3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

That interpretation is also very unlikely.  Hawking was very precise in his explanations.  He literally meant using only normal observation of the universe from Earth, it is impossible to determine exactly how the relative motions of objects are occurring.  Hawking didn't mention in that quote that using Newtonian physics you would be able to calculate the most likely (and simplest) understanding of celestial motions.

 

Here is a longer excerpt of Hawking's book:

 

"It is not true that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong… the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the Sun is at rest.

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the Sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the Sun is at rest.”

 

Here is another interesting quote, by George Ellis:

 

"I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

– George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis”, Scientific American, October 1995

5 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

To measure Earth's orbit using stellar parallax, astronomers observe a nearby star's apparent position against distant background stars at two points in Earth's orbit, six months apart. The resulting parallax angle, which is half the total angular shift of the star, is used with the known baseline distance (one Astronomical Unit, or 1 AU) to calculate the star's distance using trigonometry. This principle confirms the size of Earth's orbit and forms a fundamental part of the cosmic distance ladder. 

 

To find a distant star:

Astronomers use standard candles (stars with a standard intrinsic brightness) like Cepheid variables and Type 1A supernovae, whose intrinsic brightness is known, allowing distance to be inferred from their apparent brightness.

 

The entire process to determine the diameter of Earth's orbit is:

- find a distant star

- look for a closer star and calculate its distance from Earth... closer stars will have a greater variation in visual proximity to the distant star at different positions in Earth's orbit

- carefully measure the apparent distance change between the closer and distant stars at 6 month intervals and using trigonometry you can calculate our orbit's diameter.

 

I misspoke earlier... I said using geometry... instead of trigonometry

 

Stellar parallax doesn't exist and has never been empirically demonstrated.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

@rattlesnake do you think the telecom satellite companies are colluding to cover up the fact that Earth is actually flat?

 

The reason I ask is because telecom satellites often are in special orbits around the Earth.  They are apparently motionless, hovering over their assigned spot on Earth.  That type of orbit is called geo-stationary because its orbit is matched to Earth's rotation and from Earth it appears motionless.  That's very convenient for sending data to/from it to a transceiver on Earth.

 

No such orbit is possible (without artificial gravity) on a non-revolving Earth.

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Stellar parallax doesn't exist and has never been empirically demonstrated.

 

 

off to the Outer Limits with you!  When you bump into Rod Serling, say hello for me.

 

An incomplete list of the well proven science the FE's deny:

 

Flat-Earthers ignore multiple core scientific fields, rejecting evidence that is observable, measurable, and verified. Their models rely on inventing new, unproven forces or denying well-established laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. 

Physics and gravitation

Fundamental forces: A flat Earth model fundamentally ignores gravity as a force that attracts all mass toward a central point. A planetary body massive enough to be habitable would inevitably be pulled into a spherical shape by its own gravity.

Alternative "gravity" theories: Flat-Earthers propose that a constant upward acceleration of the disc-shaped Earth creates the illusion of gravity. This theory violates the theory of relativity and suggests the planet would be moving at billions of times the speed of light after billions of years. Other claims include magnetism or density as a substitute for gravity.

Behavior of objects: The laws of motion and gravity explain why objects are pulled "down" toward the center of mass, no matter where they are on Earth. On a flat disc, gravity would pull objects sideways toward the center, not straight down, especially at the edges. 

Astronomy and orbital mechanics

The celestial sphere: A flat Earth model cannot explain the differences in the night sky in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The stars visible in Australia are different from those in North America, and the constellations rotate in opposite directions around different celestial poles, something only possible on a rotating sphere.

Lunar eclipses: During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow on the Moon is consistently circular. This is only possible if the Earth casting the shadow is a sphere, no matter the angle.

The motion of celestial bodies: Flat-Earth models typically place a tiny sun and moon orbiting in circles above the planetary disc. This contradicts the established heliocentric model, which correctly explains seasons, eclipses, and the phases of the moon. 

Geodesy and Earth sciences

Earth's curvature: The most basic evidence of a round Earth is ignored: ships disappear hull-first over the horizon. This effect is due to the curve of the Earth and cannot be explained by perspective alone. The same principle applies to objects like distant lighthouses and the observable horizon from different altitudes.

Ocean dynamics: 

Flat Earth models ignore ocean topography, tides, and currents. The Coriolis effect, caused by Earth's rotation, is responsible for the direction of cyclones and large-scale ocean currents. This effect would not exist on a stationary, flat Earth.

