Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

You can't argue that NASA photos are not credible because they are photoshopped or distorted and then expect me to be swayed by computer generated simulations where you can control the perspective and resulting projections, with some nonsense claim about a 36mm focal length to prevent distortions. I am certainly not going to argue with the Maths of AutoCAD before they are presented. You didn't present them. Steve Torrence didn't present them. He didn't present any math, and didn't say he used AutoCAD to produce the computer generated simulations. And he didn't say anything about the "reality" photo, which is neither math, nor AutoCAD. We can't be sure we are comparing apples to apples, without knowing the very parameters for the photo that were carefully controlled in his simulations. Did the real camera use a 0 deg pitch, and a 36mm focal length to avoid barrel distortion? At what height? Did he present the photo at the same height with the same midpoint as the GE and FE images? Rather than address these massive deficiencies, that prevent me from seeing why this computer generated illustration shows I'm wrong, and that you hoped would illustrate why I'm wrong, you created a strawman. You say you want to do experiments, and make up your own mind -- go to the top of a mountain, tell us the height of the mountain, and the angle of the horizon. This is what astronomers did a 1000 years before NASA to scientifically corroborate with real world, carefully controlled and measured observations and improve on the estimated radius what was already believed among scholars as the round earth. When you repeat this easy experiment, then do the math, you should get one of two estimates for the radius of the earth: 6371km, or infinity. Go ahead and go against consensus, but every flat earther is unwittingly trying to debunk good science with bad science, not to mention ridicule and name calling, all drenched in conspiracy. Just to expand a little bit on this idea of dogmatic, I have already indicated my decades long history of working with something that flat-earthers say don't even exist -- satellites. Not satellites in puny low orbits of a few hundred kms, like the space shuttle or the space station, but in larger MEO and GEO orbits, and even one interplanetary mission to Venus to make detailed images of the surface. I have developed systems to measure the exact positions of the satellites, within a few meters, including lots of mathematical cross-checks and error checking to reject bad measurements. I have worked with (but not developed) more accurate systems which measure within centimeters. I can guarantee by direct observation, and ability to do the math, that if the signals were coming from a land tower, or high-altitude balloon, or bouncing off the dome, I would be able to tell the difference, with just two measurements from two widely separated stations. This is not me believing what I was taught dogmatically in school, and from NASA, but me personally and directly making carefully controlled measurements, with live practical experiments and experience, and cross-checking the results with other measuring systems. We even have a telescope on the roof, where colleagues have taken photos of satellites visible in the night sky. I already gave you a long list of items that Flat Earthers need to solve, in order to catch up to Globe Earthers. Make no mistake -- they are far far behind, and trying to play catch-up by setting the good science back 2000 years. It's not enough to doubt the Globe Earth, but you have to accurately rewrite science in these, and many other areas, to begin to gain credibility, in a scientific world: - Produce an accurate flat map without distortion - Develop the physics to explain the unique motion of the Sun and the Moon - Explain why the phases of the moon look the same to observers at different locations - Explain how a lunar eclipse is even possible, from two bodies roughly the same size and height in the sky - Explain how do we get satellite TV, by pointing directional antennas at the sky (not land or sea), without satellites - Explain a 24 hour sun in Antarctica, or a 17 hour sun in Chile, or how the Sun can illuminate any two of South America, South Africa, and Australia, at the same time, in their summer - Form a coherent branch of science without gravity -- e.g. how would a suggested "Law of Density" explain what water does on the Space station, or in airplanes simulating space, when the air around it doesn't change density? - Refine the proposed "Law of Perspective", and confirm it with real measurements - Explain the motion of other planets, and stars, without gravity To further gain credibility, they need to stop denying history. One example would be to stop denying the historical fact that both the globe earth and heliocentricity trace their origins to ancient Greece, more than 2000 years ago, rather than clinging to some notion that it was invented by Western civilizations in the 1600's.

Rayo. wrote:

So now you are going to argue with the Maths of AutoCAD. This is the problem with your dogmatic stance.

Once upon a time the scientific community laughed at the Wright brothers. It's ok to go against consensus and science should embrace the challenge. All I see is ridicule and name calling.

[quote]Ground Control to Major Tom wrote:

It's not really a primary goal to stump the troll, but that would be a bonus.

You aren't going to "stump" the troll. EVER. The fact that you are saying that means you are falling for the very point of the troll. You will never stump him, as he has a million bogus YouTube links, websites, and cut-and-paste text to answer EVERY question. EVERY ONE. No, there isn't something you will finally "stump" him with.

It may take you 46573457 more pages to figure this out. You have been sucked into the very essence of this troll.

