Refuting the Flat-Earth theory

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fauxeory?

[FlatAssembler]

Why do you think you know better about what Flat-Earthers might find convincing than somebody who used to be a Flat-Earther? I used to be a Flat-Earther. I know how they think probably better than you do.

Right, Flat Earth Theory is not a "theory", it's a bunch of ad-hoc hypotheses, often contradictory.

Every single line of evidence - without exception - indicates that the Earth is a globe. I don’t have to know any Flatties or have been one myself to grasp that anyone who rejects such a preponderance of evidence  has a mental block that prevents them from accepting it. I also don’t know any serial killers, but I feel comfortable in saying they have a disregard for human life.

If you know it’s not a theory, why did you call it one? 

Boru

But Flat-Earthers think they have evidence. Some "evidence" they cite is:
1) If the Earth were round, the horizon would appear to fall as we climb. But it's always at our eye level.
2) If the ships disappearing over the horizon were caused by the Earth being round, ships would appear to lean as they pass over the horizon, and they do not. They appear to stay straight.
3) If ships disappearing over the horizon were caused by the Earth being round, they would not reappear when we look at them with a telescope. But there are reports of them reappearing (most notably, the Bedford Level Experiment).
4) If the Sun were 150'000'000 kilometers up in the sky, the crepuscular rays would seem parallel. But they do not, they appear as though they come from some source only a few thousand killometers up in the sky. (This "evidence" probably makes the most sense.)
5) The Round Earth Theory incorrectly predicts sunrise and sunset at various places.
I am sure you can find more, but this is enough to give you the basic idea.

I call it a theory for the same reason I would call the String Theory a theory. Because it's called that way, not because it is.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^Not a single one of those is evidence.

String theory IS a theory, you dolt.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

Every single line of evidence - without exception - indicates that the Earth is a globe. I don’t have to know any Flatties or have been one myself to grasp that anyone who rejects such a preponderance of evidence  has a mental block that prevents them from accepting it. I also don’t know any serial killers, but I feel comfortable in saying they have a disregard for human life.

If you know it’s not a theory, why did you call it one? 

Boru

But Flat-Earthers think they have evidence. Some "evidence" they cite is:
1) If the Earth were round, the horizon would appear to fall as we climb. But it's always at our eye level.
2) If the ships disappearing over the horizon were caused by the Earth being round, ships would appear to lean as they pass over the horizon, and they do not. They appear to stay straight.
3) If ships disappearing over the horizon were caused by the Earth being round, they would not reappear when we look at them with a telescope. But there are reports of them reappearing (most notably, the Bedford Level Experiment).
4) If the Sun were 150'000'000 kilometers up in the sky, the crepuscular rays would seem parallel. But they do not, they appear as though they come from some source only a few thousand killometers up in the sky. (This "evidence" probably makes the most sense.)
5) The Round Earth Theory incorrectly predicts sunrise and sunset at various places.
I am sure you can find more, but this is enough to give you the basic idea.

I call it a theory for the same reason I would call the String Theory a theory. Because it's called that way, not because it is.

1.  the horizon does fall if you climb, if you measure the location of the horizon accurately enough with a precision astronomical or surveying transit instrument.   the higher you climb, the farther and more obviously it falls.  if you climb high enough, say into low earth orbit, or even just in upper stratosphere as reachable by balloon, the horizon would fall far enough you can detect the fall by eye and a simple level.     It says something when evidence is not hard but needs work to gather, flat earthers extrapolate based on ignorance and decline to work to gather the evidence.

2.   ships do appear to lean, they lean away from you, not to one side, try a very small amount of geometry.  it helps.  also they lean by a very small amount, because earth is big and the height of ships are small.   again, only an infinitesimal amount of geometry enables them to understand what they should see on a spherical earth and not sound quite so stupid.   but they rather work to advertise the stupidity than to acquire the smallest mount of geometry.

3.    yes, atmospheric optical effects can make objects just below the horizon visible.    so just wait a while for the ship to sail farther away and further below the horizon, until the effect of curvature of earth overwhelm any atmospheric optical effect, and then they will not pop up and become again.    Seen any ships just coming out of ports in asia from san francisco lately?   should be possible if the the earth is flat.  Again, when evidence is not hard but needs (very small amount of) work to gather, flat earthers extrapolate based on ignorance and decline to work to gather the evidence.   what does that say?

4.   the sun rays only appear to be non parallel because the freaking earth is rounded,  that’s like saying sunlight exhibit behavior consistent with earth being round, hence earth is flat.  gibberish much?

5.  really, when and where does round earth predict wrong sun rise?   wrong against what standard, by standard set by people who rather work to advertise their ignorance than acquire an infinitesimal amount of geometry and would rather extrapolate from ignorance than work to acquire evidence?


if you are not smart enough to address these “evidence” by yourself,  then you really are not smart enough to truly grasp why the earth is not flat.   you are really just wasting ours and your time by dabbling in things forever beyond your capacity for full comprehension.

[FlatAssembler]

But Flat-Earthers think they have evidence. Some "evidence" they cite is:
1) If the Earth were round, the horizon would appear to fall as we climb. But it's always at our eye level.
2) If the ships disappearing over the horizon were caused by the Earth being round, ships would appear to lean as they pass over the horizon, and they do not. They appear to stay straight.
3) If ships disappearing over the horizon were caused by the Earth being round, they would not reappear when we look at them with a telescope. But there are reports of them reappearing (most notably, the Bedford Level Experiment).
4) If the Sun were 150'000'000 kilometers up in the sky, the crepuscular rays would seem parallel. But they do not, they appear as though they come from some source only a few thousand killometers up in the sky. (This "evidence" probably makes the most sense.)
5) The Round Earth Theory incorrectly predicts sunrise and sunset at various places.
I am sure you can find more, but this is enough to give you the basic idea.

