Flat Earth and other theories of daft proportions...
I have zero problem with questioning the things we are told. In fact, I'm an avid believer in challenging everything. So, the flat Earth concept is wonderful to me as a thought experiment. Unfortunately, it runs into far many obstacles far too quickly to merit more than a few moments of serious thought.
So, what are the obstacles I'm talking about? Well, here is an FAQ from such a site. They call their approach an empirical one, relying on the senses. They state that the Earth looks flat, the bottoms of clouds look flat, and the Sun appears to follow a straight orbit as examples.
The Earth doesn't look flat though. At least, not anywhere it hasn't been leveled by humans. The Earth is generally quite lumpy. And lumpy to the extreme in some cases, such as mountains. And while, using JUST your senses is empirical in a sense, if you're relying purely on your senses, you can't choose to selectively accept and reject what those senses are telling you.
A classic example is a ship sailing over the horizon. As it disappears, it doesn't simply get smaller and smaller until it is no longer visible, it disappears from the bottom up. That is an empirical observation. It is achieved using ONLY your senses. Though, JUST using your senses isn't really what "empirical" means. It is really about things which are measurable. But, as in this example, we often don't need to break out of simple sensory inputs to hit problems.
If a ship disappears from the bottom up, it must either mean it is sinking, or that the oceans are not flat. But, we can observe, in a glass, that the surface of water does indeed APPEAR to be flat. What the horizon issue tells us is that we're wrong about the water in the glass. The curvature of the water in the glass is simply not on a large enough scale for us to measure. The sheer distance it takes for a ship to go into the horizon before it appears to sink gives us a sense of just how gradual things curve.
If you take multiple empirical measurements or observations of the same phenomenon you must still find a way to reconcile them all together. The notion that effects of gravity are so slight that they aren't apparent in the surface of the Earth is corroborated by the distance at which a ship must travel to begin "sinking". The notion that the oceans are flat on the other hand does not corroborate what your senses observe when the ship disappears.
When I'm very far away from a person, they appear small. The same logic which dictates that the Earth is flat based on observations at just a small scale around you, would also demand that you accept that people actually grow and shrink as they approach or go away from you. Don't try and argue for a second that your senses aren't telling you that those people are smaller. They absolutely are telling you that.
Why then, don't you argue that people and environments and everything else shrink or grow in relation to your proximity to them as your senses tell you? Simple. You have accepted the results of other observations and found (and subsequently accepted) an interpretation of the data which explains more than just a single observation.
Similarly, what I need from Flat Earth theorist is a way of interpreting both the apparent flatness of the water AND the specific manner in which boats disappear over the horizon. A spherical, or sphere like Earth of massive scale provides such an explanation. I haven't read a unifying argument from Flat Earth believers, despite the fact that both are empirical observations about the shape of the surface of oceans.
Day and night cycles also pose problems. A localized light source sun is so batty it hurts my brain. Fundamentally though, it means we should be able to, with a telescope, be able to see the sun at night.
On that topic, I just found my absolute favorite theory of all time... right here. The argument is that no matter the size, a small object can obscure a larger one if the relative distance between the two and the observer is great enough. What makes this AWESOME? I can ABSOLUTELY obscure something large like an elephant with something small like a dime. But, no matter the difference in size or which is front of which... for ANY occlusion to occur at all, even partially, they must, from the observers perspective interfere with each others line of sight.
So, for an imperfection in the Earth to block out the sun in a FLAT Earth model, it would mean that the sun must physically drop below that imperfection for it to occlude the sun. In other words, the sun must be SOOOOOOO close to the ground that it would smack into literally any imperfection. What makes this SUPER funny is the sun setting over something like an ocean. No matter how you slice it, the ocean is a hell of a lotter flatter and more uniform than the rest of the Earth. So, anywhere there is an ocean, it should A) always take longer for the sun to set because there should be less available to occlude the sun. And B) water is "shaky" or "wavy", when the sun "sets" over the ocean, the perceived dissipation of the sun should likewise be shaky. In other words, the length of day and night would be impacted both by distance to the North pole, but also by relative flatness to the East and West where the sun "rises" and "sets".
You see... right now, we observe that the sun "sets" at the exact same time we cease to be able to see the sun. In other words, the light from the sun just happens to become fully occluded at the same point our inferior human eyes can long distinguish the sun from the horizon. The limitations of our eyes should have no impact on the ability for light to travel though. But, this phenomenon would imply that, magically, everywhere on Earth, the sun from the light is ALWAYS fully occluded on land exactly at the vanishing point for the human eye.
But, that is bonkers. The Earth is not uniform and not even the Flat Earth believers claim that. Even with a fixed vanishing point for human beings and the sun there should still be places on Earth with greater or lesser occlusion of sunlight during sunrise and sunset. For instance, where there is less occlusion of light, say, where the sun "rises" or "set" over an ocean, the ground should become illuminated before the sun itself is actually visible, and should set well before the light disappears.
