The Flat Earth - Don't worry I'm not one of them
Discussion
Danattheopticians said:
The Humber Bridge is one.
Seen a few of the videos on youtube. Some of them give an almost convincing argument but are of course wrong. Can't remember what bridge it is (probably more than one) where the top of the support towers are further apart at the top than at the bottom due to curvature of the Earth.
James 33 said:
Seen a few of the videos on youtube. Some of them give an almost convincing argument but are of course wrong.
Can't remember what bridge it is (probably more than one) where the top of the support towers are further apart at the top than at the bottom due to curvature of the Earth.
Can't remember what bridge it is (probably more than one) where the top of the support towers are further apart at the top than at the bottom due to curvature of the Earth.
How do you know they aren't just built on a curved bit of land?
Danattheopticians said:
Nanook said:
I know a Flat Earther.
He genuinely believes it, 100%
I see you are a structural engineer, so you use satellites don't you? Something they deny. Also you should be able to explain how long suspension bridges have to take into account the curvature of the earth, right? I find it difficult getting proven facts through to my mate too though.He genuinely believes it, 100%
Had a conversation about the curvature of the earth with a colleague in my old job. We were discussing whether the mile straights at MIRA (which have been made to be perfectly flat end to end) were actually slightly downhill then uphill due to the curvature of the earth, and whether it would have been better to match that curvature!
Alpinestars said:
Wouldn't a more obvious way be to get someone to explain how they could fly to LA from Londinium, travelling West. Fly to Beijing still travelling West. And then back to Londinium, travelling West. How would he explain that if the Earth is flat?
Surely that would be easily explained by assuming a disk with North at the centre, East and West then become sunwise (I think?) and widdershins. South becomes tricky though because travelling a fixed distance south, then the same distance, East, West, then North would presumably end up with a bigger offset than you'd have on a sphere.RizzoTheRat said:
Surely that would be easily explained by assuming a disk with North at the centre, East and West then become sunwise (I think?) and widdershins. South becomes tricky though because travelling a fixed distance south, then the same distance, East, West, then North would presumably end up with a bigger offset than you'd have on a sphere.
Not sure I understand that. On a flat disc, how do you travel in the same direction and eventually end up at the same place you started?Danattheopticians said:
Eric Mc said:
This is the "Science" forum, I thought.
It's a scientific subject. But it's also an open forum that people have made some other points and some of those have pointed towards religion, they can do that if they wish. I thought the scientific people might discuss: Gravity, seasons, the horizon, constellations, other planets, the tropic lines, magnetic poles, speed of earths orbit and rotation, centrifugal and centripetal forces, so if you'd like to make a scientific contribution rather than slate the topic then please go ahead.I can see the fun of a pointless philosophical ass-kicking contest but that's not what science is for.
ash73 said:
eldar said:
BJG1 said:
They're wrong, the earth doesn't really exist. We live in a virtual reality
I think, therefore I am a computer program. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTHoKEd-Gjo
RizzoTheRat said:
By travelling tangentially.
If North is the centre, travelling East or West means doing a circle around it. That's what we already do on a sphere unless you're at the equator.
So if I'm in Australia, and I want to travel to (say) South Africa, the quickest way would not be over Antarctica, but possibly over the Arctic?If North is the centre, travelling East or West means doing a circle around it. That's what we already do on a sphere unless you're at the equator.
I, too, am aware of people who believe this stuff. This appears to be the crux of their arguments:
Some Monumental F*cktard on the Flat Earth Society's website said:
Occams Razor
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton puller particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, novas and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky, exactly they appear to be?
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton puller particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, novas and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky, exactly they appear to be?
utgjon said:
When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. ...is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
Alpinestars said:
How do you know they aren't just built on a curved bit of land?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff