3 ms·

If you care to actually look into it, you'll find that flat-earthers have accounted for most/all of these. I'm not a flat-earther, but it's worth looking into b

If you care to actually look into it, you'll find that flat-earthers have accounted for most/all of these. I'm not a flat-earther, but it's worth looking into before stating things that "obviously can't be accounted for with a flat earth. 1: There are time zones in the flat earth model. The earth is a flat disc with antarctica (or is it the north pole?) at the center, and the sun moves around it in a circle, so the places opposite the sun are in nighttime 2: Believe it or not, flat-earthers believe light only travels so far, which is why things disappear "over the horizon" 4: I don't actually understand this one, but I suspect they'd handwave and talk about the same point in (1) 5: Same as (1) I don't think flat-earthers have accounted for Foucalt's pendulum however.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"If you care to actually look into it, you'll find that flat-earthers have accounted for most/all of these. I'm not a flat-earther, but it's worth looking into before stating things that "obviously can't be accounted for with a flat earth." That does not match my experience. I did looked into it and I found no consistent model of a flat earth. Lots and lots of words and sometimes even with consistent logic at times - but build upon completely false assumptions and flawed logic and therefore worthless. (you can proof anything, if your basic assumptions are made up) "I don't think flat-earthers have accounted for Foucalt's pendulum however. " And some of them tried and believe they did, but only when ignoring other facts and used twisted logic. Like some parent poster had said - it is not about proof, but way more about ideology. Otherwise they could very easily have a real proof, by sending up a weatherballoon, or organise a boat trip to the end of the world. But since they always refuse to do so (I challenged quite some with that concept) or even really think about it - they likely suspect inside that they are wrong, but rather not confirm for real, because then they would have to abolish a lot of their other ideology like chemtrails etc.

hutzlibu 5y ago

"If you care to actually look into it, you'll find that flat-earthers have accounted for most/all of these. I'm not a flat-earther, but it's worth looking into before stating things that "obviously can't be accounted for with a flat earth." That does not match my experience. I did looked into it and I found no consistent model of a flat earth. Lots and lots of words and sometimes even with consistent logic at times - but build upon completely false assumptions and flawed logic and therefore worthless. (you can proof anything, if your basic assumptions are made up) "I don't think flat-earthers have accounted for Foucalt's pendulum however. " And some of them tried and believe they did, but only when ignoring other facts and used twisted logic. Like some parent poster had said - it is not about proof, but way more about ideology. Otherwise they could very easily have a real proof, by sending up a weatherballoon, or organise a boat trip to the end of the world. But since they always refuse to do so (I challenged quite some with that concept) or even really think about it - they likely suspect inside that they are wrong, but rather not confirm for real, because then they would have to abolish a lot of their other ideology like chemtrails etc.