Flat Earth Uprising?
 

Hey everyone. Been awhile since I've stopped in. In saying that, I know I'll come off as a non-contributing member (I've been very busy), and I'm only hoping that rather than focusing on that, you choose to see the validity of the fact that everything I've ever done on MB is out of interest in the minds within its community. I've found some good thinkers here, and have learned much from them about a great deal more than music.

Some may remember me as kind of a fire-starter. It's never been my intention to do that, but it's never been my intention to take a beating lying down either. I like to explore all ideas, no matter how crazy they may sound. In saying that I hope to imply that this is not my first conversation about the topic of the post, and it's in everyone's best interest if it's approached in a civil manner. Meaning, if we stick to the science, or even just treat this as an excellent thought exercise (rather than ad hominem attacks and non sequitur approaches) you may find it to be quite a stimulating conversation. I can't limit peoples' freedoms of course, so anyone can feel free to call me an idiot if it so happens to be their proclivity. I say this because this topic can get heated, but it can also be dealt with properly with a dash of conscientious behaviour from the contributing parties.

All this being said, the point of the post is to discuss the Flat Earth Hypothesis. I will do my best to keep up with the conversation as it evolves by way of providing what I know about it and the proper context for ideas that we're not accustomed to accomodating, as we run with the model which suggests we're on a ball, so creating a framework within which to discuss the Flat Earth Hypothesis takes some time to build and get used to, particularly for newcomers. And I did a search before I started this thread, and that means it's not being discussed here, so there will definitely be newcomers.

SO! I suppose the best way to get started is for people to ask questions or defend the Heliocentric Model (Globe Earth), and I will respond. I am not a troll or trying to play tricks. I may ammend this OP with a legend of sorts as the thread grows, so as I don't have to keep explaining things in the amount of detail I will required in the beginning. Anyway, have at'er folks. Just please try to be nice.

https://imgur.com/iDOCXlr.jpg

People who sincerely believe in the flat earth theory are not worth discussing science with.

I'm not going to troll, I promise, just let me get this one thing out of my system.


B.o.B, is that you?

haha. no.

why

It's often biblically based, and that type of conviction in the face of conflicting evidence is often held by people who will not be swayed even if you fly them out to space and show them the spherical world. Discussing science with someone who thinks unscientifically is a moot point.

Actually, the Flat Earth Hypothesis has nothing to do with religion. It is based on observation, which is science. It is also based on observation (science) that Geocentrists (Flat Earthers) have debunked the Heliocentric Model (Globe Model) and proved it to be impossible.

One key to the approaching this properly is understanding that if the Earth is flat, the fact that we all think it's a ball is the result of the greatest lie ever told. The ramifications of that range from government coverups to the obsolescence of theories such as that of Gravity and Relativity.

This can't be covered in a couple of posts, so creating questions or arguments which are more specific than "because science says so" will be more enriching.

So in your theory how come no one has ever "fallen" off the Earth. I mean, if it was flat, that shit would be happening every day.

the earth is flat

all those pics you see online of the earth shaped like a ball are photoshopped obviously

what kind of camera is big enough to take a pic of the entire earth?

The same camera I use for my dick pics ha ha ha you feel me?

OHHHH that camera. ok everything makes sense now.

https://lisarisingberry.files.wordpr...ound-earth.jpg

its FLAT i been to the edge almost fell over too

Go for it.

PAN, you were once one of MB's greatest fonts of crackpot theories but in your absence others have taken your place. Put your name on the wait list and we'll consider you for a position if one becomes available.

I don't recognize this poster, so I'm not sure if he's trolling from the get go, but if you have actually prepared yourself to defend Flat Earth theories I'd be interested in hearing the Flat Earth explanations for the following:

- Lunar eclipses and the phases of the moon.

- The spherical appearance of other planets, the sun, and the moon when viewed from Earth. Is Earth uniquely flat? Are other planets flat as well and we are somehow viewing the flat sides directly from a top-down perspective?

- Do Flat Earth theories have their own gravitational theory? Is Earth in a fixed position at the center/bottom of the universe with the rest of the Cosmos drifting around above it rather than orbiting around it? If so, why is Earth fixed while everything else moves above it?

- Is Antarctica a giant ice wall that borders the Flat Earth rather than its own continent? Are maps of Antarctica and satellite imagery of the continent fake? Many people have traveled to the South Pole, where is the South Pole on a Flat Earth map?

- The layers of the Earth. Crust, mantle, outer core, inner core. Is the Flat Earth core spherical or some other shape? Or is there no core in the Flat Earth theory?

- Does Flat Earth theory discount all distant satellite imagery of Earth? Is it all fake/doctored?

Flat Earthers believe Antarctica surrounds the earth, so no one can cross it to fall off.

"

-Flat Earthers don't claim to know what's in space. We think it's a clock, and that the moon is self-luminous. What causes eclipses is moot, as it's not relevant to debunk the globe. To think it is means your brain is working on the basis of a fallacy of division.

