Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat

A few months ago I released an experiment video explaining how Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth using the shadow of sticks. The method was performed almost two millenia ago, and produced quite accurate results (considering the ‘equipment’ used). But it was far from being the only (or first) method to understand our planet’s shape.

Humanity has known the Earth to be round for a few millenia and I’ve been meaning to refine that video and show more of these methods of how we figured out the world is not flat. I’ve had a few ideas on how to do that, but recently got an interesting incentive, when Phil Plait (The Bad Astronomer) wrote about a recently published BBC article about “The Flat Earth” society. Phil claims it’s ridiculous to even bother rebutting the flat earth society – and I tend to agree. But the history of our species’ intellectual pursuit is important and interesting, and it’s very much well worth writing about. You don’t need to denounce all science and knowledge and believe in a kooky conspiracy theory to enjoy some historical factoids about humanity’s quest for space.

Though I have researched this subject, I am quite certain there will be much more to be said about it – feel free to add more in the comments. If all goes well, this might actually be a good post to refer to whenever anyone wants to discuss a bit of ancient science and the source of cosmological thought.

On we go to the top 10 ways to know the Earth is unequivocally, absolutely, positively, 100% not flat:

(1) The Moon

Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.

Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.

Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.

Refer to the following image from Wikipedia for more details on what happens during a lunar eclipse:

Click for the Original

Click for the Original

(2) Ships and the Horizon

If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.

But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.

Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.

 

(3) Varying Star Constellations

This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.

After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)

The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:

(4) Shadows and Sticks

If you stick a stick in the [sticky] ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:

But they don’t. This is because the earth is round, and not flat:

Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately. To see this demonstrated, refer to my experiment video about Eratosthenes and the circumference of the earth – “The Earth’s curvature is tasty!“.

(5) Seeing Farther from Higher

Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.

Then, you climb up the closest tree – the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.

The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.

This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:

(6) Ride a Plane

If you’ve ever taken a trip out of the country, specifically long-destination trips, you could notice two interesting facts about planes and the Earth:

  • Planes can travel in a relatively straight line a very long time and not fall off any edges. They can also, theoretically (and some do, though with stops along the way), circle the earth.
    Correction (Courtesy of Klaynos, from scienceforums.net): Apparently, planes can circle the Earth without stopping!
  • If you look out the window on a trans-Atlantic flight, you can, most of the times, see the curvature of the earth in the horizon. The best view of the curvature used to be on the Concorde, but that plane’s long gone. I can’t wait seeing the pictures from the new plane by “Virgin Galactic” – the horizon should look absolutely curved, as it actually is from a distance.

(A picture of the curved horizon from a Concorde plane can be seen here).

(7) Look at Other Planets

The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics – specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances – our planet is the same.

In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they are taking this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.

In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it (click here to see a beautiful video reconstruction of his observations). He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet – a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept as it followed a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.

A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (as our sun would have to behave quite differently to accustom a “flat earth” theory), what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets orbits, and the effects of gravity, etc). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it.

(8) The Existence of Timezones

The time in New York, at the moment these words are written, is 12:00pm. The sun is in the middle of the sky (though it’s hard to see with the current cloud coverage). In Beijing, where Michael Phelps is likely getting ready for yet another gold medal, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found.

In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone – so much so, that it’s soon going to rise up again in the beginning of a new day. Here’s a list showing what time it is around the world when it is 12:00pm in New York city.

This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and timezones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

Another point concerning timezones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate timezones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.

(9) The Center of Gravity

There’s an interesting fact about mass: it attracts things to it. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object.

Consider a sphere. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you. Imagine an ant (perhaps the same one from the previous point) walking around on a crystal ball. Assuming the crystal ball is polished, the ant’s only indication of movement would be the fact it’s moving its feet. The scenery (and shape of the surface) would not change at all.

Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less – if you want to be more accurate, feel free to do the entire [shriek] integration [shriek] process), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.

I am quite positive that even for Australians an apple falls downwards, but if you have your doubts, I urge you to try it out – just make sure it’s nothing that can break or hurt you. Just in case gravity is consistent after all.

Further reading about the center of mass and about distribution of mass can be found here. And if you are brave enough to handle some equations (not involving integration), you can learn some more about Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

(10) Images from Space

In the past 60 years of the space exploration era of humanity’s history, we’ve launched satellites, probes and people to space. Some of them got back, some of them still float through the solar system (and almost beyond it) and transmit amazing images over to our receivers on Earth.

Here’s a list of some of the pictures we’ve seen from space throughout the years:

October 24, 1946: A group of scientists in the New Mexico desert saw the first grainy photo of the Earth. The photograph was taken from a height of 65 miles (104.6 kilometers) by a 35-millimeter motion picture camera riding on a V-2 missile.

August 14, 1959: First crude photo of the Earth from the Explorer VI satellite. The photo showed a sun-lit area of the Pacific ocean and cloud coverage. It was taken from about 17,000 miles (27,350 kilometers) above the surface.

