[Misc] Do you believe the Earth is flat?

[Bold Seagull]

If it's flat what is in the middle?

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Here you go Globetard...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAdduUyXcAAb7rz.jpg

What a daft picture and equally daft accompanying statement ....

The centre of the Earth is the centre of it's gravity - the further away from the centre of the earth the less the effect of gravity - can be easily proven - was on TV a few years ago - students weighed themselves at the top of Mt Snowdon and then again at sea-level - the difference was measurable.

Because of the rotational spin of Earth, the Equator is moving faster and this causes a centrifugal affect on the oceans against gravity in these regions causing them to bulge.

That image could be true if Earth was close by to a powerful source of gravity in space - indeed, the gravity pull of our own moon is what moves the oceans and seas with what we call tides. But because our moon is not geo-static, its not pulling the water in the same direction at all times, so we get ebb and flow rather than, as your model shows, a constant pull from the same direction.

Theoretical physics has its place, but flat-Earth is no longer theoretical, just theatrical.

 

[Worthing exile]

If it's flat what is in the middle?

The middle-earthers of course. They are the ones that live inside the Earth and get there through the holes in both the north and south pole.

 

[Simster]

I'm a member of the flat Earth Society we've got other members all over the globe

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Pure chuckles. And here is a graph from the flat earth society official website:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

"hemisphere" *chortle*

 

[LlcoolJ]

What a daft picture and equally daft accompanying statement ....

I realise it's difficult to tell with who posted it, but he was taking the piss.

 

[Buzzer]

Until they grasp the concept of *relative* position, they will always describe teddy's view in terms of what they themselves see, so the water is in front of the house which is in front of the mountain, or whatever.
Once their brains have developed enough, they will be able to mentally move the picture they see with their eyes to reflect a different perspective and be able to describe the layout as if they were in a different position, so the water is next to the house which is next to the mountains.

.....



All that said... comprehending Space in something other than simple, Cartesian 3-dimensions is required [or at least helpful] to explain many observed aspects of the universe... black holes, the big bang and expansion theory, so perhaps the simplistic view of Earth being a sphere is as incorrect as Earth being a disc and that (some of) these guys are on to something, just lack the language to discuss it coherently because the rest of us have failed to develop mentally to see things from Teddy's non-Cartesian perspective the way they have!

If they haven't developed their brains sufficiently to see things from a different perspective per your 2nd sentence then how can that last sentence be true about them seeing it from Teddy's non-Cartesian perspective?


Edit - admittedly it's a long time since I studied maths but I'm pretty sure that flat earthers claims aren't based on any sort of non-Cartesian models. It's just nonsense and has been disproved for millennia.

 

[Fungus]

Do they believe it's a double-sided flat earth? If not, what do they believe is on the "other side"?

 

[astralavi]

Do they believe it's a double-sided flat earth? If not, what do they believe is on the "other side"?

I think space, but teleportation at the edge to stop you getting there or an ice wall (which has guards that prevent you from getting to)

 

[Frutos]

http://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights/flying-with-a-jet/mig-29-edge-of-space.html

Sod the flat Earth stuff, I want a go at that!

 

[Buzzer]

comprehending Space in something other than simple, Cartesian 3-dimensions is required [or at least helpful] to explain many observed aspects of the universe... black holes, the big bang and expansion theory, so perhaps the simplistic view of Earth being a sphere is as incorrect as Earth being a disc

Sorry to piss further onto your chips but I disagree with this statement too and regard it as a little reckless. I'm with you completely that the more esoteric side to physics requires far more complex science especially at the quantum level but I do remember it being drummed into me that for large, slow-moving objects e.g. planets that Newtonian Laws give a very accurate approximation of what's going on.

It may not be 100% accurate but we've plenty of science to back it up and it's enabled us to put men on the moon. It's therefore completely wrong to say that this simplistic view might be as accurate as a flat disc theory. If you argue otherwise then you're only giving succour to people peddling bad science.

 

[father_and_son]

If they haven't developed their brains sufficiently to see things from a different perspective per your 2nd sentence then how can that last sentence be true about them seeing it from Teddy's non-Cartesian perspective?


Edit - admittedly it's a long time since I studied maths but I'm pretty sure that flat earthers claims aren't based on any sort of non-Cartesian models. It's just nonsense and has been disproved for millennia.

I was suggesting that the average flat-earther is a moron (taking the guy in OP's clip who made the "upside down planes" comment as average) with an undeveloped understanding of relative perspective.

But I was also pointing out that the average non-moron's understanding of space is massively under-developed compared to the few who can fully grasp cutting-edge astrophysics. It could be that actually the mass of us are completely misunderstanding 3-dimensional space and dismissing flat-earthers from a position of equal ignorance!