-Flat Earthers - usually - believe the Earth is the center of creation, that the sky revolves around it. What's up there is fairly mysterious to us, which we're okay with, but we tend not believe they are infinitely burning balls of fire.

-Gravity does not exist. It is the most prevalent theory of course, but there is no evidence of its existence beyond the "proof" that we're not falling off a ball. Coincidentally, we need gravity to not fall off the ball. if this strikes you as odd, just try to find proof of gravity. Instead of gravity (which we only need to stick to the ball), Flat Earthers believe in electromagnetism and density, which are very easily testable and exist everywhere. There is up and down, in the Flat Earth Theory, and it's as simple as that.

-Yes. Antarctica is an ice wall which encircles the Earth. There is no south pole. There is a north pole at the center of the map, which makes south appear to exist as the opposite of it. Researching any public expeditions to the south pole will show that there is a "Ceremonial Pole" where you can go and take a selfie. You can't find the true south pole, and they claim this is because the Earth is wobbling.

-Also yes. All photos of a spherical Earth are fake. All independent balloons (reaching altitudes of 120,000feet) show a flat horizon.

Decent questions.

And you, I see, still spewing your vitriol, poisoning that well in favour of posing arguments or questions.

I wouldn't call a joke "vitriol" but whatever. Tell me about this clock we live in.

Just noticed this:

I thought it was a funny claim considering the fairly recent news about the first detections of gravitational waves. In fact, this happened to be in the news today: Gravitational Waves From Colliding Black Holes Shake Scientists' Detectors Again : The Two-Way : NPR

I won't be the guy that carries this thread into several pages with you, so I'm not going to provide much of a counter to anything you say, just trying to ask the right questions early on so all of the points are out in the open if anybody else does feel like putting the time into this.
The relationship between lunar eclipses and the shape of the Earth that I was trying to point out is that when Earth's shadow is cast upon the moon it reveals the globular shape of the Earth. That was one of the observations that led Aristotle to believe that the Earth is a globe. Flat Earthers don't believe that the sun ever passes behind the Earth... which begs the question how can lunar eclipses occur if the Earth is a non-rotating flat disc and the sun never orbits behind it?
Not sure if you're trying to make a subtle stab at non-Flat Earthers here or not but I don't believe I've ever heard a modern astronomer claim that stars are infinitely burning balls of fire, unless they were speaking poetically or metaphorically. Stars are formed and die over time like anything else in the cosmos.

The connection I was trying to make is that if all of the celestial bodies that we observe with our telescopes from Earth are globular why would Earth be excluded from the laws of physics that formed those spherical bodies? Earth is not very far from our globular neighbors in this solar system, we can even observe Saturn and its rings from a retail purchased telescope, let alone much closer planets like Mars, Venus, Mercury, and of course our Moon. At what point do the laws of physics that made our neighbors travelling globes transition into the laws that Flat Earthers believe made Earth a fixed disc, the edge of Earth's atmosphere?


Don't have time to address the other points right now.

They are not worth addressing. :bonkhead:

When I was in China on business I called my wife back in Boston. It was middle of the day for me and middle of the night for her.

http://nerdophiles.files.wordpress.c...tron.gif?w=470

I like to get straight to the point, so I nip things like that at the bud. Calling it a quack theory is very subjective languange, and when discussing this topic I've found a precedent is needed. If it was a joke, I apologize, but to any and all who may be reading this, a respectful conversation will better happen if we are aware that such things can very justifiably be perceived by their receivers as ad hominem or directly insulting. It's a waste of time that I'm unequivocally adhered to confrontation with. Which is a sh*ttty little paradox.

Anyway, regarding the clock that is the sky, context is needed. First and foremost and always to be remembered, is that the Geocentric Model has variations depending on who you talk to, and it doesn't matter. The reason it doesn't matter is that the Flat Earth Hypothesis has basically been altogether reborn because of the internet, and a collectivization of information about this on a worldwide scale has made it so there can't possibly be a concensus on everything about it yet. This is not important because it gives me an out for answering certain questions either. It's important because the Flat Earth community as a whole recognizes the validity of unanswered questions with answers pending on a more democratic process of inquiry. In the end, and in short, this means I don't know what the sky is made of or quite how it works, but I'm definitely curious.

Talking about the sky, with this in mind, should help build a framework within which one - such as yourself - can more properly observe concpts which they previously thought impossible.

Now, saying "tell me about this clock" is really vague. So I don't know where to begin really. The first thing that comes to mind is that we've been using it as a clock for as long as any history teaches. It's commonly accepted that it is the most reliable barometer by which to measure the passage of time.

The second thing that comes to mind is that Geocentrists usually don't believe in stars as Heliocentrists do. We don't all agree on what they are, but we agree that they are not infinitely burning balls of gas maintaining an overall perfectly round body while travelling through space at a gajillion miles an hour. Many think they would have tails if they were doing that. Big ones. I tend to agree.

