Date: 29/01/2016 17:22:38
From: dv
ID: 838283
Subject: Simple proofs of the round earth

Flat earth theory has been in the news because of B.o.B.‘s tweets on the topic, and his subsequent track called Flatline.

I thought he was probably trolling or ‘avin’ a laugh but the ongoing earnestness makes me think he has “self-radicalised” with online bullshit.
Interestingly enough, the Flatline song also indicates Holocaust-denial. I say it is interesting because the other celeb who has prominently come out as a Flat-earther (Tila Tequila) is the author of “Why I Sympathize with Hitler”, so perhaps there is some kind of intersection set there. Fairly low n, though, I admit.

So: what are the simplest ways to show that the earth is round, without a bunch of fancy equipment? There’s all kinds of evidence but for some people a simple test that they can do themselves is best. It seems they don’t trust pictures taken from space.

1/ Watch a departing ship sink below the horizon
For this to work, you’d need a telescope or a good set of binoculars, you’d probably want a fairly low elevation, and it would need to be a large ship. The ship will vanish from the bottom up. Calm seas and low haze will help.
If you’re on the shore with your eye level at 1.7 m ASL, and watching a ship sail away, then when it is 13 km away you will see 5 metres bitten off the bottom. At 16 km away, 10 metres.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV0h68YU0iQ

2/ Check the stars at various latitudes
This one is not so good because it will require someone to travel and to make observations. (For reasons past understanding, there are people who get massively worked up about issues but are not willing to make a bit of effort to find out more about them.)
Take the flat-earthers at their own terms, use their own maps, in deciding where to take the observations. Most of them use a map centred on the north pole with Antarctica as a ring around the outside. Polaris (α Ursae Minori) is best to use because it is always basically at the same elevation above the horizon. So over a few days you’d show them Polaris at their home in Idaho and they’d observe that it was always about 45 degrees above the horizon at any time. Then you’d take them on a road trip (apparently they don’t trust observations involving aircraft) down to Panama (south, even by their maps) and they’d see that Polaris is only about 10 degrees above the horizon. So far these observations could be consistent with a flat earth because they believe the stars are relatively near. Then you’d take a cruise south from Panama (there’s no road connecting Panama and South America). Night by night Polaris would get lower in the sky and by the time you got to Peru, it would be gone.
You could do this at other latitudes using other stars but Polaris is good because it takes the rotation of the earth out of the picture and doesn’t require a lot of trigonometry.

3/ Shadow of the earth on the moon
Regardless of the orientation or time of day, when the earth casts a shadow on the moon, it always has the same apparent radius.
The weakness of this one is that it requires the listener to a) think about the geometry a bit and b) accept that the lunar eclipse represents the shadow of the earth on the moon, rather than some intrinsic change happening at the moon.

4/ Call someone you trust in another time zone, ask if the sun is up.
In the era of instant long distant communication, this might be the simplest thing. It doesn’t involve anyone doing anything out of the ordinary. B.o.B. can be at home in Georgia an hour after the sun has gone down, and call a trusted friend in LA.

I suspect that none of this will work because (shrugs) some people just decide what they want to believe and don’t want to consider any arguments deeply.

Ideas such as examining shadows in different places don’t work because a) they think the sun is nearby and b) they don’t do maths.

Any other notions?

Reply Quote

Date: 29/01/2016 18:02:02
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 838318
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

I should probably know this, but who is B’oB?

As for the questions, I ‘ll have a think.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/01/2016 18:09:06
From: Cymek
ID: 838321
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

Is it only the Earth that is flat or all planetary bodies, why would Earth be an exception

Reply Quote

Date: 29/01/2016 18:12:40
From: dv
ID: 838322
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

Cymek said:


Is it only the Earth that is flat or all planetary bodies, why would Earth be an exception

That is not a very strong argument. God made the Earth specially for humans. The other “planetary bodies” by comparison are tiny and not far away, orbiting the Earth.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/01/2016 18:14:02
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 838323
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

And saw that it was good.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/01/2016 18:14:09
From: dv
ID: 838324
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

The Rev Dodgson said:


I should probably know this, but who is B’oB?

As for the questions, I ‘ll have a think.