 

[astralavi]

Sorry to piss further onto your chips but I disagree with this statement too and regard it as a little reckless. I'm with you completely that the more esoteric side to physics requires far more complex science especially at the quantum level but I do remember it being drummed into me that for large, slow-moving objects e.g. planets that Newtonian Laws give a very accurate approximation of what's going on.

It may not be 100% accurate but we've plenty of science to back it up and it's enabled us to put men on the moon. It's therefore completely wrong to say that this simplistic view might be as accurate as a flat disc theory. If you argue otherwise then you're only giving succour to people peddling bad science.

You said it your self 'drummed into you', in other words indoctrinated by scientific community. The earth is a globe is a conspiracy to maintain sciences status above religion #STAYWOKE

 

[Giraffe]

Seriously though, why don't they zoom in from the ISS and show us planes flying upside down? I want to see that.

It’s the most valid point they make.

 

[Buzzer]

You said it your self 'drummed into you', in other words indoctrinated by scientific community. The earth is a globe is a conspiracy to maintain science status above religion

Or in other words and seeing as we are talking about Descartes: "the illuminati think therefore I am."

 

[father_and_son]

Sorry to piss further onto your chips but I disagree with this statement too and regard it as a little reckless. I'm with you completely that the more esoteric side to physics requires far more complex science especially at the quantum level but I do remember it being drummed into me that for large, slow-moving objects e.g. planets that Newtonian Laws give a very accurate approximation of what's going on.

It may not be 100% accurate but we've plenty of science to back it up and it's enabled us to put men on the moon. It's therefore completely wrong to say that this simplistic view might be as accurate as a flat disc theory. If you argue otherwise then you're only giving succour to people peddling bad science.

Not suggesting that Newtonian Physics (for all the things it fails to explain) isn't good enough for everything we have done so far (and by definition better than the flat-earth crap).
However, more than 3 dimensions are required in the mathematics that 'might' explain a number of phenomena . It could be that our 3d view of things will be dismissed as very naive some time in the future as we develop the understanding and language to comprehend n-dimension space.

 

[Buzzer]

Not suggesting that Newtonian Physics (for all the things it fails to explain) isn't good enough for everything we have done so far (and by definition better than the flat-earth crap).
However, more than 3 dimensions are required in the mathematics that 'might' explain a number of phenomena . It could be that our 3d view of things will be dismissed as very naive some time in the future as we develop the understanding and language to comprehend n-dimension space.

Although I can see we are singing from the same hymn sheet regards flat-earthers, I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on your post here. We live in a 3D world where understanding and applying Newton's Laws and Cartesian maths work just fine.

We already know that it's not 100% correct, we already know that other dimensions exist but it's not naive to continue using these approximations. Newtonian/Cartesian maths are very accurate for what we need to use it for and most importantly it's based on sound, provable science albeit with the caveat that it's only for our 3D world of big, slow things.

Flat-earthers are just bad science. Not at all accurate at any level. You simply can't compare the two, even relative to a far more accurate and complex science.

 

[looney]

I realise it's difficult to tell with who posted it, but he was taking the piss.

Of course, the true earth shape is known to a few...

https://media.giphy.com/media/xUOrw9ONdl2KGAstZC/source.gif

 

[looney]

Whatever you are, you're splendid entertainment on here loonster, so please don't go anywhere. x

At the moment I'm particularly enjoying your constant calling out of THPP on the Naps thread despite him being in the top 2 or 3 for the past two seasons and you being absolutely shithouse at napping. [emoji38]

Im usually above him in the summer, its that last year was a crap wet one.

 

[looney]

What a daft picture and equally daft accompanying statement ....

The centre of the Earth is the centre of it's gravity - the further away from the centre of the earth the less the effect of gravity - can be easily proven - was on TV a few years ago - students weighed themselves at the top of Mt Snowdon and then again at sea-level - the difference was measurable.

Because of the rotational spin of Earth, the Equator is moving faster and this causes a centrifugal affect on the oceans against gravity in these regions causing them to bulge.

That image could be true if Earth was close by to a powerful source of gravity in space - indeed, the gravity pull of our own moon is what moves the oceans and seas with what we call tides. But because our moon is not geo-static, its not pulling the water in the same direction at all times, so we get ebb and flow rather than, as your model shows, a constant pull from the same direction.

Theoretical physics has its place, but flat-Earth is no longer theoretical, just theatrical.

Put a sock in it Lab Coat, magic and alchemy are the future.

 

[Simster]

Im usually above him in the summer, its that last year was a crap wet one.

You've been crap this season too. x