharing by reading through the book, Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet, Proved from Scripture, Reason, and Fact, per the invite of some beloved friends.

Professor Huxley

We assume the convexity of water, because we have no other way to explain the appearance and disappearance of ships at sea.

London Journal July 1857 (balloon observation)

The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon,at a considerable elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye, at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the Earth to appear concave in stead of convex, and to recede during the rapidity of ascent, while the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationery.

Mr. Glaisher (in a balloon)

The horizon always appears on a level with the eye.

Mr. Elliot (American Aeronaut)

I don't know if I ever hinted heretofore that the aeronaut may well be the most skeptical man about the rotundity of the Earth. Philosophy impresses the truth upon us, but the view of the Earth from the elevation is that of a vast terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is that directly under one's feet.

As we ascend, the Earth seems to recede, actually to sink away further and further to the line that at the highest elevation seems to close with the sky. Thus, upon a clear day, the aeronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue oceanic concave above and the equally expanded basin below.

Zetetes, Ships at Sea October 1893, Number of "The Earth (not a Globe) Review"

In the diagrams of ships at sea, given in Astronomical works, Why are the ships placed near the top and not under? Why is the first ship not placed on the top, why near the top, and always to go up first, and then to go down afterwards?

Has any object in Nature ever been seen to rise perspectively as it recedes, and then, remaining at the same altitude, to descend? By whom? When? Where? Is not the observer always on the top of the Earth? If not, why not? If the Earth were a globe, would not the horizon be a tangent to the sphere at the point of the observation? If so, ought not a ship begin to descend at once as soon as it leaves the observer? Why does a vessel not suit is behaviour to the globular theory? Is it because it is only a theory? Why do astronomers violate the law of Perspective when they make diagrams of ships at sea? And now, when the tricks of the so-called Astronomical 'Science' are exposed, why should not all our readers believe the plain truth, that the Earth and the sea from one vast outstretched and circular plane?

[NinjaForJesus]

Food for thought on the Lunar Eclipse

It seems even the Chaldeans calculated these eclipses thousands of years ago, and Aristarchus and Ptolemy could also predict them as well as Newton or La Place.

Somerville in Physical Sciences pg 46

No particular theory is required to calculate Eclipses, and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy, independent of every theory.

Collumpton, Devonshire, 19th March 1848

The appearances were as usual till twenty minutes past nine; at that period, and for the space of the next hour, instead of an Eclipse, or the shadow (umbra) of the Earth being the cause of the total obscurity of the Moon, the whole phase of that body became very quickly and most beautifully illuminated, and assumed the appearance of the glowing heat of fire from the furnace rather than tinged with a deep red. . . . The whole disc of the Moon being as perfect with light as if there had been no Eclipse whatever. . . . The Moon positively gave good light from its disc during the total Eclipse.

During an Eclipse of the Moon its surface has repeatedly been seen during the whole time it lasted, proving that its Eclipse could not have been caused by the shadow of the Earth.