| I'll only be truly happy whenever I have the chance to dive into that center and come out to the other side of the gym locker we're kept in. deg said: Silly deg, the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun, that's such a Galileo thing to say. The sun and the moon are fixed features on Earth's dome and an angel has to lead the heavenly carriage around so there's night and day, as proven by Divina Commedia's scientific treaty.so those saying the earth is flat should show remarkable proof on how this place orbits around the sun and rotates/spins |
 |
| @Kosmonaut ye Galileo was a criminal and sentence to life imprisonment so a bad guy never trust |
Korishi said: InJ_Mataga said: @Meusnier The thing is almost all 3-D shapes can be deform into a round topologically I said I don't believe either the Earth is flat or round and as I didn't know what topology is, your giving me "proof" made me curious and I expected something better than this @Korishi Yeah, I know. But saying that this "proves" something is just .... don't worry I'm still wrapping my head around it. I'm trying to understand it also from the point of someone without means to quickly travel across the sky in an airplane or orbit the earth from space. something else to consider is gravity. there would need to be more than one point for such strange objects to give equal weight to their terrestrial masses. I don't worry about it.. I just find it funny With this, either what shape the Earth really is, it will usually be a sphere because we live in a 3-D world and we never see a hole that connect other side from where we live on. Whether the earth is a cylinder and we are on the top of it, a ball like what we learn at school, a guava-like shape, a cube and we are on one side of it... the earth will be a sphere topologically |
 |
| as silly as it sounds, i doubt anyone here could out argue an adamant flat earther |
InJ_Mataga said: Korishi said: don't worry I'm still wrapping my head around it. I'm trying to understand it also from the point of someone without means to quickly travel across the sky in an airplane or orbit the earth from space. something else to consider is gravity. there would need to be more than one point for such strange objects to give equal weight to their terrestrial masses. I don't worry about it.. I just find it funny With this, either what shape the Earth really is, it will usually be a sphere because we live in a 3-D world and we never see a hole that connect other side from where we live on. Whether the earth is a cylinder and we are on the top of it, a ball like what we learn at school, a guava-like shape, a cube and we are on one side of it... the earth will be a sphere topologically lol yeah it's true that without being able to actually go to space yourself and observe the shape of the earth, it's all down to faith. I was struggling to even understand the ancient scientists because they're the real masterminds without the technology we have today. the post above me is even more true. I think Flat Earth is the biggest meme of the century and stands to show how many scientific observations and approximations are inaccessible to the layman. it subsequently becomes like a religion. |
 ?? Please explain. I really want an answer to this. |
Korishi said: It's fictional? You mean the Earth does not actually look like this?Flat earth is from fictional series created by Terry Pratchett....  |
the orrery is completely wrong as stated before me everything orbits the magnificent earth operationvalkyri said: Korishi said: It's fictional? You mean the Earth does not actually look like this?Flat earth is from fictional series created by Terry Pratchett.... I said it's from a fictional series. Do you think he wanted a social death? |
removed-userOct 6, 2020 2:04 PM
| The Earth can't be a ball because everyone would fall off the bottom. I drew a very scientific diagram to help explain.  |
Bobby2HandsOct 6, 2020 2:07 PM
 |
| We as humans perceive the earth as round, or I should rather say a spheroid (a flattened out sphere). However, if you travel fast enough (near the speed of light) you will experience the earth as flat. |
 |
| So many things to reply to, I will make several quotes by chronologically order, sorry if this is messy. Korishi said: Meusnier said: We certainly deduce that the Moon must be round by looking at its projections on Earth. See this technical discussion for more details (pictures would be useful here). https://mathoverflow.net/questions/39127/is-the-sphere-the-only-surface-all-of-whose-projections-are-circles-or-can-we I might post on creative corner some day, but I do not draw very well lol. yeah these basic observations are traced back to Aristotle. we can use Lunar eclipses, Star patterns, even our knowledge of Atmospheric Refraction. Its literally called atmosphere by the Greeks. we could simply ask ourselves "how do we know an object is a sphere?" artists would tell you instantly. I think it's something to do with shadows and luminance again like a sphere being the only shape which always casts a shadow. Hurricanes and (most) tornadoes rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere while they rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere. How can you visualise this at home? Take a pencil and rotate it with