200 people reportedly attended the event participating in lectures, workshops, and social events. Flat-Earthers generally believe that the world is some sort of flat plane floating in space.
Theories about how this work vary, but one commonly held belief is that the Earth is a floating plane with Antarctica at its center and a wall of ice, at its edge. This wall of ice is believed to be protected by NASA to stop people from trying to climb it.
... but a new theory proposed at the conference aims to solve the most obvious one, which is why don’t people just fall off the edge of the planet if they travel too far in one direction?
Conference speaker Darren Nesbit has the answer. “We know that continuous east-west travel is a reality,” he said. "No one has ever come to or crossed a physical boundary. One logical possibility for those who are truly free thinkers is that space-time wraps around and we get a Pac-Man effect."
So what Nesbit offers is a theory that suggests just like in Pac-Man when you get to the edge of the screen, or in this case the Earth, you simply appear back on the opposite side. Flat Earth believers appear to have a considerable interest in science and space but maintain a deep distrust of scientists and the broader scientific community.
So the world being surrounded by a wormhole that transports you to the other side is easier to accept than the fact that the world is a sphere.
*Edited before I get in trouble
This one's good. This guy thinks the moon has been stolen. But don't worry. 'They' use holographic projectors to project a hologram moon so we won't freak out.
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
holy cow lol that was hilareous. due to his lack of ability to comprehend the 3rd dimension, look! how is the plane going to land if the landing gear is stuck to the side of the plane?
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
Most of them think the UN patrols the wall to make sure nobody 'finds out the truth'. Crazy on crazy.
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
Show me the curve.
I don't have the knowledge or the means to show you the curve. The debate is between dedicated flat earthers and dedicated science/math explainers. Since I am dedicated to neither of these things, you will be hard pressed to get the explanation from me. However, dedicated math/science explainers have ample explanations that make sense to other educated people. Sciency equations and whatnot. Not a single picture has been produced to support any claim that there are borders to the planet. If there were borders, someone would have seen it and reported it to the world by now. I have taken enough math classes to tell you that math can provide certain proofs. I would rather put my trust in education than in baseless speculation. But that's just me to each their own. If you want to believe the earth is round or flat it doesn't really effect me.
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
Show me the curve.
I don't have the knowledge or the means to show you the curve. The debate is between dedicated flat earthers and dedicated science/math explainers. Since I am dedicated to neither of these things, you will be hard pressed to get the explanation from me. However, dedicated math/science explainers have ample explanations that make sense to other educated people. Sciency equations and whatnot. Not a single picture has been produced to support any claim that there are borders to the planet. If there were borders, someone would have seen it and reported it to the world by now. I have taken enough math classes to tell you that math can provide certain proofs. I would rather put my trust in education than in baseless speculation. But that's just me to each their own. If you want to believe the earth is round or flat it doesn't really effect me.
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
Show me the curve.
I don't have the knowledge or the means to show you the curve. The debate is between dedicated flat earthers and dedicated science/math explainers. Since I am dedicated to neither of these things, you will be hard pressed to get the explanation from me. However, dedicated math/science explainers have ample explanations that make sense to other educated people. Sciency equations and whatnot. Not a single picture has been produced to support any claim that there are borders to the planet. If there were borders, someone would have seen it and reported it to the world by now. I have taken enough math classes to tell you that math can provide certain proofs. I would rather put my trust in education than in baseless speculation. But that's just me to each their own. If you want to believe the earth is round or flat it doesn't really effect me.
Relax man. It was just a simple request. ; )
I'm relaxed. Forgive me for writing text on a forum.
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
Show me the curve.
I could say just get a picture of earth taken from space. Or watch an eclipse. But let's pretend we're without any tools. Look at the horizon. The horizon is not the limit of our vision. How can I know this without knowing the actual limit (which I don't off the top of my head)? Because we can see planes, we can see the moon, we can see the stars all of which are demonstrably further away than the horizon.
If the earth were flat, we'd be able to see land much further than we do. There's the curve. (This relies on us agreeing space sand the moon exist and are farther away than the horizon that you can walk to).
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
Show me the curve.
I could say just get a picture of earth taken from space. Or watch an eclipse. But let's pretend we're without any tools. Look at the horizon. The horizon is not the limit of our vision. How can I know this without knowing the actual limit (which I don't off the top of my head)? Because we can see planes, we can see the moon, we can see the stars all of which are demonstrably further away than the horizon.
If the earth were flat, we'd be able to see land much further than we do. There's the curve. (This relies on us agreeing space sand the moon exist and are farther away than the horizon that you can walk to).
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Trump
At least he doesn't dispute physics
Climate change is physics.
I do not support the idea that the earth is flat... I also don't deny the idea that climate change is possible... however, your last statement is ridiculous. Physics is not how we have established the theory (critical word here) of climate change.
