It’s the stated purpose of this message board. Granted, that doesn’t make it possible, or easy.
I could hardly believe my ears yesterday. I was listening to the BBC, magazine program at lunchtime when they interviewed a flat-earther. This wasn’t some tongue in cheek piece, but a serious interview, done in the same way as if the guy was a serious scientist. He wasn’t even very coherent either and I am sure the FE society could have found someone more convincing.
The BBC has to show balance at all times, so they had a proper scientist in the studio who did ask why the water didn’t fall off the edge - the reply was the G of T wall-of-ice theory. Oh - the guy also said that gravity was “only a theory” too.
Grrrr. I pay for this rubbish.
I was gonna say, it pretty obviously reads as a joke. I mean, I know a lot of stuff that people actually believe reads like a joke, but the line “The things these “Australian” says to be doing, all these swear words and actions based on alcoholism, MDMA and bad decisions” gives it away if there’s any doubt.
As I have said before I don’t troll here, but In Real Life I can’t help myself. I would join the reborn Flat Earth Society except they became a Facebook group and using Facebook would require me to interact with my in-laws.
Not so fast, buckos! It’s all a matter of screen wrapping:
Flat-Earthers Think 'Pac-Man Effect' Stops Us Falling Off the Edge of the Planet
That’s not what the Bible says. Four corners, all 90 degrees because God doesn’t create asymmetry.
Quoted for Bible truth.
Did I miss the mention that the Flat Earth is actually a recent invention, done as a silly joke in the 19th century? That biblical literalists believed the earth was a sphere of land bobbing in a sphere of water, so that the combination was rather pear-shaped? And that this belief was blown apart by the circumnavigation of the globe?
I love this. But let me ask: Are you referencing the terror (I think) were this universe-altering geological fact proven, leading ineluctably to the discrete fact of the ethical, nay moral reversal of turtle-soup–the causative effect must be fascinating, and no doubt you could provide one–or, 2) worse: IS IT A METAPHOR?:eek: Cats sleeping with dogs, etc.
I can’t say which is more humbling.
Not quite; even into the fourth and fifth centuries C.E., there were still some champions of the flat Earth theory, although there were as many or more who believed it was spherical:
I believe the world is flat and not a ball.
Show me a genuine unedited picture, unphotoshoped image of our planet from space in real time. Let me see Australians walking along Sydney Harbour Bridge upside down because of this theory of gravity and then I will believe we are on a globe.
The reason so many people are getting behind this flat earth theory is because, the Russians have a major problem. Radiation from Chernobyl in Belarus, where their was a sever nuclear accident in the 1980s is beginning to get into the water table. The Russians want to go the site and dig a really big whole and bury all of that Nuclear problems down a deep hole.
They have a problem, they have not go any radiation suits that withstand that kind of radiation for more than 2 hours. But they knew who did have this technology, the Americans and Nasa.
The Americans went up to space in a rocket and travelled across an area of space called the Van Allen Belt which is much more radioactive than Chernobyl and then they landed on the moon. Build a moon buggy in 20 minutes and put a flag on the moon, took 20,000 photos in less than 12 hours and then flew back to Earth passing through this area of Radiation again and all of the astronauts not only lived but none of them got cancer and some are still alive today,
The problem is when the Russians asked for the technology, the Americans claimed neither the rocket or the space suits would protect against radioactivity, proving beyond doubt that NASA never went to the moon and it was all faked, including the picture of the globe from space.
People started asking questions and a lot other things didnt add up either, so you have people like me who are open minded. Not fully convinced either way and certainly not going believe the world is a globe because of a photo shopped image.
I am trying to find a suitable emoticon from the smiley-menu, there just isn’t one.
I don’t suppose that the fact that this is utterly false will change your mind, will it?
[del]If the hole is deep enough…[/del] [del]So what you’re saying is…[/del] [del]Then how would…[/del] [del]If you accept the moon landings…[/del]
(taking a deep breath and remembering where I am.)
Welcome aboard, autan! Thank you for your contribution. I hope your stay here is fun and educational, though I can’t guarantee it’ll be fun right away.
They are actually not “upside down”, because “down” is the same direction for them as it is for us: down. They approach it from a different angle, but it is still “down”.
Yet, if you look at the Australian flag, you will notice it depicts a constellation, which is known as Crux (the Southern Cross). If you are in the northern hemisphere, you cannot see that constellation, but it dominates the southern night. If the world is flat, how can this be?
The “stars” are closer than you seem to think. Much closer. Much, MUCH closer. Do you know nothing about cosmology?
That’s the study of who was on the cover of Cosmo last week, right?
Thats a good point and here is my answer.
Lets say I am in the England (which I am) and I am in Manchester which is in Northern England.
Can I see the Northern Coast of France ? NO
Why because my position in England means I do not have that in my perspective view.
However if I am in Dover in Southern England, then I can see the Northern Coast of France all day long.
If I could stand on a hill or mountain and weather permitting, I got out a telescope then I could zoom and zoom and I would be able to see the North Coast of France from Manchester.
On a globe this is impossible because of the curvature of the earth means I cannot see around the corner. Light bends but not by 8 inches per mile.
My point being if I had a telescope I could see in England, what they see in Australia only from a different perspective.
Proof? Ever done it? Not just blandly asserted it can be done?
It can’t be done because the Earth is curved. Getting up on a hill and carefully observing what the change in range to what you can actually see can be done, and will yield a result consistent with a curved surface. You are invited to try it.
PS, I live in Australia, and have travelled to Manchester quite a few times. I have a very good idea about what can and can’t be seen on the journey. Firsthand, as seen with my own eyes. Observing the star constellations in the sky and their changing orientation and position in the sky is quite neat. Indeed seeing the Southern Cross lying over the horizon was quite something.
What astounds me is that, when all the other planets and large moons in our solar system are viewed through a telescope, they are ALL spherical in shape, yet only our planet is flat. Go figure.
Even if you factor out actual knowledge of airplane physics, the spirit level test wouldn’t prove jack shit re:the curvature of the Earth or lack thereof. In the round earth physics model gravity pulls towards the center of the Earth sphere, therefore a plane flying at a level altitude all the way around the globe, and therefore always at a tangent to the sphere & perpendicular to the pull of gravity, would leave the bubble levelled the whole flight.
Step #1 to experimental design : your experiment should not only prove your theory but also falsify competing theories. Back to the drawing board, kooks !
Nah, it’s an optical illusion mate. They’re flat too, just all oriented towards the Earth !
This video may be relevant.
And if you can't stand to watch 16 minutes, at least watch this one: