Flat Earthers- what to do with em
Discussion
peter tdci said:
Wasn't it saying that the earth orbited the sun, rather than vice versa, that got you in bother? As Galileo fdiscovered.
Copernicus discovered the Earth went around the sun, not Galileo. Galileo got into serious bother with the Catholic church for agreeing with him, after investigating the claims. basically ruined his life. But to be far, the Catholic chuch did eventually admit that the Earth went around the sun and pardoned Galileo..... in 1985. 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Copernicus discovered the Earth went around the sun, not Galileo. Galileo got into serious bother with the Catholic church for agreeing with him, after investigating the claims. basically ruined his life. But to be far, the Catholic chuch did eventually admit that the Earth went around the sun and pardoned Galileo..... in 1985.
Copernicus discovered no such thing. He POSTULATED that the earth and the other planets moved around the sun. He had no proof other than what other astronomers (both of his time and ancient) had measured regarding the movement of planets based on their pre-telescope era. There was some debate amongst those who observed the motion of planets whether the idea that everything was going around the earth was correct. However, the church had long ago adopted the Ptolemaic earth centered system as their view on things and considered anyone who thought otherwise a heretic. Copernicus himself was a Catholic priest so was wary about making any public announcements about his theory. He therefore wrote a book on the subject but ordered that it should not be published until his death. This is what happened.It was Galileo, using his newly constructed telescope who observed two phenomena that proved that not everything circled the earth. One was the the planet Venus showed phases (like the moon). This proved it had to be circling the source of light that gave it those phases i.e. the sun - and it could not be circling the earth.
He also observed that the planet Jupiter possessed four satellites of its own - which orbited Jupiter - and not the sun.
It was these observations which proved that Copernicus' theory was correct. And, as Copernicus had anticipated, anyone who wrote such heresy would get into trouble with the Catholic church - which is exactly what happened to Galileo.
Shuvi McTupya said:
I didn't disregard it, I didn't consider it but I did ask for any suggestions that I might have missed.
Are you saying that astronauts in a weightless environment are actually experiencing a feeling of freefall like skydivers but without the wind, or the gravity? I am quite confident it doesn't feel like freefall to them but I do accept that when in orbit the craft is actually 'falling'.
They train underwater because it is very similar to the weightlessness they experience in space. Is the weightlessness different when they are in orbit to how it is when they are transiting to the moon, what with one being 'freefall' and one not.
Yes, exactly this. Gravity in low Earth orbit is not much different to Gravity on Earth.Are you saying that astronauts in a weightless environment are actually experiencing a feeling of freefall like skydivers but without the wind, or the gravity? I am quite confident it doesn't feel like freefall to them but I do accept that when in orbit the craft is actually 'falling'.
They train underwater because it is very similar to the weightlessness they experience in space. Is the weightlessness different when they are in orbit to how it is when they are transiting to the moon, what with one being 'freefall' and one not.
And yes, transiting to the moon is the same situation. Any time when they are not firing any thrusters / rockets or touching something that provides a force (air, Earth, Moon) they are in free fall, which feels the same as zero-G.
Eric Mc said:
It was these observations which proved that Copernicus' theory was correct. And, as Copernicus had anticipated, anyone who wrote such heresy would get into trouble with the Catholic church - which is exactly what happened to Galileo.
The 3 Abrahamic religions are all foundered on the premise that god made the earth the centre of the universe and everything else revolves around it, god says it himself in the books. When Galileo observed Jupiter's moons it should have been game over for those religions, it was the first time god had been proved wrong. You'd think that would be pretty hard to get passed.
But they naturally ignored it and just carried on with the ignorance regardless.
We're stuck with it.
Just need to come up with something to disprove the fish eye lens and earth curvature crap I see daily and bobs yet uncle!
Lots of fb posts showing boats on lakes at miles, towers from across lake Michigan etc that prove the curve isn't there....
The other worst gumpf is people ridiculing photos of the space station because "it's supposed to be going at 17,500mph if you listen to the sheep.."