For you (especially) and everyone else:

Here's what you people are doing by replying to this thread:

1. Flat Earth Troll trolls for people that will argue with him, thinking he is serious about the Earth being flat (he is good, and a lot of you are stupid, so you WILL go to great lengths to "prove" Earth is round to him).

2. Flat Earth Troll delights in their efforts and discounts it with on-the-ready cut-and paste text, videos, diagrams, etc. refuting their claim. This troll works particularly well because there is lots of ready-made material like this to aid in the troll.

3. This enrages/frustrates easily-trolled people (which is the goal of trolling). They argue with Flat Earth Troll. He insists he is "not a troll, you people are sheep who believe what the government tells you, and here's some proof Earth is flat." Easily-trolled people scour the internet for counter-proof that the Earth is round (which Flat Earth Troll knows, but that is beside the point). This is exactly what Flat Earth Troll wants you to do. He knows the Earth is round. You are being stupid.(repeat step 2).

4. Although some understand it as a troll, many do not and can't resist, as he seems to be good at the troll, coupled with the fact that many people are apparently stupid and don't see it as what it is: a never ending, never resolved argument that is the very essence of a troll.

5. Thread disappears for a few months. Flat Earth Troll resurrects it, often by pretending to be someone who wants to argue with Flat Earth Troll. (repeat step 1).

Addendum: Although I have pointed out what this thread is all about in plain English, Flat Earth Troll will still, incredibly, be able to bury the post and continue making stupid people engage in the never-ending argument (see above posts).

I'm just waiting for some Ultra gimmick clown to run around the top of the Ice Wall.

So in this 140,000 ft high balloon we are 26.5 miles above a visible 922 mile radius section of globe. Where exactly do you expect to see curvature? At the horizon from left to right? I guess so, because that's where everyone is putting the straight edge. Exactly how much curvature should be visible, from the vantage point of the viewer high above the center. For 360 deg around him, the horizon is the same distance from the center, from the perspective of the viewer, and therefore drops exactly the same amount in all directions. Now in a flat earth, we should be able to see much farther beyond this 922 mile disc. Our visibility shouldn't be clipped at all. Do we see further?

Rayo. wrote:

Weather balloons reach 141,000ft that show no curvature without a fish eye lens. At that height you should be able to see 922 miles of the Earth as a maximum. That is 11.6 % of the Earths diameter. Therefore the shots should show curvature that reflect that ratio, but they clearly do not.

It's not a primary goal. I won't ever bother to figure it out, because I'm not even posing that question. The only reason I'm saying that is in response to others who seem to think that is the only possible purpose. Do I have to repeat that for 46573457 more pages before you figure that out. How about your "I will repeat until thread dies" protest? Do you find it less futile?

will repeat until thread dies wrote:

You aren't going to "stump" the troll. EVER. The fact that you are saying that means you are falling for the very point of the troll. You will never stump him, as he has a million bogus YouTube links, websites, and cut-and-paste text to answer EVERY question. EVERY ONE. No, there isn't something you will finally "stump" him with.

And how will you know if it's accurate? Maybe you could ask your mate NDT.

We all get it. To deny the globe your whole career was also based on an incorrect assumption that can be traced back to the bogus Cavendish experiment.

For that list of problems to solve for a Flat Earth I could give you a longer list of problems for a globe Earth with a Sun supposedly 93 million away.

Good science with bad science. So you are now the judge of what constitutes 'good science', and this is supposedly anything that goes against your beliefs. I could tell you were surprised by the use of AutoCAD in that video, with the assumption that it was just his own simulation. So is that bad science and is your Maths superior to AutoCAD? Flat earthers (not all I accept) are interested in science based on observation and sound experiment and the whole movement largely came about because your supposed 8inches to the mile squared ball equation does not stack up to measurements of the floor of the Earth, again and again.

I have no doubt that you are a very clever person and satellites on a flat Earth is something I have grappled with. However you have to accept that there are people out there that will be vastly more intelligent and powerful than you could have hidden the whole truth from you. That does not mean you are stupid for not knowing as they have duped a huge percentage of the population.

Here is a good video for you GCTMT. Motion parallax problems for a Sun 93 million miles away. Yes, by the way that is AutoCAD again.

Here's what you people are doing by replying to this thread:

1. Flat Earth Troll trolls for people that will argue with him, thinking he is serious about the Earth being flat (he is good, and a lot of you are stupid, so you WILL go to great lengths to "prove" Earth is round to him).

2. Flat Earth Troll delights in their efforts and discounts it with on-the-ready cut-and paste text, videos, diagrams, etc. refuting their claim. This troll works particularly well because there is lots of ready-made material like this to aid in the troll.

