SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Interesting bit to be found at The Conversation:
Speakers recently flew in from around (or perhaps, across?) the earth for a three-day event held in Birmingham: the UK's first ever public Flat Earth Convention. It was well attended, and wasn't just three days of speeches and YouTube clips (though, granted, there was a lot of this). There was also a lot of team-building, networking, debating, workshops – and scientific experiments.
Yes, flat earthers do seem to place a lot of emphasis and priority on scientific methods and, in particular, on observable facts. The weekend in no small part revolved around discussing and debating science, with lots of time spent running, planning, and reporting on the latest set of flat earth experiments and models. Indeed, as one presenter noted early on, flat earthers try to "look for multiple, verifiable evidence" and advised attendees to "always do your own research and accept you might be wrong".
While flat earthers seem to trust and support scientific methods, what they don't trust is scientists, and the established relationships between "power" and "knowledge". This relationship between power and knowledge has long been theorised by sociologists. By exploring this relationship, we can begin to understand why there is a swelling resurgence of flat earthers.
Interestingly enough, the author delves into philosophy, particularly the work of Michel Foucault, who, for those not familiar with him, traced the relations between knowledge and power, especially in The Archaeology of Knowledge.
In the 21st century, we are witnessing another important shift in both power and knowledge due to factors that include the increased public platforms afforded by social media. Knowledge is no longer centrally controlled and – as has been pointed out in the wake of Brexit – the age of the expert may be passing. Now, everybody has the power to create and share content. When Michael Gove, a leading proponent of Brexit, proclaimed: "I think the people of this country have had enough of experts", it would seem that he, in many ways, meant it.
Ah, that explains so much beyond Brexit! Alternative Knowledge!
And for those who will never read the entire article, bit of the take-away:
In many ways, a public meeting of flat earthers is a product and sign of our time; a reflection of our increasing distrust in scientific institutions, and the moves by power-holding institutions towards populism and emotions. In much the same way that Foucault reflected on what social outcasts could reveal about our social systems, there is a lot flat earthers can reveal to us about the current changing relationship between power and knowledge. And judging by the success of this UK event – and the large conventions planned in Canada and America this year – it seems the flat earth is going to be around for a while yet.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:46PM (81 children)
That is all well and good to say, but it is so very far from true. If they actually trusted the scientific method then they could send up their own weather balloons with a camera of their own to go and snap some shots of the earth's curvature. They could use their own eyeballs to observe the spherical shape of the moon, sun, and planets.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:59PM (48 children)
The earth is a sphere but the oceans are flat. Imagine standing on a grape floating in a cup and its obvious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:07PM (5 children)
So flat ocean theory? Gotta get on that naming committee they're just confusing everyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:11PM (4 children)
The proof is in the center of washington dc. The washington monument is a giant sundial and the reflecting pond the perfectly flat surface needed for accurate measurement. Reflecting pond is made of what?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @12:36AM
If it's DC, I'm gonna guess "bullshit"?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 06 2018, @06:27AM (2 children)
Except that you don't need a perfectly flat surface. It doesn't really matter how the surface your shadow falls on is shaped as long as the shadow actually falls on it (although if you want to have equidistant marks, you should use a cylinder-shaped surface with the cylinder axis parallel to the rotation axis of Earth).
The fact that usually (but not always!) flat surfaces are used is just that flat surfaces are the easiest to make, and the easiest to read off.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @08:59AM (1 child)
If you want to accurately measure the length of the shadow its going to need to fall on a flat surface, and there is no surface flatter than a still liquid.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @11:29AM
You haven't seen my girlfriend's chest.
(Score: 2) by Uncle_Al on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:09PM (17 children)
Which is why you can see Hawaii from California.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:35PM
California didnt exist until 1850 and Hawaii until even later in 1959, so I dont see how you could use that as an example.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:52PM (15 children)
Don't you mean "Which is why you can see Russia from my front porch in Alaska"?
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by jmorris on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:02PM (14 children)
This one just won't effing die will it. That line is from Saturday Night Live. Tina Fey != Sarah Palin, she just played her on TV.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:08PM (1 child)
GP anon didn't say that Sarah Palin said it, but you reflexively defended her. Could you be Bristol Palin's new lover? Or Trig's father?
