@@giin97 *Revelation 3:20* Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless. Revelation 22:12-14 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
It's all about the money. Already >2300 years ago the Greek realised the earth must be a sphere. And now some wise-cracks on the internet argue all over again that it's flat. They do so mainly because the clicks they get makes them money, so, even though they don't believe anything they say themselves, their business model prevents them from acknowledging anything else than a flat earth. And along with that, any other conspiracy theory for that matter. It's all about the money and as long as they can continu to earn money by making videos and claims about a flat earth they will insist the earth if flat. And as long as there are people who don't need any other proof than a statement like "they're trying to trick you into believing what they want you to believe", they will make money and the earth will stay flat as far as they're publicly concerned... Conspiracy Theories - I consider Flat Earth to be a Conspiracy Theory - have always existed and as long as someone has something to gain from one - monetary or otherwise - they'll continu to exist.
@@raypeery6317 It tells that believe in pseudoscience is too high. Critical thinking is good, but for that, you need a basic education, and that seems to be lacking nowadays.
There's another way the math fails on a flat Earth. Perform Eratosthenes' experiment with a different distance between the cities and assuming a flat Earth and you get a different height for the Sun
@@Globeisahoaxx Except the solar system obviously does exist because we can see planets with simple telescopes and binoculars. With better quality, you can see some of the moons too.
“Shakespeare didn’t exist. Reason? He was CGI. Oh, CGI wasn’t invented yet, you say? Well it’s because the US government was keeping it secret from the public. The government didn’t exist yet you say? The revolutionary war was staged.” And so on and so forth.
"The math that proves the Earth isn't flat" So - any and all of geometry. The best atempt and an explanation i ever heard from a flerfer was "there are water-hills between you and the boat at the horizon". Yeah if only there was a name for a form that appeared to have a "hill" with the exact same shape no matter where on the surface you are or in which direction you look.... oh right - sphere.
"Those same Flat Earthers will tell you: "Water finds its own level", which means - according to their errant interpretation - water is always "level" (ie, flat...and not elevation).
@@thudthud5423these flat earther will also say that unironically not knowing that because north faces up on a map doesn’t make it actually be up. Or how gravity on a spherical object is different then magic bs flat earth acceleration up at 9.8m/s/s is their best explanation
@@kylezdancewicz7346 But I live up north but sometimes go down south I have also been down under " strangely when I was down under it looked the right way up ! " strange ups n downs of the flerfer
Eratosthenes, to be fair to his experimental design, only set out to work out how big Earth was. The Greeks had already seen Earth's shadow on the moon during eclipses and noticed, no matter where it was, it was curved, and that can only happen if the object casting the shadow is a spheroid. As mariners, they'd also noticed that ships disappeared bottom first when they sailed away, and reappeared mast first when they returned, which shows a curved surface as well.
@@Globeisahoaxx Except your conclusion is just false. It is a shadow, and since you've decided to unambiguously declare that it is impossible in a flat Earth system, then you have argued the flat Earth system is false too. You've outed yourself as choosing to be delusional for "reasons unspecified." What is it you've become disenfranchised with? Education? Society? The Government? People in general? How shitty life is when you have to subsist at the lower end of the socioeconomic order? Because many of us can sympathise with those feelings without needing to believe something ridiculous like the Earth being flat to do it.
I watched the "The Super Duper Official FIat Earth Recruitment Video" twice, once before watching this video and once after. (Because I wasn't sure whether it would be more funny to watch that video before watching this one or after.)
Wikipedia states this about the Verrazzano-Narrows bridge in New York. Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance from each other (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge. The towers are not parallel to each other, but are 1+5⁄8 in (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases.
All long suspension bridges have non-parallel towers. I first learned this about the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco when I was working on my degree in Civil Engineering.
41 mm does not look like that much, but when taken over several spans it can make the whole thing unsuitable to build. Also, when temperature changes cause dilation and shrinkage, there is a risk of the bridge just fall apart if a gap this big in the numbers is not taken into account.
When I carried out an Eratosthenes exercise, I had help: 3 simultaneous observers. We did not measure shadows, we measured the zenith angle to the upper edge of the sun using theodolites. Syene to Alexandria is about 800 km, my baseline was 836 km, with a measurement at the midpoint. So no ambiguity: 3962.5 mi radius of curvature. Which given latitude and azimuth on the spheroid agrees with the millions of measurements of the earth for 30 ppm, or 0.003%. And measuring the upper edge of the sun there’s no issues with parallel sun rays. The upper edge of the sun is just a point. And the sun is far enough away.
You are doing it wrong, when conspiracy theorists say you should do your own research they mean watching their other videos, not actually doing experiments that disprove their ideas.
With your animation of the Sun and Moon spinning around in the beginning, I realized that even if they are very close, the Sun would never set if the Earth's surface was flat.
The easiest way to prove that the Earth is in fact a globe is the Triangle argument. The maximum sum of interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees on a 2D plane. You can't have a triangle with three right angles on a 2D plane. But you can have a triangle with three right angles on a globe (given a far enough distance apart). And since airplanes can travel from point 1 to point 2 to point 3 and back to point 1 with only right angles, the Earth must be a globe. For any flat earth that might be reading this and thinking "Hey, that's a square!" That would require a fourth point and a fourth 90 degree angle.
@@DrDeuteronYes and No. Yes, the lines certainly appear to be bent from a high enough vantage Point. But No, they aren't actually bent. This clip from minutephysics demonstrates: ruclips.net/video/o_W280R_Jt8/видео.htmlsi=2Orz_u0oWFjqo7Pz&t=31
You are correct, but they'll just say your drawling the lines curved. I think better is to say on a globe the shortest distance btwn 2 points is a curve (that would cut the Earth in 2 equal pieces if extended, called a great circle, like the equator is). Airlines are in the business to make money, thus fly the shortest distance to use less fuel. All the airline route maps show curved routes.
8 inches per mile squared doesn't take a genius to calculate - but it takes a globetard to refuse to see that it doesn't work with today's optics. A zoom camera will show you that the following globetard statement is false: "As mariners, they'd also noticed that ships disappeared bottom first when they sailed away, and reappeared mast first when they returned, which shows a curved surface as well." Once one zooms in, the whole thing reappears. Globetards are too retarded to understand the vanishing point.
As a fellow math guy who's obsessed with this argument, this is refreshing to watch. Couple fun points I wanna add to yours though. 1: If Erastothenes' experiment is correct, the location it's done in shouldn't matter for the results. No matter where you started, an 800km change north or south should change the angle by 7.2° because the curvature of a sphere is consistent throughout that whole sphere. On a flat model, the location DOES matter. Comparing two shadows 0km and 800km north of the sun will create a larger difference in angle than comparing it from 10,000km and 10,800km north of the sun. Luckily, when using the correct equations, you should still be able to figure out the height of the sun this way, even if the angle itself is different. If flat earth were a reality, your angle over 800km wouldn't always be 7.2° depending on your location, meaning everyone who does Erastothenes' experiment would be getting wildly different calculations for Earth's circumference, while anyone who calculate's the Sun's height should agree on a specific concrete answer. So how high up is the Sun if you actually ask a flat earther? They don't know. They say it's "impossible to calculate" because a bunch of different flat earthers online all tried this exact experiment and got wildly different answers. Weird, don't know how that could've happened. 2: the single most common argument "for" flat earth is that you can visibly see a perfectly flat horizon. The irony in this is the fact that the horizon wouldn't BE perfectly flat in the first place if the earth was actually flat. As you said, the horizon is about 3 miles away. Not much changes geographically in 3 miles so there's plenty of places where the horizon is pretty much flat. Meanwhile, if earth were flat, the only thing actually stopping you from seeing any given object or raised area of land would be diffusion from the atmosphere. Your "horizon" would be caused by the sky itself and be hundreds of miles away. Nevermind buildings, every large hill and mountain within hundreds of miles would show up between your eyes and this horizon, with varying levels of sky already covering them making them appear semi-transparent. This would turn your "perfectly flat horizon" into a fuzzy, blurry uneven one that would look more like peering into the beginning of a distant fog than looking at the edge between land and sky. So every single time a flat earther brings up the horizon they are LITERALLY bringing up a phenomenon that wouldn't exist if they were right.
that second point is actually really interesting. it makes me wonder what it would be like to have a horizon hundreds of miles away, being able to see cities so far from you. that sounds really cool tbh
You are correct, of course. But I would further argue that the horizon, however it's caused, is a circle because it's a circle around you. Of course, from your perspective you may not see that. But, in the case of the earth being a globe and the horizon caused by the curvature, we are practically, never seeing the horizon in the same plane as the horizon itself. We are always sightly above it looking down on it and, in that case, it is most definitely curved, even if that curve is very slight. And, in practice, we can do things like left-to-right compression of photographs, or comparing the line of the horizon against a nearby straight-edge and witness the slight curvature.
you really don't know what you're talking about "Your "horizon" would be caused by the sky itself and be hundreds of miles away." the horizon is caused by the sky and the floor appearing to converge due to perspective, due to the limit of the human eye, we have an azimuthal grid of vision and we see in a circle, that's why a horizon exists, it's entirely optical and it fluctuates based on the atmospheric conditions of the day.. "The irony in this is the fact that the horizon wouldn't BE perfectly flat in the first place if the earth was actually flat." The irony is that the only horizon you see is the apparent horizon and your geometric horizon which is NECESSITATED and REQUIRED by the globe earth does not exist, it's never seen.. yet we can continually see further than what we're supposed to be able to, you take the radius of the earth and the circumference and then from that you can apply geometry and deduce a geometrical physical horizon, we've continually made observations past that horizon yet they blame it on 'refraction' yet on a clear day we can see even farther, and they claim that's because there is more refraction.. you cannot zoom through the earth, there's no kind of refraction that appears to flatten out a geometrical physical curve, that's absolutely ridiculous and has never been demonstrated the trouble with you lot and i mean no offence here, is that you've been educated beyond your own intelligence
When the sun is setting right on the horizon in England, in California the sun is straight overhead noon. No way to explain that unless the world is round.
Also there's two different skyscapes depending on the hemisphere. And you can take a long exposure photo on each hemisphere and see that the star trails are centered on two different points, one looking south in the south and one looking north in the north hemisphere.
@@Gandhi_Physique I don't think you'd notice anything out of the ordinary with the naked eye, unless you're REALLY well versed in the layout of the sky (I sure am not).
Even better than that, shoot a long exposition picture of the sky when in the Canary island, and you will see both curvatures at once. I wonder how FEs would explain that...
no matter how well you explain it, the sad reality is that flat earth belief is mainly a matter of religion. You can never convince a flat earther otherwise
@@IsYitzach you don't have to be able repeat the subject for it to be science. You just have to be able repeat the experiment that tests the subject. And we can, so evolution isn't religious
@@thebrushman4123 re resistance to medicine, evolution has been tried out with bacteria, where you can repeat large populations and hundreds/thousands of generations in relatively short time. See e.g "microbial experimental evolution"
@@ShadowDoc Proper mathematical conceptualization of the Flat Earth paradigm requires a level of IQ so unfathomably high, it's rarely seen outside of ascetic hermits and prominent philosophers in history. Your inflexible thinking reveals you only rely on elementary school level mathematics, never pondering the greater Mysteries of reality, accepting only facts regurgitated by others, rather than partaking in proper scientific endeavor.