Bobby Simmons Jr, m’lud, a recording artist of some renown.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/01/2016 18:18:01
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 838329
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

centre of gravity of a disc v globe. be higher and see further.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/01/2016 18:28:35
From: Spiny Norman
ID: 838342
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

dv said:


Any other notions?

I favour percussion training.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 12:12:16
From: Ian
ID: 839005
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

>Any other notions?

Find a strategically placed well and a staight stick.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:30:50
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 839372
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

> Any other notions?

Measure the curvature of the sea’s surface directly using laser ranging.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:32:45
From: dv
ID: 839375
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

mollwollfumble said:


> Any other notions?

Measure the curvature of the sea’s surface directly using laser ranging.

Like I say: simple tests, no fancy equipment. Something you can show to someone without mathematical knowledge, perhaps not that bright.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:37:36
From: wookiemeister
ID: 839383
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:38:06
From: wookiemeister
ID: 839384
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

dv said:


mollwollfumble said:

> Any other notions?

Measure the curvature of the sea’s surface directly using laser ranging.

Like I say: simple tests, no fancy equipment. Something you can show to someone without mathematical knowledge, perhaps not that bright.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:39:47
From: dv
ID: 839385
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

wookiemeister said:


dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Any other notions?

Measure the curvature of the sea’s surface directly using laser ranging.

Like I say: simple tests, no fancy equipment. Something you can show to someone without mathematical knowledge, perhaps not that bright.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

The Erastosthenes experiment by itself assumes a distant sun. The FE people think the sun is very nearby, which accounts for these shadow angle differences.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:44:13
From: wookiemeister
ID: 839387
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

dv said:


wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Like I say: simple tests, no fancy equipment. Something you can show to someone without mathematical knowledge, perhaps not that bright.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

The Erastosthenes experiment by itself assumes a distant sun. The FE people think the sun is very nearby, which accounts for these shadow angle differences.


even if you assumed a flat surface basic maths would show the sun was quite some distance away

an observer measures the angle of the sun at midday i suppose and with a known distance between points

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:47:44
From: Ian
ID: 839389
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

What do the FEers suppose happens to the ISS when it disappears then reapears?

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:51:24
From: wookiemeister
ID: 839390
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

i can only assume that space is somehow bent to give the impression that the ISS moves around a sphere

there is no edge of the world as such , a ship goes over the “edge “ but the space at the edge snaps back to the other edge

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:52:50
From: dv
ID: 839391
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

Ian said:


What do the FEers suppose happens to the ISS when it disappears then reapears?

Here is an example of what FE people say about how satellites work:


They don’t need to.

Dish satellite TV, if you’ll notice, is always pointed at a shallow angle. That’s because it’s not pointing at a satellite (or it would have to be constantly adjusting). It’s pointed at a tower.
Talk to an expert on GPS (by which I mean someone who builds the systems GPS relies on), and you’ll find it’s all based on underground wires and ground-based towers. The satellites in the sky are not for GPS. Neither are they for TV or cell phones. So they’re not actually necessary.

You’ll hear that there are 20,000 or 30,000 satellites orbiting earth, but that’s a bit misleading. To get that number, they have to define satellite as any object from the size of a pencil eraser and up. We’re talking “space debris” moreso than the functional satellites that you’re meant to imagine when you hear the word. If there were really 30,000 functional satellites in orbit you’d see them constantly. There are only 201,000,000 square miles on the surface of the earth, and your range of visibility based on the globe model is roughly 10 degrees, or 1/36th of the circumference of the sky. So you should be able to look up and see no less than 65 satellites at one time. But you can’t. The number of functional satellites is very low. Low enough that a flat earth believer could claim there is another explanation for the very infrequent occurrence of one shooting across the night sky and have a basis for an argument.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:55:27
From: party_pants
ID: 839392
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

dv said:

You’ll hear that there are 20,000 or 30,000 satellites orbiting earth, but that’s a bit misleading. To get that number, they have to define satellite as any object from the size of a pencil eraser and up. We’re talking “space debris” moreso than the functional satellites that you’re meant to imagine when you hear the word. If there were really 30,000 functional satellites in orbit you’d see them constantly. There are only 201,000,000 square miles on the surface of the earth, and your range of visibility based on the globe model is roughly 10 degrees, or 1/36th of the circumference of the sky. So you should be able to look up and see no less than 65 satellites at one time. But you can’t. The number of functional satellites is very low. Low enough that a flat earth believer could claim there is another explanation for the very infrequent occurrence of one shooting across the night sky and have a basis for an argument.