3. This enrages/frustrates easily-trolled people (which is the goal of trolling). They argue with Flat Earth Troll. He insists he is "not a troll, you people are sheep who believe what the government tells you, and here's some proof Earth is flat." Easily-trolled people scour the internet for counter-proof that the Earth is round (which Flat Earth Troll knows, but that is beside the point). This is exactly what Flat Earth Troll wants you to do. He knows the Earth is round. You are being stupid.(repeat step 2).

4. Although some understand it as a troll, many do not and can't resist, as he seems to be good at the troll, coupled with the fact that many people are apparently stupid and don't see it as what it is: a never ending, never resolved argument that is the very essence of a troll.

5. Thread disappears for a few months. Flat Earth Troll resurrects it, often by pretending to be someone who wants to argue with Flat Earth Troll. (repeat step 1).

Addendum: Although I have pointed out what this thread is all about in plain English, Flat Earth Troll will still, incredibly, be able to bury the post and continue making stupid people engage in the never-ending argument (see above posts).

Why should we see further. If you go to some salt flats should you always be able to see to the other side by standing on your car, regardless of how far that distance is?

How's all this going? Do you think GCTMT can't scroll up a couple of posts to reply. Thanks for the bumps though bud.

Thread was already at the top. I don't bump it if it falls much below halfway down the first page. But you already know that, just like you know the Earth isn't flat. :) Glad I've irritated you, though. Have a nice weekend.

Here's what you people are doing by replying to this thread:

1. Flat Earth Troll trolls for people that will argue with him, thinking he is serious about the Earth being flat (he is good, and a lot of you are stupid, so you WILL go to great lengths to "prove" Earth is round to him).

2. Flat Earth Troll delights in their efforts and discounts it with on-the-ready cut-and paste text, videos, diagrams, etc. refuting their claim. This troll works particularly well because there is lots of ready-made material like this to aid in the troll.

3. This enrages/frustrates easily-trolled people (which is the goal of trolling). They argue with Flat Earth Troll. He insists he is "not a troll, you people are sheep who believe what the government tells you, and here's some proof Earth is flat." Easily-trolled people scour the internet for counter-proof that the Earth is round (which Flat Earth Troll knows, but that is beside the point). This is exactly what Flat Earth Troll wants you to do. He knows the Earth is round. You are being stupid.(repeat step 2).

4. Although some understand it as a troll, many do not and can't resist, as he seems to be good at the troll, coupled with the fact that many people are apparently stupid and don't see it as what it is: a never ending, never resolved argument that is the very essence of a troll.

5. Thread disappears for a few months. Flat Earth Troll resurrects it, often by pretending to be someone who wants to argue with Flat Earth Troll. (repeat step 1).

Addendum: Although I have pointed out what this thread is all about in plain English, Flat Earth Troll will still, incredibly, be able to bury the post and continue making stupid people engage in the never-ending argument (see above posts).

Thanks for the bump. Only a fellow flat earth supporter such as yourself is so eager to keep this thread going. More flat earth converts every day. Welcome to the team.

I know, I know, never feed the trolls, but answering the Flat-Earther arguments actually provides a nice chance to revise middle-school and some high-school math and physics. So I kind of enjoyed some of the postings on this thread. Lately, the flat-earther arguments have become so dumb and circular that it is no longer entertaining. Time to let the thread die.

Flintoff admitted being obsessed with a podcast called The Flat Earthers - a show dedicated to discussing the conspiracy theory that Earth is flat, and that claims to the contrary are merely lies peddled by Disney.

Flintoff, who inspired England to victory in the 2005 series, conceded he does not think the world is entirely flat, however, rather believing it is “bulbous, like a turnip.” He said: “I am not coming out now and saying that the world is flat, but it could be. You’ve got the earth, its bulbous, like a disc. It’s not completely flat underneath.”

He added: “The middle is the North Pole, around the outside is the South Pole, which is like a big wall of ice. This is why all governments now have bases on the South Pole. You can’t turn up to the South Pole as a punter.”

The former England captain also claimed he would stake £1,000 ($1,332) on the Earth being flat, if given odds of 5/1.