Or that we can't possibly be moving through the universe, and the sun moves on/out mysteriously on a daily basis. Some of you should join up on fb for sport (or stress) lol
Lots of fb posts showing boats on lakes at miles, towers from across lake Michigan etc that prove the curve isn't there....
The other worst gumpf is people ridiculing photos of the space station because "it's supposed to be going at 17,500mph if you listen to the sheep.."
Or that we can't possibly be moving through the universe, and the sun moves on/out mysteriously on a daily basis. Some of you should join up on fb for sport (or stress) lol
Shuvi McTupya said:
eldar said:
Actually, there wasn't. A spherical earth was accepted around 300BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
And before that??https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
I'm sure may people speculated on the notion of a spherical earth for thousands of years. The problem was that they didn't really possess the tools to prove it until Eratosthenes performed his famous "stick and shadow" experiment around 300 BC which proved conclusively that the earth was a sphere.
Indeed, Eratosthenes went on to make a pretty good calculation of the diameter of the spherical earth.
Indeed, Eratosthenes went on to make a pretty good calculation of the diameter of the spherical earth.
Just play this clip of the sun and moon a few times..... see if you can spot something. What is happening to the shape of light that the sun is casting on the 'flat' earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU&fe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU&fe...
thebraketester said:
Just play this clip of the sun and moon a few times..... see if you can spot something. What is happening to the shape of light that the sun is casting on the 'flat' earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU&fe...
Looks like the shape you would get when you illuminate a sphere and then polar project it. With half the "plane" some how in shadow with a direct line of sight to the sun.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU&fe...
Funny they show a video of a sunset with the sun dropping below the horizon after that, the sun should always be a higher angle than the horizon if the ground was a flat plane.
ugh.
Slight diversion but since we are discussing "space related" things in The Lounge and this forum does get a bigger readership than others, August 12-13 will be see the annual Perseid meteor shower. This year there is no bright moon to drown out fainter meteors so there is a good chance quite a few will be visible.
No doubt, there will be dedicated thread over in The Science Forum.
No doubt, there will be dedicated thread over in The Science Forum.
200Plus Club said:
My brain hurts from all the questions that video raises...
The funny thing mainly is how simple explanations are just given and move onto the next "issue" then glibly explain it all away with no proof. "FACT" lol
Why bother trying to understand what is arrant nonsense. Make your "brain hurt" learning about the reality rather than trying to understand the musing of idiots.The funny thing mainly is how simple explanations are just given and move onto the next "issue" then glibly explain it all away with no proof. "FACT" lol
Could someone kindly give a list of things these people believe please?
It all seems so ridiculous that it would be impossible for anyone to give it any credit.
Do they really believe it or is it just one of those things that people say just to be controversial?
There used to be a conspiracy theorist on a local website and some of his stuff was so fantastical that you couldn't tell if it was a giant leg-pull or he was actually serious.
Having said that, why is it if you believe in God you are regarded as a normal sane person who is entitled to their beliefs, but if you believe in a flat earth and can explain it all (at least to your satisfaction) you are regarded as a nutter.
It's a bit like Druids , if you go to church and one guy puts on a robe it's fine, if everyone puts on robes they're bonkers.
It all seems so ridiculous that it would be impossible for anyone to give it any credit.
Do they really believe it or is it just one of those things that people say just to be controversial?
There used to be a conspiracy theorist on a local website and some of his stuff was so fantastical that you couldn't tell if it was a giant leg-pull or he was actually serious.
Having said that, why is it if you believe in God you are regarded as a normal sane person who is entitled to their beliefs, but if you believe in a flat earth and can explain it all (at least to your satisfaction) you are regarded as a nutter.
It's a bit like Druids , if you go to church and one guy puts on a robe it's fine, if everyone puts on robes they're bonkers.
Johnspex said:
Could someone kindly give a list of things these people believe please?
It all seems so ridiculous that it would be impossible for anyone to give it any credit.
Do they really believe it or is it just one of those things that people say just to be controversial?
There used to be a conspiracy theorist on a local website and some of his stuff was so fantastical that you couldn't tell if it was a giant leg-pull or he was actually serious.
