5 Stupid Things Flat Earthers Cling To And Believe Are True

Submitted by: rumham 2 weeks ago in Science


Will this be the video that proves, once and for all, that flat earthers aren't all there? 
There are 87 comments:
Male 40,264
Wait !  What if the Earth is actually flat? have any of you open-minded thinkers considered that?
0
Reply
Male 41,157
Gerry1of1 The Earth is resting on the back of a turtle...
Which is standing on another turtle...
Which is also standing on a turtle...

... it's turtles all the way down!
0
Reply
Male 8,715
5cats The Earth is resting on the back of a turtle...

Sorry, that is incorrect. Everyone knows that the Earth is resting on the back of four World Elephants. It is the Elephants that stand atop of the turtle, the Chelys galactica.  (All hail the Great A'Tuin!)
1
Reply
Male 41,157
megrendel Ooo I forgot! 4 Elephants THEN come the turtles!

Lolz I knew I was leaving something out... can't be that simple.
0
Reply
Male 1,940
5cats Actually, you're ALL wrong. All of known creation was created when the Great Green Arkleseizure (spelling?) sneezed it out of his nose. We should all fear the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief!!!
0
Reply
Male 8,715
whosaidwhat Bless you.
0
Reply
Male 2,158
Proof that there is no life in Mom's basement. Dumb-ass-ery will be the death of this planet.... round, flat or trapezoidal.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
about #5: a lot of people question nasa's 'evidence' since a lot of it is questionable.  The rest are pretty weak
0
Reply
Male 421
monkwarrior Don't you find it ironic that the video is using clips from fictional movies, while talking about modern science?

If you didn't liked this video, why not take a look at "5 Things NASA Doesn't Want You To Know!" from the same YouTube channel? 
0
Reply
Male 6,224
boredhuman not really, they're probably doing it for ad-revenue, part of the reason why there's so much trash on youtube.
0
Reply
Male 421
monkwarrior YouTube also has free classes for special relativity. The class has 73k views, while the top 5s NASA video has over 6 million.  
0
Reply
Male 6,224
0
Reply
Male 40,264
I have asked "Adam Spoils Everything" to do a Flat Earth episode.
Hopefully he will.
2
Reply
Male 5,210
Gerry1of1 I hope they have the budget to fly to the southern tip of South America and charter a flight to the edge of the earth. Looking at the flat earth maps it wouldn't be that far from there. In fact if the earth was flat, just standing on the southern tip of South America you could see the ice wall that makes up the start of the edge. Huh.
1
Reply
Male 8,071
This looks like a Western Media Delusion to me!
3
Reply
Male 41,157
This video gets our understanding of gravity correct! +1 just for that! And all the rest too :-)
0
Reply
Male 3,664
4
Reply
Male 40,264
kalron27 I want one of these bubble makers

0
Reply
Male 4,281
kalron27 Um, ewe.
0
Reply
Male 5,210
I have a cousin who believes the earth is flat along with a whole bunch of other conspiracy theories. I refuse to talk about it with her because the sheer stupidity of it all gets me upset, and I will not treat a relative that way. So people like Monk end up getting the brunt of my frustration. The one thing my cousin puts on Facebook that drives me the most crazy is the scam artist who says he can predict storms. All that guy does is checks the national weather forecast for large storms building, keeps refreshing his screen until he gets an anomaly in the radar image and then says he's predicting another large storm by finding a "HAARP ring". People eat this scam up for some reason. You can go to the weather channel when he makes these predictions and see that the storms have been forecasted for days. But because he can "predict" large storms his followers believe all his other insane theories like the horrific Sandy Hook conspiracy theory. He is literally making my cousin stupider.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
markust123 Ironically you put your fustration at me, yet i have never said the earth is flat, only that i question the curvature of the earth calculations.
0
Reply
Male 3,600
monkwarrior what about the curvature of your mom
0
Reply
Male 6,224
rumham there there o floatyham (o'flot'y'h'am)
0
Reply
Male 5,210
monkwarrior You have questioned more than that and have also tried to get people to go to ridiculous flat earth sites. I agree, you have never stated absolutely that it is flat:

"I am undecided. I have heard both points and think both have some questions to answer, especially the curvature of the earth calculations." Link

Being undecided on such an idiotic topic is being just as stupid. I know that is harsh but the topic is ridiculous.