Like so many love to scream here, climate change theory does not have a large enough sample size to exclude the possibility of cyclical climate change (which is a VERY different thing). I don't advocate either, because both have the potential of being true.
Scientific method has been thrown out the window as of late. Theory become science without even acknowledging this now. Betting no one in this thread could ramble off the 4 qualifications of scientific method w/o using Google. How sad is that? But feel justified in stating things as if it is scientific "fact".
Anyone recall Newtonian Gravity? That was considered scientific fact, until Einstein came along. Most of the research we base current research on is based heavily in Newtonian Gravity... how scary is that?
Also, on the topic of flat earth... I "believe" it is silly, however... not all that think its possible are tinfoil hat wearing crazies. Believe it or not, there are scientists, physicists & mathematicians who believe its possible. That is why it is actually debated.
The thing people should be laughing about is people that feel qualified to make these judgement calls (climate change, flat earth, etc) based off the word of others, without even bothering to look past a biased youtube video or a meme they saw.
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
Show me the curve.
I could say just get a picture of earth taken from space. Or watch an eclipse. But let's pretend we're without any tools. Look at the horizon. The horizon is not the limit of our vision. How can I know this without knowing the actual limit (which I don't off the top of my head)? Because we can see planes, we can see the moon, we can see the stars all of which are demonstrably further away than the horizon.
If the earth were flat, we'd be able to see land much further than we do. There's the curve. (This relies on us agreeing space sand the moon exist and are farther away than the horizon that you can walk to).
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Trump
At least he doesn't dispute physics
Climate change is physics.
I do not support the idea that the earth is flat... I also don't deny the idea that climate change is possible... however, your last statement is ridiculous. Physics is not how we have established the theory (critical word here) of climate change.
Like so many love to scream here, climate change theory does not have a large enough sample size to exclude the possibility of cyclical climate change (which is a VERY different thing). I don't advocate either, because both have the potential of being true.
Scientific method has been thrown out the window as of late. Theory become science without even acknowledging this now. Betting no one in this thread could ramble off the 4 qualifications of scientific method w/o using Google. How sad is that? But feel justified in stating things as if it is scientific "fact".
Anyone recall Newtonian Gravity? That was considered scientific fact, until Einstein came along. Most of the research we base current research on is based heavily in Newtonian Gravity... how scary is that?
Also, on the topic of flat earth... I "believe" it is silly, however... not all that think its possible are tinfoil hat wearing crazies. Believe it or not, there are scientists, physicists & mathematicians who believe its possible.That is why it is actually debated.
The thing people should be laughing about is people that feel qualified to make these judgement calls (climate change, flat earth, etc) based off the word of others, without even bothering to look past a biased youtube video or a meme they saw.
There is no physics involved in measuring climate change effects? Edit, please point me to one legitimate scientist, physicist & mathematician who has put forth evidence of a working theory for a flat earth. Not believe, actual theory where the math works.
Without even watching the video, logic can be found by the picture alone. Most people who have lived have seen the moon on the horizon like this. Wait a minute, it's pointless to continue my thought. Because of course the moon isn't real. My bad. Sorry guys! Continue on
And in case I wasn't clear, I think all people who postulate a flat earth and the massive conspiracy necessary to make it possible all while providing zero proof or even working theories of how that model works are crazy, whether or not they wear tin foil hats.
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Alright, let's not turn this into a left-vs-right thing; I'd really rather not get the thread locked by arguing like the right-wing nutjob I am (though, I don't really think I'm a nutjob, so there's that).
Mockery is one thing--and I, for one, am always happy to mock stüpid people--but there's no need to take it past that, and disparage these folks--and any other group you want to pile onto as "bad" or "ignorant;" we shouldn't be making a moral judgement here on the quality of person they are based solely on beliefs and/or opinions they hold, however you/we, personally, feel about that belief and/or opinion--as bad people simply for engaging in so-called "wrong-think." Skepticism is a healthy quality to have in any society, nevermind one as "science-based" as our own (and that's in quotes because, as t0ne said, I highly doubt any of us--I know I certainly can't without double-checking to ensure I was right--can get through naming the individual parts of the Scientific Method, let alone pick apart bad science, or bad science reporting without consulting Google; nevermind recent high school and college graduates); if we start dismissing every skeptic as a "conspiracy theorist crackpot nutjob" then we start wandering into dangerous territory where we are no longer allowed to--as many internet atheists and other "science" worshippers say--question everything.
The problem with flatearthers is that they fundamentally misunderstand even high-school level science (and the sheer scale of our little blue rock). That doesn't tell me that they're bad people--a little silly, maybe even crazy, largely irrelevant but not bad--it tells me that we have some serious problems with our education system. An education system, I might add, that claims we can have two right answers for math, no longer teaches critical thinking skills (rather, it's easier simply to teach what to think, than how), and emphasizes emotional thinking over logical or ethical thinking. We can't fix that by throwing money at the education system, or teachers unions--who fundamentally have teacher's pay and work conditions as forefront concerns, not the interests/better education of children, whatever they claim--if only because we've been there and done that and it's gotten worse (insert Einstein's quote about insanity here).
Treating people like they are worse people, or that they are somehow less than you are--for the beliefs, opinions, and values they hold--is part of the reason Trump won, to begin with. Stop with the smug, superior self-righteousness and learn to look past "ignorance" and see its root--if people who disagree with you are now always "these people" and you dismiss them out of hand you're no different than conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "them"--and you'll be able to build more bridges and understanding with people you disagree with. In the case of Trump it was dissatisfaction--with the dog and pony show of modern politics, with plastic smooth-talking politicians, with the size and staggering corruption of our government, with the pearl-clutching media (and entertainment that someone running simply didn't care about what they had to say)--and defiance (face it, America is "don't tell us what to do" to our heart and soul); dismissing the 60-odd million people who voted for him as "ignorant **** racist näzis" is a mistake and largely false besides (like anyone can throw a blanket generalization like that on 60-odd-million people. If you want to get into it I'll tell you why I cast my vote for the orange man, though I can only speak for myself; probably wiser to have that conversation through PM, though).
Skepticism isn't insanity. Sure, like all things taken without moderation, it can be taken too far, but the opposite is true, too. I'd be wary of anyone who dismissed skeptics--whether you, or we, think they're justified or not in their skepticism--as crackpot conspiracy theorist nubjobs without fair hearing (if they're wrong, give them enough rope to hang themselves). It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, and, as these so-called nutjob wackos often say, "truth does not fear investigation." I'd like to be able to express my skepticism for, say, climate change without being branded a denier--a heretic--just because I don't believe consensus is science (the 97% figure's been debunked several times, and if it were, Galileo never would have gotten through with that "but the earth circles the sun; we are not the center of the universe" idea), that the amount of money being funneled into it is suspicious, that numbers have been cooked, so too that skeptical scientists are denied grants to research it, that science reporting is historically bad (when journalists who don't understand what they're writing whose to say whether or not it's true without the expertise to pick the reporting, or science itself, apart; nevermind the ethical violations of gaming and mainstream journalism; don't get me started on that 2011 figure--I think?--that told us 90% of the media Americans consume was owned by six companies, talk about shady).
Anyway, I digress. My primary point was: don't make moral judgements on people just because you disagree with them. The people you're disagreeing with are not necessarily bad people just because of the opinions/beliefs/values they hold, or the "ignorance" they have (but don't get me wrong; I'm not defending flat-earthers, but skepticism itself, by all means laugh at the flat earth crowd, I am).
Alright, let's not turn this into a left-vs-right thing; I'd really rather not get the thread locked by arguing like the right-wing nutjob I am (though, I don't really think I'm a nutjob, so there's that).
Mockery is one thing--and I, for one, am always happy to mock stüpid people--but there's no need to take it past that, and disparage these folks--and any other group you want to pile onto as "bad" or "ignorant;" we shouldn't be making a moral judgement here on the quality of person they are based solely on beliefs and/or opinions they hold, however you/we, personally, feel about that belief and/or opinion--as bad people simply for engaging in so-called "wrong-think." Skepticism is a healthy quality to have in any society, nevermind one as "science-based" as our own (and that's in quotes because, as t0ne said, I highly doubt any of us--I know I certainly can't without double-checking to ensure I was right--can get through naming the individual parts of the Scientific Method, let alone pick apart bad science, or bad science reporting without consulting Google; nevermind recent high school and college graduates); if we start dismissing every skeptic as a "conspiracy theorist crackpot nutjob" then we start wandering into dangerous territory where we are no longer allowed to--as many internet atheists and other "science" worshippers say--question everything.
The problem with flatearthers is that they fundamentally misunderstand even high-school level science (and the sheer scale of our little blue rock). That doesn't tell me that they're bad people--a little silly, maybe even crazy, largely irrelevant but not bad--it tells me that we have some serious problems with our education system. An education system, I might add, that claims we can have two right answers for math, no longer teaches critical thinking skills (rather, it's easier simply to teach what to think, than how), and emphasizes emotional thinking over logical or ethical thinking. We can't fix that by throwing money at the education system, or teachers unions--who fundamentally have teacher's pay and work conditions as forefront concerns, not the interests/better education of children, whatever they claim--if only because we've been there and done that and it's gotten worse (insert Einstein's quote about insanity here).
