DESCRIPTION
This sub is for genuine discussion of the Geo-centric, Flat Earth Model. This subverse is open for everyone, but flaming, being disrespectful, and/or trolling will not be accepted and you will be banned. Our intention is to create a stable environment in which everyone feels safe enough to talk, not scare off one side and create what is essentially a Globe Earth sub.
Rules of /v/flatearth:
Bigoted slurs are not tolerated.
No accusations of rules violations in comments. Please report violations.
No blog spam/malicious web sites.
No abusive/threatening language.
No stalking or trolling.
Titles and comments with a large percentage of caps lock, bold text, large fonts or text colors are considered "shouting" and can be removed.
Facebook links will be removed.
No memes...
Posting links in other subs pointing to specific submissions or comments here is subject to a ban, depending on context.
Misleading, fabricated or sensationalist headlines are subject to removal.
Self posts that lack context or content may be removed.
Rules are explained in depth at FAQ page.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] varialus 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Maybe it's just due to light curving as it passes through something or another. If you start with the axiom that the Earth is flat, then I'm sure it's probably possible to bend all of physics to make it work. It would make for some convoluted math, but it should be possible I'd think. It would be cool to have a computer program that let you set certain axioms like this and then it automatically bend the rest of physical laws on the fly to make it all still work as much as possible.
[–] Trump_is_Cucked [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You could do this Unity or other 3D modelling program. But we already know the conditions underwhich light bends -- this phenomenon cannot be explained under those conditions.
Refraction and other atmospheric distortions vary. This observation ALWAYS HOLDS. For all of human history this observation has been made.
It proves that the Earth is round.
[–] varialus ago (edited ago)
This is basically the same thing I wrote in another comment, but hopefully clearer. If you were to use a 3d Earth and universe modeling program with lots of physics simulating that could be manipulated in any way, which is what I was suggesting in another post, and then manipulate a spherical Earth to be flat and presume that scenario to be reality and it actually really was reality, then the physics which would prove a seemingly round earth to be flat would be the calculations which would reverse those manipulations from an Earth that is simulated as flat to one in which the Earth is round, which is what we observe. However, if you were in such an improbable universe or even if that is the condition of our actual universe, then it would be difficult or possibly even impossible to detect that we were in such a universe. If however, although even less probable, such a bizarre scenario were to solve an as of yet unsolved physics problem such as grand unification or whatever it's called, although there wouldn't be any direct evidence for the theory, the theoretical physics solution would give some precedence to the theory.
[–] kry0 ago
No, because experiments that are independent of the shape of the earth (for example refraction through water droplets, Pascals Law, etc) verify general formulas that would need to be modified to allow for a flat earth.
[–] varialus ago
We get by without a Grand Unifying Theory for macro and micro physics. Who's to say that the experiments that appear to work the same are actually correct at different scales? Maybe the just appear to be the same but actually aren't?