Current Events > Are there any legitimate Flat Earthers on CE?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'd really like to hear their arguments.
---

It's reay quite doubtful there are any legitimate flat earthers period.
---

DevsBro posted...

It's reay quite doubtful there are any legitimate flat earthers period.

That

I don't think they are actually real. They just like to troll people. It's a joke. Just like nobody actually worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Closest we've had is a geocentrist

---

Metua posted...

Closest we've had is a geocentrist

Somewhat interestingly, one of the only perfect solutions to the problem of dark energy and universal expansion is that the Earth really is the center of the universe.

Obviously it's ridiculous, but it is kind of interesting that it does solve a major physics problem.
---

But Ive never seen the earth in person
---

Metua posted...

Closest we've had is a geocentrist

Lol yeah I remember that guy, he was definitely an interesting individual
---

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

We've been through this. You're biased.
Look the "vaccinations" you give to "help" patients are there to wipe out the memory the Earth is flatter than the amount of diseases vaccinations prevent.

I have 15 degrees in naturopathy. You will not win

You have 15 degrees in baloney!
---

If the earth isn't flat, why doesn't the ocean spill out?
---

Flat earthers have members all around the globe

---

Machete posted...

If the earth isn't flat, why doesn't the ocean spill out?

Science!

---

DarkRoast posted...

Metua posted...

Closest we've had is a geocentrist

Somewhat interestingly, one of the only perfect solutions to the problem of dark energy and universal expansion is that the Earth really is the center of the universe.

Obviously it's ridiculous, but it is kind of interesting that it does solve a major physics problem.

care to elaborate
---

WashYourHands posted...

Machete posted...

If the earth isn't flat, why doesn't the ocean spill out?

Science!

Welp. You've convinced me. I do not believe the earth is flat.
---

TheGoldenState posted...

care to elaborate

"Observable universe" is defined by the observer.
If the universe is expanding even close to uniformly, any given point would appear to be the center.

Machete posted...

If the earth isn't flat, why doesn't the ocean spill out?

I see you have an open mind on this. I recommend checking out the Flat Earth Society wiki. It is filled with useful information.
---

I want to see what they think about a holographic moon or a flat moon
---

Why you always looking for easy win arguments? Don't you want to challenge yourself?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

TheGoldenState posted...

care to elaborate

"Observable universe" is defined by the observer.
If the universe is expanding even close to uniformly, any given point would appear to be the center.

I understand the universe expanding, but the earth being central does little to help explain this
---

TheGoldenState posted...

DarkRoast posted...

Metua posted...

Closest we've had is a geocentrist

Somewhat interestingly, one of the only perfect solutions to the problem of dark energy and universal expansion is that the Earth really is the center of the universe.

Obviously it's ridiculous, but it is kind of interesting that it does solve a major physics problem.

care to elaborate

We have observed that everything in the universe outside of our local group of galaxies is expanding away from each other, and that expansion is accelerating. There is not enough observable energy in the universe to explain this expansion between things, and especially the acceleration in the expansion.

Currently, we call this dark energy. We call it dark because we cannot observe it. We aren't sure it actually exists.

Interestingly, if the Earth really is the center of the universe, and the universe started at the Earth as the foci of a sort of "big bang" and expanded outward, this observation can be explained without any additional laws of physics.
---

Flat earthers are all trolls. All of them. They're not worth listening to because it's always going to be a massive waste of your time.
---

Here's a Physics.org discussion about it:

https://m.phys.org/news/2008-09-dark-energy-void-copernicus-wrong.html


Dark Energy v. The Void: What if Copernicus was Wrong?

Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion, according physicists at Oxford University. The problem facing astrophysicists is that they have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. The most popular explanation is that some sort of force is pushing the accelerating the universe's expansion. That force is generally attributed to a mysterious dark energy.

Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it's possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe - specifically, we're in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenants in physics.