Treating people like they are worse people, or that they are somehow less than you are--for the beliefs, opinions, and values they hold--is part of the reason Trump won, to begin with. Stop with the smug, superior self-righteousness and learn to look past "ignorance" and see its root--if people who disagree with you are now always "these people" and you dismiss them out of hand you're no different than conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "them"--and you'll be able to build more bridges and understanding with people you disagree with. In the case of Trump it was dissatisfaction--with the dog and pony show of modern politics, with plastic smooth-talking politicians, with the size and staggering corruption of our government, with the pearl-clutching media (and entertainment that someone running simply didn't care about what they had to say)--and defiance (face it, America is "don't tell us what to do" to our heart and soul); dismissing the 60-odd million people who voted for him as "ignorant **** racist näzis" is a mistake and largely false besides (like anyone can throw a blanket generalization like that on 60-odd-million people. If you want to get into it I'll tell you why I cast my vote for the orange man, though I can only speak for myself; probably wiser to have that conversation through PM, though).
Skepticism isn't insanity. Sure, like all things taken without moderation, it can be taken too far, but the opposite is true, too. I'd be wary of anyone who dismissed skeptics--whether you, or we, think they're justified or not in their skepticism--as crackpot conspiracy theorist nubjobs without fair hearing (if they're wrong, give them enough rope to hang themselves). It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, and, as these so-called nutjob wackos often say, "truth does not fear investigation." I'd like to be able to express my skepticism for, say, climate change without being branded a denier--a heretic--just because I don't believe consensus is science (the 97% figure's been debunked several times, and if it were, Galileo never would have gotten through with that "but the earth circles the sun; we are not the center of the universe" idea), that the amount of money being funneled into it is suspicious, that numbers have been cooked, so too that skeptical scientists are denied grants to research it, that science reporting is historically bad (when journalists who don't understand what they're writing whose to say whether or not it's true without the expertise to pick the reporting, or science itself, apart; nevermind the ethical violations of gaming and mainstream journalism; don't get me started on that 2011 figure--I think?--that told us 90% of the media Americans consume was owned by six companies, talk about shady).
Anyway, I digress. My primary point was: don't make moral judgements on people just because you disagree with them. The people you're disagreeing with are not necessarily bad people just because of the opinions/beliefs/values they hold, or the "ignorance" they have (but don't get me wrong; I'm not defending flat-earthers, but skepticism itself, by all means laugh at the flat earth crowd, I am).
Alright, let's not turn this into a left-vs-right thing; I'd really rather not get the thread locked by arguing like the right-wing nutjob I am (though, I don't really think I'm a nutjob, so there's that).
Mockery is one thing--and I, for one, am always happy to mock stüpid people--but there's no need to take it past that, and disparage these folks--and any other group you want to pile onto as "bad" or "ignorant;" we shouldn't be making a moral judgement here on the quality of person they are based solely on beliefs and/or opinions they hold, however you/we, personally, feel about that belief and/or opinion--as bad people simply for engaging in so-called "wrong-think." Skepticism is a healthy quality to have in any society, nevermind one as "science-based" as our own (and that's in quotes because, as t0ne said, I highly doubt any of us--I know I certainly can't without double-checking to ensure I was right--can get through naming the individual parts of the Scientific Method, let alone pick apart bad science, or bad science reporting without consulting Google; nevermind recent high school and college graduates); if we start dismissing every skeptic as a "conspiracy theorist crackpot nutjob" then we start wandering into dangerous territory where we are no longer allowed to--as many internet atheists and other "science" worshippers say--question everything.
The problem with flatearthers is that they fundamentally misunderstand even high-school level science (and the sheer scale of our little blue rock). That doesn't tell me that they're bad people--a little silly, maybe even crazy, largely irrelevant but not bad--it tells me that we have some serious problems with our education system. An education system, I might add, that claims we can have two right answers for math, no longer teaches critical thinking skills (rather, it's easier simply to teach what to think, than how), and emphasizes emotional thinking over logical or ethical thinking. We can't fix that by throwing money at the education system, or teachers unions--who fundamentally have teacher's pay and work conditions as forefront concerns, not the interests/better education of children, whatever they claim--if only because we've been there and done that and it's gotten worse (insert Einstein's quote about insanity here).
Treating people like they are worse people, or that they are somehow less than you are--for the beliefs, opinions, and values they hold--is part of the reason Trump won, to begin with. Stop with the smug, superior self-righteousness and learn to look past "ignorance" and see its root--if people who disagree with you are now always "these people" and you dismiss them out of hand you're no different than conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "them"--and you'll be able to build more bridges and understanding with people you disagree with. In the case of Trump it was dissatisfaction--with the dog and pony show of modern politics, with plastic smooth-talking politicians, with the size and staggering corruption of our government, with the pearl-clutching media (and entertainment that someone running simply didn't care about what they had to say)--and defiance (face it, America is "don't tell us what to do" to our heart and soul); dismissing the 60-odd million people who voted for him as "ignorant **** racist näzis" is a mistake and largely false besides (like anyone can throw a blanket generalization like that on 60-odd-million people. If you want to get into it I'll tell you why I cast my vote for the orange man, though I can only speak for myself; probably wiser to have that conversation through PM, though).