(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

June 5, 1966: Astronaut Eugene Cernan took this amazing picture of Gemini 9 and the Earth during his EVA (Extravehicular Activity). The spacecraft itself and Cernan’s “umbilical” (the cord that keeps him connected to the spacecraft’s systems) are visible on top of a beautiful background of the Earth.
(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

August 23, 1966: First view of Earth from the Moon. This picture was taken by Lunar Orbiter I when the spacecraft was on its 16th orbit and was just about to pass behind the Moon. (Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

December 29, 1966: A spectacular view of the rising Earth from the Moon, taken by the crew of Apollo 8 after coming out from the other side of the Moon, approximately 239,000 miles (384,000 kilometers) from Earth.

(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

December 1, 1968: Photo of Earth from Apollo 8. This photograph was taken by an 80-mm lense, at a point very close to the Moon.

(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

More pictures from the NASA Missions throughout the years can be found at NASA GRIN Website: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/index.html

Brief List of Manned Missions to Space

In the past 60 years humanity’s quest for Space has produced hundreds of pictures, videos and audio records from more than just the United States. Some of these countries used to be enemies. Some still are. The amount of proofs, from opposing countries and ‘sides’, for the non-flatness of the Earth, if nothing else, should cast serious doubt on any possibility for the existance of “Global Conspiracy”. Here is an abbreviated list of some of the first missions to space:

  • April 12, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-1): Yuri Gagarin, becomes first man in space.
  • May 5, 1961 (USA; Mercury-3): Alan Shepard becomes first American in space.
  • July 21, 1961 (USA; Mercury-4): Gus Grissom performs the second sub-orbital flight at an altitude of 126 miles (203 kilometers).
  • August 6, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-2): Gherman Titov becomes the first man to spend an entire day in space.
  • February 20, 1962 (USA; Mercury-6): John Glenn orbits the Earth at a distance of 100-162 miles (161-261 kilometers).
  • May 24, 1962 (USA; Mercury-7): Scott Carpenter orbits the Earth three times.
  • August 11, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-3): Andrian Nikolayev leads the first four-day flight, and first “group” flight with Vostok-4.
  • August 12, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-4): Pavel Popovich mans the other half of the “group” flight with Vostok-4.
  • October 3, 1962 (USA; Mercury-8): Walter Schirra orbits the Earth six times.
  • May 15, 1963 (USA; Mercury-9): Gordon Cooper pilots the longest (and last) Mercury mission, lasting 34 hours in space.
  • June 14, 1963 (USSR; Vostok-5): Valery Bykovsky is the first to stay 5 days in space.
  • June 16, 1963 (USSR, Vostok-6): Valentina Tereshkova becomes the first woman in space, spending three days in orbit.

You can find a full list of the chronology of manned space missions at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

More Methods Throughout History

  • Abu Rayhan Biruni (sometimes known as “The Father of Geodesy“), has managed to calculate the circumference of the Earth using complex triangulation equations. I couldn’t find the actual calculation, or the method, so I can’t judge it this as a relatively easy “DIY” way to do it, but it’s still worth mentioning. If anyone has any more information about the method used, do post in the comments.
  • Bedford Level Experiment: At the Bedford river in Norfolk, England. The experiments were done initially in order to prove that the Earth is flat. Though the first results of this experiment seemed to agree with the flat-earth contention, later attempts to repeat this experiment agreed with the fact that the Earth is, in fact, spherical.
  • A Bit of History: Neil Armstrong narrating this video of the Earth as viewed from the Apollo 11 Command Module on its way to the Moon.

Credits and Thanks

This is a very long post, but it was fun to write (and learn about!). There is some credit due to other people, and I am not one to hold out the cheers:

  • Klaynos, from scienceforums, for his Physics mastery late at night.
  • insane_alien from scienceforums, for directing me on the path of a good #9.
  • Cap’n Refsmmat from scienceforums, for clarity issues, physics help, and saving you (the reader) some of my ramblings.
  • Keren, for her editorial help and general (good) advice.
  • Daniel and KerenG, for their mental and grammatical support.

Extra Resources

1680 comments
YoungCanable
YoungCanable

I'll tell you what watch 200 proofs the earth isn't a spinning globe, and then read your 10. Then tell me that at the core of your heart you still believe. I'll be honest I've never till today have ever believed that the earth was flat until I watched a couple of videos today.

mattj1971
mattj1971

Are we debating the existence of unicorns?

bobm73
bobm73

@YoungCanable  "I'll tell you what watch 200 proofs the earth isn't a spinning globe, and then read your 10."


Been there, done that; it's still round.


"200 Proofs..." should more honestly be titled "200 Proofs That Eric Dubay Doesn't Understand Basic Geometry or Physics."  For one thing, there are nowhere near 200 distinct "proofs" there (not that any of them actually prove anything); most are simply different examples of the same thing, and NONE of them stand up to any serious inquiry. A very few look sound at first glance, but really aren't. And nowhere are some of the very basic (and very serious - fatal, in fact) objections to the notion of a "flat Earth" addressed.

rhooManu
rhooManu

@YoungCanable Every single "proofs" of this "200 profs the earth isn't a spinning globe" are easilly crushed by simple thinking. The amount of "proofs" don't mean it's best. There aren't just 10 proofs that it's flat, this is a top 10 of simple and expérimentables ones.

mattj1971
mattj1971

So YOU know..WE have proved it..What have you proved?where were you in these experiments?YOU simply accept someones theory..simple as that

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 So YOU know that unicorns don't exist? Or do you just accept someones theory that say they don't?

