Flat Earth

[Falconius]

The thing I find amusing about crazy theories like a flat earth is that they are always given in a top down sort of way.

So imagine it from the bottom up for a moment. You go to university, decide to do a degree and then a PHD in astrophysics or whatever BECAUSE SPACE, with a plan to go into the space industry. Or maybe a related industry. Maybe you want to design or build rocket engines. Maybe you'll be calculating orbits. Maybe you'll be working to create more accurate GPS systems, or working in satellite telecommunications, or over the horizon radar systems or I dunno. A million other things I can't think of.

So at what point does someone initiate you into this grand conspiracy? I mean it could make for a great thriller novel. But at some point someone is going to have to go "So hey, you know all that stuff you learned at school and university? It's all a lie. And this job is fake. But we'll still pay you - just keep quiet, sit over there, and play Kerbal Space Program all day."

Well there is that and there is also the fact that none of the things they would learn to do any of those things would actually work. Indeed the British would never have ruled over an empire on which the sun never sets if they didn't use the maths required to navigate a globe, or which was indeed on a globe. Flat earth is stupid, so stupid that it makes me question the myth as mentioned earlier (that the majority of people thought it was flat at any point in history). No one who goes out and looks at a horizon would say its flat, if they possessed the slightest bit of intellectual integrity.

[Mouse]

Sorry ChickPea!

I know this thread is kind of finished, but I was just thinking about what Falconius said, and it occurred to me that if you were living before Pythagoras (who it was that first declared the Earth to be a sphere) it would be a reasonable assumption to make.

Back then, you see, they could only travel as fast as a horse or camel could run, or a boat could sail, and they didn't have clocks that worked independently of the sun, the moon and the stars, so the time zone difference between East and West would not have been apparent to any of them because it would always be the same time of day for travellers as it was for the rest of the folk wherever they happened to be at that point in their journey. In addition to that, it would have been very unlikely for the average man to have gone far enough from home to realise that there is no mythical 'edge' to the world where the oceans fall off the world in a humungous never-ending waterfall, and even if the average man had the time to think about the impossible nature of the edge of the world back then, it would probably only have been a fleeting thought, since a large portion of the population would have been far more concerned about planning how to make it through from one harvest to the next, and making stores of food 'just in case' to have been concerned about the large scale mechanics of the Earth.

So, yes, I can see how the majority of the people initially believed the world was flat, back before 500BC, and having believed it all their lives they taught their children the same. It must have been quite difficult for Pythagoras to convince an entire nation that they were wrong - not when he couldn't prove it. His theory was rather tentatively based (compared to modern scientific theories) on the curved shape of the terminator line between night and day on the face of the moon. Having theorised that the moon was actually a sphere, he still couldn't prove that the Earth was similarly spherical. It was merely a logical extrapolation of his observations of the moon to suggest that the Earth was similar in nature.

If the Earth didn't have an unusually large moon where the terminator line could be easily observed by the naked eye, a spherical Earth theory might not have arisen until relatively recently - say, around 1520 when Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the globe, or even later than that, in the 1600s when the first telescopes were invented for us to be able to observe the terminator line on the other planets in our solar system.

However, I do agree that with global air communications, and the fact that the curvature of the Earth is observable at ground level through the oceanic occlusion of the beach at Dover from across the English Channel, where only the tops of the cliffs are visible from France on an extremely clear day due to the curved 'mound' of water between France and England, you could legitimately call a continued belief in a flat Earth something of a folly.

I do also believe, however, in the right of every individual to believe in whatever they want to believe in, just as long as it does no one else any harm by way of consequence - especially if it happens to be a belief which the majority believe to be scientifically flawed.

EDIT: Here is a thread that shows a lovely picture of the cliffs of Dover from France, and explains why you can't see Dover beach from France - the occlusion caused by the curvature of the Earth which I mentioned earlier.

[Azélor]

If your were a commoner, It did not make much different whether the Earth was flat or round since, as you mentioned, they didn't get very far from home to experience any problems related to the curvature of the planet.
Heck, most people didn't know who their king was! Round or flat would not have made any difference.

But to me, the problem is that, most people can't understand the maths proving the Earth is round, so they rely on photographies and the like.
Problem is, it mostly come from NASA, which is funded by the US government, which is a basket of vipers that can't be trusted.
NASA is used as a tool by the US to further control the population.
A little exaggerated maybe but a lot of people in the US don't trust their own government.

Also, round Earth apparently contradict the Bible according to some claims, and this is a big deal to some. (although I think the Bible doesn't clearly specify on the shape of Earth on detail but it's an argument I've read)
God made the Earth and he knows is way around regarding worldbuilding. Making a planet in just 7 days, nobody can beat that.
That guy is the reference and he tells us that the world is flat? Why contradict him, pathetic mortals?

[Falconius]

But to me, the problem is that, most people can't understand the maths proving the Earth is round, so they rely on photographies and the like.
Problem is, it mostly come from NASA, which is funded by the US government, which is a basket of vipers that can't be trusted.
NASA is used as a tool by the US to further control the population. A little exaggerated maybe but a lot of people in the US don't trust their own government.

But those maths are open for anyone to learn have they the aptitude, most are covered in high school, or at least were when I went. It's hard to have a cover-up when anyone in the world can double check your work. And as Mouse points out many formulas have been around for a very very long time. It's why I brought up the British, the entire officer core of the admiralty could do the maths. It's what allowed them to run the world for roughly 2-3 hundred years.

Also, round Earth apparently contradict the Bible according to some claims, and this is a big deal to some. (although I think the Bible doesn't clearly specify on the shape of Earth on detail but it's an argument I've read)
God made the Earth and he knows is way around regarding worldbuilding. Making a planet in just 7 days, nobody can beat that.
That guy is the reference and he tells us that the world is flat? Why contradict him, pathetic mortals?