Flintoff said he is considering going to next year’s The Flat Earth International Conference in the US. Members claim Earth is flat and believe that evidence to the contrary, such as satellite photos of the globe as a sphere, are fabrications of a “round Earth conspiracy.” Many also believe that water doesn’t fall off the edge because Antarctica acts as a wall of ice that wraps around the edge of the world.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5113317/Freddie-Flintoff-convinced-Earth-FLAT.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/883683/Flat-Earth-conspiracy-Ashes-Andrew-Flintoff-bbc-radio-5-live-robbie-savage-matthew-syed

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/662290/Flat-earth-conspiracy-theory-andrew-freddie-flintoff-bbc-radio-5-live-robbie-savage-ashes

This dude will give us our answer shortly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/24/a-flat-earthers-plan-to-launch-himself-in-a-homemade-rocket-just-hit-a-speed-bump/?utm_term=.9866d56eea1a

I gave two things -- what do you mean by "it"? I would doubt the accuracy of a flat earth photo showing two hemispheres until much of the globe earth science is replace by the flat earth science -- see the long list -- as a movement you have a long way to go. With respect to Australia, we could get in a car and measure the distance north-south, and the distance east-west, to get a rough measure of the distance, and an accurate measure of the aspect ratio. Then we can compare how it looks on the Azimuth-Equidistant map, and see how this map distorts Australia (and everything in the whole Southern hemisphere). Making a map of the flat earth on a flat piece of paper, without distortion, should be a no-brainer. Every flat-earthed produces the Azimuthal-Equidistant map -- something even they know distorts Australia.

Rayo. wrote:

Ground Control to Major Tom wrote:

When a flathead produces a non-CGI photo of the flat earth showing more than one hemisphere, let us know.

Steve Torrence says it should be possible at 154 miles.

When a flathead produces an accurate map of the flat earth on a flat piece of paper, something that should be a straightforward one to one projection, that doesn't distort Australia, let us know.

And how will you know if it's accurate? Maybe you could ask your mate NDT.

Looks like you don't quite get it. I'm not lamenting the possibility of 30+ years of a wasted life based on a lie. When you say "science based on observation and sound experiment", I'm saying, that's my job. I designed and specified systems, and wrote the applications that interpret the measures, based on globe-earth science, to measure the distance and position of satellites and then used these systems and applications in practice to make direct measurements. These are results measured with my own hands and observed with my own eyes -- using the same method of observation used by flat-earth scientists. My personal direct measurements and observations based on sound experiment can be corroborated by hundreds of millions, of satellite TV dish owners who can tell you where they point their antennas to get TV reception by direct personal observation. These are also direct observations of hundreds of millions of people -- far outnumbering the flat-earth movement. Your long list that you can produce has been repeatedly debunked. The root of the problem is the flat-earth interpretation of what the globe-earth predicts. You are not debunking the globe-earth, but a straw-ball. Another problem is that flat-earth theories might seem good when looking at one problem at a time, but they don't form a complete and coherent science when all of them are put together. I think I am a good judge of when someone misstates what science says about the globe earth. Much of the flat-earth arguments start it with "if it were a globe earth, we should see ...", and then follow with a false expectation that science doesn't give about globe-earth. They also fail to do any error analysis, to evaluate how accurate their observation is, and possible sources of corrupted measures. It's painful to watch scientific videos of Brian Muller plainly demonstrate he doesn't understand conservation of angular momentum when showing the impossibility of planes landing north to south, or talk about how mono-propulsion wouldn't work, when satellites use bi-prop, and now electric propulsion, or discuss expectations of very high temperatures at low-orbits in a very thin atmosphere. It's ironic to see flat-earthers ponder about planes not continuously pointing their nose down, yet not wonder why pilots don't repeatedly point the nose left or right on a flat earth. (Here's a question, if a plane in the air has no speed, what direction will it go, and what direction is it's nose pointing? Conclusion, something will always pull a plane down, no matter where it's nose points, at all speeds, until it reaches escape velocity.) I'm not sure AutoCAD is yet part of this discussion -- Steve Torrence didn't say he used it. In any case AutoCAD is powerful enough to produce 3-D projections with distortion. Math, and AutoCAD based on math is powerful enough to calculate many kinds of 3D perspective projections onto 2D. It's really just a bunch of matrix multiplications to translate one set of coordinates to another. Presumably he used the same tool to produce both GE and FE animations. At least one of them is distorted. The issue is not AutoCAD, but the interpretation of the CG animations, and the interpretation when comparing these CG animations to the real photo, coupled with a great lack of information about the parameters used to produce the CG animations, and these same parameters for the photo. Flat-earthers are playing the wrong game, or playing the game wrong. I can see it in your words, how important "belief" is to you when talking about science. You think that I reject flat earth because it goes against my beliefs, or what I was taught in school by NASA. I reject it because of my own personal direct observations of things that flat-earthers say cannot exist, and because the science of more than 2000 years ago produces the same conclusions as today.