@@ShadowDoc nah, I've met a few and talked to them about math. They absolutely do not know math at all. You are right though in that it's kinda not about the facts anyway, it's about how it makes them _feel._
@@idontwantahandlethough If you've truly met any Flattards you'll know by now that it's actually got fuck all to do with the shape of the Earth. It's about winning any argument, even when totally wrong, it's about trying to look intellectually equal when clearly not. They soon moved to covid bullshit and 5G lunacy when they popped up.
There are 3 types of flat Earthers, the con men, the trolls and the ignorant. The con men and trolls already know the Earth isn't flat and the ignorant, well if you reach adulthood that messed up, no amount of math is going to fix that leaky boat.
The con men are the trolls. Same thing. Same sadistic, psychopathic, narcissistic grifters. The few remaining are religious fundies, who cannot be helped, and stupid people, who cannot be helped.
@@Progamer12720 There is at least one more group, the folks that invent stuff like GPS and GIS that flat Earther folks benefit from every day that rely on the Globe. There are a few other types as well, but I wouldn't want to stress the simple too much.
@@jamesgoudreau1940 And were they got that materials from the first material.scientists are not a god. When a child makes a sand castle it does not mean he created sand.. At last there is a creator (God). Except that big bang theory which created a human like aliens.😂
11:11 ah, that's what being taller is *really* useful for; you can see further on the occean. I'll make sure to take a stool, step ladder, or a nice tall table the first time I go to the occean, so I can more of it.
The story about Eratosthenes is simplified, a person like him would know how to make averages and to do that you need several measurements, so I think he had someone take notes about the sun's angle at a position in-between the two points mentioned in the story, and also take several measurement from different nearby positions to get a better and more precise number. The flat-earth argument that the same math also work on a flat earth is based on only two locations, but if we have 3 or more points the idea of a flat surface had been falsified quickly.
It's rather that the shape had already been determined centuries earlier. He was not interested in proving the shape, he was interested in the size, knowing the shape already. And for that a two-datum measurement was sufficient. Not optimal, but sufficient
@@hartmutholzgraefe Indeed, they knew the Earth to be a globe before the measurement. The shadow of Earth cast on the Moon during Lunar eclipses pretty much seals the deal.
@@hartmutholzgraefe That's correct, but more than two points would be needed to get a good result, people back then know that and it was therefore ships had several individuals to measure angles and knots for navigation and took the average. So the story about the well and only one extra point is a simplification in the same way we simplify E=mc² to make it easier to understand.
@@kennylex as Eratosthenes did not aim for navigation, but just for a rough estimate, he might have done this with a single data point only. To get to a more precise value of course required more data points, and preferably different methods, too, like combining those of Eratosthenes and Al Biruni. Nobody would of course have e.g. defined the meter as the 10 millionth part of a meridian from pole to equator, based on a single measurement only. But back when Eratosthenes lived there was not really much practical use for the determined value, ships were still just sailing along the coasts mostly, and travel distances on land were rather defined by how many day trips it takes to get from X to Y. I won't rule out that Eratosthenes had actually done multiple measurements, but I don't see any confirmation of that either. Al Biruni on the other hand did take measurements from several mountains indeed as far as I remember reading ...
Moon has a better explanation. It is tidally locked to earth which in a flat earth model that was no meaning . We would have images from different sides of the moon
All shortest paths between two points on the earth are actually sections of a circle around the earth. Navigation would be COMPLETELY different if the earth wasn't a sphere.
it's quite fortunate for flat earthers that the azimuthal projection they choose lines up with the northern hemisphere of the globe closely enough that you can conceivably brush off inconsistencies with flight paths as measurement error in something or other. A straight line on the flat earth from any point above the equator to any other point above the equator is likely to be close to the actual great circle path you should actually follow. The closer the path comes to meeting the north pole, the closer the approximation.
7:56 I encountered a flat earther on my uber ride to the airport. The context of the situation spoke for itself and I immediately diverted the conversation to something more tolerable. I don't think he would comprehend refraction beyond the pronunciation of a newfound scientific buzzword. It is inadvisable to argue with these people, as they delight in argument baiting and love preaching their gospel without regard to rational criticism. They don't listen to you. If anything we should learn from Eratosthenes, its the simplicity of the concept of a spherical earth. Flat earthers have been wasting the time of smart and important people for centuries. Still a great video 👍
@@kefhomepage "They close their mind to anything that don't like" "Flat earthers have been wasting the time of smart and important people for centuries." Project much?
"Flat earthers have been wasting the time of smart and important people for centuries. " So why are all you smart and important people still making and commenting on these videos? Who is making you waste your time posting on RUclips? I mean, if it's been centuries aren't you wasting your OWN time here? You must be a Democrat, always playing the victim.
I love this, unfortunately I don't think it is simple enough to convince my flat earther friends and family. Super unfortunately I have a lot of those lol. My nieces and nephews only really believe it because their parents say that is how it is and it is hard to believe anything different when you are that young and your parents believe it with so much fervor.
My suggestion, if your budget allows, plan a family vacation to Myrtle Beach SC, and have everyone ride the big Ferris wheel on the boardwalk. At the top of the rotation you can look to the north and see the houses and condos of North Myrtle Beach, and as the wheel descends you can easily see how they disappear over the horizon, bottoms first. Nothing like simple, direct observation to disprove crazy theories. If South Carolina is too far I can make other suggestions closer to where you live, for example large wind farms can be used, or very tall buildings, give me a rough idea of location and I will make a suggestion how to directly see the curvature of the earth there.
@@jpe1 that might work and it would be a lot of fun, but I think their decision to believe in flat earth goes more into the mistrust of anything "worldly", for lack of a better term. Seeing isn't believing at this point. I can point out holes in their ideas all the time, but it's something they need to want to even look at rather than just blindly believe. Which is funny because that is what they think they are doing, which makes it even more difficult to sway them
@@DalTron001 the “a lot of fun” part is why I made the suggestion, worst case scenario nobody is convinced but you still have a nice vacation 😉 I suppose the actual worst case would be some massive family fight over their willful ignorance and then a rift in family relationships, but would that really be a bad thing? I know LGBT people who had to abandon their families of origin because of bigotry and hatred, and they are better off, so if something like what propose sparks a family feud, well then perhaps the family wasn’t worth maintaining… not trying to be mean or anything, and I would actually expect a better outcome.
I wonder how long it will take flat Earthers to just reinvent all of physics with a different coordinate system. Like, just do the inverse relative to the Earth center and you're done, that's a flat Earth model. Of course, it would be computational hell and the notion of "flat" is kinda a stretch, but...
And sunsets happen because of some unholy curved perspective because light rays just happen to be curved in a particular way. How to calculate this curvature? Well, take in the angle of the ray and this arbitrary length that happens to be 6357 km...
Note: actually the inverse should be done from some point on the surface, like the southern pole. Otherwise you end up with an inside-out earth model. Which is arguably way more fun.
Having spoken to flat earthers on the topic before, they genuinely don't comprehend coordinate systems to begin with, much less are capable of reinventing anything having to do with them. I have attempted to explain polar coordinates to flat earthers before, and the most common thing they ask is where the second pole is.
You only look smart to yourself. Real geniuses don’t care that you are still believing you are an evolved ape and people in Australia are not upside down. Billionaires and pilots and space agency workers and government and church leaders and medical leaders and university leaders… billionaires… they all know. You are a mark. A dumb one. H th e lies don’t work on many of us. If you really believe in the globe go find some evidence of curve and bring it to me. Kaleb does a show every day almost on TikTok asking globe believers to bring the proof and show the globe… there doesn’t seem to be anymore globe believers willing to defend it. I’ll lay my life down on the truth. Are you that confident? I AM
I was a dues-paying member of the official flat earth society for 5 years. It is my observation that all the members there fall into 3 categories: 50% normal people who lurk because they find the discussions hilarious (like me) 45% trolls that pretend to be flat-earthers to rile up the real flat-earthers 5% actual flat-earthers Almost all of the wild flat-earth explanations come from the trolls.
Yeah, the only member I ever knowingly met was top brass in the Canadian air force. He used to brag about how many times he'd flown around the earth, get another beer, and say, ok, now let me explain to you how we know it's really flat.
I was harassed for some time by a local flerfer who had tracked me in real life... she menaced me and used to call me "a NASA priest", deeply religious... she had schizophrenia... by the time I was getting a restriction order she vanished, she probably started harassing somebody else... so, there is a core of very crazy people out there ready to jump at whatever crazy conspiracy is available... many of them wear red caps these days...
That's how I ended up understanding it properly. I started running into a lot of people arguing against using that formula because they think it is parabolic and therefore "wrong," but it was only ever devised as a rule of thumb for occasions where the distance is a lot shorter than the radius of Earth. It was never intended to deal with very large distances. It's a long time since I was at school so it took me a while to re-learn how to work out sagittas and chord lengths. The drop is just a sagitta in reality as this video illustrated very nicely. Once you see that, the next thing you see is that the so-called "bulge" is another sagitta, and its arc length is half the arc length of the one that gives you the drop. The maths is related. When you simplify it all out, you come out with 2d^2 for the "bulge" to complement the 8d^2 for the "drop."
7:55 The only logical counterargument (if we ignore all other information about physics) would be that light rays would have to curve but you could debunk that too. 14:58 It would have to move like that relative to earth. You can probably visualise it,by getting a coordinate system with a sphere and then warping it so a sphere in it looks like it’s flat. Then go a straight line and that’s your,path of light. Then go a earth is round.
Occlusion on the flat earth. The bottom approaches the top of an object as it gets further away, that means it will cover it, they think. But it never gets there. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of limits
Here is how I know the Earth is spherical, without using a single number of math. I am an A Class skydiver. The most coveted jump load of the day, is what is known as the sunset load. This is because of the beautiful sunset while in free fall. Now, it is illegal (in the United States anyway) to skydive after sunset, except during a full moon with proper permits, licenses, and equipment for night jumps. Now, it has occurred several times before, that we have witnessed the sunset as we're getting into the plane and by the time we're tracking down the runway the sun has already disappeared below the horizon. The sun has set. As we climb to 15,000 ft of altitude, we see the sun rise above the horizon again. Once we reach altitude we then exit the aircraft, which is legal, because the sun is above the horizon once again. and then we can witness the sunset again while in free fall. It is actually possible to witness two sunsets in one day. It's quite a beautiful experience. This would only be possible on a spherical earth. Anybody can do this, assuming you're reasonably fit (I have seen 80-90-100 plus year old females, make tandem jumps) and have approximately 400 to 600 hundred dollars (depending on the drop zone) for a tandem jump, which usually comes with both still photos and video so you can relive the event as often as you like. Oh, and an hour of ground school, which is included in the price. Try it out if you're ever in Florida, we have beautiful weather (assuming we're not being visited by a hurricane), large, comfortable, and powerful jump aircraft, lots of drop zones, and reasonable prices.😊 Lots of skydivers come to Florida just for skydiving vacations. Come and get your knees in the breeze!
It is comments like these that makes us globe-earthers seem as unintelligent as flat earthers. I'm sorry to say, but the phenomenon you described during sky diving at sunset is NOT because the earth is round. The distance you are describing is literally comparable to elevating a water molecule a faction of a millimeter off of a beach ball. In other words, the distance is negligible. The phenomenon you are experiencing is much more to do with the refraction of light through the atmosphere, than the curvature of the earth. Take it from a AI if you don't believe me: "You can see the sun after sunset by going up 3 miles in the atmosphere because of atmospheric refraction, which bends the sunlight as it travels through the Earth's atmosphere, allowing you to see the sun even when it's technically below the horizon from ground level." These should be a lesson in humility, that us globe-earthers are just as susceptible to illogical thinking as flat-earthers.
