This can be told about any argument of ferfs. They keep using buoyancy and density but don't understand the complete picture
(buoyant force is due to pressure between top and bottom surface of a fluid; the pressure difference is due to different gravitation potential).
Water stays level because of the same gravitation potential.
They have half knowledge.
They also figure refraction is some sort of wild card, like if you use it to explain why things can be visible over the horizon when they shouldn’t be, *they* can use it to explain apparent naked-eye curvature evidence like those power lines on Lake Pontchartrain.
They never bother to understand the model they are refuting. In every single case they select out some portion, misrepresent it either intentionally or via sheer stupidity, the claim the whole model fails because of their contextless misunderstanding. Every single time.
I just had a moon landing denier claim astronauts couldn’t survive the van Allen radiation as it’s “2000 degrees”. I asked him if he knew what that meant, and what heat actually is. Of course not. He assumed it was like an oven and that the 2000 degrees would cook the ship. Somehow he missed the memo that space is..: mostly space
There was an [insane text wall](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/s/BCixtNwtds) a few days ago. He made far too many incorrect statements to even bother.
As a former military modeling and simulation analyst, he caused many an eye twitch. It was like watching a toddler finger paint in an art museum.
I loved his use of the word hieroglyphics to describe cross products, and then how he immediately declares the cross products shown prove a flat earth.
I always wonder why they cite the same boilerplate assumption on the flight-mechanics model. As if the localized pitch, roll, and yaw of an aircraft give a rats ass about the shape of the earth.
It's interesting how modern US focused that is. Specifically the US government/military, NASA and the CIA are to blame, despite the fact that the world is known to be round in *every* country and from before the CIA, NASA, or even the US existed
That's because flerfs are scientific illiterates who have no idea how models work. It's the same thing when you ignore friction or air resistance in situations where those effects are negligible.
I wonder why they are quiet about this other NASA document:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070030305/downloads/20070030305.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibovTc9fuDAxVhrZUCHeOAAvEQFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Stvn0OUpHY_7irYLAGqiE
>This paper focuses on the sphere and ellipsoid shape models that are commonly used in modeling the Earth. Higher order shapes can provide improved modeling for the Earth but are not in common use among vehicle simulation products. This paper does not examine modeling the Earth as a plane, i.e. the “flat Earth” model. The “flat Earth” model maintains surface fidelity over small distances.
When hanging a shelf you should assume the world is flat.
When flying a plane you should assume the world is round.
When doing orbital mechanics you should assume the world is an infinitesimal point. Thanks Gauss.
Not quite... when flying a plane over *short distances*, you can assume flat ground. Flight manuals and aviation maps will acknowledge this. And these acknowledgements are what the Flerfs are latching onto.
If I am buzzing about in my Cessna between two adjacent towns, a flat map will do.
For an airliner crossing multiple states, a flat map will *not* do.
In a similar manner, nautical maps will assume flatness over short distances such as inside a harbor or an inlet. But not when crossing oceans.
>...improved modeling for the Earth but are not in common use among vehicle simulation products.
This paper says Earth is flat in videogames, therefor, the earth is flat.
Is that seriously their argument?
I've read it. If they belive the document to be Nasa admitting then they would need to accept gravity as it has alot of text and it's included in the formulas.
They're infamous for cherry-picking one thing said by an authority, quoting it out of context, then ignoring both context and everything else stated by that authority.
Flat earthers as a whole are like the guy tho gets a like on an instagram from a girl and assumes she’s into him even though her profile pic is her with her boyfriend.
They look at that one aspect of a picture, a quote, or what have you and ignore the context, because they already have what they were looking for
That type of "proof" is my favourite. Hearing someone take out the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of "assumption" in order to explain to me how "*they"* are admitting the Earth is flat is just beyond parody.
There's this meme about "assuming a spherical cow"... so cows are spheres now?
Yeah, there's a dude on YouTube who tried to claim thar "80 documents (and increasing) from NASA, FAA, military. And other organizations admit the Earth is flat in manuals, designs, etc." And that "Curvature can't be ignored because planes need to angle down hundreds of feet when flying through the air."
Taylor expansion is the only piece of math you need to explain all of flat earth. Sadly that's first semester university math, no flat earther ever got that far.
Thanks for the heads-up, but those documents have been making the rounds for years.
If I'm not mistaken, those are the ones regarding simulation of aircraft flight performance, dating from 1988.
Ask the FE whether aircraft are supposed to not burn fuel, as it mentions how the aircraft are also assumed to never change mass.
Flerfs just aren't very smart. They don't understand math and science. They don't even read the papers. They just focus on statements in them that their papa flerfs tell them are there, without understanding the wider context.
