[Closed] These make the truthers look sensible

[quote=rossburton ]Surely a really simple experiment would be to have a container in vacuum and then do something involving friction. Object on a gentle slope that would slide down without friction or something.

It's a fake experiment and you're one of the NASA stooges. Clearly it must be fake because it doesn't match up with our theories - what you call a "vacuum" is clearly impossible.

You lot should try arguing this side - it's quite fun.

Awesome work Graham..

I don't know how you do it!

Alex Jones' bollox nowadays is just to break up the adverts for his own line of male impotence pills

Ever seen a flat bubble?

Expanding on that one, galaxies are disc shaped. Although to be fair, we found that out by going into space where we could clearly see all the spherical planets...

😉

Now I'm at one of those learning moments I was talking about.

He's stuck on the classic [i]"gravity isn't real - things float or sink/fall based on their density"[/i] half truth.

So ideally I need a simple to understand practical experiment that demonstrates that gravity is the force involved.

Struggling to come up with one at the moment.

Thoughts welcome. Obviously it can't involve hard sums or space travel. Doing something with a vacuum maybe?

(I could point him at the [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment ]Cavendish experiment[/url] but I doubt he'd see the link. Likewise showing him the gravitational constant popping up when calculating buoyancy force will likely be dismissed as mathematical trickery)

Late to this thread but it's great 🙂 question; do they have a response to the maths that proves galaxial objects above a certain mass form spheres? The earth is bigger than the moon (I think they agree on that) so what's their response to that or do they just discount gravity???

"Galaxial objects"? You're too many steps into the indoctrination ed. 😆 They don't even believe in space. Or gravity.

And the moon is ~32 miles across. Same as the sun.

GrahamS - Member
Now I'm at one of those learning moments I was talking about.

He's stuck on the classic "gravity isn't real - things float or sink/fall based on their density" half truth.

So ideally I need a simple to understand practical experiment that demonstrates that gravity is the force involved

I don't know if this would prove anything or help, but there's the Brian Cox video where they drop a ball and a feather in a vacuum to show that they fall at the same rate.

Great shout!

Yeah I wondered about that one, but it doesn't really help. Vacuum means no air density so of course the feather and ball are more dense than nothingness.

ah..... no such thing as space.... wow

do they observe newtons 3 laws of motion? because if they do then surely a tennis ball up in the air and it comes down again is the simplest, clearest act of gravity

yeah I know what's coming next, newtonian physics are optional

Yeah I wondered about that one, but it doesn't really help. Vacuum means no air density so of course the feather and ball are more dense than nothingness.

Never mind that. There's no air pressure, why don't they both float?

Hey Graham,

In the FW world, what are meteors and asteroids?

do they observe newtons 3 laws of motion?

Not really, as evidenced by the "rockets can't fly in space because there is no air" argument.

There's no air pressure, why don't they both float?

I [i]think[/i] I've just about proved to him that it's not air pressure pushing down, but relative density is a much tricker one because it is half right.

I'm currently awaiting his definition of density to see if it includes mass.

In the FW world, what are meteors and asteroids?

Good question. I don't know that one. Falling angels? Evidence of the firmament? Fake holograms?

I'll ask if I get a chance.

Ask about the ISS whilst you're there. Not the close-up footage of it, the bright dot you can see with the naked eye from down here.

Covered already Cougar. It's proof of the conspiracy. NASAtan say it is the size of a football field and 400km away? When was the last time you saw a football field from 400km away with the naked eye eh?

Regardless of how big and how far away it is or isn't, what is it really? Do they accept that it's a man-made object and just dispute its dimensions?

Generally they go for high altitude spy plane.

Some favour holograms or lasers, because they are extra special.

😆 awesome.

[i]Previously on "I'm a Flerfer Get Me Outta Here"...[/i]
..I presented (another) simple example to demonstrate that air pressure doesn't have an inherent direction to it: two boxes with the same volume, one short and wide, one tall and thin. The short wide one has a larger surface area on top, so it is "carrying" more air and should be pressed down more by "directional" air pressure and yet they weigh the same.

This time...

[b]FE'er:[/b] can you not hold something from the side like these boxes that air pushes together just because you change the shape does it mean you change the air pressure. The air on the side of the box would affect the box as well don't you think. So do you think gravity is involved.?

Well yes obviously, but I won't say that explicitly just yet as I want to keep this focused on what he believes.

[b]FE'er:[/b] are you mechanically inclined do you understand how vehicle suspension works? If gravity existed they wouldn't need suspension because suspension keeps your wheels on the ground. So does a spoiler. Both are perfect examples of air friction, and just so happens to prove that gravity doesn't exist.?

What? Suspension demonstrates air friction and wouldn't be needed if gravity existed..? I... err.. what? Think we better stick with the block example:

[b]Me:[/b] Yes I agree the boxes are indeed pushed on by air pressure from the sides. But that isn't acting to push them down, for exactly the same reason that you holding a box by pressing on the sides doesn't lift it up or push it down. Also they will pushed on by air pressure at the bottom too, lifting them up!

[b]FE'er:[/b] I'm sorry to say this but you're completely wrong if you push a box from one side it literally lifts up the bottom think about that?

[b]Me:[/b] It really doesn't. It just slides around. It would only lift the edge if the opposing edge catches on something causing it to tip.
But here we have equally matched balanced forces pressing on all four sides. It's not going anywhere.?
(Kindly excuse me for a moment. It is dinner time here. I will return to our conversation later)?

I really was. Plus I needed to introduce a bit of humanity on my side to stop him being so angry.

[b]Me:[/b] Back and full of pizza. 🙂
Where were we? Right so I'll clarify as we are getting sidetracked, applying a perpendicular force to the side of a box will not make it lift on its own
What can make it lift or tip over would be an opposing force acting near the base which would come from friction or just because the opposing edge has snagged on some imperfection in the surface. Hope that is clearer.
But this is irrelevant here anyway: our box is being pushed equally on all four sides. The forces balance each other out.
So all that is left is the pressure on the top and bottom face of the box.
Now your claim, if I understood correctly, was that air pressure has some kind of inherent downwards direction to it for some reason. But the wide box, with much more surface area on top to be pushed by the downwards air pressure, weighs exactly the same as the tall box that has very little surface area on top.
Hence air pressure does not have a built-in downwards direction to it.?

Comprehensive I thought. Pizza and beer obviously help me tap into the Flerfer mindset.

[b]FE'er:[/b] no, air has a go in every direction until manipulated otherwise. Also you're not taking into consideration the air inside the Box. If you heated the air inside the Box and the box was air tight. Then you would change the weight of the box now wouldn't you.?

Well no. If the box was airtight then no you wouldn't change the density by heating the contents as it has nowhere to go. It might explode though.

Also air "has a go in every direction" now? Wasn't that pretty much my point? That it doesn't have an inherent direction??

[b]Me:[/b] But we're not manipulating the air here. We are leaving the boxes completely alone.
And I did stipulate solid boxes, mostly so we could avoid complexities of the air inside.?

[b]FE'er:[/b] so if it isn't the density of the air versus the density of the box what is giving the Box weight??

this is what I'm trying to explain weight and buoyancy are the exact same thing they coincide with one another one is used in air one is used in liquid.?

Was that a note of doubt there? Did I make a slight impression? But no, he's moved straight on from magically directional air pressure to density.

[b]Me:[/b] So there is confusion there I think. Pressure and density are two completely different things. Pressure is a measure of force acting over an area. Density is... well actually tell me how do [b]you[/b] define density??

I'm interested if his definition involves the word "mass" or not, since density is [i]usually[/i] defined as mass per volume. And we know objects are not drawn together by their volume, so perhaps it is their mass.... hint.. hint..

No reply to that yet and he's had all weekend to think about it. Maybe we'll get one today.

