I went for a walk in Spain, starting at the beach then heading inland and up to the top of the mountain called El Montgo. Visibility was good all day. I couldn't see Ibiza from the beach but I could see it from the mountain.

I've also seen ships sinking over the horizon.

But the thing is, I knew it before these confirmations.

Of course, if you haven't been turned on, you wouldn't know, — unenlightened

What does any of this have to do with sexual arousal?

Recently there was an expedition to the South pole, that cost 35k per head, for flat eathers to go observe the 24 hour sun. It's called The Final Experiment.

I've devised a similar experiment that should be much cheaper than 35k. It should, in my opinion, be convincing to any honest flat earther if carried out. The plan is this:

Visit 4 destinations, 2 in the north and 2 in the south. Each hemisphere of our planet has night time vision of what's called a Celestial Pole, enough is just the part of the night sky corresponding to our axis of rotation. In the north, the celestial pole is very near to the North Star, and in the south it's very near to the Southern Cross.

So, the 4 destinations could be Canada, England, South Brazil and South Africa. Obviously they don't have to be those exact places, but they're a good example.

At each place, you set up a camera on a tripod to observe that celestial pole. You'll use that footage to create time lapses like this:

https://youtu.be/TZOg8EPJ_yk?si=Zryt1GUcldohiFpu

The reason you want 2 places in each hemisphere is to handle all possible objections. A flat earther can easily explain the celestial pole of the north. But to explain not just one, but two celestial poles in the south is actually much harder. The firmament would have to be rotating from east to west in order for the southern celestial pole to go from South Africa to Brazil - but the time lapse would show that in fact the southern celestial pole is not moving east to west, but is quite stationary.

Now of course i know this wouldn't actually convince them, but the theory crafting about it is just fun for me. This experiment would reduce the cost from 35k to something closer to 5k.

Just how easy it is to prove these issues simply question just what on Earth this Flat-Earth nonsense is about. Is it simply trolling? Is it simply an attempt to try to make nonsense so credible, that people fall for it and have a laugh about it? It looks a conspiracy theory pushed to the extreme, as an outrageous extrapolation of the sum of all conspiracies. Or the intent is to get the "science people" to be angry about the ignorance of the common folk and thus show their hidden elitism and how they look down upon others.

It reminds me of Sasha Baron Cohen's skit playing the character Ali G interviewing a former US Surgeon General, who obviously didn't know who Cohen was (or his character Ali G), seemed to have genuinely thought that that the "hip hop rapster"-interviewer was as idiotically ignorant as Cohen portrays Ali G to be. It's just an extremely hilarious exchange about (def) death starting at 3:50. If you haven't seen it, worth watching.



Flat Eartherism is perhaps something similar: if we believe that people are so ignorant and dumb to believe that the Earth is flat, what does that tell of our attitude toward others? Or then it's simply the algorithms that make this discourse so talked about. When something is blatantly wrong, it gets a lot of replies of the issue being wrong.

Flat Eartherism is perhaps something similar: if we believe that people are so ignorant and dumb to believe that the Earth is flat, what does that tell of our attitude toward others? — ssu

Whether the Earth is flat or round is not really a good question. You will see the Earth round, if you see it from the space. But if you see the Earth from the ground standing in the street of NY or Tokyo, it will appear flat. Hence it depends on where you are seeing the Earth from.

The real point of the question is, how the knowledge of the flat Earth and round Earth came from.
The Flat Earther's knowledge must have come from their own senses i.e. living and working on the Earth, looking at it directly with their own eyes, apprehending and observing it. It appears undoubtedly and conclusively flat.

The Round Earther's knowledge must have come from the Science class, books and media i.e. it is based on the authority of the institution. It is doubtful many of the Round Earthers have gone to the space in person, and peeked into the Earth and making the comments that the Earth is round. There must be only a handful of the rich or astronautical folks who actually have gone to the space and seen the Earth. Why should one trust those handful of folks claims?

Hence the Flat Earthers' knowledge is based on their own experience and observation rather than relying on the popular beliefs based on the authoritarian inculcation and propaganda.

Therefore the Flat Earther's beliefs are more scientific than the Round Earthers?

There is grade in the knowledge. And round Earth is the entry. After that, in the more advanced grade, you discover it's magic. You need to see magic picture to understand.

The Round Earther's knowledge must have come from the Science class, books and media i.e. it is based on the authority of the institution.

Hence the Flat Earthers' knowledge is more Scientific than the Round Earthers' in terms of the method of their knowledge acquisition i.e. it is based on their own experience and observation rather than relying on the popular beliefs based on the authoritarian inculcation and propaganda.

Therefore the Flat Earther's beliefs are more scientific than the Round Earthers? — Corvus

???

Trying to troll me exactly the way I said that Flat Earthers troll us? Or are you really serious? :smirk:

I don't understand your viewpoint. If there are things that puzzle me that I can see with my own eyes that go against Flat Earth idea, where Science (and geometry) gives me a good answer, why would it then be
about authority of institution, propaganda telling me this? Do you think that learning in school is just a form of remembering lines that the teacher tells you? A lot of that learning is things that I can see working in reality. Just as I can believe in arithmetic, because it works, it gives me answers of my surrounding reality. That's the real idea of understanding: you just don't "learn by heart" or accept something as true because an authority figure has said so, you can observe it yourself that it is so.

In fact, the vast majority of "Flat Earth" conspiracy theories start exactly the way you think Science education works. They see a video in YouTube, which gives an argument about a huge conspiracy. Bigger than the so-called "Moon landing hoax". And this is, in fact, it is actually exactly that "relying on the popular beliefs based on the authoritarian inculcation and propaganda", which you talk about. The authoritarians are just the conspiracy theorists themselves.

As I explained before, you can observe from multiple things that show that the Earth is a sphere. I just gave two examples that I myself have experienced. I could give others. I have been in Central America, in Costa Rica (which has been closest to the Equator) and notice that my shadow is quite under me, a thing where my shadow never is where I live. And there I can see new stars and constellations that I couldn't see at any time in Finland. And I've been in Australia and New Zealand and noticed the a totally different star constellations that I've never seen in Finland. So you tell me how all that is possible with in the flat Earth world?

Trying to troll me exactly the way I said that Flat Earthers troll us? Or are you really serious? :smirk: — ssu

It is meaningless to continue any kind of conversation with someone who are obsessed with trolling, and brand anyone asking questions or suggesting other ideas.

I hope that you are not the type of folks. :D What would anyone get from trolling the people with the obsession? That would be a total waste of one's life and time.

Well, if you read my post carefully, you would notice that I have not said whether the Earth is flat or round. I have just pointed out the ways they have acquired their knowledge.

Perhaps you were lucky enough to be able to travel all those different countries, and be able to reason and experiment from different part of the world. But there are the majority of the Earth population who have not gone out the place they were born, and seen the Earth only from where they stand. To these folks their own observations and apprehension is the only criteria they could draw their knowledge on the shape of the Earth.

If you accept the fact that philosophy is more than just believing everything you read and see on youtube, internet, and what is told in the classroom, then you would open your mind and listen to the other folks different ideas and methodologies in arriving their own beliefs and claims.

If you don't agree with the other folks ideas, then just use your reasoning and arguments to make your point, and prove your point is right, if you think it is enough worthwhile doing so.
Claiming someone is trolling out of the blue without concrete evidence is not a philosophical statement. Good luck.

And I've been in Australia and New Zealand and noticed the a totally different star constellations that I've never seen in Finland. So you tell me how all that is possible with in the flat Earth world? — ssu

My point was that methodologies of arriving at the knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself. Never said, the Earth is flat, round, flatly round or roundly flat.

But there are the majority of the Earth population who have not gone out the place they were born, and seen the Earth only from where they stand. — Corvus

And this obviously is the reasoning just why not all historical cultures came to the conclusion that Earth is round. Eratosthenes had to have a lot of exact information to calculate the circumference of Earth (which he got nearly right) in 200 BC.