Not sure what such an argument would be based on. There are only 27 lines dealing with the creation of the world, and only 18 dealing with the physical formation of the world. In other words it's not exactly a detailed recounting of the beginning. It cares about the specifics about as much as your farmer does. But then again the Catholic Church has a lot of strange dogma appended here and there, so who knows what they decided.

Back then, you see, they could only travel as fast as a horse or camel could run, or a boat could sail, and they didn't have clocks that worked independently of the sun, the moon and the stars, so the time zone difference between East and West would not have been apparent to any of them because it would always be the same time of day for travellers as it was for the rest of the folk wherever they happened to be at that point in their journey. In addition to that, it would have been very unlikely for the average man to have gone far enough from home to realise that there is no mythical 'edge' to the world where the oceans fall off the world in a humungous never-ending waterfall, and even if the average man had the time to think about the impossible nature of the edge of the world back then, it would probably only have been a fleeting thought, since a large portion of the population would have been far more concerned about planning how to make it through from one harvest to the next, and making stores of food 'just in case' to have been concerned about the large scale mechanics of the Earth.

Yeah my last statement was too open, I intended to mean pretty much from the Roman period and following. In my previous statement it was the medieval period. Even then I don't think most cared, for most of the reasons you mentioned. There was absolutely no meaning to whether it was flat or not. Except for sailors, even though one may have never personally encountered the edge of the world I can see how it would pray on ones mind when sailing in unknown waters with no land in sight, when you know weather can be bad enough to kill and many ships left port and never came back.

[Azélor]

Well, I know people that don't understand algebra, even the basics. It makes them sick just the her the word, almost.
Yet they probably apply some algebra from time to time without knowing it.

Also, while the above post was based on some real fact, it should not be taken too seriously either.

[Slylok]

Maths aside, let's use a logical argument that even a fool should be able to understand. Let's take a telescope to the top of Mount Everest. Now point your telescope East. Can you see the Rocky Mountains in the USA? Nope. Now point your telescope West. Can you see the Rocky Mountains now? Nope. If the earth was flat then you'd be able to see the Rocky Mountains from Mount Everest. Still not convinced? Point your telescope toward the moon. What shape is it? A sphere you say? Point your telescope toward Mars. What shape is it? Another sphere? How peculiar. Point your telescope at every other celestial body in the universe and discover its shape. Are any of them flat? No? But you still think the earth is flat even though everything else in the universe isn't? OK. Explain this then. How is it possible to travel West or East (two completely opposite directions) from the Rocky Mountains and still end up at the same destination of Mount Everest? If they still don't believe or understand then there is no hope.

[Azélor]

Magnificent map following. The first time I saw it, I tought it was just a cool concept, not something supposed to be real. It's says flat but it bends inward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:O...h-map_edit.jpg

I just checked and I can't see Antarctica from here, also called the great wall of ice.
And if you see a wall of water, it's not that the Earth is flat, it's a tsunami. Run.

While on the topic, in Game of thrones intro, the map is shown like a hollow planet with the sun floating in the middle. Cool stuff but the world is not bent inward.c

[Falconius]

I love the Game of Thrones title sequence (this season it was about the only thing I loved, except for dragons, because dragons). I think the modellers bent their map inward as a practical solution to facilitate the long moving shot they take, but I've always wondered about the world it's set in, with it's asynchronous seasons, of very long indeterminate lengths. A world bent backwards around a sun would be rather odd, dyson spheres not withstanding. Only problem with that is the maesters could always just take out a telescope and see the other side of the world and their ability to accurately map everything would be limited only by the accuracy and intensity of their optics (and presumably the atmosphere on either side). There is also the problem of night, but I don't see how a flat world wouldn't have day/night cycle problems either.

Also, your comment reminded me of that scene in Interstellar, man that was frightening.

[waldronate]

Logic is not a suitable way to argue with people who have strongly-held beliefs like the "Science Against Evolution" folks, or the "Pro-Vaccine" folks, or the "Flat Earther" folks, or the "Global Warming" folks, or the "Ancient Aliens" folks, or with any group who base their religion purely on faith (including the folks who believe in atoms: they have never seen one with their own eyes, but still they believe). I think that my earlier comment about the utility of models should be an important consideration here. If you crave attention and a special feeling of "being in the know" that belief in the Flat Earth model gives you, then it's a useful model for you. If you want a model that can make economically useful predictions such as paths that minimize travel and fuel costs, then the Flat Earth model is much less useful for you.

A simple and fun test of flatness is to go to Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana, USA. Drive across the causeway from Mandeville at the north end to Metairie the south end. When you start, you see trees behind you and an empty horizon in front of you. Halfway across, it's empty horizon all the way around. Farther along, you see the tops of building appear, and they get taller and taller, until they are many stories high. No need for a telescope or any special equipment that might be tainted by the great conspiracy. If you believe that water wants to be "flat", then the experience is very hard to explain using purely local knowledge unless something is curving (or light is behaving in a very special way just for you in order to fool the very special being that is you).

-NoXoN- asked for opinions about the commentary in a video and certainly received opinions. At no time in the original post did -NoXoN- express beliefs one way or another, as far as I can tell.

I agree with ChickPea and think that we should probably just let this thread die off, no matter how much fun it might be to bash unpopular ideas.

[Daelin]

Daelin, maybe i am offended now.

...

Insults are mark of loosers.

...

Earth revolves around the sun at: 66,600 mph, curvature of one square mile is: .666 ft, earth tilts at: 66.6

...

I think this thread has run its course.

This.