I would post more examples but wading through your derp vortexes is an exhausting task.
2
Reply
Male 6,224
markust123 Just because i reserve my decision until i have more information is no reason to say it's idiotic and stupid.  That's like me saying you being an agnostic who sits on the fence between two views is idiotic and stupid.  Not that i'm saying that (in case you didn't realize).
0
Reply
Male 5,210
monkwarrior We'll have to agree to disagree. I will leave it at that since you were very polite and reasonable in your response. Sorry I jumped on you. This topic just gets to me.

Update: Your analogy doesn't really work. I am agnostic because I can't prove or disprove an existence of God. But I can prove that the earth is round from calculations. My father and I did that on our last sailing trip to find out when we would first start seeing the tip of the island we were heading for. Also I have flown south to Australia when it is north (or at least the opposite direction) on the flat earth map. Plus, science has proved the earth to be round a thousand times over. It should not be a question. That is what gets me frustrated about this topic.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
markust123 Thats what happens when we have an authority on the topic who provides questionable evidence.  It's like trying to figure out if the boy who cried wolf is serious this time or not.
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior You talk as though our information on the globe earth only comes from NASA. Let's just say, (and incorrectly) hypothetically speaking that NASA has lied to us, how do you justify dismissing the proof given to us by every other physicist in the world?
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens no, but i dont have the time or funds to do tests on the whole earth, so until i can see it proven without assumptions, i'll just have to wait to figure out or see it on my own.  I did a quick search and there's seemingly just this this filled with assumptions, and that full of the same.
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior You don't need the time or funds to do tests on the whole earth. That's preposterous. What you can do - and it's free - is use your brain to assess evidence presented to you not only be everyday life, but by other people who do have the time and money for the tests.

And unfortunately your post just demonstrates once again that you don't know what the word 'assumption' means. You use this word over and over again, and every time you use it you do so incorrectly. Let's take the first point from the first link you posted. It says that the shadow of the earth on the moon is curved. That's not an assumption. That's just true. The shadow of the earth on the moon is curved. You simply can't deny that. For that to be an assumption, the person saying it would never had to have seen the moon and just be guessing that the shadow is curved.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens blah blah blah, more assumptions.  i knew you had nothing either.
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior I'd love to know what your definition of 'assumption' is. You genuinely seem to think that things that are undeniably true are assumptions. Your argument is meaningless because you don't understand what the words you're using actually mean. 

So please, show us all your ignorance. Tell us how the shadow of the earth on the moon is straight.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens like i said i don't have the funds to prove it, and it's not even really anything on my radar, woo, "the earth is round", the "earth is flat", who cares if someone wants to reserve until they can prove it themselves?  Figuring it out is pretty low on my 'todo' list, and everything i do, like go for a walk, go for a ride, sleep is based on the immediate world around me being level enough to do so, and that's fine enough for me.  I do question the curvature of the earth calculations though, and someday i may be able to get around to really finding it out.
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior What funds do you need to go outside and look up? Unless of course you want to dodge that conversation  because it will destroy your argument.

And if it was that low on your list of priorities you wouldn't keep posting on IAB about it.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens oh, i'm hardly posting, this is clearly an attack.  But like i said, maybe someday humankind will have a means to easily find out on their own.  And it's a bit more than just standing outside your backyard and looking up to determine the curvature of the earth calcuations.  
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior Are you telling me that you've never posted anything on IAB related to the flat earth conspiracy theory?

Humankind already has that means. Your insistence on sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALALALALA doesn't change that. I'm confused by a Christian's refusal to believe in something he can't actually see with his own eyes.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens I'm not sure if ii's more amazing that you continue to not provide how to prove it other than "look up", or the fact that you can't get over the fact someone doesn't see it your way (especially when they admitted they don't have the funds or time to prove to themselves what you assert is true but can't prove yourself other than what was just mentioned).
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior Other than all the other proofs I've provided on other threads that you've done your best to avoid?

0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens Unfortunately you still haven't proven the curvature of the earth calculations yet.  It's understandable though, ive determined it would take a lot of funds and time to do, which is why i said it's low on my todo list.
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior But it doesn't matter about the curvature of the earth calculations. They're irrelevant. 

The earth is either flat or it's not, yes? If there's any curve whatsoever then it must be a globe. The extent of the curvature just determines how big of a globe it is. The greater the curvature, the smaller the globe; but any curvature at all indicates that it must be a globe, however big. Hopefully we can agree on that, at least.

