The Earth Is Flat, Intellectuals Weep

[Jing]

I like this one, good find.

You can repeat this on a flat surface it is just an illusion not curvature .. if that's really curvature how comes if you raise elevation you can't see the earth curving downwards?

 

[nwo2012]

I cant believe this is even debated. Much like PUFA debate.

 

[KDub]

All the ridiculous questions about a spinning globe offsetting gravity are answered in physics 101 classes. For instance: Does your weight change between the poles and the equator? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

The math isn't that hard.

 

[KDub]

Here's some homework for the flat-earthers:
10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat
'Earth has no curvature, I can't see it!' - Flat Earth Debunked, Part 1. | The Party of Reason and Progress
Five Impossible Facts That Would Have To Be True If The Earth Were Flat

 

[Jing]

Here's some homework for the flat-earthers:
10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat
'Earth has no curvature, I can't see it!' - Flat Earth Debunked, Part 1. | The Party of Reason and Progress
Five Impossible Facts That Would Have To Be True If The Earth Were Flat

none off that is real proof the earth is a sphere just assumptions .. lunar eclipse Is not proof all you see is a shadow on the moon and then NASA give you a cartoon of earth in-between the sun and moon, you can't prove it is earth's shadow ... Sticks and shadow that experiment can be done on a flat surface too ... All easy to debunk .. you can't just read an article and that's it ... Do some real research not just a quick Google search..

 

[x-ray peat]

@Jing So then, do you agree that the fallacy of the heliocentric model is the force of Gravity? So the Earth might as well not move, but the sun moves around us? Say Bye Bye Sunworshipper cults.

The Earth worshiping cults i.e. CO2 haters aren't much better.

 

[KDub]

none off that is real proof the earth is a sphere just assumptions .. lunar eclipse Is not proof all you see is a shadow on the moon and then NASA give you a cartoon of earth in-between the sun and moon, you can't prove it is earth's shadow ... Sticks and shadow that experiment can be done on a flat surface too ... All easy to debunk .. you can't just read an article and that's it ... Do some real research not just a quick Google search..

There are pictures and video of the earth from space. Hundreds of people have been into orbit and witnessed it for themselves. Do you think all those people are lying? That's insane. Flat Earth theory is literally insane. The math and physics proofs are well-established. There isn't even a question. You ask for proof, and the fact is that everything we know supports the idea of a spherical earth, and the only so-called evidence that flat-earthers have for their theory is gut feelings, hunches, and REALLY bad math. You say "research" you mean read propaganda from flat earth trolls, and trust the nonsense over well understood science.

 

[KDub]

You can repeat this on a flat surface it is just an illusion not curvature .. if that's really curvature how comes if you raise elevation you can't see the earth curving downwards?

Because you need reference points. It's the same with trying to judge if a piece of wood is straight or not, you look down the stick from end to end, not from the side. The link posted actually illustrates the concept perfectly with chess pieces on the roof of his car.

Again, however, there is a practically infinite amount of irrefutable evidence that the earth is a spheroid, so if you can't come to the table with half-baked, unscientific ideas, with a poor understanding of physics and just your own intuition to support an alternative. It's insanity.

 

[Jing]

There are pictures and video of the earth from space. Hundreds of people have been into orbit and witnessed it for themselves. Do you think all those people are lying? That's insane. Flat Earth theory is literally insane. The math and physics proofs are well-established. There isn't even a question. You ask for proof, and the fact is that everything we know supports the idea of a spherical earth, and the only so-called evidence that flat-earthers have for their theory is gut feelings, hunches, and REALLY bad math. You say "research" you mean read propaganda from flat earth trolls, and trust the nonsense over well understood science.

It's not that hard for them to lie tbh .. but these people you say have been in "orbit" have just gone high altitude they haven't done anything special .. pictures of earth from space are not real images...

 

[Jing]

Because you need reference points. It's the same with trying to judge if a piece of wood is straight or not, you look down the stick from end to end, not from the side. The link posted actually illustrates the concept perfectly with chess pieces on the roof of his car.

