Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

Eclipsed wrote:

Legit question wrote:

On little tidbit about the moon. Experiments have been done on YouTube- that shows moonlight casts off "cold" light, Digital temperature thermometers indicate this. How is this possible if it reflects sunlight? It doesn't that's why. The moon is its own light source.

The readings during a full lunar 'eclipse' are more compelling. After watching, it should remove all doubt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Proof the earth is not a globe

Eclipsed wrote:

Legit question wrote:

On little tidbit about the moon. Experiments have been done on YouTube- that shows moonlight casts off "cold" light, Digital temperature thermometers indicate this. How is this possible if it reflects sunlight? It doesn't that's why. The moon is its own light source.

The readings during a full lunar 'eclipse' are more compelling. After watching, it should remove all doubt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Wow! Tthe foreground star reaches the peak of activity coinciding with the flaming red halo above. The relationship is undeniable. I know I've witnessed this phenomena many times before. never noticed it until now.

But, wow!

Byrdie wrote:

Boom goes the dynamite wrote:

BOOM

Planes did crash, but not the one Byrd was flying.

Byrd never flew beyond the ice wall in 1928. He turned around and headed back. Try again.

Eclipsed wrote:

Legit question wrote:

On little tidbit about the moon. Experiments have been done on YouTube- that shows moonlight casts off "cold" light, Digital temperature thermometers indicate this. How is this possible if it reflects sunlight? It doesn't that's why. The moon is its own light source.

The readings during a full lunar 'eclipse' are more compelling. After watching, it should remove all doubt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

When you resort to posting bullshit, you lost the argument. Next!

not so much wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth.

Wait. If gravity is a myth, what pulls us down to the flat earth?

The Earth sucks.

Hey, LQ, please explain how a lunar eclipse occurs.

Globe losers wrote:

When you resort to posting bullshit, you lost the argument.

Pretty well defines the whole thread!

Legit question wrote:

digital in Uranus wrote:

It reflects sunlight, not sun heat. Geez.

No it doesn't. Another fallacy of the globe model.

The cheese in the moon acts as a coolant and reflector of "cold" light.

The moon surface is like a hot Pizza as it absorbs all the heat and only gives back pure light.

Legit question wrote:

illegitimate answer wrote:

Typically we don't use guesses to prove a point.

I will grant you that point. Those flights do originate from Australia.

That wasn't the part that you guessed.

Gravity is just a theory wrote:

not so much wrote:

Wait. If gravity is a myth, what pulls us down to the flat earth?

The Earth sucks.

Ah gravity, let's talk about that for a bit. (This is from a Brit)

Part 1.

From Universe Today:

"Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear."

Physicists are grappling with this:

"Gravity is the one of the mysteries to be solved"

"What is gravity and where does it come from?"

"To be honest we are not entirely sure"

Schools and NASA teach that the 1000 mph spinning of the Ball Earth at the equator, and the 0 mph spinning of the ball earth at the north pole, both have almost nothing to do with gravity.  The official line is that earth spins because it has always spun, and there's no friction to slow it down.  Basically, humans are taught that it is not the spin that keeps things stuck to the Earth.

Errors in Gravity

So now we know about the mainstream belief of the theory of Gravity, we can simply start to tear it apart.....where to begin (rubs hands together).

Remember, 'Gravity' is a man made label for an imaginary magical force loaded with errors, no human ever has monitored or captured any 'gravity.'  This is a short list:

BBC program, a quick demonstration

. Keplers 3rd law vs gravity

. Gravity an illusion?

With the rotation speed of the Earth (in ball terms) being much faster at the equator than further north or south, surely this affects the magical force of gravity?

Universe Today says there is only a super slight differential in  gravity due to the rotation of the earth:"You might be surprised to know that the force of gravity on Earth actually changes depending on where you’re standing on it. The first reason is because the earth is rotating. This rotation is  trying to spin you off into space, but don’t worry, this force isn’t much.  The gravity of Earth at the equator is 9.789 m/s2, while the force of gravity at the poles is 9.832 m/s2. In other words, you weigh more at the poles than you do at the equator because of this centripetal force."

I personally love the quote, "This rotation is trying to spin you off into space, but don’t worry, this force isn’t much."    Lets see a wet tennis ball spinning:

Now multiply that by a million or so, and that is the force Universe Today says "is not much." So, if I'm standing on the equator at the widest point of the alleged globe, spinning at 1000 mph, my weight will be 175lbs, if I then fly to either north or South poles (not actually allowed but lets wave that for now) at the narrowest point of the alleged Globe,the rotation of the earth would be reduced to around 150 mph, The gravitational pull if existent would have to be so great that my weight would be around 7000lbs and I would be squashed like a bug.