It's a laudible task Graham, but when your pupil can't grasp the basic concepts it's almost certainly a thankless one.

That said, I get the merest impression that his misunderstanding is real, rather than him trying to manipulate the facts to fit his beliefs?

Unreal

The density thing is easy to disprove.

If density was the only factor what is to differentiate between up down left and right movement ofa heavy ball in a fluid?

Alternatively a viscous flow (low Reynolds number) experiment that shows reversibility may be a good one.

I get the merest impression that his misunderstanding is real

With most of them there is a basic misunderstanding (and mistrust) of science. It always feels like if you could just point that out then they'd see they were talking cobblers. But it bounces off them.

I've now pointed out several things he's said that are factually untrue and that he can check himself very easily, but that is very unlikely to make him question his understanding.

Unreal

Jeebus! Some of Glasgow's finest minds contemplating the subject there. "ah drop't oot ah school 'n furst year, bit am pure qwalafite tae debate fizziks an'at"

The density thing is easy to disprove.

You'd think so.. and yet...

If density was the only factor what is to differentiate between up down left and right movement ofa heavy ball in a fluid?

Yeah this is the tricky bit - trying to point out that yes, it does behave like that with regard to density, but.... density itself is not the force doing that, because density has no direction, the direction is provided by gravity.

They've got it half right, but stopped before considering where the direction part comes from.

How do they deal with time differences? Surely if the earth was flat we'd all see the sunrise at about the same time.

The scenario of a helium balloon in a room (with no draughts/windows, or other external factors) with a small basket attached underneath.
The balloon rises to the ceiling & small weights are gradually added to the basket until the balloon floats in the middle of the room, neither ascending or descending.
One more weight is added & the balloon slowly descends to the ground.

If you were to give him this scenario, what do you think he would say? I am not sure I understand his stance well enough to know what his logic would be for this situation?
If he is saying that it is air pressure that is pushing downwards, how does adding the 'equilibrium + a bit' weight to the balloon trigger it to descend & stay down?

[quote=GrahamS ]So ideally I need a simple to understand practical experiment that demonstrates that gravity is the force involved.

As opposed to something completely made up and total bollocks? You still seem to be making the mistake of thinking that there's any purpose in trying to argue using reason and logic. I reckon your best bet is to make up something even more absurd than what they believe in and try and to convince them of that - it could go one of two ways, either they're so credulous of alternative theories that they'll be spouting it themselves tomorrow, or if they argue against it you can turn their arguments on their own theories...

How do they deal with time differences?

The sun moves around over the Earth. It is very close and surprisingly directional in nature for some reason.

If you were to give him this scenario, what do you think he would say?

He's day you've increased the density of the balloon and basket until it exceeds the density of the air and falls. (Which is correct).

His wittering about downward air pressure is confused, but the density stuff is the more standard FE'er trope.

As opposed to something completely made up and total bollocks?

Well it's not [i]totally[/i] made up. They are half right that density is what makes things float or sink. But they end it their rather than making the leap to why?

if they argue against it you can turn their arguments on their own theories...

If only - loads of FE'er theories are self-contradictory. Pointing that out never seems to help. In fact the neatness of the globe Earth "theory" is sometimes called out as proof it must be wrong 🙄

GrahamS - Member

He's day you've increased the density of the balloon and basket until it exceeds the density of the air and falls.

...and falls.....because of what though? What is his reasoning behind the 'downwards force', if not gravity? I thought this related to his air pressure pushing downwards theory?

I suspect he doesn't have answer to that part, or even realise that one is missing.

If he does then I'm betting he'll cite a "natural order" or some such nonsense. Things naturally order vertically by density, that's just what happens because.... God.

In the spirit of learning things by trying to teach idiots: Which way is down isn't as simple as you might expect.

[quote=GrahamS ]Well it's not totally made up. They are half right that density is what makes things float or sink. But they end it their rather than making the leap to why?

Well it is, because he's relying on the directionality of air pressure in order to make his explanation work, which is complete ...

