Tales Of A Flat Earth

[PeteByrdie]

Good old Ranty! I do hope he's well.

 

[Sharon Hill]

Gravity absolutely doesn't work as observed on a flat earth. In the usual flerf model, the sun and moon are relatively small and circle over the top of the disk. There's no space. There's usually a dome over the earth, like a cloche, and there's little agreement on what's outside the dome. However, it's required to hold the atmosphere in. Obviously, there can't be a ball in the vacuum of space with an atmosphere on it because, as they're so fond of telling us, 'you can't have a gas pressure next to a vacuum. It would all get sucked into space.'

Aye, to the flerf the question of how the falling object knows which way is down and which is up is ridiculous. Everyone knows what down is. It's just apparent. Down is just part of the world. This, along with 'You can't have a gas pressure next to a vacuum,' and, 'water always finds a level, so it will always be flat, so can't cling to the surface of a sphere,' are good examples of two of the central, complementary mechanisms in science denial. The appeal to intuition, and the tendency to look at science and facts only as far as one needs to in order to arrive at something that seems to support one's chosen belief.

Again, the majority of flerfs are young earth creationists. So, God made the flat Earth, the sun and moon that float miraculously over it, and the dome containing everything. Scientists, and particularly NASA, are conspiring to hide the truth to take people away from God. This is another mechanism of science denial; the conspiracy theory to bridge the gap between what one's chosen to believe and what's being said by those in a position to know better.

Many of the new flat earthers really don't subscribe to creationism in the Biblical sense. It's more about anti-science in general.

We tend to retread the same paths in this thread. In 2016, Christine Garwood's book was recommended. Still a fantastic resource.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Many of the new flat earthers really don't subscribe to creationism in the Biblical sense. It's more about anti-science in general.

We tend to retread the same paths in this thread. In 2016, Christine Garwood's book was recommended. Still a fantastic resource.

You're quite correct.
Some Flat-Earther societies are basically an ironic banner for young men to participate in a jolly drinking club.

 

[Mikefule]

On the basis of extensive research, I believe the Earth was quite flat in the iron age. Before that, they used to press it under weights but could never quite get the creases out. It then became even flatter in the steamiron age.

One of the arguments that people who (claim to) believe in the flat Earth use is that if it was a ball, how would people stick to the ground in the southern hemisphere? I see no reason why it is easier to imagine an invisible force (gravity) that only works in one direction (a sort of absolute direction of down-ness) than it is to imagine an invisible force (gravity) that works towards the centre of a massive object.

I suspect there are or have been lots of people who vaguely assume the Earth is flat because they have never thought about it, and never encountered the evidence to the contrary. If I were a serf in a remote village in medieval England, why would I think the Earth was anything other than flat? Why would I even ask the question?

However, when someone in the modern world is exposed to the evidence and arguments, claiming to believe the Earth is flat seems to be no more than contrarian attention seeking.

 

[Tunn11]

If people fall off the Southern (or Northern) hemisphere then there must be something above or below one of these hemispheres acting the way gravity does on earth. In other words why is there an up or down in space?

 

[Stormkhan]

In space, there is no 'up' or 'down'. Your orientation is based on, well, a baseline.
A ship flying to the moon, say, can look down on Earth and up at the moon. Get to the turnover point and the moon is below and the Earth is above. Gravity depends on mass.
This is why Flat Earthers insist gravity doesn't exist, only up or down. They obviously know something that Einstein et al. don't.

 

[Mythopoeika]

One of the arguments that people who (claim to) believe in the flat Earth use is that if it was a ball, how would people stick to the ground in the southern hemisphere? I see no reason why it is easier to imagine an invisible force (gravity) that only works in one direction (a sort of absolute direction of down-ness) than it is to imagine an invisible force (gravity) that works towards the centre of a massive object.

William Gilbert (16th century), who thought that Earth was like a giant lodestone, was able to demonstrate how things clung to the surface of a spherical lodestone (even though his idea was flawed).

 

[Tunn11]

In space, there is no 'up' or 'down'. Your orientation is based on, well, a baseline.
A ship flying to the moon, say, can look down on Earth and up at the moon. Get to the turnover point and the moon is below and the Earth is above. Gravity depends on mass.
This is why Flat Earthers insist gravity doesn't exist, only up or down. They obviously know something that Einstein et al. don't.