Now, given that that's true, it follows that anything you can do to show that the earth has a curved surface shows that it isn't flat. 

So, looking at the shadow that the earth casts will show you whether or not the surface is flat or curved. Again, it doesn't matter how curved, as long as it's curved. Looking at the moon, as long as it isn't a full moon, will show you the shadow of the earth. Is it curved, to any degree? If so, the earth can't be flat.

Looking at the moon is free and takes a matter of seconds. Therefore your contention that it would take a lot of funds and time to show whether the earth is flat or not is proved wrong.

So go and look at the moon. Is the shadow flat or curved?

Job done.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens So you have no thing but assumptions and think the curvature of the earth calculation is irrelevant?  It seems like you're just wasting time.
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior Which bit of what I said was an assumption?
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens If you don't know i'm not wasting my time, you've already wasted enough of it.
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior Yes, that would be because, yet again, either you don't know what the word 'assumption' means (please look it up) or, just as likely, it's a go-to word you use when you realise you've lost the argument.

So is it an assumption to say that if the earth's surface is curved it isn't flat? Or is that a self-evident truth? If you think it's just an assumption, please enlighten me.

BTW I knew you'd misunderstand me when I said the curvature of the earth calculation was irrelevant. I know you find this difficult to grasp, but I really can't put it any simpler than this. If the surface of the earth is curved, it must mean that the earth is a globe. That's because a curve is just part of a globe, just like an arc is just part of a circle. Are you with me so far?



OK, so if a curve is just part of a globe, that means that if the earth's surface is curved then that curvature must be part of the globe of the earth. 

You think the earth might be flat. I know that the earth is a globe. That's all I'm arguing at this point. I'm not saying how big or small of a globe; I'm just saying that the earth isn't flat. That's what I mean about the curvature calculations being irrelevant. If we can see that the surface of the earth is curved then we know that the surface can't be flat. You can't deny this. You can't sidestep it. It's the equivalent of saying 'if we know something is black, we know it can't be white'. It can't be both curved and flat. That's not an assumption. It's a self-evident truth. It has to be one or the other. And if you look at the shadow the earth casts on the moon, you can see that it's curved. Therefore it isn't flat.

Again, there are no assumptions in this argument. There is just logic and fact.

I know I'm being patronising, but you miss every point I make and I'm not sure any more just how much I have to dumb it down.

So if you reply to this post, please engage in the subject. Don't just type 'assumptions' and hope that's enough to form an argument. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens "If the surface of the earth is curved, it must mean that the earth is a globe." assumption.


0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior That's not an assumption. That's maths.

Please explain how the earth can have a curved surface and be flat at the same time.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens Trying to force your assumption? Sorry, just because something may have a curved surface doesn't automatically mean it's a globe.  In fact it could be a bulge, or even a curved inverted bowl. Neither are globes.  You can't see it's a globe with your own eyes to say it is, you assume it is.  Now try again without assumptions. if you can.  You'll soon see it's going to be expensive. I've already done the thought experiments on this.
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior So wait, this is a new theory? The earth isn't flat or a globe, it's a bizarre bulgey bowly type shape?

My God, you're right! That's the most sensible assumption of them all!
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens they were mentioned to point out your assumption
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior But an assumption is only an assumption if it isn't backed up by evidence, logic and fact.

Fact: The earth casts a curved shadow on the moon during an eclipse.
Fact: This is true every time an eclipse has happened throughout history.
Fact: The sun and the moon move relative to the earth.
Therefore: When eclipses occur, the sun and the moon are in different places in the sky compared to other eclipses.
Therefore: Different parts of the earth's surface are shadowed on the moon each time there's an eclipse, because of the difference positions of the earth, moon and sun relative to each other.
Fact: If the earth casts a curved shadow wherever the eclipse is seen, be it in the northern or southern hemispheres, or in the east or the west, then no part of the earth's surface can be 'not curved'. If the earth was flat, or even bulgy bowly shaped, this shadow would reflect that when a different part of the earth was shadowing the moon.
Therefore: Not an assumption.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens Sorry, you've assumed.  That's why i said it would take a lot of funds and time to determine without assumptions.  
0
Reply
Female 452
monkwarrior There are no assumptions in what I wrote, and it's so obvious that they aren't assumptions that I can't believe you'd be stupid enough to not know that and still be able to work a keyboard.

