4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Thanks to the ice wall. Here is the Gleason's New Standard Map of the World, for an idea of how that looks:

If your model needs an ice wall, a dome, made-up maps, and constant denial of gravity, while the globe explains tides, orbit, seasons, time zones, and why nobody falls off, then maybe the problem is not science.

What happens when the ice wall cracks? Do all the oceans leak into space, or do flat-earthers have a special emergency map for that too?

That is the difference really. A round Earth is easy to explain because it works with physics, gravity, tides, ocean currents, the Moon, seasons, orbit, and pretty much everything we can actually observe. Flat Earth needs an ice wall, a dome, mystery forces, and endless excuses every time reality refuses to cooperate.

And the old “people would fall off the other side” argument only sounds smart until you understand that down is not “one direction in the sky,” it is toward the center of gravity. So no, those on the other side are not walking around upside down with blood rushing to their heads all day. They are standing exactly like you are, on the surface of a sphere.

Flat Earth is basically what happens when someone rejects physics and then has to keep inventing cartoon repairs to hold the story together.

Flat earthers do not measure tectonic activity or some do? Real geology does. Flat Earth has no serious tectonic model, no predictive power, and no working explanation for earthquakes, volcanoes, plate movement, or continental drift.

What branch of flat earthers are we talking about here?

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

If your model needs an ice wall, a dome, made-up maps, and constant denial of gravity, while the globe explains tides, orbit, seasons, time zones, and why nobody falls off, then maybe the problem is not science.

The geocentric model does not need any rationalisation or abstract projection to make sense, it is an exact rendition of reality as it is perceived by the beings inhabiting the Earth. Go outside and look around. Try to forget everything you 'know', look at the Moon, observe the Sun's movements – your senses will tell you exactly what is represented in the below picture: a still, level plane with the Sun and Moon pretty close and moving in cycles in a dome-like framework. It is the heliocentric model, to the contrary, which requires a total and perpetual denial of one's senses in favour of a plethora of abstract notions.

13 minutes ago, Hummin said:

And the old “people would fall off the other side” argument only sounds smart until you understand that down is not “one direction in the sky,” it is toward the center of gravity. So no, those on the other side are not walking around upside down with blood rushing to their heads all day. They are standing exactly like you are, on the surface of a sphere.

Can we agree that if Artemis had shot footage of the Earth and zoomed in on the lower part (red rectangle below), technically this would have entailed looking at people and buildings upside down?

16 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The geocentric model does not need any rationalisation or abstract projection to make sense, it is an exact rendition of reality as it is perceived by the beings inhabiting the Earth. Go outside and look around. Try to forget everything you 'know', look at the Moon, observe the Sun's movements – your senses will tell you exactly what is represented in the below picture: a still, level plane with the Sun and Moon pretty close and moving in cycles in a dome-like framework. It is the heliocentric model, to the contrary, which requires a total and perpetual denial of one's senses in favour of a plethora of abstract notions.

Can we agree that if Artemis had shot footage of the Earth and zoomed in on the lower part (red rectangle below), technically this would have entailed looking at people and buildings upside down?

Good start for mythology.

Not great for physics.

Magicians succeed because humans are easy to distract and easy to fool.

That is also how cults work on people: appeal to intuition, repeat simple images, and train people to distrust measurement, expertise, and contradiction.

And as for your kindergarten question: yes, the center of the Earth is exactly what defines up and down. That is why your screen angle is irrelevant.

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Good start for mythology.

Not great for physics.

Magicians succeed because humans are easy to distract and easy to fool.

That is also how cults work on people: appeal to intuition, repeat simple images, and train people to distrust measurement, expertise, and contradiction.

That doesn't address anything I said, Hummin. If anything, it explains the hold heliocentrism has on people.

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

And as for your kindergarten question: yes, the center of the Earth is exactly what defines up and down. That is why your screen angle is irrelevant.

Children often have a lot more common sense than adults, so I don't feel insulted at all. How about answering the question? Imagine that the Artemis crew had filmed and zoomed in on the Earth from their rocket, in minute detail: would people, buildings and cars located in the bottom part (red rectangle) appear upside down? This is a yes or no question.

25 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

That doesn't address anything I said, Hummin. If anything, it explains the hold heliocentrism has on people.