---

why hasnt anyone fallen off the edge of the earth yet?
---

To be fair, the Copernican Principle (Earth is not at or near the center of the universe or in a particularly special location) is simply an assumption. There's no actual science to prove it, especially since our current understanding of Dark Energy and universal expansion suggests that everywhere in the universe is its own "center of the universe."

So technically if you were to eliminate that one assumption, it would completely eliminate one of the largest problems in our understanding of universal physics.

It's stupid, admittedly, to assume Copernicus was wrong.
---

Machete posted...

WashYourHands posted...

Machete posted...

If the earth isn't flat, why doesn't the ocean spill out?

Science!

Welp. You've convinced me. I do not believe the earth is flat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YmMNpbFjp0" data-time="
---

DarkRoast posted...

To be fair, the Copernican Principle (Earth is not at or near the center of the universe or in a particularly special location) is simply an assumption. There's no actual science to prove it, especially since our current understanding of Dark Energy and universal expansion suggests that everywhere in the universe is its own "center of the universe."

So technically if you were to eliminate that one assumption, it would completely eliminate one of the largest problems in our understanding of universal physics.

It's stupid, admittedly, to assume Copernicus was wrong.

At a certain point, just from the sheer size of the universe, concepts like center lose their meaning like a mofo.

And AT that point, we start talking about the center not so much in a geometric or spacial sense as in a temporal one--that is to say, whatever is said to be in the "center" is really more a reference for the concept of what is stationary.

After all, this was the problem the heliocentric model was designed to address: when the Earth was considered stationary, everything else had insanely complicated movement.
---

No, it's all harmless trolling.
---

when the Earth was considered stationary, everything else had insanely complicated movement.

I keep forgetting that geocentrism is the stupid "Sun goes around the Earth" thing.

That's just dumb as all hell.
---

Not me.

But I am a proud truther.

D_Fen_Door posted...

Not me.

But I am a proud truther.

You mean of the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" variety?
---

DarkRoast posted...

TheGoldenState posted...

DarkRoast posted...

Metua posted...

Closest we've had is a geocentrist

Somewhat interestingly, one of the only perfect solutions to the problem of dark energy and universal expansion is that the Earth really is the center of the universe.

Obviously it's ridiculous, but it is kind of interesting that it does solve a major physics problem.

care to elaborate

We have observed that everything in the universe outside of our local group of galaxies is expanding away from each other, and that expansion is accelerating. There is not enough observable energy in the universe to explain this expansion between things, and especially the acceleration in the expansion.

Currently, we call this dark energy. We call it dark because we cannot observe it. We aren't sure it actually exists.

Interestingly, if the Earth really is the center of the universe, and the universe started at the Earth as the foci of a sort of "big bang" and expanded outward, this observation can be explained without any additional laws of physics.

That doesnt explain anything. The expansion is accelerating. You have the same problem
---

DarkRoast posted...

D_Fen_Door posted...

Not me.

But I am a proud truther.

You mean of the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" variety?

He has a point though. I don't think jet can melt steel beams. I watched a youtube video where a guy melted rocks to make his own lava and then poured it on a block of ice (or was it dry ice? I can't remember). Either way it didn't melt and the lava hardened. If that happened in that video, I seriously doubt that jet fuel could melt steel beams.
---

Machete posted...

DarkRoast posted...

D_Fen_Door posted...

Not me.

But I am a proud truther.

You mean of the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" variety?

He has a point though. I don't think jet can melt steel beams. I watched a youtube video where a guy melted rocks to make his own lava and then poured it on a block of ice (or was it dry ice? I can't remember). Either way it didn't melt and the lava hardened. If that happened in that video, I seriously doubt that jet fuel could melt steel beams.

To quote Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2ul23i/whats_up_with_all_the_jet_fuel_cant_melt_steel/

I'm going to try my best to quickly do the math here:

apparently, jet fuel burns at 1000 degrees celsius. thermal expansion coefficient of steel is ~12*10-6

if strain, E = T E = 12*10-6 (1000) E = 0.0012m

or the metal would expand about 12mm.

That, paired with the fact that the plane hit the building, most likely bending the structure to begin with. There's really no logical way to explain how the tower would not fall down...
---

DarkRoast posted...

You mean of the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" variety?

I didnt look too deep into that although engineers have spoken up according to Mike Gravel who was running for president.

Im more of the I know fact is stranger than fiction but this is too Goddamned much variety. And the US government not a source of truth variety.

D_Fen_Door posted...

DarkRoast posted...

You mean of the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" variety?

I didnt look too deep into that although engineers have spoken up according to Mike Gravel who was running for president.

Im more of the I know fact is stranger than fiction but this is too Goddamned much variety. And the US government not a source of truth variety.

Basic Newtonian mathematics combined with basic knowledge of chemistry and thermal expansion equations would show that there was almost no way the buildings wouldn't fall down.
---

tldr: the loss of structural integrity of steel happens far below the melting point.

The fact that jet fuel can't "melt" steel beams is about as important as the fact that an oven can't vaporize your pizza instantly.

You're not "just asking questions" when the very questions you're asking have no actual merit on what happened. Steel doesn't have to melt to lose its ability to hold up a building.
---

You guys should watch the documentary "Behind the Curve" on Netflix
---

DarkRoast posted...

Basic Newtonian mathematics combined with basic knowledge of chemistry and thermal expansion equations would show that there was almost no way the buildings wouldn't fall down.

Right but even if they did because of planes, which I do not dispute necessarily, the official story and actions taken afterwards lead me to believe this was a great thing for those in power at the expense of the rest of the world. A trend that has been rapidly escalating ever since.

D_Fen_Door posted...

DarkRoast posted...

Basic Newtonian mathematics combined with basic knowledge of chemistry and thermal expansion equations would show that there was almost no way the buildings wouldn't fall down.

Right but even if they did because of planes, which I do not dispute necessarily, the official story and actions taken afterwards lead me to believe this was a great thing for those in power at the expense of the rest of the world. A trend that has been rapidly escalating ever since.

There's no reason to believe in conjecture without evidence.

A conspiracy of that magnitude, involving that many people and countries, would not remain secret for very long. It's literally not possible in an electronically-connected world.

Hell, the DNC couldn't even keep their dirt secret in 2016 and that was just a handful of people rigging primaries, not an international oligarchy of elites.
---

DarkRoast posted...

There's no reason to believe in conjecture without evidence.

A conspiracy of that magnitude, involving that many people and countries, would not remain secret for very long. It's literally not possible in an electronically-connected world.

Hell, the DNC couldn't even keep their dirt secret in 2016 and that was just a handful of people rigging primaries, not an international oligarchy of elites.

Without evidence is what I believe we have been since day one, because what evidence was provided comes from the shadiest entity on the planet, and is as such not evidence.

And I say this even if the official story was actually well constructed. Is it doomed twofold when one considers it was tailored to literally appeal to the lowest common denominator of dumb American.

Cpt_Pineapple posted...

gravity can't melt steel beams

Gravity can't exist with a flat Earth, which is why Flat Earthers have a theory that the Earth is rapidly accelerating upwards all the time. Seriously.
---

DarkRoast posted...

tldr: the loss of structural integrity of steel happens far below the melting point.

The fact that jet fuel can't "melt" steel beams is about as important as the fact that an oven can't vaporize your pizza instantly.

You're not "just asking questions" when the very questions you're asking have no actual merit on what happened. Steel doesn't have to melt to lose its ability to hold up a building.

Yeah but that youtube video I mentioned >_>
---

The only "conspiracy theory" I believe in is the Time Cube
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The only "conspiracy theory" I believe in is the Time Cube

Earth has 4 corner
Simultaneous 4-day
TIME CUBE
In only 24 hour rotation
---