Is the World Flat? The Flatlander's theory..

Status
Not open for further replies.
tyler.durden said:
Round, not rough. Typo. The form of a celestial body is determined by the interaction between its gravity and solidity. Small asteroids and comets have little gravity, which is insufficient to force their larger rocks into a spherical distribution. But the gravity of the significantly larger bodies, such as the sun and planets, is so strong, by contrast, that it turns these celestial bodies into spheres. There are, of course, still uneven features on the surface of planets, such as mountains and valleys, but they become smaller as gravity increases. A good way to search for these answers is Google, you can type in 'why are celestial bodies round', many credible sites appear with the answer...
Click to expand...
Im sorry the earth is more an oblate spheroid. Is that better? I understand what your saying. Do you agree that the golf of mexico is a crater? It is, that's a fact not a theory, it happened it wasn't caused by gravity(earths own). Even mr tyson says its a spheroid.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Pecker said:
Im sorry the earth is more an oblate spheroid. Is that better? I understand what your saying. Do you agree that the golf of mexico is a crater? It is, that's a fact not a theory, it happened it wasn't caused by gravity. Even mr tyson says its a spheroid.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Earth is largely made up of water, and as it spins on it's own axis it widens a bit at its equator (if it was not spinning as fast, it wouldn't have this effect). Oblate spheroid it is, then. Which is round and opposed to flat...
 
tyler.durden said:
Yes. The Earth is largely made up of water, and as it spins on it's own axis it widens a bit at its equator (if it was not spinning as fast, it wouldn't have this effect). Oblate spheroid it is, then. Which is round and opposed to flat...
Click to expand...
I said not pretty unlike the moon which does not have an atmosphere and is under constant meteor showers thus rounding it. Otherwise the earth would be round and not a spheroid unlike the picture you posted. You said I don't do science. well you sir owe me an apology.
 
Dr.Pecker said:
I said not pretty unlike the moon which does not have an atmosphere and is under constant meteor showers thus rounding it. Otherwise the earth would be round and and not a spheroid unlike the picture you posted. You said I don't do science. well you sir owe me an apology.
Click to expand...

Meteor showers make the moon less round than it would otherwise be. The picture I posted is a photograph. Again, the roundness of celestial bodies has nothing to do with bombardment. Even after explaining this clearly, you still hold on to your erroneous notion. This is the opposite of science. No apology is forthcoming...


 
Last edited:
tyler.durden said:
It is a sphere, the way a basketball is a sphere. The closer we get to the surface of the basketball, the more we can see tiny hills, valleys, bumps and imperfections, but its shape still fits the human concept of 'sphere'. Here's a photo...

normal_The-Earth---04.jpg
Click to expand...
It's round just not like a basketball the equator is bigger around than say 45 North which is why if you fly to Thailand you hit Europe first then they head south it's a shorter flight than at the equator.
 
SunnyJim said:
I did, but i don't have the computing power to zoom in close enough to fully satisfy the claim that apparent cloud repetitions are genuine repetitions. Objects which appear identical from a certain distance aren't necessarily the same objects being shown twice. The closer you inspect them, the more discrepancies arise.

Can you show us the specific cloud repetitions to which you're referring (from distance and zoomed is as far as you're able to)? That seems like a simple way to put this to bed, rather than suggesting we look more closely ourselves.
Click to expand...
You have to look closer. You know I wouldn't fuck with you.
 
Flat-earthers are generally used as a teaching opportunity rather than seen as actual serious candidates for debate. The question of how we know the earth is spherical can present an interesting opportunity to teach some science, and the idea that the Earth is flat can be a good example for learning about denialism and how critical thinking can go wrong. But these things are only useful to people who value rationality and evidence. Flat-earthers generally fall into three camps, none of which value accuracy.

Some accept a flat Earth due to religious reasons, and that is the extent of their arguments. A debate about the Earth with these people would be a red herring. The real issue is faith and doctrine, which is a different debate entirely.

Some accept a flat Earth because of a Maverick factor. It's essentially about dissent and conspiracy mongering. These are the types who think they have overturned Newton’s laws and relativity. A debate with these people will, at best, devolve into a debate about the scientific method. You'll find they simply disagree on fundamental concepts like quality of evidence, consistent logic, and basic epistemology.

The third variety tends to be nothing more than trolls who think it's funny to get people worked up over something as stupid as the idea that the Earth is flat. Obviously a debate with people like that has no hope of being productive.

Many science communicators who take the time to debate subjects like Bigfoot and crop circles are often told they are wasting their time. It's often said that there are more important and pressing topics like medical fraud and climate change to be focused on. Despite being constantly told that, they press on because they do see a value in engaging people and promoting critical thinking, even on silly topics. But, even those people do not bother with flat-earthers. It's truly the bottom of the intellectual barrel, the very silt which remains after every other crank filter which usually catches stupid has failed. It's the place where even chemtrail truthers and homeopaths point to and laugh. If this is the place someone wants to be, let them. There is nothing you can do to get them out.
 
tyler.durden said:
Meteor showers make the moon less round than it would otherwise be. The picture I posted is a photograph. Again, the roundness of celestial bodies has nothing to do with bombardment. Even after explaining this clearly, you still hold on to your erroneous notion. This is the opposite of science. No apology is forthcoming...


Click to expand...
Wrong. It would eventually round it off, ask cannibineer if you don't believe me. Micro meterites make craters inside craters inside craters all the way down to microscopic levels. Earths atmosphere protects it, thus retaining its shape (spheroid). You obviously wont look it up. Your argument is about a fake picture of earth. What took that picture?
 
Last edited:
Rrog said:
Who THE FUCK would take the time from their day to look up 3rd grade science books to refute complete nonsense?

"Prove me wrong". Fuck off
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Astrophysicists don't know shit now? Are you the new grand poobah of spacetime?
 
Last edited:
tyler.durden said:
Meteor showers make the moon less round than it would otherwise be. The picture I posted is a photograph. Again, the roundness of celestial bodies has nothing to do with bombardment. Even after explaining this clearly, you still hold on to your erroneous notion. This is the opposite of science. No apology is forthcoming...


Click to expand...
Every astronaut that went to the moon would disagree with you. If you believe them.
 
eye exaggerate said:
Question, though... If we were all standing around the same flat-ish spot, would we have a drink and a hoot together?
Click to expand...
Oh dude, without a doubt, as long as you don't start threatening to post my personal information. The conversations could get deep though. I'm not the type to call you an idiot for thinking this or that. I won't even do it on a forum. Don't piss in your pool is a good motto.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Pecker said:
Oh dude, without a doubt, as long as you don't start threatening to post my personal information. The conversations could get deep though. I'm not the type to call you an idiot for thinking this or that. I won't even do it on a forum. Don't piss in your pool is a good motto.
Click to expand...

Would be pretty funny I think. The depth is built in, and anyone within earshot would be left wondering wtf...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top