Children often have a lot more common sense than adults, so I don't feel insulted at all. How about answering the question? Imagine that the Artemis crew had filmed and zoomed in on the Earth from their rocket, in minute detail: would people, buildings and cars located in the bottom part (red rectangle) appear upside down? This is a yes or no question.

When you dismiss science and reduce everything to a screen orientation question, you are not defending common sense. You are just refusing to understand basic physics.

This thread is still alive because the three of you seem to enjoy the performance more than the subject itself.

15 minutes ago, Hummin said:

When you dismiss science and reduce everything to a screen orientation question, you are not defending common sense. You are just refusing to understand basic physics.

This thread is still alive because the three of you seem to enjoy the performance more than the subject itself.

What is preventing you from giving the obvious answer to the question? Is it yes or no? You can answer first and still make whatever demonstration you want after that:

48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Imagine that the Artemis crew had filmed and zoomed in on the Earth from their rocket, in minute detail: would people, buildings and cars located in the bottom part (red rectangle) appear upside down? This is a yes or no question.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

What is preventing you from giving the obvious answer to the question? Is it yes or no? You can answer first and still make whatever demonstration you want after that:

When you understand that Earth’s gravity defines up and down, your question stops being a real question and becomes nothing more than confusion about the angle of a picture.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

When you understand that Earth’s gravity defines up and down, your question stops being a real question and becomes nothing more than confusion about the angle of a picture.

OK, fine, but why don't you want to answer? It is a straightforwatd question. Two options:

1. Yes

2. No

What is the answer?

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

OK, fine, but why don't you want to answer? It is a straightforwatd question. Two options:

1. Yes

2. No

What is the answer?

When a question is framed as trolling rather than inquiry, I do not feel obliged to play along with an absurd yes or no trap

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

When a question is framed as trolling rather than inquiry, I do not feel obliged to play along with an absurd yes or no trap

There is no trolling or framing, it is a simple question and I note that you are incapable of answering it… (maybe because it would open the door to other uncomfortable questions?).

21 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

There is no trolling or framing, it is a simple question and I note that you are incapable of answering it… (maybe because it would open the door to other uncomfortable questions?).

Nice try. I actually smiled a little there. As I said, childish, but still a nice try. And if you are really as serious as you claim, I do not think I am the one who should fear uncomfortable questions.

To me, this sounds like the sort of late-night “deep thinking” some of my friends used to drift into when they were younger, high, convinced they had cracked reality because they were asking what they thought were profound questions. Add chemtrails and the usual internet-age conspiracy menu, and it becomes a very familiar pattern. Some people never really move past that stage.

I have lived a life where gravity was not a talking point, but a consequence. So no, I have never had much reason to doubt those elementary forces. Reality itself was always a far better teacher than internet philosophy.

10 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Nice try. I actually smiled a little there. As I said, childish, but still a nice try. And if you are really as serious as you claim, I do not think I am the one who should fear uncomfortable questions.

To me, this sounds like the sort of late-night “deep thinking” some of my friends used to drift into when they were younger, high, convinced they had cracked reality because they were asking what they thought were profound questions. Add chemtrails and the usual internet-age conspiracy menu, and it becomes a very familiar pattern. Some people never really move past that stage.

Ask me any question and I will answer it. You may not realise it, but you are going to great lengths to avoid answering a very simple question – not a "perceived profound question" as you say, and not one fuelled by weed as I don't smoke, but a straightforward question which an honest, open mind would answer earnestly… and which a child would answer readily (which is why, for the second time, I do not take offence at you calling me childish – we have a lot to learn from children, as you would know if you had any).

20 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I have lived a life where gravity was not a talking point, but a consequence. So no, I have never had much reason to doubt those elementary forces. Reality itself was always a far better teacher than internet philosophy.

Jump from a rooftop and you will plunge down with increased momentum until you disintegrate upon hitting the ground. Why? Newton suggested a theory, but he doubted it himself. There are other theories.

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

technically this would have entailed looking at people and buildings upside down?

Not if the spacecraft was "flying" upside down.

The biggest problems with conspiracies are:

1 - Some are not true and even absurd, which discredit the real ones

2 - Some may seem absurd, but they are true. Or part of the conspiracy is true, and some parts are not.

