Flat Earth

[benparry]

Good Afternoon All

every now and again while debating the moon landings on facebook I come across somebody who believes they were fake because they believe In the flat earth theory.

my always to go answer is ships over the horizon, different stars etc but a guy recently showed me a video of somebody just zooming in onto a ship in the distance to show it was still there. they also quote the world photograph distance record showing no curve.

am I correct in saying that 1. the earth doesn't curve very much at all over those short distances and 2 with photos you don't know if you are on the same level.


he was insinuating that the ship doesn't disappear as he zoomed in and there it was. is this simply because it hadn't curved very much in that time or had it gone below the horizon and we could only see the top half.

[Peter B]

Good Afternoon All

every now and again while debating the moon landings on facebook I come across somebody who believes they were fake because they believe In the flat earth theory.

my always to go answer is ships over the horizon, different stars etc but a guy recently showed me a video of somebody just zooming in onto a ship in the distance to show it was still there. they also quote the world photograph distance record showing no curve.

am I correct in saying that 1. the earth doesn't curve very much at all over those short distances...

Yep, the Earth doesn't curve much over small distances. But it does curve to a measurable and visible extent.

These sorts of things are more easily visible if you live near a large body of water - either a lake where you can get a sightline of a few kilometres, or the sea. However it's worth keeping in mind that the air itself can play tricks with light, making small effects sometimes difficult to detect.

As for the video, never mind one video where the ship remains in sight for a while. Ask yourself instead what happens to the ship after the video ends? But if you live somewhere like south-east England, and can watch shipping cross the English Channel, you'll soon see the effects of the curvature of the Earth.

...and 2 with photos you don't know if you are on the same level.

Can you provide a link to these photos, please. I don't fully understand the nature of the claim.

[Peter B]

But for me, the main argument against a Flat Earth is the fact that I live in the southern hemisphere. Whatever arguments seem plausible to people living in the northern hemisphere completely fail when dealing with the reality of the southern hemisphere.

The reason for this is that map distortions caused by the requirements of FE stories (sorry, they don't rate the term "theories") are much smaller in the northern hemisphere and much larger in the southern hemisphere.

For one example, look at maps of how Flat Earth is supposed to look. Look in particular at Australia. Now compare that shaped Australia with the shape of Australia in conventional maps or on a globe. See how FE Australia is weirdly stretched out in FE maps? The distances between the major cities of Australia are very well known, and they do NOT correspond to the distances you would measure on FE maps.

For another example, consider flying from Sydney (Australia) to Buenos Aires (Argentina). According to FE flight plans you go via Los Angeles because that's the straight-line course. But according to the airlines themselves you go via the south Pacific and never cross the equator - in fact you swoop down towards Antarctica. Now go to the internet and compare the flight times between those three cities. How is it that flying from Sydney direct to BA is 16 hours, while flying Sydney to BA via Los Angeles is 14 + 14 hours = 28 hours?

[Al Johnston]

A lot of Flat-Earthers absolutely deny the existence of Australia in particular and the Southern Hemisphere in general for those very reasons.

They've been around a long time: Alfred Russell Wallace of evolution fame once failed to collect a £500 bet from one. Markers were set up on the Bridgwater Canal, and viewed through a telescope. All present (with the predictable exception of the member of the Zetetic Society Wallace was wagering with) could observe that the mid-distance markers were elevated above those at the end points, indicating curvature...

[Glom]

How far away was the ship? We can do wonders with trig to work out what sightlines should be.

Unless flat earthers deny Euclid. I wouldn't put it past them.

The Erastothenes experiment is the clincher for me. That and flat eartherism being beyond illucid.

[bknight]

I would have to answer the ship issue, at what point in the ships travel do you see it first?
Is it traveling to or from your perspective?
Or is it traveling parallel toy your perspective?

If you can't tell then the video is suspect.


I have myself watched ships both incoming and outgoing and the top always appears before the bottom, if incoming.  The bottom will disappear first if outgoing.
Another point tp ponder why did the Navy put very tall masts on the old battle ships for their fir direction control?  Up there they could see further over the horizon.

[Northern Lurker]

Another point tp ponder why did the Navy put very tall masts on the old battle ships for their fir direction control?  Up there they could see further over
the horizon.

And still radars are usually mounted on highest masts on ship. Also E-2 Hawkeye, E-3 Sentry and other AEW-planes fly high to have radar horizon farther away. If Earth was flat, why would USN store, maintain and fly Hawkeyes on cramped carriers if any radar above sea level would see as far?

Lurky

[molesworth]

Honestly, the flat earth nonsense is so easily debunked with many, many simple examples and observations.  Even basic experiments that anyone can do with simple equipment shows flaws in the ideas.

One thing that baffles me about it is that if the earth is indeed flat, then why, and by whom, was the "spherical earth conspiracy" started.  The curved earth idea has been around for maybe as long as 4,000 years, so why would it have been created back then, for who's benefit, and to what end?  And how has all the evidence of a round earth been "faked" so well as to stand up to careful scrutiny, and "the truth" so well hidden for all that time?

Basically, it has even less consistency than moon landing hoax ideas, and that's saying something... 

[smartcooky]

But for me, the main argument against a Flat Earth is the fact that I live in the southern hemisphere. Whatever arguments seem plausible to people living in the northern hemisphere completely fail when dealing with the reality of the southern hemisphere.

There are two "most obvious" differences

1. In the NH, the sun rises in the east, passes through the southern sky and sets in the west, so that, if you are facing the path of the sun during the day, it travels from your left to your right across the sky. In the SH, the sun also rises in the east and sets in the west, but it passes through the northern sky, so that, if you are facing the path of the sun during the day, it travels from your right to your left across the sky. On a flat earth, this would be impossible.