If only - loads of FE'er theories are self-contradictory. Pointing that out never seems to help. In fact the neatness of the globe Earth "theory" is sometimes called out as proof it must be wrong

It would still be interesting to see how he argues against things which he realises are complete bollocks. If only because it would then be fun to throw those arguments back at him. I'm not seeing the point here being to persuade him...

No new updates? Awwwww

He's gone strangely quiet since I asked him for [i]his[/i] definition of density. Not sure if he saw the oncoming logical trap or he just didn't have an answer.

But since you asked, for your entertainment here's how that same tactic played out with a slightly .. ummm.. [i]less lucid[/i] flerfer called Sasha galkina on [url=

debunk video[/url]:

[b]FE'er:[/b] Graham, Brilliance logic we just need to fix 'gravity' from imaginary "reality" in to observe able one.

Things fall down when we pick them up and let go back to its natural place of density and when we bring air under water and let it go bubbles rise up back to it natural level of density and there is velocity laws too which perfectly serves our life with our technical mechanical needs.

and then show up this crazy Jew known for a fraud all over the Internet Einstein and say it is gravity, give me Nobel prise dummies.

Waite a minute, 'gravity' what exactly is contribution to the table what it is new that we don't already know? what that imaginary word describes?

Next imaginary shit the Globe no one can see the globe . It is like small girl drowning picture and teacher ask what do you rowing? and gill say: Jesus The Lord. Teacher: but honey , nobody sow Jesus. Girll: in a minute they will... ;O)

and NASA did same shit as a little girl, made CGI pictures. By the way there is a guy artist who did those pictures for NASA show. He give interview on some news powers and video sure on Youtube too.

People are so stupid and gullible that some times I thing fraud comes kind of natural. We lie to the kids to manipulate them too. Behave yourself, Santa give a gifts only to the good kids and good kids listen to their mama. 'greed and fear' Devil loves that

Please do as I say, I feel stressed out with other things that I am occupied right now. We can talk about it before you go to the bed in the evening.

Don't lie to your kids. Sincereness and truthfulness that is what I need.

Either we get smarter or lie gets to old and dumb I want to get over with this NASA sow like I get over with Santa. and I don't need next level of imaginary shit to finger out. I just want to live with people in a flow by free giving from the heart.

End this imaginary shit people. The biggest secret of the Devil is , that he lives in the place, that does not exist.

It is all in your minds it is not real with out evidence with out no men that could explain their imaginary shit.

Do you believe in Pinocchio? No. Do you know papa Carlo? yes. So Pinocchio is Carlos son.... an exactly that is how NASA show fans play on this debate.?

I... umm... what...?
Okay, try to keep the focus:

[b]Me:[/b] Exactly how do you define "Density" Sasha??

Short and sweet. Hopefully they'll reciprocate...

[b]FE'er:[/b] The density, or more precisely, the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume.

Mass is made of small partials and as more dense it is as more heavy it is and if it less dense, it has a power of balloon carry on basket.

If I let it go stone on your foot, would you see me as doing it or it just a gravity?

Einstein was genius it just not in a way that most of us would like to.

Shalom ISRAEL (((money))) is the mark of the Devil please meet your Master you have his card or you have Visa card as permission to live?

Governments receive orders from the bank it is not other way around.

One end of the slavery chain is in your wallet, another end is in the bank.

we exchange our effort to survive in a symbols on the paper which gives us permission of small fraction of what we create .

No one of us can consume more then one need and we live in abundance

If everyones life have same value what do we need money for? We need access to necessities for life library style. I don't like to own gadgets and tools I just need to use it when I need and then put it back for maintenance and let other people use.

Not sure if they need fewer drugs or I need more.
Still time to play the card and see how it works...

[b]Me:[/b] Great, so we both agree on the normal definition of density as mass per volume, yes?
You talk about "natural place of density" - I also agree. Objects of the same density do seem to naturally want to be together. They naturally attract each other based on their density, which is mass per volume. And that natural attraction of masses is called "gravity".?

