Is the Earth flat or spheroid?

[Juin]

Yes. Sufficient. But not necessary.

I could also use science to predict where coconuts come from. If I didn't have eyes or the ability to leave the ground, it might even be useful.

Agree

 

[Juin]

Hi Juin,

You have no understanding of science.

I am afraid I do.

A hypothesis is merely a nice word for an idea as long as it has not been proven. Everybody can write a hypothesis. When some people write them they carry more weight because of the earned respect over the years, but it remains a hypothesis nonetheless. And not until a hypothesis has been proven it remains just that. An idea. Now if you can show me any flat earth hypothesises that have been proven, than we can talk. Until than you are wasting everybody's time including your own.

You have it wrong. It is for you to disprove the flat earth hypothesis. A hypothesis must withstand all challenges, or is proven False

 

[Juin]

Hi Juin,

I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be one.
I am also not a round earth hypothesist. We passed that station when it was proven that earth is round.

I am find with spheroid, or whatever you are fine with

You, on the other hand are a flat earth hypothesist. Because you have an idea, and you can not provide a single shred of evidence. Nor will you ever. And you will always be just that, a flat earth hypothesist, because it will never be proven. It can't be proven.

Let me repeat my position. The flat earth hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is not superstition as many on the thread appear to believe. A hypothesis follows from what data is available to the observer; not what data is available to another observer he never heard of

 

[Juin]

.

Juin said:
Not if its infinitely flat

Thats definitely not true. The earth has a finite diameter and circumference.

There is a reason why I used "if"

 

[Gordy327]

Try to use scientific jargon. In science a theory is True until proven wrong. Both theories that still hold True, and those that have been proven False are part of the world of science. Science produces theories and also proves them wrong. To place science as the anti thesis of theories proven False is to misunderstand the world of science

That is false. Do not confuse a scientific theory with the generic use of the term. Scientific Theories are best explanations of the natural world based around supporting evidence and/or experimentation. The more supporting evidence, the greater the veracity of the theory. But contradictory evidence will discredit a theory. As it is, flat earth has no supporting evidence and is otherwise refuted by established facts. Only the wilfully ignorant and/or those seeking attention by being a contrarian still cling to flat earth nonsense.

No scientist shuts down contrary arguments. A spherical earth hypothesist who shuts down flat earth hypothesists is not serving science, but rather is engaging in superstition masquerading as science

No, a scientific argument is only as strong as the evidence supporting it. Flat earth is debunked and is no longer a valid claim.

 

[Taylor]

The more supporting evidence, the greater the veracity of the theory.

This is false. It's confirmation bias.

You're better off considering contrary arguments and demonstrating how your theory can make accurate predictions alternative theories cannot.

 

[Taylor]

No, a scientific argument is only as strong as the evidence supporting it.

Also false. Many of Einstein's most profound ideas could not be tested with the technology available at the time, so we're gathering evidence to support them decades later.

The arguments were quite strong even without the evidence.

 

[Gordy327]

Also false. Many of Einstein's most profound ideas could not be tested with the technology available at the time, so we're gathering evidence to support them decades later.

The arguments were quite strong even without the evidence.

That's why they were not immediately accepted. But the math did fit.

This is false. It's confirmation bias.

You're better off considering contrary arguments and demonstrating how your theory can make accurate predictions alternative theories cannot.

Flat earth is not an alternate theory, as it's debunked. Using the same failed arguments or claims is not offering anything valid to the contrary. Even contrary arguments need evidence. Otherwise there is no reason to consider or accept them.

 

[Roadvirus]

Earth's more of a trapezoid.

 

[Taylor]

That's why they were not immediately accepted. But the math did fit.

They were nonetheless strong arguments.

Flat earth is not an alternate theory, as it's debunked

Which would strengthen the competing theory, like I said.

 

[Bodi]

If it's flat, what's on the other side?

Us!

 

[Bodi]

If Earth ain't a Rhombus then I don't know what the ****.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

 

[LouC]

If it's flat, what's on the other side?

More but different flat.

 

[Deuce]

The flat earth hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is not superstition as many on the thread appear to believe. A hypothesis follows from what data is available to the observer; not what data is available to another observer he never heard of

That's not how science works at all. Flat earth is not a valid scientific hypothesis, it has been falsified in innumerable ways and it does not follow from scientific observations. "I looked out my window and it seems kinda flat" isn't a scientific observation.

Flat earth people are not working with data of any kind, and science is not changed based on what you have personally observed.

 

[Deuce]

This is false. It's confirmation bias.

You're better off considering contrary arguments and demonstrating how your theory can make accurate predictions alternative theories cannot.

Flat earth also gets wildly disproven with this philosophy as well. Flat earth fails every one of its attempts at prediction, (in the very rare case they even bother to try, flat earthers readily admit they have no model with which to make predictions) while round earth succeeds every single time

 

[GIJane]

Available data. All instances in time or space have only available data. The life of a nomadic insulated tribe is no less real than that of the world outside it. The observations of some such isolated tribe is real; and leads to a flat earth hypothesis


IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY THINK OR WHAT THEY OBSERVE. THE EARTH WAS ROUND



Why should a tribe thousands of years ago arrive at that proposition?

