The earth is indeed flat

The earth is indeed flat

The internet has the opportunity to educate all. It is sad to see how it becomes a source for alternate truth and facts. Many including some on this forum use the internet to skip studies and facts and go straight to their alternate facts.

andy.connor.e | 25 July 2019

If the planet is warming, this is what we need to be preparing for. Warming leads to cooling. Stop fighting with eachother, and prepare for what is coming.

jimglas | 25 July 2019

the glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates

jimglas | 25 July 2019

put that head deeeeeep down in the sand.

andy.connor.e | 25 July 2019

Any attempt to stop people from talking about something, or considering it deeper than the surface level, is counter productive in every aspect and you should literally be ashamed of what you're spending your time on.

greg | 25 July 2019

Not news.

Human caused global warming has been massively increasing since 1850s, and is now officially proven that its now the dominant factor in Earths climate change, from analysis of temperature records in trees and such for AT LEAST the last 2000 years of recorded history.

So your BS posts "what about" Medieval warming periods and mini age ages as if they matter - have been proven to be localised events. Not Global events as you and your flat earthers all argue they were.

So why not go back to your cave and forget about arguing the denial corner. The evidence for AGW dominating all other causes is now so obvious over 99% of climate scientists now agree.

True volcanic eruptions and such can affect the climate in one hemisphere. But the whole globe at once?
That takes a different level again - just exactly what we have done since 1850.

Tesla-David | 25 July 2019

Mitch you embarrass yourself every time you post your bullshit facts from yesteryear.

blue adept | 25 July 2019


No one has said anything about denying and/or disputing the fact of the temperature extremes we're seeing today didn't occur in the past (thousands of years ago), they did!

The difference between now and then are the affects of our (Humanities') industrial, agricultural, and commercial contributions in the form of emissions, run off and wastes, on the natural climatological processes, adversely affecting them by exacerbating their influence exponentially to the point where what once took thousands of years to accumulate the necessary concentrations of gases required to influence the normal fluctuations our weather patterns are now occurring over the course of mere decades, even only years.

That, weatherman Mitch, is both the difference and the cause for the increased concern and uproar over our present day existential dilemma.

Simply put, things changed from the natural order because of our influence on it and/or because WE changed them.

SCCRENDO | 25 July 2019

Mitch has never stated whether he believes the earth is flat or whether he agrees with us zealots that the earth is indeed a sphere.

rhj | 25 July 2019

My all time favorite was the Flat earth society boasting of members all over the Globe

SCCRENDO | 26 July 2019

LOL. Perhaps they have a flat globe.

RedShift | 26 July 2019

Earth is flat. It just appears to be a sphere because of the curving effect of your eyes. Eyes are curved, so they perceive things as round. It’s called the ‘fish eye lens effect’.

Same thing for any camera ever created that took photos of earth from space.

TabascoGuy | 26 July 2019

Now you have my head spinning, albeit in a single plane.

sabbia | 27 July 2019

5% of Americans believe the moon landing was fake. That's millions of people. Lump them with the anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, Holocaust deniers and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists.

Even fewer percentage of climate professionals who disagree that climate change is happening and man-made. Make that three percent of such. One of whom posts here.

Lump those deniers with anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and others except even the climate deniers have even less support! Compared to the 5% of those who believe in faked moon landings, 3% of climate deniers among scientists and you get where the denial is coming from.

greg | 27 July 2019

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Which is twice as many times as the deniers and flat-earthers, anti vaxxers, and such - as far as I can work out.

sabbia | 28 July 2019

@greg. Interesting thought about a stopped clock being correct twice a day. A clock that goes backwards is right even more times per day.

Trouble is that the flat-earthers, Holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers don't see the clock moving backwards. Blind to the evidence right in front of them. Willful suspension of disbelief mired in nefarious purposes.

SCCRENDO | 28 July 2019

@sabbia. I agree with your sentiment but have to disagree with the science in your example. A clock moving backwards will also only be correct twice a day. Going backwards vs forwards in a circle you end up in the same place only when you complete the circle which for a 12 hr clock is every 12 hours. However I have not calculated this for a flat clock that would go from edge to edge fall off and climb back on.

greg | 28 July 2019

Maybe, NASA is just more aware, than you, of the truth embodied in this Demotivational poster:

That is:

"It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

And also need to add to the list of groups it is that this poster is perfect for
"Human Caused Climate Change Deniers"

And as they say "To you make something fool proof - you need a fool to prove it."

I expect NASA is following that maxim here.

sabbia | 29 July 2019

@SCC. What? We disagree? You mean we are not lock step parrots who only repeat the party line?

No, a clock, going backwards WILL be correct more than twice a day. Consider 1:00 (doesn't matter AM or PM). A clock going backwards fast enough will hit 1:05 and catch up with the clock going forwards and hitting 1:05. Fast only helps to visualize. It happens at any speed. In fact it it goes backwards fast enough, it can be correct several times a day. Forwards also.

SCCRENDO | 29 July 2019

@sabbia. I was using the assumption that the clock going backwards was going at the same speed as the clock going forward but obviously in the reverse direction. As I should have realized those going backwards do not do it it in a predictable manner. Indeed some may go backwards slower than we move forwards but others may actually move backwards much faster than we move forwards. So hence we have the flat earth thinker's paradox. The faster they move backwards the more often they would be correct. Please do not google the "flat earth thinker's paradox" because I just made it up. But if it goes viral it could appear on Facebook, Twitter, You-tube and even Wikipedia. It may even appear on Foxnews as an alternative fact. They will encourage the crowd to move backwards faster in order to be correct more often.

sabbia | 29 July 2019

@SCC. :}

blue adept | 29 July 2019


Are you even being serious right now?

If the Earth were flat, would we not occasionally see its' edge as it rotated on its' axis...? Wouldn't the Sun illuminate one entire side of the planet, then the other, as the Earth rotated around it on its' elliptical orbit...? Are some people really that damn idiotic...?

'Yes' is the answer to only one of the above questions.

SCCRENDO | 29 July 2019

@Blue adept. No he is not serious. Like me he is mocking all those on this thread with strong irrational opinions not supported by fact.

RedShift | 29 July 2019


What you are seeing flat is actually concave. What you see as round is flat.

greg | 29 July 2019

So what that Christy & Co got a medal from NASA? Plenty of clowns have medals. Doesn't stop them being a clown.

Rutherford, who was in every way a much better scientist than Christy and Spencer were combined, (after all he proved the indivisible Atom wasn't when he showed he could split it opening the door to modern day physics) won a Nobel in 1908, and he had some truly absolutely whacky and totally batshit ideas in his later years. Thus showing that increasing age doesn't of its own make a scientist better. Often it just makes their beliefs more entrenched and they often exhibit even more stupidity in the face of overwhelming evidence. After all its widely acknowledged that science really only advances one (scientists) death at a time.

Christy and Spencer may have built a temperature database, but it wasn't perfect, has been corrected more than once. And no doubt has flaws still. They may spend their time tinkering with the tinkering to try and "Save face".
But little else.

Christy is simply denying that we need to do anything - on the off-chance that his "trust me. I know I am right" stance is correct and that he alone is the only right one in the climate science debate.

But if he and Spencer are wrong - then we're basically screwed over big time.

And if it turns out he is right? Well we did some stuff in preparing for Global Warming that we wouldn't have, but the planet as a whole and humankind in particular will be a whole lot better of for having done it.

But make no mistake, Sea level rise is happening, will continue happen, for decades and centuries to come - whether Christy is right about his temperature database or not. He basically denies we even need to attend to sea level rise - except make our houses more rain and hurricane proof. No good having a storm proof house, when its under 5 feet of water.

I can easily imagine him running NASA's earth killer asteroid hunting projects, that would be him saying that we shouldn't bother searching at all for calamitous life on earth threatening asteroids because they are out there, and might be coming, but the odds are it won't happen to us, theres nothing we can do ahead of time and if it does we can deal with the issue when it arises and anyway we've managed as a species perfectly ok up til now.

I can imagine him and dinosaurs would have been on perfectly at home on same page up until right before the massive meteor took out a large hunk of Mexico 65 million years ago.

dmm1240 | 30 July 2019

@Greg. Good points. I'd like to add to that a little If I could.