Therefore I can only come to the conclusion that you're doing it on purpose and you're a troll and are therefore not worthy of further discussion.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
DrCribbens You assumed the earth was a globe.
0
Reply
Male 3,600
monkwarrior man you are wicked humble like a monk. a millenial monk
0
Reply
Male 6,224
rumham there there o'floatyham, sink under the waves where the fire can't get you, sleep, sleep.
0
Reply
Male 3,343
Let's assume that the Earth is accelerating in an upward direction at 9.8m/s2.  Let's also assume that the Earth started this acceleration from a stand still.  Using basic physics formulas about time, speed and acceleration, we can find out how long it will be before the Earth is going the speed of light.

t=(300000-0)/9.8=30612.25 seconds.

That's 5102.0875 minutes.

That's 85.035 hours.

That's 3.55 days.

So in the span of 3 1/2 days, the Earth would be going as fast as possible, as nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

That means one or more of our original assumptions was wrong.  If we take the assumption that Earth started the acceleration from a stand still as wrong, that only serves to shorten the time it takes to reach the speed of light.  Therefore, the assumption that the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2 must be wrong.

I won't get into all the relativistic effects that traveling at or near the speed of light.
0
Reply
Male 3,343
I don't know why I thought it was 300,000 and not 300,000,000.  Bad day at the office, I guess.  The math still works out.

t=(300,000,000-0)/9.8=30,612,245 seconds, 510,204.1 minutes, 8,503.4 hours, or 354.3 days.

That's less than a year, and we all know the Earth has been around for more than a year.
0
Reply
Male 41,157
ricks I'm shocked it's that short a time! We should hurry up and build a ship like that eh? Should be EZ...
-1
Reply
Male 1,530
ricks so let me ask: why must the earth be traveling upward at 32ft/sec?  Are you suggesting this is where earth’s gravity originates.
0
Reply
Male 41,157
woodyville06 If you accelerate at a certain speed? It mimics the pull of gravity. 
That's how they do those "zero G" simulations on those 747s... plunge downward at (I guess) 32 ft/sec and thus neutralize gravity inside the plane.
-1
Reply
Male 3,343
woodyville06 That's how flat-earthers explain gravity.
0
Reply
Male 1,530
ricks ok.  I guess the concept of the universal law of gravitation escapes them.
0
Reply
Male 15,339
ricks C=299,792,458 m/s, but I like your logic.
-1
Reply
Male 8,715
ricks  as nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

I don't necessarily agree with this.  It takes light 'X' amount of time to travel from point A to point B.  Theoretically something may be able to make it in 'X - 1 second'.

Is it feasible? No. But may be possible.

Remember, they used to think of the sound barrier as a wall that would destroy anything that attained it. 

ricks That's 85.035 hours.

At 1 G of acceleration, after 85.035 hours you would only b going 72,000,825 m/s.

You're using the wrong Speed.

Speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s (not 300,000 which you had).  As you're starting from a dead start your DeltaV is 299,792,458.  So 299,792,458/9.8 = 30,591,067.14 seconds.  Or 8,498 hours.  Or 354 Days. 
0
Reply
Male 3,343
megrendel Without bending spacetime itself (which is theoretically possible), nothing can make it in X-1 seconds.  It's a physical impossibility that requires, among other things, infinite acceleration.

(When you're bending spacetime, technically it's spacetime that's moving faster than the speed of light, and not you. And that is possible, so I guess spacetime is the only thing that can travel faster than light.)
0
Reply
Male 41,157
ricks Correct, because relative time dilates as you go faster, you cannot (in theory) accelerate faster than the speed of light.
You can try other tricks like you mention though! Lolz! Makes for good thinking/imagining.

Also if some object or force was found that goes faster than light? We might be able to utilize that somehow...
-1
Reply
Male 421
ricks When you're dealing with speed of light, you have to take special relativity into consideration. With constant acceleration, you'll be approaching the speed of light, but will never reach it. Note, the Lorentz transformation is over a hundred years old and has been confirmed using experimental data. 
Ignorance is the main reason stupid ideas like flat earth persist. 
0
Reply
Male 41,157
ricks I'm pretty sure you've missed something? I've read a lot of sci-fi and a ship using 1G constant acceleration would not hit the speed of light for many centuries, iirc.

No time to research it, but it is a daffy idea anyhow! Where is this 'acceleration force' coming from? The rest of the universe is slowing down (see: Laws of Thermodynamics) but we are speeding up? :-/
-1
Reply
Male 3,343
5cats Just think about it it with nice round numbers.  We've already rounded the speed of light up to 300,000,000 m/s.  Let's round up gravity to 10.0m/s.  now we don't need a calculator.