@@diegolizarazo6302 You missed the point my dude... Flat-earthers are just normal people who like to do normal things as well, they are not physicists either. So why do so many globe-earthers treat them so poorly, like they are the unintelligent scum of the earth? They are no different than this commenter who irrationally believes the earth is a sphere.
@@SorakaOTP462 "People like you are the ones who don't listen, we on the other hand listen to all the counter arguments and prove them wrong" Sure - was nice seeing the 15°/hour and that the surface of a large lake is in fact not flat :)
having sailed [Navy] from Sydneyt Australia, to Hawaii in a warm current, ships ahead and stern, ships ahead and astern would dip below the horizon [ships save suel in currents] thus direct observation shows earth is rounded, also have flown form Sydney to London, similar observations, including radar images of ships below the horizon.. let along astronauts on the moom watching and recording earth rise, as a globe shaped object.. there are satellite radars measuring everything..
I live in portugal, which is close to the center of the flat earth model. That rotation of the sun is completely inconsistent with my daily observations of the sun rising in the East, setting in the West, and crossing the sky right above me during the day, especially in the summer. Same for the moon and other planets. In the flat earth model, the sun never seems to cross the sky of most countries, let alone those in the center. And also in that model, the sun never goes down toward and past the horizon, it just goes farther and farther away, which is also inconsistent with the my daily observations of any random Joe. And the sun light would have to fall off quite abruptly for that model to work. If the earth was flat, we would able to see new york from portugal with a telescope. Unless fog got in the way, but we might still be able to shine a laser from one coast line and observe it arriving at the other.
Well, the waves and tides might get in the way as well, but if Lisbon had a skyscraper the same height as Memorial Tower in NY, on a clear day a laser from one would be visible from the other, if parallel to sea level. Only on a flat Earth, of course. To see New York from above Lisbon (without doing the ‘math’) I think you’d need to be about 5,000 km up from the ground: atop a very tall building indeed.
@@bf99ls when you're standing on land you're already above the highest tides, and you don't need climb very high to be a above the tallest waves. If the earth was flat then I believe the Cristo Rei should be way more than enough.
The fact that Polaris' angle is the same as the latitude you're standing on is also only possible if the Earth is round. And going for that route, the equatorial mounts used to follow stars in astronomical observations also can't work on a flat earth.
Flat earthers will cherry-pick photos from unusual weather conditions where the effect due to refraction is particularly high and makes objects further away than normal visible. Then they pick a curve calculator which assumes there is no atmosphere and say that we see too far, therefore it's flat.
I wish you had explained that last point more thoroughly. That's a big one they bring up and I don't feel like you explained that clearly enough. The reason you can see the 50ft object is that you also have height. Your height needs to be factored into the equation and flat earthers always forget that and can't appreciate the equation that explains this
Well, the last example makes clear that it's the height of the observer that causes more of the object to be visible. Anybody who has _any_ feel for geometry will grasp this just fine. Unfortunately, flat-earthers lack any such sense. They suffer from massive dyscalculia, but they will of course never admit it.
6:26 you could graph the "y=1/x" curve (angular size being reciprocally proportional with distance) and the "y=arctan(1/x)" curve (arctan is literally "take a slope (Y/X) and make it an angle", where the Y is 1 and the X is the distance the object is from you) you'll see for anything further than, like... 3 (so something being 3x further away from you than it is wide, a ruler being 3 rulers away from you, etc) they're basically identical. This is also seen when graphing "y=x" and "y=arctan(x)" directly, except the similarity is at numbers close to 0 instead of far away from it (and 1/(a small number) = a very big number and vice versa)
If you're wondering why Eratosthenes assumed the distance to the Sun was much larger than the radius of the Earth, Aristarchus had earlier determined that the distance to the Moon is about 60 Earth radii, and had calculated that the Sun had to be 18-20 times farther away than even that. (His was a gross underestimate, it turned out, because his method was sensitive to measurement errors of a very small value.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Sizes_and_Distances_(Aristarchus)
@@Globeisahoaxx It maybe a myth, but it's a calculation which is based on the angle among the Sun, the Earth and the Moon at the exact crescent and YOU YOURSELF can calculate it and trigonometrically deduce that the Sun is much further away than the Moon. Well, no, not you, but a normal people with a two-digits IQ surely can.
@@betaorionis2164it also based on a simple observation. I can go outside and observe local sun and moon every day. Anything else is just a myth and you fell for a con
The thing is, there's another reason why the Sun isn't close to the Earth, proven using math. (I'm using imperial since most flerfs are from the US) First, I've seen the distance thrown around as about 3000 miles (4828 km) away. With an angular size of around 0.5 degrees, the *diameter* (not the radius) then should be 26.18 miles (42.13 km), giving us a surface area of 2153.2 square miles (5576.82 sqkm). Now, from 3000 miles away, in order for our Earth to recieve around 127 W/sqft (1367 W/sqm) then the Sun itself should radiate around 31,865,011,000,000,000 Watts according to the inverse-square law. With the surface area and radiance in hand, we calculate using the Stefan-Boltzmann law of thermal radiance that the Sun is 6775°F (3746°C). But wait, then the peak wavelength emitted by the Sun would be 721 nanometers, when in reality the peak wavelength is 502 nanometers. Even using the value of 6332 kilometers (3934.52 miles) away, we get a logically unacceptable value of 1967°C or 3573°F, which too would create a blackbody spectrum that does not match reality at all, peaking well in the infrared (in specific 1293.6 nm).
Regarding observed horizon distance: 1. Standard refraction due to the adiabatic lapse rate (air pressure is lower as you increase altitude) reduces the observed drop by about 1/6th or 1/7th the geometric calculation 2. Very close to the water, temperature and humidity gradients close to the surface can significantly change this standard refraction.
Ham Radio: U can hear own echoes on Shortwave at the backside of the antenna. They are spinning round the 40ks. At good conditions or with lotta pwr. Or shoot on 70cm and 1KW to the moon. Listen after about 5 seconds for your cw signals. Then calculate distance with c. Any doubts that the distance of the moon is not correct?
To prove the earth isn't flat all you need to do is try to create an accurate flat map of the earth. You will eventually realize it cannot be done. All flat maps make decisions about their necessary distortions. In some flat maps the distortions are stretched vertically, but in most flat maps they are stretched horizontally. Take a look at any flat map of the earth. Is Greenland larger than the continental United States? The answer will be yes, because it is closer to the north pole and therefore must be 'stretched' to fit on a flat map. But in reality, the United States is more than 4 times larger than Greenland.
Even basic earth rotation they fail on, even when a flat earther tried to disprove rotation he found the 15degree an hour movement, but they cant even accept the math of 15x24 which gives 1 full 360 rotation, they really are a special kind of stupid.
@@C_Becker And thanks EVERY MODERN AIRCRAFT IN THE WORLD. The pre-flight test for MOST modern aircraft now is to use the onboard fiber-optic gyros to MEASURE EARTH ROTATION while the aircraft sits "motionless" on the tarmac. So "Bob's experiment" is LITERALLY done tens of thousands of times a day everyday worldwide.
I always bring up the experiments that flerfs have done to prove rotation and curvature, and they don't respond or jump to other talking points as usual
I am in a NASA review right now where they are discussing how the Northrup Grumman "Scaleable Inertial Reference Unit" or SIRU has 23 years of flight heritage on spacecraft, first launched on AC-123 in Sept 1996. It has logged 150 MILLION Hours of operation in spacecraft in earth orbit or Deep Space. These are Fiber-optic gyros that can EASILY measure earth rotation. That is how we TEST them before launch. With ~15 minutes of data from one sitting "level" on a table I can tell you: Which Hemisphere I am in The Direction of True North The unit's Latitude to within a few degrees. I will be writing the procedures to test the SIRU on the NEO-S spacecraft.
@@johnqpublic7608 When I worked at Lockheed Martin Flight Systems in the1990s, JPL asked us for a "Proposal" to build a Europa Orbiter. We were building Cassini and Mars Global Surveyor in the same Clean Room at the time and Stardust, Genesis, and the Mars 98 orbiter and lander were in beginning of production at the same facility, so we were a "sure thing" for winning the billion dollar "Europa Orbiter" Contract. So, we submitted a huge, massively detailed "Proposal" for the orbiter that we would build for them. They took all the work, stuck it in their briefcase, and said 'thanks for this but we have already decided to build this in-house at JPL'. That design was mostly developed by and detailed for JPL for basically free because JPL misled Lockheed back when they were very buddy-buddy. They sort of promised a Billion-dollar contract then yanked the rug out from under the deal AFTER they accepted the detailed design specifications for a spacecraft that would meet all of the requirements.
That's a lot of math to throw at someone who probably failed geometry and trig They don't understand the 'a priori' nature of the argument, and reject it because they think NASA is lying.
How to stump a flat earther: ask them the distance from Santiago to Buenos Aires (1140 km on a globe). Watch as confusion arises because how do you accurately measure distance across a distorted continent.
It should be mentioned that you can use the 8in/mile² approximation to determine if you would see an object by using it twice. First use the observer height to figure out how far out your horizon is by using it in reverse. So h = 8in*x², rearranged to x² = h/8in, take the square root and we get x = sqrt(h/8). Of course the height given in inches and x is the distance to the horizon in miles. Once we know that distance we can subtract this distance from the distance to the object we want to observe. So we actually get the length of the tangent from the horiton to the object we want to observe. Here we can use the same formula again, but this time the normal way. Though since the distance is now shorter, the actual drop will be less as well. This is quite accurate. Though we're missing refraction, of course. ps: refraction usually raises things upwards and almost never makes it appear lower. For this the denser air would need to be further up and the lighter air needs to be on the ground. Snell's law. Since the atmosphere is almost always more dense further down / closer to the earth, light would always bend downwards which would make things appear higher as we can essentially look slightly around the curve. That's why in almost all cases we can see further than what pure geometry would tell us.
Its all so dumb. Ask why storms rotate opposite from each other in the northern and southern hemispheres. There is no need for N and S hemispheres if earth is flat and no need for an equator. Then of course the north star isn't visible from the southern hemisphere...so there's that too. I mean cmon.
So what they mean when they say "perspective", in relation to the sun moving away, is how when an object gets further away from you, from YOUR point of view, it will look like it converges at the horizon. And it's true! This DOES happen. It happens regardless of how big the sun is, even if the sun is at a fixed altitude. The only problem is that it needs to be RIDICULOUSLY far away for this effect to happen. Basically, if the sun is 1000km altitude, then it's at a 90* angle in the sky. If it's at a distance of 1000km and an altitude of 1000km (so solving the right triangle, it's at ~1414km), then it's at an angle of 45*. If it's at a distance of 3000km with alt 1000km (3162.3 km away from you) then it's at an angle of ~18*. Etcetera. Now the angular resolution of a human eye is about 0.017*. This means that if 2 objects are 0.017* apart, you can't tell that it's 2 objects. This is exactly what they mean when they say that "objects converge at the horizon", the objects are so far away that they appear to converge, because the angle between them is smaller than the angular resolution of a human eye. So let's plug in this value. We've got a right triangle with one side 1000km, and the angle opposed to 1000km is 0.017* degrees. What's the size of the hypothenuse (the direct distance from you to the sun)? Well, it's about 3 MILLION kilometers. The sun would literally need to be 3 million kilometers away from you, in order for it to appear to converge with the horizon... And you know what the irony is? You would STILL be able to tell it apart from the horizon (or as they put it: "bring it back from over the horizon") if you use an optical zoom method...