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:32PM
Ten gets you one J-Mo is an "incel."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:08PM
Calm down. Of course it was Tina Fey. The fact that these flat earthers had a three day convention deserves commentary just as serious.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:23PM (1 child)
Wow, someone hops into a thread to defend Palin? Jmo jmo jmo, you really should get laid sometime if you're that desperate. You can have a guaranteed good time in Nevada I hear, set you back less than the number of dates it would probably take to find someone willing to sleep with a RINO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:58AM
Well, boys, that wrap it up for us. 3.5 billion people had a vote, and parent comment is the unanimous verdict. I guess we'd better just kill ourselves. It's a good thing we're expendable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:44PM
Palin said:
From Huffington Post, you jmorris, you! https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-palin-russia-joke_us_584e3fe1e4b0e05aded4724f [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Whoever on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:55PM (7 children)
That line is certainly from SNL, but the reason it was funny and remains in the public consciousness is that Palin said something similar, but with a lot less hyperbole:
"They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-i-can-see-russia-from-my-house/ [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:28PM (6 children)
Except the real quote doesn't sound at all dumb, unlike the popularly attributed quote. (And the actual quote is factually correct.) So there is a big difference.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:50PM (4 children)
You are showing your ignorance.
In the context of the discussion, what Palin said was dumb.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday May 06 2018, @05:31PM (3 children)
Maybe, but it would be much more subjectively dumb than the fake quote. In other words, it is unfair to substitute one dumb thing someone actually said, for something else that has been made up just to make a good sound bite version.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Sunday May 06 2018, @08:56PM (1 child)
Regardless of whether the quote itself was dumb, are you seriously making the argument that Palin herself isn't a bit lacking in intelligence?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday May 06 2018, @09:54PM
What??? Please point out to me where I said that.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday May 06 2018, @09:51PM
This is the stupidest comment I have ever seen on SoylentNews! It is just like that time that Virindi said, "Sarah Palin is a political genius! She is one of the smartest Republicans currently alive!"
Best to quit while you have only partially embarrassed yourself. You should never go the Full Runaway!
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday May 06 2018, @10:51PM
Everything Sarah Palin says is dumb, and even things that are true and not dumb sound dumb when she says them.
If there is video of her saying the really dumb things she says it also looks swivel-eyed and crazy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:25PM (22 children)
Going for the chuckle, but hitting the mark.
Because cameras and balloons work even over oceans.
Oddly, the ocean is one of the easiest places to see the curvature - with the naked eye.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:43PM (15 children)
So you basically admit that to see the supposed curvature you need to use looked through a curved object like a camera lens, balloon, or eyeball?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:09PM (14 children)
Oh fuck, all flat things are actaully curved! The eye ball only makes them look flat!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:14PM (13 children)
Yes, the image on the retina is inverted by the lens.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday May 05 2018, @10:27PM (12 children)
I can't tell if you legitimately think you provided a valid reason for why humans would be unable to tell if something was spherical or flat.
In any case there are ways to measure or observe the curvature of a surface via math. The distances traveled along the surface of a sphere or a plane when moving across it can be used to measure the flatness. As well concepts such as what a straight line means can change for curved surfaces.
These techniques were used to prove that the Earth is a sphere and later used to prove that space-time is curved with general relativity. It's really hard to argue with general relativity because we can describe and measure it extremely well and it keeps working.
Have you ever done parallel transport of vectors?
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @12:27AM (11 children)
Yes, and there are also ways to convert between flat and spherical earths via math [wikipedia.org] so this proves nothing.
The same general relativity which requires the universe to be made of 95% invisible stuff to "work"? For which there is no evidence besides that GR makes wrong predictions: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-hunt-fails-to-find-the-elusive-particles/ [scientificamerican.com]
And also by the way, general relativity was used to prove the universe is indistinguishable from flat:
https://www.space.com/34928-the-universe-is-flat-now-what.html [space.com]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 06 2018, @06:42AM (6 children)
The same General Relativity that explains the orbit of Mercury that could not be explained with Newtonian gravitation. The same General Relativity that predicts the bending of light when passing the sun, which then was actually observed. The same General Relativity that has to be considered to make GPS work. The same General Relativity that predicted the gravitational waves that have been detected recently.