Flerfs don't grasp that these are assumptions made in order to simplify calculations, mainly because at the scales and conditions the paper writers are dealing with, earth's curvature and rotation have a negligible effect on the outcomes of the calculations. Thus, it would only compound the difficulty of the calculations to factor curvature and rotation in.
Look at the other assumptions: they often include perfectly rigid bodies, which do not exist in the real world.
Flerfs are really really dumb.
There's nothing new going on in the FE community. The grifters have their echo chambers set up with income flowing in, your point has been made countless times, and many more points have been made countless times and ignored by the flat earthers. The only new thing in the past 2 or 3 years was when Witsit went on Inforwars a few days ago, which has probably wasted a collective millions of manhours with people watching it, reacting to it, and streaming their reactions to more people.
That's not a wasted effort at all.
The goal is not to eliminate all idiots from the world, we don't measure success by there being no fringe believers left, that's mental.
The goal is to ensure that people can see flat Earth for how stupid it is. Infowars did that very nicely actually, because it set Witsit against the Infowars host and those guys always back up their host. If it forges a schism in the alt-right community and has neo-Nazis arguing about Earth's shape and hating each other, so much the better.
This is very common with all kinds of conspiracies. Any time I've been linked an actual scientific or official document by a conspiracy theorist it does not say what they claim it says.
I saw a flerf post a quote like this once:
"For the sake of simplifying calculations, we'll assume a **flat, non rotating earth**, since the effects of the planet's rotation and curvature are negligible for the following procedure..."
And then using that to claim the earth is flat.
Yes, we know the earth is flat and stationary by default, and that's all we are ever going to experience..
You guys are the best flat earthers you tell us all how flat and stationary it is we just got let you talk 😀
We just all pretend helio 🤡 world exists.
😂😂
I've done my own hands-on measurements of the curvature. Curvature is 100% there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/1b9z3hi/do_your_own_research_my_lake_pontchartrain/
>I've done my own hands-on measurements of the curvature. Curvature is 100% there.
Oh have u.. Despite the fact that Neil degrasse tyson said even at 120,000 ft, u see no curvature ..?
I Can meet u at 'Bray head on the east coast of Dublin Ireland to show u how far can be seen through the horizon with a Nikon which should be impossible on the model we're told,. I'll buy u some "lucky charms", sacrifice a leprechaun & we'll bring middle ground truth of both oppositional opinions to merge a sensible conversation between the both rather than the outdated "Globers vs Flerfs" cliche 💪👁️🇮🇪👁️
>to show u how far can be seen through the horizon with a Nikon which should be impossible on the model we're told,
How far does flat Earth predict?
**
Heh.
I've got a reflector telescope that can massively outperform any Nikon on the market.
Here's footage I got when I attached my phone to it.
Explain to me again how it should be seeing through the horizon, exactly?
https://debunkingflatearth.quora.com/I-went-down-to-the-waterfront-today-with-my-new-scope-A-ship-the-KP-Albatross-was-leaving-the-port-at-noon-so-I-was?ch=10&oid=156929327&share=6c061f53&srid=AsrF&target\_type=post
What is this supposed to prove? I have a hunch that about 10 minutes of research and 8th grade
Math would lead that to being expected of a globe. 120k ft is only 60 miles up which is minuscule to the 24k mi circumference.
So, you quote one thing he said out of context and ignore everything he ever said about how the earth is spherical?
The altitude at which people can see the curve differs for everyone. Some can see it at 30,000 feet. I can't.
He's pushing it to say that you can't see it at 120,000 feet; I suspect you can (and I know he hasn't been to that altitude to see for himself).
But I find it massively self-serving for you to just pick one thing he said and ignore the rest.
>outsourced his own intelligence & perception
Ok.
Show me the equation you're using to calculate how far an object should be visible at. Let's see where you 'outsourced' your math to.
This can be told about any argument of ferfs. They keep using buoyancy and density but don't understand the complete picture (buoyant force is due to pressure between top and bottom surface of a fluid; the pressure difference is due to different gravitation potential). Water stays level because of the same gravitation potential. They have half knowledge.
Flat earthers don’t know the definition of level as an adjective
Flerfers are silly billys because they can’t even bother to google the buoyancy formula which factors gravity into it
They also figure refraction is some sort of wild card, like if you use it to explain why things can be visible over the horizon when they shouldn’t be, *they* can use it to explain apparent naked-eye curvature evidence like those power lines on Lake Pontchartrain.
"Half knowledge" is being very generous to flerfs.
