How to debate a flat-Earther

[Torbjorn Larsson]

LijeBaley, consider the space.com report on QM universe I cited in post #2 where apparently there is no objective reality. Your proposed evidence for the flat earther to see, assumes that there exist in nature an objective reality that can be clearly defined. Yet space.com report undermines such a concept in science.

I'm not sure if you are serious here, since that is a philosophic discussion. Facts are objective and robust however you want to define "reality".

If you want to make philosophy, already relativity makes what it says, events will appear different relative to different reference frames since it preserves laws as the same in all frames, so there is your non-reason 'reason' for doubt about if science works.

You can go on and add effective field theories to your list of non-reason 'reason' since renormalization means you will have different laws on different scales, which parameters you have to observe in order to arrive at your immutable, objective laws [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization ]. Still, it works, and works the same for all scientists.

Maybe we will observe more ways that - while still working - science produce non-obvious facts. But that doesn't seem to be a problem - except for superstition (philosophy).

The work in the article that you link undermines none of that however. The paper tries to make some hay out of that the non-locality that show up already in Bell tests experiments is more severe in these entanglement experiments. But there is still no relativistic light cone causality destroying signal mediated here but the same type of correlations that still needs observers comparing observations to recognize them.

As one may suspect, it seems like quantum field theory has non-local states entanglement as an explicit feature of vacuum states [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeh–Schlieder_theorem ]. (String physicist Witten goes as far as to claim "it is a property of the algebra of observables and not just of the states" [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04993 ].)

C.f. the idea of "locality" as used in the paper, which is not what we see. Relativistic light cone causality depend on locality for light cone signals, no more and no less, and that is what quantum field theory express (however pesky it is to tease out on a background of obscuring non-local "algebra" properties).

If you are interested in the general misappropriation of Wigner's Friend models, computer scientist Scott Aaronson is your friend [ https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975 ].

It's hard to think when someone Hadamards your brain
"Unperformed measurements have no results." —Asher Peres

I was sufficiently interested (or annoyed?) that I pulled an all-nighter working through the argument, then discussed it at lunch with Renner as well as John Preskill. I enjoyed figuring out exactly where I get off Frauchiger and Renner's train—since I do get off their train. While I found their paper thought-provoking, I reject the contention that there's any new problem with QM's logical consistency: for reasons I'll explain, I think there's only the same quantum weirdness that (to put it mildly) we've known about for quite some time.

In more detail, the paper makes a big deal about how the new argument rests on just three assumptions (briefly, QM works, measurements have definite outcomes, and the "transitivity of knowledge"); and how if you reject the argument, then you must reject at least one of the three assumptions; and how different interpretations (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Bohmian mechanics, etc.) make different choices about what to reject.

But I reject an assumption that Frauchiger and Renner never formalize. That assumption is, basically: "it makes sense to chain together statements that involve superposed agents measuring each other's brains in different incompatible bases, as if the statements still referred to a world where these measurements weren't being done."

I don't know if the new paper makes the same assumption, but I would guess it may do. For me it doesn't matter (so I didn't check) since there doesn't seem to be any problem with quantum field theory relativity, as expected.

QM describes the sub-micro world. Extrapolating by factors of billions doesn't work, else GR would look a lot different, and so would we.

Quantum field theory has no problem describing general relativity [ http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Quantum_gravity_as_a_low_energy_effective_field_theory , https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/ ]. Seems to me general relativity geodesics are no more than a convemient math tool for gravity - see how core theory (2nd link: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/09/29/core-theory-t-shirts/ ) separates out the Lorentzian metric as a factor but curvature as a term (which is on average zero in LCDM cosmology) - same as field lines in other classical field theories.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

yes, I am aware of how it works, and it isn't isolated to the mediums of a water-air boundary. Not too much about superfluids I see available online w/Snell's law in mind, mostly in line w/ these kind of studies. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.02110.pdf

Ah, thanks! I didn't know about the strong Snell effect in superfluid 2D vortex pairs! That could eventually be rigged up in ISS, but I'm sure there is nothing like that there yet re testing for flat Earthers.