the point facing you, then slowly turn it and observe the rotation once the eraser is facing you. we also have Foucault's pendulum. I'm sure mathematics can explain all of this but I struggle to visualise sets of data and equations... yes a torus Indeed Meusnier said: ok this is another thing that is believable because all units of measurement are empirical. otherwise some square meters would not equal other square metersThe argument will not give you the exact shape of the Earth, but just that it can be continuously deformed into a round sphere (is homeomorphic to the standard sphere). As I said, it still could be a bizarre ellipsoid or look like a peanut, but certainly not be a disk. *so much edits because a bbcode tag had a space that I didnt see xD @InJ_Mataga see this example. if the earth were cow shaped, some distances would not be equal and easily observable There are many physical ways to show that Earth is close to the sphere (in a uniform way), but once you know that it is a sphere, gravity shows that the shape cannot be strangely shaped. Now, there are various ways to obtain a precise image of Earth from local measurements, please refer to the next "section." I did not understand this phrase "otherwise some square meters would not equal other square meters." InJ_Mataga said: @Meusnier The thing is almost all 3-D shapes can be deform into a round topologically I said I don't believe either the Earth is flat or round and as I didn't know what topology is, your giving me "proof" made me curious and I expected something better than this @Korishi Yeah, I know. But saying that this "proves" something is just .... Actually, now that we agree that the Earth is a sphere, there are various way to show that it is quantitatively close to a sphere. First, this cow form would be locally observable, with abrupt changes of curvature, something that we do not observe. More precisely, it is a basic theorem of differential geometry that the first and second fundamental form (the metric and the curvature tensor) characterize a manifold, and the latter can be explicitly computed by comparing areas of small regions. Maybe a formula can be useful: take a point x on Earth, and compute the area of a disk of radius r>0 (assumed small enough), that I denote B(x,r). Then we have:  where D(0,r) is a disk in the plane of radius r (I took the centre to be 0 without loss of generality). Furthermore, in the case of the sphere, a rigidity theorem (J. Differential Geometry 69 (2005) 75-110) shows that a surface whose curvature tensor is close enough to the one of the sphere is itself quantitatively close to a round sphere. Of course, I have not made computations, but they can be performed in principle, and in all cases, obtaining the metric and the curvature of the Earth permits to deduce its shape. It will not look like a cylinder for example as a cylinder has 0 Gauss curvature (it is a developable surface), and the other proposed shapes can also be eliminated although we do not need to eliminate anything as we can recover everything by explicit computations. Now that we have satellites, this is actually easy to do. One has to understand that I wrote this overly complicated argument for the sake of the proof, but at the age where string theory makes correct prediction about the mathematical real, I wonder why people are still blocked on such elementary things that do not require much thought. Korishi said: InJ_Mataga said: I don't worry about it.. I just find it funny With this, either what shape the Earth really is, it will usually be a sphere because we live in a 3-D world and we never see a hole that connect other side from where we live on. Whether the earth is a cylinder and we are on the top of it, a ball like what we learn at school, a guava-like shape, a cube and we are on one side of it... the earth will be a sphere topologically lol yeah it's true that without being able to actually go to space yourself and observe the shape of the earth, it's all down to faith. I was struggling to even understand the ancient scientists because they're the real masterminds without the technology we have today. the post above me is even more true. I think Flat Earth is the biggest meme of the century and stands to show how many scientific observations and approximations are inaccessible to the layman. it subsequently becomes like a religion. Once more, there is no need for faith, as there exists much more simple proofs as the one you alluded to (Foucault's pendulum). Honestly, scientists have better to do than trying to prove trivial things to the religious people flat earthers have become. In terms of profit, what is there to win there? One does not need to live as a skeptic all his life. Indeed, to me, the reasonable man is the one who does not choose to believe in the 0.1% margin of error (it is smaller actually) of the detection of gravitational waves, and accepts new discoveries as more or less probable truths, or rather models of reality, that may eventually be proved false or more certainly be refined. There is nothing to win in blind skepticism but mental insanity, and my life would not change if gravitational waves did not exist. @SargonTheGreat I will assume that you were joking. |
