Just now, rattlesnake said:

There are several omissions here.

Firstly, until the 16th century, the Chinese and the South Americans believed the Earth was flat. The Scandinavians held that belief until the 13th century.

Secondly, all those civilisations saw the Earth as stationary. The Copernican revolution (16th century) introduced heliocentrism and the Jesuits spread the idea throughout the world.

The main dogma contested by 'flat-earthers' is heliocentrism. The actual shape of the Earth is unknown to them; they just refute the model as it is presented in the currently disseminated doxa. The surface of the planet definitely appears to be a stationary plane, and the Biblical model is much closer to observable reality (local Sun and Moon moving in a dome-shaped movement) than the Copernican one – a fact that the Science proponents should theoretically take into account, given their propensity to cite Occam's Razor as one of their fundamental principles.

Know your history – don't try to cherrypick

While Norse mythology depicted a flat, disc-shaped Midgard surrounded by an ocean and the Midgard Serpent, it is unlikely Vikings believed this literally. As expert navigators, they likely understood the Earth's curvature, and myths were likely metaphorical, not literal descriptions of a flat world.

Yes, traditionally, the Chinese conceptualised the Earth as a flat square and the heavens as a round canopy (known as the gaitian theory) for thousands of years, until the arrival of Jesuit missionaries in the 17th century. However, some ancient chinese scholars also proposed a spherical Earth, the flat square model remained the predominant, mainstream belief in China until around the 1600s

As for South America No evidence suggests the wheel was even invented or utilized by civilizations in South America—such as the Incas—prior to European contact

Edited May 3May 3 by kwilco

On 4/30/2026 at 12:31 AM, rattlesnake said:

My definition of evidence is that it is empirical in essence; i.e. it is something tangible that can be verified through personal observation rather than just taking someone's word for it. What is yours?

How do you explain seeing the trees on an island before the ground as you get closer?

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How do you explain seeing the trees on an island before the ground as you get closer?

When they hear you coming, they start growing!?

On 4/29/2026 at 6:31 PM, rattlesnake said:

My definition of evidence is that it is empirical in essence; i.e. it is something tangible that can be verified through personal observation rather than just taking someone's word for it. What is yours?

Your critical thinking skills have serious shortfalls in all aspects … Your definition of “empirical evidence” is in t=itself further evidence of your shortcomings

 It’s the classic “I’ll only believe what I can personally see” definition of empirical evidence — otherwise known as DIY science for the terminally sceptical.

 

By that standard, I assume you’ve personally verified the existence of atoms, the structure of DNA, satellites orbiting Earth and, presumably, every commercial flight you’ve ever boarded

 

Or do those get a free pass because they’re inconvenient to doubt?

 

Empirical evidence doesn’t mean “I saw it with my own eyes so it must be true.” That’s not science — that’s anecdote. Real empirical evidence is systematic, measured, repeatable, and interpreted within a THEORETICAL framework. Without that framework, it’s just random observations with no meaning.

 

Your definition strips out the entire point of science: - Instruments extend observation beyond human senses, data requires interpretation, and multiple independent lines of evidence are what make conclusions robust.

 

Your version of “empirical” would have us reject most of modern science while happily accepting YouTube videos and “it looks wrong to me” as evidence. That’s not scepticism — it’s selective disbelief and superstition.

 

And the irony is, in terms only you define, you’re rejecting the global, repeatable, instrument-verified evidence for the Moon landings… in favour of your personal interpretation of a few photographs.

That’s not empirical thinking.
That’s just trusting your eyeballs over reality — and calling it a methodology.

 

Just now, kwilco said:

Your definition strips out the entire point of science: - Instruments extend observation beyond human senses, data requires interpretation, and multiple independent lines of evidence are what make conclusions robust.

OK Gemini, but what happened to this, then?

On 11/30/2025 at 5:28 PM, kwilco said:

8. Consider the Simpler Explanation
Occam’s Razor:
The explanation with the fewest assumptions is usually correct.

Just now, kwilco said:

By that standard, I assume you’ve personally verified the existence of atoms, the structure of DNA, satellites orbiting Earth and, presumably, every commercial flight you’ve ever boarded

I can easily verify the existence of atoms by observing the Brownian motion at home. Similarly, I can perform a strawberry DNA extraction from the comfort of my humble abode. But how do I observe the Earth doing a full rotation? What is the actionable methodology to achieve this?