Sweet Jesus, the stupid.

Just give them the mustard gas already.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:57:16
From: Ian
ID: 839393
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

What about the view of a sunrise or sunset from 40, 000 ft? Looks curved to me.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:57:45
From: Arts
ID: 839394
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

party_pants said:


dv said:

You’ll hear that there are 20,000 or 30,000 satellites orbiting earth, but that’s a bit misleading. To get that number, they have to define satellite as any object from the size of a pencil eraser and up. We’re talking “space debris” moreso than the functional satellites that you’re meant to imagine when you hear the word. If there were really 30,000 functional satellites in orbit you’d see them constantly. There are only 201,000,000 square miles on the surface of the earth, and your range of visibility based on the globe model is roughly 10 degrees, or 1/36th of the circumference of the sky. So you should be able to look up and see no less than 65 satellites at one time. But you can’t. The number of functional satellites is very low. Low enough that a flat earth believer could claim there is another explanation for the very infrequent occurrence of one shooting across the night sky and have a basis for an argument.

Sweet Jesus, the stupid.

Just give them the mustard gas already.

this. although, all these people are probably vaccinated…

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:59:28
From: wookiemeister
ID: 839395
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

Ian said:


What about the view of a sunrise or sunset from 40, 000 ft? Looks curved to me.


this might be caused by light passing through the air being bent

its a trick of the light

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 22:59:47
From: sibeen
ID: 839396
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

Arts said:

although, all these people are probably vaccinated…

…against ideas that are thousands of years old.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:02:07
From: dv
ID: 839397
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

Ian said:


What about the view of a sunrise or sunset from 40, 000 ft? Looks curved to me.

It’s pretty marginal at that height and you’d need a good FOV. If you looked out your airplane window you could convince yourself there is no curve.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:04:45
From: dv
ID: 839398
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

You can take it for granted that anything they don’t see with their own eyes, they assume is fake. Photographs won’t cut it.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:06:07
From: Ian
ID: 839399
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

dv said:


Ian said:

What about the view of a sunrise or sunset from 40, 000 ft? Looks curved to me.

It’s pretty marginal at that height and you’d need a good FOV. If you looked out your airplane window you could convince yourself there is no curve.

I managed to talk my way into a 747 cockpit at sunrise over Melbourne.. impressive.
Next you’ll be saying that’s not allowed.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:07:55
From: dv
ID: 839400
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

Ian said:


dv said:

Ian said:

What about the view of a sunrise or sunset from 40, 000 ft? Looks curved to me.

It’s pretty marginal at that height and you’d need a good FOV. If you looked out your airplane window you could convince yourself there is no curve.

I managed to talk my way into a 747 cockpit at sunrise over Melbourne.. impressive.
Next you’ll be saying that’s not allowed.

When was that?

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:09:11
From: dv
ID: 839402
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

The pictures from DSCOVR look fake af, like something a kid could come up with.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:10:51
From: Arts
ID: 839404
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

I’m almost certain I’ve seen ISS residents drinking flat water discs…

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:14:45
From: Ian
ID: 839408
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

You know that can’t win with these people?

I stumbled into a Christian site the other day that was claiming that cosmolgists (unnamed) looking at the Big Bang and that scientists finding patterns in DNA structure were proofs of the existence of God.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:15:32
From: Ian
ID: 839409
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

76?

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:16:14
From: dv
ID: 839411
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

Ian said:


76?

I mean probably not so easy these days

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:17:43
From: sibeen
ID: 839413
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

dv said:


Ian said:

76?

I mean probably not so easy these days

They used to throw excess passengers into the spare seat in the cockpit on some of the larger planes.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/01/2016 23:24:03
From: wookiemeister
ID: 839419
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

dv said:


Ian said:

76?

I mean probably not so easy these days


use a holesaw

the look on their faces is priceless

Reply Quote

Date: 1/02/2016 03:13:58
From: roughbarked
ID: 839983
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

Anyway, the earth is neither flat nor round.

Reply Quote

Date: 1/02/2016 04:02:44
From: dv
ID: 839989
Subject: re: Simple proofs of the round earth

roughbarked said:


Anyway, the earth is neither flat nor round.

banana shaped

Reply Quote