Yes, we have this habit of making North up and mapping the entire universe accordingly.

 

[Stormkhan]

Then again, the orientation of most of the planets in our solar system can be used to indicate a horizontal.

 

[Tunn11]

Then again, the orientation of most of the planets in our solar system can be used to indicate a horizontal.

True, but there's no reason for North to be "Up". For anyone on Uranus the poles are tilted at 98 degrees which means the rotation doesn't match up with the ecliptic making for very odd days and seasons. Pluto is even more tilted.

 

[Stormkhan]

"Uranus & Pluto! Stop bloody showing off!"

 

[ChasFink]

I haven't read all of this thread, so forgive me if I cover ground already discussed.

I see no reason why it is easier to imagine an invisible force (gravity) that only works in one direction (a sort of absolute direction of down-ness) than it is to imagine an invisible force (gravity) that works towards the centre of a massive object.

When you consider these ideas by themselves - in a vacuum, so to speak - they're both reasonable. So is the idea that there are four elements and each seeks its own level. The problem with flat Earth theories is that they become more complicated as their proponents attempt to explain away observations that seem to contradict the basic notions.

Modern scientific method, which relies on Occam's razor, technically doesn't seek the objective truth of the Universe, it only seeks to create models, theories - whatever - that describe observations in the simplest way possible.

Pretty much everyone agrees that on a small scale - when building a house or playing a sport, for example - that it's fine to say that a totally flat foundation is acceptable, and that the directions of "down" that you and others in your vicinity experience are parallel lines. The modern scientist, though, will recognize that this doesn't work at larger scales, and therefore admits that a more accurate model - one that comes closer to describing the way things are, is one that has a spherical Earth, and everyone's "down" is actually pointing approximately to the center.

The flat Earther, however, clings to the small-scale interpretation, and comes up with more and more theoretical explanations to maintain faith in that model, ultimately forming a much more complicated set of theories that are difficult to reconcile with repeatable observational experiments. In this way flat Earth theories are more like a religion, even if their proponents are not actually religious fundamentalists.

By the way, it might be possible to come up with a complete flat Earth cosmology that adequately describes the observable universe. I submit, however, that it would be far, far more complicated than the view of mainstream science, so even if objectively true, it wouldn't be very useful.

By the way, to those who say religion is foolishness, I respectfully argue that religion is in large part about understanding things that mainstream science is weak in explaining. It is not ridiculous to hold scientific and religious beliefs that may, on the surface, seem utterly contradictory - as long as you accept that neither world view is complete or perfect. One measures a circle beginning anywhere, and sometimes you can start at two different points in the hope that your measurements eventually meet up.

For anyone on Uranus the poles are tilted at 98 degrees which means the rotation doesn't match up with the ecliptic making for very odd days and seasons. Pluto is even more tilted.

So that makes a total of one very tilted planet, right?

 

[Tunn11]

I haven't read all of this thread, so forgive me if I cover ground already discussed.


When you consider these ideas by themselves - in a vacuum, so to speak - they're both reasonable. So is the idea that there are four elements and each seeks its own level. The problem with flat Earth theories is that they become more complicated as their proponents attempt to explain away observations that seem to contradict the basic notions.

Modern scientific method, which relies on Occam's razor, technically doesn't seek the objective truth of the Universe, it only seeks to create models, theories - whatever - that describe observations in the simplest way possible.

Pretty much everyone agrees that on a small scale - when building a house or playing a sport, for example - that it's fine to say that a totally flat foundation is acceptable, and that the directions of "down" that you and others in your vicinity experience are parallel lines. The modern scientist, though, will recognize that this doesn't work at larger scales, and therefore admits that a more accurate model - one that comes closer to describing the way things are, is one that has a spherical Earth, and everyone's "down" is actually pointing approximately to the center.

The flat Earther, however, clings to the small-scale interpretation, and comes up with more and more theoretical explanations to maintain faith in that model, ultimately forming a much more complicated set of theories that are difficult to reconcile with repeatable observational experiments. In this way flat Earth theories are more like a religion, even if their proponents are not actually religious fundamentalists.

