Jump to content

Flat Earth?


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

No disrespect bob but i'll speak for myself if thats ok with you?

Im pretty sure thats the way the forum was intended to be. Its not right you peddling falsehoods about me, especially when i have stated my position clearly and consistently backed it up with science. Banters one thing but blatant ignorance is just highly disrespectful and childish in my opinion.

So its not really your place to decide or define what my point is here. I have already pointed it out for you and everyone esle, but if you need reminding, its because its a great educational, analytical and comedic thread.

Thats all it needs to be for me to keep coming here and enjoying it.

Your assertion is simply incorrect and based on your own fallacious thought processes. 

What do you mean IF this was a pub discussion? Ha ha take it you dont go the pub much then?

I must have missed these posts. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

Maybe you'll end up with my cv on your desk then you would know what i know , and keep a copy of!

I seriously doubt it. Our HR department’s “nutter alert” would be off the scale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paul's got wright said:

i have stated my position clearly and consistently backed it up with science.

Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, honoured guests ... may I present you with the Dunning Kruger effect in all its glory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

I seriously doubt it. Our HR department’s “nutter alert” would be off the scale

Maybe we work in different industries neil, but i am pretty sure theres no alarm when a cv arrives anywhere!

Well unless of course you were the boss, and felt intimidated by honesty somehow?

Are you the boss at work neil?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, honoured guests ... may I present you with the Dunning Kruger effect in all its glory.

In lieu of the scientific proof and experimental evidence you have been asked for?

What is the naturally observed phenomena in the cavendish experiment ?

Do you understand why richard didnt form a cohesive hypothesis, why mm1980 didnt have a viable independent variable? Do you dispute these facts? Please feel free to quote me china anytime you feel you are correct and i have written something factually incorrect.

Go for it coz ye not foolin anyone with cliches. Do you honestly think that asking me my opinions, trumps me asking you for scientific evidence for your claims?

Burden of proofs remains with the claimant. No science no ball. Thats how it stands.

Provide the proof, i accept it and move on living on a ball no problem. Scientific fact like waters boiling point.

Until then you just believe what you were told, an have never been to space, so all you have left is science to help you.

Good luck x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2019 at 8:01 PM, paul's got wright said:

continuing........god give me strength The feeling is mutual.

" We can measure the behavior of gravity in the laboratory with a variety of highly sensitive experiments. Each of these experiments shows that the force of gravity depends only on the mass of the two objects and the distance between them. If, on the other hand, you wanted to form a flattened object using gravity alone, the force of gravity would have to depend upon two, perpendicular distances in two perpendicular directions."

no citations or explanation of said "experiments" what a surprise. oh and now apparently, the reader can measure the behaviour of gravity in the laboratory! classical nonsense at its finest. Towards the end of the last post you posted a pretty good Scientific American article on our understanding of Gravity.  How do you think we got that understanding?  How do we know that two clocks that keep exact time when at the same altitude, come out of sync when one is lowered or raised in the earth's gravity well compared to the other?

Can you explain why you think it is nonsense that scientists can measure the behaviour of gravity in the lab?  I can assure you they do - basically every first year student in physics will use an apparatus similar to Cavendish's to measure G. You could do it yourself. https://www.pasco.com/prodCatalog/AP/AP-8215_gravitational-torsion-balance/index.cfm

and of course, we all want to "flatten an object using gravity alone" dont we! wonder why he doesn't give us the instructions? maybe because he is an absolute walter talkin absolute shite? You're a very arrogant fool, you know.  