I like your idea of capturing science interest even under upturned stones, but I want to see statistics there as well. Is it worth it?

If it is worth it, I want to see how you can test that a mass the size of a flat Earth surface must crumple up to a hydrostatic balance ball, no matter the mineral. Problem is that I can't think of a simple analytic model (if it exists).

 

[TIRtacToE]

We have no statistics saying that it works with tackling conspiracy theory in an isolated discussion as a trust building exercise. And it is demeaning. I'll rather laugh at them, so the demeaning is happening on the side of the social offender.




Yes, but some are which is what makes it useful to argue facts, besides that it is hard to distinguish what people know or believe from discussions. That people can be swayed by facts is of course not only shown by the existence of science, but by the fact that years of education and science correlates with less conspiracy and other superstitious views.



I have trouble reading this, but I think that it is better to observe that Earth appears locally flat but is a ball on the scale of Earth. C.f. how you can trick an insect to run around a branch by turning it over, it appears as a flat surface for it.



Snell's law of refraction describes that happen when light passes between two different isotropic media [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell's_law ]. You can see it in a drinking glass by standing a spoon in it.

All windows are "Snell" windows in that sense, but since they are planar the effect appears as a linear translation up close - easily seen in double window shadows. Astronaut images are taken under such conditions.

The Snell window of an optical cone delimited by total internal reflection only happens - as every swimming kid knows - if you have a situation of a highly refractive index material such as water and starts out at depth distances of meters. "At a depth of 10 feet, you will probably be a little too deep for a perfect window, but slowly ascend and keep looking up. Between three and six feet, the entire surface, from horizon to horizon, will be clearly visible!" It is a groovy feeling to jump from a high trampoline, stay deep while the bubbles dilute, and look up at the optical effect.

There is no swimming pool on ISS.

EDITADD: how about I actually give you the link I mentioned, sorry. https://charlieironside.com/2019/10...external-efficiency-of-light-emitting-diodes/
I put a link in my first post #19 that I thought put much better visuals then the Wikip[edia page you mentioned, though it makes clear the concept for sure... thanks. Here's another link that shows additional properties with light emitting diodes. Unfortunately again, not too many related with cryofluids but still room for some passive research. I left my dewar of helium in my other pants

 

[TIRtacToE]

Ah, thanks! I didn't know about the strong Snell effect in superfluid 2D vortex pairs! That could eventually be rigged up in ISS, but I'm sure there is nothing like that there yet re testing for flat Earthers.

I like your idea of capturing science interest even under upturned stones, but I want to see statistics there as well. Is it worth it?

If it is worth it, I want to see how you can test that a mass the size of a flat Earth surface must crumple up to a hydrostatic balance ball, no matter the mineral. Problem is that I can't think of a simple analytic model (if it exists).

You bring up the hydrostatics, and I heard rather recently some of the FE discussions bring that up. I couldn't help but come up w/ flatulence as my model in responses. EDIT ADD: I think some of them are coming around to a larger sphere idea too at some points where there would be other "realms." https://www.pnas.org/content/96/14/7760 I'd likely still stick to vortices. I also think though that many of their gravity denials pose a lot of the problem. Maybe guide them more towards the barycenter as concepts, since they seem to be ok w/ density. Maybe just a step here and there would be beneficial. Many of them would see more of their errors if they are making them, the more they knew overall.

 

[TIRtacToE]

Ah, thanks! I didn't know about the strong Snell effect in superfluid 2D vortex pairs! That could eventually be rigged up in ISS, but I'm sure there is nothing like that there yet re testing for flat Earthers.

I like your idea of capturing science interest even under upturned stones, but I want to see statistics there as well. Is it worth it?

If it is worth it, I want to see how you can test that a mass the size of a flat Earth surface must crumple up to a hydrostatic balance ball, no matter the mineral. Problem is that I can't think of a simple analytic model (if it exists).