[i]*mic drop*[/i]

That was a day ago and still no response. I can only assume that either their head has exploded or the meth wore off.

Having read that, it occurs to me that Sasha Galkina might actually be Chewkw.

I did think the rambling stream of tangential consciousness style seemed oddly familiar 😆

I haven't read the whole thread .. but what about this as a thought experiment (to try to encourage him to wonder where density differences he cares so much about come from).

Imagine a really long tube lying on the ground.

You seal up the ends of the tube trapping the air inside and lift up one end so that the top end is miles in the air and the bottom end rests on the ground.

What would happen to a helium balloon (that would normally rise to the height of the top if it was outside the tube) sitting inside that tube?

Does he think it a) would float to the top, b) sink to the bottom or c) stay stationary in the tube.

If a) then that rise implies that the air in the tube (which was distributed equally along the tube while it lay on the ground) has now somehow become more dense at the bottom of the tube than the top.

That implies that "something" influenced the air in the tube to move towards the bottom of the tube (become more dense) and leave the top of the tube (become less dense) as it became vertical (otherwise the balloon would be stationary

If b) Wrong answer, but there is also a density difference. So what caused it?

If c) Right answer (I guess) from his POV as there is nothing in his universe to create a density difference, and no density difference means no movement? But the cognitive dissonance should hopefully flip his brain right out of his ear. Problem solved.

In any case if he suggests that the balloon moves, it implies unequal density, so where did the change come from?

[Having said that I largely agree that you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. E.g. brexit, communism, religion etc.. "Theres nothing wrong with [thing]. You're just doing it wrong!"]

Good idea for an experiment, but the reasoning on a) is wrong.

The air density may have been even along the tube while it was on the ground, but the balloon was still less dense than that and wanted to go up.

Sealing the tube and turning it vertically the air density inside doesn't need to change, the balloon is still less dense and still goes up.

there is nothing in his universe to create a density difference

I suspect he'd argue, as Sasha did above, that there is a natural order. A [i]"natural place of density"[/i] as Sasha put it.

They usually don't attempt to explain what causes this natural order (spoiler: it's gravity)

@GrahamS - great video. I loved the solar system simulator too.

Yeah really good isn't it. Covers a lot of ground in a pretty short video.

It's all fake and wrong though, obviously.

I’ve been following this thread and I’m learning all sorts of stuff that I was quite obviously misinformed about, like gravity.
For most of my life I’ve been led to believe it was Sir Isaac Newton who discovered the principle of gravity, and now I find it was Einstein!
The foundations of my world are being pulled out from under my feet, I don’t know what to think any more!

GrahamS - Member
Good idea for an experiment, but the reasoning on a) is wrong.

The air density may have been even along the tube while it was on the ground, but the balloon was still less dense than that and wanted to go up.

Sealing the tube and turning it vertically the air density inside doesn't need to change, the balloon is still less dense and still goes up.

there is nothing in his universe to create a density difference
I suspect he'd argue, as Sasha did above, that there is a natural order. A "natural place of density" as Sasha put it.

They usually don't attempt to explain what causes this natural order (spoiler: it's gravity)

I see your point, but the fact is that (try not to take this personally) you're thinking too much like a person who understands gravity.

I considered the point that the balloon was less dense and would "rise anyway".

Outside the tube the balloon wants to go to somewhere less dense, and less dense is 'up' [for some reason beyond our understanding]...

But the balloon only moves at all if there is a gradient to move along.

Imagine a balloon in an area of equal density in all directions. Where is up?

If theres no gravity to create a gradient and density is the equal in all directions. How does the balloon know where to 'rise' to?

Conversely, if there is a density gradient (and the balloon follows it). Where did the gradient come from? And why does it consistently form as more dense near the large mass and less dense further away.

Basically, if a gradient forms where there was none before, then there's a force at play moving gas around the tube. This force moves things in such a way that the gas in the tube moves towards the big mass at the bottom of the tube (Earth). We call that force gravity.

