I did a very simple experiment (below) using a cup as the building, my flat edged desk as the world, and a cell phone light as the sun. When I “set” the sun below the edge of the world, the shadows creep up the side of the building like Tyson says is expected if, and only if, the edge of the world is curved. What am I missing? It seems like the shadow would behave the same (or very similarly) whether the edge of the world is flat or curved.
If it’s flat then there is no horizon for the sun to drop behind. I.E. the sun can not set on a flat Earth since there is always some part of the Earth where it’s day.
Not really answering the FQ, but I always found it odd how some people try to debunk Flat Earthers by using the most convoluted arguments instead of just simply showing them images from space. It’s like someone trying to prove that a Boeing 747 has four engines by using complex arguments instead of just showing a picture.
And yes, I know the flat-earthers will claim the images are faked, but with that mindset, they’d claim anything - including Tysons’s argument - as fake.
I think Tyson is imagining a point source being positioned right at the edge of the flat-earth, so that the very slightest downward movement makes the difference between the source being above-plane or below-plane and can instantly put everything above-plane in shadow.
As you’ve shown, it’s possible to have the light source set back an arbitrary distance from the edge of the flat-earth, allowing you to gradually shroud tall buildings in shadow from bottom to top just as the real sun does with the real world. So Tyson’s model of shadow movement relies on an assumption that may not be true.
Moreover, as @crowmanyclouds points out, the flat-earth model doesn’t have a sun moving down below-plane at any time. That would have everyone in the world on the same clock, i.e. everyone experiences day and night at the same times, regardless of longitude. So Tyson’s description of how the flat earth model works is just wrong.
That’s exactly what they do. In a normal person’s universe, “the speed of light is constant” is an immutable fact, and all other aspects of reality - mass, time distance, etc. - must bend to fit that fact. In a flat-earther’s universe, “the earth is flat” is their immutable fact, and any evidence that stands against it will be discarded as flawed, faked, or misunderstood. It’s pointless to engage with them.
What’s that prove? If I cut out a circle from a piece of paper & place it on the ground next to a similarly colored marble are you going to be able to tell which one is flat & which one is ball if looking down from the roof of a building?
No, I’m not a flat-earther, I just always thought that that was a crappy ‘proof’. Now a video from the ISS showing Earth always being round & not having an edge is different than just a single image.
If the paper and marble are both solid colors, it will be hard to tell the difference, but there will be differences. The spherical marble will have shading differences depending on the location of the light. However, if the marble is something like a cats-eye, then rotating the marble will create different images even when looking from the roof. That should give some indication that the marble and paper are different shapes. It’s the same with the Earth. If instead the circular piece of paper and a globe were both rotating, it would be obvious that they were different shapes even from the roof.
Do the flat-earthers have an explanation as to why the different photos of the “flat” Earth from space all look different? Why do they think a picture taken above the Americas looks different than a picture taken over Africa?
I read someone say a good way to put some cracks in the flat-earther’s belief system is to ask why the edges of the Earth aren’t monetized. If the Earth really was flat, it would be an awesome place to visit. There would be cruises that went to the edge and resorts where you could stay with an edge view.
I agree that convoluted arguments aren’t the proper tack to take - but images from space aren’t the obvious alternative you think they are. They don’t believe in space! There are simple arguments to make that are easily observable, repeatable and understandable.
It’s very difficult to have shadows that move up buildings and time zones on any shape of flat Earth. You don’t necessarily need to assume a particular model, if the demonstration would break all of them.
If shadows are going up buildings, because the sun is going below the plane, then that would be a global phenomenon not a local one. A global phenomenon runs counter to apparent solar time which you can test by calling random people around the planet and asking them to look out their window and inform you as to whether it’s night, morning, mid-day, or afternoon. With a sun that dips below the plane, “sunset” would happen across the planet at roughly the same time of day.
The alternative would be that the shadows are caused by mountain ranges, hills, etc. But then you would need a sun that’s lower to Earth than most hills. It would basically need to be practically rolling on the surface.
But then you’d have shadows going all which directions in fairly tight spaces as the sun rolls through.
If we can see mountain valleys with a single shadow coming in from way up high across the whole valley, but we also see shadows going up the side of buildings along the oceanside, and we also can call around and get different answers for the apparent time of day, then it’s not clear how you’d achieve all of this on a bumpy plane.
I think we’re getting at the same thing, you’re saying rotate the earth while I was take video from a satellite rotating around the earth.
The safety fence, like the solid safety fence of a pedestrian walkway over a railroad bridge blocks the view. I argued for just a chain-link fence, but regulations are regulations!
The flat earther’s main argument for the earth being flat is “I only believe what I can see for myself and the earth looks flat.”
So then you come up with complicated demonstrations for why the earth is NOT flat that can be seen with your own eyes. This is when the flat earther’s secondary argument comes in: “I only believe what I can understand and your demonstration is too complicated.”
Yeah. Flat earthers are conspiracy theorists. They think all those pics are fake. Heck, that’s usually the start of their belief, so showing them those is just telling them you’re one of the “sheep.”
