4 ms·

The difference between flat earthers and round earthers is that round earthers can correctly predict the outcome of observations using their mathematical models

by Zaak 9y ago

The difference between flat earthers and round earthers is that round earthers can correctly predict the outcome of observations using their mathematical models, and flat earthers cannot. Take the recent total eclipse as an example. It was predicted years (centuries) in advance using round earth mathematics. Is there even a single flat earther who was able to predict the eclipse using their model? If there is, I haven't heard.

roywiggins 9y ago
My favorite rebuttal is simply Foucault's pendulum[1]. It rotates one way in the northern hemisphere, not at all on the equator, and the other way in the southern hemisphere. You can't explain this behavior on a flat earth without introducing a force that "just happens" to act exactly like the Coriolis force. A spinning flat earth can't explain why the effect gets less at the equator, and reverses as you cross it. [1] a long long pendulum with a heavy weight
vfclists 9y ago
My problem with round earthers is that their rebuttals to "specific" arguments made by flat earthers are not adequate. It is one thing to say that satellites and Foucault's pendulum prove that the earth is round, but if someone makes an argument (as in the linked article) that the visible peak of a mountain should be 900 meters below the horizon, and the round earthers response to that is some poorly exposited fact about refraction, it doesn't help the round Earth case in the eyes of the flat earther who raised that point. A better response would be to include some references to some facts about atmospheric refraction in addition. Hopefully the flat earther might understand it. So in effect I am not actually a flat Earther, but round earthers should be able to explain observations which are not consistent with round earth expectations better.
- Zaak 9y ago
  Is the problem the poor exposition? Because the answer actually is refraction. In my experience it doesn't make any difference how many references you include. They either don't read them at all, or they read them but don't address the content. So far I have been unable to get a flat earther to respond to basic information that I provide that contradicts their assertions.
mikestew 9y ago
The difference between flat earthers and round earthers is that round earthers can correctly predict the outcome of observations using their mathematical models, and flat earthers cannot. That is probably the most profound rebuttal to flat-earthers I've heard. Granted, it's a grand extrapolation of "where do you think ships go when they sail over the horizon?", but it's an excellent summary.
- distances 9y ago
  I'm more wondering about when would one need any rebuttal to start with. Most online comments are probably trolls, and if not, it's not worth your time anyway. Is it common to have friends or relatives with such a feeble grasp of reality?
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I know somebody who believes in chemtrails, flat earth and a lot of other stuff. There is really no way to argue with her because at the bottom of everything there is a big, powerful conspiracy. I told her once that Alex Jones certainly has enough money to rent a jet to fly into a chemtrail and take some samples or take a ship and go straight and see what happens. But of course there tons of government conspiracies to prevent these things. In the end these people don't really want to know. They just have a deep discomfort with the current state of things.
    - Zaak 9y ago
      > In the end these people don't really want to know. They just have a deep discomfort with the current state of things. This is a very succinct description of the mindset of the flat earthers I have talked with.
  - mikestew 9y ago
    More hypothetical than anything, and possibly a template for more likely scenarios. I mean, it would seem that there are some that seriously think the world is flat. Should I ever meet such a person and the topic comes up (and you know it will), I'd be curious as to the outcome of whipping out this rebuttal. I don't care about "winning" the argument, as there's nothing to win, but the response is what I'm after. I'm sure I'll be disappointed.

by Zaak 9y ago

roywiggins 9y ago

My favorite rebuttal is simply Foucault's pendulum[1]. It rotates one way in the northern hemisphere, not at all on the equator, and the other way in the southern hemisphere. You can't explain this behavior on a flat earth without introducing a force that "just happens" to act exactly like the Coriolis force. A spinning flat earth can't explain why the effect gets less at the equator, and reverses as you cross it. [1] a long long pendulum with a heavy weight

vfclists 9y ago

My problem with round earthers is that their rebuttals to "specific" arguments made by flat earthers are not adequate. It is one thing to say that satellites and Foucault's pendulum prove that the earth is round, but if someone makes an argument (as in the linked article) that the visible peak of a mountain should be 900 meters below the horizon, and the round earthers response to that is some poorly exposited fact about refraction, it doesn't help the round Earth case in the eyes of the flat earther who raised that point. A better response would be to include some references to some facts about atmospheric refraction in addition. Hopefully the flat earther might understand it. So in effect I am not actually a flat Earther, but round earthers should be able to explain observations which are not consistent with round earth expectations better.

Zaak 9y ago
Is the problem the poor exposition? Because the answer actually is refraction. In my experience it doesn't make any difference how many references you include. They either don't read them at all, or they read them but don't address the content. So far I have been unable to get a flat earther to respond to basic information that I provide that contradicts their assertions.

mikestew 9y ago

The difference between flat earthers and round earthers is that round earthers can correctly predict the outcome of observations using their mathematical models, and flat earthers cannot. That is probably the most profound rebuttal to flat-earthers I've heard. Granted, it's a grand extrapolation of "where do you think ships go when they sail over the horizon?", but it's an excellent summary.

distances 9y ago
I'm more wondering about when would one need any rebuttal to start with. Most online comments are probably trolls, and if not, it's not worth your time anyway. Is it common to have friends or relatives with such a feeble grasp of reality?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I know somebody who believes in chemtrails, flat earth and a lot of other stuff. There is really no way to argue with her because at the bottom of everything there is a big, powerful conspiracy. I told her once that Alex Jones certainly has enough money to rent a jet to fly into a chemtrail and take some samples or take a ship and go straight and see what happens. But of course there tons of government conspiracies to prevent these things. In the end these people don't really want to know. They just have a deep discomfort with the current state of things.
  - Zaak 9y ago
    > In the end these people don't really want to know. They just have a deep discomfort with the current state of things. This is a very succinct description of the mindset of the flat earthers I have talked with.
- mikestew 9y ago
  More hypothetical than anything, and possibly a template for more likely scenarios. I mean, it would seem that there are some that seriously think the world is flat. Should I ever meet such a person and the topic comes up (and you know it will), I'd be curious as to the outcome of whipping out this rebuttal. I don't care about "winning" the argument, as there's nothing to win, but the response is what I'm after. I'm sure I'll be disappointed.