I realise that this may be too subtle an argument for your opponent.

May be just easier to assume that Earth sucks.

I realise that this may be too subtle an argument for your opponent.

Nail. Head. 😀

Gradients? Who needs gradients? Objects just seek out their natural place in the [s]universe[/s] [s]globe[/s] [i]earthly realm[/i] based on their density.

Except the sun and moon obviously.

😆

For your entertainment, another enlightening conversation with a FE'er yesterday:

[b]FE'er:[/b] Naturally and logically if the Earth was truly "spinning" there could be no water on its surface so then the excuse is given that the speed of the revolution or "slow spin" detracts from the absurdity ,which is just materialist anti theist imposition disguised as science?

So standard Bible Literalist with a poor understanding of Newtonian forces.

[b]Me:[/b] Do an experiment: Get a wall clock with a smooth mechanism. Lay it flat with the face up and place a bead of water on the hour hand. Does that water come flying off with the spin? No.
The globe Earth "model" says the Earth is spinning at half that speed and that it has gravity.?

This was the comment that kicked off that side-quest with Sasha, but this guy went a different route when he eventually replied:

[b]FE'er:[/b] "Lay the wall clock flat with the face up"
So the earth is horizontal spinning and flat??

[b]Me:[/b] It's really not that hard to understand Don. You stated that "naturally and logically" water would be thrown off, even by a slow spin.
This demonstrates that even when spinning twice as fast, that is not true. The centrifugal force at that speed is just not strong enough.?

Really didn't want to get into a discussion about centrifugal force being a pseudo modelling force to aid our understanding, but he just went for straight denial:

[b]FE'er:[/b] naturally and logically
the example of the wall clock is not at all comparable to a spinning convex globe and does not at all even correlate with the subject matter?

He keeps using those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

[b]Me:[/b] Your assertion was about spin. This experiment is about spin. Simple logical correlation.?

[b]FE'er:[/b]you cant tell the difference between a flat disc and a convex ball??

[b]Me:[/b] Can you explain why it makes a difference when considering spin??

At this point he tried to change the subject. Sensing doubt I tried to keep him on this:

[b]Me:[/b] Let's clarify the last topic first eh? Do you now accept that water is not thrown off by a very slow spin? And that this is not "anti theist" or "absurd", but is a demonstrable fact.?

[b]FE'er:[/b] Let's clarify the last topic first eh? Do you now accept that water is thrown off a convex ball by a very slow spin??

Was I unclear in some way?

[b]Me:[/b] I do not accept that "water is thrown off a convex ball by a very slow spin" and I have demonstrated why that is not the case. Do [b]you[/b] have a counter-demonstration that shows that it is thrown off [b]by a very slow spin[/b] ??

No answer.

A day later he posted this:

[b]FE'er:[/b] Sasha, it is true the laser gyroscopic compasses are the most advanced device to determine the bearing of the aircraft and would not function unless the earth was stationary?

No acknowledgement of my question. No come back. Just ignore that bit of failed "evidence" and move on to something else. Standard.

I love a good flat earth thread

The whole thing just blows my mind, the effort they go to disbelieve something then re-reason the whole thing with total contradictory nonsense.

Disappointed by the Glaswegian Flat Earther though, I thought we were better than that!

Short but funny:

Interviewer: "And who are 'they'"?

Flerfer: *starts list* "Well.. Satan.."

This is an interesting video. This guy is quite vocal and aggressive when it comes to promoting the flat earth ideas or rather arguing that the globe is a big conspiracy. Yet, he's also taken on board various rebuttals of the flat earth ideas and seems to agree with them. However, he doesn't take the next step and connect that the evidence which debunks the flat earth model also proves the globe, rather that the earth is flat but the model / map is wrong. Disappointingly he doesn't suggest an alternative. Perhaps if he starts to focus his enthusiasm to a model which matches the observations he's collected, he'll end up with a ...de duh derrrr...globe!