Skepticism isn't insanity. Sure, like all things taken without moderation, it can be taken too far, but the opposite is true, too. I'd be wary of anyone who dismissed skeptics--whether you, or we, think they're justified or not in their skepticism--as crackpot conspiracy theorist nubjobs without fair hearing (if they're wrong, give them enough rope to hang themselves). It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, and, as these so-called nutjob wackos often say, "truth does not fear investigation." I'd like to be able to express my skepticism for, say, climate change without being branded a denier--a heretic--just because I don't believe consensus is science (the 97% figure's been debunked several times, and if it were, Galileo never would have gotten through with that "but the earth circles the sun; we are not the center of the universe" idea), that the amount of money being funneled into it is suspicious, that numbers have been cooked, so too that skeptical scientists are denied grants to research it, that science reporting is historically bad (when journalists who don't understand what they're writing whose to say whether or not it's true without the expertise to pick the reporting, or science itself, apart; nevermind the ethical violations of gaming and mainstream journalism; don't get me started on that 2011 figure--I think?--that told us 90% of the media Americans consume was owned by six companies, talk about shady).
Anyway, I digress. My primary point was: don't make moral judgements on people just because you disagree with them. The people you're disagreeing with are not necessarily bad people just because of the opinions/beliefs/values they hold, or the "ignorance" they have (but don't get me wrong; I'm not defending flat-earthers, but skepticism itself, by all means laugh at the flat earth crowd, I am).
While maybe they aren't bad, they are certainly bad at being people. Their beliefs aren't well thought out or even logical. If a person believes every country in the world got together to lie about the shape of the earth (and also spray us with chemicals via commercial aircraft) me sitting down and talking isn't going to fix the problem, yeah? A new brain might be needed.
This isn't right vs left, (most of the flat earth people I've seen tend left in fact). Again, I'm not anti skeptic. But anti dirt stupid/willful ignorance combined with zero facts? Kinda anti that. I think everyone should be able to get behind dumb is bad.
Until a dedicated flat earther provides a picture of the end of our planet I can't take them seriously. I know they have 100 other arguments but they will never register to me unless I get that pic. Pics or it didn't happen. And if their argument is that the planet is too big to make it to the end, vikings say hi. Or if the planet is surrounded by barricades that force you to turn around, el chapo says hi. Then show us a pic of the barricade.
Show me the curve.
I could say just get a picture of earth taken from space. Or watch an eclipse. But let's pretend we're without any tools. Look at the horizon. The horizon is not the limit of our vision. How can I know this without knowing the actual limit (which I don't off the top of my head)? Because we can see planes, we can see the moon, we can see the stars all of which are demonstrably further away than the horizon.
If the earth were flat, we'd be able to see land much further than we do. There's the curve. (This relies on us agreeing space sand the moon exist and are farther away than the horizon that you can walk to).
Congratulations, this thread has destroyed what little faith, that I didn't realise I still had, in humanity
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Trump
At least he doesn't dispute physics
Climate change is physics.
I do not support the idea that the earth is flat... I also don't deny the idea that climate change is possible... however, your last statement is ridiculous. Physics is not how we have established the theory (critical word here) of climate change.
Like so many love to scream here, climate change theory does not have a large enough sample size to exclude the possibility of cyclical climate change (which is a VERY different thing). I don't advocate either, because both have the potential of being true.
Scientific method has been thrown out the window as of late. Theory become science without even acknowledging this now. Betting no one in this thread could ramble off the 4 qualifications of scientific method w/o using Google. How sad is that? But feel justified in stating things as if it is scientific "fact".
Anyone recall Newtonian Gravity? That was considered scientific fact, until Einstein came along. Most of the research we base current research on is based heavily in Newtonian Gravity... how scary is that?
Also, on the topic of flat earth... I "believe" it is silly, however... not all that think its possible are tinfoil hat wearing crazies. Believe it or not, there are scientists, physicists & mathematicians who believe its possible.That is why it is actually debated.
The thing people should be laughing about is people that feel qualified to make these judgement calls (climate change, flat earth, etc) based off the word of others, without even bothering to look past a biased youtube video or a meme they saw.
There is no physics involved in measuring climate change effects? Edit, please point me to one legitimate scientist, physicist & mathematician who has put forth evidence of a working theory for a flat earth. Not believe, actual theory where the math works.
I'm not arguing for them... I don't agree with them. However, some of the actual debates I watched raised some very interesting questions... on both sides. I was actually taken back for multiple reasons:
1. Both sides were respectful of each other's different views.
2. Both sides had well thought out arguments that clearly showed how much we still don't know.
If you are simply going to some internet discussion group, or watching a biased video for one side or the other, I'd suggest trying a different approach. It was fascinating to see how wrong my initial misconceptions were on this subject to begin with.