Mainstream science ignores the rotation speeds of the earth at different places and states it has next to no affect on the magical force of gravity. This is a massive alarm bell.

The Solar System is travelling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s) or 514,000 mph (143 mi/s) within its trajectory around the galactic centre, which is about one 1300th of the speed of light (err no new constellations anyone?). But this apparently has no affect on the magical force of gravity either.    This again, is a massive alarm bell.

The Moon does not fall into the Earth.

The Moon does not fall into the Earth.

The Earth does not fall into the Sun.

Satellites do not fall into the Earth.

So, mainstream science says Gravity is so strong that upside-down water at the surface of the ocean (near aisr) is being pulled to the centre of the earth?

But this force is also not that strong, in that this water can move in any direction with currents and tides, and be easily scooped, splashed, and thrown by a human hand.

Also mainstream science tells us gravity is so strong that water bends, like, but we all know water is always flat and finds the nearest horizontal.   Note here that mainstream science states the earth's spin, and speed of the solar system through space both have no affect on the oceans, and the super magical force called gravity pulls water molecules to the centre of the earth.  

So, if gravity is a force that causes all matter to be attracted to all other matter, why are atoms mostly empty space inside?   An atom is like having a 5p coin in the centre of an empty football stadium.

Science claims our World is surrounded by a giant vacuum of space and that we are moving through space at a speed of  514,000 mph  miles per hour, yet the feeble pull of Gravity on Air holds it to our World. Turn on a vacuum and it sucks the air right into it. Why does Space not pull our air into it?

Why is gravity so strong to hold people, buildings and the oceans stuck to a spinning ball-Earth, but weak enough to allow balloons, birds, bugs, flowers, and smoke to easily rise against its awesome force?

If gravity is keeping 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 tons of ocean water stuck to a ball that's spinning 1000mph, explain how we are not crushed by the tremendous force it would take to accomplish this?

K)  Some Quotes, the first from Newton himself.

"Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting}  constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers."  A letter correspondence between Newton and one of his associates.

“Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to the earth from a tree in his garden. Persons gifted with ordinary common-sense would say that the apple fell down to the earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air; but if, instead of the apple, a fluffy feather had been detached from the tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground.” -Lady Blount, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (40)

Wilbur Voliva, a famous flat-Earther in the early 20th century, gave lectures all over America against Newtonian astronomy. He would begin by walking on stage with a book, a balloon, a feather and a brick, and ask the audience: “How is it that a law of gravitation can pull up a toy balloon and cannot put up a brick? I throw up this book. Why doesn’t it go on up? That book went up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air and that is the only reason. I cut the string of a toy balloon. It rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle. I take this brick and a feather. I blow the feather. Yonder it goes. Finally, it begins to settle and comes down. This brick goes up as far as the force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air. That is all.”

“Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (8)

“The ‘law of gravitation’ is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this ‘most exact of all sciences,’ this wonderful ‘feat of the intellect’ becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (36)

"That the sun’s path is an exact circle for only about four periods in a year, and then of only a few hours - at the equinoxes and solstices - completely disproves the ‘might have been’ of circular gravitation, and by consequence, of all gravitation … If the sun were of sufficient power to retain the earth in its orbit when nearest the sun, when the earth arrived at that part of its elliptical path farthest from the sun, the attractive force (unless very greatly increased) would be utterly incapable of preventing the earth rushing away into space ‘in a right line forever,’ as astronomers say. On the other hand, it is equally clear that if the sun’s attraction were just sufficient to keep the earth in its proper path when farthest from the sun, and thus to prevent it rushing off into space; the same power of attraction when the earth was nearest the sun would be so much greater, that (unless the attraction were very greatly diminished) nothing would prevent the earth rushing towards and being absorbed by the sun, there being no counterbalancing focus to prevent such a catastrophe! As astronomy makes no reference to the increase and diminution of the attractive force of the sun, called gravitation, for the above necessary purposes, we are again forced to the conclusion that the great ‘discovery’ of which astronomers are so proud is absolutely non-existent.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (44-45)

“We are asked by the Newtonian to believe that the action of gravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest exercise of volition in raising an hand or a foot, is so overwhelmingly violent when we lose our balance and fall a distance of a few feet, that this force, which is imperceptible under usual conditions, may, under extraordinary circumstances, cause the fracture of every limb we possess? Common-sense must reject this interpretation. Gravitation does not furnish a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena here described, whereas the definition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in the readiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely the result experienced. If the influence which kept us securely attached to this earth were identical with that which is powerful enough to disturb a distant planet in its orbit, we should be more immediately conscious of its masterful presence and potency; whereas this influence is so impotent in the very spot where it is supposed to be most dominant that we find an insurmountable difficulty in accepting the idea of its existence.” -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

“I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton’s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place.  I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added - I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop.  As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject.  Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows - Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not.  The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact” (1-2)

Next part to follow.