[quoteDisappointingly he doesn't suggest an alternative. ]

Maybe he'll propose a compromise?

The 'lentil-shaped' Earth? 😆

Earth is really a complex organic cosmic lens through which God focuses all of his watchfulness.

Maybe he'll propose a compromise?

Yeah I’ve seen increasing numbers of Flerfers saying that the AE model (Azimuthal Equidistant) is now discredited/debunked.

It seems that the enormous flaws with it became too much even for (some of) them.

Naturally, Flerfers being what they are, I’ve seen a few claiming they never believed it and that it was a disinfo op by shills that was designed to discredit the movement 🙄
(A similar thing happened with the “gravity is caused by Earth accelerating upwards” theory)

But they still don’t think it’s a globe. They generally just say they don’t know what the [i]real[/i] map looks like because no one has ever been able to do the work.

What if no one actually believes it, and you’re all just trolling each other in an eternal loop?

[img] [/img]

How does satellite TV work With a flat earth? Are those geo synchronous satellites actually just hovering there?

Thought I’d resurrect this thread, having just read this:
http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/09/flat-earther-saw-spacex-launch-brands-elaborate-hoax-7301195/
The guy even travels by air, and says at 35,000 feet, the horizon is ruler straight, so the earth must be flat!
I truly despair for the future of the human race.
[img] [/img]

This guy built a rocket to see for himself whether the Earth is flat and...flew as high as a medium hill lol

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-43550327/flat-earther-launches-diy-rocket

I saw this yesterday. It’s a beautiful demonstration of the reasoning and rational of the two (polar) sides of the discussion. What happens when a highly scientific mind meets a wholly unscientific mind.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=toQEov2nWas

To be fair, it was a test flight rather than an actual attempt to prove anything.

I've a bit of cognitive dissonance with the notion that someone can think the Earth is flat and simultaneously have the nous to build a manned rocket in his back garden (that he managed to walk away from again).

at 35,000 feet, the horizon is ruler straight, so the earth must be flat!

Yeah lots of Flat Earthers holding up spirit level app to plane windows to show that the (visible) horizon is flat and that the plane is flying level rather that constantly adjusting downwards to stop it flying off into space as it would "need" to do on a ball Earth. *sigh*

Of course the other notable thing is that the horizon is below eye level. Something they normally claim doesn't happen. But they seem to ignore that little discrepancy for some reason.

I’ve a bit of cognitive dissonance with the notion that someone can think the Earth is flat and simultaneously have the nous to build a manned rocket

I don’t think he believes the earth is flat. He says in the piece that he doesn’t know one way or the other, that’s why he wants to go and look.  It could be argued that he’s highly rational with if the context of his skills/knowledge and experience. We all take on faith that the a huge amount of the knowledge imparted upon us is correct; we all take on faith theory as fact, otherwise we’d struggle terribly with the reality of the possibilities within our existence, and beyond. The only way you ever really know, really understand, really comprehend, is to stand before something and experience. I believe that the earth is round, because I can follow the science/evidence and I trust it. But true knowledge will only happen if I exceed 40,000ft and look down.

Nobody actually believes the Earth is flat. It's just a wind up, the more people you can convince you are nuts the higher your rank in the Flat Earth Society.

Personally I like to try and convince people the Earth is round and slowly expanding. After a few beers I can get some mileage out of it.

1) Archaeologists are always digging, they dig deeper for older stuff,

2) You have to dig really deep for coal which was once a forest,

3) Wegener's jigsaw works almost as well for a smaller planet as Pangaea,

4) You can big up the fault lines that move the continents apart,

5) Mountains are a figment of your imagination,

6) Where does all the shit go?

🙂

It could be argued that he’s highly rational

I really don't think it could be!

But true knowledge will only happen if I exceed 40,000ft and look down.

Or just spend a moment to consider the horizon. Or stars. Or sunsets. Or flight paths. Or seasons. Or shadows. Or... ...basic logic.