Alright, let's not turn this into a left-vs-right thing; I'd really rather not get the thread locked by arguing like the right-wing nutjob I am (though, I don't really think I'm a nutjob, so there's that).
Mockery is one thing--and I, for one, am always happy to mock stüpid people--but there's no need to take it past that, and disparage these folks--and any other group you want to pile onto as "bad" or "ignorant;" we shouldn't be making a moral judgement here on the quality of person they are based solely on beliefs and/or opinions they hold, however you/we, personally, feel about that belief and/or opinion--as bad people simply for engaging in so-called "wrong-think." Skepticism is a healthy quality to have in any society, nevermind one as "science-based" as our own (and that's in quotes because, as t0ne said, I highly doubt any of us--I know I certainly can't without double-checking to ensure I was right--can get through naming the individual parts of the Scientific Method, let alone pick apart bad science, or bad science reporting without consulting Google; nevermind recent high school and college graduates); if we start dismissing every skeptic as a "conspiracy theorist crackpot nutjob" then we start wandering into dangerous territory where we are no longer allowed to--as many internet atheists and other "science" worshippers say--question everything.
The problem with flatearthers is that they fundamentally misunderstand even high-school level science (and the sheer scale of our little blue rock). That doesn't tell me that they're bad people--a little silly, maybe even crazy, largely irrelevant but not bad--it tells me that we have some serious problems with our education system. An education system, I might add, that claims we can have two right answers for math, no longer teaches critical thinking skills (rather, it's easier simply to teach what to think, than how), and emphasizes emotional thinking over logical or ethical thinking. We can't fix that by throwing money at the education system, or teachers unions--who fundamentally have teacher's pay and work conditions as forefront concerns, not the interests/better education of children, whatever they claim--if only because we've been there and done that and it's gotten worse (insert Einstein's quote about insanity here).
Treating people like they are worse people, or that they are somehow less than you are--for the beliefs, opinions, and values they hold--is part of the reason Trump won, to begin with. Stop with the smug, superior self-righteousness and learn to look past "ignorance" and see its root--if people who disagree with you are now always "these people" and you dismiss them out of hand you're no different than conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "them"--and you'll be able to build more bridges and understanding with people you disagree with. In the case of Trump it was dissatisfaction--with the dog and pony show of modern politics, with plastic smooth-talking politicians, with the size and staggering corruption of our government, with the pearl-clutching media (and entertainment that someone running simply didn't care about what they had to say)--and defiance (face it, America is "don't tell us what to do" to our heart and soul); dismissing the 60-odd million people who voted for him as "ignorant **** racist näzis" is a mistake and largely false besides (like anyone can throw a blanket generalization like that on 60-odd-million people. If you want to get into it I'll tell you why I cast my vote for the orange man, though I can only speak for myself; probably wiser to have that conversation through PM, though).
Skepticism isn't insanity. Sure, like all things taken without moderation, it can be taken too far, but the opposite is true, too. I'd be wary of anyone who dismissed skeptics--whether you, or we, think they're justified or not in their skepticism--as crackpot conspiracy theorist nubjobs without fair hearing (if they're wrong, give them enough rope to hang themselves). It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, and, as these so-called nutjob wackos often say, "truth does not fear investigation." I'd like to be able to express my skepticism for, say, climate change without being branded a denier--a heretic--just because I don't believe consensus is science (the 97% figure's been debunked several times, and if it were, Galileo never would have gotten through with that "but the earth circles the sun; we are not the center of the universe" idea), that the amount of money being funneled into it is suspicious, that numbers have been cooked, so too that skeptical scientists are denied grants to research it, that science reporting is historically bad (when journalists who don't understand what they're writing whose to say whether or not it's true without the expertise to pick the reporting, or science itself, apart; nevermind the ethical violations of gaming and mainstream journalism; don't get me started on that 2011 figure--I think?--that told us 90% of the media Americans consume was owned by six companies, talk about shady).
Anyway, I digress. My primary point was: don't make moral judgements on people just because you disagree with them. The people you're disagreeing with are not necessarily bad people just because of the opinions/beliefs/values they hold, or the "ignorance" they have (but don't get me wrong; I'm not defending flat-earthers, but skepticism itself, by all means laugh at the flat earth crowd, I am).
While maybe they aren't bad, they are certainly bad at being people. Their beliefs aren't well thought out or even logical. If a person believes every country in the world got together to lie about the shape of the earth (and also spray us with chemicals via commercial aircraft) me sitting down and talking isn't going to fix the problem, yeah? A new brain might be needed.