Perspective is a PROJECTION of rays of view to a screen (our eye), your calculations makes no sense. You should trace rays from the eye to the object and trace the intersection with the viewing plane, as the object goes further away the traced point on the screen goes down. That is how we see and is called recession in space.
@@mrosskne it is not perspective that does that but atmospheric lensing. What you see at sunset is a small sun at a vanishing point THROUGH the lensing effects of humidity in the air. Photos of sunset in a dry desert or zooming in proves that.
Also: refraction in the exponentially thinning atmosphere tends to lift object's apparent elevation - light from outside propagates into layers of denser atmosphere with higher refractive index.
There are lots of math that disprove flat Earth. I myself did the math on some. For example, the sun would never set or even be out of sight unless an object of height got in the way. If you were on one edge of the flat earth against the supposed ice wall, and the sun was on the exact opposite edge at even the lowest estimated height of the sun, the tallest mountain on earth would have to be within 35 miles to block the sun.
@@Neuromancerism The Sun is circling above a flat surface on the flat model. It would be visible at all times by everyone on the surface, maybe with intermittent cloud cover it would be interrupted, but in the middle of the 'night' though?.
@@maxmac7845 It wouldnt ever be covered by the planet, correct. As i set, it would never set. Would it neccessarily always remain visible? That depends on the opacity of the atmosphere (or anything in the atmosphere that could be in the way)
They use to say, we must have open minds but their minds have obviously been so open their brains have fallen out. Flat Earthery is a cult a religion. Facts doesn’t matter anymore, just conspiracy theories and they feed each other with lies, ideas, fake or manipulated images. There’s a project on the horizon where a guy, Will Duffy, will pay for a few globe earthers and a few flatearthers to go to Antarctica and see the midwinter sun. The most prominent flerfs have turned down the offer because of “дьльуафщ татщьаь гуфлад ювьтайла” (unhinged word sallad). To use a rather insulting racist slur from a politician 50 years back, “the flatearthers are happy with a tight pussy, big shoes and a warm place where they can take a dump”.
They also claim Earth keeps accellerating upwards to generate gravity. If this were true, Earth would have surpassed the speed of light multiple times already. But some flat-earther once replied that this is a special case of relativity where you can keep accellerating but never reach the speed of light. LOL, they always have an answer that doesn't make any sense. Or when I made the claim that the flat disc should be tilted after accellerating for thousands of years because the Earth isn't the same weight everywhere and thus, one side should accellerate faster than the other, making it tilt. Some flat-earther told me this can't happen because it sits on an unmovable pillar, preventing any tilt. After asking why it keeps accellerating upwards while sitting still on an unmovable pillar, I got no more response. LOL again. They contracidct anything constantly and they still keep going, trying ti prove a flat disc instead of just accepting we live on a ball.
Actually most flerfers think "gravity" is a function of density and buoyancy. Just like how a steel weight sinks in water because it's more dense than water, it sinks in air because it's more dense than air. Now this is still a ridiculous argument since density is based on gravity, but it's the scapegoat they stick to
@@hanifarroisimukhlis5989 You're half right. You only need 3 to disprove flat earth and prove curvature, you would just need a large number to completely prove a sphere
Guess 99% of flerfs never been abroad. 90% lives in citys and can’t see the stars. 80% never graduated. 1% just trolls. And some that wants your money!
I actually measured the average Gaussian curvature of the earth using the NASADEM data set (publicly available), whence I got the radius of curvature, and it was 1/sqrt(ab), where a, b are from WGS84. Note that NASADEM has heights relative to The Geoid, not The Ellipsoid, so it is locally flat if you're a hydrologist. But you can transform that into ECEF and get the true shape of the surface, at 30m postings, in a Cartesian coordinate system. It has a curvature product--of which there can be many, but the 2 popular ones are: 1) the radius of curvature of height contour lines. 2) rate of change of slope along the steepest slope. They come in 15' squares, and look very, very cool in a color display.
at 12:40 , to way justify that we can ignore y² is a bit weird, we can't consider it negligible since it's the value we are searching ! But we can make the assumption that y² is negligible and verify if the assumption was correct at the end ( wich is true, obviously). It's not much, but let's not give them a rigor "mistake" ( more likely popularization) to focus on and forget the rest of that nice video
its not weird - that is just a fact. if R >> y then it follows that Ry >> y². So as long as the distance we are talking are relatively small compared to the >6000km of radius it doesnt make much of a difference. 60 km is way beyond the horizon at sea, yet the error introduced from this linearisation is still less than 1%.
It was a quick explanation, but totally valid. Go ahead and solve the problem with the y^2, it’ll be more complicated, and the answer will be nearly identical.
I kinda want to know what flat earthers think about gravity, that it's just universally downward and not a result of mass? How does their sun and moon stay up in the sky and not fall down to the Earth?
@@skulkingshadow Some believe the ground is accelerated "upward" and/or buoyancy is involved in the role of gravity tho in that case they generally call it as "density". (No need to tell me how dumb it is, just passing on what I've happened to read) For Sun and moon there's little to no consistency. Some saying it's a projection on the 'dome', others that they're just flying incorporeal "lights" (yes.. the moon too) or [insert supernatural/miraculous phenomena here] so they don't weigh anything or in sun's occasional case, the fiery ball of gas floats because "helium is lighter than air".
To append to the 8"/mi² section: At 10 miles, the expected drop is 800', however to measure how far below the horizon an object would be expected to be observed, the reference point would not be the observer, but the observer's horizon. Since the horizon of a 6' observer is 3 miles, the distance you need to calculate the drop from is only 10 - 3 = 7 miles, at which the expected drop is 392", or 32' 8". Thus, you would expect to see the top 17' 4" of a 50'-tall object 10 miles away from a 6'-tall observer.
7:58 On the refraction bit, it actually refracts the other way. Everything would appear higher than it should be. So you should actually be able to see the ENTIRETY of the flat earth disk from anywhere just from refraction alone.
The kicker is that such reflections can indeed produce a horizon, but the gradient in air temp needed to produce such complete reflections at a decent angle is pretty large. And there are issues with mountains and towers and such things, if the horizon beyond a certain distance is due to an optical effect, namely a reflection in the air, then you should see a mirror image of whatever peaks above the optical horizon so to speak, like you see a mirror image of the sky in the air above the hit water in the autumn or above pavement when it is cooking in the sun. Sometimes you will see something like that far away where the angle is low when there is an inversion like that over the ocean by usually not, and when we look at the horizon when there is no such effect there is no reflection and a simple optical effect is simply ruled out.
Counterargument: Nuh uh
Based and flatpilled
People with a brain: "TF you mean 'nuh uh' "?
Perfectly sums up why you can't discuss things with people who don't give a fuck about logic lol
@@no_name4796Everyone always thinks they're logical and rational when they're obviously wrong.
ah, but i have the perfect rebuttal: yuh huh
This is the most patient I've heard Zach ever be.
I'm almost sure him meeting an actual flat-earther would be a video on his other channel. 😂
Right? I kept waiting for the comedy shoe to drop 😂
ruclips.net/video/lUI_sMqNBm0/видео.html&ab_channel=ZachStarHimself
@@user-notachannel thank you 🤣
@@giin97
*Revelation 3:20*
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless.
Revelation 22:12-14
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
@@JesusPlsSaveMe
I will always come back
- W. Afton
the fact we are still debating a flat earth in 2024 hurts my head.
Yeah.
The average Eric dubay comment section is on a whole nother level of dumb tho
It's all about the money.
Already >2300 years ago the Greek realised the earth must be a sphere. And now some wise-cracks on the internet argue all over again that it's flat. They do so mainly because the clicks they get makes them money, so, even though they don't believe anything they say themselves, their business model prevents them from acknowledging anything else than a flat earth. And along with that, any other conspiracy theory for that matter.
It's all about the money and as long as they can continu to earn money by making videos and claims about a flat earth they will insist the earth if flat. And as long as there are people who don't need any other proof than a statement like "they're trying to trick you into believing what they want you to believe", they will make money and the earth will stay flat as far as they're publicly concerned...
Conspiracy Theories - I consider Flat Earth to be a Conspiracy Theory - have always existed and as long as someone has something to gain from one - monetary or otherwise - they'll continu to exist.
you can leave out the "still", it was never really a debate. The story that flat earth was the standard model in the middle ages is a myth.
That should tell you something.
@@raypeery6317 It tells that believe in pseudoscience is too high. Critical thinking is good, but for that, you need a basic education, and that seems to be lacking nowadays.
There's another way the math fails on a flat Earth. Perform Eratosthenes' experiment with a different distance between the cities and assuming a flat Earth and you get a different height for the Sun
You can also try it for Polaris as seen from, ooh, let's say, London and Sydney.
What problem?
🤣
Yeah but, no but …… some flerfs claims we have personal suns 🤯
The actual height don’t matter. What matter is that it’s local.
That means solar system doesn’t exist
@@Globeisahoaxx But sun would never set on a flat earth (didn't you watch video ! )
@@Globeisahoaxx Except the solar system obviously does exist because we can see planets with simple telescopes and binoculars.
With better quality, you can see some of the moons too.
"But this video is all CGI, so it's fake!"
I''m watching it on a curved screen though
@@dj_laundry_list Something about perspective.
But what if the Earth is CGI??
@@balijosu It is, though.
CGI was created as a response to flerfs, and stands for "Clearly a Globe, Idiot"
“Shakespeare didn’t exist. Reason? He was CGI. Oh, CGI wasn’t invented yet, you say? Well it’s because the US government was keeping it secret from the public. The government didn’t exist yet you say? The revolutionary war was staged.” And so on and so forth.
"The math that proves the Earth isn't flat" So - any and all of geometry.
The best atempt and an explanation i ever heard from a flerfer was "there are water-hills between you and the boat at the horizon".
Yeah if only there was a name for a form that appeared to have a "hill" with the exact same shape no matter where on the surface you are or in which direction you look.... oh right - sphere.
"Those same Flat Earthers will tell you: "Water finds its own level", which means - according to their errant interpretation - water is always "level" (ie, flat...and not elevation).
@@thudthud5423these flat earther will also say that unironically not knowing that because north faces up on a map doesn’t make it actually be up. Or how gravity on a spherical object is different then magic bs flat earth acceleration up at 9.8m/s/s is their best explanation
i have never heard the term “flerfer” used to describe flat earthers but i am now going to use it constantly, thank you 🙏
Im sorry, Flerfer? That has got to be the funniest term ive heard
@@kylezdancewicz7346 But I live up north but sometimes go down south I have also been down under " strangely when I was down under it looked the right way up ! " strange ups n downs of the flerfer
Eratosthenes, to be fair to his experimental design, only set out to work out how big Earth was. The Greeks had already seen Earth's shadow on the moon during eclipses and noticed, no matter where it was, it was curved, and that can only happen if the object casting the shadow is a spheroid.
As mariners, they'd also noticed that ships disappeared bottom first when they sailed away, and reappeared mast first when they returned, which shows a curved surface as well.
That’s a myth. No way they could prove it’s a shadow
@@Globeisahoaxx Apart from it obviously being a shadow.
@@RustyWalker obviously not. In a flat earth system sun and moon are local lights. The shadow cannot be a cause
@@Globeisahoaxx The shadow on the moon isn't a shadow?