One more thought in regards to your hydrostatic ball and mineral aspect... If you were to view the earth's surface over time, what we think of as a solid surface behaves more as a fluid sometimes like bubbles or as a gas even &c. Over time a material we may find alone at one point as a solid, liquid or gas may be actually all at once in the larger scheme of things. Perhaps one day people could find a way to unlock the properties of each at any point, if all the bickering doesnt take too much time from the research aspects. I agree many of the FE arguments can be uneventful, but some of the counter arguments need to have their baloney detector kits (Carl Sagan) adjusted as well. The scientific method is great but far from flawed when many researchers let grant money, politics, embarrassment &c put a snell window view on their end conclusions.

 

[Xolas]

Maybe depends also in where you live. in a flat savanaa could be posiible not to believe to someone telling you the earth is round. For a guy like me living in the strait of Magellan is pretty easy to accept the roundness of the earth thinking and saying "aaaahhh thats why.." because we grew seeing the line of snow of the Darwin cordillera going down to the south (with the distance) till it touches water and finally the entires mountains sinks. Or to check why the line of lighthouses dessapears at a certain point when in fact if you follow the road they are there till the shore line of the Atlantic ocean. I think some people thinks reallity based on their experiences or lack of them but also in granting trust and respect to the wise or to a "power over us" (I meant science). Im not scientist but what I understood from the QM report where apparently there is no objective reality is a problem of scale, like when you see in Macro cosmos a wall of foam from 10 meters distance. it looks solid, but in Microcosmos someone can say thet the empty spaces are in fact full of matter and the solid foam is empty, but in Macroscale youll continue seeing a solid wall. I think FE are more devoted to believe in a flat earth rather than to check reallity and of course, in that view science no matter old is has to be a conspiracy and they will find as much as possible evidence to support their beliefs, but discarding those evidences which are not usefull or contradictory with their beliefs. Pure speculation using theories o experimental results out of a context are then a legitimate way to think and discuss (rethorically) a reallity in which theres only one certain thing: the conspiracy. All of their arguments are almost the same of those in a 1849 pamphlet "Zetetic Astronomy" of Samuel Rowbotham.
Sorry for my english, my born languaje is spanish

 

[TIRtacToE]

Maybe depends also in where you live. in a flat savanaa could be posiible not to believe to someone telling you the earth is round. For a guy like me living in the strait of Magellan is pretty easy to accept the roundness of the earth thinking and saying "aaaahhh thats why.." because we grew seeing the line of snow of the Darwin cordillera going down to the south (with the distance) till it touches water and finally the entires mountains sinks. Or to check why the line of lighthouses dessapears at a certain point when in fact if you follow the road they are there till the shore line of the Atlantic ocean. I think some people thinks reallity based on their experiences or lack of them but also in granting trust and respect to the wise or to a "power over us" (I meant science). Im not scientist but what I understood from the QM report where apparently there is no objective reality is a problem of scale, like when you see in Macro cosmos a wall of foam from 10 meters distance. it looks solid, but in Microcosmos someone can say thet the empty spaces are in fact full of matter and the solid foam is empty, but in Macroscale youll continue seeing a solid wall. I think FE are more devoted to believe in a flat earth rather than to check reallity and of course, in that view science no matter old is has to be a conspiracy and they will find as much as possible evidence to support their beliefs, but discarding those evidences which are not usefull or contradictory with their beliefs. Pure speculation using theories o experimental results out of a context are then a legitimate way to think and discuss (rethorically) a reallity in which theres only one certain thing: the conspiracy. All of their arguments are almost the same of those in a 1849 pamphlet "Zetetic Astronomy" of Samuel Rowbotham.
Sorry for my english, my born languaje is spanish

Many of them I hypothesize just want a change in govt/culture and this is the brainchild for accomplishing that. Seems like a very LONG if not impossible way to go about that even if their ideas proved true. In other ways then perhaps losing their mind and denying reality is the only way to avoid that oppression they feel. Perhaps the Don Quixote move may prove beneficial somewhere?