Seismic and magnetic fields:

 The generation of Earth's magnetic field and the movement of tectonic plates are dependent on a spherical, rotating planet with a molten core. A flat disc could not produce these phenomena. 

Observation and practical navigation

Circumnavigation and travel: Airplanes and ships can circumnavigate the globe by continuously traveling in a straight line. Flight paths, especially those across the polar regions, follow "great circle" routes that are the shortest distance on a spherical surface but would make no sense on a flat map.

Satellite technology:

 GPS, weather forecasting, and satellite communications depend entirely on the physics of objects orbiting a sphere. The existence of thousands of working satellites and the footage they provide is dismissed as fake.

Time zones:

 The existence of time zones is a direct result of different parts of a spherical, rotating Earth being exposed to the sun at different times. On a flat Earth with a local sun, the entire surface would be lit up at once, or the day/night cycle would be completely different. 

 

How is the food in the insanitarium?

I'm still awaiting the news blip of someone driving off the edge of planet earth.  Until then, it's round ...  

On 3/19/2025 at 4:24 PM, parallelman said:

There is a bigger problem with the vraious flat Earth models, including that particular geocentric illustration. Depending on what model one looks at the Sun is claimed to be somewhere between 3000-5000 miles (4828-8047 km) above the surface and that means the Sun is a great deal smaller than the 109 Earth diameters as measured by astronomers. The first problem is that no matter where you are on the Earth (globe or flat) the Sun angular size is a little over 0.5^o. But on a FE models it would only have that angular size if the sun was directly overhead and moving away the Sun would appear progressivly smaller. This doesn't happen on the globe Earth because the Sunn is so far away that moving from one country to another hardly makes any difference. But there is a bigger problem. The current value for the amount of the Sun's energy on the Earth is about 342 Watts per square meter and as you know, the Sun's energy is important for life on Earth. On a FE it will be just as important. However, the Sun is much smaller on a FE and with an angular size of  0.5^o and 5000 miles above the diameter of the Sun would  only be about 44 mile (just over 70 km). So how is it that something so small can continuosly over many years, supply us with that much energy?

The concept of a flat earth is delusional at best. Those that believe in it are, lets say members of a society that only accepts low IQ people.

On 12/23/2024 at 5:48 PM, rattlesnake said:

 

I think there is no ISS and it is all fake. And it's not very professional work, most of the time.

 

Example glitch:

 

 

 

Hmm, so how come I received this image sent out by the ISS a few days ago?

 

 

The radio signal started off quite weak, since the ISS was near my horizon.  Then over the next few minutes, it rose higher in my sky, passed over me at 400km altitude and then disappeared over my horizon again, with of course the loss of radio signal.

 

Here's another image, this time from a small Russian satellite called UMKA-1, and doing the same thing...

 

 

Flat Earth?  You're 'aving a laf....

 

20 minutes ago, simon43 said:

Hmm, so how come I received this image sent out by the ISS a few days ago?

 

 

The radio signal started off quite weak, since the ISS was near my horizon.  Then over the next few minutes, it rose higher in my sky, passed over me at 400km altitude and then disappeared over my horizon again, with of course the loss of radio signal.

 

Here's another image, this time from a small Russian satellite called UMKA-1, and doing the same thing...

 

 

Flat Earth?  You're 'aving a laf....

 

 

I love the second one. Art in its purest form.

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I love the second one. Art in its purest form.

These are drawings submitted by young students.  That drawing is from a student in Saudi Arabia.  Previously, this little satellite has transmitted images submitted by 2 of my young students in Myanmar 🙂

6 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

off to the Outer Limits with you!  When you bump into Rod Serling, say hello for me.

 

An incomplete list of the well proven science the FE's deny:

 

Flat-Earthers ignore multiple core scientific fields, rejecting evidence that is observable, measurable, and verified. Their models rely on inventing new, unproven forces or denying well-established laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. 

Physics and gravitation

Fundamental forces: A flat Earth model fundamentally ignores gravity as a force that attracts all mass toward a central point. A planetary body massive enough to be habitable would inevitably be pulled into a spherical shape by its own gravity.

Alternative "gravity" theories: Flat-Earthers propose that a constant upward acceleration of the disc-shaped Earth creates the illusion of gravity. This theory violates the theory of relativity and suggests the planet would be moving at billions of times the speed of light after billions of years. Other claims include magnetism or density as a substitute for gravity.

Behavior of objects: The laws of motion and gravity explain why objects are pulled "down" toward the center of mass, no matter where they are on Earth. On a flat disc, gravity would pull objects sideways toward the center, not straight down, especially at the edges. 