😅
@@Globeisahoaxx Except your conclusion is just false. It is a shadow, and since you've decided to unambiguously declare that it is impossible in a flat Earth system, then you have argued the flat Earth system is false too.
You've outed yourself as choosing to be delusional for "reasons unspecified."
What is it you've become disenfranchised with? Education? Society? The Government? People in general? How shitty life is when you have to subsist at the lower end of the socioeconomic order?
Because many of us can sympathise with those feelings without needing to believe something ridiculous like the Earth being flat to do it.
I watched the "The Super Duper Official FIat Earth Recruitment Video" twice, once before watching this video and once after. (Because I wasn't sure whether it would be more funny to watch that video before watching this one or after.)
so fucking based, deciding watch order by how funny it is
So? Which way is funnier?
@@Qwentar I was literally about to replay asking the same thing.
Do you men the Level franchise?! Level, Level With Me, Level Of Stoopidity and Reaching the Bottom Level 😉
I think watching it afterward is a little bit funnier 😂😂
Usually any flat earth discussion ends when you ask for numbers. They either ran away or change the topic
Or They say, nasa is lying we never went to moon
@@aryanmn1569 or blame chemtrails for messing with your brain
But "muh optical confirmations!"
Lol. LMAO even
@@aryanmn1569Why did NASA stop faking moon landings?
Lies. Plenty of numbers on the side of flat earth. Space audits, Shane st. Pierre to start you out.
Wikipedia states this about the Verrazzano-Narrows bridge in New York. Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance from each other (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge. The towers are not parallel to each other, but are 1+5⁄8 in (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases.
All long suspension bridges have non-parallel towers. I first learned this about the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco when I was working on my degree in Civil Engineering.
Same issue with the Petronas Towers in KL.
Nuh Uh😂
I appreciate that you expressed that "mixed number" as a sum! I didn't even notice your pic at first, but you're clearly a proper mathman.
41 mm does not look like that much, but when taken over several spans it can make the whole thing unsuitable to build. Also, when temperature changes cause dilation and shrinkage, there is a risk of the bridge just fall apart if a gap this big in the numbers is not taken into account.
When I carried out an Eratosthenes exercise, I had help: 3 simultaneous observers. We did not measure shadows, we measured the zenith angle to the upper edge of the sun using theodolites.
Syene to Alexandria is about 800 km, my baseline was 836 km, with a measurement at the midpoint. So no ambiguity: 3962.5 mi radius of curvature. Which given latitude and azimuth on the spheroid agrees with the millions of measurements of the earth for 30 ppm, or 0.003%. And measuring the upper edge of the sun there’s no issues with parallel sun rays. The upper edge of the sun is just a point. And the sun is far enough away.
You are doing it wrong, when conspiracy theorists say you should do your own research they mean watching their other videos, not actually doing experiments that disprove their ideas.
@@yt_user892
Flerf rule #2
Bro you forgot the /s@@yt_user892
@@yt_user892some dumb ahh people gonna say something shi abt u now bruh
With your animation of the Sun and Moon spinning around in the beginning, I realized that even if they are very close, the Sun would never set if the Earth's surface was flat.
I was gonna say. Yes, the Earth was flat that sun (assuming IT was a sphere) would light up the entire world and there would never be night.
@@garynumen13 You assume light is infinite and the atmosplane near earth surface is crystal clear at long distances.
@@debbieduran8198 What does that have to do with the sun setting? I don't think you know what a sunset is.
@KEVBOYMUSIC To say the sun is doing an action implies that it's moving right?
@@debbieduran8198 Just get to the point
The easiest way to prove that the Earth is in fact a globe is the Triangle argument.
The maximum sum of interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees on a 2D plane. You can't have a triangle with three right angles on a 2D plane. But you can have a triangle with three right angles on a globe (given a far enough distance apart). And since airplanes can travel from point 1 to point 2 to point 3 and back to point 1 with only right angles, the Earth must be a globe.
For any flat earth that might be reading this and thinking "Hey, that's a square!" That would require a fourth point and a fourth 90 degree angle.
you forgot the coriolis correction, which makes your straight lines bent.
@@DrDeuteronYes and No. Yes, the lines certainly appear to be bent from a high enough vantage Point. But No, they aren't actually bent.
This clip from minutephysics demonstrates: ruclips.net/video/o_W280R_Jt8/видео.htmlsi=2Orz_u0oWFjqo7Pz&t=31
Kind of you to assist the flat earthers by defining a square; they need all the help they can get!
@@Virtuous_Rogue not that it will change anything
You are correct, but they'll just say your drawling the lines curved. I think better is to say on a globe the shortest distance btwn 2 points is a curve (that would cut the Earth in 2 equal pieces if extended, called a great circle, like the equator is). Airlines are in the business to make money, thus fly the shortest distance to use less fuel. All the airline route maps show curved routes.
Flat-Earthers: "Interesting argument, unfortunately, your mo-"
gus
@@theominouspigeon is sus
my WHAT?!?!?!? not my mother again :,( !!!
Is so massive, she emits Hawking radiation.
Is so massive, she's the Great Attractor.@@1jotun136
3:31 here, Zach is becoming more of a physicist than an engineer. Great video Zach.
As soon as you started using trigonometric ratios, you already lost all the flerfers. You need to understand early highschool math for that😂
You mean that trigonometry that can make your kitchen table a ball?👀
8 inches per mile squared doesn't take a genius to calculate - but it takes a globetard to refuse to see that it doesn't work with today's optics. A zoom camera will show you that the following globetard statement is false:
"As mariners, they'd also noticed that ships disappeared bottom first when they sailed away, and reappeared mast first when they returned, which shows a curved surface as well."
Once one zooms in, the whole thing reappears. Globetards are too retarded to understand the vanishing point.
As a fellow math guy who's obsessed with this argument, this is refreshing to watch.
Couple fun points I wanna add to yours though.
1: If Erastothenes' experiment is correct, the location it's done in shouldn't matter for the results. No matter where you started, an 800km change north or south should change the angle by 7.2° because the curvature of a sphere is consistent throughout that whole sphere. On a flat model, the location DOES matter. Comparing two shadows 0km and 800km north of the sun will create a larger difference in angle than comparing it from 10,000km and 10,800km north of the sun. Luckily, when using the correct equations, you should still be able to figure out the height of the sun this way, even if the angle itself is different. If flat earth were a reality, your angle over 800km wouldn't always be 7.2° depending on your location, meaning everyone who does Erastothenes' experiment would be getting wildly different calculations for Earth's circumference, while anyone who calculate's the Sun's height should agree on a specific concrete answer. So how high up is the Sun if you actually ask a flat earther? They don't know. They say it's "impossible to calculate" because a bunch of different flat earthers online all tried this exact experiment and got wildly different answers. Weird, don't know how that could've happened.
2: the single most common argument "for" flat earth is that you can visibly see a perfectly flat horizon. The irony in this is the fact that the horizon wouldn't BE perfectly flat in the first place if the earth was actually flat. As you said, the horizon is about 3 miles away. Not much changes geographically in 3 miles so there's plenty of places where the horizon is pretty much flat. Meanwhile, if earth were flat, the only thing actually stopping you from seeing any given object or raised area of land would be diffusion from the atmosphere. Your "horizon" would be caused by the sky itself and be hundreds of miles away. Nevermind buildings, every large hill and mountain within hundreds of miles would show up between your eyes and this horizon, with varying levels of sky already covering them making them appear semi-transparent. This would turn your "perfectly flat horizon" into a fuzzy, blurry uneven one that would look more like peering into the beginning of a distant fog than looking at the edge between land and sky. So every single time a flat earther brings up the horizon they are LITERALLY bringing up a phenomenon that wouldn't exist if they were right.
that second point is actually really interesting. it makes me wonder what it would be like to have a horizon hundreds of miles away, being able to see cities so far from you. that sounds really cool tbh
You are correct, of course. But I would further argue that the horizon, however it's caused, is a circle because it's a circle around you. Of course, from your perspective you may not see that.
But, in the case of the earth being a globe and the horizon caused by the curvature, we are practically, never seeing the horizon in the same plane as the horizon itself. We are always sightly above it looking down on it and, in that case, it is most definitely curved, even if that curve is very slight.
And, in practice, we can do things like left-to-right compression of photographs, or comparing the line of the horizon against a nearby straight-edge and witness the slight curvature.
@@dafurious6457 cross Saskatchewan
you really don't know what you're talking about
"Your "horizon" would be caused by the sky itself and be hundreds of miles away."
the horizon is caused by the sky and the floor appearing to converge due to perspective, due to the limit of the human eye, we have an azimuthal grid of vision and we see in a circle, that's why a horizon exists, it's entirely optical and it fluctuates based on the atmospheric conditions of the day..
"The irony in this is the fact that the horizon wouldn't BE perfectly flat in the first place if the earth was actually flat."
The irony is that the only horizon you see is the apparent horizon and your geometric horizon which is NECESSITATED and REQUIRED by the globe earth does not exist, it's never seen.. yet we can continually see further than what we're supposed to be able to, you take the radius of the earth and the circumference and then from that you can apply geometry and deduce a geometrical physical horizon, we've continually made observations past that horizon yet they blame it on 'refraction' yet on a clear day we can see even farther, and they claim that's because there is more refraction..
you cannot zoom through the earth, there's no kind of refraction that appears to flatten out a geometrical physical curve, that's absolutely ridiculous and has never been demonstrated
the trouble with you lot and i mean no offence here, is that you've been educated beyond your own intelligence
@@TheVeganFinalBoss ok
When the sun is setting right on the horizon in England, in California the sun is straight overhead noon. No way to explain that unless the world is round.
No way to explain it unless California is tropical, either.
I disagree noob 😂😂😂😂
Also there's two different skyscapes depending on the hemisphere. And you can take a long exposure photo on each hemisphere and see that the star trails are centered on two different points, one looking south in the south and one looking north in the north hemisphere.
Looks great at when you are just smack in the middle :)
@@ABaumstumpf Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen star trails taken from the equator. Must be nice.
@@tHEuKER I'd want to see the sky at the equator. It must be almost uncanny valley.
@@Gandhi_Physique I don't think you'd notice anything out of the ordinary with the naked eye, unless you're REALLY well versed in the layout of the sky (I sure am not).
Even better than that, shoot a long exposition picture of the sky when in the Canary island, and you will see both curvatures at once.
I wonder how FEs would explain that...
Ah yes.
The ultimat flat earth killer.
The sun.
And the moon.
TBH, the Sun can kill most things,
with the exception of a few other astrophysical objects.
"The sun is a deadly laser"
- Bill Wurtz
@@Rudxain Not anymore there's a blanket.
“THE SUN??!”
- Chandler Bing
no matter how well you explain it, the sad reality is that flat earth belief is mainly a matter of religion. You can never convince a flat earther otherwise
Exact same thing with the creationists, no amount of evidence will make a difference
@@johnalexir7634 It helps that creation/origins can't be repeated, which means that perspectives both are religions.
@@IsYitzachsorry if I got your comment wrong but are you saying evolution is a religion too??
@@IsYitzach you don't have to be able repeat the subject for it to be science. You just have to be able repeat the experiment that tests the subject. And we can, so evolution isn't religious
@@thebrushman4123 re resistance to medicine, evolution has been tried out with bacteria, where you can repeat large populations and hundreds/thousands of generations in relatively short time. See e.g "microbial experimental evolution"
Unfortunately this video wont help because flat-earthers dont know how to do any math
I think it's even sadder than that. They understand the math, they just choose to disregard it instead.