I call it a theory for the same reason I would call the String Theory a theory. Because it's called that way, not because it is.

1.  the horizon does fall if you climb, if you measure the location of the horizon accurately enough with a precision astronomical or surveying transit instrument.   the higher you climb, the farther and more obviously it falls.  if you climb high enough, say into low earth orbit, or even just in upper stratosphere as reachable by balloon, the horizon would fall far enough you can detect the fall by eye and a simple level.     It says something when evidence is not hard but needs work to gather, flat earthers extrapolate based on ignorance and decline to work to gather the evidence.

2.   ships do appear to lean, they lean away from you, not to one side, try a very small amount of geometry.  it helps.  also they lean by a very small amount, because earth is big and the height of ships are small.   again, only an infinitesimal amount of geometry enables them to understand what they should see on a spherical earth and not sound quite so stupid.   but they rather work to advertise the stupidity than to acquire the smallest mount of geometry.

3.    yes, atmospheric optical effects can make objects just below the horizon visible.    so just wait a while for the ship to sail farther away and further below the horizon, until the effect of curvature of earth overwhelm any atmospheric optical effect, and then they will not pop up and become again.    Seen any ships just coming out of ports in asia from san francisco lately?   should be possible if the the earth is flat.  Again, when evidence is not hard but needs (very small amount of) work to gather, flat earthers extrapolate based on ignorance and decline to work to gather the evidence.   what does that say?

4.   the sun rays only appear to be non parallel because the freaking earth is rounded,  that’s like saying sunlight exhibit behavior consistent with earth being round, hence earth is flat.  gibberish much?

5.  really, when and where does round earth predict wrong sun rise?   wrong against what standard, by standard set by people who rather work to advertise their ignorance than acquire an infinitesimal amount of geometry and would rather extrapolate from ignorance than work to acquire evidence?


if you are not smart enough to address these “evidence” by yourself,  then you really are not smart enough to truly grasp why the earth is not flat.   you are really just wasting ours and your time by dabbling in things forever beyond your capacity for full comprehension.

The #1 is a correct answer, however, I think there is an even better one. I think you can ask the Flat-Earthers "OK, how do you explain that? If the Earth is flat, why does the horizon appear to rise with us as we climb? What even is the horizon if the Earth flat? You don't get to replace a theory that explains at least something (the Round Earth Theory) with a 'theory' that explains precisely nothing (the Flat Earth Theory). That's not how science works.". You can apply almost the same rhetoric to the questions #2, #3 and #5. Because, for example, even if the Round Earth Theory incorrectly predicts sunrise and sunset, that's irrelevant so long as the Flat Earth Theory cannot explain the sunrise and sunset at all.

What do you mean the sun rays appear to be non-parallel because the Earth is round? Sun rays appear not to be parallel because of the perspective.

Why do you think I am unable to address those evidence by myself?

[Anomalocaris]

why would i bother asking how he would explain an verifiable observation when he is busy asserting the existence of an observation that is not actually there?

[Fake Messiah]

It's like when I am discussing evolutionary theory with a creationist - I have to make sure if I am discussing evolution or if I am discussing conspiracies. If it is the former, then OK, I am teaching evolution to someone who is genuinely uninformed; but if it is the latter then I am talking to a crazy person, which is for psychologists and psychiatrists.

For example, it turns into conspiracy talk if I say that fossils are evidence that species change, but the creationist starts saying that fossils are fakes that are made by Jews and masons.

The same is with flat earthers, aliens, and similar fringe topics, including religion.

[FlatAssembler]

^Not a single one of those is evidence.

String theory IS a theory, you dolt.

Boru

Well, how do you define "evidence"? If you define "evidence" as "p-values", then, it's true, none of those things are evidence, but neither is ships disappearing bottom first evidence by that definition. If you define "evidence for the Earth being flat" as "things that are easier to explain if we assume the Earth is flat than if we assume it is round", then most of those really aren't evidence, but sunrays not seeming parallel is. It is indeed easier to explain sunrays not seeming parallel as them actually not being parallel (coming from a source that is a few thousand kilometers up in the sky) than by explaining the optical illusion.

How is String Theory a theory? What predictions does it make? As far as I know, nobody has ever managed to make a testable hypothesis based on String Theory. And what does "dolt" mean?

[HappySkeptic]

Well, how do you define "evidence"? If you define "evidence" as "p-values", then, it's true, none of those things are evidence, but neither is ships disappearing bottom first evidence by that definition. If you define "evidence for the Earth being flat" as "things that are easier to explain if we assume the Earth is flat than if we assume it is round", then most of those really aren't evidence, but sunrays not seeming parallel is. It is indeed easier to explain sunrays not seeming parallel as them actually not being parallel (coming from a source that is a few thousand kilometers up in the sky) than by explaining the optical illusion.

How is String Theory a theory? What predictions does it make? As far as I know, nobody has ever managed to make a testable hypothesis based on String Theory. And what does "dolt" mean?

Optical illusion?  Hell, if people can't understand perspective - something they see literally every day in nature (and was taught in grade 7 art class), then there is no hope for them.

[Anomalocaris]

evidence is any observation which adds to the body of observation in such a way that it seems to strengthen one or a few of many hypothesis in play at the expense of others. How evidence perform such a feat can depend on whether evidence is as it seems if scrutinized more closely.

a singular mark of intellectual dishonesty is tendency to overlook, or outright resist, closer scrutiny of available evidence because one is enamored with what the evidence appear to say at some particular level of scrutiny.