Is the World Flat??

Yabuturtle wrote: I see that there are very few things we really know about our world, as much as we like to think we do. Old theories get replaced with newer ones that make sense and overall there are very few things we are certain of. Who can say really? I do think it's more likely round that flat shaped and listened to both arguments.

I do however think NASA is hiding things as they had talked about NASA making up lies about Earth being round when flat earthers say it's all a lie and a distraction. Perhaps but not likely. I am convinced however they among many groups in the world ARE hiding LOTS of information from the public. Like, world changing stuff, aliens, ancient technology, civilizations that were thought to have been myths ect. It would not be to their advantage to tell people the truth.

My position on the shape of the Earth is that it's not the "cartoon ball" shown in images by various space agencies. Is it spherical? I do not know but there is strong evidence to support that it is. However, optically, it looks flat. Therefore, I live on it as if it is indeed a flat plane. This does not mean I believe it IS a flat plane, only that I treat it like one. Does this make sense? It's the same reason I use geocentric language when I speak of the sun and moon, even the stars. From my perspective, the sun, moon, and stars are above the plane of the Earth, rotating around my view of sky.

When I go to see the sunset, I go to see the sun move out of my range of vision. Whether the world spins and revolves around the sun or the world is stationary and the sun revolves around it, doesn't matter to me. Does this again mean that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the Earth is stationary? No.

By the way...



https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16204.html

VixensVengeance wrote: I assume you believe the world is round, correct? And I assume you believe (as in accept, based on evidence) that we are not sure what the shape of the universe is but current evidence theory shows that it is flat. However that is subject to change, which you will accept, given new evidence that could possibly be backed up by mathematics and/or other verifiable evidence.

So given this, I wonder why you come here to harass my friend, when she counters your comments?

If memory serves, I did explain that "flat" means different things depending on whether we speak of the shape of the earth or the geometry of the universe and that the comparison is grossly unfair without acknowledgement of the difference between the colloquial and technical usages of the term, respectively.

As for your friend, I don't find that sniping from the sidelines with cheeky comments amounting to "you don't know what you're talking about" without any attempts at correcting or even pointing out any particular mistake really counts as "countering" anything. Nor is my return banter - and courteous one at that, with an explicit invitation to cite what ever resource they felt my comment rooted on an ignorance of - any kind of harassment.

VixensVengeance wrote: Why is it not to their advantage?

If you were part of the ultra rich elite and you had stumbled upon something that would change the entire world. Say, an alien that crash landed on this planet and had worked with aliens and knew of advanced technology, would you tell everyone about it? I sure wouldn't. Because knowledge is power. I know something you don't so I have more power. Same with them. If they have hidden knowledge or advanced tech, it's not to their advantage to tell everyone, especially when it comes to tech because they will have access to things we only dreamed of. That puts them ahead of us. Would not put it past them as people really have no idea how much classified stuff they have. People for some reason like to think it's impossible, but they know power corrupts people and if you want to keep your power, you do whatever if it takes. Given Roswell, area 51, Antarctica, as we as numerous things strongly hinting there is an alien presence as well as my personal experience, I don't doubt they are hiding something like that.

Whether it's keeping secrets that would shake the foundations of humanity, blame disasters on certain groups, ect. It's been done before, so I don't know why people think they'd never do that. Why WOULDN'T they do that? These are the same kind of people willing to send children off to die in pointless wars. Keeping secrets, causing people to die ect. is something they would do if they are corrupt and in power. And we would do the exact same thing too if we were in their place.

Climate science is different from Astronomy, it's way more complex..

It's a common misconception that ancient people thought the world was flat. Mathematics was the main proof that the world was a globe. However, depending on development, I'm sure some ancient tribes thought differently.. but mostly due to their religious mythos more than likely... Historically in the West, Flat Earth started as a religious doctrine. Not to say only religious types hold those ideas..

Yabuturtle wrote:

VixensVengeance wrote: Why is it not to their advantage?

If you were part of the ultra rich elite and you had stumbled upon something that would change the entire world. Say, an alien that crash landed on this planet and had worked with aliens and knew of advanced technology, would you tell everyone about it? I sure wouldn't.

You wouldn't? Well what would you do with it? Sit on it like a duck and quack-laugh maniacally? I'm not sure how you can see that as power?

If I found alien tech I would develop it and market it and make it something that becomes almost impossible for everyone not to possess. I would patent it and then corner the market and then become the richest person in the world by selling it to absolutely everyone!

Consider the personal computer or the cell phone as examples. Now that's true power! Power is not acting like a duck.

Gisteron wrote:

VixensVengeance wrote: I assume you believe the world is round, correct? And I assume you believe (as in accept, based on evidence) that we are not sure what the shape of the universe is but current evidence theory shows that it is flat. However that is subject to change, which you will accept, given new evidence that could possibly be backed up by mathematics and/or other verifiable evidence.