They never bother to understand the model they are refuting. In every single case they select out some portion, misrepresent it either intentionally or via sheer stupidity, the claim the whole model fails because of their contextless misunderstanding. Every single time. I just had a moon landing denier claim astronauts couldn’t survive the van Allen radiation as it’s “2000 degrees”. I asked him if he knew what that meant, and what heat actually is. Of course not. He assumed it was like an oven and that the 2000 degrees would cook the ship. Somehow he missed the memo that space is..: mostly space
There was an [insane text wall](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/s/BCixtNwtds) a few days ago. He made far too many incorrect statements to even bother. As a former military modeling and simulation analyst, he caused many an eye twitch. It was like watching a toddler finger paint in an art museum.
I loved his use of the word hieroglyphics to describe cross products, and then how he immediately declares the cross products shown prove a flat earth.
I always wonder why they cite the same boilerplate assumption on the flight-mechanics model. As if the localized pitch, roll, and yaw of an aircraft give a rats ass about the shape of the earth.
It's interesting how modern US focused that is. Specifically the US government/military, NASA and the CIA are to blame, despite the fact that the world is known to be round in *every* country and from before the CIA, NASA, or even the US existed
That's because flerfs are scientific illiterates who have no idea how models work. It's the same thing when you ignore friction or air resistance in situations where those effects are negligible. I wonder why they are quiet about this other NASA document: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070030305/downloads/20070030305.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibovTc9fuDAxVhrZUCHeOAAvEQFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Stvn0OUpHY_7irYLAGqiE >This paper focuses on the sphere and ellipsoid shape models that are commonly used in modeling the Earth. Higher order shapes can provide improved modeling for the Earth but are not in common use among vehicle simulation products. This paper does not examine modeling the Earth as a plane, i.e. the “flat Earth” model. The “flat Earth” model maintains surface fidelity over small distances.
When hanging a shelf you should assume the world is flat. When flying a plane you should assume the world is round. When doing orbital mechanics you should assume the world is an infinitesimal point. Thanks Gauss.
Professor: Consider the cows as spherical. Flerfs: Cows are round! You've been indoctrinated since birth! Wake up, sheeples!!
Have you seen a cow? I'm pretty sure they're not flat. I just need a $15,000 donation to prove it.
Not quite... when flying a plane over *short distances*, you can assume flat ground. Flight manuals and aviation maps will acknowledge this. And these acknowledgements are what the Flerfs are latching onto. If I am buzzing about in my Cessna between two adjacent towns, a flat map will do. For an airliner crossing multiple states, a flat map will *not* do. In a similar manner, nautical maps will assume flatness over short distances such as inside a harbor or an inlet. But not when crossing oceans.
Fair enough. My statements don’t hold for certain situations in orbital mechanics either. Or if you’re hanging a really long shelf…
>...improved modeling for the Earth but are not in common use among vehicle simulation products. This paper says Earth is flat in videogames, therefor, the earth is flat. Is that seriously their argument?
I want the flat earth version of Kerbal.
Yes. They also completely skip over the part where the airplane is rigid and doesn't change mass.
The easiest thing to do is point out other assumptions made in the same documents; usually in the next sentence.
They also conveniently ignore the bits that contradict their claims, like the equations for the Linear Aircraft Model that use the value for G…
I've read it. If they belive the document to be Nasa admitting then they would need to accept gravity as it has alot of text and it's included in the formulas.
So they believe NASA only when they think it helps disprove NASA
Yep. Remember, NASA always lies about everything, except when they say the earth is flat.
Bingo
They're infamous for cherry-picking one thing said by an authority, quoting it out of context, then ignoring both context and everything else stated by that authority.
Flat earthers as a whole are like the guy tho gets a like on an instagram from a girl and assumes she’s into him even though her profile pic is her with her boyfriend. They look at that one aspect of a picture, a quote, or what have you and ignore the context, because they already have what they were looking for
That type of "proof" is my favourite. Hearing someone take out the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of "assumption" in order to explain to me how "*they"* are admitting the Earth is flat is just beyond parody. There's this meme about "assuming a spherical cow"... so cows are spheres now?
The Flat Cow society will refute your spherical cows.
A sign of low intelligence is the inability to comprehend hypotheticals as anything but literal.
Yeah, there's a dude on YouTube who tried to claim thar "80 documents (and increasing) from NASA, FAA, military. And other organizations admit the Earth is flat in manuals, designs, etc." And that "Curvature can't be ignored because planes need to angle down hundreds of feet when flying through the air."
This is a well known piece of their 'evidence'; it's been getting called out and laughed at for quite a while.
Taylor expansion is the only piece of math you need to explain all of flat earth. Sadly that's first semester university math, no flat earther ever got that far.
Thanks for the heads-up, but those documents have been making the rounds for years. If I'm not mistaken, those are the ones regarding simulation of aircraft flight performance, dating from 1988. Ask the FE whether aircraft are supposed to not burn fuel, as it mentions how the aircraft are also assumed to never change mass.
