Information icon.svg Check out RationalWiki's new Discord server here.

Talk:Flat Earth

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon pseudoastronomy.svg

This Pseudoastronomy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Modern non-troll "scientist" support?[edit]

For every other extreme science denier/contrarian position that is often compared with flat-eartherism, there are the actual scientists (not necessarily graduated in areas pertinent to the subject, anyway, but sometimes) lay supporters point to in appeals to authority. Does it happen with contemporary flat-earthism?

In my experience, the experts they point to aren't actually supporting Flat Earth, but the expert says something that out of context could be taken that way and  :Flat Earthers claim them as secretly a Flat Earther or they just lie about someone's qualifications. I can't think of any realm of hard science that could be  :convinced by the non-arguments. -- (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
There was a scandal in the beginning of April of this year because an Arabian PhD student defended Young Flat Earth creationism. The news. --Jagoe (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Pancake Earth[edit]

The question is #why only the Earth#

Will mention [1] which only complicates the argument

Anybody for this [2] version of Earth? (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I know of a Flat Earther, Stars are Souls, who used Newton's defense about the Earth being an oblate sphere as a case for his belief. Unfortunately, he deleted his channel. So to my knowledge, yes, there are Flat Earthers who think that.--Jagoe (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sub-section: Qur'anic "logic" as proof[edit]

It seems that the quoted verses ( They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him. Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. And he followed a road, Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout... Then he followed a road, Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom. )

aren't actually saying that he traveled to the literal setting-place and rising-place of the sun. It would seem that it is just saying that he followed a road until the sun began to set/rise. Sahih International adds "[as if]" to the part where it is saying he found the sun setting in a muddy spring. These verses seem to narrate about him and are talking about what he experienced and what he saw. So in a sense it's a metaphor. I doubt any flat-Earthers are stupid enough to believe these are actually saying that the sun sets in a muddy spring and that it is possible to walk to it. I find this sub-section completely pointless. Should we really be keeping it? Original-name.jpeg (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that portion was crap, so I flushed it. It also read "I" and "mine" in mainspace text, which is cardinal sin editorially. Thanks for letting us know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

How to Win Every Debate[edit]

Ask why Antarctica gets 24 hours of sunlight in December and it has been filmed doing so.--Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 18:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

They'd just say the film was fake. Christopher (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Then they can go see it themselves then, vacation anyone?--Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 20:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
They could also book one of those ultra-expensive joyrides on a military supersonic planes that flies at the altitudes the Concorde used to fly at. Evil Zionist (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Sounds fun, when do we start and how much?--Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Reason why Earths Curvature is not taken into account for most building projects[edit]

I may be wrong here, but I think the reason why most building projects (even mile long tunnels) don't have to take into account Earths curvature is not necessarily because it has a "negligible impact", but moreso because it is automatically taken into account along the way without the construction workers even actively realizing it. Basically every single time you take a spirit level/water ruler, you are adjusting for any potential error that the Earths curvature may bring into your project. When people build tunnels, they don't just dig it all out in one fell swoop. They work on it for a few meters, readjust their measurements, work on it, take measurements again and readjust their instruments, etc. Any potential for error due to the Earths curvature would automatically be corrected via this emergent process, without anyone possibly even having to "know" that they are doing it. -- (talk)

Is it actually true though, that geodesics and stuff don't take into account earth's curvature for the likes of marathon long tunnels? Evil Zionist (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Well when they build those miles long bridges the have to take into account the curve. If the earth were flat then the bridge should look curved to the side like a elbow noodle, but I haven't seen one like that.--リムルテンペスト 00:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there also the thing with snipers taking into account curvature and earth rotation and stuff? Evil Zionist (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I think thats more of a myth. They're taught about the Coriolis Effect in training but I've also read experiences from snipers (unrelated to the flat earth kookery) that they never really think of it in real mission scenarios -- (talk)
Well I think in most cases wind is a way bigger concern. But of course most winds are majorly affected by earth's rotation, so there's that. Plus I'd figure most shots are not those mile-long record shots you read about. Evil Zionist (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)