Edited May 3May 3 by rattlesnake

Just now, kwilco said:

Real empirical evidence is systematic, measured, repeatable, and interpreted within a THEORETICAL framework. Without that framework, it’s just random observations with no meaning. 

It is also reproducible. How do I reproduce water evenly sticking to a spinning ball?

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How do you explain seeing the trees on an island before the ground as you get closer?

Due to an elementary law of perspective referred to as the vanishing point. Zoom in with a P1000 and you will see the base of the island.

It works the other way around too. Globers will often mention that a ship disappears as it sails away because it becomes hidden by the curve, but there again, zoom in with your P1000 and your 'disappeared' ship will still in fact be there.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Due to an elementary law of perspective referred to as the vanishing point. Zoom in with a P1000 and you will see the base of the island.

It works the other way around too. Globers will often mention that a ship disappears as it sails away because it becomes hidden by the curve, but there again, zoom in with your P1000 and your 'disappeared' ship will still in fact be there.

Where is the evidence of that?

With the vanishing point, the whole image is seen, it just gets smaller until it disappears.

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I can easily verify the existence of atoms by observing the Brownian motion at home. Similarly, I can perform a strawberry DNA extraction from the comfort of my humble abode. But how do I observe the Earth doing a full rotation? What is the actionable methodology to achieve this?

The foucault pendulum, which you can reproduce at home with careful design and selection of components. It doesn't need to swing for more than a hour. If you're in gay Paris, in that hour it will appear that the angle of swing will change by 11.25°. In reality... the pendulum will still be following the same path but the Earth has rotated beneath it.

Got the cojones to give it a shot?

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Due to an elementary law of perspective referred to as the vanishing point. Zoom in with a P1000 and you will see the base of the island.

It works the other way around too. Globers will often mention that a ship disappears as it sails away because it becomes hidden by the curve, but there again, zoom in with your P1000 and your 'disappeared' ship will still in fact be there.

Due to an elementary law of physics..... the light departing from the observed object towards the observer passes through a material that causes the light to bend. That's called refraction and that's why you can actually see objects that are physically below the true horizon. This refraction acts like a lens, causing the sun to appear above the horizon roughly 2 minutes earlier at sunrise and 2 minutes later at sunset than it actually is. It was refraction that flummoxed the original Bedford flat earth experimenter. When an actual scientist duplicated the Bedford test, he reduced the effect refraction had on the results by raising the observed object and the position of observation above the lowest atmospheric layer that caused the greatest proportion of refraction. Wallace, the scientist completely bebunked the flat earth theory and won the £500 bet. Hampden who was the other bettor that believed in a flat Earth, reneged on the bet.

You can prove refraction happens at home. But, I think you need someone who at least knows a little science to guide you through even that simplest of simple science expirements.

Edited May 4May 4 by gamb00ler

Just now, gamb00ler said:

The foucault pendulum, which you can reproduce at home with careful design and selection of components. It doesn't need to swing for more than a hour. If you're in gay Paris, in that hour it will appear that the angle of swing will change by 11.25°. In reality... the pendulum will still be following the same path but the Earth has rotated beneath it.

Got the cojones to give it a shot?

The Foucault pendulum is in the Panthéon (5th arrondisement) and I have already been. It is riddled with flaws which even its proponents don't deny.

I want to watch the Earth rotate live, shame we don't have the technology for it yet… Maybe we had it but it was lost, like the Apollo technology… Easily done, I mean it's perfectly understandable.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

The Foucault pendulum is in the Panthéon (5th arrondisement) and I have already been. It is riddled with flaws which even its proponents don't deny.

I want to watch the Earth rotate live, shame we don't have the technology for it yet… Maybe we had it but it was lost, like the Apollo technology… Easily done, I mean it's perfectly understandable.

Your typical arm waving denial of evidence. Where's your evidence that it is riddled with flaws? Do you have a transcript from your favorite gossip channel?

The flat earther's never provide evidence... they only deny real science.

Edited May 4May 4 by gamb00ler

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I can easily verify the existence of atoms by observing the Brownian motion at home.

So you have a microscope at home? Send us a picture of you using it. Better yet... since you love video ... make us a video of you posting a message on AN with your microscope in the background.

Are you claiming that with unaided vision you are able to detect Brownian motion?