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 We're debating the argumentative mold that you use to deny proven facts and evidences.

mattj1971
mattj1971

And the only thing i have denied is the true origins of NASA

bobm73
bobm73

We are in deep trouble if we start relying on my rotten French, but I think the closest translation into English would be "fallacious argument" or "logical fallacy." "Moissisure" IS "mold" in English (mold as in the stuff that grows on bread, not what you put molten metal into to cast something), and I suspect in French it literally means "a rotten (moldy) argument" (?), but that direct translation is not used in English to refer to a faulty or illogical line of reasoning. In English, the more common phrase is "logical fallacy," as in "the false dichotomy is a common form of logical fallacy."

bobm73
bobm73

"So YOU know..WE have proved it..What have you proved?where were you in these experiments?YOU simply accept someones theory..simple as that"

Not at all. I don't know what exposure, or formal education/experience, in science you may have had, but anyone who has been through pretty much any undergrad science program will have performed many of the classic experiments for themselves, and will have seen many of the rest demonstrated, and will certainly have had to do the math behind most of them. In addition, most of us who are professional scientists or engineers also tend to have somewhat "techie" hobbies (in my case, amateur radio and astronomy, among others), so no, we're NOT just accepting someone's theory by taking their word for it. And you'll note that this has been a point I've made all along: YOU don't have to take anyone's word for it, either! It may take a little work, but if you are really interested in determining the truth for yourself, you can. It's not THAT hard.

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 "Moisissure argumentative". But i don't know how it's said in English. Basically, you reverse the charge of the proof, saying he can't be right because he wasn't there and stuff.

By the way, there's and "edi comment" button that you might find very useful to add some things to your response, instead of posting multiples times to answer a single message. I beg of you to use it from now on. Please.

slymonster
slymonster

@YoungCanable I have watched it. It's just nonsense pseudo-science. I don't just believe the Earth is a spinning globe, I know it is. We have the evidence that says it is. The 'Flat Earth' idea is just nonsense.

rhooManu
rhooManu

Now i know the Truth.


(I did this while preparing the meal; couldn't resist, sorry. ♥)


slymonster
slymonster

Just in case y'all missed this:

This year is shaping up as a bumper year in space with new missions ready to launch, deep space missions wrapping up, and commercial space going heavy. It's a year when spacecraft ditch on comets, rendezvous with asteroids, lift off for Mars, and arrive at Jupiter. It's also a year when rockets get bigger, space planes roll out, and winds get tracked. To get the lowdown on the highlights, here's a looks at where space exploration is taking us in 2016.

http://www.gizmag.com/2016-space-year-highlights/41049/

rhooManu
rhooManu

@slymonster Can't wait for public space trips to see earth from some high distance. And see flat-earthers deny what they saw, claim that they were in a simulator with CGI and holograms.

mattj1971
mattj1971

WELCOME TO THE TOMTREVOR WEBSITE where your questions will be met with veciferous response you will be expected to listen to my side whilst i will treat yours with disdain and insult..remember there is only one side to any argument and that is mine for i have been everywhere and know all infact i might change my name to oracle as i have nothing else to do all day but sit here waiting to bestow the world with my wisest view.I may throw some really bad examples that make me seem clever but anyone with half a brain would laugh at

Austruth
Austruth

Ha ha...very good Matt and well said . You haven't me Soaring eagle yet either . These guys should be running NASA . Neil Degrass Tyson doesn't speak as much shit in a year as these guys speak in a day . I hope you watched that video with the girl floating upward in the ISS ? That for me is proof they film these interviews in a big antigravity room .

rhooManu
rhooManu

@Austruth Yeah, well we wait for your proofs and evidence that such technology as "big antigravity rooms" exist. You claim to only believe on what you can see, so have you ever seen an antigravity room? You also claim that gravity doesn't exist (if i remember clearly), so how could there be "antigravity rooms" ?

rhooManu
rhooManu

@Austruth Oh, and I STILL wait for you to answer those basics questions :

— How is it possible to join south africa from south america in a few hours with planes if they are opposed on a flat earth ?
— How do the sun and the moon hang and move in the sky ?
— If the earth is flat, why the sun or the moon aren't ?
— What create seasons ?
— If the earth is flat and gravity don't exist, on WHAT is laying the earth. A giant table ?

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 I didn't see any questions, just "this is impossible, water does not curves, lol". If you'd have any questions, I'd gladly answer.