Dark matter OTOH is independent of General Relativity (except insofar as you can derive Newtonian gravitation as low-density, low-speed limit of GR). Newtonian gravitation perfectly suffices (and is commonly used) to calculate star orbits in galaxies.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @09:14AM (5 children)
These are all post-hoc "predictions" that are also made by Le Sage theories of gravity:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V15NO3PDF/V15N3BER.pdf [vif.com]
This is a real prediction, but afaik there has never been independent verification of one of these gravitational waves. Ie we need to see a gw and supernova of appropriate size and location at the same time.
In GR the effects of gravity travel at the speed of light. In Newtonian gravitation it is instantaneous. These are two fundamentally and totally different universes so I don't see how you can derive one from the other.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:32PM (4 children)
I don't know where you're getting your "science", but colliding black holes (the only thing "loud" and "fast" enough to detect with current gravity wave detectors) won't create a supernova, so that's not really possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:23PM
The inspiraling black holes they keep observing are conveniently not thought to be detectable in any other way... However they do think neutron stars should allow for verification and there is one paper about that: https://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817.php [ligo.org]
Unfortunately, for that paper someone else saw a gamma ray burst, alerted ligo, then they searched through the data and found something that had been rejected as noise (because it only passed the threshold in one detector) that matched up in timing. So it was not independent verification.
Here is more about that one (including mention of a supernova):
https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-GW170817Progenitor/index.php [ligo.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:40PM (2 children)
I guess they are calling it a "kilonova".
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24291 [nature.com]
Also, in contrast to the original model it keeps getting brighter:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/01/22/2150247 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday May 06 2018, @07:19PM (1 child)
Nope, that's neutron stars, which generate gravitational waves that are weaker by probably several orders of magnitude. With black holes virtually all the energy of collision would be within the event horizon, and thus incapable of escaping. Full stop. No known force in the universe is capable of overcoming gravity once the event horizon is crossed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07 2018, @01:00AM
What are you disagreeing with? Ligos claim to detect gravitational waves from a neutron star binary?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @07:04AM
You don't know what you're talking about, just tying together ideas you don't understand.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Monday May 07 2018, @12:10AM (2 children)
In an effort to get something useful from your comment (for other readers, you are obviously a lost cause) I'll add that the Mercator projection [wikipedia.org] is one of many transformations that can produce a flat representation of the spherical Earth. All of the transformations include distortion because it isn't actually possible to make a perfect transformation from a 3d to 2d space.
The distortion that happens to the Mercator projection, which is the projection most often seen and as the one used by Google Maps, is that any landmass not near the equator is over represented in size. The US and Russia are not nearly as large as they would seem to be on that map. It does allow for easy navigation between points however which is a major accomplishment for a flat representation of the sphere we are on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07 2018, @04:33PM (1 child)
Yes, transforming from 2d to 3d will cause distortions of reality.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Monday May 07 2018, @06:07PM
I wanted to extend my sincere gratitude for you taking the time to explain this all to us. You personally output gibberish on par with Markov chains but despite your best efforts people who follow your thread will actually learn stuff.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:21AM
There ought to be a law regarding naked eyes in public.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday May 06 2018, @05:23AM (3 children)
Actually, it's not true. By definition, horizon is on the eye level of an observer. Hence any observer on an elevated point over the ocean, such as a top of a mast or on balloon, will see the ocean all around higher than the ocean under her. It will look curved all right but the opposite of what you imagine. It feels like one is inside of a very big bowl. That's simple math fact and it is true regardless of what the real curvature of the earth is. Anybody who "sees" that ocean is round is simply brainwashed by the science class at elementary school.
Yes, once a certain height is archived, different effects can be observed, but most people claim they see a round earth from much lower points, which is BS. This BS is exactly what flat earthers try to fight.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday May 06 2018, @12:00PM (1 child)
Interesting. There is a road from Adelaide to Alice Springs in Australia that is so flat for about 1000km that when you drive along it, after a while you would swear that you are at the bottom of a very shallow valley. It seems to curve up slightly in the distance both ahead and behind the car, but you never drove over a hill, and you never reach the rise that you can see in the distance.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday May 06 2018, @06:15PM
Yes, the effect is very real in many applications. For example, this illusion is one of the reasons novice pilots underestimate the glide path to a safe landing point.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:43PM
Nope. The horizon is defined as the apparent boundary between earth and sky, and is thus coimpetely location dependent - the "horizon indicator" on a plane would indicate eye level, but is actually only a crude approximation of the true horizon.