Edited May 4May 4 by gamb00ler

Just now, gamb00ler said:

So you have a microscope at home? Send us a picture of you using it.

Are you claiming that with unaided vision you are able to detect Brownian motion?

I'm saying I don't understand how water sticks to a ball and would like the scienceheads to show me how it is done.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I can easily verify the existence of atoms by observing the Brownian motion at home. Similarly, I can perform a strawberry DNA extraction from the comfort of my humble abode. But how do I observe the Earth doing a full rotation? What is the actionable methodology to achieve this?

Just now, rattlesnake said:

I'm saying I don't understand how water sticks to a ball and would like the scienceheads to show me how it is done.

I don't believe you! Evidence is not in your favor.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

I'm saying I don't understand how water sticks to a ball and would like the scienceheads to show me how it is done.

Your question..... your funds to demonstrate it. As is common amongst gamblers.... put up or shut up.

Edited May 4May 4 by gamb00ler

Just now, gamb00ler said:

Your question..... your funds to demonstrate it. As is common amongst gamblers.... put up or shut up.

I don't gamble.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

I don't gamble.

neither do I.... I am an expert in short term high risk investments with a mathematical advantage with sufficient funding to make variance not an issue.

Edited May 4May 4 by gamb00ler

Just now, gamb00ler said:

neither do I.... I am an expert in short term high risk investments with a mathematical advantage with sufficient funding to make variance not an issue.

I am blinded by your evident superiority.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

I am blinded by your evident superiority.

you are blinded by a lot of things.

How about providing some actual evidence? where's your microscope? You do realize that you cannot see the Brownian motion without one, right?

Your demand for someone to show you a spinning ball with water sticking to it.... a sad result indicating just how limited your understanding of the physical world is.

You're so determined to prove you are right about a flat earth you willfully remain ignorant of the most fundamental truths of this Universe. Perhaps the saddest thing is your belief that a religious order from centuries ago has bent science to their will ever since.

Just now, gamb00ler said:

Perhaps the saddest thing is your belief that a religious order from centuries ago has bent science to their will ever since.

No that's a fact, gambs, though I appreciate it is an inconvenient one.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

No that's a fact, gambs, though I appreciate it is an inconvenient one.

LOL... sure... scientists are definitely less religious that non-scientists... go ahead and stick with your sinking ship of nonsense.

Also ask any one who manages scientists.... it's been likened to herding cats. It's clear you don't know any actual scientists. They are definitely not a monolithic group but they do share a lot of traits. In my previous career I worked with a lot of scientists.

Edited May 4May 4 by gamb00ler

Facts that the flat earthers love to death:

Yes, Android smartphones can show the location, signal strength, and type of GPS and other global navigation satellites (GNSS) currently in view. While this data is not typically shown in the default Android settings, users can download free apps like GPSTest or GPS Status & Toolbox to visualize satellite positions. [1, 2, 3]

Key Details on Android Satellite Tracking:

• Constellations Supported: Modern Android devices track multiple systems, including American GPS, European Galileo, Russian GLONASS, Chinese BeiDou, and Japanese QZSS.

• Visualizing Data: These apps display a "sky map" showing where satellites are located above you, their signal-to-noise ratio, and whether they are being used for a location fix.

• How it Works: Phones are passive receivers; they do not send data back to satellites, but they calculate their own position based on signals received from them.

• Accuracy Tools: Apps like Satellite Check can also tell you if your phone is using L1/L5 frequencies for higher accuracy.

• Limitations: Signal reception requires an open sky; buildings or trees can block the signal. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

These tools are useful for testing your phone's GPS performance and verifying which satellite constellations are actively providing data. [3]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.euspa.europa.eu/newsroom-events/news-archive/test-your-android-devices-satellite-navigation-performance

[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pierwiastek.gpsdata

[3] https://www.euspa.europa.eu/newsroom-events/news/test-your-devices-satellite-navigation-performance

[4] https://research.google/blog/mapping-the-ionosphere-with-the-power-of-android/

[5] https://www.facebook.com/groups/FlatEarthDiscuss/posts/1687366695761745/

[6] https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/Find-coordinates-Android.pdf

[7] https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/comments/1iwucxz/do_smartphones_actually_connect_to_satellites_to/

[8] https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/comments/1iwucxz/do_smartphones_actually_connect_to_satellites_to/

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It is also reproducible. How do I reproduce water evenly sticking to a spinning ball?