InJ_Mataga said: @Meusnier Show me the real calculation (the real experiment) Otherwise, it is just a theory-based argument and it proves nothing but providing a scientific model Worse, the more we go the more assumptions we make Well, I am not a blind skeptic, nor am I a blind follower I will not bother making computations (I do not even have data at hand or interest to find it, the skeptics should be the one doing the maths to check themselves, or you will tell me again that you need to make it yourself), I wrote all this for the sake of the argument. You do realise that there are extremely easy ways to show that Earth is close to a sphere and to make quantitative estimates about that? If not, I would kindly ask you to stop replying. Please just stop mentioning this word "model", this is nonsensical. I did not make any further assumption. Once more, I do not ask you to follow anything. You can say ten times "it proves nothing", it will not be more convincing the tenth time. |
deg said: the fact that planets rotates/spins and even orbit around the sun or stars in general makes you think that space friction if ever there is one should eventually shape them planets to a sphere anyway so those saying the earth is flat should show remarkable proof on how this place orbits around the sun and rotates/spins EDIT: space friction exist https://cosmicopia.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ms.html#friction ..well actually unless I am mistalen sphere isn't the only possible shape. While not discovered yet it's entirely possible to have a doughnut shaped planet. Which would be awesome. |
traed said: deg said: the fact that planets rotates/spins and even orbit around the sun or stars in general makes you think that space friction if ever there is one should eventually shape them planets to a sphere anyway so those saying the earth is flat should show remarkable proof on how this place orbits around the sun and rotates/spins EDIT: space friction exist https://cosmicopia.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ms.html#friction ..well actually unless I am mistalen sphere isn't the only possible shape. While not discovered yet it's entirely possible to have a doughnut shaped planet. Which would be awesome. doughnut as in it has a hole in the middle? lol ye that is awesome if true |
deg said: traed said: ..well actually unless I am mistalen sphere isn't the only possible shape. While not discovered yet it's entirely possible to have a doughnut shaped planet. Which would be awesome. doughnut as in it has a hole in the middle? lol ye that is awesome if true Yes exactly like a doughnut. That does make me wonder what happens if you're dead centre of the hole though. |
traed said: Yes exactly like a doughnut. That does make me wonder what happens if you're dead centre of the hole though. and where is the core of that kind of planet? right? lol damn |
deg said: traed said: Yes exactly like a doughnut. That does make me wonder what happens if you're dead centre of the hole though. and where is the core of that kind of planet? right? lol damn If it has a molten core it would be donut shaped too I guess. |
lol ok thats really awesome too im not kidding im really amaze by that |
| The Earth is obviously flat, as can be perceived through the evidences and arguments used by the real scientists who defend the true shape of the Earth, while materialist fanatics just try to win the fight with silly jokes and appeal to what is commonly regarded as scientific authority by immoral people who just use the term "science" to call whatever nonsense is used as a theory to try to deconstruct the history of mankind, that is documented in the Bible, as a means to justify the immoral lives that they are living, without following God's law. I had a communist atheist "professor" in my university, fan of Nietzsche, of course, who liked to make fun of the possibility of the Earth being flat while he affirmed with full conviction that someone 'proved' that the Earth was spherical by supposedly completing a global circumnavigation five hundred years ago, which made it perfectly clear to me that he didn't care at all for the truth of the matter, and he just wanted to believe in any story, no matter how much it lacked evidence, as long as it supported the illusion that what he had believed throughout his life was the truth. The truth is that most people don't want to accept the possibility of having been deceived throughout their entire lives through schools and "science-fiction" movies that pushed the heliocentric fantasy as a reality, so they will try as much as possible to keep embracing the disinformation concerning the Flat Earth model in sites like Youtube to make people not take it seriously instead of actually studying about the matter. This is the latest video posted by Eric Dubay on Youtube to debunk NASA's lies: @_Maneki-Neko_ This is the second time that you show that image. You already did it once in another thread about the shape of the Earth that I created, and you really should stop doing it. You're clearly just showing sign of intellectual dishonesty, as you're clearly just interested in making fun of the matter without ever stopping for a moment to study about the model like a prudent adult would. Like I explained before, the problem of showing that image is that you're taking as a premise that the Earth is just a planet, just like all the others shown in the image, even though you obviously never lived your life in any place other than the Earth, in which we are right now, and from where we can observe the sky. According to the flat Earth model, the Earth is not a planet, but a kind of realm, that is the whole "universe" itself, and the things that are commonly regarded as planets are just wandering stars. They are not places where people can step on. It's only through fiction that you ever saw a system of planets and a sun like they appear to be in that image, so it's dishonest to show it as if the heliocentric model was a self-evident thing that could be used as an undeniable premise to reject the flat Earth model. |