LOGICALLY, THEY LOOK AT THE MOON AND SUN AND SEE THEY ARE ROUND



It is valid based on the data it is arrived at


IT WASN'T VALID THEN, IT ISN'T VALID NOW
OBSERVATION THAT LEADS TO A WRONG CONCLUSION MAKES THE DATA INVALID

All observation is based on limited knowlege. It is always limited compared to observations later down the road. The isolated tribe arrives at its scientific hypothesis based on what it observes. Just like us today. We do not base our hypotheses on knowledge that will be available in 2225... BUT AS KNOWLEDGE BECOMES MORE SPREAD WITH INCREASED DATA, THE CONCLUSION WILL CHANGE. THAT IN ITSELF IS PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

I'm done with this discussion. You're assertions are based on assumptions not data.

It is said that Socrates (470BC-399BC), the legendary Greek philosopher, first popularized the idea that the Earth was round instead of flat. He observed a lunar eclipse and realized that the shadow on the moon due to the earth was curved, which prompted him to deduce that the earth must be round if it were to cast a curved shadow. Additionally, the shape of the moon—a celestial body just like the earth—is also round, which helped him conclude that all the celestial bodies must be round, including our planet. He did not provide any mathematical or scientific backing, so there was no proof, except his observations.

Some scientists during the same period also noted that whenever ships arrived in port, the topmost portion of the ship would be visible first, not the whole ship. If the earth was flat, the whole ship should be visible from a distance. These types of observations helped to strengthen the theory of the round earth.

His belief was based on observable data. 2500 years ago.

Buh-bye

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I guess that would depend on what you call "science." Much of what they accomplished was via simple logic - philosophy. Not what we think of today as "science."

Of course, one could also argue that even little babies are "scientists" as they the interact with their environments, drop different things from the high chair to see what happens, make assumptions, act surprised when something doesn't go the way they expect, etc.

Hi Taylor,

Sorry taylor, but NO. Hell no. Not a chance.

Can you repeat it? I bet you can't. I bet 99% of the people can not.

Sorry for taking a strong stance here. But it was not observational. He could not 'see' that Alexandria was 800km away. He could not 'see' that a circle has 360 degrees. He also understood that without accurate time, 'noon' on the longest day would
allow him to compare the solar zenith angle at the same time, regardless of Longitude. Wow! You need to be one very clever cookie to come up with that kind of stuff.

Claiming this is not science is like saying Newton was watching apples fall from the tree... lol.


Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I am find with spheroid, or whatever you are fine with






Let me repeat my position. The flat earth hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is not superstition as many on the thread appear to believe. A hypothesis follows from what data is available to the observer; not what data is available to another observer he never heard of

Hi Juin,

Yes a Hypothesis remains a hypothesis until it has been proven right or wrong. So for anyone to proof or disproof your hypothesis, you need to supply evidence for your hypothesis. And you have not, so your hypothesis will remain just that, a hypothesis.

And this is contrary to the a round earth which has been proven correctly many times over. In addition to that, you could also have followed to the road of disproving the earth is round, which you also have not managed to pull of.

Joey

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Also false. Many of Einstein's most profound ideas could not be tested with the technology available at the time, so we're gathering evidence to support them decades later.

The arguments were quite strong even without the evidence.

Hi Taylor,

Just because it has not been tested, does not mean that it has not been proven. The science of mathematics is a very good example of that.


Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

That's why they were not immediately accepted. But the math did fit.

Flat earth is not an alternate theory, as it's debunked. Using the same failed arguments or claims is not offering anything valid to the contrary. Even contrary arguments need evidence. Otherwise there is no reason to consider or accept them.

Hi Gordy,

There is truth in saying that it was not immediately accepted. But the vast majority of scientists had accepted the calculations as proof. Observational evidence merely reconfirmed the theory.

Stephen Hawking once had a theory. He struggled convincing fellow scientists of his theory. He later realized that his theory was wrong. Stephen later claimed it was harder to convince the scientists that he was wrong the 2nd time than that he was right the first time... lol.


Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

View attachment 67572039

I love it! The logic is on the same level as Juin's logic.

 

[jaypatriot]

I'm done with this discussion. You're assertions are based on assumptions not data.

It is said that Socrates (470BC-399BC), the legendary Greek philosopher, first popularized the idea that the Earth was round instead of flat. He observed a lunar eclipse and realized that the shadow on the moon due to the earth was curved, which prompted him to deduce that the earth must be round if it were to cast a curved shadow. Additionally, the shape of the moon—a celestial body just like the earth—is also round, which helped him conclude that all the celestial bodies must be round, including our planet. He did not provide any mathematical or scientific backing, so there was no proof, except his observations.

Some scientists during the same period also noted that whenever ships arrived in port, the topmost portion of the ship would be visible first, not the whole ship. If the earth was flat, the whole ship should be visible from a distance. These types of observations helped to strengthen the theory of the round earth.

His belief was based on observable data. 2500 years ago.

Buh-bye

Excellent analysis.
Serious flat-earthers have no chance against your logic.

 

[Deuce]

You have it wrong. It is for you to disprove the flat earth hypothesis. A hypothesis must withstand all challenges, or is proven False

Flat earth has been widely disproven in countless ways, not the least of which is people literally circumnavigating it constantly for the last few centuries.