Originally posted by DukeOfEuphony (Page 1)“The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day."
I'm not a flat earther... just thought it would be interesting to talk to one 😉
―Albert Einstein
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59That's funny. If that is the case why don't we see the sun any closer when we are in orbit or walking around on the moon?
Eratosthenes assumed (correctly) that the sun was sufficiently far away for light at different parts of the Earth to be parallel.
Flat-Earthers assume the Earth is flat then using same data can deduce the sun is 20 miles away (or some such).
Also, how would they explain the fact that a star that close giving out enough light to give us about 1400 watts per square meter on top of the atmosphere and a good portion of that reaching Earth, but if it was like you say, 20 miles up, that is only 100,000 feet or so in the air. Now inverse square law being what it is, then the ground directly under the sun would get its nice 1000 Watts per meter squared but a hundred miles away there would only be 40 watts per square meter and so forth. So the actual light we would receive would be unusable for most of the planet.
What a stupid argument.
Suppose it was 1000 miles up. Earth is about 8000 miles in diameter and that would do much the same thing but a bit more light at the equator, say if the sun was over a pole.
The horizon for the sun would only give light for about a 2000 mile circle and the curvature of the Earth would stop ALL light so there would only be a small percentage of Earth with any light at all.
How can they come up with such crap?
Originally posted by sonhouseEratosthenes was not privy to that information was he?
If that is the case why don't we see the sun any closer when we are in orbit or walking around on the moon?
Also, how would they explain the fact that a star that close giving out enough light to give us about 1400 watts per square meter on top of the atmosphere and a good portion of that reaching Earth, but if it was like you say, 20 miles up, that is ...[text shortened]... ual light we would receive would be unusable for most of the planet.
What a stupid argument.
Originally posted by wolfgang59It was said he figured out the distance to the sun, within some window, even if it was ten times off it would have place the sun at 9 million miles away from Earth and there would still be light covering most of the day side. That would be over 1000 times the diameter of Earth and so there would be very little change in the angle from one point on Earth to any other in the daylight hours.
Eratosthenes was not privy to that information was he?
Originally posted by sonhouseAristarchus's calculation for distance of Sun (c.300BCE) was more like a factor of 100 off.
It was said he figured out the distance to the sun, within some window, even if it was ten times off it would have place the sun at 9 million miles away from Earth and there would still be light covering most of the day side. That would be over 1000 times the diameter of Earth and so there would be very little change in the angle from one point on Earth to any other in the daylight hours.
However that is beside the point - I was originally answering your question as to how could anyone disagree with the circumference of the Earth - I am not agreeing with it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhere are the edges/boundaries of the Earth?
There is a rapidly growing legion of people joining the ranks of 'Flat Earthers," some because it's the hip thing to do, some because they're trying to derail the movement, and others who have actually reviewed the evidence for both scenarios and found the idea of a globe earth not only wanting, but in serious contradiction with scientific evidence.
Originally posted by wolfgang59The formula in question?
No.
[b]You claimed that either the formula for curvature was wrong
or
the Earth was flat.
I said that the formula must be wrong (since the world is not flat)
You have since failed to provide me with the formula in question .
When you do so, I shall prove it wrong (in the context you are using it)[/b]
How many times must it be spelled out for you?
The formula in question is the one applied for the rate of curvature of the earth.
Originally posted by Proper KnobBefore getting into how vast the conspiracy would have to be, the first question must be answered.
Why is NASA lying? How many people need to be involved, and have been involved for over 50 years, to perpetuate this lie?
Also, over 1000 people from 40 countries around the world have travelled over 100km and beyond into the atmosphere. How many of them are flat earth proponents? Or are they all in on the conspiracy?
Namely, why is NASA lying?
Why does the organization feel compelled to constantly present Photoshopped images as though they are genuine?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis may sound like a strange question, but I'm a bit bewildered by it in view of a flat earth ideology.
The outside edge is the southern ice wall.
What happens when one gets into an airplane on the so-called equator and flys in a strait line following the curviture of the earth? Will they not eventually return to the point of departure?
Originally posted by josephwYes.
This may sound like a strange question, but I'm a bit bewildered by it in view of a flat earth ideology.
What happens when one gets into an airplane on the so-called equator and flys in a strait line following the curviture of the earth? Will they not eventually return to the point of departure?
Imagine the earth flattened as though a plate and you'll get the basic idea.
Southern extremes consist of a wall of ice, dimensions of depth/breadth unknown.