Remember, the horizon is not a real one in the model. It is simply the point at which objects are so far away from the eye that they are indistinguishable from the land. It doesn't mean that their light is actually occluded by anything. Or, if the occlusion of the light is part of how we determine when the sun passes into the vanishing point... then, we should still encounter areas of the Earth where the topography drastically affects the length of day and night (places with an East or West shore on an ocean). But none of that is observed. In other words, empirically, that notion is destroyed. The sun MUST go UNDER the horizon. It must SET and RISE. And, given global time discrepancies, that means that the Earth MUST be sphere like.
Another problem is gravity. The problem with the explanation provided is, in their model, since the Earth is doing the accelerating, ALL objects should return to Earth at the same speed regardless of weight, mass, or even wind resistances. Additionally, the Earth, Sun and moon would all need to have identical masses, otherwise they would accelerate at different speeds if a single "universal accelerator" were supplying the same force to all 3. And, in fact, even if they were the same volume at some point, that would mean that the Sun should have accelerated away from the Earth LONG LONG ago. Why? Because, converting matter into energy... would reduce the mass of the Sun. The reduction in the mass of the sun would cause the energy from "Universal Accelerator" to increase the acceleration of the sun beyond that of the Earth's over time.
Of course, the further down the rabbit hole we go, the murkier the argument gets. UA for example is no more empirically observable than the standard gravitational model (in addition to the numerous ways it is riddled with faults). The introduction to Flat Earth theory basically requires you to throw out anything you cannot simply observer with your senses. You cannot observe this UA force any more than you can simply observe gravity. And you cannot theorize or come up with formulae to express it without diverging from empirical evidence. In other words, the very basis for the Flat Earth theory fundamentally demands that you throw out both and replace it with "well, things simply come back to the ground because they do".
Also, it is easy to empirically prove our inability to detect the curvature of the Earth at an easily observable scale. Just build some scale models. For instance, build a large enough surface you know to be curved. Decrease the amount of curvature over time, and see if it remains observable. Or... make a sufficiently large object with a slight curve which is obviously curved up close, then gradually move it away. At some distance, the curvature should not be discernable.
Classifying empirical evidence in the way Flat Earth theorists do also poses other problems. What about optical illusions? With many optical illusions we encounter things where we need an interpretation based upon multiple observations to rationalize our observations. The only answer we would normally accept is one which adequately explains all available observations.
Are there some conspiracies out there? Perhaps. Are some of our modern theories wrong? Well, depending on your definition of wrong, they are probably all wrong to some degree, and certainly some have move wiggle room than others. I think scientists have a tendency to be a little too full of themselves. But, I do believe based on my own experiences that their explanations are closer to an absolute truth than those of Flat Earth believers.
So, what are the obstacles I'm talking about? Well, here is an FAQ from such a site. They call their approach an empirical one, relying on the senses. They state that the Earth looks flat, the bottoms of clouds look flat, and the Sun appears to follow a straight orbit as examples.
The Earth doesn't look flat though. At least, not anywhere it hasn't been leveled by humans. The Earth is generally quite lumpy. And lumpy to the extreme in some cases, such as mountains. And while, using JUST your senses is empirical in a sense, if you're relying purely on your senses, you can't choose to selectively accept and reject what those senses are telling you.
A classic example is a ship sailing over the horizon. As it disappears, it doesn't simply get smaller and smaller until it is no longer visible, it disappears from the bottom up. That is an empirical observation. It is achieved using ONLY your senses. Though, JUST using your senses isn't really what "empirical" means. It is really about things which are measurable. But, as in this example, we often don't need to break out of simple sensory inputs to hit problems.
If a ship disappears from the bottom up, it must either mean it is sinking, or that the oceans are not flat. But, we can observe, in a glass, that the surface of water does indeed APPEAR to be flat. What the horizon issue tells us is that we're wrong about the water in the glass. The curvature of the water in the glass is simply not on a large enough scale for us to measure. The sheer distance it takes for a ship to go into the horizon before it appears to sink gives us a sense of just how gradual things curve.
If you take multiple empirical measurements or observations of the same phenomenon you must still find a way to reconcile them all together. The notion that effects of gravity are so slight that they aren't apparent in the surface of the Earth is corroborated by the distance at which a ship must travel to begin "sinking". The notion that the oceans are flat on the other hand does not corroborate what your senses observe when the ship disappears.
When I'm very far away from a person, they appear small. The same logic which dictates that the Earth is flat based on observations at just a small scale around you, would also demand that you accept that people actually grow and shrink as they approach or go away from you. Don't try and argue for a second that your senses aren't telling you that those people are smaller. They absolutely are telling you that.
Why then, don't you argue that people and environments and everything else shrink or grow in relation to your proximity to them as your senses tell you? Simple. You have accepted the results of other observations and found (and subsequently accepted) an interpretation of the data which explains more than just a single observation.
Similarly, what I need from Flat Earth theorist is a way of interpreting both the apparent flatness of the water AND the specific manner in which boats disappear over the horizon. A spherical, or sphere like Earth of massive scale provides such an explanation. I haven't read a unifying argument from Flat Earth believers, despite the fact that both are empirical observations about the shape of the surface of oceans.
Day and night cycles also pose problems. A localized light source sun is so batty it hurts my brain. Fundamentally though, it means we should be able to, with a telescope, be able to see the sun at night.
On that topic, I just found my absolute favorite theory of all time... right here. The argument is that no matter the size, a small object can obscure a larger one if the relative distance between the two and the observer is great enough. What makes this AWESOME? I can ABSOLUTELY obscure something large like an elephant with something small like a dime. But, no matter the difference in size or which is front of which... for ANY occlusion to occur at all, even partially, they must, from the observers perspective interfere with each others line of sight.
So, for an imperfection in the Earth to block out the sun in a FLAT Earth model, it would mean that the sun must physically drop below that imperfection for it to occlude the sun. In other words, the sun must be SOOOOOOO close to the ground that it would smack into literally any imperfection. What makes this SUPER funny is the sun setting over something like an ocean. No matter how you slice it, the ocean is a hell of a lotter flatter and more uniform than the rest of the Earth. So, anywhere there is an ocean, it should A) always take longer for the sun to set because there should be less available to occlude the sun. And B) water is "shaky" or "wavy", when the sun "sets" over the ocean, the perceived dissipation of the sun should likewise be shaky. In other words, the length of day and night would be impacted both by distance to the North pole, but also by relative flatness to the East and West where the sun "rises" and "sets".
You see... right now, we observe that the sun "sets" at the exact same time we cease to be able to see the sun. In other words, the light from the sun just happens to become fully occluded at the same point our inferior human eyes can long distinguish the sun from the horizon. The limitations of our eyes should have no impact on the ability for light to travel though. But, this phenomenon would imply that, magically, everywhere on Earth, the sun from the light is ALWAYS fully occluded on land exactly at the vanishing point for the human eye.
But, that is bonkers. The Earth is not uniform and not even the Flat Earth believers claim that. Even with a fixed vanishing point for human beings and the sun there should still be places on Earth with greater or lesser occlusion of sunlight during sunrise and sunset. For instance, where there is less occlusion of light, say, where the sun "rises" or "set" over an ocean, the ground should become illuminated before the sun itself is actually visible, and should set well before the light disappears.
Remember, the horizon is not a real one in the model. It is simply the point at which objects are so far away from the eye that they are indistinguishable from the land. It doesn't mean that their light is actually occluded by anything. Or, if the occlusion of the light is part of how we determine when the sun passes into the vanishing point... then, we should still encounter areas of the Earth where the topography drastically affects the length of day and night (places with an East or West shore on an ocean). But none of that is observed. In other words, empirically, that notion is destroyed. The sun MUST go UNDER the horizon. It must SET and RISE. And, given global time discrepancies, that means that the Earth MUST be sphere like.
Another problem is gravity. The problem with the explanation provided is, in their model, since the Earth is doing the accelerating, ALL objects should return to Earth at the same speed regardless of weight, mass, or even wind resistances. Additionally, the Earth, Sun and moon would all need to have identical masses, otherwise they would accelerate at different speeds if a single "universal accelerator" were supplying the same force to all 3. And, in fact, even if they were the same volume at some point, that would mean that the Sun should have accelerated away from the Earth LONG LONG ago. Why? Because, converting matter into energy... would reduce the mass of the Sun. The reduction in the mass of the sun would cause the energy from "Universal Accelerator" to increase the acceleration of the sun beyond that of the Earth's over time.
Of course, the further down the rabbit hole we go, the murkier the argument gets. UA for example is no more empirically observable than the standard gravitational model (in addition to the numerous ways it is riddled with faults). The introduction to Flat Earth theory basically requires you to throw out anything you cannot simply observer with your senses. You cannot observe this UA force any more than you can simply observe gravity. And you cannot theorize or come up with formulae to express it without diverging from empirical evidence. In other words, the very basis for the Flat Earth theory fundamentally demands that you throw out both and replace it with "well, things simply come back to the ground because they do".
Also, it is easy to empirically prove our inability to detect the curvature of the Earth at an easily observable scale. Just build some scale models. For instance, build a large enough surface you know to be curved. Decrease the amount of curvature over time, and see if it remains observable. Or... make a sufficiently large object with a slight curve which is obviously curved up close, then gradually move it away. At some distance, the curvature should not be discernable.
Classifying empirical evidence in the way Flat Earth theorists do also poses other problems. What about optical illusions? With many optical illusions we encounter things where we need an interpretation based upon multiple observations to rationalize our observations. The only answer we would normally accept is one which adequately explains all available observations.
Are there some conspiracies out there? Perhaps. Are some of our modern theories wrong? Well, depending on your definition of wrong, they are probably all wrong to some degree, and certainly some have move wiggle room than others. I think scientists have a tendency to be a little too full of themselves. But, I do believe based on my own experiences that their explanations are closer to an absolute truth than those of Flat Earth believers.
Comments
Post a Comment