What are Flat Earthers?

[mahayana]

What are Flat Earthers?

plural noun: Flat Earthers are people who use critical thinking, thus believe the Earth is not a spinning ball.

The Globe is a lie, and has never been proven. Most people know that the moon missions were not real and space travel is impossible living under a dome.

[gsjackson]

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there are experiments which can demonstrate irrefutably that the Earth is in fact a globe, and these are independent of NASA's testimony.

I'll be very surprised if you find any.

[galii]

What are Flat Earthers?

plural noun: Flat Earthers are people who use critical thinking, thus believe the Earth is not a spinning ball.

The Globe is a lie, and has never been proven. Most people know that the moon missions were not real and space travel is impossible living under a dome.

Most of them failed in science class. That hurts.

[MarcosZeitola]

Most of them failed in science class. That hurts.

Some very smart people believe in some very stupid shit. One of the finest brain surgeons in the world (first to separate conjoined twins joined at the brain) believes the world is 6000 years old, for instance.

[galii]

Most of them failed in science class. That hurts.

Some very smart people believe in some very stupid shit. One of the finest brain surgeons in the world (first to separate conjoined twins joined at the brain) believes the world is 6000 years old, for instance.

Well he is brainwashed by religion. It is like being a extreme nationalist. It makes one very biased. Sometimes combined with a grift too.

I can still excuse these guys a bit because evolution and age of earth is a bit abstract but flat earth is on another mental illness level.

With flat earthers it seems they can't process basic physics.

[MarcosZeitola]

Well he is brainwashed by religion. It is like being a extreme nationalist. It makes one very biased. Sometimes combined with a grift too.

I can still excuse these guys a bit because evolution and age of earth is a bit abstract but flat earth is on another mental illness level.

With flat earthers it seems they can't process basic physics.

I think it's an almost compulsive desire to be contrarian and adopt viewpoints that seem almost designed to purposely upset people. It's akin to calling yourself a Stalinist or National Socialist in the year 2023; nobody does that unless they want to rile people up and get a kick out of it.

[galii]

Well he is brainwashed by religion. It is like being a extreme nationalist. It makes one very biased. Sometimes combined with a grift too.

I can still excuse these guys a bit because evolution and age of earth is a bit abstract but flat earth is on another mental illness level.

With flat earthers it seems they can't process basic physics.

I think it's an almost compulsive desire to be contrarian and adopt viewpoints that seem almost designed to purposely upset people. It's akin to calling yourself a Stalinist or National Socialist in the year 2023; nobody does that unless they want to rile people up and get a kick out of it.

So it is a way to get attention. To feel important and special. Otherwise one would be a boring person nobody wants to talk with.

Sometimes we do stupid shit to get attention. Getting attention is important for the dominance hierarchy. So it makes sense from the evolutional perspective.

[galii]

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there are experiments which can demonstrate irrefutably that the Earth is in fact a globe, and these are independent of NASA's testimony.

I'll be very surprised if you find any.

Well there are a few things like flat earthers don't understand how we can be on a ball spinning at thousands of miles per hour and we don't get thrown off. It's the same reason you don't get sucked to the back of a plane and splat at the rear end while it's travelling at 300 miles per hour. It's because you're part of that things mass. If the earth stopped spinning, then we would notice as everything not attached to bedrock would continue travelling at the speed the earth was spinning.

There's also something to do with air pressure and lightning. Lightning can't exist on a flat earth model because how can there be differing air pressure? If you climb a mountain you notice a difference in air pressure. If everything is under a firmament then how do we explain air pressure? Can rain even exist without air pressure? In the globe model the atmosphere becomes thinner the further away from the center of the earth you get, which makes sense in my opinion and can be observed when we climb a mountain and the air becomes much thinner. I don't think any of this makes sense on flat earth. There's no reason for air pressure to be any different if everything is contained underneath a firmament.

These above are not experiments as such, but they are observable phenomenon which support the globe model. But there are some experiments you can do yourself to demonstrate the earth is a globe.

1. Watch a lunar eclipse. When the earth passes between the sun and the moon it casts earth's shadow across the moons surface. If this isn't the earth then what other celestial body is responsible for the cast shadow? I don't think anyone has ever been able to prove its existence.

2. There's an experiment you can conduct with sticks. You and a friend take two sticks to two different locations and measure the shadows cast. On a flat earth both shadows should be at the same angle etc. But you will see that they are not.