This isn't right vs left, (most of the flat earth people I've seen tend left in fact). Again, I'm not anti skeptic. But anti dirt ****/willful ignorance combined with zero facts? Kinda anti that. I think everyone should be able to get behind dumb is bad.
You literally have never watched one of the serious debates on the subject... which makes me a lot less likely to put value to your opinion.
Again... I think they're wrong, but you obviously took the meme approach to researching this before you started this thread.
Replies
So the world being surrounded by a wormhole that transports you to the other side is easier to accept than the fact that the world is a sphere.
*Edited before I get in trouble
It will stand until the white walkers come with their undead dragon and destroy it
A long time ago, a big ole space rock hit the earth near one of its edges. It hit the earth so hard that it actually rocked it in a downward angle.
Unfortunately 99.7% of all the dinosaurs had poor balance. Because they all went tumbling off the side.
holy cow lol that was hilareous. due to his lack of ability to comprehend the 3rd dimension, look! how is the plane going to land if the landing gear is stuck to the side of the plane?
Show me the curve.
Most of them think the UN patrols the wall to make sure nobody 'finds out the truth'. Crazy on crazy.
I don't have the knowledge or the means to show you the curve. The debate is between dedicated flat earthers and dedicated science/math explainers. Since I am dedicated to neither of these things, you will be hard pressed to get the explanation from me. However, dedicated math/science explainers have ample explanations that make sense to other educated people. Sciency equations and whatnot. Not a single picture has been produced to support any claim that there are borders to the planet. If there were borders, someone would have seen it and reported it to the world by now. I have taken enough math classes to tell you that math can provide certain proofs. I would rather put my trust in education than in baseless speculation. But that's just me to each their own. If you want to believe the earth is round or flat it doesn't really effect me.
To quote Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
I just hope I die before one of these people become president
No. If you just throw up your hands, these people will end up making policy. There's more people that aren't fools, they need to be more vocal, not less. Look at how these people operate. Everything that doesn't support what they believe is fake and lies. Sound familiar?
Trump
Relax man. It was just a simple request. ; )
At least he doesn't dispute physics
I'm relaxed. Forgive me for writing text on a forum.
I could say just get a picture of earth taken from space. Or watch an eclipse. But let's pretend we're without any tools. Look at the horizon. The horizon is not the limit of our vision. How can I know this without knowing the actual limit (which I don't off the top of my head)? Because we can see planes, we can see the moon, we can see the stars all of which are demonstrably further away than the horizon.
If the earth were flat, we'd be able to see land much further than we do. There's the curve. (This relies on us agreeing space sand the moon exist and are farther away than the horizon that you can walk to).
Climate change is physics.
I do not support the idea that the earth is flat... I also don't deny the idea that climate change is possible... however, your last statement is ridiculous. Physics is not how we have established the theory (critical word here) of climate change.
Like so many love to scream here, climate change theory does not have a large enough sample size to exclude the possibility of cyclical climate change (which is a VERY different thing). I don't advocate either, because both have the potential of being true.
Scientific method has been thrown out the window as of late. Theory become science without even acknowledging this now. Betting no one in this thread could ramble off the 4 qualifications of scientific method w/o using Google. How sad is that? But feel justified in stating things as if it is scientific "fact".
Anyone recall Newtonian Gravity? That was considered scientific fact, until Einstein came along. Most of the research we base current research on is based heavily in Newtonian Gravity... how scary is that?
Also, on the topic of flat earth... I "believe" it is silly, however... not all that think its possible are tinfoil hat wearing crazies. Believe it or not, there are scientists, physicists & mathematicians who believe its possible. That is why it is actually debated.
The thing people should be laughing about is people that feel qualified to make these judgement calls (climate change, flat earth, etc) based off the word of others, without even bothering to look past a biased youtube video or a meme they saw.
There is no physics involved in measuring climate change effects? Edit, please point me to one legitimate scientist, physicist & mathematician who has put forth evidence of a working theory for a flat earth. Not believe, actual theory where the math works.
Without even watching the video, logic can be found by the picture alone. Most people who have lived have seen the moon on the horizon like this. Wait a minute, it's pointless to continue my thought. Because of course the moon isn't real. My bad. Sorry guys! Continue on
Only because he's not aware what it is.
bazinga
Alright, let's not turn this into a left-vs-right thing; I'd really rather not get the thread locked by arguing like the right-wing nutjob I am (though, I don't really think I'm a nutjob, so there's that).
