A discussion on TFES forum

[brimstoneSalad]

Actually, I did most of what you just posted. Mostly from the Flat Earth Theory. They have made a ad-hoc to explain that away.

This is why we call them intellectually dishonest. To be honest, we should always reject ad-hoc hypotheses.

If you don't know enough about the Earth or physics to decide if the Earth is round or flat, then a position of agnosticism could be respected. Just say "I don't know which shape the Earth is". In ignorance, the worst thing you can do is take the opposite position of all mainstream authorities and say you believe the Earth to be flat -- it makes you look crazy and very arrogant.

What is even more reasonable than agnosticism is: "I don't know enough about this subject to decide, but scientific authorities say it's round, so I will tentatively accept this until I learn more about it to decide for myself."
Learning more about it, in this case, means learning about the science too -- not just eating up a bunch of Flat Earth arguments without knowing the other side.
You should enroll at a local college, and take a class in geology, physics, and astronomy. I've taken all of these classes (a large number of some), and in the hard science I have done actual experiments so I understand the methodology; I have enough formal science education to make a decision for myself. You don't (yet).

It's true that some people can learn on their own, but if you come to a conclusion different from mainstream science, then the chances are better that your self education failed and you didn't understand something correctly: In these cases, in order to have any credibility, you should be sure to have formal guided education on the topic from an accredited institution.

There are plenty of things I believed that were different from what science shows that I learned were wrong when I had formal education (and why they were wrong, as I'm showing you now about flat Earth). Self guided education is always subject to bias, and you can easily avoid proving yourself wrong if you choose what to learn and what not to by yourself.

If you don't know The apparent curvature of the horizon from high-altitude photographs is explained by the Sun. They claim that the apparent horizon is places from where you currently see the sunset. And that you can't see any farther because the exposure of the camera is not long enough.

That doesn't make any sense, and is not how light/cameras work.
It's as if they said:

When you're sitting down and try to reach for something across the room, your arm can't reach it because it's not still enough (small tremors in your muscles prevent your arm from being able to stretch up to infinitely long to grasp objects millions of miles away and beyond).

Make sense? Of course not. Why? That's because we understand clearly why and how we can not reach across the room. Most people do not understand light and optics; it's profoundly confusing the the layman. You would need to take a class in optics and learn a lot more about them to make or uderstand claims like these. The Flat Earthers are banking on the fact that most people are so ignorant of optics that their confusing science-sounding explanations will just be accepted.
It's like the Emperor's new clothes: most people don't want to admit they can't uderstand any of it, and it sounds reasonable enough so it must be true.

Motivated by this conversation, I tried to calculate the angle at which you should see the Polaris at the equator right above the atmosphere. Well, assuming that the Polaris is 5000 kilometers right above the north pole and the equator is 10000 kilometers from the north pole, that should be atan(5000/10000)=27 degrees. Well, since the Polaris is visible right at the horizon from the equator, you should expect most of the stars to be tight in that angle. Yet you don't see a bright line at your eye level on those photographs.

Good job.
As it turns out, we see virtually no distortion in the positions of stars from atmosphere; they all end up at about the same spacing, just shifted across the sky due to the curvature of the Earth (thus the different perspective they are seen from).

They even claim it is the only right explanation because the horizon seems elliptical and not circular (I don't see any logic in it, though).

Right, it's another case of a confusing ad-hoc explanation which doesn't actually work, but it's hard to understand so most people will just accept it because it sounds scientific.
That's why pseudoscience is so dangerous: to the layman, because it steals the language and manner of speaking of science, it can be very convincing if you don't carefully examine it, and use math to compare its conclusions to reality.

I've also tried to draw a diagram to see whether the refractions or reflections up in the atmosphere are explanations for that unknown phenomena, and, you were right, they are not.

Right, as soon as you try to draw it and do the math, the house of cards falls down. But Round Earth is very easy to draw and do the math for, and the results are what we observe (within a small margin of error, since the Earth is actually an Oblate Spheroid [ever so slightly bulged in the middle because it is spinning -- not enough to make a big difference to these kinds of observations though]).

As for the atomic clocks, they explain this by the stars having small gravitational field (and that should have exactly the opposite effect, right?).