3. Check the night sky from the Northern and Southern hemisphere. If you take note of the constellations in the Northern and Southern hemisphere you will notice that they are totally different. On a flat earth they should be exactly the same.

Fake moonlandings and NASA being caught out in lies don't provide us with evidence that the earth is flat, they only provide us with evidence that NASA is a greedy corporation that scam people out of money. This isn't a surprise since NASA is a corporation and every corporation seeks to make as much profit as possible. So it stands to reason that they would fake trips to space using CGI to save themselves money. They're just greedy. For this conspiracy to be true it wouldn't just include NASA it would also have to include geologists, physicists and astronomers would all have to be in on the conspiracy.

There were some interesting points made in a video shared a while back which I took the time to watch, but I still don't feel convinced the earth is flat. In saying that though I am a proponent of simulation theory and I believe that flat earth could be possible in a simulated reality with point 3 and the night sky just being simulated background. I'm open minded and would maybe accept the flat earth model if more compelling evidence was put forward. But as it stands at the moment I think I'm a firm globie

@gsjackson
@Winston
@galii
@MarcosZeitola

Why do flat brainers have globe phobia in your opinion?

[gsjackson]

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there are experiments which can demonstrate irrefutably that the Earth is in fact a globe, and these are independent of NASA's testimony.

I'll be very surprised if you find any.

Well there are a few things like flat earthers don't understand how we can be on a ball spinning at thousands of miles per hour and we don't get thrown off. It's the same reason you don't get sucked to the back of a plane and splat at the rear end while it's travelling at 300 miles per hour. It's because you're part of that things mass. If the earth stopped spinning, then we would notice as everything not attached to bedrock would continue travelling at the speed the earth was spinning.

There's also something to do with air pressure and lightning. Lightning can't exist on a flat earth model because how can there be differing air pressure? If you climb a mountain you notice a difference in air pressure. If everything is under a firmament then how do we explain air pressure? Can rain even exist without air pressure? In the globe model the atmosphere becomes thinner the further away from the center of the earth you get, which makes sense in my opinion and can be observed when we climb a mountain and the air becomes much thinner. I don't think any of this makes sense on flat earth. There's no reason for air pressure to be any different if everything is contained underneath a firmament.

These above are not experiments as such, but they are observable phenomenon which support the globe model. But there are some experiments you can do yourself to demonstrate the earth is a globe.

1. Watch a lunar eclipse. When the earth passes between the sun and the moon it casts earth's shadow across the moons surface. If this isn't the earth then what other celestial body is responsible for the cast shadow? I don't think anyone has ever been able to prove its existence.

2. There's an experiment you can conduct with sticks. You and a friend take two sticks to two different locations and measure the shadows cast. On a flat earth both shadows should be at the same angle etc. But you will see that they are not.

3. Check the night sky from the Northern and Southern hemisphere. If you take note of the constellations in the Northern and Southern hemisphere you will notice that they are totally different. On a flat earth they should be exactly the same.

Fake moonlandings and NASA being caught out in lies don't provide us with evidence that the earth is flat, they only provide us with evidence that NASA is a greedy corporation that scam people out of money. This isn't a surprise since NASA is a corporation and every corporation seeks to make as much profit as possible. So it stands to reason that they would fake trips to space using CGI to save themselves money. They're just greedy. For this conspiracy to be true it wouldn't just include NASA it would also have to include geologists, physicists and astronomers would all have to be in on the conspiracy.

There were some interesting points made in a video shared a while back which I took the time to watch, but I still don't feel convinced the earth is flat. In saying that though I am a proponent of simulation theory and I believe that flat earth could be possible in a simulated reality with point 3 and the night sky just being simulated background. I'm open minded and would maybe accept the flat earth model if more compelling evidence was put forward. But as it stands at the moment I think I'm a firm globie

@gsjackson
@Winston
@galii
@MarcosZeitola

So you've offered an explanation for why we wouldn't perceive the motion of a spinning ball, but that's not evidence that the earth is spinning. There is none, despite many attempts to demonstrate that there is.

Who said anything about a firmament? That's not a commonly accepted view among people investigating the heliocentric fallacy.

1. There have been 56 instances observed by even the Royal Academy of Science of eclipses occurring when the sun and moon were both observable in the sky. So not aligned in a way that creates the eclipse.