Having said that, why is it if you believe in God you are regarded as a normal sane person who is entitled to their beliefs, but if you believe in a flat earth and can explain it all (at least to your satisfaction) you are regarded as a nutter.
It's a bit like Druids , if you go to church and one guy puts on a robe it's fine, if everyone puts on robes they're bonkers.
Druids ARE bonkers. We know the square root of eff-all about druids, but some people have built an entire back story round them.It all seems so ridiculous that it would be impossible for anyone to give it any credit.
Do they really believe it or is it just one of those things that people say just to be controversial?
There used to be a conspiracy theorist on a local website and some of his stuff was so fantastical that you couldn't tell if it was a giant leg-pull or he was actually serious.
Having said that, why is it if you believe in God you are regarded as a normal sane person who is entitled to their beliefs, but if you believe in a flat earth and can explain it all (at least to your satisfaction) you are regarded as a nutter.
It's a bit like Druids , if you go to church and one guy puts on a robe it's fine, if everyone puts on robes they're bonkers.
Something of a thread derail, but can anyone tell me how a space rocket moves forward?
I understand that it's linked to Newton's Third Law, with the equal and opposite reaction to any action, and I remember reading somewhere that high speed trains like the TGV displace (iirc) up to two tonnes of air every second, so clearly in a planetary atmosphere there's something "solid" enough to push against and provoke that opposite reaction, but if space is a vacuum, why doesn't the rocket exhaust simply dissipate straight out of the back of the rocket, meet no resistance and therefore not move the rocket forward in reaction?
I understand that it's linked to Newton's Third Law, with the equal and opposite reaction to any action, and I remember reading somewhere that high speed trains like the TGV displace (iirc) up to two tonnes of air every second, so clearly in a planetary atmosphere there's something "solid" enough to push against and provoke that opposite reaction, but if space is a vacuum, why doesn't the rocket exhaust simply dissipate straight out of the back of the rocket, meet no resistance and therefore not move the rocket forward in reaction?
Many people believe all sorts of silly things. They are fully entitled to believe whatever idiocy they want to.
However, nobody is obliged to engage with idiots or even try to understand them.
The danger is when such idiotic junk thinking begins to in fact genuine knowledge and science - at which point we could be on the threshold of a new "Dark Age" where mad thoughts and stupid beliefs are given equal credence to well founded science and knowledge.
However, nobody is obliged to engage with idiots or even try to understand them.
The danger is when such idiotic junk thinking begins to in fact genuine knowledge and science - at which point we could be on the threshold of a new "Dark Age" where mad thoughts and stupid beliefs are given equal credence to well founded science and knowledge.
Kermit power said:
Something of a thread derail, but can anyone tell me how a space rocket moves forward?
I understand that it's linked to Newton's Third Law, with the equal and opposite reaction to any action, and I remember reading somewhere that high speed trains like the TGV displace (iirc) up to two tonnes of air every second, so clearly in a planetary atmosphere there's something "solid" enough to push against and provoke that opposite reaction, but if space is a vacuum, why doesn't the rocket exhaust simply dissipate straight out of the back of the rocket, meet no resistance and therefore not move the rocket forward in reaction?
The "equal and opposite" reaction does not require any substance to push against. As long as the rocket is pushing exhaust gases out the back, the rocket will move forward in the opposite direction. The only thing the exhaust gases are pushing against is the rocket itself. The rocket can be inside or outside an atmosphere to do its thing.I understand that it's linked to Newton's Third Law, with the equal and opposite reaction to any action, and I remember reading somewhere that high speed trains like the TGV displace (iirc) up to two tonnes of air every second, so clearly in a planetary atmosphere there's something "solid" enough to push against and provoke that opposite reaction, but if space is a vacuum, why doesn't the rocket exhaust simply dissipate straight out of the back of the rocket, meet no resistance and therefore not move the rocket forward in reaction?
Indeed, a rocket craft actually works BETTER in a vacuum because outside of an atmosphere (i.e. in the vacuum of space) there is no air resistance trying to slow the rocket down.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff