Flat Earth on the ballot? Debunked claim pops up in US politics.

[medi]

View attachment 67571287

Yep, I know that one for my rice and then add the curry and get it all mixed up and then pour it all onto my flat round plate, which is a large size because I haven't yet seen a working model of a bowl having been invented.

 

[Juin]

Flat Earth on the ballot? Debunked claim pops up in US politics.

A few politicians are making news for accepting a once-fringe conspiracy theory that the Earth is flat. Voters aren't embracing it − yet.

www.usatoday.com

10% ??

Any flat Earthers on here? Don't be embarrassed, tell us how it is possible that the Earth is flat. We need edumacation.

It's flat as far as I can see

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

It's flat as far as I can see

I could rebut but I will resist.

 

[Juin]

Funny enough the reasons given are correct it's just that the conclusion is wrong. The seas do appear level, not curved, and it is not possible to view the Earth's curvature of the horizon from airplanes. In fact the horizon is always seen at eye level whether you stand on the beach or are in a plane. But this is because the earths atmosphere acts as a lens and distorts your view to make the the horizon always appear at eye level.

The flat earth proposition is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is True depending on the limitations of observations.

 

[bomberfox]

The flat earth proposition is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is True depending on the limitations of observations.

No. Its demonstrably false on every single claim. They have not made one true statement in all its history.

We have known the earth isnt flat since ancient times.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes.

Do you think the FAA somehow missed this completely? Because every single day at work I look at weather reports that include visibility. Do you think those reports constantly lie to me?

Why? Was there something in that link that you could dispute or did not believe.
And that visibility has nothing to do with the illusions created by air density. Amazing that you are so unaware of the properties of the very medium you work in.

 

[soylentgreen]

That can be trivially disproven. Just stand 5 miles away from a mountain and look at the mountain.

Notice how instead of not being able to see the mountain, you are instead able to see the mountain?

That is because the haze isn't obscuring your view after 3 miles.

Unless, of course, it is actually so hazy that you can't see the mountain. Do you live in some bizarre location with daily haze limiting visibility to three miles, and don't realize that the entire rest of the world isn't like that?

If you ever leave your creepy three-mile-visibility-cursed ghost town, you should look up at the night sky sometime. There is a big rock up there that we call the "moon." It is just shy of 240,000 miles away, and I can see it just fine as long as it isn't a cloudy night, despite well over 3 miles of atmosphere in the way.

True. That is because you have a focal point. Stand on a flat plain without anything to focus on and the very density of the air will create a haze that obscures vision. The air does not block focus points such as a mountain more than 5 miles away.
Have you ever ben to the desert and seen a mirage? Same effect. Your vision is being blocked by the light interacting with the air to create a mirage.

The illusion of not being able to see more than 3 miles when looking out at the sea only works when there is no focal point. Clouds on the horizon are visible because you can focus on them. Even the image of a ship appearing in the distance mast first that allows us to assume their is a curvature on the horizon is an illusion. the effect of magnification by the atmosphere. It is the same effect of the moon looking larger when at the horizon than it does when strait above us. But on a clear day with nothing to focus on but the horizon then it will appear to be at eye level allowing us to assume that the earth must be shaped like a saucer with the lips curving up but the effect is simply an illusion created by the light traveling through the medium of air. You have seen how light can be bent when passing through water or glass? Air does the same thing.

You cannot disprove an actual fact about how the atmosphere tricks the brain into seeing illusions. All you can do is be unaware of the effects.

 

[soylentgreen]

The flat earth proposition is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is True depending on the limitations of observations.

Science is not about just observation. Observation alone cannot be called science. At best it is called being too lazy to do anything but look.

For it to be a valid hypothesis then you need a means to test that hypothesis. Without that all you have is someone making a claim they cannot substantiate. Again not science. not how science works.

So if you want to claim it a valid hypothesis then tell me the means by which you would test it and it has to be a way that can be duplicated by others if the test is to have any validity.

 

[Juin]

The flat earth proposition is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is True depending on the limitations of observations.

Science is not about just observation. Observation alone cannot be called science. At best it is called being too lazy to do anything but look.

So you came about a round earth thesis without observation?

For it to be a valid hypothesis then you need a means to test that hypothesis. Without that all you have is someone making a claim they cannot substantiate. Again not science. not how science works.

The flat earth proposition was testable, stood the test for centuries, if not millenia; until better observations proved it wrong. It was a valid scientific hypothesis in the observations it was based on

So if you want to claim it a valid hypothesis then tell me the means by which you would test it and it has to be a way that can be duplicated by others if the test is to have any validity.

The flat earth hypothesis met all that

 

[Juin]

A sphere (or thereabouts) is a three-dimensional object. The flat Earth stupidity claims that the Earth is a one-dimensional absurdity.

Both are three dimensional

But it makes sense that one-dimensional minds cannot grasp a 3d world. They ironically evolved from young-earthers to flat-earthers.

What makes you think the flat earth hypothesis is one dimensional?

 

[Juin]

Nobody really believes the world is flat. However people may just want to play devils advocate just to get a rise out of others. This is doable because in your personal observations the world does in fact look flat.

There is nothing untoward about believing the earth is flat. It depends only on your capacity for observation. An isolated community today, say some tribe in the Amazon forest, say, that has never been in contact with outside civilisation; or same society millenia back; has to go by their observations; and that will yield a flat earth hypothesis

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

There is nothing untoward about believing the earth is flat. It depends only on your capacity for observation. An isolated community today, say some tribe in the Amazon forest, say, that has never been in contact with outside civilisation; or same society millenia back; has to go by their observations; and that will yield a flat earth hypothesis

Yeah, I can "observe" the ocean falling off of the edge of a flat world

 

[soylentgreen]

So you came about a round earth thesis without observation?

No, I pointed out in earlier post that you need to do an experiment (also called testing an hypothesis) done by eratosthenes. to prove the world is round. Mere observation alone does not do that. Unless of course you want to get pernickety and point out your observing from space.

The flat earth proposition was testable, stood the test for centuries, if not millenia; until better observations proved it wrong. It was a valid scientific hypothesis in the observations it was based on

No, it was just observation with no scientific methodology used at all. It did not stand the test because no testing was involved.

The flat earth hypothesis met all that

So by what means was it tested? Remembering of course that just looking out the window and stating what you see is not a scientific test.

 

[Juin]

No. Its demonstrably false on every single claim. They have not made one true statement in all its history.

We have known the earth isnt flat since ancient times.

The first Homo sapiens man emerged millions of years ago and just like that figured the earth is round?

 

[Deuce]

Why? Was there something in that link that you could dispute or did not believe.
And that visibility has nothing to do with the illusions created by air density. Amazing that you are so unaware of the properties of the very medium you work in.

You said I could only see 3 miles at the surface. Aviation weather stations report surface visibility at 10 miles very regularly. (in truth, what they mean is 10 miles or greater, they just stop reporting beyond 10 miles)

Amazing that you are still this bad at trolling.

It's not the link I dispute. It's you. You don't understand what your own link says.

 

[Deuce]

The first Homo sapiens man emerged millions of years ago and just like that figured the earth is round?

Is there some reason you decided to just make up your own bullshit that nobody said?

 

[Juin]

No, I pointed out in earlier post that you need to do an experiment (also called testing an hypothesis) done by eratosthenes. to prove the world is round.

The observation that the world is round was already arrived at before Eratosthenes. And he wasnt really challenging it, or proving it. He gave size to the volume

Mere observation alone does not do that. Unless of course you want to get pernickety and point out your observing from space.

If you can get to space and observe that the earth is round, that is good enough

 

[Juin]

Is there some reason you decided to just make up your own bullshit that nobody said?

I suppose you are the only one with brains here LOL

 

[Deuce]

The observation that the world is round was already arrived at before Eratosthenes. And he wasnt really challenging it, or proving it. He gave size to the volume





If you can get to space and observe that the earth is round, that is good enough

And he did so with surprising accuracy, given the technology of the time. Pretty clever work.

 

[Deuce]

True. That is because you have a focal point. Stand on a flat plain without anything to focus on and the very density of the air will create a haze that obscures vision. The air does not block focus points such as a mountain more than 5 miles away.

lol. the air knows what I'm focusing on and selectively hides things!?

 

[Deuce]

I suppose you are the only one with brains here LOL

I often wonder about this.

 

[Juin]

The flat earth proposition was testable, stood the test for centuries, if not millenia; until better observations proved it wrong. It was a valid scientific hypothesis in the observations it was based on

No, it was just observation with no scientific methodology used at all. It did not stand the test because no testing was involved.

You mean it wasnt challenged. You challenge a hypothesis. A hypothesis is True until proven wrong.

The flat earth hypothesis met all that

So by what means was it tested? Remembering of course that just looking out the window and stating what you see is not a scientific test.

Looking out of a window is a valid observation

 

[soylentgreen]

You said I could only see 3 miles at the surface. Aviation weather stations report surface visibility at 10 miles very regularly. (in truth, what they mean is 10 miles or greater, they just stop reporting beyond 10 miles)

Amazing that you are still this bad at trolling.

It's not the link I dispute. It's you. You don't understand what your own link says.

I also said if there is no focal point. Given a flat plane such as looking out across the sea or a desert than atmospheric haze obscures your vision to around 3 miles. Your weather reports are assuming you can see things within that range such as mountains, buildings or clouds. all of which are focal points. Do remember that this started out as a conversation about looking across the ocean to see a ship on the horizon and not the normal views we have every day around airports.

Not trolling just making fun of your inability to understand.

Yet you fail to point out where I am wrong in that link. All you do is bring up situations that are not relevant.

 

[soylentgreen]

The observation that the world is round was already arrived at before Eratosthenes. And he wasnt really challenging it, or proving it. He gave size to the volume

The observation was not wrong., But observation alone is not science. Science is an exact method of observation. ie observe, hypothesise , test hypothesis , confirm / disprove observation. That is science.

If you can get to space and observe that the earth is round, that is good enough

Sure, if you want to just take someones word for it. But that is belief not science.

 

[soylentgreen]

lol. the air knows what I'm focusing on and selectively hides things!?

No, you really do not have a clue how this works.

What your observing does not change. What your brain interprets does change.

To some this is an image of an old woman, to others it is an image of a young woman. Is it the image that changes or as you seem to think, the image knows what you are focusing on. Or is it the way your brain interprets the image.