Again, however, there is a practically infinite amount of irrefutable evidence that the earth is a spheroid, so if you can't come to the table with half-baked, unscientific ideas, with a poor understanding of physics and just your own intuition to support an alternative. It's insanity.

The "evidence" for a spheroid earth is not real proof the experiments also work on a flat earth .. you have never seen the earth as a sphere but you believe it that's insane ...

 

[KDub]

It's not that hard for them to lie tbh .. but these people you say have been in "orbit" have just gone high altitude they haven't done anything special .. pictures of earth from space are not real images...

not real? how do you figure? what about satellite images? Google earth? And no, people have orbited the earth, you can watch the feed from the ISS. What you're insisting is beyond impossible. It's hard to see any way that you aren't just trolling.

 

[KDub]

The "evidence" for a spheroid earth is not real proof the experiments also work on a flat earth .. you have never seen the earth as a sphere but you believe it that's insane ...

What experiments? When have you ever done them on a flat earth since you live on a sphere?

 

[x-ray peat]

I would like the Flat Earther's or stationary geocentrics to explain how these experiments could work if the Earth wasn't round and spinning

Earth's rotation - Wikipedia
The earth's rotation implies that the equator bulges and the poles are flattened. In his Principia, Newton predicted this flattening would occur in the ratio of 1:230, and pointed to the 1673 pendulum measurements by Richer as corroboration of the change in gravity,[21] but initial measurements of meridian lengths by Picard and Cassini at the end of the 17th century suggested the opposite. However measurements by Maupertuis and the French Geodesic Mission in the 1730s established the flattening, thus confirming both Newton and the Copernican position.[22]

In the Earth's rotating frame of reference, a freely moving body follows an apparent path that deviates from the one it would follow in a fixed frame of reference. Because of the Coriolis effect, falling bodies veer slightly eastward from the vertical plumb line below their point of release, and projectiles veer right in the northern hemisphere (and left in the southern) from the direction in which they are shot. The Coriolis effect is mainly observable at a meteorological scale, where it is responsible for the differing rotation direction of cyclones in the northern and southern hemispheres.

Hooke, following a 1679 suggestion from Newton, tried unsuccessfully to verify the predicted eastward deviation of a body dropped from a height of 8.2 meters, but definitive results were only obtained later, in the late 18th and early 19th century, by Giovanni Battista Guglielmini in Bologna, Johann Friedrich Benzenberg in Hamburg and Ferdinand Reich in Freiberg, using taller towers and carefully released weights.[n 1] A ball dropped from a height of 158.5 m (520 ft) departed by 27.4 mm (1.08 in) from the vertical compared with a calculated value of 28.1 mm (1.11 in).

The most celebrated test of Earth's rotation is the Foucault pendulum first built by physicist Léon Foucault in 1851, which consisted of a lead-filled brass sphere suspended 67 m from the top of the Panthéon in Paris. Because of the Earth's rotation under the swinging pendulum, the pendulum's plane of oscillation appears to rotate at a rate depending on latitude. At the latitude of Paris the predicted and observed shift was about 11 degrees clockwise per hour. Foucault pendulums now swing in museums around the world.

 

[tara]

I hope you realize making fun of people just because they have another world view is rude.

So is making fun of and trying to confuse people by persistently presenting obvious nonsense as though it were a legitimate world view. Trolling.

 

[General Orange]

So is making fun of and trying to confuse people by persistently presenting obvious nonsense as though it were a legitimate world view. Trolling.

good point there!

 

[General Orange]

You can repeat this on a flat surface it is just an illusion not curvature .. if that's really curvature how comes if you raise elevation you can't see the earth curving downwards?

i dont think you read it well enough.
This is explained with the cue stick and the chess pieces on the car roof. it is because of compression of distance due to perspective.