On a an infinite flat plane the eye level of the observer will never intersect plane they're on, but the two parallel planes will appear to converge at infinity as the distance between them scales to nothing in the distance. So effectively, yes, the horizon would be at eye level.
Standing in the bottom of a large bowl, the horizon will be *above* eye level.
And on a curved surface such as smooth seas of very "flat" plains, the ground will actually fall away from the observer's eye level, faster (on Earth) than distance scaling shrinks that measurement. The "bowl" illusion is because the brain *assumes* the horizon is at eye level, when in fact it's several degrees below level in every direction - a fact which you could easily verify with a sighting-scope and bubble level on sufficiently calm seas.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 06 2018, @06:31AM
Sorry, can't have naked eyes. Decency, you know? ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:52AM
Anyone who says that has never been out on the open ocean.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:08PM
Also, the key is in your last sentance. You are viewing the world through eyeballs, ie spheres, which skews your perspective.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:08PM (22 children)
Unfortunately, it's quite difficult to directly see that the Earth isn't flat. It's reasonably easy to show this via complex reasoning, some ancient Greeks managed this, but the direct observations don't suffice. You've got to reason correctly from them. And a weather balloon wouldn't suffice. I'm not certain that one of NASA's high altitude balloons would suffice, but it might. Or it might just show that there was a circular outline, which you could also determine from a weather balloon, or from the top of a tall mountain.
IIRC the Greek reasoning involved the length of the shadow of a tall sun dial at noon at several locations hundreds of miles apart. It barely involved direct viewing at all. But it required a bunch of abstract reasoning.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by janrinok on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:18PM (2 children)
You can see the curvature of the earth from high flying aircraft. I used to fly at 45000'-50000' and the earth's curvature is easily visible. And, having flown circumnavigational flights (not all in a single flight of course) I can also safely say that you don't fall off the edge of a 'flat earth' either.
(Score: 3, Funny) by BsAtHome on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:35PM (1 child)
But, but, you /did/ fall off the earth and simply landed slightly offset from the previous position in a vector direction and an infinitesimal delta-time calculation. You only need to accelerate to the proper speed and you will definitely fall off for an arbitrary direction of "off". See, it is flat for all practical purposes and intends. You only need to reduce your infinitesimal to the proper value or simply go fast enough (about c) not to be bothered by earthly physics.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 06 2018, @10:51AM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:28PM (5 children)
And you know this how?
A balloon absolutely would suffice, as would standing on a seaside overlook, or mountain. Even the beach by the sea will show you the curvature of the earth. You really gotta get out more.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:56PM (3 children)
I used to be able to see the curvature of the Earth from the window in my mom's basement but our neighbor started parking their car in the way.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fyngyrz on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:39PM (2 children)
I'm telling ya, man, her name is Cindy, she's not your "earth mother", and if you don't stop staring at her from that basement window, we're going to have to make you stay in the shed out back again.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday May 05 2018, @08:09PM (1 child)
And I'm positive that wasn't the curvature of the 'Earth' he was staring at!
8)))
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:59PM
But, but, that curvature has gravitational pull!
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday May 05 2018, @11:36PM
What does it take to convince you that the Earth is curved? I think you need to really consider that your evidence is insufficient. A circular horizon doesn't suffice. There's the argument about distant ships coming over the horizon in pieces, top of the mast first, and that's a pretty good one, but the view out a window doesn't do the job at all. It's quite consistent with a flat earth with local bumps.
I don't remember the view from the top of Mt. Fuji well enough to state whether or not it suffices to show that the world is round, but the top of the Berkeley hills or Mount Diablo sure doesn't suffice.
That said, I've never been up in a balloon, so perhaps that does suffice. I really doubt it, but it's possible. But I can guarantee that ONE flight wouldn't suffice. You'd need to measure various angles of separation from one known spot at a particular height, and then do it again from another known spot at a known height where you could identify the same features. Actually, you'd probably need to do it from three spots. Even then you'd be assuming a homogeneity of the surface that is demonstrably not present at a small scale.