Austruth
Austruth

Ha ha and another one which I wasn't talking to comes out of the woodwork . Because that's what they are called . If I said non up and down room would that be better?

rhooManu
rhooManu

@Austruth Well if you already answered, i'm sure you're able to do it again.

mattj1971
mattj1971

Tomtrevor was saying water curves i just pointed out water is not a consistent shape

bobm73
bobm73

@Austruth Where, exactly, do you find an "anti-gravity room?" There's absolutely no known way to counter gravity on Earth - the best that can be done is to simulate a "zero-G" environment by flying parabolic arcs in an airplane. But the most you can get at any one time, via that method, is around 30 seconds of effective "zero-G". So any video you see which shows such an environment and has a continuous shot of longer than that could not possibly have been made in that manner. So in order for this to be "proof" that they "film these interviews in a big antigravity room," don't you think you'd need to have some reason to believe that such things exist - outside of on a real space station, like the ISS - in the first place? 


And why SHOULDN'T she be floating upward, or any which way? What would you expect to happen? It would be very, very odd for her to be perfectly motionless, especially if she moves her limbs at all. Would you expect that there would be no air currents?

bobm73
bobm73

@Austruth No, these have not been answered; they have simply been asserted in any number of nonsensical videos, with no real explanation ever provided. If you have seen an actual explanation, I'm sure we'd all be very interested in seeing it. In fact, I believe you recently said yourself that you questioned how travel in the southern hemisphere would be possible as it currently exists, given the flat Earth model. So is that explained, now, to your satisfaction, or isn't it? And if it IS, how about sharing that explanation with the rest of us?

mattj1971
mattj1971

I know what the van allen belt IS please explain how the astronauts got through it...in your own words please

michael mcelligott
michael mcelligott

@rhooManu @Austruth  I don't want u to be a troll , I know were trapped into having to find money , reclaim your power  our oceans do not curve . I never had a grandfather and my dad was sent Vietnam . you don't live on a ball , its your's from here

slymonster
slymonster

@bobm73 @rhooManu @Austruth Maybe airlines have already invented the ability to create and travel through wornholes without any of the passengers noticing..

bobm73
bobm73

"I don't want u to be a troll"

Why, afraid of competition?

"our oceans do not curve."

Of course they do, since the Earth is round.

"you don't live on a ball"

Of course we do. We ALL do, since the Earth is round.

See, that's what's called "making assertions." And simply saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. If you're going to say something like "the oceans do not curve" or "you don't live on a ball," you're going to have to give some actual reasons as to why we should think that is true. And that doesn't mean just giving a link to yet another silly video that does nothing more than make those same claims. You have to actually answer some questions, starting with some of the REALLY obvious ways that we know the Earth is round and not flat. All the many, many questions that have been asked and continue to go unanswered. Otherwise, you just look sillier and sillier. So how about actually at least TRYING to come up with some real answers for a change, or at least have the cojones to admit that you can't.

So as you said: it's yours from here.

Austruth
Austruth

Matt, words written on Von Braun,s headstone . Psalm 19.1 the heavens declare the glory of God,

and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. By no means am I religious but it sure sound like he was And he believed something was in the sky .

mattj1971
mattj1971

Ok rhoo heres a question,do you believe in god?

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 I don't believe or believe. I don't know if there's a god and this question doesn't matter to me. I can't really see the point here — and I really, deeply hope you're not going to tell me that god made the whole universe to put humains on it earth and that's why earth is flat and at the center of everything.

mattj1971
mattj1971

No nothing like that but you say you dont believe or believe ...fair enough it just seems strange that people tip toe round a subject like that but if anyone questions NASA then people cant comprehend it,i think its forgotten that NASAis part of the US military and was started off by Nazi scientists to gain the upper hand over USSR.There are bug questions about the moon landings,the van allen belt etc

Austruth
Austruth

I was talking to matt anyway so I don't care what you think

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 Okay, sorry.

But you know, NASA isn't part of US military, it's a government agency. A part of multiple agencies in fact. The Department of Defense have a higher budget than NASA, and it's them who are in charge of major military spatial stuff. NRO, NGA, NOAA and TOGA are some other parts of it. What is true is that NASA where created in a context of military space run.

But, NASA isn't the only spatial agency in the world, other countries have their own (Japan, Russia, France, China, Canada, Israeli, UK, Italy, India, Iran, and the ESA is a global European Agency. So, chasing after some "NASA conspiracy" isn't really a point.

Moreover, NASA was created in 1958, a long time after the 3rd Reich fall. There's Nothing up with Nazis in there, juste some old scientists who worked under the 3rd Reich were employed by NASA. Some of them were nazis. This doesn't make the whole agency a nazi creation.

And I still can't see no bug about the moon landings, nor the van allen belt (which proves that earth isn't flat). Van Allen himself helped NASA's engineer to study this point, they found the better way to go through, and voila. High altitude pilots are way more exposed to radiations of the belt than the astronauts of Apollo were. I've seen many, many conspiracy stories about the moon landing, and I didn't find any who was unbeatable.

mattj1971
mattj1971

You answer for sly aswell this gets better..tag debating

slymonster
slymonster

@rhooManu @mattj1971 rhooManu, in a nutshell, absolutely correct. In fact there are over 60 countries with their own national space programs, plus a number of privately owned companies. There is no evidence at all that the moon landings were faked, in fact quite the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that we did indeed land on the moon, including the junk and the equipment that was left behind.


