The Earf is Flat

submitted by [deleted] from self.environment

Just look outside coomer, you can see it! science is fake and gay.

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Dregan-yea 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

Well it's definitely not spinning 666,000 miles per hour...🤣

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

*1038 mi/hour at the equator

[–]Dregan-yea 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Just for arguments sakes...

If traveling in a PLANE going in the direction of the spin..how come it takes the same amount of travel time coming back while going against the rotation?

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Well, if you're at 50 latitude, across the Atlantic, the tailwind makes the trip one hour faster on average.

[–]Dregan-yea 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

True, but wouldn't traveling against the spin of the planet make it much faster?

Another thing I can't shake is the testimonies of pilots who state they don't see a curve but a horizontal flat horizon...especially intriguing are the pilots who travel above 35,000 feet say the same thing. Somethings off.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

True, but wouldn't traveling against the spin of the planet make it much faster?

Same thing. That's the reason for the tailwind.

Another thing I can't shake is the testimonies of pilots who state they don't see a curve but a horizontal flat horizon

What?

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

testimonies of pilots who state they don't see a curve but a horizontal flat horizon

In the 1970s one would see this kind of claim only in tabloids like the 'National Enquirer' or the 'Star' and most people knew it probably was not true, like those many alien abductions. What I'd like to know is: has the number of people who believe that stuff increased exponentially since the 1970s, or are they just more visible now that they are online? And why are they so gullible, when they can access the facts in less than a second? These are just rhetorical questions.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What I'd like to know is: has the number of people who believe that stuff increased exponentially since the 1970s, or are they just more visible now that they are online? And why are they so gullible, when they can access the facts in less than a second? These are just rhetorical questions.

Unfortunately I answer rhetorical questions.

Marsh of Skeptics with a K has done a couple of deep dives into the flat earth movement. Here's some investigation and analysis from them:

https://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/podcasts/skeptics-with-a-k/episode-223

https://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/podcasts/skeptics-with-a-k/episode-244

He's also done a Be Reasonable interview with a flat earther. This is a show I cannot listen to, and therefore can't personally recommend. The format is he interviews someone with objectively wrong opinions but doesn't confront them on anything. He lets them give their perspective.

If you are interested in getting inside the head of a flat earther, and have some kind of superhuman tolerance to bullshit you might be interested in that.

https://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/podcasts/be-reasonable/episode-076-stan-shepherd

I guess there's sections of Knowledge Fight that have that feel. "Here's some stuff Alex Jones said on air that is so transparently bullshit it doesn't need comment and is funny." But Be Reasonable is not interspersed with breakdowns of how he's confused, or where he got the misinformation.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for the links. I'll have a look.

A friend sometimes sends me links to articles in The Skeptic, but those aren't as bad as what you describe above: https://www.skeptic.com/articles Still, it seems there is a subversive intent with some of these "skeptical" approaches, as one consistent factor is the refusal to understand the available research, scholarship, science, or statistics. The other consistent factor seems to be that those who insist on their claims about conspiracy theories (including flat earth ideas), such as these, often appear to consider this much more than a hobby, but rather an important part of their identities. It seems they use these conspiracy theories as tools for their own 'self-actualization', that they are better than others because they've joined a group that's supposedly more informed than 95% of the world (or whatever percentage). This special group is often poorly educated, or some of them are college educated, but are less familiar with the facts than they are with the conspiracies. Of course I don't know much about these gullible people, but I am really worried about the massive spread of misinformation by heavily-funded groups, influencers, social media, and misinformation 'news' media &c.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You might enjoy Marsh's take then.

Unlike the vast majority of card-carrying skeptics he comes from a humanities background. He's worked as a journalist and web designer before going full time at the Good Thinking Society.

And he does discuss the mindset of conspiracy theorists in terms of those things you mention, rather than explaining the facts and expecting everyone to agree with them because they're evidenced and true.

Which is more like the other two hosts, but Alison is knowledgeable in a biochemist way, and Mike is fun in a Doctor Who fan way.

[–]Dregan-yea 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

"Same thing. That's the reason for the tailwind." What? Lol

Not sure how u didn't understand my second statement but I already know it's pointless with close minded npc.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What's your point? That the earf is flat,?

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Seems he think's you're an 'npc' which is a "non-playable character, a character in a game that is not controlled by a player." If however you would allow yourself to be controlled by a player, you'd see that the earf is indeed flat.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Should I assume from:

"Same thing. That's the reason for the tailwind." What? Lol

That he's thinking in Aristotelian physics, consider the frame of reference of the surface of the earth, the frame of reference of the plane and the frame of reference of the center of the earth?

I mean surely people have at least a primary school education.

[–]Dregan-yea 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Things don't add up which means maybe stop believing shit that goes against common sense.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're looking for anomalies, and you're not looking for their explanation you will find that you can find them literally everywhere.

Aristotelian physics is common sense if you've never studied physics. Newtonian Physics is common sense to people with a high school education. There are people to whom Quantum Physics is intuitive ... "I thought what would I do, if I were an electron" - Richard Feynman.

So "common sense" isn't always correct for most people. There are times when we have to correct our intuition.

And an anomaly doesn't mean that there's a grand conspiracy afoot. It usually means that you're misunderstanding something about the anomaly. Sometimes they're the cusp of a paradigm-shifting discovery. But in that case we're talking about anomalous results of an experiment, not an appearance of an anomaly that you spotted on the internet.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The speed of sound in air at 20 °C (68 °F) is approximately 767 miles per hour (mph). This speed can vary based on temperature and the medium through which the sound is traveling.

So mach 1.3?

[–]Dregan-yea 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

50 degrees: 666.92197 mph (1,073.3 km/h)

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

breakin' the speed of sound baby!

ball earthers are guilty of not paying attention to the reality

they call flat earthers names

but can't explain where the curve actually is (because almost every state in america is flatter than a pancake)

railroads traverse the entire continent .. they go up (x feet) they go down (x feet) .. at no time does the curve make an appearance

the salt flats that are miles in all directions.. flat flat flat

lasers are pointed across the bay of san francisco .. 9 miles .. height 10 feet .. captured height on the other side .. 10 feet

suez canal is 100 miles long and flat .. connects two oceans ..

van allen belt has high radiation that is ignored.. but we keep passing thru it to the moon in tin cans

eric dubay has a bigger list

it all makes sense when you see that antartica is surrounding us.. there is 200 foot wall of ice surrounding us

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

s/Earth/ Not Hard.

[–]SaiditNotReddit 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

retards