Your problem is actually the same as theirs. When something agrees with your beliefs, you aren't sufficiently critical about what evidence you accept as proving them. That your conclusions are essentially accurate in this case doesn't make the reasoning valid.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:28PM (2 children)
Close. And point taken. But the history is important, Eratosthenes was Head of the Library of Alexandria, a very smart cookie.
Eratosthenes, on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:29AM (1 child)
TLDR Greeks used smart cookies to demonstrate that the earth is round. But, Ari doesn't explain what makes a cookie smart, and neglects to explain whether the cookies were chocolate chip, or just plain sugar cookies, or what. And, finally, he doesn't mention what might happen when the cookies are eaten. Would the earth disappear if enough cookies were consumed?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:23AM
The tricky part about building a smart cookie is getting the cyber to run on the chocolatechips. Micro is better than chocolate when it comes to cyber.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:05PM (1 child)
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students-breathtaking-curvature-earth-high-altitude.html [phys.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jsu9W4qh6Q [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=student+balloon+curvature+of+earth [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Sunday May 06 2018, @01:00AM
That first one is a particularly poor example as they are using a wide angle fisheye lens that clearly distorts everything and even makes the suspension rope and the ground during takeoff look curved. If you watch the video while the balloon as at maximum altitude, you can see moments where the bouncing around image of the horizon goes into the negative distortion zone of the lens and actually looks completely flat.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ledow on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:04PM (6 children)
The curvature of the Earth is easy to see.
Go to a coastline, preferably one with shipping traffic nearby. Look at a distant object out at sea - an oil rig, a wind turbine, even a skyscraper on a distant coast.
Notice how the BOTTOM of the object is being obscured by the sea, way past any tide, wave or other movement.
You're either suggesting that the water somehow curves UP as you look out to cover that object, or that the water curves AWAY.
Try it from any direction, it works. The only object where distant objects ALWAYS fall away from you, no matter which direction you're looking? A sphere.
However, before we even start justifying this line of preposterous bullshit, there's a much easier way. Go around the world. Thousands upon thousands of people have done it, from zero cost hiking to expensive world cruises. Having to justify this utter tripe as if it has any scientific value whatsoever is just demeaning, as it would be to the Ancient Greeks who knew perfectly well what shape the world is, without fancy maths, tools, gadgets, flight, etc.
There are myriad ways to prove it's bollocks, simply by looking at the world. Everything from the tropics, the equator, seasons, the motion of the moons and planets, simple geometry, but the easiest are quite literally playground-level science. Get in a boat or plane. Go East. Keep going. Like people do every single week.
The Ancient Greeks / Egyptians / Babylonians and just about every ancient civilisation back to the Stone Age are turning in their graves at this crap.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:43PM
Or light curves slightly upward when traveling across the sea. There are other phenomena involving light curvature -- such as mirages on a desert.
-- hendrik
(Score: 3, Funny) by HiThere on Saturday May 05 2018, @11:43PM (2 children)
And the weird thing is that many of the people coming to this conference did so in international flights. Try and figure out just *how* they are processing the data.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 06 2018, @06:49AM (1 child)
Well, if they saw a curved horizon, they probably concluded that the round Earth conspiracy made sure that the windows include some optical aberration so the horizon looks round while in reality it is just a straight line. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:56PM
But a round horizon would be true of a disk as well as a sphere. A round horizon doesn't prove anything WRT the spheric nature of Earth. For that you need some means of demonstrating that lines up and down converge near the center, or some analogous argument. Thus progressive images of a ship coming over the horizon are a good argument, but not proof, as it could be some sort of mirage kind of effect.
That's why it was important to the Greeks to measure the angles of shadows at noon at locations far apart. It really *isn't* something that you can directly observe. You can't observer roundness directly on anything much more than 20 feet away from your nose, because your eye's don't give you enough parallax. You have to reason it out from other evidence.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by dwilson on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:50AM (1 child)
They've got an answer for that, though. Some horseshit about gravity affecting light differently, so the light actually 'falls' faster than anything else. Therefore the light carrying the bottom of the object hits the ground before it can get to your eye, and only the light reflecting from the top of the object reaches you.
I had a discussion with a flat earther and used that very example, a ship at sea, to make my point. He was a semi-truck driver, and you see exactly the same phenomenon on the highway when you're meeting another vehicle on a hill. The top of the oncoming truck is always visible before the bottom of it. He'd seen it himself, literally hundreds of times, but he had his crazy answer ready to use.