Nobody actually believes the Earth is flat. It’s just a wind up

Nope. Be lovely to think that, but sadly nope.

Yes, there are undoubtedly trolls amongst them. As well as people who are just after some cash.

But if you spend some time engaging with Flerfers, watching the videos, reading comments and literature etc then you'd see that this is something they sincerely believe in.

Personally I like to try and convince people the Earth is round and slowly expanding.

Give it a snappy name and start a YouTube channel. There is money to be made!

It's already a thing - Expanding Earth Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

Plate tectonics won out as far more convincing and backed up by better evidence. Still, it's a good one for pub talk.

Makes sense to me. A mile on my bike these days is definitely much longer than it was when I was young. 😉

How do flat earthers cope with astronomical changes when they swap hemispheres? (My brother  moved to Oz a few years ago and commented that the moon etc were upside down when compared to the northern hemisphere.) Obvious really if you're on a globe. I assume that the stars, planets and moon must do a very complicated 'dance' if we're on a flat disc. (Or worse, a peanut or inverted toroid, or whatever. 😂 )

How do flat earthers cope with astronomical changes when they swap hemispheres?

With difficulty. But some are still game...

Read  https://thenarrowgateweb.com/2016/12/27/27-the-stars-declare-the-truth/ for maximum bemusement.

Nobody actually believes the Earth is flat. It’s just a wind up, the more people you can convince you are nuts the higher your rank in the Flat Earth Society.

I've been thinking this for a while now.  I can't work out whether it's all a big in-joke and there's maybe a hidden FE sub-forum somewhere (probably on 4chan) where they all laugh at another successful wind-up of a Glober who is too stupid to realise it's all a big joke; whether some are trolls and some are serious (and to what ratio if so); or the real head-baker, what if none of them believe it but actually think that all the other FEs do?

It's all a bit Poe's Law, isn't it.

With difficulty. But some are still game…

At what point, as a flat earther does it get too silly to sustain a belief system that needs so much jiggery-pokery to even get close to a approximation of reality. .?

So a globe is hard to believe, but a flat plate with different stars on the top and bottom slowly spinning above the flat earth being reflected by two mirrors is believable? How does it spin? Why don't birds fly into it? Can it break? Man alive.

[i]Three_Fish wrote:[/i]

I don’t think he believes the earth is flat. He says in the piece that he doesn’t know one way or the other, that’s why he wants to go and look.

Yeah, that's exactly the sort of thing people who don't believe the Earth is flat say.

The only way you ever really know, really understand, really comprehend, is to stand before something and experience. I believe that the earth is round, because I can follow the science/evidence and I trust it. But true knowledge will only happen if I exceed 40,000ft and look down.

In which case nobody knows about an awful lot of advanced science. Huge amounts of stuff we have to take on faith because it's simply impossible to work out everything from first principles yourself. There are a lot of different experiments proving the flat earth model is wrong though, you certainly don't have to go to 40,000ft.

How does it spin?

Default answer for a flummoxed Flat Earther is "God".

Some nice selective quoting. I said that within the context of his knowledge/skills/experience he was rational. You’re all judging him in the context of what you believe and what other people can theorise, calculate or comprehend. If he can’t do the equations, can’t follow the theory, can’t picture the models required to accept the science, then what is he left with? Faith. So he wants to go and see for himself.

According to the BBC piece, the curvature of the earth is not <span style="text-decoration: underline;">visible</span> until around 40,000ft, so that’s his journey. Good luck to him, though I wish somebody would offer to take him up there to save him getting obliterated by his own adventure.

He wants to do it for himself as he believes that there'll be some sort of trickery if he heads up in anyone else's vehicle.

Three_Fish: as Cougar pointed out, the guy clearly has enough nous to design a sort-of functional steam-powered rocket contraption that can launch him 1875ft in the air and not kill him in the process.

So saying he can't do the maths or doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the models is misleading.

He can. But he is not rational enough to do so.