 

[Xolas]

Many of them I hypothesize just want a change in govt/culture and this is the brainchild for accomplishing that. Seems like a very LONG if not impossible way to go about that even if their ideas proved true. In other ways then perhaps losing their mind and denying reality is the only way to avoid that oppression they feel. Perhaps the Don Quixote move may prove beneficial somewhere?

yes, agree....Perhaps the emergence of these currents of thought is something that should make us think about what the origin may be. And maybe a red flag that something is not right. Someone above commented on gaining their trust as a way to discuss or converse more productively. perhaps we have not all given them the space to think and express their opinions without embarrassing them. Perhaps every time Don Quixote appears (in different ways) it is a warning that we should review the ways in which things are presented and communicated, that they are not "overwhelming" and to involve and guide their understanding... (my humble opinion)

 

[COLGeek]

Well the round shape does not contradicts the Flat Earth. When you say its round, that means it would be a disc shape and there is plenty evidence for it unlike these corporate and mediatic brainwashing entities which only talk about mountains of evidences on all the news channels, news papers, magazines etc. but are showing zero/2 of any proof or evidence. All proof is NASA adult cartoons/anime, CGI! Weird satellites that picture themselves millions and billions and trillions of miles away!

Really? Only in a (bad) sci-fi novel, it this "realistic". A globe and a disk are different things altogether. Can't get much more basic than that and should be understandable by any person.

 

[rod]

GetBeGet and COLGeek. What is presented in post #34, I find very common in FE community teachings, including the flat disk earth with upper section curved or concave shape (this should be convex shape in geometry ). I have friends who were or still involved in FE teachings as well as periodically encounter others in the movement too. Some started sending me YouTube videos when I retired in early 2016 for my education Many FE folks do claim NASA lies and everything is fake news concerning Earth images from space. Mark Sargent in the 2017 FE conference in USA on abcnight line report claimed rockets go up but no astronauts on board, they are actors.

One problem, other nations now have sent back images of the Earth, most recently Israel, https://www.space.com/israel-moon-lander-earth-selfie.html, https://www.space.com/israel-moon-lander-maneuver-for-lunar-arrival.html

I found recently that the Flat Earth Society accepts Mars as a round planet but not the Earth. I use quality telescopes and can see that Mars is a round planet, it rotates in about 24 hours too showing different surface areas visible in telescopes, especially enjoyable now as Mars approaches opposition in October. Perhaps this is a reason why FES accept Mars as round. I found this to be an interesting brief report by livescience.com, https://www.livescience.com/61239-flat-earth-in-2017.html

I note from the report. "7. Earth is flat; Mars is round As founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk knows a little something about the challenges of launching rockets off an obloid sphere into space. So when he tweeted in November, "Why is there no Flat Mars Society?!" he probably didn't expect an actual answer. Well, he didn't really get one, either. But he did get a response, straight from the Flat Earth Society itself (@FlatEarthOrg): "Hi Elon, thanks for the question. Unlike the Earth, Mars has been observed to be round. We hope you have a fantastic day!" Why does the Flat Earth Society believe in direct observations of Mars' roundness but not Earth's? Who knows. But flat-Earthers tend to have complicated, often contradictory, explanations of how astronomy works in the absence of a round Earth. The Flat Earth Society pushes a view in which the sun rotates over the top of the disk of the Earth like a baby's mobile at a much closer distance than the 93 million miles (150 million kilometers) away that it actually is. The other planets — which, in this theory, are also much smaller and closer than they are in reality — orbit the sun, the Flat Earth Society believes. "

 

[GetBeGet]

GetBeGet and COLGeek. What is presented in post #34, I find very common in FE community teachings, including the flat disk earth with upper section curved or concave shape (this should be convex shape in geometry ). I have friends who were or still involved in FE teachings as well as periodically encounter others in the movement too. Some started sending me YouTube videos when I retired in early 2016 for my education Many FE folks do claim NASA lies and everything is fake news concerning Earth images from space. Mark Sargent in the 2017 FE conference in USA on abcnight line report claimed rockets go up but no astronauts on board, they are actors.