After 1 second you're going 10m/s.  After 2, 20m/s.  After 10, 100m/s.  After 100, 1,000m/s.  Keep adding zeros, and you get to 100,000,000 after 10,000,000 seconds.  Do that three times, and you get to 300,000,000 after 30,000,000 seconds.  Using 9.8, you get there in 30,612,245 seconds.  Looks close enough to me.
0
Reply
Male 41,157
5cats Thanks for the -1 haters! Every time you do that? I'm more and more glad I've pissed you all off. 
Keep it up: you only bring shame to yourself, your cause and your ancestors.
-1
Reply
Male 15,339
5cats at least I know the ancestors on my father's side.
-1
Reply
Male 10,125
1. Logical fallacies
0
Reply
Male 969
This video won't convince anyone who believe in a flat earth that they're wrong.  This video simply pokes fun at those that do believe in a flat earth.

This video is simply created to make certain folks feel superior because they're on the winning side, without backing up any of their claims.

This isn't about science; its simply making yourself feel bigger, by putting down another group.
0
Reply
Male 4,281
punko yeah, I don't get why anyone would believe the Earth is flat but I also don't understand others infatuation with them.
0
Reply
Male 5,210
punko Yeah, I didn't make it more than a minute. It was the little jabs in it that bugged me. Sorry, Rumham. I'd love to see one from PBS, the BBC, etc,... 
0
Reply
Male 8,715
#2:  Gravity is Acceleration?   That's the first time I've heard about that, and very easy to dissprove.

At a constant acceleration of 32 ft/s2 (1 gravity), if the Earth started from a dead stop at the beginning of recorded  history (~5,500 years ago), we would have achieved a current velocity of ~3,804,927,165,354 miles per hour.  In other words, we'd be traveling over 5,600 times the speed of light.  (Of course, if we started from the recognized age of the Earth, it'd be MUCH faster). 

All the stars ahead of us would appear redder and those behind woudl be bluer. (color shift) 

Of course, the constant acceleration WOULD explain why I've been gaining weight as I get older, as mass increases with velocity. 

And the Spirit Level 'experments'?  Simple answer: Gravity pulls IN, not DOWN.
0
Reply
Male 1,530
megrendel gravity is force, not acceleration.  However F=M*A which is mass x acceleration.
0
Reply
Male 8,715
woodyville06  gravity is force, not acceleration

But, in the terms of this type of travel, '1 gravity' is referring to the amount of acceleration required to simulate 1 gravity of force on the occupants. 

In fact, in NASA's Dictionary of Technical Terms for Aerospace Use, Gravity (symbol g) as "an acceleration equal to the acceleration of gravity, 980.665 centimeter-second-squared, approximately 32.2 feet per second per second at sea level"
0
Reply
Male 349
megrendel
something that is expressed in ft is a distance
something that is expressed in ft/s is a speed, which is the variation of a distance along time
something that is expressed in ft/s2 is an acceleration, which is the variation of a speed along time
0
Reply
Male 8,715
m3dm3d Where did I get it wrong? 

I claimed 32ft/s2 as an acceleration.
My velocity (speed) mentioned was as miles per hour.
There is not a stand alone ft nor ft/s in the post. 
0
Reply
Male 1,469
this is ludicrous.  i drove across the country once, and aside from going up and down some mountains....the entire trip was FLAT.  I mean REALLY flat...like kansas flat.  

IF the world was round....it would not have been FLAT!  

So there!
0
Reply
Male 41,157
spanz I live in the Red River Floodplain, it's one of the flattest places on Earth, I still don't think the Earth itself is flat! Just everything around here... lolz!
0
Reply
Male 6,099
5cats Just had to throw this in here:
1
Reply
Male 41,157
broizfam Lolz! There's more sloped land in the background than is within 100 miles of me in any direction...

broizfam: There's land in the background?? O_O

5Cats: Trees too... put your thumb over the... um... distractions and you can see it! Both thumbs actually... maybe your whole hand...

broizfam: ooo! Like those optical illusions! 

(lolz! She's cute!)
-1
Reply
Male 6,099
5cats There's a background?
0
Reply
Male 1,445
spanz BUT if the world were flat, cats would have knocked all our shit off off into space by now.

So there!
0
Reply
Male 41,157
korahn I totally would have, it's a fact!
0
Reply