2. The sun rotates around the earth, just as it appears to do. And it is not 93 million miles away, which is utterly absurd. It is much, much closer, just as it appears to be. So does that explain your differing angles?

3. The obvious limitations of human vision account for different constellations above different parts of the earth. A person walks half a mile down the road and all but disappears (and no, the earth's curvature doesn't account for this -- 8 inches per mile squared is the curvature formula put forward by the globalists). And yet the "scientists" tell us that we can see stars that are quadrillions of miles away -- because they're so very, very big. Bullshit. They're what they appear to be -- a couple hundred or so miles away. Since the southern hemisphere is thousands of miles away from the northern you will see different stars overhead.

No need to postulate a "conspiracy theory." To get into and remain in the professions you listed you have to accept the prevailing paradigm. If you're dealing strictly with theory, rather than observable phenomenon, then both the heliocentric and geocentric paradigms work, according to both Einstein and Hawking. But to get into the "science" club, as currently constituted, you need to embrace the religion of heliocentrism.

[Yohan]

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there are experiments which can demonstrate irrefutably that the Earth is in fact a globe, and these are independent of NASA's testimony.

I'll be very surprised if you find any.

It is not difficult to prove that the earth is indeed a globe. Look up, read and study the findings of Al-Biruni, 973 - 1048 and compare it with NASA data.

NASA did not exist for sure around that time, about 1000 years ago.

However you can do this measure procedure by yourself, if you have enough time and if your area can provide a high mountain and either the sea or a very flat area nearby. No need to travel around the world, always in the same direction and to find yourself after a while at the same place again where you began your trip.

Al-Biruni used a (likely very large) astrolabe for measure of distances.
https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/libra ... olabe/what

Al-Biruni was a mathematician and astronomer who was often using geometry. He studied the astronomy of the stars, classified the planets and fixed stars. He constructed a globe of the earth and was the first to create a formula for measuring the earth’s circumference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ab ... erence.svg
English: Biruni (973 - 1048) developed a new method using trigonometric calculations to compute earth's radius and circumference based on the angle between the horizontal line and true horizon from a mountain top with known height. He calculated the height of the mountain by going to two points at sea level with a known distance apart and then measuring the angle between the plain and the top of the mountain for both points.
Biruni's estimate of 6,339.9 km for the Earth radius had an error of 0.0026 and was 16.8 km less than the current value of 6,356.7 km. The idea came to him when he was on top of a tall mountain near Nandana in Pakistan. He measured the dip angle using an astrolabe and he applied to the law of sines formula. He also made use of algebra in his calculation.

A = Highest point of mountain
B = Lowest point of mountain
h = Height of the mountain
C = Lowest point of true horizon visible from point A
O = Centre of Earth
α = Dip angle
r = Earth's radius
Solution:
The angle AOC = α.
AO=(r+h) is the hypotenuse in triangle AOC.
r=(r+h)·cos(α)
Then the right side can be simplified to find r.
r=h·cos(α)/(1-cos(α))

Al-Biruni made various measure experiments/calculations from different points and his result was always the same, the earth is a globe, radius 6.339 km, he made also experiments about day/night and time difference (angle of sunlight) and could confirm that the earth cannot be flat.

He also measured by trigonometry, (but admitted that he cannot really prove it but said it is highly possible), that the earth is revolving around the sun. He also found it realistic, that the earth’s rotation is on its axis and created correct data of longitudes and latitudes.

[galii]

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there are experiments which can demonstrate irrefutably that the Earth is in fact a globe, and these are independent of NASA's testimony.

I'll be very surprised if you find any.

It is not difficult to prove that the earth is indeed a globe. Look up, read and study the findings of Al-Biruni, 973 - 1048 and compare it with NASA data.

NASA did not exist for sure around that time, about 1000 years ago.

However you can do this measure procedure by yourself, if you have enough time and if your area can provide a high mountain and either the sea or a very flat area nearby. No need to travel around the world, always in the same direction and to find yourself after a while at the same place again where you began your trip.