There's also no doubts about the Van Allen belts. Sure NASA has said that they need to test a new vehicle in the Van Allen belts. What is wrong with that? Electronics are much smaller than they used to be, you would like to know if your guidance system is going to survive before sending anyone up in a new craft. We also crash test new car designs, and we know a lot more about auto-mobile engineering than we do about space travel. 



mattj1971
mattj1971

Yeah i heard this..you listened to mark sargent aswell...lol

Austruth
Austruth

First thing I did was confirm that . I believe mark used the word firmament but didn't he ? That guy he debated dint have a clue . Wish one of these guys on here would . https://youtu.be/Kf0Xm3CUL_I . Another good one I watched today

mattj1971
mattj1971

Good god you really do believe everything you are told dont you!Pilots in planes are more at risk than someone travelling in space you say!!!do you want to re think that one again.NASA was started in 1958 yes and you say this was a long time after the third reich...i see history is not your strong point.Old Newsflash Russia was never really the best of friends with US or UK.Look you go on believing everything is ok and politicians and the rest of the ruling classes are losing sleep worrying how they can make your life better,sorry but your being conned there isnt going to be a space plane that you can go for a ride on not in your or your grand childrens lifetime.Dont be angry or frustrated that people pass through here questioning things..you have the right to be angry yes but you should be angry about the amount of horse shit you are being fed daily

mattj1971
mattj1971

Theres some good points here bet nobody else will watch it though

mattj1971
mattj1971

So your daying Einsteins theory is 100%correct?

mattj1971
mattj1971

Why does the pen fall the way it does on a train?

slymonster
slymonster

@mattj1971 Another video that mentions relativity but doesn't understand it. And yet another example of someone stating that something 'simply can't work unless the Earth is stationary' without explaining why. It's just another example of pseudo-science. I have debated this guy before. He does not understand relativity at all, has no clue as to what mechanics are at work in simple examples of movement and no clue as to how forces work.


rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 I don't believe everything is okay and polititians are good. I believe that this has absolutely Nothing to do with anything.

So, you're going to tell me 3rd Reich didn't end in 1945 ?

What's the point with Russia not being friend with US ? How is it related to 3rd Reich, exactly?

And, by the way, I don't have to believe anything that's being said. I trust in researches, mathematics, science and expérimentations. So when I doubt something, I just read, experiment, calculate, and therefore understand. And if Something proves me that I did wrong, I can re-do it with some new improvements. This is exactly how science work. (See attached picture).

Therefore, I can understand what I explain, and this is exactly what lacks people who believe in flat earth. I can explain seasons, how and why it's happening — they can't. I can explain why a piano and a ball would fall exactly at the same speed and would touch the ground at the same time. I can explain why you can drop an apple from the top of a moving boat and see it fall straight to the ground and not away. I can explain why there are sunrises, why the moon has influence on the seas. Because I understand all of this. I understand all of this because I studied all of this.

Really, why do the cleverest people of the planet, who are creating new elements in the periodic table, who are worting on atoms, neutrinos, particles, dark matter, make fabulous progress in médicine, electronic, robotic and absolutely more complicated stuff that we couldn't even mentally approach don't believe a second in a flat earth?

More than that, you're claiming that I'm the one who's being fed with shit, but do you really, really think that you'd have come up with those flat earth thinking if you didn't read some stuff about this, or saw some videos ? This aren't your ideas. There are ideas of some people who claim to be better than experts of their domains. And this is exactly where the problem is.


rhooManu
rhooManu

@Austruth Yeah, again this brave man didn't just experiment how everything work. No, the rotation of the earth don't have effects on flying objects. This is exactly what describes the theory of relativity, that he just deny without even understanding it. And he would just need to let fall a pen in a moving train to see this.

mattj1971
mattj1971

And you have a complete understanding of relativity?

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 Absolutely not. But this man claims to understand that it don't exist.

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 Simply because the pen is propulsed by the train at the same speed of you and everything else that's in. This is exactly what's described by the restrained relativity theory : if i'm Inside an object moving at a constant speed, I can't feel the speed of it. This is why in a plane, you're pulled down in your seat at the gaing of speed, and not when you're at cruise speed.

This is exactly why astronauts in the ISS are floating. Everything in the ISS is falling in orbit, at the same speed. It's easiest to just imagine a falling elevator: if the ground fall at the same speed as you, there is no reason that you'd be pinned on it. But if the roof falls at the same speed too, there's no more reason to be pinned on it. So the cabin is falling in the building, you are falling in the building, but you're floating in the cabin. Therefore, an "antigravity room" like described by our friend @Austruth would require an incredibly high building in an incredibly large cabin.