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
Because they don't believe in Heliocentrism. According to the words of one of the most prominent modern flat earthers, comparing other (round) celestial objects to the flat Earth is like comparing basketballs to the basketball court. Edit Nvm, mummykun already explained. |
149597871Oct 6, 2020 7:13 PM
Mummykun said: OK, now tell me. Why it takes longer to fly the equatorial parallels than northern parallels? Are all airway charts lying to me?The Earth is obviously flat, as can be perceived through the evidences and arguments used by the real scientists who defend the true shape of the Earth, while materialist fanatics just try to win the fight with silly jokes and appeal to what is commonly regarded as scientific authority by immoral people who just use the term "science" to call whatever nonsense is used as a theory to try to deconstruct the history of mankind, that is documented in the Bible, as a means to justify the immoral lives that they are living, without following God's law. I had a communist atheist "professor" in my university, fan of Nietzsche, of course, who liked to make fun of the possibility of the Earth being flat while he affirmed with full conviction that someone 'proved' that the Earth was spherical by supposedly completing a global circumnavigation five hundred years ago, which made it perfectly clear to me that he didn't care at all for the truth of the matter, and he just wanted to believe in any story, no matter how much it lacked evidence, as long as it supported the illusion that what he had believed throughout his life was the truth. The truth is that most people don't want to accept the possibility of having been deceived throughout their entire lives through schools and "science-fiction" movies that pushed the heliocentric fantasy as a reality, so they will try as much as possible to keep embracing the disinformation concerning the Flat Earth model in sites like Youtube to make people not take it seriously instead of actually studying about the matter. This is the latest video posted by Eric Dubay on Youtube to debunk NASA's lies: @_Maneki-Neko_ This is the second time that you show that image. You already did it once in another thread about the shape of the Earth that I created, and you really should stop doing it. You're clearly just showing sign of intellectual dishonesty, as you're clearly just interested in making fun of the matter without ever stopping for a moment to study about the model like a prudent adult would. Like I explained before, the problem of showing that image is that you're taking as a premise that the Earth is just a planet, just like all the others shown in the image, even though you obviously never lived your life in any place other than the Earth, in which we are right now, and from where we can observe the sky. According to the flat Earth model, the Earth is not a planet, but a kind of realm, that is the whole "universe" itself, and the things that are commonly regarded as planets are just wandering stars. They are not places where people can step on. It's only through fiction that you ever saw a system of planets and a sun like they appear to be in that image, so it's dishonest to show it as if the heliocentric model was a self-evident thing that could be used as an undeniable premise to reject the flat Earth model. |
''Enemies' gifts are no gifts and do no good.'' |
Meusnier said: InJ_Mataga said: @Meusnier Show me the real calculation (the real experiment) Otherwise, it is just a theory-based argument and it proves nothing but providing a scientific model Worse, the more we go the more assumptions we make Well, I am not a blind skeptic, nor am I a blind follower I will not bother making computations (I do not even have data at hand or interest to find it, the skeptics should be the one doing the maths to check themselves, or you will tell me again that you need to make it yourself), I wrote all this for the sake of the argument. You do realise that there are extremely easy ways to show that Earth is close to a sphere and to make quantitative estimates about that? If not, I would kindly ask you to stop replying. Please just stop mentioning this word "model", this is nonsensical. I did not make any further assumption. Once more, I do not ask you to follow anything. You can say ten times "it proves nothing", it will not be more convincing the tenth time. Nonsensical? All you did was trying to draw me into your model instead of providing an observable evidence. I don't deny the shape of the earth using topology will be a sphere. But again, the assumption behind this model can be false or right. Yeah, let's stop it here. |