Al-Biruni used a (likely very large) astrolabe for measure of distances.
https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/libra ... olabe/what

Al-Biruni was a mathematician and astronomer who was often using geometry. He studied the astronomy of the stars, classified the planets and fixed stars. He constructed a globe of the earth and was the first to create a formula for measuring the earth’s circumference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ab ... erence.svg
English: Biruni (973 - 1048) developed a new method using trigonometric calculations to compute earth's radius and circumference based on the angle between the horizontal line and true horizon from a mountain top with known height. He calculated the height of the mountain by going to two points at sea level with a known distance apart and then measuring the angle between the plain and the top of the mountain for both points.
Biruni's estimate of 6,339.9 km for the Earth radius had an error of 0.0026 and was 16.8 km less than the current value of 6,356.7 km. The idea came to him when he was on top of a tall mountain near Nandana in Pakistan. He measured the dip angle using an astrolabe and he applied to the law of sines formula. He also made use of algebra in his calculation.

A = Highest point of mountain
B = Lowest point of mountain
h = Height of the mountain
C = Lowest point of true horizon visible from point A
O = Centre of Earth
α = Dip angle
r = Earth's radius
Solution:
The angle AOC = α.
AO=(r+h) is the hypotenuse in triangle AOC.
r=(r+h)·cos(α)
Then the right side can be simplified to find r.
r=h·cos(α)/(1-cos(α))

Al-Biruni made various measure experiments/calculations from different points and his result was always the same, the earth is a globe, radius 6.339 km, he made also experiments about day/night and time difference (angle of sunlight) and could confirm that the earth cannot be flat.

He also measured by trigonometry, (but admitted that he cannot really prove it but said it is highly possible), that the earth is revolving around the sun. He also found it realistic, that the earth’s rotation is on its axis and created correct data of longitudes and latitudes.

You come up with a quite complicated one here. Even I have to think about it. I report when I am done.

[galii]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K-41nEYbE8#
Bravo, Dubay, Gracie Flat Earth Interview

[galii]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tek8-LtMgss
Joe Rogan - Eddie Bravo Goes DEEP on Flat Earth

You can see Eddie has a very simple brain. He does not believe in nuclear bombs too. That is something he could research but he chose not too. It takes lots of time and it is not as fun as stupid conspiracy theories. You can see that with Winston. He wants to be entertained he does not want to put in the work to understand things.

[galii]

I think I am wrong and Marcus Zeitola is right.

Here google AI:

It is possible that some flat Earthers do not have the mental capacity to understand the scientific evidence that supports the shape of the Earth. However, I think this is less likely than the possibility that they are motivated by a desire for a narcissistic kick.

Here are some reasons why I think this:

The scientific evidence that supports the shape of the Earth is not particularly complex. It is based on simple observations and experiments that can be understood by people of all levels of education.
There are many flat Earthers who are intelligent and well-educated. They are able to understand complex concepts and to reason critically.
Some flat Earthers are even able to explain their beliefs in a way that is superficially convincing. This suggests that they are not intellectually incapable of understanding the scientific evidence.
Overall, I think that it is more likely that flat Earthers are motivated by a desire for a narcissistic kick than by a lack of mental capacity. However, it is possible that some flat Earthers do not have the mental capacity to understand the scientific evidence, even though this is less likely.

It is also important to note that there is a difference between having the mental capacity to understand something and being willing to do so. Some people may have the ability to understand the scientific evidence, but they may choose to ignore it because they are motivated by other factors, such as a desire to feel superior or to be different.

[Lucas88]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tek8-LtMgss
Joe Rogan - Eddie Bravo Goes DEEP on Flat Earth

You can see Eddie has a very simple brain. He does not believe in nuclear bombs too. That is something he could research but he chose not too. It takes lots of time and it is not as fun as stupid conspiracy theories. You can see that with Winston. He wants to be entertained he does not want to put in the work to understand things.

I've met Eddie Bravo in real life. I attended one of his Jiujitsu seminars in the mid 2000s.

Eddie has an unusually brilliant mind for Jiujitsu. He was able to innovate so many unique techniques and then organize them into a coherent and highly efficient no-gi grappling system – what today we know as 10th Planet Jiujitsu.

Judging from his ability to innovate dozens of unorthodox grappling positions, transitions and submissions that nobody has ever thought of before and systematize them, Eddie almost certainly has a high level of intelligence and an unusual capacity for creativity, even if he tends to come across as a crazy stoner dude on the internet.

To @MarcosZeitola's point, some extremely brilliant people may hold outlandish beliefs. In fact, there is research to suggest that highly intelligent people are just as susceptible to holding outlandish beliefs – beliefs that most others consider absurd – as unintelligent people are precisely because highly intelligent people are so good at rationalizing outlandish beliefs and convincing themselves of their veracity.