(Wow, it's not easy to explain something in a language you're not native, sorry if I write any mistakes).

mattj1971
mattj1971

You dont get it..if you are so scientifically gifted do you not think for a moment the theory you believe is not incredible.lets say for a moment you are correct and you are standing on a giant ball of dirt 25000 miles round spinning at 1000 miles an hour and moving through dpsce at 66000 miles per hour and you have no real proof that this is happening yourself and your attitude is "how dare someone question this"or even worse to be so nonchalant about it.

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 Well, as you forget to quote who you're talking to, it's hard to understand who's supposed to answer. Sorry.

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 No, I'm saying that what describes einsteins theories are experimentable by yourself.

Austruth
Austruth

You obviously didn't listen carefully enough or you don't understand what he was saying . Or 3 or on here to discourage. How can the earth be travelling at 66000 miles per hour around the sun and not ever change velocity . The sun would catch up to it when it was in front of it . Understand? . I didn't until he pointed it out either so I will forgive you for being a bit slow .

slymonster
slymonster

@mattj1971 I don't need to have a complete understand of relativity to recognise when someone hasn't got a clue.  

Scientists are still testing and still trying to break Einstein's relativity 100 years later. And these are people who understand it, who have the necessary budget and equipment. And the only way they can even hope to break it is in the very limits of it's predictions. There is nothing that it does not explain here on Earth that has not already been rigorously tested and confirmed by 1000's of scientists. 
So forgive me if I am dismissive of some idiot on Youtube who doesn't understand the most basic concepts of relativity when he simply states that relativity is wrong. 

Austruth
Austruth

Watch the video . I'm not sitting here explaining it to you . Then you can put your point across

rhooManu
rhooManu

@Austruth No no no no. If you can't explain something by yourself, you can't pretend to understand it. It's as simple as that. Each time I ask you to explain Something, you just say "whatch a video". Each time i make an argumented answer, I explain everything. If you can't do the same, don't even try to argue, thanks.

bobm73
bobm73

@mattj1971


"i think its forgotten that NASAis part of the US military and was started off by Nazi scientists to gain the upper hand over USSR."


Sorry, Matt, but that just isn't so. NASA is a completely separate government agency, and not a part of the military. Military personnel participating in NASA projects (for example, almost all of the Mercury-Gemini "classes" of astronauts do remain a part of the military, but are serving on "detached" duty; their bosses at NASA are NOT military officers. Nor was NASA started by Nazi scientists. Dr. Wernher von Braun and his team, who certainly had worked for the Nazis during the war, left their base at Peenumude and surrendered to the U.S. Army before Germany itself surrendered (as they feared capture by the Soviets, and instead wished to defect to America). The German team actually began work under the U.S. Army in 1945, and worked at Fort Bliss in Texas as part of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency.


NASA, on the other hand, grew out of the previous NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics), and was not formed until 1958, and AFTER the Jupiter-C rocket designed by von Braun's team had launched Explorer 1, the first American satellite, still under the ABMA.

Von Braun's team was assimilated into NASA as part of the transfer of many military space-related efforts into the new agency, but that team did not "start" NASA.


"There are bug questions about the moon landings,the van allen belt etc."


No, there really aren't at this point - but if you would like to discuss any that you think remain unaddressed, please post the specifics here.

mattj1971
mattj1971

Yes wizardry...haha mmmmm ha

bobm73
bobm73

@mattj1971 "Pilots in planes are more at risk than someone travelling in space you say!!!"


Read it again - because that's NOT what he said. He said that high-altitude pilots (i.e., those who routinely fly at high altitudes, like commercial airline pilots) risk more exposure to radiation that the astronauts on the Apollo missions - and that is absolutely correct. The cumulative exposure of such pilots is measurably greater than was the exposure on any Apollo mission, by a considerable margin.

Austruth
Austruth

I have not got the visuals like the video . I can explain it but why should I when he does such a good job .

rhooManu
rhooManu

@Austruth 1. Because he absolutely doesn't do a good job.

2. To prove that you really understand. I won't believe that you can if you don't do it. Until then, I'll be persuaded that you don't understand.

rhooManu
rhooManu

@Austruth You're saying to matt that you shouldn't explain what I asked you to explain? Wait, what?

bobm73
bobm73

@mattj1971  "Theres some good points here bet nobody else will watch it though"


Obviously, Matt, you would've lost your bet.


But no, there really aren't any good points here. The person who made this video - presumably the one providing the narration - clearly does not understand some very basic principles of physics, let alone relativity. (The mention of relativity was silly anyway - none of the points made require relativity at all in order to address (and completely debunk) them. (There's a major danger here of thinking that Einstein must somehow get involved just because we ask the question "relative to WHAT?" in cases of velocity, direction, etc..) Another trick that makes the "points" this video supposedly raises SEEM a lot more solid than they really are is that essentially NONE of the motions shown are shown to anything remotely like the proper scale, relative to one another (e.g., the motion of aircraft relative to the Earth's rotation). And simply declaring something to be "magic" or "impossible" does not make it so, and is not evidence of it being so. Aircraft move within the mass of air in which they are flying, and it's as simple as that. The question then becomes how we would expect that mass of air to move relative to the surface, and this is not addressed at all.