One problem, other nations now have sent back images of the Earth, most recently Israel, https://www.space.com/israel-moon-lander-earth-selfie.html, https://www.space.com/israel-moon-lander-maneuver-for-lunar-arrival.html

I found recently that the Flat Earth Society accepts Mars as a round planet but not the Earth. I use quality telescopes and can see that Mars is a round planet, it rotates in about 24 hours too showing different surface areas visible in telescopes, especially enjoyable now as Mars approaches opposition in October. Perhaps this is a reason why FES accept Mars as round. I found this to be an interesting brief report by livescience.com, https://www.livescience.com/61239-flat-earth-in-2017.html

I note from the report. "7. Earth is flat; Mars is round As founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk knows a little something about the challenges of launching rockets off an obloid sphere into space. So when he tweeted in November, "Why is there no Flat Mars Society?!" he probably didn't expect an actual answer. Well, he didn't really get one, either. But he did get a response, straight from the Flat Earth Society itself (@FlatEarthOrg): "Hi Elon, thanks for the question. Unlike the Earth, Mars has been observed to be round. We hope you have a fantastic day!" Why does the Flat Earth Society believe in direct observations of Mars' roundness but not Earth's? Who knows. But flat-Earthers tend to have complicated, often contradictory, explanations of how astronomy works in the absence of a round Earth. The Flat Earth Society pushes a view in which the sun rotates over the top of the disk of the Earth like a baby's mobile at a much closer distance than the 93 million miles (150 million kilometers) away that it actually is. The other planets — which, in this theory, are also much smaller and closer than they are in reality — orbit the sun, the Flat Earth Society believes. "

Im sorry but o man has ever been able to physically measure 1 million miles or kilometers so its tooth fairy to claim distances of hundreds of millions of kilometers or miles. Those distances do not exist. Just because the black of the night sky looks like it has an endless depth that is not an u known phenomena in nature. Claiming to measure it is the same like measuring the image depth of opposing mirrors. Truth is fools have spent whole lifetimes starring at the night sky and astronauts claiming to have brought rocks from the moon, later officially proved to be petriffied wood. The globe theory model is full of flaws, holes and wicked doctrines. All you can do is believe it and this is what I usually tell people that you have been trained to believe, you have been assimilated, you signed a contract and you are getting well paid for perpetuating their lie they pay you for...

 

[COLGeek]

Im sorry but o man has ever been able to physically measure 1 million miles or kilometers so its tooth fairy to claim distances of hundreds of millions of kilometers or miles. Those distances do not exist. Just because the black of the night sky looks like it has an endless depth that is not an u known phenomena in nature. Claiming to measure it is the same like measuring the image depth of opposing mirrors. Truth is fools have spent whole lifetimes starring at the night sky and astronauts claiming to have brought rocks from the moon, later officially proved to be petriffied wood. The globe theory model is full of flaws, holes and wicked doctrines. All you can do is believe it and this is what I usually tell people that you have been trained to believe, you have been assimilated, you signed a contract and you are getting well paid for perpetuating their lie they pay you for...

Seems we may have gotten to a "jumped the shark" moment here.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions. Good luck with them.

 

[rod]

GetBeGet, I am glad you posted these comments here in your post #36. I find this is common among various FE folks I know. The solar parallax for the Sun is < = 9 arcsecond angular size and using spherical trigonometry, you can determine the Earth-Sun distance, the astronomical unit. Venus and Mercury transits are used with good telescopes. The Mars parallax was first determined using telescopes in 1672, then followed the lunar parallax, just about 57 arcminute with lunar distance. Such distances are based upon detailed telescope parallax observations recorded and spherical trigonometry for the Earth's shape. Plane trigonometry, commonly used in some FE videos, will provide much smaller distances.

 

[GetBeGet]

Seems we may have gotten to a "jumped the shark" moment here.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions. Good luck with them.

If something was or felt like something personal, I apologize for it, I mean no inslt and stuff. Truth between us is that in the A.I. god ruled world I will be beheaded for my claims, opinions and beliefs when you on the other hand will most likely be given a robot girlfriend. Peace!

 

[COLGeek]

If something was or felt like something personal, I apologize for it, I mean no inslt and stuff. Truth between us is that in the A.I. god ruled world I will be beheaded for my claims, opinions and beliefs when you on the other hand will most likely be given a robot girlfriend. Peace!

I am pretty sure my flesh and bone wife would have a problem with that.

