Timeline for Simple check for the global shape of the Earth
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 19, 2018 at 20:09 | history | suggested | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Copy edited. Moved meta information to the end in order to deemphasise it - but it really should be moved to comments. |
| Oct 19, 2018 at 19:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 19, 2018 at 20:09 | |||||
| Oct 16, 2018 at 16:45 | history | edited | Tom | CC BY-SA 4.0 | restored last sentence that was wrongfully edited out |
| Oct 16, 2018 at 16:15 | history | edited | ACuriousMind♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 | removed superfluous fluff; Be Nice applies to Flat Earthers, too |
| Oct 16, 2018 at 1:35 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | @DavidConrad I hope it doesn't lead to claims of vacuum refraction. | |
| Oct 16, 2018 at 1:28 | comment | added | David Conrad | @immibis Even if you do go up there yourself, how do you know they're real pictures? Maybe you're just hallucinating. | |
| Oct 16, 2018 at 1:24 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | @DavidConrad "Obviously" they're fake 3D renderings... which is the core problem. If you don't go up there yourself how do you know they are real pictures? | |
| Oct 15, 2018 at 19:08 | comment | added | David Conrad | I think pictures from the DSCOVER EPIC instrument are proof of the shape of the Earth, but no flat earther would accept them. +1 this based on the last line of the answer. ;-) | |
| Oct 15, 2018 at 14:33 | history | edited | Tom | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added seasons as the final death blow |
| Oct 15, 2018 at 14:27 | comment | added | Tom | Which is why my suggestion is to use self-evidence straightforward facts. You can probably also come with seismic measurement results of earthquakes and volcanoes and prove mathematically that Earth must be a ball from those, but if you did that I would agree with you that it's not going to be convincing. Ergo, use simple facts that anyone can observe. | |
| Oct 15, 2018 at 13:52 | comment | added | probably_someone | "And "if you assume these insane things and postulate these crazy complex parameters, you can come with enough handwaving to this conclusion" doesn't generally convince normal people." The issue here is that, to many non-scientists, a lot of well-established physics looks exactly like "assuming insane things and postulating these crazy complex parameters." If they already believe in this stuff, then proposing that they replace their beliefs with something that is (in their mind) just as weird or even weirder won't be particularly convincing. | |
| Oct 15, 2018 at 13:45 | comment | added | Tom | When you discuss with someone who is at the core of the movement, you won't get anywhere, but the discussion is a waste of time from the start in either case, no matter which razors you use. Someone who just read too much of it and believes too easily will come to their own conclusions upon thinking things through. And "if you assume these insane things and postulate these crazy complex parameters, you can come with enough handwaving to this conclusion" doesn't generally convince normal people. | |
| Oct 15, 2018 at 11:14 | comment | added | probably_someone | "If you do this rigorously, they by necessity arrive at the same conclusion, because this is the conclusion that fits all the observed facts." I don't think this happens unless Occam's razor is assumed, and there's no guarantee that this is the case, especially in flat-earth discussions, where there appears to be no limit on how convoluted they will make their explanations. How do you discuss these things with someone who doesn't believe that Occam's razor selects the correct explanation? | |
| Oct 15, 2018 at 10:52 | history | answered | Tom | CC BY-SA 4.0 |