Bonus: The same thing happens with the moon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Omzvkg_kg

NH viewers will notice two things; the moon rises toward the left, and its upside down compared with how you see it - another thing that proves flat earth is impossible.

2. In the NH, the constellation "Scorpius" is the summer constellation; at midnight in midsummer, it is directly overhead. The constellation of Orion is the winter constellation, being directly overhead at midnight in midwinter. In the SH, its the other way around, "Scorpius" is the harbinger of winter, and Orion of summer. Again, this situation is impossible if the earth was flat.

Bonus tip: In the SH, Orion appears upside down, his sword is pointing up. Again, this only possible on a globe earth.

[Glom]

Honestly, the flat earth nonsense is so easily debunked with many, many simple examples and observations.  Even basic experiments that anyone can do with simple equipment shows flaws in the ideas.

One thing that baffles me about it is that if the earth is indeed flat, then why, and by whom, was the "spherical earth conspiracy" started.  The curved earth idea has been around for maybe as long as 4,000 years, so why would it have been created back then, for who's benefit, and to what end?  And how has all the evidence of a round earth been "faked" so well as to stand up to careful scrutiny, and "the truth" so well hidden for all that time?

Basically, it has even less consistency than moon landing hoax ideas, and that's saying something... 

The moonlanding was an isolated event in a far off place that didn't seem to affect life much.

By comparison, the flat earth conspiracy would affect everything. And to what purpose?

But then don't expect anything resembling rationality from Flat Earth proponents.

[Peter B]

...One thing that baffles me about it is that if the earth is indeed flat, then why, and by whom, was the "spherical earth conspiracy" started.  The curved earth idea has been around for maybe as long as 4,000 years, so why would it have been created back then, for who's benefit, and to what end?

Yes, that's one question I've never seen a satisfactory answer to, even at the UM forum, where the FE story gets an occasional vote of confused support.

And how has all the evidence of a round earth been "faked" so well as to stand up to careful scrutiny, and "the truth" so well hidden for all that time?

And that leads to another example that's worth investigating if you have a slightly more technical mind, and an interest in British nautical history.

Go to http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/maps/01_world.html (don't worry, it's a government site)

The page shows sections of the first voyage (1768-1771) of Captain Cook. For those who don't know, he commanded an expedition which circumnavigated the world by travelling from Britain, around Cape Horn, across the Pacific Ocean to New Zealand and Australia, then across the Indian Ocean to the Cape of Good Hope, then north back to Britain.

If you click on the highlighted map sections it shows his ship's location on a daily basis, plotted against latitude and longitude. Record those lats and longs, and now plot them on a FE map. Compare how far his ship travelled each day, particularly when it was at its most northerly and southerly locations.

You'll find that if the FE story is true, the Endeavour travelled massively faster in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere: in fact, the further south it travelled the faster it went. Does this make the slightest bit of sense? Or is it more likely that the ship travelled at roughly the same speed in all oceans, travelling across a (roughly) spherical Earth?

And very simply, this applies to all voyages which travelled in the southern hemisphere: da Gama, Magellan, Drake...you name them.

[AtomicDog]

But for me, the main argument against a Flat Earth is the fact that I live in the southern hemisphere. Whatever arguments seem plausible to people living in the northern hemisphere completely fail when dealing with the reality of the southern hemisphere.

There are two "most obvious" differences

1. In the NH, the sun rises in the east, passes through the southern sky and sets in the west, so that, if you are facing the path of the sun during the day, it travels from your left to your right across the sky. In the SH, the sun also rises in the east and sets in the west, but it passes through the northern sky, so that, if you are facing the path of the sun during the day, it travels from your right to your left across the sky. On a flat earth, this would be impossible.

Bonus: The same thing happens with the moon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Omzvkg_kg

That link was swiped. Here's the genuine link from the real creator of the video :

Here's the photographer's page that shows how he did it:

http://theartofnight.com/2013/01/full-moon-silhouettes/

[benparry]

thanks a lot guys for all of that. he has actually blocked me on FB now lol

[benparry]

Good Afternoon All

every now and again while debating the moon landings on facebook I come across somebody who believes they were fake because they believe In the flat earth theory.

my always to go answer is ships over the horizon, different stars etc but a guy recently showed me a video of somebody just zooming in onto a ship in the distance to show it was still there. they also quote the world photograph distance record showing no curve.

am I correct in saying that 1. the earth doesn't curve very much at all over those short distances...

Yep, the Earth doesn't curve much over small distances. But it does curve to a measurable and visible extent.

These sorts of things are more easily visible if you live near a large body of water - either a lake where you can get a sightline of a few kilometres, or the sea. However it's worth keeping in mind that the air itself can play tricks with light, making small effects sometimes difficult to detect.

As for the video, never mind one video where the ship remains in sight for a while. Ask yourself instead what happens to the ship after the video ends? But if you live somewhere like south-east England, and can watch shipping cross the English Channel, you'll soon see the effects of the curvature of the Earth.

...and 2 with photos you don't know if you are on the same level.

Can you provide a link to these photos, please. I don't fully understand the nature of the claim.

peter it was a general claim that basically when taking a picture with a claim of a flat earth and the horizon one should be on the same level as the object you are photographing.

[bknight]

As others have noted taking a picture from 6' above ground level, one would NEVER see any curvature of the Earth.  I'd have to do the math, but maybe 50 miles would give you enough coverage to discern curvature, perhaps lower.  One can't even see curvature from airplanes flying +/-40000 feet (~7 miles).  So all those negative responses won't prove the Earth isn't roughly a sphere.