_Mataga_Oct 6, 2020 9:23 PM
|
149597871 said: Because they don't believe in Heliocentrism. According to the words of one of the most prominent modern flat earthers, comparing other (round) celestial objects to the flat Earth is like comparing basketballs to the basketball court. Edit Nvm, mummykun already explained. I mean, that's even worse. Not that it's surprising me. Even many ancient folks knew both, that the earth is not flat and that planets are spinning around the sun. |
| people can believe whatever they want. I just think that if you don't trust the science that tells us that the Earth is round, don't use the science that lets you express that either, like computers. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| I was raised with the globe just like you were. Few years back, I eventually caved in to a youtube recommendation flat earth video. There were some silly things said I'm sure, but otherwise it really got me thinking. I'm open minded, but I accepted the challenge to prove the earth spherical and not flat. Because that's crazy. A serious investigation into NASA's images, videos, and claims, lead me to realize they were lying. There is no mistaking the lies once you see them clearly. That makes one wonder, why lie? No, actually think about it. WHY would they lie. If they really are in space, why lie about anything at all? It wasn't long before science won out. I mean real science. Then I also learned how the Bible really doesn't support the globe, but describes the dome ceiling called the firmament in the first chapter. Well I'll be darned. Then I continued studying and realized all those silly phrases which make the globe impossible, in the Bible, were actually literal. That the earth is unmoving, set upon foundations/pillars, covered in water outside the firmament, a circle, the luminaries are outside the firmament as video footage now verifies, etc. Learning the truth about the nature of our world made the Bible so much more incredibly real. I've always been told textbooks are the standard when it comes to science, but the Bible is allowed to deal with spiritual things. It's more clear to me now than ever that the Bible really covers it all. And the textbooks are filled with lies. This is the truth: The Earth Is Flat. No one can debunk this. I can debunk practically everything you globeheads come up with. Every picture of earth you see looks completely different. That's because they are all photoshopped. North america grew about 4 times larger between 2007 and 2012, according to NASA images. Wait a minute... Where are the 20,000 satelites we have floating around the earth? What about space junk, debris and paint flakes? Can you explain the tiny bubbles floating by on the ISS live feed? I can. Those are water bubbles. They act like they are in space, but they are in a gigantic swimming pool. The Bible validates the flat earth. The sky is blue because there's water above the dome over us, called the firmament. If you zoom in on a real star using a telescope and a camera, you can clearly that ripples of water are moving in front of the star. Stars aren't many suns. They're lights. The sun is a light. The moon is a light. You can't land on a light. The sun is small and significantly closer than what we've been taught. Search "sun rays through clouds." You can evidently see that the sun rays are angled in such a way that can only lead to the only logical conclusion that the sun is close. The sun lights up locally. Earth is not Moving. The Bible states that the Earth is stationary, established to not be moved, it is fixed firm, immovable, stable on it's foundations, so that it be not moved. Scientist say we came from the Big Bang, right. Okay, so one day billions of years ago, nothing was chilling minding his own business, and decided to blow up? And now we have everything we see today? What sense does that make? There is a creator, God. He made everything by his words. Scientists say we came from monkeys, but changed due to evolution. The Bible says that God made man in his own image. Was God a monkey? Absolutely not. Water can't bend. Water cannot maintain a curved shape. You're probably thinking "But 1 single drop of water can curve, so you're wrong!" Okay well check this out. Water has a thickness. At such a small scale, water cannot flatten, but have you ever seen a gallon of water curving? Have you ever seen a beach ball sized ball of water just maintaining it's shape? Don't lie, you haven't. It's impossible, the properties of water do not match up with it being able to hold it's shape as a ball, so the whole droplet argument is out the window. Scientists lie and go against the bible, so why do you believe them. You can't fall off the edge because there is a giant ice wall, called Antarctica surrounding us. The Military is there, so you can never visit the dome; they're hiding it from you. Rainbows are curved. They match up with the shape of the dome firmament above. You need a bowl of water, a mirror and a flashlight to make a rainbow in your house. So if you have a rainbow outside, what is giving it that mirror effect? The dome. We're basically in a giant snow globe. Sun dogs (that big bright halo around the