Third, the sun and moon are the same size and distance from the Earth to most Geocentrists. They are 32 miles wide and about 3000 miles above the Flat Earth, circling the pole at varying distances from it, which creates the seasons.

Regarding third point: Eratosthenes is documented as having proved the Earth to be spherical, and made what is a pretty accurate calculation on its size, relative to the accepted Heliocentric Model. He put two poles in the ground, perpendicular to level, at a distance of something like 600 or 800 miles. He saw that the shadows diverged from one another, and concluded from this that the Earth is a ball, and is whatever size he came up with. That's all fine and dandy, until you enter the supposed lens effect cited often by Heliocentrists, caused by sunlight passing through the atmosphere. Lenses are at the ready for testing for most people, and it's readily apparent that putting light through the broad side causes it to focus underneath. But in the case of our very special (downright magical) atmosphere it causes sun rays to converge, rather than diverge, as they do in Eratosthenes' experiment. Effectively Eratosthenes proved the Earth is flat. For another example of diverging sun rays look up "crepuscular sun rays". This is relative to the third point because it is these shadows which have helped Geocentrists determine the distance of the sun and moon.

I think I'll stop there in hope that this inspires more concrete questions. :)

I don't have any concrete questions but I can think of a concrete answer to your dilemma.

http://thestripedcouch.com/wp-conten...ete_blocks.jpg

Why does water swirl in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres...or rather, in, say, Japan and Australia? If the earth was flat, it would all flow the same way, right?

This Flat Earth Theory may be big with all the hip kids on the internet, but the truth is that the Earth is really a giant pyramid, as are the Sun and Moon.

"how can lunar eclipses occur if the Earth is a non-rotating flat disc and the sun never orbits behind it?" I lean toward the idea that the moon is self-luminous, and is part of an intelligently designed clock. Some Geocentrists believe there is a third body up there, which somehow blocks sections of the moon. I don't care much for that idea, though I don't call it impossible.

"Infinitely burning balls of fire" Valid call-out. Sometimes I make quips about things I now think are ridiculous, and they are not necessarily textbook descriptions. My bad. I guess you could look at it as a bit of a poetic description, in that it's a bit sarcastic, and relative to the history of humanity goes, they are infinite. They don't burn out or vanish. We are told they do, but we never see it happen.

"At what point do the laws of physics that made our neighbors travelling globes transition into the laws that Flat Earthers believe made Earth a fixed disc, the edge of Earth's atmosphere?" There is much speculation the Geocentric community about the sky in general. Much controversy. Keeping in mind of course that figuring out the sky doesn't actually have anything to do with debunking the Globe or proving the Flat Earth (because we can do from land), all I can say is that Flat Earthers don't believe they are spheres. The Sun, Moon, and Saturn might be spheres (to me, so far) but there is enough reason for doubt, and it's not my foci.

It doesn't actually do that. Flat Earthers have tested it via skype, and have found that the build and levelness of faucets and drains and basins is what causes the direction of flow. Meaning your next-door neighbour may very well have a toilet which flows in the opposite direction.

P A N i want to join your flat earth club PLEASE! what do i get if i join?

If the sun were 93,000,000 miles away and we lived on a ball, you would be accurate in that assumption. If you just want to disagree that's great. But it's not actually using your brain. The Flat Earth model has the sun at a distance of about 3000 miles with a diameter of 32 miles. this means it lights things locally as it passes over them, and the law of perpective is the cause of sunsets.

That's entirely up to you.

Oh. I didn't know that. Oops.

What is the "law of perspective" and how would it cause sunsets?

Okay more importantly though, why the fuck does it really matter? I mean, what difference would it really make if everyone in the world believed this? Flat, round, upside down, it's all the same thing at the end of the day and to be completely honest, none of us here will get the chance to check on that soooooo.

The law of perspective (known to visual artists everywhere) basically states that all visual data will converge on a single point given enough length to do so. The best way I can personally visualize this is to imagine an infinitely long hallway. It's level and square and built perfectly. You can't see the end of the hallway, but the floor, walls and ceiling all have a vanishing point, which is always relative to the observer.

It basically means we can't see infinitely far on an infinite plane, as the ground and sky have to meet in the middle somewhere, and the farther an object (ie the sun) is the smaller it get, eventually disappearing. This can also be observed by watching ships go over the horizon. We think they are going over the curvature of the Earth. But when you pull a telescope out after it has disappeared over the curve, it reappears, top to bottom, because it's being brought back into the range of our site with an aid.

So if someone stands in Antarctica, at the edge of the world, what does the sun do? How does it move there? Does it set?

This is a matter of existential philosophy, really. Why it concerns me so much is that if the Earth is the center of the Universe, we were intelligently designed. Apart from that, the lie denotes huge clues as to the nature of the all-pervasive socioeconomic power structure which all human beings are subject to.

Where is Roxy when you need her?

Huh. I haven't thought of that yet. Good, important question. I'll work on finding answers to that in the near future. Thank you.