"Why did people once think that the Earth was flat?"

ha ha oh the ironic irony of all ironies! who was it again that said no one ever thought the earth was flat? I'm unaware of anyone saying this.  Does it matter if someone did.  Fools are two a penny.  The task is to try and explain and educate.

come on own up, we'll find you if we have to it would look better for you if you just owned up, or even better, get in touch with this special guy and tell him how he is wrong and has no idea about history! comedy gold, but it gets better. Meh

"The primary reason that ancient people believed that the Earth was flat was that it looks flat from our vantage point on the ground"

hahaha! oh those silly ancients hey, believing what they see from the ground, where they live! what fools, as opposed to all these ball huggers who live in the clouds apparently. comedy genius at this point. but theres honestly more! could any article be more shambolic if even monty python wrote it? i honestly dont think they could top this. It is difficult to observe the curvature of the Earth at a local scale - the curvature is tiny on a human scale.  You need to move considerable distances or make precise measurements to come to understand the earth's bulk shape.  Nothing odd about saying that.  

"Most people throughout history never traveled more than a few miles from their place of birth, so the horizon that they saw was always the same. Moreover, most people were more worried about meeting the necessities of life than they were about the shape of the Earth."

the above paragraph is just abject nonsense and conjecture, and frankly irrelevant in any case of "proving the earth is a sphere" As is this sentence. Moving on.

"The misconception that the Earth must be flat because it looks flat to us arises simply because the Earth is big. The height of an adult is much less than one millionth of the Earth's radius. In order to see the curvature of the Earth in a single field of view, you would need to be perched above the surface a sizable fraction of that radius, and one millionth wouldn't be considered "sizable.”

so the earth is big is it? well thats very scientific isnt it! but theres more.  a "sizable fraction" doesnt seem very precise or accurate, if one wanted to see the curve so to speak. wonder why he never said just look from a plane like a lot of naive beginners in the subject do? maybe hes at least that smart to know not to argue with ndt on that one


It's quite a fun exercise working out if you had an ideal pinhole camera, mounted exactly horizontally what the curve the horizon would give at different heights with absolutely no fisheye distortion.  NDT is wrong; there is a small curve noticeable at that height, but it is indistinquishable due to fish eye effects.

"There are two primary reasons that the Greeks knew the Earth was round:" he just cant help himself can he! and then,

"The only object that casts a circular shadow no matter how you shine a light across it is a sphere. Any other shape would not be able to cast a round shadow under this variety of circumstances."

this just reminded me of the cool  vortex video so thought id drop  it in whilst i have it in mind Very pretty, but they wouldn't remain round no matter how you shine light across it.


a lot of ifs next, all opinions, no scientific evidence in sight nor any citation. pretty pathetic is the theme so far. and keep in mind john, you offered this as some sort of suggestion to try. im not quite sure what you meant? but when i read it i was shocked to how poor the content is, this quote being a prime example,  Meh

" The second observation is how the pattern of stars changes as you move north and south. If you were to stand at the North Pole, Polaris (the North Star), would be directly overhead. On a flat Earth, Polaris would always be visible — no matter how far away from the North Pole you moved, it would still be above the horizon. However, by the time you reach the equator, Polaris is on the northern horizon, and it disappears entirely once you move into the southern hemisphere. You can't see Polaris from Australia. In fact, the ancient Greeks calculated the circumference of the Earth using this effect and produced an answer that was strikingly close to what we measure today."

i mean has he really done any of the things he is suggesting that the reader do? he doesnt even have the decency to state either way. i dont think he has personally, and even if he did, what experiment is he citing? wheres the hypothesis and variables? this is a scientific disgrace, if its meant to be proving that the earth is a sphere.  As ever your obsession with an over simplistic definition of science.  Do you actually dispute the things he is saying?  Does Polaris set as you move South of the Equator?  Is it basically directly overhead at the North Pole, 54 degrees at Douglas.  These are scientific facts - confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

moving on., 

"If you want to prove that the Earth is a sphere, here’s an experiment you can do today:"..........finally! here it comes!