It really is mind-boggling. Someone doesn't understand something and makes up some reasonable-sounding bullshit to explain it. Something else comes along and they make up some more bullshit to describe that. If bullshit x directly contradicts or disproves bullshit y, or vice versa? More proof they're correct! It's complicated stuff after all, and they'll admit they don't understand it so of course it'll be confusing.
- D
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 06 2018, @06:54AM
Of course according to that theory, you should no longer see the ground as soon as you are up, as all the light has already fallen on the ground … strange that I still see the landscape from a mountain …
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @01:48PM
just start drawing circles around a fixed point, and measure their circumference as a function of radius.
once the radius becomes large enough (I guess on the order of 1000 km), you will find that either Euclidian geometry is wrong (i.e. Earth not flat), or you are on a curved space in 3D Euclidian space (i.e. Earth not flat).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:50PM (5 children)
Yes, you could disprove it by science experiments.
But think of it this way.
How many rigorous scientists who simply mistrust knowledge/power relationships have therefore taken up belief in gremlins? Fairies? Perpetual motion? The Aether? Phlogiston?
None. Those who believe that they have either are not respecting of science, or have problems which go much deeper than discomfort with power and knowledge centers.
How many science-respecting intelligent people who are merely wary of the power centers where knowledge is concentrated take up a belief in a flat Earth surrounded by a vast, unknowable Antarctic infinity and sitting under a dome showing projections of fake NASA achievements?
That's right, none.
Being wary of power centers isn't enough to do it. You also need a screw loose.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:53AM (2 children)
And yet lots of "rigorous scientists" and "science-respecting intelligent people" have strong religious belifs in supernatural phenomena, with no empirical basis or because they believe empiricism doesn't always have "the answers" or is flawed in some way. Granted, the number of atheist scientists is growing, but studies seem to show it's not the majority.
And what causes them to deny scientific evidence and believe in odd stuff? Traditional power structures and religious authority.
Similarly, a large number of intelligent people seem prone to believing in conspiracy theories, contra obvious or clear evidence.
Lots of intelligent and indeed "scientific" people believe all sorts of BS. If you need a "screw loose" for a scientist to take some things "on faith" or believe in a conspiracy (As many Flat-Earthers do), then I think you'd be surprised how many respectable intelligent people ( and general advocates of science) have a "screw loose."
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday May 06 2018, @01:14PM (1 child)
There are are people who grow up in, or adopt positions in, animist societies, and Hindu societies, and Muslim societies, and Christian societies, etc., environments in which the tenets of their beliefs seem as assured and assumed as any proven scientific belief. Your conclusion seems to involve my saying you need a screw loose to adopt the beliefs of your prevailing culture (I didn't, and you don't).
Most flatearthers, by contrast, like any conspiracy theorists, seek out an explanation for something that's unique, that's distinctive--that sets them apart from their prevailing culture, not makes them a more integral part of it--and settle on the inexplicable and bizarre to fill that role. It's that aspect of it that I was describing with the perhaps inexact but nevertheless apt "loose screw" metaphor.
It might not surprise me all that much, I don't think. More intelligent can imply more able to follow the byzantine twistings and turnings of a given conspiracy theory, at least.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 06 2018, @07:47PM
I basically agree with most of what you said, and I take your point that there's a distinction between adopting the beliefs of one's prevailing culture vs. going in search of some sort of "hidden knowledge" or conspiracy theory that contradicts the mainstream.
But I still think it's possible for people with scientific mindsets to convince themselves to believe in weird things. Examples you gave like phlogiston or aether theories were actually created by scientists even though they were weird, but they were attempts to fill in gaps in knowledge at the time. There are plenty of scientists even recently who have become intrigued by the possibilities of paranomal phenomena and have been taken in by various charlatans even in what they thought were "controlled" experiments. And every year or two, there's some credentialed scientist trying pedal another version of perpetual motion or cold fusion or whatever, which almost always turns out to be a load of crap -- but they convinced themselves otherwise.