Right, this would cause the clocks to run slower up high, and faster down low. We see the opposite in reality, where clocks are faster down low and slower up high. And we can confirm that gravity causes the clocks to slow, because even standing very near/touching a clock (your own gravity) slows it down a tiny bit.

For the coriolis, they explain this away as the shadow of aetheric wind, since they claim it can only be observed up in the atmosphere (of course, they don't give any explanation for what an aether even is).

And yet, we can observe this effect on the ground, or even underground in a basement, etc. As soon as you tell them this, they will change their explanation and say that aetheric wind must operate on the ground and underground as well, and passes through solid things but just drags them enough to create this force.

BUT if aetheric wind drags objects, then objects also drag aetheric wind, and we should be able to detect disturbances in this force caused by large or moving objects stirring the wind or shadowing it, and we can not.

Aether theories were tested rigorously in the 1800's, and consistently disproved.

So, they have to change their explanation again: Aetheric wind is special and violates physics, because it creates forces on other things, but is not itself subject to those forces (no equal and opposite reaction in the wind from the objects).

It just keeps going like this. You can never prove them wrong, because ad-hoc explanations are infinitely malleable, avoid making solid predictions, and if they do they just change any time you show it's wrong and become even more convinced that they are right because the model is now more elaborate than ever.
For a scientist, this is a deal-breaker, and why we never trust ad-hoc hypotheses.

But, yes, of course I have questions about the Round Earth Theory. So, you claimed that the Earth being flat wouldn't explain the bottoms of the ships reappearing when zooming the camera.

The bottoms of ships which are actually over the horizon do not reappear when you zoom the camera. They can reappear when you climb up on the mast, though. It would not be hard to fake. Are there videos of this? Because it sounds like something Flat Earthers fabricated.

The only thing zooming does is give you more detail (it may make it easier to tell the bottom of the ship from the water if it is not yet over the horizon).
You can zoom all you want on a ship, but you will never see the bottom of it if it's over the hill of the ocean created by the roundness of the Earth.

That's like trying to zoom the camera to see around a corner. Or adjusting the focus to see through a wall. It's not how light or cameras work. Atmospheric refraction is real, but it's a very small effect (which we can measure), and doesn't produce the effects the Flat Earthers claim.

Also, how do you explain the fact that the Moon doesn't appear to get its light from the Sun?

The moon does appear to get its light from the sun. It's how the lunar phases work.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ses_en.jpg

Wiki's article is quite detailed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase

It's hard for me to grasp how Flat Earthers have managed to twist reasoning to misunderstand how lunar phases work. There are many simple illustrations out there that show quite clearly.

Round Earth is also why eclipses work. I know Flat Earthers have their own explanation, but like the others it doesn't make any sense and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[teo123]

Yeah, you are right. Besides, their explanation for the ships disappearing bottom first doesn't even attempt to explain how do those bottoms of the ships reappear when you climb. I mean, if the angle between the point B and the point A is too small for a human eye to see when the ship is looked from the ground, it should be even smaller when you climb somewhere (the distance from the eye to the ship is even greater). It just takes a few more minutes of thinking. But it is hard not to be biased towards the Flat Earth Theory when you look out through the window, right?
But the illuminated part of the Moon doesn't always appear to align exactly with the Sun when you look at it during, let's say, sunset. I have bothered to find some photos on the Internet, because we might not be talking about the same thing.



(I am not sure where is the Sun in the last one, I just assume that it is behind the hill because there is obviously some light there).

[brimstoneSalad]

But it is hard not to be biased towards the Flat Earth Theory when you look out through the window, right?

Not for me. The fact that the horizon is very near wherever I look tells me I'm on a sphere. If I weren't, then everything to mountains and tall buildings would be visible all of the time, land would always be visible from the sea, etc. (although very small on the horizon, it would still be there).
What I see when I look out is a very large sphere that looks flat from an "ant's" perspective, but still curves away with distance limiting my view.

We could even calculate how large mount Everest should appear (in degrees vertically over the horizon) from any position on the Earth if it were flat.
The nearest tall buildings or mountains would always be in view.

But the illuminated part of the Moon doesn't always appear to align exactly with the Sun when you look at it during, let's say, sunset. I have bothered to find some photos on the Internet, because we might not be talking about the same thing.