Astronomy and orbital mechanics

The celestial sphere: A flat Earth model cannot explain the differences in the night sky in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The stars visible in Australia are different from those in North America, and the constellations rotate in opposite directions around different celestial poles, something only possible on a rotating sphere.

Lunar eclipses: During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow on the Moon is consistently circular. This is only possible if the Earth casting the shadow is a sphere, no matter the angle.

The motion of celestial bodies: Flat-Earth models typically place a tiny sun and moon orbiting in circles above the planetary disc. This contradicts the established heliocentric model, which correctly explains seasons, eclipses, and the phases of the moon. 

Geodesy and Earth sciences

Earth's curvature: The most basic evidence of a round Earth is ignored: ships disappear hull-first over the horizon. This effect is due to the curve of the Earth and cannot be explained by perspective alone. The same principle applies to objects like distant lighthouses and the observable horizon from different altitudes.

Ocean dynamics: 

Flat Earth models ignore ocean topography, tides, and currents. The Coriolis effect, caused by Earth's rotation, is responsible for the direction of cyclones and large-scale ocean currents. This effect would not exist on a stationary, flat Earth.

Seismic and magnetic fields:

 The generation of Earth's magnetic field and the movement of tectonic plates are dependent on a spherical, rotating planet with a molten core. A flat disc could not produce these phenomena. 

Observation and practical navigation

Circumnavigation and travel: Airplanes and ships can circumnavigate the globe by continuously traveling in a straight line. Flight paths, especially those across the polar regions, follow "great circle" routes that are the shortest distance on a spherical surface but would make no sense on a flat map.

Satellite technology:

 GPS, weather forecasting, and satellite communications depend entirely on the physics of objects orbiting a sphere. The existence of thousands of working satellites and the footage they provide is dismissed as fake.

Time zones:

 The existence of time zones is a direct result of different parts of a spherical, rotating Earth being exposed to the sun at different times. On a flat Earth with a local sun, the entire surface would be lit up at once, or the day/night cycle would be completely different. 

 

How is the food in the insanitarium?

 

They should teach Grok to do empirical observation.

 

 

@gamb00ler

 

Flat horizon at over 100,000 feet. The official explanation is that the curvature is visible at 35,000 feet. Drop the abstract rationalisations and simply see what your eyes tell you.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

@gamb00ler

 

Flat horizon at over 100,000 feet. The official explanation is that the curvature is visible at 35,000 feet. Drop the abstract rationalisations and simply see what your eyes tell you.

 

 

 

unassisted visual inspection is useless.  Remove the atmosphere if you want to perform a useful observation.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

unassisted visual inspection is useless.  Remove the atmosphere if you want to perform a useful observation.

 

In other words, don't believe your lying eyes.

 

 

12 hours ago, KhunLA said:

I'm still awaiting the news blip of someone driving off the edge of planet earth.  Until then, it's round ...  

 

Not likely to happen.

 

 

Flat earthers believe that the Earth is a flat disc rather than a spherical object, often rejecting scientific evidence and promoting conspiracy theories to support their views.

Overview of Flat Earth Beliefs

Flat earthers are individuals who adhere to the belief that the Earth is flat, contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus that it is an oblate spheroid. This belief has gained traction in recent years, fueled by social media and a resurgence of interest in conspiracy theories. The Flat Earth Society, founded in 1956, is one of the most notable organizations promoting these ideas, claiming that the Earth is a flat disc surrounded by an ice wall, with the Sun and Moon

flat earthers explained - Search

21 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Here is a longer excerpt of Hawking's book:

My response remains the same.  In the context Hawking referred to, namely simple observation, his statement is true.  But, when you change the frame of reference, things that were not apparent, become apparent.

 

21 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Here is another interesting quote, by George Ellis:

Ellis is again using the same truth as Hawking... from inside the system, you can not discern all facets of the system.  From outside, much more is apparent and knowable.

 

You are not much of a thinker... and only a passable reader.

41 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

In other words, don't believe your lying eyes.

No.... you're simply not accounting for all things that are influencing what you 'see'.

33 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Not likely to happen.

How is it that a flat Earth has no edge?  Have the FErs invented more fantasy science that eliminates edges from a disc?

19 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

How is it that a flat Earth has no edge?  Have the FErs invented more fantasy science that eliminates edges from a disc?

 

Look at the Gleason's new standard map of the world. I would love to go check out the edge, but it's impossible to (Antarctica Treaty already covered in detail in this thread).

30 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

You are not much of a thinker... and only a passable reader.

 

And you are condescending and judgemental. Your interpretation is noted.

58 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Flat earthers believe that the Earth is a flat disc rather than a spherical object, often rejecting scientific evidence and promoting conspiracy theories to support their views.

Overview of Flat Earth Beliefs

Flat earthers are individuals who adhere to the belief that the Earth is flat, contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus that it is an oblate spheroid. This belief has gained traction in recent years, fueled by social media and a resurgence of interest in conspiracy theories. The Flat Earth Society, founded in 1956, is one of the most notable organizations promoting these ideas, claiming that the Earth is a flat disc surrounded by an ice wall, with the Sun and Moon

flat earthers explained - Search

 

Google's AI hasn't done too bad a job in this summary, but I will add that the issue stems from refutation of the heliocentric model. So while I have no problem wih the term 'flat earther' and the associated stigma (in fact this aspect is very interesting), I would refer to myself as a 'heliosceptic' essentially.

52 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Google's AI hasn't done too bad a job in this summary, but I will add that the issue stems from refutation of the heliocentric model. So while I have no problem wih the term 'flat earther' and the associated stigma (in fact this aspect is very interesting), I would refer to myself as a 'heliosceptic' essentially.

AI? I don't even know how to use it 

22 minutes ago, still kicking said:

AI? I don't even know how to use it 

 

Google's AI, Gemini, will show it's 'insights' by default at the top of the page when you enter a query. It seemed as if you had copy/pasted that, but apologies if it isn't the case.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Google's AI, Gemini, will show it's 'insights' by default at the top of the page when you enter a query. It seemed as if you had copy/pasted that, but apologies if it isn't the case.

No worries, I am not upset

16 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

My response remains the same.  In the context Hawking referred to, namely simple observation, his statement is true.  But, when you change the frame of reference, things that were not apparent, become apparent.

 

Ellis is again using the same truth as Hawking... from inside the system, you can not discern all facets of the system.  From outside, much more is apparent and knowable.

 

You are not much of a thinker... and only a passable reader.

 

15 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

And you are condescending and judgemental. Your interpretation is noted.

You've provided plenty of evidence in this and other threads that your logic is very weak.  When detailed scientific points are discussed.... I've never seen a post from you using your own explanation that it is not true.  Almost invariable you provide a link to the post of some unknown person on Twitter.  Any grade 8 graduate can construct a search query using loaded terms to find the nonsense you use as responses.  Is that a good method to illustrate that you understand the details of the science?  I'll wager on the NOT side!

 

Your misinterpretations of several quotes that you have suggested bolster your opinions actually do the very opposite.  Is that a sign or superior reading abilities?  I'll wager on the NOT side!

666 replies and the earth is still round 😄 

 

sorry 656 only 

On 10/9/2025 at 8:56 PM, rattlesnake said:

The way I understand Barbour's quote is that he posits one can't be categorical on this issue, that it isn't an established, incontrovertible fact that the Earth moves. Just as one can demonstrate it does, one can demonstrate it doesn't. This is also the gist of Hawking's quote as I understand it.

The word 'categorical' in Barbour's quote is actually quite meaningless as the correct interpretation would be identical with or without its inclusion.  The action referred to by the words following the phrase 'remarkably difficult', ultimately remains possible despite any and all difficulties.

3 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The word 'categorical' in Barbour's quote is actually quite meaningless as the correct interpretation would be identical with or without its inclusion.  The action referred to by the words following the phrase 'remarkably difficult', ultimately remains possible despite any and all difficulties.

 

Dishonest pedantry, but expected. How about actually giving me a grammatically sound response to the below? I work with words for a living, so don't think for a second your self-proclaimed superiority will suffice. Step off your pedestal and consider the issue at face value. Friendly hint: admitting I have made a point remains a possible option.

 

 

36 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

 

You've provided plenty of evidence in this and other threads that your logic is very weak.  When detailed scientific points are discussed.... I've never seen a post from you using your own explanation that it is not true.  Almost invariable you provide a link to the post of some unknown person on Twitter.  Any grade 8 graduate can construct a search query using loaded terms to find the nonsense you use as responses.  Is that a good method to illustrate that you understand the details of the science?  I'll wager on the NOT side!

 

Your misinterpretations of several quotes that you have suggested bolster your opinions actually do the very opposite.  Is that a sign or superior reading abilities?  I'll wager on the NOT side!

 

Your opinion is noted, Mister "AI says".

 

Like all narcissists, you grant yourself the right to give a thumbs up or down as you see fit, and will omit what you dislike or treat it as "nonsense" without valid refutation.

 

Lack of humility really is an unpleasant trait.