By the way, it might be possible to come up with a complete flat Earth cosmology that adequately describes the observable universe. I submit, however, that it would be far, far more complicated than the view of mainstream science, so even if objectively true, it wouldn't be very useful.

By the way, to those who say religion is foolishness, I respectfully argue that religion is in large part about understanding things that mainstream science is weak in explaining. It is not ridiculous to hold scientific and religious beliefs that may, on the surface, seem utterly contradictory - as long as you accept that neither world view is complete or perfect. One measures a circle beginning anywhere, and sometimes you can start at two different points in the hope that your measurements eventually meet up.


So that makes a total of one very tilted planet, right?

Well, Venus is 177 because it rotates the other way from everything else although the poles look in essentially the same orientation as most other planets. A tilt of 2.7 from the plane of the ecliptic.

The theory is that Uranus received a massive clout at some time in its history which may explain the tilt on smaller bodies like dwarf planets which would be more easily knocked out of position.

Not sure on the preferred theory for Venus, it may have been another clout or its rotation may have slowed due to tidal locking witht the sun causing it to effectively rotate backwards compared to the other planets. Mercury orbits the sun every 88 Earth days but has a day of 59 Earth days.

 

[Ogdred Weary]

If Earth is a disc, what is on the other side?
And does gravity work the same way on that side?
And who built it, because it'd have to be artificial to be flat...?

The Upside Down is there, you need to watch the documentary series Stranger Things, it's full of monsters and shit.

 

[Ogdred Weary]

Indeed. This is from my review of: Off the Edge: Flat Earthers, Conspiracy Culture, and Why People Will Believe Anything by Kelly Weill,

"Online the Flat Earth message co-exists within a morass of Anti-vaxxer, Anti-Semitic and White Supremacist beliefs. Even alien conspiracy theorists upload Flat Earth videos on youtube and run a Flat Earth compound in Brazil, US citizens have moved to this UFO City. Some Flat Earthers believe that a cloned Adolf Hitler lives in New Berlin, Antarctica, others regard the Holocaust as a fakes. There are even Flat Earther Nazi rap songs. The Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin started a virtual civil war on the site when he mocked Flat earth beliefs."

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ns-recommendations.13479/page-69#post-2182420

These sentences had me laughing out loud, I didn't even notice the "Nazi Flat Earther rap songs" until I just quoted your message Ramon. Wow. Just absolutely amazing.

Who doesn't love a cloned Hitler? And living in Antarctica., maybe he's been to The Mountains of Madness and is mates with The Thing. What's better than a Hitler clone? Zombie Hitler definitely, maybe a werewolf Hitler, also Space Hitler.

The Earth is clearly not flat because British Bigfoot lives in there and fights with his eternal enemy, Hollow Earth Hitler.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Who doesn't love a cloned Hitler? And living in Antarctica., maybe he's been to The Mountains of Madness and is mates with The Thing. What's better than a Hitler clone? Zombie Hitler definitely, maybe a werewolf Hitler, also Space Hitler.

Space Hitler riding a dinosaur!

 

[Spookdaddy]

..."Nazi Flat Earther rap songs"...Who doesn't love a cloned Hitler? And living in Antarctica...

Well, what did you think Ice Ice Baby was really about, huh? (And it’s ‘Valhalla’ Ice, by the way - the 'Vanilla' was subliminally inserted into the MSM by the political elite, but everyone knows that.)

N.W.Os Fuck The Pole Ice is obviously a protest against the outrageous geographical falsehoods perpetrated by our Golbetard oppressors - and Straight Outta Compton is based on the fact that if you walked in a straight line out of Compton (or anywhere else, for that matter) you will eventually fall off the edge of the world.

Wake up sheeps.

 

[Robbrent]

More interesting to me is how this belief has resurfaced over the last few years, it was held by a few cranks and good old fashioned English eccentrics and the bloke walking around the highstreets with a sandwich board, but it's has been amplified by the power of social media, the thing is there are dots to join up with all these strange beliefs out there.

By the way I don't even debate it with the flat earthers what's the point, they have the same evidence that I have but still to cling on to the FE theory