Mockery is one thing--and I, for one, am always happy to mock stüpid people--but there's no need to take it past that, and disparage these folks--and any other group you want to pile onto as "bad" or "ignorant;" we shouldn't be making a moral judgement here on the quality of person they are based solely on beliefs and/or opinions they hold, however you/we, personally, feel about that belief and/or opinion--as bad people simply for engaging in so-called "wrong-think." Skepticism is a healthy quality to have in any society, nevermind one as "science-based" as our own (and that's in quotes because, as t0ne said, I highly doubt any of us--I know I certainly can't without double-checking to ensure I was right--can get through naming the individual parts of the Scientific Method, let alone pick apart bad science, or bad science reporting without consulting Google; nevermind recent high school and college graduates); if we start dismissing every skeptic as a "conspiracy theorist crackpot nutjob" then we start wandering into dangerous territory where we are no longer allowed to--as many internet atheists and other "science" worshippers say--question everything.
The problem with flatearthers is that they fundamentally misunderstand even high-school level science (and the sheer scale of our little blue rock). That doesn't tell me that they're bad people--a little silly, maybe even crazy, largely irrelevant but not bad--it tells me that we have some serious problems with our education system. An education system, I might add, that claims we can have two right answers for math, no longer teaches critical thinking skills (rather, it's easier simply to teach what to think, than how), and emphasizes emotional thinking over logical or ethical thinking. We can't fix that by throwing money at the education system, or teachers unions--who fundamentally have teacher's pay and work conditions as forefront concerns, not the interests/better education of children, whatever they claim--if only because we've been there and done that and it's gotten worse (insert Einstein's quote about insanity here).
Treating people like they are worse people, or that they are somehow less than you are--for the beliefs, opinions, and values they hold--is part of the reason Trump won, to begin with. Stop with the smug, superior self-righteousness and learn to look past "ignorance" and see its root--if people who disagree with you are now always "these people" and you dismiss them out of hand you're no different than conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "them"--and you'll be able to build more bridges and understanding with people you disagree with. In the case of Trump it was dissatisfaction--with the dog and pony show of modern politics, with plastic smooth-talking politicians, with the size and staggering corruption of our government, with the pearl-clutching media (and entertainment that someone running simply didn't care about what they had to say)--and defiance (face it, America is "don't tell us what to do" to our heart and soul); dismissing the 60-odd million people who voted for him as "ignorant **** racist näzis" is a mistake and largely false besides (like anyone can throw a blanket generalization like that on 60-odd-million people. If you want to get into it I'll tell you why I cast my vote for the orange man, though I can only speak for myself; probably wiser to have that conversation through PM, though).
Skepticism isn't insanity. Sure, like all things taken without moderation, it can be taken too far, but the opposite is true, too. I'd be wary of anyone who dismissed skeptics--whether you, or we, think they're justified or not in their skepticism--as crackpot conspiracy theorist nubjobs without fair hearing (if they're wrong, give them enough rope to hang themselves). It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason, and, as these so-called nutjob wackos often say, "truth does not fear investigation." I'd like to be able to express my skepticism for, say, climate change without being branded a denier--a heretic--just because I don't believe consensus is science (the 97% figure's been debunked several times, and if it were, Galileo never would have gotten through with that "but the earth circles the sun; we are not the center of the universe" idea), that the amount of money being funneled into it is suspicious, that numbers have been cooked, so too that skeptical scientists are denied grants to research it, that science reporting is historically bad (when journalists who don't understand what they're writing whose to say whether or not it's true without the expertise to pick the reporting, or science itself, apart; nevermind the ethical violations of gaming and mainstream journalism; don't get me started on that 2011 figure--I think?--that told us 90% of the media Americans consume was owned by six companies, talk about shady).
Anyway, I digress. My primary point was: don't make moral judgements on people just because you disagree with them. The people you're disagreeing with are not necessarily bad people just because of the opinions/beliefs/values they hold, or the "ignorance" they have (but don't get me wrong; I'm not defending flat-earthers, but skepticism itself, by all means laugh at the flat earth crowd, I am).
All of this!!
While maybe they aren't bad, they are certainly bad at being people. Their beliefs aren't well thought out or even logical. If a person believes every country in the world got together to lie about the shape of the earth (and also spray us with chemicals via commercial aircraft) me sitting down and talking isn't going to fix the problem, yeah? A new brain might be needed.
This isn't right vs left, (most of the flat earth people I've seen tend left in fact). Again, I'm not anti skeptic. But anti dirt stupid/willful ignorance combined with zero facts? Kinda anti that. I think everyone should be able to get behind dumb is bad.
I'm not arguing for them... I don't agree with them. However, some of the actual debates I watched raised some very interesting questions... on both sides. I was actually taken back for multiple reasons:
1. Both sides were respectful of each other's different views.
2. Both sides had well thought out arguments that clearly showed how much we still don't know.
If you are simply going to some internet discussion group, or watching a biased video for one side or the other, I'd suggest trying a different approach. It was fascinating to see how wrong my initial misconceptions were on this subject to begin with.
You literally have never watched one of the serious debates on the subject... which makes me a lot less likely to put value to your opinion.
Again... I think they're wrong, but you obviously took the meme approach to researching this before you started this thread.