Part 2

"So, an object is dropped from a high altitude, this would not and does not, slow down as it gets closer to Earth. The object is free-falling and accelerating as it falls due to the laws of density, not because some magical force is "pulling" it down. There is more oxygen closer to Earth than say twenty miles up, so how does one propose "gravity" explains this and density does not? Oxygen is a denser gas than nitrogen and the other majority elements in our atmosphere. Where is the "pulling force" pulling the oxygen down?"

"The rate at which objects rise or fall depends on the resistance (or lack thereof) in the medium surrounding." ~ E. Dubay

Examples:

The submarine can use compressed air to ascend in water.

The hot-air-balloon can use hot air to ascend in the atmosflat.

The airplane can use pressure difference across its flying surfaces to gain lift.

There is no pulling. Only falling and rising. No force pulls down.

The theory of gravity was debunked by General Relativity. The theory of general relativity was debunked by Flat Earth.

What people think as Gravity could be seen as the electromagnetic attractive force that a dense mass of charged particles emits out on other electromagnetically charged masses of particle dense objects.

"Gravity is electromagnetism on a Flat Earth. Density will increase electromagnetism. So will heat.. pressure.. and friction.. Static interaction.. Sound..." - Thomas Jason Hannsz

Did you know when gravity was made up, electricity hadn't even been invented?

1) Foucault's pendulum is proof that the earth is rotating and not in a fixed location, meaning there is no fixed "up" and "down" as you describe them.

2) g = 9.8m/s2 is proof of earth's gravity. Try it in any physics calculation some time. It's remarkably accurate. Then try a freefall experiment in a vacuum - you might find the new results interesting. There is nothing imaginary about gravity.

3) 6:00am NYC = 8:00pm Tokyo is proof that a single sun cannot hit both locations at the same experiential time, proving that the earth cannot be flat like a pancake. There are not multiple suns, as I have traveled by plane in a single day from West to East, with the same sun fixed outside the left window of the plane for the duration of the trip. No other suns appeared or disappeared during that flight.

4) Even if the earth were shaped like a Bosu ball, with Antartica comprising the base, it would be mathematically impossible for a lunar eclipse to occur with the same shadow that is always cast: starting as a crescent, taking on the shape of a globe, followed by a reverse crescent.

5) I am sure you are familiar with low and high tidal patterns, moon cycles, and calendar year cycles. Please explain these with a geocentric, flat earth model.

6) I suppose every telescope is also lying and that earth is the Lance Armstrong of planets. Meaning every other planet (and moon for that matter) we can observe follows a globe model - earth is the exception to this rule?

Really, though, I am impressed. Best troll I have seen in a VERY long time.

Doesn't matter what gravity actually is, all that matters is THAT it is.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

Hey, LQ, please explain how a lunar eclipse occurs.

Here you go. An explanation of Lunar phases & eclipses:

There will now be a flight from Doha to Auckland, covering 9,034 miles in 18.5 hours....

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/28/qatar-airways-is-planning-to-launch-the-longest-flight-in-the-wo/21304524/?intcmp=hplnws

Electricity wasn't invented.

 

The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44

The Relativity of Wrong


By Isaac Asimov

I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.

When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example.

In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on.

Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians.

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days.

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on the earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling.

All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the earth to be a sphere.

What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.

About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the earth's surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference.

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

Mind you, even a tiny difference, such as that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The earth cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the difference isn't taken into account and if the earth isn't considered a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can't be undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one's own position in the ocean unless the earth is considered spherical rather than flat.

Furthermore, the flat earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite earth, or of the existence of an "end" to the surface. The spherical earth, however, postulates an earth that is both endless and yet finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all later findings.

So, although the flat-earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to be discarded in favor of the spherical-earth theory.

And yet is the earth a sphere?

No, it is not a sphere; not in the strict mathematical sense. A sphere has certain mathematical properties - for instance, all diameters (that is, all straight lines that pass from one point on its surface, through the center, to another point on its surface) have the same length.

That, however, is not true of the earth. Various diameters of the earth differ in length.

What gave people the notion the earth wasn't a true sphere? To begin with, the sun and the moon have outlines that are perfect circles within the limits of measurement in the early days of the telescope. This is consistent with the supposition that the sun and the moon are perfectly spherical in shape.

