Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

Legit question wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What is funny/sad about this is that a globe earth model predicts that left to right is flat, but front to back is curved.

This is because the horizon is made up of points all the same distance away (e.g. 3 miles) from the eye of the viewer. If the viewer slowly spun 360 deg., he would end up in the same place because there are no left to right changes in height.

Wrong.

Still funny/sad that you can only “prove” your point by misrepresenting the globe earth model.

None of your photos alter the globe model predictions:

- from a point at human eye level, when viewing the horizon from left to right, the globe model predicts a flat horizon

- from a point at human eye level, from front to back, the globe model predicts curvature nearly “rising to eye level”, until the horizon, and then a drop-off beyond that

Further more, the globe model predicts:

- gravity works in a direction normal to the surface, towards the center of the globe; never sideways or upside-down

- the horizon nearly “rises to eye-level”, but with a measurable dip angle at larger distances

- the spin of the earth is not measured in speed, but in angular velocity of one rotation per day

Journey to the edge of the Earth wrote:

So how does gravity work?

Whether you look at it from classic Newton laws of physics with objects with mass attracting other objects, or from Einstein's theories in which massive objects create gravity wells in the fabric of spacetime, the bottom line is that on Earth gravity pulls everything toward its center.

So, on the globe up is toward the sky and down is toward the Earth's center no matter what hemisphere you are in. I was mainly responding to Legit Question's stupid pictures.

rekrunner wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Wrong.

Still funny/sad that you can only “prove” your point by misrepresenting the globe earth model.

None of your photos alter the globe model predictions:

- from a point at human eye level, when viewing the horizon from left to right, the globe model predicts a flat horizon

- from a point at human eye level, from front to back, the globe model predicts curvature nearly “rising to eye level”, until the horizon, and then a drop-off beyond that

Further more, the globe model predicts:

- gravity works in a direction normal to the surface, towards the center of the globe; never sideways or upside-down

- the horizon nearly “rises to eye-level”, but with a measurable dip angle at larger distances

- the spin of the earth is not measured in speed, but in angular velocity of one rotation per day

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You keep repeating the same questions that were asked a long time ago on this thread.

Once again:

There is no dip in any direction concerning the horizon. If the world was indeed a ball, the horizon would continue to fall as you go up in elevation. This clearly does not happen, it does the opposite.

Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. Show me proof that bodies of water are convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe. Again, bodies of water do not curve as water seeks it's flatness. The only time you see water curving is from the CGI that NASA & so-called satellites attempt to pass off as real.

big SNL skit wrote:

The flat earth movement is so retarded that I'm not convinced anyone actually believes it. Is it probably just a few online trolls trying to be funny, or some kind of internet joke? Seriously, it is so stupid that there's no way it can possibly be real.

Stand by for word salads and Rube Goldberg theoretical meanderings. Then go watch a ship "go over the edge " you never hear it hit bottom.

the beagle wrote:

My favorite was the Behind The Curve flat earthers actually disproving their own flat earth beliefs. Priceless.

Still funny several months later now that the thread is bumped.

Legit question wrote:

Again, bodies of water do not curve as water seeks it's flatness.

MelRnr wrote:

Journey to the edge of the Earth wrote:

So how does gravity work?

Whether you look at it from classic Newton laws of physics with objects with mass attracting other objects, or from Einstein's theories in which massive objects create gravity wells in the fabric of spacetime, the bottom line is that on Earth gravity pulls everything toward its center.

So, on the globe up is toward the sky and down is toward the Earth's center no matter what hemisphere you are in. I was mainly responding to Legit Question's stupid pictures.

But what if he's right and we're all seeing optical illusions?

Journey to the edge of the Earth wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Again, bodies of water do not curve as water seeks it's flatness.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F46%2FWater_droplet_lying_on_a_damask.jpg%2F220px-Water_droplet_lying_on_a_damask.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSurface_tension&tbnid=RufWWDOFo9YB7M&vet=1&docid=qg0ATppNUN9h0M&w=220&h=169&hl=en-GB&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim

Water droplets are the NOT same as bodies of water (ponds, lakes, rivers, oceans), globehead. When you find a small rain or water droplet, the cohesion of the molecules will form a spherical shape until you disturb it with your finger, etc. Water will seek its flatness. Try again.

Journey to the edge of the Earth wrote:

MelRnr wrote:

Whether you look at it from classic Newton laws of physics with objects with mass attracting other objects, or from Einstein's theories in which massive objects create gravity wells in the fabric of spacetime, the bottom line is that on Earth gravity pulls everything toward its center.

So, on the globe up is toward the sky and down is toward the Earth's center no matter what hemisphere you are in. I was mainly responding to Legit Question's stupid pictures.

But what if he's right and we're all seeing optical illusions?

You globetards keep recycling the same questions.

Once again:

To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims gravity does. The Earth is flat.

