Refuting the Flat-Earth theory

[FlatAssembler]

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.

I don't know about you, but it took me years before I fully understood why that "evidence" is wrong. The fact is that sunrays appear to converge even when they appear to be exactly vertical. So, for a long time, I thought "Since tall buildings do not appear to converge at the top, why should parallel sunrays do?". Here is a clue: unless the sun is at the zenith (which, in most places, it never is), sunrays aren't actually vertical.

[Anomalocaris]

it never occur to you that if the apparent convergence of solar rays caused by perspective is actually due to the sun being close, the sun must be so close to the earth that places on the earth just a few miles apart should see big differences in apparent size of the sun?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You would also be able to see the Sun from every point on the Earth all the time. (Except when blocked by a mountain or such.)

[FlatAssembler]

it never occur to you that if the apparent convergence of solar rays caused by perspective is actually due to the sun being close, the sun must be so close to the earth that places on the earth just a few miles apart should see big differences in apparent size of the sun?

Here is how Flat-Earthers explain away the constant size of the Sun: https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tik...+at+Sunset

[Anomalocaris]

it never occur to you that if the apparent convergence of solar rays caused by perspective is actually due to the sun being close, the sun must be so close to the earth that places on the earth just a few miles apart should see big differences in apparent size of the sun?

Here is how Flat-Earthers explain away the constant size of the Sun: https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tik...+at+Sunset

do airplanes also stay of a constant visual size as they move from the zenith to the horizon?    or does it require the sun-ness of the light to affect this extremely convenient phenomenon?

[FlatAssembler]

Here is how Flat-Earthers explain away the constant size of the Sun: https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tik...+at+Sunset

do airplanes also stay of a constant visual size as they move from the zenith to the horizon?    or does it require the sun-ness of the light to affect this extremely convenient phenomenon?

The apparent sizes of airplanes are almost always so small you cannot see them changing size. Flock of birds also don't change their apparent sizes much as they approach the horizon. So I don't understand your question.

[Anomalocaris]

really?   you can’t tell the changes in apparent size of planes or birds as they move from zenith to horizon?    how many airplanes or flocks of birds in the sky have you seen?    did you in punishment of your own trollish stupidity pierce your own eyes with sharp objects before casting your sightless gaze upwards?

[FlatAssembler]

really?   you can’t tell the changes in apparent size of planes or birds as they move from zenith to horizon?    how many airplanes or flocks of birds in the sky have you seen?    did you in punishment of your own trollish stupidity pierce your own eyes with sharp objects before casting your sightless gaze upwards?

Why would you expect them to change their sizes... if the Earth is round? I can understand why somebody would expect them to change their sizes if the Earth is flat (in fact, one probably should expect that), but if the Earth is round... I mean, they are a few kilometers up in the sky, and the horizon is a few kilometers away from us, so their actual distance from us doesn't change much depending on whether they are in zenith or at the horizon.

[FlatAssembler]

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.

Back when I was a Flat-Earther, and some time afterwards, I used to think that airplanes don't exist. I used to think airplanes are a part of the conspiracy. And I used to think that it's obvious to anybody who knows basic physics and thinks with his own head that airplanes contradict the Torricelli's Law. Truly crazy beliefs. Yet BrimstoneSalad from philosophicalvegan.com managed to talk me out of those beliefs.

[Fake Messiah]

Maybe he can but that doesn't mean that I could. If someone told me that airplanes don't exist, I wouldn't know what to say to something as crazy as that. But I have, of course, noticed that some people even on this forum have patience for those kinds of conversations in various topics so that conversations become too strange or abstract after some time.