However, when Jupiter and Saturn were observed by the first telescopic observers, it became quickly apparent that the outlines of those planets were not circles, but distinct ellipses. That meant that Jupiter and Saturn were not true spheres.

Isaac Newton, toward the end of the seventeenth century, showed that a massive body would form a sphere under the pull of gravitational forces (exactly as Aristotle had argued), but only if it were not rotating. If it were rotating, a centrifugal effect would be set up that would lift the body's substance against gravity, and this effect would be greater the closer to the equator you progressed. The effect would also be greater the more rapidly a spherical object rotated, and Jupiter and Saturn rotated very rapidly indeed.

The earth rotated much more slowly than Jupiter or Saturn so the effect should be smaller, but it should still be there. Actual measurements of the curvature of the earth were carried out in the eighteenth century and Newton was proved correct.

The earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest diameters are any of those that stretch from one point on the equator to an opposite point on the equator. This "equatorial diameter" is 12,755 kilometers (7,927 miles). The shortest diameter is from the North Pole to the South Pole and this "polar diameter" is 12,711 kilometers (7,900 miles).

The difference between the longest and shortest diameters is 44 kilometers (27 miles), and that means that the "oblateness" of the earth (its departure from true sphericity) is 44/12755, or 0.0034. This amounts to l/3 of 1 percent.

To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.

The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the notion of the earth as a sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not as wrong as the notion of the earth as flat.

Even the oblate-spheroidal notion of the earth is wrong, strictly speaking. In 1958, when the satellite Vanguard I was put into orbit about the earth, it was able to measure the local gravitational pull of the earth--and therefore its shape--with unprecedented precision. It turned out that the equatorial bulge south of the equator was slightly bulgier than the bulge north of the equator, and that the South Pole sea level was slightly nearer the center of the earth than the North Pole sea level was.

There seemed no other way of describing this than by saying the earth was pear-shaped, and at once many people decided that the earth was nothing like a sphere but was shaped like a Bartlett pear dangling in space. Actually, the pear-like deviation from oblate-spheroid perfect was a matter of yards rather than miles, and the adjustment of curvature was in the millionths of an inch per mile.

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

This can be pointed out in many cases other than just the shape of the earth. Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured.

Copernicus switched from an earth-centered planetary system to a sun-centered one. In doing so, he switched from something that was obvious to something that was apparently ridiculous. However, it was a matter of finding better ways of calculating the motion of the planets in the sky, and eventually the geocentric theory was just left behind. It was precisely because the old theory gave results that were fairly good by the measurement standards of the time that kept it in being so long.

Again, it is because the geological formations of the earth change so slowly and the living things upon it evolve so slowly that it seemed reasonable at first to suppose that there was no change and that the earth and life always existed as they do today. If that were so, it would make no difference whether the earth and life were billions of years old or thousands. Thousands were easier to grasp.

But when careful observation showed that the earth and life were changing at a rate that was very tiny but not zero, then it became clear that the earth and life had to be very old. Modern geology came into being, and so did the notion of biological evolution.

If the rate of change were more rapid, geology and evolution would have reached their modern state in ancient times. It is only because the difference between the rate of change in a static universe and the rate of change in an evolutionary one is that between zero and very nearly zero that the creationists can continue propagating their folly.

Since the refinements in theory grow smaller and smaller, even quite ancient theories must have been sufficiently right to allow advances to be made; advances that were not wiped out by subsequent refinements.

The Greeks introduced the notion of latitude and longitude, for instance, and made reasonable maps of the Mediterranean basin even without taking sphericity into account, and we still use latitude and longitude today.

The Sumerians were probably the first to establish the principle that planetary movements in the sky exhibit regularity and can be predicted, and they proceeded to work out ways of doing so even though they assumed the earth to be the center of the universe. Their measurements have been enormously refined but the principle remains.

Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.

 

lol I'm surprised this thread made 20 pages, do people actually believe the earth is flat or is this just all trolls?

Anyone can prove its round if they want. Map the motion of the stars across the sky one night then do it again in a spot far away another night. Looking at your results you should be able to deduce its a sphere

i ate cake wrote:

lol I'm surprised this thread made 20 pages, do people actually believe the earth is flat or is this just all trolls?

Anyone can prove its round if they want. Map the motion of the stars across the sky one night then do it again in a spot far away another night. Looking at your results you should be able to deduce its a sphere

Dude! We just established it's a Bartlett Pear in shape with the stem indicating Santa's workshop and the little shrivelled up flower section in the bottom the Antarctic a*shole of the planet.