@@ShadowDoc Proper mathematical conceptualization of the Flat Earth paradigm requires a level of IQ so unfathomably high, it's rarely seen outside of ascetic hermits and prominent philosophers in history.
Your inflexible thinking reveals you only rely on elementary school level mathematics, never pondering the greater Mysteries of reality, accepting only facts regurgitated by others, rather than partaking in proper scientific endeavor.
I think it's more like them disregarding any math that contradicts their collectively subjective (or maybe subjectively collective) belief.
@@ShadowDoc nah, I've met a few and talked to them about math. They absolutely do not know math at all. You are right though in that it's kinda not about the facts anyway, it's about how it makes them _feel._
@@idontwantahandlethough If you've truly met any Flattards you'll know by now that it's actually got fuck all to do with the shape of the Earth. It's about winning any argument, even when totally wrong, it's about trying to look intellectually equal when clearly not. They soon moved to covid bullshit and 5G lunacy when they popped up.
There are 3 types of flat Earthers, the con men, the trolls and the ignorant. The con men and trolls already know the Earth isn't flat and the ignorant, well if you reach adulthood that messed up, no amount of math is going to fix that leaky boat.
The con men are the trolls. Same thing. Same sadistic, psychopathic, narcissistic grifters.
The few remaining are religious fundies, who cannot be helped, and stupid people, who cannot be helped.
And three types of round earthers the con men the trolls and the ignorents this line fits on you too lol😂
@@Progamer12720 There is at least one more group, the folks that invent stuff like GPS and GIS that flat Earther folks benefit from every day that rely on the Globe. There are a few other types as well, but I wouldn't want to stress the simple too much.
@@jamesgoudreau1940 And were they got that materials from the first material.scientists are not a god. When a child makes a sand castle it does not mean he created sand.. At last there is a creator (God). Except that big bang theory which created a human like aliens.😂
@@UncleKennysPlace There are millions of Christian fundamentalists who don't believe the Earth is flat.
11:11 ah, that's what being taller is *really* useful for; you can see further on the occean. I'll make sure to take a stool, step ladder, or a nice tall table the first time I go to the occean, so I can more of it.
The story about Eratosthenes is simplified, a person like him would know how to make averages and to do that you need several measurements, so I think he had someone take notes about the sun's angle at a position in-between the two points mentioned in the story, and also take several measurement from different nearby positions to get a better and more precise number. The flat-earth argument that the same math also work on a flat earth is based on only two locations, but if we have 3 or more points the idea of a flat surface had been falsified quickly.
It's rather that the shape had already been determined centuries earlier. He was not interested in proving the shape, he was interested in the size, knowing the shape already. And for that a two-datum measurement was sufficient. Not optimal, but sufficient
@@hartmutholzgraefe Indeed, they knew the Earth to be a globe before the measurement. The shadow of Earth cast on the Moon during Lunar eclipses pretty much seals the deal.
@@hartmutholzgraefe That's correct, but more than two points would be needed to get a good result, people back then know that and it was therefore ships had several individuals to measure angles and knots for navigation and took the average. So the story about the well and only one extra point is a simplification in the same way we simplify E=mc² to make it easier to understand.
@@kennylex as Eratosthenes did not aim for navigation, but just for a rough estimate, he might have done this with a single data point only.
To get to a more precise value of course required more data points, and preferably different methods, too, like combining those of Eratosthenes and Al Biruni.
Nobody would of course have e.g. defined the meter as the 10 millionth part of a meridian from pole to equator, based on a single measurement only.
But back when Eratosthenes lived there was not really much practical use for the determined value, ships were still just sailing along the coasts mostly, and travel distances on land were rather defined by how many day trips it takes to get from X to Y.
I won't rule out that Eratosthenes had actually done multiple measurements, but I don't see any confirmation of that either.
Al Biruni on the other hand did take measurements from several mountains indeed as far as I remember reading ...
Moon has a better explanation. It is tidally locked to earth which in a flat earth model that was no meaning . We would have images from different sides of the moon
I think they believe the moon is also some type of 2D disc 😂
@@sadderwhiskeymann Yeah but as far as common sense goes that is where anyone should draw the line.
All shortest paths between two points on the earth are actually sections of a circle around the earth. Navigation would be COMPLETELY different if the earth wasn't a sphere.
And yet ironically they will state “perspective” or “conspiracy” as to why they don’t take a quote on quote “straight path”
it's quite fortunate for flat earthers that the azimuthal projection they choose lines up with the northern hemisphere of the globe closely enough that you can conceivably brush off inconsistencies with flight paths as measurement error in something or other. A straight line on the flat earth from any point above the equator to any other point above the equator is likely to be close to the actual great circle path you should actually follow. The closer the path comes to meeting the north pole, the closer the approximation.
> Navigation would be COMPLETELY different
That issue is trivially solved by assuming that all ship's and aircraft crews are part of a conspiracy.
7:56 I encountered a flat earther on my uber ride to the airport. The context of the situation spoke for itself and I immediately diverted the conversation to something more tolerable. I don't think he would comprehend refraction beyond the pronunciation of a newfound scientific buzzword. It is inadvisable to argue with these people, as they delight in argument baiting and love preaching their gospel without regard to rational criticism. They don't listen to you. If anything we should learn from Eratosthenes, its the simplicity of the concept of a spherical earth. Flat earthers have been wasting the time of smart and important people for centuries. Still a great video 👍
They close their mind to anything that don't like
@@kefhomepage To be fair (weird as it is to say that regarding flat earthers) it's human nature to close our minds to things we don't like.
@@kefhomepage "They close their mind to anything that don't like"
"Flat earthers have been wasting the time of smart and important people for centuries."
Project much?
"Flat earthers have been wasting the time of smart and important people for centuries. "
So why are all you smart and important people still making and commenting on these videos?
Who is making you waste your time posting on RUclips?
I mean, if it's been centuries aren't you wasting your OWN time here?
You must be a Democrat, always playing the victim.
@@raypeery6317 Not at all. That has nothing to do with "not liking" it, it's that it's very easily demonstrably false.
This is where the flerfers blurt "Reification Fallacy" because they think that lets them dismiss any mathematical result.
I love this, unfortunately I don't think it is simple enough to convince my flat earther friends and family. Super unfortunately I have a lot of those lol. My nieces and nephews only really believe it because their parents say that is how it is and it is hard to believe anything different when you are that young and your parents believe it with so much fervor.
Sounds like a new religion tbh
@@rr.studios It kinda is, they left mormonism, just to get caught up into that lol. Though they aren't pushy with it which is nice.
My suggestion, if your budget allows, plan a family vacation to Myrtle Beach SC, and have everyone ride the big Ferris wheel on the boardwalk. At the top of the rotation you can look to the north and see the houses and condos of North Myrtle Beach, and as the wheel descends you can easily see how they disappear over the horizon, bottoms first. Nothing like simple, direct observation to disprove crazy theories. If South Carolina is too far I can make other suggestions closer to where you live, for example large wind farms can be used, or very tall buildings, give me a rough idea of location and I will make a suggestion how to directly see the curvature of the earth there.
@@jpe1 that might work and it would be a lot of fun, but I think their decision to believe in flat earth goes more into the mistrust of anything "worldly", for lack of a better term. Seeing isn't believing at this point. I can point out holes in their ideas all the time, but it's something they need to want to even look at rather than just blindly believe. Which is funny because that is what they think they are doing, which makes it even more difficult to sway them
@@DalTron001 the “a lot of fun” part is why I made the suggestion, worst case scenario nobody is convinced but you still have a nice vacation 😉
I suppose the actual worst case would be some massive family fight over their willful ignorance and then a rift in family relationships, but would that really be a bad thing? I know LGBT people who had to abandon their families of origin because of bigotry and hatred, and they are better off, so if something like what propose sparks a family feud, well then perhaps the family wasn’t worth maintaining… not trying to be mean or anything, and I would actually expect a better outcome.
I wonder how long it will take flat Earthers to just reinvent all of physics with a different coordinate system. Like, just do the inverse relative to the Earth center and you're done, that's a flat Earth model. Of course, it would be computational hell and the notion of "flat" is kinda a stretch, but...
And sunsets happen because of some unholy curved perspective because light rays just happen to be curved in a particular way. How to calculate this curvature? Well, take in the angle of the ray and this arbitrary length that happens to be 6357 km...
Note: actually the inverse should be done from some point on the surface, like the southern pole. Otherwise you end up with an inside-out earth model. Which is arguably way more fun.
Having spoken to flat earthers on the topic before, they genuinely don't comprehend coordinate systems to begin with, much less are capable of reinventing anything having to do with them. I have attempted to explain polar coordinates to flat earthers before, and the most common thing they ask is where the second pole is.
I like making fun of flat-earthers because it makes me feel smart even though my intelligence is completely average
Which still makes you smarter than a FE'r
Not to descredit you in any way, you could be retarded and still find flat earthers dumb.
Most flat-earthers have mental illness, not low intelligence.
You only look smart to yourself. Real geniuses don’t care that you are still believing you are an evolved ape and people in Australia are not upside down. Billionaires and pilots and space agency workers and government and church leaders and medical leaders and university leaders… billionaires… they all know. You are a mark. A dumb one. H th e lies don’t work on many of us. If you really believe in the globe go find some evidence of curve and bring it to me. Kaleb does a show every day almost on TikTok asking globe believers to bring the proof and show the globe… there doesn’t seem to be anymore globe believers willing to defend it. I’ll lay my life down on the truth. Are you that confident? I AM
Sometimes not being stupid is all it takes to make the world better
Here's what's sad. The only people who understand this are the ones who already know that the earth isn't flat. 😂
I was a dues-paying member of the official flat earth society for 5 years. It is my observation that all the members there fall into 3 categories:
50% normal people who lurk because they find the discussions hilarious (like me)
45% trolls that pretend to be flat-earthers to rile up the real flat-earthers
5% actual flat-earthers
Almost all of the wild flat-earth explanations come from the trolls.
flath earth society is shit, nothing to do with flat earth model
Yeah, the only member I ever knowingly met was top brass in the Canadian air force. He used to brag about how many times he'd flown around the earth, get another beer, and say, ok, now let me explain to you how we know it's really flat.
Always suspected it's 100% trolls
It's a lot like the KKK, just that almost everyone is a troll instead of an FBI agent
I was harassed for some time by a local flerfer who had tracked me in real life... she menaced me and used to call me "a NASA priest", deeply religious... she had schizophrenia... by the time I was getting a restriction order she vanished, she probably started harassing somebody else... so, there is a core of very crazy people out there ready to jump at whatever crazy conspiracy is available... many of them wear red caps these days...
At the very end, the 8"/mile drop and why you can still see the object was the best diagram I'd ever seen on this. Thanks!
That's how I ended up understanding it properly. I started running into a lot of people arguing against using that formula because they think it is parabolic and therefore "wrong," but it was only ever devised as a rule of thumb for occasions where the distance is a lot shorter than the radius of Earth. It was never intended to deal with very large distances.
It's a long time since I was at school so it took me a while to re-learn how to work out sagittas and chord lengths. The drop is just a sagitta in reality as this video illustrated very nicely.
Once you see that, the next thing you see is that the so-called "bulge" is another sagitta, and its arc length is half the arc length of the one that gives you the drop. The maths is related. When you simplify it all out, you come out with 2d^2 for the "bulge" to complement the 8d^2 for the "drop."