"Quito, Ecuador and Nairobi, Kenya are two cities on the equator. Fly to either and you'll see Polaris on the northern horizon. Cape Town, South Africa and Melbourne, Australia are well south of the equator. Fly to either and you won't see Polaris at all. A few minutes drawing the predictions of the two competing models on a piece of paper is sufficient to exclude one of those models. And, this isn't the only demonstration you can do from the ground."

no just an utter an complete failure to deliver as was promised, yet again! and we dont live on a model so comparing models is like comparing pics of tom cruise and brad pitt to see how handsome we are. its just beyond lazy at this point. at no time has science even entered his mind during this article, never mind proven anything about anything to do with the shape of the earth. my heart bleeds for him at this point. i hope its over soon. one more post should see it off x But it is still a simple fact the stars rotate anti-clockwise around Polaris in the Northern Hemisphere and clock-wise around the Southern Celestial pole (near the coal sack) in the southern hemisphere. With North Hemisphere constellations either setting and rising in the South, or not visible at all, while they are always above the horizon in the North and vice versa.  I'd love to see Paul's scientific explanation of this.  I wonder if he could?  I won't hold my breath.




  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2019 at 8:14 PM, paul's got wright said:

please god let it end soon! Sadly it looks a certainty you will continue going on and on and on with your ignorance.

"Flat Earth theorists say that if the Earth is a spinning sphere, why can’t they feel it? How did scientists first prove that the Earth rotates?

Though the shape of the Earth had been settled for over two millennia, a scientist by the name of Leon Foucault designed an experiment in 1851, using a very long pendulum, that showed both that the Earth is round and that it rotates. If you place the pendulum at the North Pole, the direction of its swing changes with respect to the ground and completes a full circle each day. Placing the same pendulum on the equator yields no change at all in the direction of the swing. These facts, and the behavior of the pendulum when it is placed anywhere else, agree with Foucault's prediction."

again nothing but presuppositions! what's the natural phenomena observed with foucautls pendulum? has this man placed one on the north pole? funny how he fails to mention it if he has? Why do foucault's pendulums not rotate on the equator?  Rotate clockwise in the North Hemisphere, anti-clockwise in the South Hemisphere, and why does the speed of their rotation vary by the same amount North or South of the Equator?  These are all perfectly natural phenomena.  What do you think causes these observations?

"Are there other clues that prove the Earth spins on its axis?..........

  • The six jet streams on the Earth — and how their directions relate to each other — is a consequence of the Earth's shape and rotation.
  • Artillery gunners must correct for the rotation of the Earth as the shell flies through the air above the surface.
  • Modern naval guns can shoot far over their visible horizon due to the Earth's curvature.
  • Hurricanes and (most) tornadoes rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere while they rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere. Fun fact: Toilets and sinks are too small to reliably reproduce this effect, despite the rumors that they flush or drain in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere. 

so a resounding NO then! just clowning us i suppose as hes full of party tricks. Why do Naval guns have corrections for the rotation of the earth, if the earth doesn't rotate?  Why do hurricanes rotate in different directions in the North or South.  You can pretend these aren't clues to the rotation of the Earth all you like, but if they aren't clues to that what is your explanation.  Why do weather models have to include the rotation of the earth to be accurate, if it doesn't rotate.  Is it all just a huge conspiracy of weather-men for japes?


The next time you’re at a party, impress your friends with this enlightening experiment

Hold a pencil in front of you, looking down at the tip. Rotate it so that its tip is spinning counter-clockwise. Keep rotating it with your fingers in the same direction as you slowly turn the pencil over so that you are looking at its eraser. Now, the eraser will be spinning clockwise. Slowly rotate it back, while continuing its spin, will bring the tip to the top, rotating counter-clockwise."

i look forward to your reply john, although im sure my review will almost certainly involve others, i particularly wonder what you saw in the article in the first place, that convinced you to offer it to me as a suggestion  of some sort?

thanks x



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Find out in the next diary entry of manxforums heavyweight science thread tomorrow folks!

The ballers are on the ropes, headin into deep water. Can science save them?

Do they have the simple ability to understand how science actually limits fairytales via the standard mechanism known as the scientific method? Does neil down mean super subordinate?

Tune in to find out!

Edited by paul's got wright
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...