The entire video is just more of the same. Not once does he try to show how any of this SHOULD work with actual quantitative calculations (and we should definitely ask - why not?). If you want to declare something to be wrong, or to be a "trick," you need to actually SHOW that - not to simply continue to make sneering sounds and declaring that it cannot be (which really is simply "*I* don't understand this, therefore it's wrong!"


Not exactly a very strong argument, is it?

mattj1971
mattj1971

And there you go resort to calling someone an idiot for questioning something..as i keep saying scientific breakthroughs are made by questioning things which is what people are doing ...better to question and be wrong than just accept..stop being a passenger,do a little driving

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 Questionning is different than denying. All that is done here is denying.

bobm73
bobm73

@mattj1971  "You dont get it..if you are so scientifically gifted do you not think for a moment the theory you believe is not incredible.lets say for a moment you are correct and you are standing on a giant ball of dirt 25000 miles round spinning at 1000 miles an hour and moving through dpsce at 66000 miles per hour and you have no real proof that this is happening yourself"


But that's just it, Matt - there IS proof of all of this, very, very solid proof. Whether you think these numbers are "incredible" or not doesn't change reality one bit. The numbers are impressive, but the more you look into the situation the more you realize that no matter how you FEEL about them, they HAVE to be correct. We do live in a truly remarkable universe; there's no need to try to reduce it to something which at first glances LOOKS simpler, but which turns out to be a physical impossibility. Supposing that the Earth is flat may initially SEEM to agree better with what you see and how you feel - but there are SO many problems with that model. It breaks down as soon as you start looking into them to any real degree at all. Why do you think so many of the questions that have been raised here, by myself and others, remain unanswered? They're not all that difficult - if the model is solid, if it at all reflects reality, then they should be quite easy to answer. Yet we never, ever get ANYTHING.

bobm73
bobm73

@mattj1971  "So you're saying Einstein's theory is 100% correct?"


Here's the thing about scientific theories that most people just don't get - they are NEVER believed to be "proven" or "100% correct." In science, all theories are ALWAYS open to question and to further experimentation; that's how progress is made. Einstein's theories may yet be shown, through such questioning and experimentation, to need refinement or maybe (very unlikely, but maybe) will need to be abandoned altogether. But they have been tested repeatedly for over 100 years at this point, and have held up quite well to that testing.


That's what makes a scientific theory "accepted" - scientists continue to poke at it, testing it, looking for holes, errors, etc.. As enough time goes by without anyone finding such problems, the theory becomes more widely accepted. We never would say that Einstein's theories have been "proven" beyond any possible doubt - but they are by far the best explanation we have to date for how things behave, especially very massive or very fast things.

slymonster
slymonster

@mattj1971 Like I said. I have debated him. And questioning is okay. But stating something is incorrect when you don't even understand it is not at all scientific. And I am hardly a passenger. I did my engineering degree, I have dome my share of experimentation, I know what physics works in the real world, my life has depended on my understanding of physics on several occasions. I stand by my opinion of MyPerspective who produced the video. He is a fool who does not understand the science he is trying so desperately to disagree with. I know he states things are a certain way without taking any kind of measurements as I have questioned him on this. I know he doesn't understand relativity as I have questioned him on that also. I am not generalising in my comment in any way. in my opinion it was a very fair criticism of the guy who made the video.

bobm73
bobm73

@mattj1971 It's exactly the opposite, Matt - Sly isn't calling that person an idiot because they questions the "accepted theory." But he is very correct in dismissing this person for FAILING to question the ideas that he himself is trying to promote. It's very easy to simply declare that you think the current model is wrong; calling it "trickery" goes well beyond that, though, don't you think? And calling something ELSE wrong does NOT mean that YOUR idea is right - you have to DEMONSTRATE that it is right, and that's something that these "videos" (and articles, and etc., etc., etc.) consistently fail to do.


And in that case, I'd be sorely tempted to use the word "idiot" myself, out of sheer frustration.

mattj1971
mattj1971

Hey thanks for clearing that up for me..just to recap and summarise what ypour saying..NASA is in no way anything to do with the miliary and was not started using nazi scientists..funny but i thought above your saying that NADA was started using nazi engineers..oh yeah it was the good nazis that surrendered so they didnt get captured by the Russians..mmm and of course NASA took tese scientists and thought hey these guys can build rockets that can fire missiles for miles,maybbe we could do something with their knowledge to benefit mankind as we are good and in no way connected to the military..no the military really wouldnt want to speak to these guys with their cutting edge technology on delivering payloads of explosives hundreds of miles..no we can use them to build a rocket to grow cress in!!!So come on then lets hear these pearls of wisdom on the van allen belt

slymonster
slymonster

@Austruth Pretty sure the Earth doesn't go 'in front' of the sun at any stage in it's orbit.

bobm73
bobm73

@Austruth  "How can the earth be travelling at 66000 miles per hour around the sun and not ever change velocity"


Change its velocity with respect to WHAT? See, that's the subtle little point that the creator of that video kept failing to address - just what "velocity" he was talking about. Had he kept that straight, there would be no apparent problem - just as there is no REAL problem to begin with.

bobm73
bobm73

@Austruth If you think he "does such a good job," then that in itself is evidence that you do not in fact understand the situation.

bobm73
bobm73

@slymonster @Austruth I wonder just which side of the Sun is the "front," anyway? Could we tell by looking for the front porch, perhaps?

slymonster
slymonster

@bobm73 @slymonster @Austruth I assume he means the direction that the sun is travelling through our galaxy. Which would of course mean that the Earth does not at any time during it's yearly orbit get 'in front' of it. 