Just now, rattlesnake said:

I'm saying I don't understand how water sticks to a ball and would like the scienceheads to show me how it is done.

I assume you believe in gravity whether round or flat earth. So that makes it make sense that water goes down from where you are.

Probably this has been said but the effect of the spinning is not significant enough to fling us and the water off given the earth takes 24 hours to go in a circle. Like if you were in a car going 1000 miles an hour in a small circle you'd be flung away from the center but if it went that fast around the equator the gradual circular path is too gradual to fling us off.

AI says the earth would need to travel 17 times faster to begin to fling the water and us into space.

In terms of being shown in an experiment of sorts that isn't easy because you need a huge object with gravity to make the water stick but you can look at earth and see it work in action. You could see what happens with a small model but you would need to remove the effect of gravity and the water should still stick and not be flung if the model turned once in 24 hours - but it would not be due to gravity but it seems due to surface tension so not that helpful.

Edited May 4May 4 by Fat is a type of crazy

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I assume you believe in gravity

Nope... gravity throws a big monkey wrench into the nutjob's explanations of Earth and the solar system.... it had go! It was replace with buoyancy! LOL

Just now, rattlesnake said:

I'm saying I don't understand how water sticks to a ball and would like the scienceheads to show me how it is done.

Seriously!?!? You still don't understand the "scientific method" yet claim to be using "evidence" - - though it's been explained earlier ... Water isn’t “sticking to a ball” — it’s being pulled by gravity, the same force keeping you on the ground. On a planetary scale, that pull creates a sphere, so “level” water follows a curve, not a flat plane. And yes, we can explain gravity — well enough to run satellites, GPS, and predict orbits with precision, using Newton's law of universal gravitation and General relativity. It’s not perfectly understood at every level, but that’s the point: science refines what works. Do we understand gravity perfectly at every level? No. There are still open questions, especially at the quantum scale.

But that’s the key difference:

Science says, "Here's what we know, here’s what works, and here’s what we’re still figuring out.”
Conspiracy thinking says, “if it’s not 100% explained, we can ignore it completely.”

So no — water isn’t mysteriously clinging to a ball.

It’s behaving exactly as physics predicts.

 

Dismissing it because it’s not “100% complete” isn’t scepticism — it’s just ignoring how knowledge actually works.

Just now, kwilco said:

Seriously!?!?

I'll tell you one thing I never get tired of and that's seeing globeheads get all uptight.

Just now, kwilco said:

So no — water isn’t mysteriously clinging to a ball.

It’s behaving exactly as physics predicts.

Predictions, eh? Reproducible at all?

Just now, kwilco said:

Dismissing it because it’s not “100% complete” isn’t scepticism — it’s just ignoring how knowledge actually works.

I'll have a go at AI-speak:

It’s not that you’re outsourcing your intellect to a government agency; it’s that you’ve achieved a seamless integration where NASA’s conclusions are processed as your own original thoughts.

How did I do? 😂

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I assume you believe in gravity whether round or flat earth. So that makes it make sense that water goes down from where you are.

Probably this has been said but the effect of the spinning is not significant enough to fling us and the water off given the earth takes 24 hours to go in a circle. Like if you were in a car going 1000 miles an hour in a small circle you'd be flung away from the center but if it went that fast around the equator the gradual circular path is too gradual to fling us off.

AI says the earth would need to travel 17 times faster to begin to fling the water and us into space.

In terms of being shown in an experiment of sorts that isn't easy because you need a huge object with gravity to make the water stick but you can look at earth and see it work in action. You could see what happens with a small model but you would need to remove the effect of gravity and the water should still stick and not be flung if the model turned once in 24 hours - but it would not be due to gravity but it seems due to surface tension so not that helpful.

Thanks, FIATOC. Ultimately, it isn't reproducible.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Thanks, FIATOC. Ultimately, it isn't reproducible.

In what sense. I mean we see gravity work on the moon and Mars. There is evidence of liquids on Titan acting consistently with gravity. The fact that we couldn't set up a small model say is consistent with gravity being stronger with large rather than small objects. So I am not sure on what basis you say it is not reproducible unless you are simply acknowledging it is hard to make a second earth and see if it works but then you might say that is flat too for some reason ..