Flat Earth. Where do you stand?
0 2015-10-02 by tigereyeearth
After giving flat earth theory a good listen I think the earth is very likely not a globe, and flat is a better way to explain it - though surely we can get more specific with further open minded research.
71 comments
8 sheasie 2015-10-02
yea it's not flat.
i admit: some interesting questions are raised.
HOWEVER. Nearly any high-school physics teacher would be able to provide an answer that support round earth theory. these presentations often rely on "God" as their basis for questioning round earth theory. It' not that the questions are not valid. It's that they never really want the answer. They are happier leaving these tangling questions out there -- as if they have remained unanswered mysteries.
BOTTOM LINE: the flat earth theory is not strongly supported -- likely even disinfo troll sludge.
-1 tigereyeearth2 2015-10-02
it's true a lot of people do try to use flat earth to justify religion/ inteligent design stuff, (just like they use globe earth to the same end) but it doesn't have to go there. I'm agnostic, god isn't a part of it for me, just physics and math,
you can say what you like. but you've got me very wrong.
7 Rontagosh 2015-10-02
I think empiricism has something else to say, and it's been saying it for hundreds of years - the earth is not flat, duh. This is not a conspiracy; reported as spam.
-5 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
what in your sensory experience says globe to you?
6 Rontagosh 2015-10-02
Scientific empiricism must have been ignored when you cherry picked the empiricism wiki.
-4 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
if you want to tell me exactly what you mean using that word ... please do.
3 Rontagosh 2015-10-02
Just did, to clarify: empiricism, in the context of scientific empiricism.
-3 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
evidence in the natural world is in support of flat earth. that's precisely why the theory is growing in popularity. thats what scientific empiricism is about says first google hit on the internet. feel free to clarify your meaning further if you like.
-2 Rontagosh 2015-10-02
You forgot an '/s' or something
-2 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
huh?
7 pemulis1 2015-10-02
I suspect that all of this Flat Earth stuff is an attempt to tar all conspiracy theories with the same brush. I.E. Flat Earth is obviously a theory that only idiots and mentally disturbed people would believe, so (for instance) 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory and must be as ludicrous.
1 prototorpedo 2015-10-02
Right on, man! We must keep in mind that this field is infiltrated, like any other for that matter. I think also movies are used to sweep conspiracy theories under the rug. But the earth is not flat
-1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
if you are sure the earth is not flat just look into the evidence, all you gotta do is look into it, you can still feel how you feel now just test your conviction - like with any other legitimate theory - you can only pass educated judgement if you first hear out the reasoning.
2 prototorpedo 2015-10-02
I have been looking, and it's baloney. It's just some guy saying that the water can't stay curved and whatnot without even knowing the exact explanation. And the exact explanation I believe is a documentary called the primer fields. Now you check that out and explain to me how that's not the explanation for how planets orbit, or how the water stays 'curved' - i.e. attached to earth - and so on. I don't even think water even is 'curved' with all the waves and such, how could you tell? And what, if the water curves, it would explode or what? It would just have more surface tension I assume. You can basically argue as such against any so called argument in favor of flat earth. It's just not feasible, for one. There would require too much effort to fake the wobble the earth's axis has, which gives us the seasons. It couldn't explain how sometimes we see planrts in other positions on the sky at different times. And so on
-1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
I'm not sure what evidence you looked into - but I'd never seen that particular evidence used and there is a great deal more evidence to look into. I'm not suggesting anybody is rigging the world to create phenomenon to fool us into thinking it's a globe. It's just a matter of reassessing what may be creating all of the phenomenon. the reassessment are strong. I think you dipped your toe into an ocean and turned away saying "not enough water".
1 prototorpedo 2015-10-02
I simply won't believe that you are pointing me to those 'scientific' youtube videos. With the homemade rockets, and the balloon with the ruler in the image? I consider that the horizon is not completely flat. There is no argument there, those things aren't even high enough to notice the curvature. Next: some random study from 1904 which proves that poles of the same height put at 60 km was it don't drop in distance? Well, from what I read, it seems some other people did that study a few more times and couldn't replicate. What other arguments are there?
I believe nasa has been lying, and mainstream science is full of baloney. But that doesn't mean the earth is flat. Nor concave, a dome, whatever. This is just observable stuff. Some guy, Eratosthenes, did a few experiments to prove this and all he needed were two sticks. And that was in antiquity. Imagine what those other guys, the mayans, the sumerians, knew about the Universe. They did not have a flat earth theory.
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
hey - that's fine. I think Nasa is lying too, and I agree just because they are lying doesn't mean the earth is flat. however I think the flat earth theory is profound.
there are a lot of people coming out and talking about why they are seeing it - from different expertise, maybe don't worry about it if it doesn't peek your interest,
I see no reason for flat earth theory to threaten 9/11 truth. the arguments behind are 9/11 truth are sound. it doesn't need all other conspiracy theories to be anything to remain sound. each thing is true unto itself (or not true) or somewhat true, etc. the only threat to 9/11 truth is fear of questioning government. flat earth theory has no dog in that fight.
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
I respect that suspicion - I feel the same way about the reptilian people thing - and a lot of trumped up dooms day stuff. I can tell you that is not applicable to flat earth theory, jet fuel really can't melt steel beams. And there is really good evidence suggesting we should question the Globe earth model. the science is sound for both. the latter just sounds more ludicrous until you give time to hear out the evidence.
1 ShakesJr 2015-10-02
But it is totally applicable. For the earth to be flat, you would have to deny a lot of reality.
It's the mother of all conspiracies. If it were true everything we can measure is incorrect - and everything we know about the universe is completely wrong.
What does that make space? Other planets? Gravity as we know it? How about biomes? How would they work if latitude isn't a thing? Or tides? What's the moon?
It's too out there for me to believe.
1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
actually what's so interesting is we have been measuring for a flat earth all along. not in terms of the mapping, which people have already recognized as having scale issues. but in terms all mechanics and engineering. there are a lot of experts in various fields now confirming - they never account for curvature. navy guys are confirming they don't account for curvature shooting missiles in the ocean. guys who build train tracks never account for curvature, city planners / architects and engineeres never do it. all our functional measurement is actually already designed for flat - not curve.
it's true there are a ton of hurdles to get over, some stuff remains the same, that you didn't even realize already supports flat earth like engineering, some stuff is turned on it's head like questioning the existence of satellites. no prob it's too much for you to believe. personally for me it took me a couple months and my first response was to not even give it as much though as you are. it's probably the biggest hurdle of all conspiracy theories,
this is a navy guy talking about his reasoning fro his experience out on the ocean. he's a cool & thoughtful guy - just talking about it. not too freaky,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN2Vb1lqQfI
( I think I posted part two - maybe part one is a better place to start, should be easy to find - if you ever want to check it out )
3 ShakesJr 2015-10-02
That's simply untrue.
-2 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
that's the only exception I've ever heard of.
2 ShakesJr 2015-10-02
Okay, and?
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
consider the diameter of the earth, and the expected rise fall - of where your line of sight should fall off. (8inches per mile) then consider how far people can really see without obstruction of view from curvature. (way farther than we should be able to)
3 ShakesJr 2015-10-02
And is that constant? If I climb a mountain does that number change at all?
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
basic geometry would always apply. if you are at an elevated vantage of course you should account for your elevation - in relation to another point you are observing - yes.
this is why the ocean is such a great place to test this out, because it's so flat and why navy guy's testimony I gave you link to is so meaningful.
8" drop is the average. I think it's actually 8" square the more distance you cover, - I don't want to simply it too much - you can look it up. the drop for one mile is supposed to be 8" given circumference being a bit less than ~25.000. miles. this is all - what globe model says we should experience - but as it turns out it's not what we experience at all.
what people have been noticing is they never see that drop off no matter how far away they are looking. navy guy uses sate of the art tools to view probably furthest distance - and never sees curvature - and never accounts for any curvature when firing missiles. there are tons of u-tube videos out there demonstrating this lack of drop off on land too, this is the first "hard" evidence that usually gets people saying - ok - well yes - that is observable, what you are saying - now what,...why - because it does not jive with the math of globe earth - at least not at the size we think it is.
1 ShakesJr 2015-10-02
What would this drop off even look like to the people who claim there isn't one? What would you be looking for?
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
basically a mound of earth should be obscuring your view from the bottom. skylines should appear to "sink" in the distance,
imagine two ants standing next to each other on a beach ball. they can see each other just fine, now one walks away five inches, they can still see each other but maybe they can't see each other's feet. then the one ant walk away 7 inches, now they can only see the tops of each other's ant heads, the "mound' of beach ball is in the way because of the curvature.
we should see a mound of earth covering the bottom of a city sky line when we view it from a distance of many miles, but we do not. it shrinks in our view - but uniformly. because of the vanishing point phenomena in our vision. it doesn't get obscured from the bottom up. as it would if we were on a ball.
1 ConvertsToMetric 2015-10-02
Mouseover or click to view the metric conversion for this comment
1 ShakesJr 2015-10-02
How do you know that a mound would even appear? Wouldn't it just look like the horizon? The horizon is that mound you describe and objects sink below that. Like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#/media/File:Horizon,_Valencia_(Spain).(JPG)
If the world was purely flat, wouldn't you see the bottom of that building?
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
the photo at the bottom - across the water in Spain. yes - what they are saying you see in that photo is essentialy what we should see - but it's a very weak example, what people are realizing - is we've always thought things do "sink" in the distance - like what that photo is trying to show an example of - and ships at a distance in the ocean, etc, but what is now clear is they are actually not. a zoom lens will quickly show you - you can still see the bottom of any object - on water too - simply by zooming in. which should not be the case.
as for that photo specifically - I don't know what to say, it doesn't look like a strong example to me, esp in contrast - to the vast amount of images showing that "sinking" does not actually happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLlNKy5j_O8
I haven't watched this particular video - so if it's awful sorry, hopefully it will be good - I know they should be vetted as the quality varies drastically, but I think this one will show you a stronger example to the contrary of that page on horizon and that picture of italy
6 klmd 2015-10-02
The Earth is round. Your head is flat, just look in a mirror.
-3 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
Cognitive dissonance so often leads to personal attack
3 klmd 2015-10-02
Cognitive dissonance doesn't apply when presentations are hopelessly ignorant and insulting.
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
if you are so sure why not hear out some of the evidence just to be sure-sure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN2Vb1lqQfI
2 klmd 2015-10-02
Supposition is not evidence.
2 BillionaireBob 2015-10-02
I stand on a round earth.
-2 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
thanks for answering.
2 shemitahcometh 2015-10-02
tangentially
1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
ha. good answer,
2 King-Hell 2015-10-02
This whole Flat Earth meme is a social experiment by a number of trolls, to see how many gullible people they need to get on board before they can let go and watch their monster grow.
1 Rontagosh 2015-10-02
I think we're already seeing the late stages of that experiment (or at least hopefully).
2 zamboni_soundtracks 2015-10-02
Flat Earth theory is so incredibly stupid that I almost enjoy it MST3K-style.
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
as you should - anybody who finds it unworthy of consideration should find it also non-threatening and if anything amusing.
the anger towards it makes no sense if people are sure it has no merit,
if somebody went around saying apples are actually oranges - I wouldn't feel the least bit threatened, I just be like - ok - whatever floats your fruit boat,
so people who view flat earth theory as that lame should be that nonplussed.
of course -- I'm sincere and i don't think it's stupid at all. but I know it's kinda the biggest leap there is - so your opinion is fine by.
2 zamboni_soundtracks 2015-10-02
I mean, you asked.
0 tigereyeearth2 2015-10-02
yes! and you answered. thank you.
btw when I first heard of the theory I was like - schreech - breaks uturn time - finally found a link I will never click on. I know how stupid it sounds when you don't know what the research is. then later i was just like wekk maybe it's a good story - i'm bored I'll let them try to convince me of something they can never convinc me of - given it a shot. about four weeks of resaearch later - I realized they might very well be right, and now when I hear people scof about it - I'm like yeah, I know. but try it anyway, it can't hurt you. the basis of it is just math about spheres and angles and straight lines applied to our world around us, it's fun to test what we think we know with geometry, rather than just know it because we were taught it - if nothing else.
