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, 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--