In the first photo, it is late afternoon, near sunset, but the sun is clearly far off to the right, probably around 90 degrees right, as you can see the sky getting brighter orange/yellow in that direction. The photo itself has a deceptively wide frame despite how narrow it appears.

In the second photo, a similar situation applies, although I don't think it's as late (different exposure), it's hard to tell the exact time. The sun is apparently low in the sky and behind the camera, with shadows from high elevation ground/mountains being cast on the foreground (it's a mountainous area, as clear by the foreground). The horizon shown is very dark, not indicative of the sun setting near by, but probably opposite in the sky.
This may even be smoke or smog some time before sunset, seeing how dark brown the horizon is.

These go to show that you really do need more information about where the sun is, because it's very hard to tell from photos like this, and a brown horizon could be attributed to a number of things. Large forest fires can also create an effect like a sunset, as can city lights with the right exposure, reflecting in smog. If you don't know where the sun is, you can't assume.

In the third photo there actually is more information about where the sun is: it is daytime, and the sun is behind and to the right of the camera.
1. Note the color of the sky: it's very bright blue
2. Note the light level on the landscape in general. The ground appears much darker at and near sunset.
3. Note the other shadows in the scene, like the obvious shadow on the tree which clearly demonstrates the sun's position as behind and to the right of the camera. Might as well be a sun dial.

The horizon being more white in the day is common due to larger ground level particulates.
This post explains it pretty well: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/w ... st-2513172
Basically there's more stuff to bounce off of (like very thin clouds) in the air, and you're looking through a dense layer of it horizontally (because you're looking through all of it for miles), and you're looking through a thin layer when you look up and out vertically.
Imagine standing in fog; you can see the sky because you don't have to look through that much fog to reach the sky (a few dozen feet maybe), but if you look through the fog horizontally, it's white because it's thicker in that direction (miles thick).
If you need, I can draw a diagram.

I'd suggest you make your own observations, rather than relying on guesses from photographs which could be showing any number of things. You'd need to note the time of day, your location, and the direction you're facing for the photo, and where the sun is. If you do that, you will never find anything that disagrees with the round Earth model -- unlike photos, which can be very deceptive since we don't have all of the information.

[teo123]

Sorry, I think you completely misunderstood what I said. I was not using those photographs as proofs, I was using them to show what I was talking about. On the third page of this topic, I even wrote:

If the Moon really gets its light from the Sun, how come the illuminated part of the Moon doesn't align with the Sun? And I have seen that with my own eyes: the Sun just set, but the north part of the Moon was illuminated, and not the west one!

So, what I saw was very similar to the first photograph. I saw it in my town when I was going home from the school. So, you can safely eliminate unknown forest fires and camera problems. Street lights might be some sort of explanation for that, but so could the waves be an explanation for the ships disappearing bottom first. Obviously, both the illuminated part of the Moon not aligning with the Sun during sunset and the ships disappearing bottom first are rules, not isolated incidents (just look at the photographs on Flicker, there are many more showing that).

[brimstoneSalad]

Sorry, I think you completely misunderstood what I said. I was not using those photographs as proofs, I was using them to show what I was talking about. On the third page of this topic, I even wrote:

If the Moon really gets its light from the Sun, how come the illuminated part of the Moon doesn't align with the Sun? And I have seen that with my own eyes: the Sun just set, but the north part of the Moon was illuminated, and not the west one!

The sun does not set in the West. In the Northern hemisphere's summer (the Southern hemisphere's winter) it sets in the North-West. In the Northern hemisphere's winter, it sets in the South-West. The angle in the sky changes massively depending on the time of the year.

Are you even looking at the direction the moon is illuminated from in context to the sun's actual position?

So, what I saw was very similar to the first photograph.

The first photo shows the moon lit from the right, and what looks like slightly behind (when it's a crescent, that means it is lit from slightly behind it relative to us -- you can try this with a ball and light at home).

Draw a diagram, and you will see what I mean. Remember that the sun and moon are not anywhere nearly the same distance from the Earth.

sunmoonsituation.gif

sunmoonsituation.gif

(fixed)

I suspect you're assuming the left situation.

If you observe more carefully, and actually use a compass to check the direction of illumination and compare it against a model with a ball and a light, you will find that there is no such effect you are describing; you are simply visualizing things incorrectly.

Street lights might be some sort of explanation for that, but so could the waves be an explanation for the ships disappearing bottom first.