1 anarchopotato 2015-10-02
Flat Earth needs more unplausible assumptions compared to other theories.
--The only way to explain the pole star problem, is a deathstar moon projection-- which is interesting, but unlikely
Various versions of Geocentric Earth or Concave Earth make more sense.
Convex Earth is still prolly the best game in town, even though i have my doubts.
2 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
ok - if you are down with questioning globe earth i'm down with seeing where your thinking goes!
1 anarchopotato 2015-10-02
well if you haven't looked into concave earth, its interesting.
but it does take awhile to actually grok it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnXt7XiOM_g
the only absurd assumption you have to make for concave to be perfect, is that LIGHT BENDS. or does it?
i dunno. But with ANY of the cosmological theories you need to make some sort of assumption.
i haven't come to any conclusions.
but if shit is flat. its not some stupid mark sargent glass dome disk moving upwards shit.
its gonna be more like quasiluminous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AByvFTYCbtk
which is just pure schitzophrenia
there is also strain of hindu guruism that has a "flat earth" cosmology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmeQB2XkyqA
1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
for me the problem with concave is that the same proof that it's not globe applies to concave - the curvature is not there. that's the big thing people are proving now - whatever it really means there is proof that there is no way to prove curvature. to me that discredits both convex and concave.
I personally suspect whatever we are shape wise is something organic and we may likely be able to find a similar organic shape in the world around us that is a rough/general/bearing some similarity - to scale model - of our world/ sky above. when I think flat earth I think - a bubble in a pancake you are cooking on a griddle. ~flat base - heat continually rising from below - gas filled dome around - get it at the right temp for bacteria to grow and not be over cooked - you could create a tiny model of the earth within a bubble like that. --- I'm not saying that's it - but I like to spit ball now i've realized globe model is flawed,
1 anarchopotato 2015-10-02
thats similiar to how Math Boylan puts it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW8vdJyV9VA
which is a kind of fractal endless flat earth
1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
ha I like that guy, I think he's funny, he's going very slow tho i could't get through whole thing yet, does he share bubble idea?
1 anarchopotato 2015-10-02
no dome no bubble
1 justinxduff 2015-10-02
Are all celestial bodies flat or just the earth?
-1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
I wish I knew, I can only guess, the theory doesn't really argue either way - just focussing on what we can prove/disprove about earth. but there are a lot of subsequent questions about how close the sun and moon really are. (maybe they are much closer) and there is also the question if the moon really has a material surface, and might be just an optical phenomena. but one giant inconceivable questioning at a time .
1 Devilisalie 2015-10-02
Maybe the moon is made of cheese?
1 justinxduff 2015-10-02
What do you have to say about Edwin Hubble's findings?
1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
specifically?
1 justinxduff 2015-10-02
That distant galaxies are moving away from us and the father away they are the faster they are moving.
1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
I don't know. I'd have to read his whole theory and understand what data he gathered - and how he to came to his conclusions to speak on it well. Without doing that I can say I always thought the ever expanding universe idea was probably not really accurate. I strongly suspect outer space is misconceived of - - and a lot of strong, legitimate research - may still have led to bolstering misconceptions because of variables nobody knew to account for.
1 justinxduff 2015-10-02
I would look into it because it is some of the most empirical evidence that proves the universe is expanding. I also recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
1 1Kv47JcMMMWcaLgUciF4 2015-10-02
What happens at the edge then? What's underneath the flat earth? How thick is it? Can we just dig until we reach outer space?
I think these are insurmountable problems for the flat earth people
0 tigereyeearth2 2015-10-02
north pole is middle, antarctica the outer crust, nobody has crossed antactica. maybe this is why! as for the other questions - I do not know. but nobody has dug all that deep yet.
1 Soylent_Gringo 2015-10-02
Well nowhere near the edge that's for damn sure.
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
antarctica is the edge. -- good answer!
