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.
No, but since the gym floor is flat, even if a single light doesn’t illuminate the whole space, I can still see the light on the ceiling. If the sun is up above the surface of the flat earth, lighting locally, why can’t I see it all the time? how does the sun rise and set at the horizon in a flat earth?
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.
No, but since the gym floor is flat, even if a single light doesn’t illuminate the whole space, I can still see the light on the ceiling. If the sun is up above the surface of the flat earth, lighting locally, why can’t I see it all the time? how does the sun rise and set at the horizon in a flat earth?