1. National Security. We know the Russians have hacked our utility grid management, probably the Chinese as well. We've hacked theirs. If we were to go to a distributed power grid (rooftop solar, micro wind systems, etc) hacking the grid to shut it down becomes nearly impossible.
2. National Security #2. We've fought an oil war, two if you want to count Iraq 2/Isis to secure oil supplies. Right now, a desperate Iran is seizing tankers moving through the Persian Gulf to attempt to force the U.S. to lift sanctions. What if we and our allies didn't need oil? What if we could supply our remaining petroleum needs with domestic supplies? That changes the whole ball game. We wouldn't need to cozy up to monstrous governments like the Saudis out of need any more. We could be more fairhanded in our approach to Middle East policy.
3. National Security #3. Though currently the world's largest petroleum producer, we still only produce ~1/2 of our daily consumption. That means tankers often moving across oceans. Tankers are vulnerable to attack. One tactic the U.S. used to defeat the Axis in WWII was to cut off petroleum supplies to fascist Japan and Germany. Hitler deflected some of the forces he had available to attempt to seize the Romanian oil fields because Germany didn't have enough fuel for its war machine. What if Hitler hadn't had to do that and could have brought more force to bear on the drive to Moscow? If Moscow had fallen that event would have probably led to defeat of the Soviets. No Soviet Union, no eastern front. Taking back Europe would have resulted in horrifically more casualties. If we are not reliant on protecting sea lanes to ensure delivery of petroleum, then the combat power of our navy and other forces are enhanced.
4. Cost. The problem with transitioning to renewables is the upfront cost. Once you have the infrastructure in place then costs go down dramatically. That means lower utility bills. Tesla has started rolling out its virtual power plant in Australia, kind of a pilot program, where customers have already seen a 20% reduction in their utility bills. The battery facility Tesla installed in Queensland resulted in $40 million in savings (due to not having to use expensive peaker plants) in the first year. Australia is already adjusting its plans for building/operating peaker plants as a result, Utilities around the world are lining up to build battery storage capability for their systems because of the lower costs
5. It's estimated 25,000 people a year die prematurely from exposure to pollution caused by fossil fuels. Two weeks ago, Kentucky miners went to see Mitch McConnell for help because the fund to pay for medical care for miners suffering from black lung is going broke. McConnell spent two minutes with them and walked out. Health care costs associated with fossil fuel pollution is expensive. Remove the fossil fuel particles from our air and water and we reap a huge savings.

IOW, it makes good policy, economic and security sense to transition to renewables. Keeping going as we've been going is well, not bright.

blue adept | 31 July 2019


Whew! Thanks for clearing that up for me.


blue adept | 31 July 2019


So you're saying that the surface curves inwards as opposed to outwards? That still involves some 'curvature' nonetheless, ergo, it cannot be "flat".

Boxed yourself into a corner didn't ya?


RedShift | 31 July 2019

It’s not a box. It’s a sphere. Please get your terminology correct first, then we can talk on a higher plane. Or is that a dome.

blue adept | 31 July 2019

Ah, so you were just rounding the bend, huh?!

RedShift | 31 July 2019

There is no Z. Only X and Y. Flatland. Oh, you must experience it. They have mentioned it on ‘Big Bang Theory’.

It’s invading pop culture now. See, slowly you are all going to become one of us. One of us. One of us.

SCCRENDO | 31 July 2019

@blue adept. I think we are all around the bed

RedShift | 31 July 2019

Around the bed, SC? Is it the blue pill that’s making you go round and round the bed?

SCCRENDO | 31 July 2019

LOL. around the bend

NKYTA | 31 July 2019

@SC, if you think RedShift is non scientific, you lost it. Just sayin. ;-)

SCCRENDO | 31 July 2019

@NKYTA. I never accused him of being non-scientific. Although I am assuming that some of his statements on this thread are tongue in cheek.