 

[Travis]

Shouldn’t the mods shut this kind of thing down. I understand that guilt by association is a well known logical fallacy, but even still having this sort of nonsense on the forum delegitimizes the actual fact and science based discussions that are happening. I’m not typically one for shutting down discussion, but flat earth nonsense is the worst of the worst, and isn’t it enough to have to deal with the sugar hating PUFA loving mainstream without muddying things further by being associated with flat earth misinformation?

I don't usually think about the flat-Earth topic this way because it can give a person first-hand experience of how disinformation, the media, human psychology, physics, and logic works. Some people will believe this idea transiently and them come to their senses—which could be a good learning experience—while others will dig themselves deeper in a hole by defending their egos with even more nonsensical thinking. The longer a person believes something, whether true or false, the harder it is for them to assume the converse view. Some people who ostensibly believe that 'the Earth is literally flat' probably are in fact just pretending to and are literally agents of NASA e.g. working to set up this poppinjay. I would imagine that about fifteen years ago it had been getting a bit too socially-acceptable to believe the moon landings didn't actually occur as NASA et al. has maintained, so they then had created an intentionally-ridiculous strawman to detract from this fact and also to polarize the issue. Speaking publicly about the legitimacy of the moon landing now, as purported by NASA, a person would then have to assume the suspicion of being a 'flat-Earther'—as projected by many people. There are many others who would now, who wouldn't have previously, become put-off by alternative moon landing information simply because it has been tarnished by flat-Earth nonsense: YouTube videos of official landing footage are now intercalated with obnoxious flat-Earth videos, also making it difficult to suggest to others that they ought to view them. But think I get what you're saying because this thread is actually titled The Earth Is Flat, Intellectuals Weep, which besides being more nonsense because no serious 'intellectual' would actually 'weep'—they'd likely be appalled—it may serve to imbibe Ray Peat's ideas with a sense of illegitimacy when perceived by many people.

 

[General Orange]

I would like the Flat Earther's or stationary geocentrics to explain how these experiments could work if the Earth wasn't round and spinning

Earth's rotation - Wikipedia
The earth's rotation implies that the equator bulges and the poles are flattened. In his Principia, Newton predicted this flattening would occur in the ratio of 1:230, and pointed to the 1673 pendulum measurements by Richer as corroboration of the change in gravity,[21] but initial measurements of meridian lengths by Picard and Cassini at the end of the 17th century suggested the opposite. However measurements by Maupertuis and the French Geodesic Mission in the 1730s established the flattening, thus confirming both Newton and the Copernican position.[22]

In the Earth's rotating frame of reference, a freely moving body follows an apparent path that deviates from the one it would follow in a fixed frame of reference. Because of the Coriolis effect, falling bodies veer slightly eastward from the vertical plumb line below their point of release, and projectiles veer right in the northern hemisphere (and left in the southern) from the direction in which they are shot. The Coriolis effect is mainly observable at a meteorological scale, where it is responsible for the differing rotation direction of cyclones in the northern and southern hemispheres.

Hooke, following a 1679 suggestion from Newton, tried unsuccessfully to verify the predicted eastward deviation of a body dropped from a height of 8.2 meters, but definitive results were only obtained later, in the late 18th and early 19th century, by Giovanni Battista Guglielmini in Bologna, Johann Friedrich Benzenberg in Hamburg and Ferdinand Reich in Freiberg, using taller towers and carefully released weights.[n 1] A ball dropped from a height of 158.5 m (520 ft) departed by 27.4 mm (1.08 in) from the vertical compared with a calculated value of 28.1 mm (1.11 in).

The most celebrated test of Earth's rotation is the Foucault pendulum first built by physicist Léon Foucault in 1851, which consisted of a lead-filled brass sphere suspended 67 m from the top of the Panthéon in Paris. Because of the Earth's rotation under the swinging pendulum, the pendulum's plane of oscillation appears to rotate at a rate depending on latitude. At the latitude of Paris the predicted and observed shift was about 11 degrees clockwise per hour. Foucault pendulums now swing in museums around the world.