3 - People who believe all conspiracies are silly are clueless

4 - The conspiracy folks keep rehashing the same ones over and over -- the moon landings, flat earth, and no attention is given to the myriad other conspiracies out there

I just came across another one. Is Trump the new McKinley? McKinley was killed for trying to do what Trump is doing. I won't link it or debate it. It's way too exhausting to debate everything with everyone.

3 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Not if the spacecraft was "flying" upside down.

What is up and down in space ? Thats the question

44 minutes ago, Hummin said:

What is up and down in space ? Thats the question

Isn't that one of the things that triggered Einstein initially, and then he went on to develop the theory of relativity.

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

The biggest problems with conspiracies are:

1 - Some are not true and even absurd, which discredit the real ones

2 - Some may seem absurd, but they are true. Or part of the conspiracy is true, and some parts are not.

3 - People who believe all conspiracies are silly are clueless

4 - The conspiracy folks keep rehashing the same ones over and over -- the moon landings, flat earth, and no attention is given to the myriad other conspiracies out there

I just came across another one. Is Trump the new McKinley? McKinley was killed for trying to do what Trump is doing. I won't link it or debate it. It's way too exhausting to debate everything with everyone.

When basic, proven science is rejected simply because someone feels there must be another reality, you are no longer dealing with reasoning, evidence, or curiosity. You are dealing with belief protected from correction.

5 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Isn't that one of the things that triggered Einstein initially, and then he went on to develop the theory of relativity.

Up and down are defined by gravity. Once you are far enough from any noticeable gravitational force, up and down lose their physical meaning and become nothing more than relative directions chosen by the observer.

Einstein kept asking simple but fundamental questions about how reality is observed, and that line of thinking led him to the theory of relativity.

Flat earthers ask questions too. Einstein did not stop there. He did the hard work of turning questions into mathematics, predictions, and testable theory.

That is the difference between curiosity and science.

And yes, his work is still alive today, because later scientists kept building on it, and new observations still keep testing and confirming it

39 minutes ago, Hummin said:

What is up and down in space ? Thats the question

When humans are in space inside a spacecraft, "up" is where their head is. In the Artemis capsule, everything was organised according to a classic "up and down" layout, as humans are designed this way. The toilet, for example, is the same toilet you would see on Earth, you sit 'down' on it:

When the astronauts peer out their window, they see both the upper and lower parts of their field of view.

Which is why, if they had somehow been able to zoom in to capture detailed footage of the Earth during their Legendary Quest, what this would have looked like to a human eye, far from any abstract rationalisation or convoluted invocation of 'laws of physics and science', is people, buildings and vehicles upside down, quite simply.

Shame they weren't able or willing to do it, it would have been very cool…

11 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

OK, fine, but why don't you want to answer? It is a straightforwatd question. Two options:

1. Yes

2. No

What is the answer?

I would think a $10M camera has a stabilizing lens, and the feeds can be oriented any way they like.

This is an uncorrected photo taken from the ISS showing Trump in China last year. Clearly you can see in the uncorrected photo, people in China are waling upside down:

It is a strange sign of the times when South Park, Family Guy, and The Simpsons seem to hit reality more often than the Bible or Nostradamus.

Enjoy, it is more where it comes from, and would this back up a simulation theory more than anything else ? You decide 🧐🤓

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

The biggest problems with conspiracies are:

1 - Some are not true and even absurd, which discredit the real ones

2 - Some may seem absurd, but they are true. Or part of the conspiracy is true, and some parts are not.

3 - People who believe all conspiracies are silly are clueless

4 - The conspiracy folks keep rehashing the same ones over and over -- the moon landings, flat earth, and no attention is given to the myriad other conspiracies out there

I just came across another one. Is Trump the new McKinley? McKinley was killed for trying to do what Trump is doing. I won't link it or debate it. It's way too exhausting to debate everything with everyone.

The idea that some conspiracies are not accepted when they should be and some are simply absurd is true but note it is likely in the ration of 97 per cent wrong and 3 per cent right. That's where it can be a problem when they get so much coverage - it can seem like the ratio is closer to 50 50. They'll say remember when Anthony Fauci said one wrong thing early in the pandemic and wont consider the 99 things he said right. The internet was supposed to make us smart but people go to their favourite site and confirm their hopes and prejudices.