 

[Helio]

GetBeGet, I am glad you posted these comments here in your post #36. I find this is common among various FE folks I know. The solar parallax for the Sun is < = 9 arcsecond angular size and using spherical trigonometry, you can determine the Earth-Sun distance, the astronomical unit. Venus and Mercury transits are used with good telescopes. The Mars parallax was first determined using telescopes in 1672, then followed the lunar parallax, just about 57 arcminute with lunar distance. Such distances are based upon detailed telescope parallax observations recorded and spherical trigonometry for the Earth's shape. Plane trigonometry, commonly used in some FE videos, will provide much smaller distances.

Also, one of the best direct measurements that assures the claim that vast distances are real is the ones taken of SN 1987A. We know the rate at which the explosion gases are moving outward radially, so we know how many miles they have traveled since the star went supernova. Their angular measurement provides the other information for our simple trig equation to determine how far away that even is from us. The result is about 160,000 lyrs. distance.

 

[GetBeGet]

GetBeGet, I am glad you posted these comments here in your post #36. I find this is common among various FE folks I know. The solar parallax for the Sun is < = 9 arcsecond angular size and using spherical trigonometry, you can determine the Earth-Sun distance, the astronomical unit. Venus and Mercury transits are used with good telescopes. The Mars parallax was first determined using telescopes in 1672, then followed the lunar parallax, just about 57 arcminute with lunar distance. Such distances are based upon detailed telescope parallax observations recorded and spherical trigonometry for the Earth's shape. Plane trigonometry, commonly used in some FE videos, will provide much smaller distances.

This calculus make me puke, I have years of all sorts of machine grinding and milling, tangential grinding for cone tools or even ultra high precision surfaces grinding at the thousand of a micron.

<<Off topic information removed by moderator>>

 

[rod]

Helio and GetBeGet. I find within the FE community, astronomical distances and Earth rotating is uniformly rejected. However, here is a simple note from my stargazing log activity on 04-Sep-2020 when my family had some guests over. [04-Sep-2020, Saturn, Jupiter, Moon, Mars Observed 2200-2300 EDT. Guests enjoyed the telescope views of Saturn, Jupiter, Moon, and Mars tonight. I used the 90-mm refractor telescope with 14-mm Delos eyepiece and 1.8x Barlow lens (129x). Exceptionally good views and crater areas on the Moon along terminator line during waning gibbous phase. Mars had some surface features visible too along with south polar cap. Guests could see Saturn's shadow on the ring system and Titan moon. Jupiter cloud bands and the 4 Galilean moons visible. Guests noticed how quickly the planets and Moon moved across the eyepiece field of view (FOV). I explained, Earth rotates ]

There is a simple answer as to why in my telescope views of the Moon, the lunar surface exploded with so much detail in the eyepiece vs. the 4 Galilean moons or Titan moon at Saturn. The Moon is obviously much closer object to Earth, Jupiter and Saturn exist at much greater distances from Earth. Simple visual checks like this demonstrate that the modern, heliocentric solar system planetary distances - is very accurate, including the spinning Earth on its axis There is a lesson here too about using good telescopes vs. cheap equipment. The guests were stunned at my telescope views of Jupiter and Saturn. These folks when younger, used cheap equipment and lost all interest in stargazing as a result of that experience, until they looked through my equipment. Not to brag here but the guests said the views of Jupiter and Saturn using my telescope, looked like textbook images they read about so they understood, good telescopes and eyepieces can make a big difference in viewing enjoyment---Rod

 

[Helio]

There is a lesson here too about using good telescopes vs. cheap equipment. The guests were stunned at my telescope views of Jupiter and Saturn. These folks when younger, used cheap equipment and lost all interest in stargazing as a result of that experience, until they looked through my equipment. Not to brag here but the guests said the views of Jupiter and Saturn using my telescope, looked like textbook images they read about so they understood, good telescopes and eyepieces can make a big difference in viewing enjoyment---Rod

Very nice! If the "seeing" is great, so too will be the responses from first-time viewers. I try to set-up on the sidewalk during Halloween. It's not too surprising for a kid to see Saturn in its glory and then step back and look at the front of the scope to see if I had put a Saturn image in front of it to trick them.