So given this, I wonder why you come here to harass my friend, when she counters your comments?

If memory serves, I did explain that "flat" means different things depending on whether we speak of the shape of the earth or the geometry of the universe and that the comparison is grossly unfair without acknowledgement of the difference between the colloquial and technical usages of the term, respectively.

As for your friend, I don't find that sniping from the sidelines with cheeky comments amounting to "you don't know what you're talking about" without any attempts at correcting or even pointing out any particular mistake really counts as "countering" anything. Nor is my return banter - and courteous one at that, with an explicit invitation to cite what ever resource they felt my comment rooted on an ignorance of - any kind of harassment.

Maybe a poor choice of words on my part. Sorry. In any case I am not aware of a scientific definition of the term flat that is different than a layman's version of the term? So I see no need to try and define one over the other? Flat can be defined in terms of simple geometry. A surface where parallel lines remain parallel as they travel forward vs curved or round where parallel lines will diverge and then return to parallel as they travel forward. In this case a flat earth would require four 90 degree turns to return to a starting point while a ball earth would only require only three 90 degree turns to accomplish the same thing. So its incredibally easy actually to prove the earth is actually a ball.

Uzima Moto wrote: Climate science is different from Astronomy, it's way more complex..

It's a common misconception that ancient people thought the world was flat. Mathematics was the main proof that the world was a globe. However, depending on development, I'm sure some ancient tribes thought differently.. but mostly due to their religious mythos more than likely... Historically in the West, Flat Earth started as a religious doctrine. Not to say only religious types hold those ideas..

No, it’s NOT a misconception. Many ancient civilizations maintained that the world was flat.

"Ultimately, arguing on the internet is not the best way forward for any scientific endeavour. We need to provide the means for people to test these theories themselves and to understand the results they get."

Even a Kid Can Prove the Earth Is Round: Here's How - https://www.space.com/38931-kids-can-prove-earth-round.html

VixensVengeance wrote:

Gisteron wrote: ... "flat" means different things depending on whether we speak of the shape of the earth or the geometry of the universe and that the comparison is grossly unfair without acknowledgement of the difference between the colloquial and technical usages of the term, respectively.

... I am not aware of a scientific definition of the term flat that is different than a layman's version of the term? So I see no need to try and define one over the other? Flat can be defined in terms of simple geometry. A surface where parallel lines remain parallel as they travel forward vs curved or round where parallel lines will diverge and then return to parallel as they travel forward. In this case a flat earth would require four 90 degree turns to return to a starting point while a ball earth would only require only three 90 degree turns to accomplish the same thing. So its incredibally easy actually to prove the earth is actually a ball.

It would take some maps or travels but yes, it should be straightforward enough. In a sense I agree with your friend, when ever she said

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: Also, if it’s that easy to know the shape of this place for certain, FE shouldn’t even be a thing, especially not among PHDs.

It really shouldn't be as much of a thing as it is. The question is why nevertheless it is. Now one conceivable answer is that it is all an elaborate conspiracy on an unprecedented scale and at unfathomable costs for almost no gain whatsoever and earth is indeed flat after all. Or, maybe, simple shadow length measurements as performed even some two thousand years ago are not completely unreliable and there are other reasons credentialed people speak wrongly of the shape of the earth.

As for flatness as a technical term, consider this:
Take out a sheet of paper and draw what ever lines you would to test the surface for flatness. They can be parallel lines, or triangles with known angles, or a bunch of right angles or a shape with three right angle turns such that the first line inevitably intersects the fourth.
Now we can take this sheet of paper and roll it, such as to connect one edge to the opposite one. Intuitively, colloquially, we would say the new surface, shaped as a cylinder's mantle is "curved". However, all of the flatness tests you drew on the sheet are still on it just fine. The inner angles of a triangle still sum up to 180 degrees, parallel lines still do not meet or change distance, and it still takes four 90 degree turns to return to a starting point. In a mathematical sense, the new surface is as "flat" as the sheet was when ever you were drawing things on it.
That's why I caution against the equivocation. When flat-earthers speak of a flat earth, they really mean a colloquially flat one, like a vinyl record. When astronomers describe our galaxy as shaped like a flat disc, they are at that moment using flat colloquially, with reference to a shape. When cosmologists speak of a flat universe, they refer not to its shape but to its geometry, meaning that Euclid's axioms apply, just as they apply to a rolled up sheet of paper or any number of other shapes that are "flat" in this abstract technical sense. And that distinction is easy to overlook, which accounts for how the OP of this thread came to be. It's not the same sense of flatness and when we ponder the geometry of the universe we are not at all in the same sort of position as people of the distant past who had some room to debate still just what shape the earth is.