• Buldge measurements
• Coriolis effect
• Deviation of falling ball
• Pendulum swings

These effects are thought to be caused, in first instance, by a force from below that is pulling on objects and objects having a pull on other objects, called gravity. Second, by a rotating globe.
Now how does gravity imply a direct spinning of a globe and vice-versa? You cannot imply that one is the cause of the other, you have to prove one first. Actually taking a globe and spinning it, things will fly off, so the rotation is not a valid explanation of gravity. Also sticking rubber bands to objects and pulling them down with it does also not explain formation of a rotational body. Not even in a freefall or "microgravity environment. Also have we ever seen objects have gravitational pull to other object when on a frictionless surface or falling closely next to each other? Never seen a bunch of marbles on the floor come together the next day. So there is something wrong with those principles.

As I have stated before, one could mistake gravity for a invisible pulling force. This force is defined as a pulling one. Only we can also reverse this and say no, it is source from above that is pushing down. How to distinguish?

Now lets take our ideas up to space, in weightlessness into "microgravity"


We see here a spinning liquid object being held together by surface tension, van der waals forces? But is there really some pulling force from gravity needed to hold the molecules together? I don't think so.
Cannot we dismiss this whole gravity idea with density and buoyancy and effects of the aether?

 

[x-ray peat]

• Buldge measurements
• Coriolis effect
• Deviation of falling ball
• Pendulum swings

These effects are thought to be caused, in first instance, by a force from below that is pulling on objects and objects having a pull on other objects, called gravity. Second, by a rotating globe.
Now how does gravity imply a direct spinning of a globe and vice-versa? You cannot imply that one is the cause of the other, you have to prove one first. Actually taking a globe and spinning it, things will fly off, so the rotation is not a valid explanation of gravity. Also sticking rubber bands to objects and pulling them down with it does also not explain formation of a rotational body. Not even in a freefall or "microgravity environment. Also have we ever seen objects have gravitational pull to other object when on a frictionless surface or falling closely next to each other? Never seen a bunch of marbles on the floor come together the next day. So there is something wrong with those principles.

As I have stated before, one could mistake gravity for a invisible pulling force. This force is defined as a pulling one. Only we can also reverse this and say no, it is source from above that is pushing down. How to distinguish?

Now lets take our ideas up to space, in weightlessness into "microgravity"


We see here a spinning liquid object being held together by surface tension, van der waals forces? But is there really some pulling force from gravity needed to hold the molecules together? I don't think so.
Cannot we dismiss this whole gravity idea with density and buoyancy and effects of the aether?

Your basic starting point is incorrect. Gravity doesn't imply a spinning Earth nor does a spinning Earth imply a gravitational force. The two phenomena are not related in any direct way.

Gravity is only dependent on mass and the distance from the object. A planets spin is thought to have originated during its formation when various elements came together due to gravity. The difference in mass of these elements created a spinning gaseous mass that eventually cooled but the spin has carried over ever since. There is nothing causing the earth to continue to spin except its own inertia i.e conservation of angular momentum.

As for the rain drop, gravity doesn't come into play when we are talking about such very small objects. You are correct to state that it is due to Van der Waals forces but that doesnt negate the existence of gravity. I should add that each atom does exert a gravitational force due to its mass. Its just too small to notice.

Buoyancy is just the force of a displaced fluid pressing up on the object that displaced it. It is caused by gravity which causes the denser fluid to sink. There is no buoyancy in space since there is no gravity in space. (or at least very little)

So getting back to the experiments, none of these would be happening if the earth was not spinning on its axis. Just take the Coriolis effect, how would a stationary or flat Earth explain why a cyclone spins in opposite directions depending on which side of the equator it is on.

 

[Waynish]

So is making fun of and trying to confuse people by persistently presenting obvious nonsense as though it were a legitimate world view. Trolling.

I also read his comments as trolling.