I don't know much about the Flat Earther crowd, but my sense is a lot of them (at least those who present at conferences) are reasonably intelligent people with a "conspiracy theory" mindset. They actually do believe vaguely in "science," but their skepticism has led them to be skeptical of major things in the scientific establishment. They find alternative explanations for things that don't fit their theories and focus on small bits of data that seem to support their theories. Scientists actually have to be careful not to do this as well, because confirmation bias is a real problem (hence all the recent studies showing the number of scientific findings that are not repeatable).
Anyhow, the difference between arguing with someone with a good scientific empirical perspective vs. a conspiracy theorist is that they both believe in data in a way -- but conspiracy theorists are perhaps an order of magnitude worse in the "confirmation bias" department. They also distrust authority, so telling them no mainstream scientists acknowledge their theory (or phlogiston or whatever) isn't going to convince them of anything.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:22AM (1 child)
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/FULLDISK/GIVS.JPG [noaa.gov]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 06 2018, @06:58AM
That image is clearly fake! I've been on the coast, and there was no big white line there! ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:37AM
Do you think that the UN will let you know so easily when they have a fleet of ships guarding the edge of the world that is orders of magnitude more numerous than all of the world's seaborne vessels combined? Of course they have trained special forces seaguls to capture every weather balloon and replace the recording with doctored CG footage. Get woke people!
Posting AC so the spooks won't get me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @09:06PM
question, if you take three flat earthers at suitably distant locations and give them a compass (a smartphone) and a 1 mt stick and you ask them to measure the shadow (length, orientation) do you not end up with geometrical proof of the curvature of the earth? if you consider the sun rays at infinity you just need two points but with three you would do away with that too, right? my math is rusty.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:25PM (9 children)
I figured aristarchus would be the first one behind the flat earthers. I mean, it's the most masterfully crafted trolling movement the earth has ever seen.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:45PM (7 children)
It's not trolling. It's a scam. Why else would people go through such great lengths and efforts to launch rockets and organize conventions. These guys are using their conspiracy to sell crap. Just like the rest of the so called "nutters" like Alex Jones. They aren't nutters. They are great actors and salesmen for their products and endorsements. Doesn't matter what you're selling so long as you're making money.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday May 05 2018, @08:13PM (1 child)
Yup. If they REALLY wanted to prove one way or the other, the scientific way, cheaply, would be take the grand Poooo-bah up in a jet and fly him around the world, refuelling on the go.
Fly the equator and the Greenwich line (??) and let him see for himself. But that would be too scientific a method, I guess.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday May 05 2018, @10:39PM
Or just watch the Sun cross the sky.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @09:10PM (4 children)
> It's not trolling. It's a scam.
It's a purposeful and well oiled activity that hurts the other truth movements, be them in good faith or scams, so I vote for trolling.
A scam would use something more difficult to disprove. Like a god (no, it's not an atheist speaking so do not derail, please).
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Sunday May 06 2018, @09:32PM (3 children)
The easier the conspiracy is to disprove the more crazy people think you are so they leave you alone. People are scared of crazy. Think about it: if someone told you the sky is pink when it's plainly blue and the reason is some bat shit crazy conspiracy, you'd want to put as much distance between you and that mad man as fast as possible. That's called cover.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07 2018, @04:35PM (2 children)
Wait, have people been thinking I'm crazy this whole time just because I'm color blind? I get into "color situations" like that at least once a month.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07 2018, @04:42PM
I'll give the reason as "The eye actually contains cones and rods, with three types of cones to see the colors red, green, and blue. I only have two types of cones and their peak sensitivity is shifted to the middle of red-green and green-blue. Its true, you can look it up on youtube." Then they will just kind of nod their head but I can tell they just think I'm saying I have different flavored ice cream cones in my eyes or talking about some bible story.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday May 07 2018, @09:24PM
Well, unless colorblindness is a conspiracy, no one should be running from you.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Sunday May 06 2018, @12:56AM
Okay. I'll take a shot.
Stupid Round Earther asks: If the Earth is flat, how do you explain the seasons caused by the tilt of Earth's axis? Haven't you noticed how in winter the days are shorter and the arc of the sun in the sky is further south? In fact Australia has summer while we have winter.
Wise Round Earther replies: Easy. The sun goes south for the winter for the same reason that birds go south for winter. Because it's warmer in the south during winter.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:45PM (5 children)
Does anyone seriously think there are entire Clubs that worship the Moose, or run around with Fez hats on for strongly held beliefs?