Trump being the new McKinley sounds like a theory - no conspiracy unless something weird and wonderful was involved such as aliens or time travel or something of that type.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

When humans are in space inside a spacecraft, "up" is where their head is. In the Artemis capsule, everything was organised according to a classic "up and down" layout, as humans are designed this way. The toilet, for example, is the same toilet you would see on Earth, you sit 'down' on it:

When the astronauts peers out their window, they see both the upper and lower parts of their field of view.

Which is why, if they had somehow been able to zoom in to capture detailed footage of the Earth during their Legendary Quest, what this would have looked like to a human eye, far from any abstract rationalisation or convoluted invocation of 'laws of physics and science', is people, buildings and vehicles upside down, quite simply.

Shame they weren't able or willing to do it, it would have been very cool…

No. The spacecraft has an orientation and a center of mass, but not some absolute cosmic up and down. The only reason part of Earth would look “upside down” is because you are confusing camera orientation with physical reality.

And still at it, after all the attempts yesterday.

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

No. The spacecraft has an orientation and a center of mass, but not some absolute cosmic up and down. The only reason part of Earth would look “upside down” is because you are confusing camera orientation with physical reality.

And still at it, after all the attempts yesterday.

That's why it would have been so cool to have detailed, multi-angled footage of the Earth, zooms and dezooms, etc., to show the simultaneous phenomenons going on. The orientation of the camera doesn't matter, to the human eye you would have parts of the world appearing upright and others appearing upside down. Others would be sideways. Perhaps also an accelerated video showing the rotation and how it works. Lots of educational potential there, a great way to illustrate these notions to reinforce their relevance and, last but not least, shut up those damn conspiracy theorists for good.

Missed opportunity, IMO.

13 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

That's why it would have been so cool to have detailed, multi-angled footage of the Earth, zooms and dezooms, etc., to show the simultaneous phenomenons going on. The orientation of the camera doesn't matter, to the human eye you would have parts of the world appearing upright and others appearing upside down. Others would be sideways. Perhaps also an accelerated video showing the rotation and how it works. Lots of educational potential there, a great way to illustrate these notions to reinforce their relevance and, last but not least, shut up those damn conspiracy theorists for good.

Missed opportunity, IMO.

But honestly, do you even believe in the ISS at all, or in any human-made object in space?

Because that is where this becomes absurd on another level. You reject the reality we can test, measure, and repeatedly confirm, yet still seem attached to arguments built around the same space programs and observations you claim not to trust.

40 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I would think a $10M camera has a stabilizing lens, and the feeds can be oriented any way they like.

This is an uncorrected photo taken from the ISS showing Trump in China last year. Clearly you can see in the uncorrected photo, people in China are waling upside down:

The great "wal" of China?

25 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

That's why it would have been so cool to have detailed, multi-angled footage of the Earth, zooms and dezooms, etc., to show the simultaneous phenomenons going on. The orientation of the camera doesn't matter, to the human eye you would have parts of the world appearing upright and others appearing upside down. Others would be sideways. Perhaps also an accelerated video showing the rotation and how it works. Lots of educational potential there, a great way to illustrate these notions to reinforce their relevance and, last but not least, shut up those damn conspiracy theorists for good.

Missed opportunity, IMO.

you simply don't understand what a "photo" is – start by realising that no photo is literally analogous......

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

you simply don't understand what a "photo" is – start by realising that no photo is literally analogous......

Okay, kwilco, thank you.

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You reject the reality we can test, measure, and repeatedly confirm

Artemis didn't confirm anything, unfortunately, that is my point.

13 minutes ago, Hummin said:

But honestly, do you even believe in the ISS at all, or in any human-made object in space?

I will believe it when it is shown to be real. Hordes of people saying "it is real" does not count.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Artemis didnt confirm anything, unfortunately, that is my point.

I will believe it when it is shown to be real. Hordes of people saying "it is real" does not count.

Except that there is nothing you could be shown that you would admit shows it to be real,

How many people have to be in on it, for the ISS to be phony?

Again, I think this is a wind-up