@@RustyWalker
if I'm correct, the graph for 8"/mi² is
(x/(640000)²
7:55 The only logical counterargument (if we ignore all other information about physics) would be that light rays would have to curve but you could debunk that too.
14:58 It would have to move like that relative to earth. You can probably visualise it,by getting a coordinate system with a sphere and then warping it so a sphere in it looks like it’s flat. Then go a straight line and that’s your,path of light.
Then go a earth is round.
Occlusion on the flat earth. The bottom approaches the top of an object as it gets further away, that means it will cover it, they think. But it never gets there. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of limits
Here is how I know the Earth is spherical, without using a single number of math.
I am an A Class skydiver. The most coveted jump load of the day, is what is known as the sunset load. This is because of the beautiful sunset while in free fall.
Now, it is illegal (in the United States anyway) to skydive after sunset, except during a full moon with proper permits, licenses, and equipment for night jumps.
Now, it has occurred several times before, that we have witnessed the sunset as we're getting into the plane and by the time we're tracking down the runway the sun has already disappeared below the horizon. The sun has set. As we climb to 15,000 ft of altitude, we see the sun rise above the horizon again. Once we reach altitude we then exit the aircraft, which is legal, because the sun is above the horizon once again. and then we can witness the sunset again while in free fall. It is actually possible to witness two sunsets in one day. It's quite a beautiful experience.
This would only be possible on a spherical earth.
Anybody can do this, assuming you're reasonably fit (I have seen 80-90-100 plus year old females, make tandem jumps) and have approximately 400 to 600 hundred dollars (depending on the drop zone) for a tandem jump, which usually comes with both still photos and video so you can relive the event as often as you like.
Oh, and an hour of ground school, which is included in the price.
Try it out if you're ever in Florida, we have beautiful weather (assuming we're not being visited by a hurricane), large, comfortable, and powerful jump aircraft, lots of drop zones, and reasonable prices.😊
Lots of skydivers come to Florida just for skydiving vacations.
Come and get your knees in the breeze!
My wife who made a tandem jump north of Chicago 18 years ago would love to do that. Personally, standing on a chair changing a light bulb is my limit.
Wouldn't it be cooler to do this just before sunrise, so you can see the sun set while falling?
It is comments like these that makes us globe-earthers seem as unintelligent as flat earthers.
I'm sorry to say, but the phenomenon you described during sky diving at sunset is NOT because the earth is round. The distance you are describing is literally comparable to elevating a water molecule a faction of a millimeter off of a beach ball. In other words, the distance is negligible.
The phenomenon you are experiencing is much more to do with the refraction of light through the atmosphere, than the curvature of the earth.
Take it from a AI if you don't believe me:
"You can see the sun after sunset by going up 3 miles in the atmosphere because of atmospheric refraction, which bends the sunlight as it travels through the Earth's atmosphere, allowing you to see the sun even when it's technically below the horizon from ground level."
These should be a lesson in humility, that us globe-earthers are just as susceptible to illogical thinking as flat-earthers.
@@user-hj8vd2od9h He is a skydiver, not a physicist.
@@diegolizarazo6302
You missed the point my dude...
Flat-earthers are just normal people who like to do normal things as well, they are not physicists either. So why do so many globe-earthers treat them so poorly, like they are the unintelligent scum of the earth? They are no different than this commenter who irrationally believes the earth is a sphere.
So to summarize: Earth is a donut.
The energy field is in a form of donut. It’s Tesla coil
i think there is a hole in your theory.
As someone who has eaten dirt, I find the donut earth theory to be not nearly as delicious as it sounds on paper.
Actually, the Earth is the “hole” in its own Van Allen radiation belt which can resemble a donut depending on the model used :P
I think you can easily disprove this but hey I'm not ruining the joke here
bii
You cannot reason with who dont listen
LMAO it's the opposite. People like you are the ones who don't listen, we on the other hand listen to all the counter arguments and prove them wrong
@@SorakaOTP462you say that, but i’ve never seen that happen a single time. go ahead. do it.
@@SorakaOTP462 we? terraplanists?
@@SorakaOTP462 explain SRTM.
@@SorakaOTP462 "People like you are the ones who don't listen, we on the other hand listen to all the counter arguments and prove them wrong"
Sure - was nice seeing the 15°/hour and that the surface of a large lake is in fact not flat :)
having sailed [Navy] from Sydneyt Australia, to Hawaii in a warm current, ships ahead and stern, ships ahead and astern would dip below the horizon [ships save suel in currents] thus direct observation shows earth is rounded, also have flown form Sydney to London, similar observations, including radar images of ships below the horizon.. let along astronauts on the moom watching and recording earth rise, as a globe shaped object.. there are satellite radars measuring everything..
I live in portugal, which is close to the center of the flat earth model. That rotation of the sun is completely inconsistent with my daily observations of the sun rising in the East, setting in the West, and crossing the sky right above me during the day, especially in the summer. Same for the moon and other planets. In the flat earth model, the sun never seems to cross the sky of most countries, let alone those in the center.
And also in that model, the sun never goes down toward and past the horizon, it just goes farther and farther away, which is also inconsistent with the my daily observations of any random Joe. And the sun light would have to fall off quite abruptly for that model to work.
If the earth was flat, we would able to see new york from portugal with a telescope. Unless fog got in the way, but we might still be able to shine a laser from one coast line and observe it arriving at the other.
Well, the waves and tides might get in the way as well, but if Lisbon had a skyscraper the same height as Memorial Tower in NY, on a clear day a laser from one would be visible from the other, if parallel to sea level. Only on a flat Earth, of course.
To see New York from above Lisbon (without doing the ‘math’) I think you’d need to be about 5,000 km up from the ground: atop a very tall building indeed.
@@bf99ls when you're standing on land you're already above the highest tides, and you don't need climb very high to be a above the tallest waves. If the earth was flat then I believe the Cristo Rei should be way more than enough.
5:40 that's such a nice footage
The fact that Polaris' angle is the same as the latitude you're standing on is also only possible if the Earth is round. And going for that route, the equatorial mounts used to follow stars in astronomical observations also can't work on a flat earth.
Flat earthers will cherry-pick photos from unusual weather conditions where the effect due to refraction is particularly high and makes objects further away than normal visible. Then they pick a curve calculator which assumes there is no atmosphere and say that we see too far, therefore it's flat.
they love their lakes and oceans, where refraction is at its strongest
Flerf logic: If math prove the Earth isn't flat, then uhmm uhhhh math don't exist
Its made up by aliens and pushed by the government obviously
Probably unsurprisingly, I have heard this before lol.
I wish you had explained that last point more thoroughly. That's a big one they bring up and I don't feel like you explained that clearly enough.
The reason you can see the 50ft object is that you also have height. Your height needs to be factored into the equation and flat earthers always forget that and can't appreciate the equation that explains this
Well, the last example makes clear that it's the height of the observer that causes more of the object to be visible. Anybody who has _any_ feel for geometry will grasp this just fine. Unfortunately, flat-earthers lack any such sense. They suffer from massive dyscalculia, but they will of course never admit it.
@@unduloid They "suffer" from dishonesty.
6:26 you could graph the "y=1/x" curve (angular size being reciprocally proportional with distance) and the "y=arctan(1/x)" curve (arctan is literally "take a slope (Y/X) and make it an angle", where the Y is 1 and the X is the distance the object is from you)
you'll see for anything further than, like... 3 (so something being 3x further away from you than it is wide, a ruler being 3 rulers away from you, etc) they're basically identical. This is also seen when graphing "y=x" and "y=arctan(x)" directly, except the similarity is at numbers close to 0 instead of far away from it (and 1/(a small number) = a very big number and vice versa)
Since when flatearthers understand or care about math and logic and observation? 🙄
If you're wondering why Eratosthenes assumed the distance to the Sun was much larger than the radius of the Earth, Aristarchus had earlier determined that the distance to the Moon is about 60 Earth radii, and had calculated that the Sun had to be 18-20 times farther away than even that. (His was a gross underestimate, it turned out, because his method was sensitive to measurement errors of a very small value.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Sizes_and_Distances_(Aristarchus)
That’s a myth. These are the same people that believed in other myths, like multiple gods and goddesses
@@Globeisahoaxx It maybe a myth, but it's a calculation which is based on the angle among the Sun, the Earth and the Moon at the exact crescent and YOU YOURSELF can calculate it and trigonometrically deduce that the Sun is much further away than the Moon. Well, no, not you, but a normal people with a two-digits IQ surely can.
@@Globeisahoaxx No, it is a repeatable experiment.
@@betaorionis2164it also based on a simple observation. I can go outside and observe local sun and moon every day. Anything else is just a myth and you fell for a con
@@Hobbes746it’s a myth. Don’t believe this nonsense
Flerfs: Blah blah blah, big scary numbers, followed by evil math, therefore, the earth is flat!
Don't forget the claims of pseudoscience
And the 8 in per mile squared shi(i legit put that into a graph calculator by using (x/8)^2)@@RetreatHell518
The thing is, there's another reason why the Sun isn't close to the Earth, proven using math. (I'm using imperial since most flerfs are from the US)
First, I've seen the distance thrown around as about 3000 miles (4828 km) away. With an angular size of around 0.5 degrees, the *diameter* (not the radius) then should be 26.18 miles (42.13 km), giving us a surface area of 2153.2 square miles (5576.82 sqkm).
Now, from 3000 miles away, in order for our Earth to recieve around 127 W/sqft (1367 W/sqm) then the Sun itself should radiate around 31,865,011,000,000,000 Watts according to the inverse-square law.
With the surface area and radiance in hand, we calculate using the Stefan-Boltzmann law of thermal radiance that the Sun is 6775°F (3746°C). But wait, then the peak wavelength emitted by the Sun would be 721 nanometers, when in reality the peak wavelength is 502 nanometers.
Even using the value of 6332 kilometers (3934.52 miles) away, we get a logically unacceptable value of 1967°C or 3573°F, which too would create a blackbody spectrum that does not match reality at all, peaking well in the infrared (in specific 1293.6 nm).
It's weird thinking this is the same guy who makes some of the funniest skits and satires ive ever seen.
Not weird at all. Humor requires intelligence.
Why're you telling flat-earthers to stare at the Sun? You know some of them will do it.
Note that the original def. of the meter was such that the equator to the pole was 10 mega meters, e.g. 40,000 km meridional circumference.
So meters don’t exist because the earth is flat?
@@violjohn no, then it's the 20 Mm from Santa Claus to the Ice Wall.
@@DrDeuteron Ingenious!
Regarding observed horizon distance: 1. Standard refraction due to the adiabatic lapse rate (air pressure is lower as you increase altitude) reduces the observed drop by about 1/6th or 1/7th the geometric calculation
2. Very close to the water, temperature and humidity gradients close to the surface can significantly change this standard refraction.
Math isn’t real I made it up
Now use statistics to lie and prove the earth is flat
How about some measured earth curvature to support your spinning water globe fantasy?
@@sleepyjoe9267 Already have that. You just don't care enough to look into it.
@@sleepyjoe9267 Just look it up
Yall always ask us to give you proof but then when we provide it you just disregard it
@@syenous2454 do you have measured earth curvature, yes or no?
@@Gandhi_Physique Do you have measured earth curvature, yes or no?