NKYTA | 31 July 2019

Ah, now you are getting there @SC. ;-)

blue adept | 1 August 2019


I think that you might've omitted a few coordinates inasmuch as the general equation of a sphere is (x - a)² + (y - b)² + (z - c)² = r², where (a, b, c) represents the center of the sphere, r represents the radius, and x, y, and z are the coordinates of the points on the surface of the sphere, but then, you're not thinking spherically, you're thinking flat plane/one dimensionally.

Alas, why is ignorance so damn addictive? Are people just trying to be..."edgy" stirring up the status quo by injecting a bit of disinformation into the narrative, or is it all merely a ploy to single out those of lesser cognitive competence to better exploit their shortcomings?

I guess everyone's got some 'ocean front property in Arizona' they're looking to sell to some unwary buyer, sad to say.

blue adept | 1 August 2019


No, not 'around the bend', just ahead of the curve.

blue adept | 1 August 2019

Get it...?

SCCRENDO | 1 August 2019

@blue adept. I have been trying your formula. But I am struggling to work out the radius of a flat earth.

blue adept | 1 August 2019



This should help you to find both the center and the radius, you know, for a one dimensional circle:

(x – h)2 + (y – k)2 = r2, with the center being at the point (h, k) and the radius being "r".

blue adept | 1 August 2019

Oh, and just for the hell of it to, the Earth is 7,917.5 miles wide.

That should help you out in your computations inasmuch as I've provided half of the answer.


andy.connor.e | 1 August 2019

Ignorance is addictive because its too easy to be ignorant. People dont really suffer any severe consequences for it, so why not take the easy route and just know nothing? You dont need to actually understand anything about a topic to be good at arguing.

blue adept | 1 August 2019


Well, I guess that if you're okay with having yourself look like a complete ignoramus and incompetent imbecile then have it, but I seriously doubt if anyone is going to look to you for any sort of reliable or intelligent input in a conversation.

And, hell, if it's too much of a bother for you to at least learn something about whatever it is that you're planning on talking about, then why even bother engaging anyone in a conversation at all? It'd be a helluva lot easier to just keep your mouth shut and a whole lot less embarrassing as well!

andy.connor.e | 1 August 2019

I have some friends who i ponder that question about. In the eyes of the ignorant, its much more important to win the argument and be right, or alternatively to at least make the other person wrong than it is to actually try to work with someone in a discussion to figure out a solution. Ego is the problem.

blue adept | 1 August 2019

So you're saying that they prefer to rely on the law of attrition by merely arguing someone into frustrated submission than to actually learn an actual relevant point that would undermine the other person's argument?

I mean, I can understand their rationale because their 'win' would serve to validate their strategy of defeat by submission through sustained, contentious debate (stroking their ego in the process) as opposed to an actual victory that was achieved by presenting a valid point of contention that counteracted their opponents argument.

Thing is that's not really a win, if you know what I mean, that's just the other person calling it quits because they've realized the improbability of winning a debate with a wall, figuratively speaking.

'Ego", as I understand it, is the most prevalent trait among those lacking in any actual intellect and manifests a compensatory their minds at least.

andy.connor.e | 1 August 2019

"So you're saying that they prefer to rely on the law of attrition by merely arguing someone into frustrated submission than to actually learn an actual relevant point that would undermine the other person's argument?"

Yes. Thats exactly what im saying. Second paragraph is also precise. That persons 'win' is defeating their opponent, where in a discussion the 'win' is not determined by who is wrong, its whether or not a resolution or solution has been figured out. (depending on the topic)

finman100 | 1 August 2019

if the "other" person quits (that's the key word!), then u win, regardless of topic knowledge. it's pretty black and white for a lot of our society. it's a very interesting part of humans. especially of late.

As far as intelligence/education/informed i have a VERY non-scientific theory. note I'm NOT a professional anything but am intrigued by people's behavior(s):

As more is known about ourselves and our world, and as those who study and bring forth more information...(stay with me, I think I'll get there)...then those who willfully stay ignorant/don't want to learn things fall further behind the curve (uh...not a pun, but I'll take it), the winning by forcing the "smart" people to quit arguing is the ONLY win that is important.

Yep, too long, lost my train of thought. Thursday is the new Friday so I'm real close to a weekend here...