Astronomy isn't some burgeoning field of research currently.
Do you think you need to believe in Man-made global warming to be a 'climate-scientist' these days? Yes, yes you do.
For every single person who I've discussed this topic with; The objections are the same, the level of knowledge around the subject is the same. No one ever thinks about it, because it couldn't be possible for the Earth to be anything other than what they know it to be.
So why do these students believe it? There are books with math in them, they solve the equations, get the right answers, and they move on. They're not thinking critically about anything they're being taught. 5 unicorns - 3 unicorns = 2 unicorns. It doesn't matter if the unicorns exist.
I have a close family member that was nasa for 30+ years and moved far up to where he met at HQ regularly. If the earth is flat it would be an incredible effort. I also ask him about counter proofs and he has a logical explanation for every counter point flat earthers make.
I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying it is highly unlikely but you have to understand 99.9 missions don't leave into outer space. The space station and satellites are in lower orbits and don't require escape velocity.
I personally think flat earth is bs. But if I'm wrong I'm willing to eat my words and keep an open mind.
I just don't see why we would research super complex ways to convert Mars atmosphere into fuel for no reason and stuff like that. It would take A LOT of faking. It is more likely elites are either keeping it from us so they can get off world which is many of their stated goals or keep us small minded
But when it comes to the science behind a flat earth, much less is able to be explained. Whether you believe the data and equations or not, the flat earth model doesn’t have any support of hard data and evidence.
Saying that the round earth model doesn’t make sense to you isnt enough proof
When it comes to the science, I'd say the biggest thing that globers don't understand is that the science is applicable to both.
Today someone argued - planes don't have to nose down because of atmospheric pressure. (...) Well... they wouldn't have to nose-down in that case on a flat earth, either. So what are they proving?
Another person gave the 'dropping an object in a moving car' example. Okay... that idea would still work on a flat plane. So again, what does that prove?
The discussion always rockets straight into pseudoscience because the empirical evidence all points in one direction. There is no experiment that has ever measured curve, the rotation of the earth, or gravity. Nothing 'proves' the sphere. Many things only show a flat earth, many things work on both. Nothing, absolutely nothing, works exclusively on the globe model.
Earth's distance to the sun is based upon assumptions.
Logic dictates the earth is far closer to us than we're lead to believe. The original experiment 'proving' the globe relied on parallel sun-rays.
Anyone who has ever been outside to see sunlight shining through clouds would notice that rays of sunlight are certainly not always parallel to one another.
Does one light on the ceiling of a gymnasium light it entirely? The sun rotates above the earth, lighting it locally rather than globally.
'All the students', 'So many'?
Astronomy isn't some burgeoning field of research currently.
Do you think you need to believe in Man-made global warming to be a 'climate-scientist' these days? Yes, yes you do.
For every single person who I've discussed this topic with; The objections are the same, the level of knowledge around the subject is the same. No one ever thinks about it, because it couldn't be possible for the Earth to be anything other than what they know it to be.
So why do these students believe it? There are books with math in them, they solve the equations, get the right answers, and they move on. They're not thinking critically about anything they're being taught. 5 unicorns - 3 unicorns = 2 unicorns. It doesn't matter if the unicorns exist.
I have a close family member that was nasa for 30+ years and moved far up to where he met at HQ regularly. If the earth is flat it would be an incredible effort. I also ask him about counter proofs and he has a logical explanation for every counter point flat earthers make.
I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying it is highly unlikely but you have to understand 99.9 missions don't leave into outer space. The space station and satellites are in lower orbits and don't require escape velocity.
I personally think flat earth is bs. But if I'm wrong I'm willing to eat my words and keep an open mind.
I just don't see why we would research super complex ways to convert Mars atmosphere into fuel for no reason and stuff like that. It would take A LOT of faking. It is more likely elites are either keeping it from us so they can get off world which is many of their stated goals or keep us small minded
But when it comes to the science behind a flat earth, much less is able to be explained. Whether you believe the data and equations or not, the flat earth model doesn’t have any support of hard data and evidence.
Saying that the round earth model doesn’t make sense to you isnt enough proof
When it comes to the science, I'd say the biggest thing that globers don't understand is that the science is applicable to both.
Today someone argued - planes don't have to nose down because of atmospheric pressure. (...) Well... they wouldn't have to nose-down in that case on a flat earth, either. So what are they proving?
Another person gave the 'dropping an object in a moving car' example. Okay... that idea would still work on a flat plane. So again, what does that prove?
The discussion always rockets straight into pseudoscience because the empirical evidence all points in one direction. There is no experiment that has ever measured curve, the rotation of the earth, or gravity. Nothing 'proves' the sphere. Many things only show a flat earth, many things work on both. Nothing, absolutely nothing, works exclusively on the globe model.
Okay so what about the sun? Why is it dark in some parts of the world when it is light in other parts?
Earth's distance to the sun is based upon assumptions.
Logic dictates the earth is far closer to us than we're lead to believe. The original experiment 'proving' the globe relied on parallel sun-rays.
Anyone who has ever been outside to see sunlight shining through clouds would notice that rays of sunlight are certainly not always parallel to one another.
Does one light on the ceiling of a gymnasium light it entirely? The sun rotates above the earth, lighting it locally rather than globally.