sun) prove there's a dome, because what is reflecting the sunlight to create the halo? Nothing other than the dome. We are told that the earth spins at 1040 mph. Wow. And we don't feel anything? But when I'm in a car that's going 30 mph, I sure do feel like I'm moving. Everything should fling off the earth if that were the case. What? Did you say, gravity? God named all of the things that he created (water, plants, animals, sun, moon, stars, firmament, heaven, boundaries, foundations, etc...), but never did he say, "gravity". That is a man made idea. Gravity is needed for the globe model to work, that's why they brainwashed us into thinking it's real. So gravity is strong enough to hold all of the oceans, bridges, animals, people, continents and buildings to the earth, but it's just right so that I can move in it? If gravity is that strong, a butterfly shouldn't fly. Everything should be pinned to the ground with tremendous force. Airplanes, birds, balloons, smoke, clouds should not be in the air. They would all be stuck to the ground. It's called density. If it's heavy, it's going to fall. If it has weight, it's going to drop. Why would gravity decide to pull down hard on a car, but lightly on a phone? Everything should be the same weight, because it is a generally equal force all over the world, right? Gravity isn't smart, it's not a living thing, so why would it apply the appropriate force to the appropriate objects? It doesn't add up, it literally doesn't make sense at all. You might drop something and think that you just proved gravity to be real. You believe this because you are brainwashed to think that you can freely float outside of earth, so in your mind, if things are falling on earth, gravity might be real. You never went to space. No one has. Why? Because you can't leave. Every time NASA launches a rocket, it goes up, and to the side. It never goes straight up because they know that they're going to hit the dome, and if they do hit the dome, the truth will be out, which is the last thing that they want to happen. If the earth is rotating, then why when a helicopter hovers, the earth doesn't spin under it? The helicopter can sit there for hour with zero movement beneath it. You can see blue sky through the moon, meaning the moon is clearly in our atmosphere. Satelites are CGI. They say that satelites orbit the earth in the thermosphere, but the thermosphere is way hotter than the melting points of all the metals that the satelite is made of. With that said, satelites should melt if they orbit where we are told. No matter how high you go, the horizon is always at eye level. This is simply impossible on a ball shaped earth. The horizon never curves away from us. The shadows casted by clouds on the ground (when viewed from a very high altitude) prove that the sun is local. If it was really 93 million miles away, the sun rays should be coming in vertically every time, but that never was, and never will be the case. The reason the sun disappears over the horizon is because of visual perception. Boats don't actually go over earths "curve" just because they disappeared from your eyesight. Get yourself a pair of binoculars, or a powerful zoom lens, and watch that boat that you thought disappeared, return. Use your common sense. Trust your God given eyes. The Bible warns us about these lies. About this false science. Do your own research, and you'll find out the truth. Don't let people fool you anymore. Believe the word of God with faith, and you shall be blessed. |
 |
InJ_Mataga said: Meusnier said: I will not bother making computations (I do not even have data at hand or interest to find it, the skeptics should be the one doing the maths to check themselves, or you will tell me again that you need to make it yourself), I wrote all this for the sake of the argument. You do realise that there are extremely easy ways to show that Earth is close to a sphere and to make quantitative estimates about that? If not, I would kindly ask you to stop replying. Please just stop mentioning this word "model", this is nonsensical. I did not make any further assumption. Once more, I do not ask you to follow anything. You can say ten times "it proves nothing", it will not be more convincing the tenth time. Nonsensical? All you did was trying to draw me into your model instead of providing an observable evidence. I don't deny the shape of the earth using topology will be a sphere. But again, the assumption behind this model can be false or right. Yeah, let's stop it here. Yes indeed, it does not make sense to speak about a model when we are blessed with a topic that allows for direct observation; I provided ways to get an accurate image of Earth, and we could indeed get one, even before the invention of satellites. You can also have a look at answers to this question if you want other approaches: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2390818/curvature-of-the-earth-from-theorema-egregium Flat earthers actually deny the very principle of science. For example, if I were to discuss properties of sound and spoke about the wave equation, you could always say "I do not buy your model and sounds are such property and not this one". Of course, this is fine in principle, as long as someone can come up with a better model. The same would go with any