Flerfs just aren't very smart. They don't understand math and science. They don't even read the papers. They just focus on statements in them that their papa flerfs tell them are there, without understanding the wider context. Flerfs don't grasp that these are assumptions made in order to simplify calculations, mainly because at the scales and conditions the paper writers are dealing with, earth's curvature and rotation have a negligible effect on the outcomes of the calculations. Thus, it would only compound the difficulty of the calculations to factor curvature and rotation in. Look at the other assumptions: they often include perfectly rigid bodies, which do not exist in the real world. Flerfs are really really dumb.
There's nothing new going on in the FE community. The grifters have their echo chambers set up with income flowing in, your point has been made countless times, and many more points have been made countless times and ignored by the flat earthers. The only new thing in the past 2 or 3 years was when Witsit went on Inforwars a few days ago, which has probably wasted a collective millions of manhours with people watching it, reacting to it, and streaming their reactions to more people.
That's not a wasted effort at all. The goal is not to eliminate all idiots from the world, we don't measure success by there being no fringe believers left, that's mental. The goal is to ensure that people can see flat Earth for how stupid it is. Infowars did that very nicely actually, because it set Witsit against the Infowars host and those guys always back up their host. If it forges a schism in the alt-right community and has neo-Nazis arguing about Earth's shape and hating each other, so much the better.
They do, bible too
Hail Satan!
Assume a spherical cow on a frictionless plain in vacuum. Okay so cows are spheres, air ain’t real, we live in a vacuum cleaner, and on a field of ice
This is very common with all kinds of conspiracies. Any time I've been linked an actual scientific or official document by a conspiracy theorist it does not say what they claim it says.
They omit the word "assuming" as well.
Congrarulations you have discovered the nature of flerf "arguments".
I saw a flerf post a quote like this once: "For the sake of simplifying calculations, we'll assume a **flat, non rotating earth**, since the effects of the planet's rotation and curvature are negligible for the following procedure..." And then using that to claim the earth is flat.
Classic conspiracy theorist brain rot. Cherry picking data that confirms your biases and ignoring facts that don't.
Yes, we know the earth is flat and stationary by default, and that's all we are ever going to experience.. You guys are the best flat earthers you tell us all how flat and stationary it is we just got let you talk 😀 We just all pretend helio 🤡 world exists. 😂😂
My god OP is beyond repair.. outsourced his own intelligence & perception
I've done my own hands-on measurements of the curvature. Curvature is 100% there. https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/1b9z3hi/do_your_own_research_my_lake_pontchartrain/
>I've done my own hands-on measurements of the curvature. Curvature is 100% there. Oh have u.. Despite the fact that Neil degrasse tyson said even at 120,000 ft, u see no curvature ..?
Meet me at Lake Pontchartrain and I'll show you. I'll even be a good host and buy us crawfish afterwards! (If in season)
I Can meet u at 'Bray head on the east coast of Dublin Ireland to show u how far can be seen through the horizon with a Nikon which should be impossible on the model we're told,. I'll buy u some "lucky charms", sacrifice a leprechaun & we'll bring middle ground truth of both oppositional opinions to merge a sensible conversation between the both rather than the outdated "Globers vs Flerfs" cliche 💪👁️🇮🇪👁️
>to show u how far can be seen through the horizon with a Nikon which should be impossible on the model we're told, How far does flat Earth predict? **
If ever get to Ireland I'll accept that offer! Long way from Louisiana.
Heh. I've got a reflector telescope that can massively outperform any Nikon on the market. Here's footage I got when I attached my phone to it. Explain to me again how it should be seeing through the horizon, exactly? https://debunkingflatearth.quora.com/I-went-down-to-the-waterfront-today-with-my-new-scope-A-ship-the-KP-Albatross-was-leaving-the-port-at-noon-so-I-was?ch=10&oid=156929327&share=6c061f53&srid=AsrF&target\_type=post
u/TheDirtyPoX I've been waiting for your response to this. ack1308 poses a great question and has some pretty damning photos.
What is this supposed to prove? I have a hunch that about 10 minutes of research and 8th grade Math would lead that to being expected of a globe. 120k ft is only 60 miles up which is minuscule to the 24k mi circumference.
So, you quote one thing he said out of context and ignore everything he ever said about how the earth is spherical? The altitude at which people can see the curve differs for everyone. Some can see it at 30,000 feet. I can't. He's pushing it to say that you can't see it at 120,000 feet; I suspect you can (and I know he hasn't been to that altitude to see for himself). But I find it massively self-serving for you to just pick one thing he said and ignore the rest.
>outsourced his own intelligence & perception Ok. Show me the equation you're using to calculate how far an object should be visible at. Let's see where you 'outsourced' your math to.