Journey to the edge of the Earth wrote:

MelRnr wrote:

Whether you look at it from classic Newton laws of physics with objects with mass attracting other objects, or from Einstein's theories in which massive objects create gravity wells in the fabric of spacetime, the bottom line is that on Earth gravity pulls everything toward its center.

So, on the globe up is toward the sky and down is toward the Earth's center no matter what hemisphere you are in. I was mainly responding to Legit Question's stupid pictures.

But what if he's right and we're all seeing optical illusions?

The people living in Ecuador must be walking at around 90 degree angles and the people in Southern Chile are walking around almost upside down. The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to keep the globe alive. Ha! Comical.

I'm "wrong, wrong, wrong"? Au contraire. It is you who is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me count the ways:

#1) You say I am repeating question.

You are wrong.

I repeated no questions, but only answers.

#2) You say the horizon always rises to eye-level.

You are wrong.

The horizon does fall as you go up in elevation. This fall clearly does happen, and is measurable.

More than 1000 years ago, astronomers measured the dip angle from eye-level downwards towards the horizon, at modest mountain heights.

They used this dip angle, and trigonometry, to estimate the radius of the earth. On a flat earth, the dip angle would be 0, and the radius would be infinite. No one has measured a dip-angle of 0 degrees at elevation.

Flat earthers send go-pros in high altitude balloons, and the horizon, when the camera is not swinging wildly, is never in the center of the frame, but always below the center, i.e. below eye-level.

#3) You say in experiments that the surface (of water) has always been found to be level.

You are wrong.

The tool often used by flat earthers to measure level is itself not level but can be bent. This bend can be calculated on clear hot days above cool water.

The proof that the surface of the oceans are convex is that the earth is measurably a globe, as measured and recorded in every geodetic survey and dataset.

To illustrate how flat-earthers often debunk themselves, here is one infamous flat earther demonstrating the visible difference between horizon and eye-level, debunking any notion that the horizon always rises to eye-level:

rekrunner, your post was #1492

,You're working for them aren't you?

Anyway, Newton was a Freemason. What does that tell you?

Legit question wrote:

You globetards keep recycling the same questions.

Once again:

To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims gravity does. The Earth is flat.

The difference between heliocentric and geocentric models are the mathematical equations required to explain observations.

Neither is right or wrong, but one has much simpler math.

I have yet to see the math models coming from flat-earth "researchers".

Hard to understand your claim of "not a single experiment". Anyone who has ever dropped anything has observed the resulting movement of one small mass towards a larger mass. This can be repeated, and measured with a stopwatch, varying the height and mass of the objects. Anyone who has ever played baseball, basketball, volleyball, high jumped, pole-vaulted, long-jumped, etc. knows that what goes up, that doesn't reach escape velocity, always comes back down. Anyone who has ever aimed a cannon at their enemies, and many public organizations and private companies who have launched things into space, bringing things like satellite TV, and internet to millions and billions of customers, use gravitational equations to predict and realize the desired outcome.

I often see pseudo-laws of flat-earth like "law of density", but what is plainly missing are the equations that model these proposed flat-earth laws, and predict observations, and then the first "single experiment", and following subsequent experiments, that confirm the model. What are the "law of density" equations that predict the flight of a cannonball, the time to drop a watermelon off a building, and the orbit of the visible at night space station?

On a larger scale, a gravitational model neatly explains observed planetary motion around the sun, and the moon around the earth, and many man-made satellites, with the same basic equation that describes the drop of a baseball or the trajectory of a cannonball.

Journey to the edge of the Earth wrote:

rekrunner, your post was #1492

You're working for them aren't you?

Yes. I'm part of a 2000+ year old secret society that, among many fabrications and tangled web-weaving, sponsored the multi-layered orchestration of the story of the discovery of America, and the cover-up of the real truth of the tragic and untimely end to Cristóbal Colón, and his fleet.

Wait a second. You actually believe the earth is flat? I was aware that this "movement" exists but have never encountered someone like you in the wild.

Can you share more about you arrived at this conclusion Legit Question? I am Legit Interested in how someone capable if reading, writing and functioning in society (presumably) could actually subscribe to this.

Also tell us more about yourself. Do you have a job and family? What are non main stream things so you believe?

highhoppingworm wrote:

Wait a second. You actually believe the earth is flat? I was aware that this "movement" exists but have never encountered someone like you in the wild.

Can you share more about you arrived at this conclusion Legit Question? I am Legit Interested in how someone capable if reading, writing and functioning in society (presumably) could actually subscribe to this.

Also tell us more about yourself. Do you have a job and family? What are non main stream things so you believe?

I half expect antivaxxers to take up this argument, if they haven't already.

If any flat earther can explain what happens to a boat that slowly "sinks into the ocean" as it disappears over the horizon, then I might be inclined to give em' a listen.

Apologies for typos by the way. Was on a phone and holding a baby. No excuse.

Journey to the edge of the Earth wrote:

Anyway, Newton was a Freemason. What does that tell you?

Moran. Newton is a running shoe.