If you accept the fact that philosophy is more than just believing everything you read and see on youtube, internet, and what is told in the classroom, then you would open your mind and listen to the other folks different ideas and methodologies in arriving their own beliefs and claims. — Corvus

We help others the best with really thinking about what they say and supporting them we think they correct and also disagreeing with them, when we see something incorrect in their reasoning. I value much about the responses I get in this forum. If someone disagrees with me, that's OK. If many disagree with me and say the similar reason for why I am in error, I do have to look at my reply. That's the best kind of help you can get here.

My point was that methodologies of arriving the knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself. — Corvus

Then for this topic, the important question here is: Just why some people, if they indeed are have thought about the issue, come to the conclusion that Earth is flat?

Why is there https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php ? Why do they have the mission of:

The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature. Our forums act as a venue to encourage free thinking and debate.

The Flat Earth Society mans the guns against oppression of thought and the Globularist lies of a new age. Standing with reason we offer a home to those wayward thinkers that march bravely on with REASON and TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.

Are we "free thinkers" if we believe in something that is false? Do we have to be so different, or otherwise we are the sheeple that conspiracy theorists believe others, the mainstream, being?

Then for this topic, the important question here is: Just why some people, if they indeed are have thought about the issue, come to the conclusion that Earth is flat?

Why is there https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php ? Why do they have the mission of: — ssu

I am not familiar with either Flat Earthers or Round Earthers claims. But my point is rather, it is interesting to infer how they arrived their knowledge, as I have made out in the post above.

From my own point of view, I am not a Flat Earther, and I am not a Round Earther either. I am an empiricist. Whether the Earth is flat or round depends on what location you are seeing the Earth from.

If you are in the spacecraft outside of the Earth in the space, it will appear round. If you stand on the football stadium in London, the Earth will appear flat. How it appears to your vision, that's what matters.

So, the Earth is flatly round, and at the same time roundly flat would be the answer.

I am not familiar with either Flat Earthers or Round Earthers claims. — Corvus

How? Seems you value them to be similar, that one isn't better than the other, at least theoretically to make a theoretical argument. And not knowing "their claims" doesn't free you of answering which one you believe to be true, actually, if the you think the World is flat or round.

From my own point of view, I am not a Flat Earther, and I am not a Round Earther either. I am an empiricist. Whether the Earth is flat or round depends on what location you are seeing the Earth from. — Corvus

That's not at all empiricism or being an empiricist. It's not just our sensory experience makes it true, it's also the empirical evidence that something is so. Roger Bacon himself opposed the older Aristotelian view in this way. And that empirical evidence cannot make both to true.

How? Seems you value them to be similar, that one isn't better than the other, at least theoretically to make a theoretical argument. And not knowing "their claims" doesn't free you of answering which one you believe to be true, actually, if the you think the World is flat or round. — ssu

To me, the both claims don't make sense. As I made clear that the shape of the Earth changes depending on where you are looking at it from.

That's not at all empiricism or being an empiricist. It's not just our sensory experience makes it true, it's also the empirical evidence that something is so. — ssu

How is it not? It is purely empirical for the fact that the knowledge is based on my observations on different locations on the Earth. How more could you get empirical, scientific and logical?

The earth is shaped roundly flat and flatly round is far more scientific in the sense that your claim, which comes from the popular media stories and your imagination disguised as reasoning, whereas my claim comes from the direct observations and apprehensions on the object.

As I made clear that the shape of the Earth changes depending on where you are looking at it from. — Corvus

Any object looks different from where you look at it. It's called perspective. Perspective doesn't refute truth or falsity of a statement regarding objective truth about the universe. Here even the theoretical model or the axioms you start with can be questioned.

How is it not? It is purely empirical for the fact that the knowledge is based on my observations on different locations on the Earth. How more could you get empirical, scientific and logical? — Corvus

Do note the implementation of the scientific method. It is far more than just "a perspective" you have. You have this whole methodological process that isn't similar to any random observation I can take by looking at something. It is worth reading Bacon and Locke on this issue (among others) as using the scientific method is far more than just an observation.

Do note the implementation of the scientific method. It is far more than just "a perspective" you have. — ssu

The question is not asking how do you know X sounds, smells or feels such and such.
When the question is how do you know X looks such and such, the most important factor for the answer is how X appears to your eyes and visions.