 

[Xolas]

Really? Only in a (bad) sci-fi novel, it this "realistic". A globe and a disk are different things altogether. Can't get much more basic than that and should be understandable by any person.

Mr GetBeGet, my humbly opinion:
what I tried to say is that Indeed I think nobody here in the south of the world, with the Antartica at the reach of a hand in tourist trips and even for students, with no navy prohibitions or nothing to avoid that, commercial flights to New zealand trough the pacific. beautiful skies in night with shinning stars rotating in counter direction compared to the ones in the norther hemisphere, Incredible calm waters of the Strait when weather allow them, diferent landmarks that you can just observe at and from distance till of course they desappear due to the CURVATURE of the planet, and a long list of other experiences that drives you to conclude that curvature has to be correct.......as I said, I think nobody here could believe in a Religious / Conspiracy aided -or simply because it does not fit in someone experience/way of thinking or cognitive bias (wich of course, is not common to other people)-, flat vision of our world. So what I meant with "round" is the curvature of our planet. And everything I experienced since a little child contradicts the FE beliefs. (sorry for not using the word "theory")

My apologize COOLgeek for using your clever commentary to respond Mr GetBeGet but I couldnt find his original post.

 

[Robert Lucien Howe]

.. There is a lesson here too about using good telescopes vs. cheap equipment. ..

Very nice! If the "seeing" is great, so too will be the responses from first-time viewers. I try to set-up on the sidewalk during Halloween. It's not too surprising for a kid to see Saturn in its glory and then step back and look at the front of the scope to see if I had put a Saturn image in front of it to trick them.

I would add that even a fairly poor telescope or much better a good pair of binoculars can give a truly amazing and dazzling look at the Moon. (a full or near full Moon)
The increase in detail on increasing zoom is one of the best demonstrations of the vast distances involved in space which is indirectly another (incredibly strong) proof against a flat earth.

Also just compare the 'flatter' central areas of the Moon with the edges of the disk. In the centre the surface normal is at 0 degrees with reference to the eye, at the edges the surface normal is at nearly 90 degrees. Comparing the two the curvature of the Moon stands out like a sore thumb.

 

[Helio]

Yes, the Sun also can be used, surprisingly. As with lunar craters, sunspots that appear circular when at the center of the disk will appear more and more elliptical as they near the limb. [See Wilson Effect] Be sure to use a filter when using binocs or a telescope!

 

[foxpup]

Flat-Earthers (Young-Earthers too) are better people than those who hate them.

Sometimes I pretend to be a flat-earther just to drive the jerks around my crazy. It's fun watching them go nuts as if I had said some kind of religious blasphemy. (which it is in their minds) I bet if you are the kind of person who sees flat-earthers everywhere it might be more of a statement about yourself. There is an ever-present sea of people out there who enjoy pushing other people's buttons.

Still there are some genuine flat-earthers out there. I'm sure my dog is one along with all babies and most toddlers.

 

[rod]

FYI, I pass this interesting 3 minute video on to others here.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abLKzCaenvE
, Real Planets and Stars (Nikon P900) - YouTube

The video promotes flat earth astronomy and shows images of Venus, Vega, Mars, and Neptune. Lately I am enjoying some excellent Mars and Venus viewing using my telescopes from 70x to 216x views and with various filters. I have enjoyed views of Neptune too, including Vega. Flat earth videos like Real Planets are highly, defocused images so some FE teachers are trolls apparently or perhaps do not know how to use the equipment Be careful, I have watched a large number of FE videos on the Moon, planets, and stars and using my 90-mm refractor telescope and 10-inch Newtonian, cannot duplicate what is shown to the public on the Internet

 

[mbee1]

People around the world believe our planet is flat. Here's the (surprising) truth about debating them.

How to debate a flat-Earther : Read more

My observation. This space.com report discusses briefly *evidence* based observations supporting the spherical Earth. However, what about reports like this using QM? https://forums.space.com/threads/ne...rved-reality-into-question.33556/#post-524588

It would seem that *objective reality* cannot be determined then, thus flat earth folks can have a seat at the place of science too ---Rod