1 CuttlefishCuller69 2015-10-02
lol
-3 Bobb1118 2015-10-02
dude have you ever watched the ISS space work videos? they've shown bubbles coming out of the suits, the sky is pitch black no stars, the earth looks completely fake, and they never, EVER have done a 360 degree pan or a 24 hour live feed of earth spinning.
2 prototorpedo 2015-10-02
But that doesn't mean it's flat now does it? Look, I get all these clues people seem to find like the horizon is flat when it is obviously slightly curved (because the earth is big, you know, you'd have to be a few hundred kms up to see it clearly), but I do not believe things work like that in the universe. We know planets are round shaped, abd that they orbit stars or whatnot in their respective solar systems. We also know suns revolve around other, bigger suns in the galaxy. Because everything in the universe attracts everything else in the Universe. The thing probably even goes further, where you have clusters orbiting some other, bigger clusters and so on. These are things that ancient civilisations knew. Do yoi really think there was this conspiracy back then? 4000, 6000, 10000 years ago? And those other arguments are ridiculous: that the earth is flat and was created by God for us and everything revolving around our flat ass? There's just no way that could be true
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
personally I don't think earth was created by a god/ God. and yes - you are right proof they are staging ISIS does not prove flat earth. totally agree with you.
my personal belief is we/ former generations jus made a very good guess that it was round - but didn't understand how to interpret the data. and nasa has been giving a lot of false confirmation cause they roll like that. and it's all as much a natural mystery as it has always been - intelligent design need not play any part, imo.
there is a lot of observable information that does not singularly "prove" flat earth. (or globe earth) the proof - really against globe earth and presenting flat earth as next best theory - takes some time and a collection of cumulative evidence.
it's worth looking into. people have put a lot of work into collecting the evidence, it's not a trick to discredit conspiracy - or anything beyond what it is - a very strong theory that the earth may in fact be flat.
1 prototorpedo 2015-10-02
Well I think it's a bogus conspiracy theory. It's one of those which shed a negative light on the whole conspiracy thing, so people would stay away from 9/11 and vaccines, medicine, pesticides, etc. There is no conspiracy, because have you seen those guys with their theories? They believe the earth is FLAT! What a bunch of lunatics! Bahahahaa!
While I agree all possibilities should be entertained, this conspiracy thing is full of trolls and paid posters and misinformation, and definitely has an agenda, if not more. You have to make a distinction, you can't believe everything you see!
1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
you are wrong in thinking flat earth is talked about to discredit 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth is provable via an abundance of strong evidence. I can understand how you would wonder what you are saying about a discrediting agenda - but it's not the case here. maybe it was with the reptilians, and the fear mongering over Jade helm. but flat earth is quite different.
-1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
I think that stuff is staged, yeah,
-2 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
thanks for answering.
-2 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
huh?
-1 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
I wish I knew, I can only guess, the theory doesn't really argue either way - just focussing on what we can prove/disprove about earth. but there are a lot of subsequent questions about how close the sun and moon really are. (maybe they are much closer) and there is also the question if the moon really has a material surface, and might be just an optical phenomena. but one giant inconceivable questioning at a time .
1 ShakesJr 2015-10-02
What would this drop off even look like to the people who claim there isn't one? What would you be looking for?
0 tigereyeearth 2015-10-02
the photo at the bottom - across the water in Spain. yes - what they are saying you see in that photo is essentialy what we should see - but it's a very weak example, what people are realizing - is we've always thought things do "sink" in the distance - like what that photo is trying to show an example of - and ships at a distance in the ocean, etc, but what is now clear is they are actually not. a zoom lens will quickly show you - you can still see the bottom of any object - on water too - simply by zooming in. which should not be the case.
as for that photo specifically - I don't know what to say, it doesn't look like a strong example to me, esp in contrast - to the vast amount of images showing that "sinking" does not actually happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLlNKy5j_O8
I haven't watched this particular video - so if it's awful sorry, hopefully it will be good - I know they should be vetted as the quality varies drastically, but I think this one will show you a stronger example to the contrary of that page on horizon and that picture of italy