Your vision can be deceiving. You aren't using the scientific method if you just assume what you see is true. This is the kind of thinking that actually empiricists like Bacon were against in the first place. Me with my bad eyesight cannot see all the stars in the sky, especially not any galaxies or black holes or what ever. It's not a scientific argument to say that what is in the night sky is only the things I myself can see.

Your vision can be deceiving. You aren't using the scientific method if you just assume what you see is true. This is the kind of thinking that actually empiricists like Bacon were against in the first place. Me with my bad eyesight cannot see all the stars in the sky, especially not any galaxies or black holes or what ever. It's not a scientific argument to say that what is in the night sky is only the things I myself can see. — ssu

Yes, there is possibility of deceiving in perception. You are right. However, on the issue of how the Earth looks, and how do you know it looks round, it is a straight process. The fact is that everyone is on the Earth somewhere, so it really depends how the folks see the Earth, and how it appears to them.

It would be nonsense to say the Earth is actually shape of a banana, because of blah blah blah 1000 pages of so called scientific theories, and would be absurd to brand everyone who don't believe in that theory as dumb and idiots.

When the question is how X looks, one can only answer in terms of how it appears to his / her vision directly from real time observations, and that is all one can do.

Another point here is that, the question is not whether the Earth is round or flat, but it is asking how do we know it is round. In this case, it makes sense to explain how folks have arrived at their knowledge on the shape of the Earth, rather than screaming and shouting the Earth is round, and everyone who says otherwise are all dumb and mad. This claim is missing the point of the OP, and being too emotional on the trivial points for no reason, it seems.

There is no way to be certain that Earth is round if you are very skeptical!

When the question is how X looks, one can only answer in terms of how it appears to his / her vision directly from real time observations, and that is all one can do. — Corvus

Empiricism and science goes far further than this, and this was already evident during the time of the first empiricists. Science starts from theories, as it understands that the present ideas can change and we can obtain even better models and theories in the future. Hence rarely do we truly talk about laws of nature and we aren't taught at school laws of nature, laws of physics.

Above all, the scientific method tries to be objective and evade subjectivity. Let's take literally what you said: what X looks like, "can only answer in terms of how it appears to his / her vision directly from real time observations, and that is all one can do." How limiting is that? What then about sounds or radio waves, everything else in the electromagnetic spectrum that we cannot see? Scientific theories here help us to define these, by having a spectrum defined by wavelength or frequency. It helps us to create machines that can use these other frequencies and we can "see" by radio waves (radar) or infrared light etc.

And lastly, if we say that this is our science and the scientific theories we use at the present, it doesn't mean that the theories are less important or less valuable, because they can be replaced in the future. It especially doesn't mean then that a hypothesis like "the Earth is flat" has value, because perhaps in the future there would be a theory that would prove it. Science doesn't work like that. It is built on earlier findings and seldom something is shown to be wrong, but simply not adequate to answer everything. Perfect example of the is Newtonian physics compared to Einsteinian physics. Newton's theories are quite accurate on many occasions, but in some situations Einstein's relativity gives us a better answer.

So in the end, we could say that the theory of Earth being ellipsoid is far more useful to us than the theory that the Earth is flat. And since we can even prove that the Earth isn't flat, but an ellipsoid, the theory of it being flat can be said to be simply false.

sure, there's no way to be certain of anything if you are very skeptical. But if you're reasonably skeptical, there could still be ways to be justifiably confident.

Do you believe in science? If yes, there are scientific reasons why Earth is round.

So in the end, we could say that the theory of Earth being ellipsoid is far more useful to us than the theory that the Earth is flat. And since we can even prove that the Earth isn't flat, but an ellipsoid, the theory of it being flat can be said to be simply false. — ssu

For vast majority of the ordinary folks wouldn't care, if the Earth was round or flat. They are busy keep leading their daily lives I would imagine. It would only matter to the rocket sciences folks or world travelers, and the pilots ... really really fraction of the folks would care about the roundness of flatness of the Earth. Hence your claim above seems coming from prejudice and
exaggeration.