Waves are not an explanation for the ship bottoms disappearing first. Draw a diagram. Distant waves get smaller too so they can't cover a ship (only huge waves could, which we can observe clearly are not there from the ships' masts). We can see this effect on still water, as well as in certain desert playas with flat surfaces and no waves.

[teo123]

OK, I must say you convinced me. I believe that the Earth is round again. I think I now have all the clues needed to refute all of their supposed evidence and "philosophical" arguments.
Some of the refutations are even easier to understand than the arguments themselves.
I don't know how to even explain myself. They somehow managed to convince me that my reasons are entirely logical, yet none of them are. But I don't think that's entirely my fault. People whom I talked to about the Flat Earth Theory in real life haven't even tried to refute my arguments, they just insulted me again and again. They even affirmed my beliefs by that.
I really thought the Flat Earth Theory was consistent. I trusted The Flat Earth Society so much that I haven't even bothered to draw diagrams and quickly realize that their explanations don't make any sense at all. I mean, trusting them is so ridiculous. You know that they will simply lie to you in order to convince you.
I don't even know what happened in my head when I became a Flat Earther. Back when I was a Round Earther, I made arguments in favor of the Round Earth theory, and most of them weren't refuted at all. Instead of rejecting the Flat Earth Theory, I made up my own refutations, mostly by slightly changing the Flat Earth Theory.
I guess I was biased towards simply being different. I mean, come on! Even a basic common sense can solve this in a matter of minutes. When you look out through the window, you clearly see the sky being round. You know that the sky and the Earth probably never actually touch each other, therefore the Earth has to also be round. But no! I decided to bring the perspective and the infinite sizes of the Earth and the sky in the story because of that. And I did something similar again and again. It all looks just so silly and even insane right now.
I will post the refutations on the TFES forum when I have more time. But now I have real life problems. My mother has been taken by the police to a mental hospital and I have no idea what will happen with me. But when I do that, I will link to that on this topic (maybe after a month or two).

[brimstoneSalad]

People whom I talked to about the Flat Earth Theory in real life haven't even tried to refute my arguments, they just insulted me again and again. They even affirmed my beliefs by that.

That's not uncommon, but you have to try to resist that kind of persecution psychology. At least this may give you insight into the delusions of the religious, and of carnists; it could help you become better at persuasion in the future.

Instead of rejecting the Flat Earth Theory, I made up my own refutations, mostly by slightly changing the Flat Earth Theory.

Thus is the nature of an ad hoc hypothesis, and why pseudoscience is so insidious.

I guess I was biased towards simply being different.

Right, I mentioned this before. That's why I called what Flat Earthers do masturbatory. The idea that you're special and can see something nobody else can is very attractive. The same happens for religious people who think they have special insight on god.

I will post the refutations on the TFES forum when I have more time.

Instead of posting that as new refutation, I recommend you just edit your old posts to refute your own arguments, then message and apologize to those Round Earthers you argued with before. You can link them to this thread to show them what convinced you.

There's not much value in refuting Flat Earth for most people. What's it matter if a few crazy people think the Earth is flat? It does matter if vegans do, so that's what I'm concerned about, because anybody knowing a vegan thinks the Earth is flat undermines the scientific arguments that vegan makes.

But now I have real life problems. My mother has been taken by the police to a mental hospital and I have no idea what will happen with me.

Where do you live and how old are you? I suggest you make a new thread about this, and we'll try to help you out.

[teo123]

I think that what you are suggesting would simply take too much time. I am planning to post those refutations in the debate section and link to them on the sticked thread I've already made a few posts on.
So, thank you for helping me in seeking for the truth.
By the way, what do you do in your real life when you know all that stuff?

[brimstoneSalad]

I think that what you are suggesting would simply take too much time.

It's a good way to more precisely undo the harm you've caused, since you'll be able to address each person you may have hurt or offended.

Anyway, you should do whatever you have time for to make amends. I know you have a lot of serious life issues now. I hope it all works out OK!

[teo123]

Why should I bother that nobody feels offended? Come on! They didn't bother for me not to feel offended at all. They called me a moron, an idiot, a psychopath and a fool. Yes, I was a bit rude to them also (used "dishonest rhetorics"), but I think that's exactly what they expected.