part of physics, fluid mechanics and the Navier-Stokes equation, quantum theory and the Schrödinger equation, etc. In the case of Earth, one does not need of any ad hoc equation. The flat Earther mindset is then equivalent to absolute skepticism towards science. Which assumption? I did not make any. @Mummykun Usual pseudo-Christian ranter that mixes Nietzsche, atheism and immorality. This need of insults of yours clearly shows how little argument you have in favour of your "theory". I note an amusing variation from "immoral atheist" with "communist atheist", maybe they mean the same to you. If heliocentrism was true, why people had to burn Giordano Bruno? You did not provide with any compelling argument for flat Earth nor could disprove any proofs of heliocentrism. In the second part, you propose some cosmogony, very good; it is as valuable and valuable as the one in Haibane Renmei. |
Lmao! First time I've ever seen you make a funny. Please stay like this! Please please please? Bobby2Hands said: The Earth can't be a ball because everyone would fall off the bottom. I drew a very scientific diagram to help explain. Lol. Its funny because flat earthers say that gravity doesn't exist either. Can't fall off the earth then since falling is actually a gravitational pull. |
removed-userOct 7, 2020 2:12 AM
| anyways, what happened with hollow earth, crater earth, multiple earth theories? |
    |
_Maneki-Neko_ said: 149597871 said: Because they don't believe in Heliocentrism. According to the words of one of the most prominent modern flat earthers, comparing other (round) celestial objects to the flat Earth is like comparing basketballs to the basketball court. Edit Nvm, mummykun already explained. I mean, that's even worse. Not that it's surprising me. Even many ancient folks knew both, that the earth is not flat and that planets are spinning around the sun. You are technically right. At some points in ancient history, there were probably people who believed in both concepts, but they weren't that many. It's still somewhat complicated. There's no evidence of civilizations describing the Earth as being round before 5th century BC. Ever since then, however, the concept has been getting more and more popular (at least in the West) to the point where it was considered common sense among educated people during the Middle Ages. Heliocentrism, on the other hand, was proposed only a bit after the round Earth (4th - 3rd century BC) but didn't gain much popularity until the late Renaissance (16th century AC). The modern flat-Earth theory ironically started around the same time as the cold war space race, although it was heavily based on the mid-19th-century works of Samuel Rowbotham. Edit 18th century -> 19th century |
149597871Oct 7, 2020 3:00 AM
| I personally believe its round, dont really want to explain why though |
 |
| Those flat eath people are dumb its clearly round just look at all the other planets like mars and the moon them things is round so why would the earth be a damn circle and not a sphere?? We even have videos of the earth, moon and some other planets from space, what more proof do they people want?? They not like hearing the truth or like do they just like to live there life full of lies?? |
Meusnier said: I did not understand this phrase "otherwise some square meters would not equal other square meters." what I meant was that on a sphere, perfect squares can be(?) stretched over a perfect sphere and will have equal surface areas, even if one stretched "square" is not identical to another, whereas you'd have trouble with a flat circle or disc https://i.stack.imgur.com/VSFoo.png https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/90214/mod_oucontent/oucontent/751/643f315b/298c3b57/m338_1_039i.jpg I may be wrong after all I failed circle geometry Korishi said: lol yeah it's true that without being able to actually go to space yourself and observe the shape of the earth, it's all down to faith. I was struggling to even understand the ancient scientists because they're the real masterminds without the technology we have today. the post above me is even more true. I think Flat Earth is the biggest meme of the century and stands to show how many scientific observations and approximations are inaccessible to the layman. it subsequently becomes like a religion. Once more, there is no need for faith, as there exists much more simple proofs as the one you alluded to (Foucault's pendulum). Honestly, scientists have better to do than trying to prove trivial things to the religious people flat earthers have become. In terms of profit, what is there to win there? One does not need to live as a skeptic all his life. Indeed, to me, the reasonable man is the one who does not choose to believe in the 0.1% margin of error (it is smaller actually) of the detection of gravitational waves, and accepts new discoveries as more or less probable truths, or rather models of reality, that may eventually be proved false or more certainly be refined. There is nothing to win in blind skepticism but mental insanity, and my life would not change if gravitational waves did not exist. i just mean we have to put faith in established science and the scientists. I guess you're right about many theories and even facts not affecting our lives in the slightest. its thanks to science that we have a lot of our consumer technologies; I don't know how a motherboard works exactly - I just know it makes my devices operable. its funny now that I think about it... |