Again, the OP is a simple question. How do we know it is round? You don't need much scientific theories to explain the answers as you would on the radio waves, relativity theories or some QM topics.

And most importantly, no one was claiming the Earth was flat in this thread I believe. I never claimed it is flat or round, hence it is odd to ciriticise or talk down on the folks who believe in the flat Earth.

I went on a couple flat earth Discord groups and was quite unpleasantly surprised with the state of their community.

What I thought would be the case is, flat earthers were convinced that they have a better model that makes better predictions than the round earth. (I just thought they'd be wrong about those things for a variety of reasons).

What's actually the case is, most flat earthers don't have a model at all. The reason for that is simple: the ones that DO have a model have an easily falsified model. The "clever" ones have learned from that experience, and just denied having a model at all. They claim nobody knows that hte world is like, they don't have a map because nobody really knows what the continents are shaped like and arranged like.

Now normally, an agnostic position is respectable. We don't know everything, we're all ignorant of some things, so saying "I don't know" should be a respectable answer, right?

But we live in a world where you can take an air plane from just about any part of the world to just about any other part of the world. We have GPS google maps coverage of everywhere. You really expect me to believe those things are true, AND nobody knows anything about the shape and arrangement of continents?

They're not even ashamed of their lack of a model.

So instead of working on a model, they build communities where they allow "globies" to come in, but they dog pile them and then ban them on the premise of misused psychological buzzwords. They basically use these communities as funny little bullying rings, because they don't actually want to seriously investigate the shape of the planet, they just want to get revenge on the globies for their shame.

Apparently.

.

Trust in the processes which glean the information that I can piece together to understand the curvature, shape and orientation of the Earth in relation to my position on it.

The propensity evidence of the rest of the Solar System being spheroid (generally) is also helpful. I believe it because it would be pointless and time consuming to question generations of astronomy based on the fact that I don't personally know astronomy maths.

What does any of this have to do with sexual arousal? — flannel jesus

Just "Because" by McCarthy and Lennon: Because the world is round it turns me on.

I have no personally obtained evidence that the world is round or that the earth is the third planet from the sun. Various someone elses figured out all this out and I take their word for it. I have experienced gravity first hand, so I am confident it exists. There are a lot of alleged facts about the world which seem to be true, but of which I have not a shred of personal evidence. Somehow atoms manage to produce what we suppose to be substantial matter. Don't ask me how. Somehow electrons manage to move from here to there; are they moving within a field or are they moving within a copper wire? Beats me.

The world seems to work in a particular way for which various people have gathered evidence. I am taking their word for it.

It's actually apparently pretty accessible to prove the world is round. All you need is access to a 600-ft-high view of the sea. They're not exactly EVERYWHERE but you can find it. Go and take a photo of the horizon with a normal rectilinear lens, being sure to keep the horizon as near to center-frame as you can (this is because the edges of lenses tend to have more distortion). Then, you can analyze the picture in some editor for any deviation of the horizon towards a flat line. It won't be obvious to the naked eye, but once you draw a straight line from the left of the horizon to the right, it should stand out - the middle will bulge up.

Here's a similar technique illustrated: https://mctoon.net/left-to-right-curve/

If you don't want to trust these variuos someone elses, and see it for yourself, you can do it! Or just buy a telescope and watch ships disappear past the horizon, bottom-up.

Sure. I'm familiar with these methods of seeing the earth's curve. There's also the curved shadow of the earth during an eclipse.

Several someone elses figured out the earth was round and about 24,000 miles in diameter long time ago. According to NASA:

It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.

Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth!

Once civilization collapses in a few years (or next week) this knowledge will soon be lost and will have to be rediscovered, IF there is anyone around to rediscover anything at all.

Stop motion of lunar eclipse.

Wonderful. Funnily enough, most flat earthers also believe the moon itself is flat. There's actually another stop-motion you can get of the moon to disprove that.

It's a not-very-well-known fact that the face of the moon kinda wobbles a bit, which allows us to see it from a very slightly different angle at different times. It wobbles enough that if you take frames from various full moons and put them together, you can see the 3d form of it in an animation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/w7otnc/ive_captured_almost_a_complete_lunar_cycle_to/

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