There are dozens of these, Shriners, Kiwanis, Lions, Rotary International, Civitan International, Order of DeMolay, Apex Clubs of Australia, Altrusa International, JCI, Sertoma, Exchange, Optimists, Soroptimists, KIN Canada, Zonta, Quota International, Helpers Dynasty, HandsOn Network, BEAN, DoSomething.org, and Golden.
People go to these for a sense of belonging, a good time, visit old friends, and just for the fun of it.
None of these represent actual firmly held beliefs, and are mostly because people have excess time on their hands. Some people build model railroads, restore old cars, other people gravitate to social and service clubs (perhaps they are no good with their hands).
They are laughing their asses off at people all in despair over their stated "beliefs". Critics need to get over themselves. The boys just want an excuse to get out of town and have a few drinks while putting on a charade.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:09PM
Apparently you haven't met a real flat earther, they are serious. Maybe some portion of the attendees are jokers, but definitely not all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:37PM
I see Poe's Law has been lost on you...many flat earthers may only be pretending to be idiots, but all the same, the real idiots have stumbled into their midst.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:35AM (2 children)
I suppose you haven't ever looked at polls showing the absurd percentages of people who believe in weird crap (supernatural and paranormal phenomena, various insane conspiracy theories, etc.). Given all the other weird nonsense significant numbers of people believe in, I certainly think it's possible for there to be a significant number of nutters who actually believe in these flat earth conspiracy theories.
Doesn't mean there aren't likely some folks who are just trolling here, but I'd bet the majority at an event like this do believe it -- or at least think it's possible.
Last year I got to know a very bright guy, Ph.D., tenured at an elite college, etc. Chatted with him a number of times over several months, and he seemed smart, informed, and interesting. Then one day over lunch I ask the wrong question, and it becomes clear he's a complete conspiracy nutter. I start deliberately giving examples early on of conspriacy theories I thought were obviously insane, and it turns out he kept saying, "Well.. You know something sounds off, and there must be something to it."
I think you grossly underestimate the frequency of people who believe weird stuff, and particularly the number of folks who are prone to believe really weird BS if they become convinced some "authorities" are "hiding something." (As seems to be true of many Flat Earthers, who have to be convinced the governments are doctoring evidence and photos, etc.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @08:40AM (1 child)
Polls are more often than not total BS, if you go around believing them by default your worldview will be extremely incorrect. Who is it that bothers to answer these polls anyway? It is mostly confused people and bored trolls.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 06 2018, @07:33PM
Well, not total BS, but they do require often several grains of salt... and interpretation.
But I'm also basing this on anecdotal, which agrees with polls. People believe in weird crap.
If you go around thinking everyone has a rational scientific empirical mindset, your worldview will be extremely incorrect. Have you talked to the average person? Have you realized the level of critical thinking that's generally there? Now realize that 50% of people are dumber than that. (But ultimately this isn't even about intelligence. Very intelligent people are often taken in by things like conspiracy theories. A lot of people like to think they've uncovered some "secret knowledge" that "The Man" doesn't want to you know.)
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:16PM (7 children)
Clever that they organized it in Birmingham, far inland in England.
If they'd done the conference in e.g. Plymouth instead, then they'd have to make sure none of the conference goers saw any sailing boats coming in to harbour.
(If they were sailing out, they could still conclude that the Earth is flat, and unfortunately every sailing boat that leaves Plymouth, sinks before it disappears out of sight under the waves)
some of the comments below the video are.. well.. not very appreciative [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by fyngyrz on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:41PM (5 children)
You know those boats were almost sunk, and they were bailing as they came in towards port, right? RIGHT?
(Score: 3, Touché) by acid andy on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:44PM (4 children)
I'll have you know starboard is RIGHT, you insensitive clod!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday May 05 2018, @10:15PM (3 children)
Not when I am looking over the stern, it isn't, you insensitive clod.
(Score: 5, Touché) by acid andy on Saturday May 05 2018, @10:37PM (2 children)
In light of your stern words, I think I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday May 06 2018, @02:45AM (1 child)
I suggest you make a dash for the nearest port.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:21AM
Just wave as you go, please.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday May 05 2018, @10:41PM
Nuh uh. "Perspective," apparently.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk