Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Misc] Do you believe the Earth is flat?

Do you believe the Earth is flat?

  • Yes, I firmly believe the Earth is flat

    Votes: 30 11.1%
  • I'm unsure, but the Earth could be flat

    Votes: 12 4.4%
  • I believe The Earth is absolutely NOT flat

    Votes: 229 84.5%

  • Total voters
    271




Shropshire Seagull

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2004
8,477
Telford
Here you go Globetard...

DAdduUyXcAAb7rz.jpg


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.
 










Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
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.
 
Last edited:


Fungus

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
May 21, 2004
7,038
Truro
Do they believe it's a double-sided flat earth? If not, what do they believe is on the "other side"?
 








Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
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

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2012
4,646
Under the Police Box
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

Active member
Apr 6, 2017
453
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 :)
 
Last edited:




Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
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

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2012
4,646
Under the Police Box
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

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
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

Banned
Jul 7, 2003
15,652
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

Banned
Jul 7, 2003
15,652
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.
 





Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here