removed-userOct 7, 2020 7:15 AM
| Lol these weebs above me who believe earth is flat are so extra. There are so many facts and so much proof about the Earth being round but yet some people still wont accept that and will make up a shit excuse for it. Use your brain, or just google about it. There are countless facts about the Earth being round, but of course there will always be people that say retarded shit like that just to differ from others. |
 |
Korishi said: Meusnier said: I did not understand this phrase "otherwise some square meters would not equal other square meters." what I meant was that on a sphere, perfect squares can be(?) stretched over a perfect sphere and will have equal surface areas, even if one stretched "square" is not identical to another, whereas you'd have trouble with a flat circle or disc https://i.stack.imgur.com/VSFoo.png https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/90214/mod_oucontent/oucontent/751/643f315b/298c3b57/m338_1_039i.jpg I may be wrong after all I failed circle geometry Well, it is somewhat problematic to speak about triangles or rectangles (or of other polygons), as the standard way to define them is to take intersections of geodesic segments. They are straight lines on the plane, great circles on the sphere and in the Poincaré upper half-plane model of the hyperbolic space, half-circles (and a straight line). One can empirically determine geodesics on Earth, and triangles whose each side is a geodesic segment will have their sum of angles respectively larger than π in spherical model, equal to π and strictly inferior to π in the hyperbolic model. In this sense, one can detect positive curvature simply by computing the angles of geodesic triangles. But once more, this requires to draw large triangles. Korishi said: Korishi said: lol yeah it's true that without being able to actually go to space yourself and observe the shape of the earth, it's all down to faith. I was struggling to even understand the ancient scientists because they're the real masterminds without the technology we have today. the post above me is even more true. I think Flat Earth is the biggest meme of the century and stands to show how many scientific observations and approximations are inaccessible to the layman. it subsequently becomes like a religion. Once more, there is no need for faith, as there exists much more simple proofs as the one you alluded to (Foucault's pendulum). Honestly, scientists have better to do than trying to prove trivial things to the religious people flat earthers have become. In terms of profit, what is there to win there? One does not need to live as a skeptic all his life. Indeed, to me, the reasonable man is the one who does not choose to believe in the 0.1% margin of error (it is smaller actually) of the detection of gravitational waves, and accepts new discoveries as more or less probable truths, or rather models of reality, that may eventually be proved false or more certainly be refined. There is nothing to win in blind skepticism but mental insanity, and my life would not change if gravitational waves did not exist. i just mean we have to put faith in established science and the scientists. I guess you're right about many theories and even facts not affecting our lives in the slightest. its thanks to science that we have a lot of our consumer technologies; I don't know how a motherboard works exactly - I just know it makes my devices operable. its funny now that I think about it...[/quote] Yes, I agree that there may be faith in many things that people cannot check by themselves, but as you said, we use today so much technology that the theoretical foundations of what permitted this technology to become mainstream should not be put in question without good reasons. When I think that we live in the quantum computer era... |
Korishi said: would I be correct in visualising the point of gravity as a thin rod through the core? I wonder if there would be a strange interaction in the open center... Eh I don't know all about astrophysics. Gravity tends to be centred around mass yet it also is caused by distortion of space-time so I am not sure. |
| I think Flat Earth is like a cult, people got drag in because they want fell belong in some community, any community, no matter how untrue the thing they have to believe to join is. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » What is your average step count? [Poll] Do you think that you should take more steps?Miscanthus - 21 minutes ago |
2 |
by nishant0
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Who is the most perverted person you irl ?Thy-Veseveia - 6 hours ago |
1 |
by Zarutaku
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» What are some of your favorite animals? ( 1 2 )DoisacChopper - Feb 10 |
50 |
by Kamikaze_404
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Do you think there should be an age limit on friendship?Thy-Veseveia - Feb 28 |
42 |
by Kamikaze_404
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» What sort of education did you get?removed-user - Dec 23, 2019 |
48 |
by Rhaelynne
»»
2 hours ago |