|
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Are Flat Earth believers CRAZY? Proof the EARTH is a ball to the non critical thinker [Video]
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Anonymous Coward |
|
Post Content
|
....
Instead of answer/opinion at this stage lets look at the two arguments.
Sphere earth theory concerning Lunar eclipse in a bastardized nutshell: The spherical(ish) earth is directly between the sun an moon. The earth casts it's shadow on the moon. During a partial lunar eclipse you can see the "edge" of the earths shadow on the moon, the earths shadow will/does have a curved edge as it moves across the moon.
Who can please provide the FET explanation for these observations? honestly I would like to know what the argument is for this one. I'm open minded and even willing to call this one a possible draw if there is an argument here. I just have not heard it yet.
Once we get the two arguments side by side we can evaluate and see if either hypothesis stands alone or is adequately challenged.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7968892 You need to make certain assumptions about the Sun and Moon for this to work with either model. If the question is "What is the shape of the Earth", can it not be answered directly by observing the Earth itself, and not making an argument based upon the heavenly bodies, of which we may know even less? By the way, the Flat Earth model does not say what the entire Earth is shaped like; it just says that the inhabited part is flat. For the sake of argument, the inhabited part could be in a crater on a much larger spherical planet, the "ice wall" being the edge of the crater. Unless you make a direct measurement (curvature, exact distances, etc) of the Earth itself, you will be basing you beliefs on assumptions and arguments. I like the discussion, what would the assumptions that would have to be made for the FET to include the Lunar Eclipse observations? I do not disagree with any of your points. I am actually very much in agreement. The problem being, there are so many observations and evidences where you can fit a series of assumptions to benefit either theory. If a logical argument (including assumptions) can be made for both spherical and flat scenarios, then I will either call it a draw or dig in to begin disproving one or the other. I am drawn to the Coriolis Force effect and Lunar Eclipse right now because I have yet to hear any "fit" in the FET model. I am actually very interested in what assumptions would have to be made to make it fit. For example, with a lunar eclipse, the assumption is that the moon is lighted by the Sun, and it is being occluded by the Earth, and not by some other object. Then after you assume it is the Earth's shadow, you make a conclusion about the shape of the Earth. While these assumptions may be simple and reasonable, they are still assumptions. Isn't the Coriolis Force effect an issue having to do with the supposed rotation of the Earth, not the shape? It is very interesting that wind patterns seem to make the most sense on the Azimuthal Equidistant (Flat Earth) map.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for reporting:
|