As we should know, if you look at the solar system (simply) as a flat disk, lying on a table, with the planets orbiting the sun on the same plane as the table, the sun would be travelling through our solar galaxy on a upwards trajectory. At no point would the Earth be 'in front' of the sun so that there would be any danger of the sun 'catching up' to the Earth.

Okay, the solar system isn't actually flat and planets don't really orbit the sun in circles. It is much more complicated, but can be envisaged in this way if you want to describe it as a system.Is that too Engineery?


This is another example of people just stating that something is not possible when they don't even understand what it is they are saying is not possible.

bobm73
bobm73

@mattj1971 How the astronauts got through the Van Allen belts:


1. Fairly quickly

2. At a relatively high angle, so as to avoid the more intense equatorial regions of the Belts, and

3. In a spacecraft constructed of a fairly complex shell with inner and outer aluminum skins, an internal "honeycomb" layer, and additional materials, all of which combined to provide a fair amount of shielding.


There are actually two Van Allen belts: an inner one composed chiefly of protons, and the larger, outer one which is primarily electrons. The outer belt doesn't present much of a hazard; electrons ("beta" radiation) are non-penetrating, and easily stopped by a thin layer of - well, almost anything. The inner (proton) belt was the primary concern, but as the diagram shows the most intense areas were bypassed and the relatively low-intensity regions were handled by the spacecraft's hull.


If you REALLY want all the details - but I'll warn you, there's a good deal of math involved - see:


http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm


You will find that this is not only a completely independent calculation of the estimated exposure of Apollo astronauts to the Van Allen radiation, but that the estimates agree quite well with the measured data from the dosimeters each Apollo astronaut wore. There's also a fair amount of detail regarding the construction of the spacecraft hull and its shielding capabilities.


bobm73
bobm73

@mattj1971 Matt, I can't tell if by "NADA" you meant "NASA" or "NACA," but neither was started using the "Nazi" engineers (von Braun's team). NACA dated back to well before WW2 (it was started in 1915), and was "morphed into" NASA in 1958, as NASA was built from several predecessor organizations in an attempt to combine all US aeronautical and space research and development efforts under a single organization. Von Braun's ABMA was a part of that, but was by no means the whole thing. Von Braun basically continued on in the development of launch vehicles, primarily the Saturn series, which grew out of the earlier Redstone and Jupiter efforts. NASA space missions initially used military vehicles which had been developed by others (except for two Redstone flights, the Mercury missions used the Atlas ballistic missile which had been designed and built by Convair, while the Gemini missions all used Martin's Titan II). Von Braun's team also had essentially nothing to do with the design of the manned spacecraft (the Mercury and Gemini capsules, and the Apollo CSM/LM).


As to the Van Allen belt, please see my other response on that subject.

rhooManu
rhooManu

@mattj1971 This doesn't show what the van allen belt is, it explain how the astronauts got throug it.

But okay, i'll explain: it's called a belt because this is a tore. Basically, they just avoided the center of the tore.

…Hey wait, you can't know what van allen belt is, because you can't believe van allen belt exist, because you believe the earth is flat. Van Allen believed the earth was a globe, so he's obviously wrong about everything (becase van allen belt relies on the fact that the earth is a globe, see?). So there's no Van Allen belt. :D

Austruth
Austruth

All answered . Do some research !!! Actually I don't know why your asking as I'm sure you've seen these answered before . Must be your turn on shift today is it ? LOL

Trackbacks

  1. […] you liked this, take a look at Mooey’s Top Ten ways to know the Earth isn’t flat. There’s even more geometric nerdity […]

  2. […] post is about some real science now, and the author lists ten reasons Earth must be round.  Not exactly of course (it’s an oblate spheroid, remember?), but definitely not flat. […]

  3. Quora says:

    How can I prove that the Earth is round?…

    In addition to the answers mentioned in this thread, the statement that earth is round can be proved using couple of sticks and studying their shadows.For flat earth sticks in different locations will have same shadows whereas for spherical earth the s…

Analysis Articles

We’re SmarterThanThat

The scientific method is all around you, and you use it without even noticing. Science can be fun, interesting and engaging; you don't have to be a nerd to enjoy understanding the world around you. Read More...

I’m on Facebook!

Get it to your Email!

Get the RSS Feed to your email when new posts are available!

FBFPowered by ®Google Feedburner