Ham Radio: U can hear own echoes on Shortwave at the backside of the antenna. They are spinning round the 40ks. At good conditions or with lotta pwr. Or shoot on 70cm and 1KW to the moon. Listen after about 5 seconds for your cw signals. Then calculate distance with c. Any doubts that the distance of the moon is not correct?
To prove the earth isn't flat all you need to do is try to create an accurate flat map of the earth. You will eventually realize it cannot be done. All flat maps make decisions about their necessary distortions. In some flat maps the distortions are stretched vertically, but in most flat maps they are stretched horizontally. Take a look at any flat map of the earth. Is Greenland larger than the continental United States? The answer will be yes, because it is closer to the north pole and therefore must be 'stretched' to fit on a flat map. But in reality, the United States is more than 4 times larger than Greenland.
Even basic earth rotation they fail on, even when a flat earther tried to disprove rotation he found the 15degree an hour movement, but they cant even accept the math of 15x24 which gives 1 full 360 rotation, they really are a special kind of stupid.
Thanks Bob.
@@C_Becker And thanks EVERY MODERN AIRCRAFT IN THE WORLD.
The pre-flight test for MOST modern aircraft now is to use the onboard fiber-optic gyros to MEASURE EARTH ROTATION while the aircraft sits "motionless" on the tarmac.
So "Bob's experiment" is LITERALLY done tens of thousands of times a day everyday worldwide.
I always bring up the experiments that flerfs have done to prove rotation and curvature, and they don't respond or jump to other talking points as usual
I am in a NASA review right now where they are discussing how the Northrup Grumman "Scaleable Inertial Reference Unit" or SIRU has 23 years of flight heritage on spacecraft, first launched on AC-123 in Sept 1996. It has logged 150 MILLION Hours of operation in spacecraft in earth orbit or Deep Space.
These are Fiber-optic gyros that can EASILY measure earth rotation. That is how we TEST them before launch.
With ~15 minutes of data from one sitting "level" on a table I can tell you:
Which Hemisphere I am in
The Direction of True North
The unit's Latitude to within a few degrees.
I will be writing the procedures to test the SIRU on the NEO-S spacecraft.
i have a couple of friends that worked on the clipper probe to jupiter's moon europa.
@@johnqpublic7608then they likely work at Lockheed where I used to work! or JPL
@@stuartgray5877 Lockheed and Cambria, great band.
@@johnqpublic7608 When I worked at Lockheed Martin Flight Systems in the1990s, JPL asked us for a "Proposal" to build a Europa Orbiter. We were building Cassini and Mars Global Surveyor in the same Clean Room at the time and Stardust, Genesis, and the Mars 98 orbiter and lander were in beginning of production at the same facility, so we were a "sure thing" for winning the billion dollar "Europa Orbiter" Contract.
So, we submitted a huge, massively detailed "Proposal" for the orbiter that we would build for them. They took all the work, stuck it in their briefcase, and said 'thanks for this but we have already decided to build this in-house at JPL'.
That design was mostly developed by and detailed for JPL for basically free because JPL misled Lockheed back when they were very buddy-buddy. They sort of promised a Billion-dollar contract then yanked the rug out from under the deal AFTER they accepted the detailed design specifications for a spacecraft that would meet all of the requirements.
@@stuartgray5877
that sounds like the government.
my friends are not at jpl or lockheed. they designed one of the experiments. not the probe itself.
That's a lot of math to throw at someone who probably failed geometry and trig
They don't understand the 'a priori' nature of the argument, and reject it because they think NASA is lying.
This is actually really good
How to stump a flat earther: ask them the distance from Santiago to Buenos Aires (1140 km on a globe). Watch as confusion arises because how do you accurately measure distance across a distorted continent.
They’ll just answer : "it’s 5 centimetres, I just mesured it on my map, gotcha stupid globe earther"
It should be mentioned that you can use the 8in/mile² approximation to determine if you would see an object by using it twice. First use the observer height to figure out how far out your horizon is by using it in reverse. So h = 8in*x², rearranged to x² = h/8in, take the square root and we get x = sqrt(h/8). Of course the height given in inches and x is the distance to the horizon in miles. Once we know that distance we can subtract this distance from the distance to the object we want to observe. So we actually get the length of the tangent from the horiton to the object we want to observe. Here we can use the same formula again, but this time the normal way. Though since the distance is now shorter, the actual drop will be less as well. This is quite accurate. Though we're missing refraction, of course.
ps: refraction usually raises things upwards and almost never makes it appear lower. For this the denser air would need to be further up and the lighter air needs to be on the ground. Snell's law. Since the atmosphere is almost always more dense further down / closer to the earth, light would always bend downwards which would make things appear higher as we can essentially look slightly around the curve. That's why in almost all cases we can see further than what pure geometry would tell us.
Its all so dumb. Ask why storms rotate opposite from each other in the northern and southern hemispheres. There is no need for N and S hemispheres if earth is flat and no need for an equator. Then of course the north star isn't visible from the southern hemisphere...so there's that too. I mean cmon.
If the people who believe the earth is flat trusted complex math equations we wouldn’t have had any flat earthers to begin with.
complex? this is high school level stuff.
@@johnqpublic7608 It's complex for them though lol. I doubt most of them even finished highschool.
So what they mean when they say "perspective", in relation to the sun moving away, is how when an object gets further away from you, from YOUR point of view, it will look like it converges at the horizon.
And it's true! This DOES happen. It happens regardless of how big the sun is, even if the sun is at a fixed altitude.
The only problem is that it needs to be RIDICULOUSLY far away for this effect to happen.
Basically, if the sun is 1000km altitude, then it's at a 90* angle in the sky. If it's at a distance of 1000km and an altitude of 1000km (so solving the right triangle, it's at ~1414km), then it's at an angle of 45*. If it's at a distance of 3000km with alt 1000km (3162.3 km away from you) then it's at an angle of ~18*. Etcetera.
Now the angular resolution of a human eye is about 0.017*. This means that if 2 objects are 0.017* apart, you can't tell that it's 2 objects. This is exactly what they mean when they say that "objects converge at the horizon", the objects are so far away that they appear to converge, because the angle between them is smaller than the angular resolution of a human eye.
So let's plug in this value. We've got a right triangle with one side 1000km, and the angle opposed to 1000km is 0.017* degrees. What's the size of the hypothenuse (the direct distance from you to the sun)?
Well, it's about 3 MILLION kilometers.
The sun would literally need to be 3 million kilometers away from you, in order for it to appear to converge with the horizon...
And you know what the irony is? You would STILL be able to tell it apart from the horizon (or as they put it: "bring it back from over the horizon") if you use an optical zoom method...
Perspective is a PROJECTION of rays of view to a screen (our eye), your calculations makes no sense. You should trace rays from the eye to the object and trace the intersection with the viewing plane, as the object goes further away the traced point on the screen goes down. That is how we see and is called recession in space.
@@robegatt That's what he did...
Also, perspective cannot make half the sun appear to be below the horizon with the other half clearly visible, no matter how far away it is.
@@vibaj16 no he did not, he completely distegards perspective recession in space (the road light poles example comes to mind)
@@mrosskne it is not perspective that does that but atmospheric lensing. What you see at sunset is a small sun at a vanishing point THROUGH the lensing effects of humidity in the air. Photos of sunset in a dry desert or zooming in proves that.
Also: refraction in the exponentially thinning atmosphere tends to lift object's apparent elevation - light from outside propagates into layers of denser atmosphere with higher refractive index.
This proves it guys, the earth is math
I love how you spent your time debunking flat earth with math when most flat earthers have never used any math beyond addition
As other people have said, this won't change a flat earther's mind, but it's still a fun and informative video.
There are lots of math that disprove flat Earth. I myself did the math on some. For example, the sun would never set or even be out of sight unless an object of height got in the way. If you were on one edge of the flat earth against the supposed ice wall, and the sun was on the exact opposite edge at even the lowest estimated height of the sun, the tallest mountain on earth would have to be within 35 miles to block the sun.
The Sun would always be visible to everyone at all times on a flat surface.
Not neccessarily, no. Its allready not even if its directly above you uf theres a thick enough cloud cover. It would, however, never set.
@@Neuromancerism The Sun is circling above a flat surface on the flat model. It would be visible at all times by everyone on the surface, maybe with intermittent cloud cover it would be interrupted, but in the middle of the 'night' though?.
@@maxmac7845 It wouldnt ever be covered by the planet, correct. As i set, it would never set. Would it neccessarily always remain visible? That depends on the opacity of the atmosphere (or anything in the atmosphere that could be in the way)
There'd be no atmosphere on a flat Earth for clouds to form anyway.
Don't forget the magic low-flying sun has a magic lampshade! 😂
If only flat earth conspiracy theorists could read.
They use to say, we must have open minds but their minds have obviously been so open their brains have fallen out. Flat Earthery is a cult a religion. Facts doesn’t matter anymore, just conspiracy theories and they feed each other with lies, ideas, fake or manipulated images.
There’s a project on the horizon where a guy, Will Duffy, will pay for a few globe earthers and a few flatearthers to go to Antarctica and see the midwinter sun. The most prominent flerfs have turned down the offer because of “дьльуафщ татщьаь гуфлад ювьтайла” (unhinged word sallad).
To use a rather insulting racist slur from a politician 50 years back, “the flatearthers are happy with a tight pussy, big shoes and a warm place where they can take a dump”.
There's more rain on Mars than brain in Flerfs.....
They would probably say something along the lines of: "The atmosphere bends light, so everything you said is wrong... 😼"
13:14 by the way, due to some coincidence, it is also equal to approximately 8 cm per km squared
hmmm.. let's see
(2.54 cm/in) ~= (1.6 km/mile)^2 = 2.56 hecta-hectares per square mile).
noice.
They also claim Earth keeps accellerating upwards to generate gravity. If this were true, Earth would have surpassed the speed of light multiple times already. But some flat-earther once replied that this is a special case of relativity where you can keep accellerating but never reach the speed of light. LOL, they always have an answer that doesn't make any sense.
Or when I made the claim that the flat disc should be tilted after accellerating for thousands of years because the Earth isn't the same weight everywhere and thus, one side should accellerate faster than the other, making it tilt. Some flat-earther told me this can't happen because it sits on an unmovable pillar, preventing any tilt. After asking why it keeps accellerating upwards while sitting still on an unmovable pillar, I got no more response. LOL again. They contracidct anything constantly and they still keep going, trying ti prove a flat disc instead of just accepting we live on a ball.
Actually most flerfers think "gravity" is a function of density and buoyancy. Just like how a steel weight sinks in water because it's more dense than water, it sinks in air because it's more dense than air. Now this is still a ridiculous argument since density is based on gravity, but it's the scapegoat they stick to
All you need to prove that the Earth is not flat is a functioning brain!
No flat-Earther, not one, knows this much about mathematics.
That alone tells you everything you need to know
ironic considering so many people who believe the earth is round use Eratosthenes' experiment as proof
@@mmeister8582 to be fair, an extended version of the Experiment with more and more observers would narrow down the shape to a spheroid
@@benjaminmuller9348 You only need 3 non-collinear observers actually
@@hanifarroisimukhlis5989 You're half right. You only need 3 to disprove flat earth and prove curvature, you would just need a large number to completely prove a sphere
Your first mistake was thinking math would convince a flat earther
Bet the math in Vegas and give 30, 60, 90 days to counter or they forever hold their peace.
What good is maths to people that can barely spell their own names 😂
Guess 99% of flerfs never been abroad. 90% lives in citys and can’t see the stars. 80% never graduated. 1% just trolls. And some that wants your money!
And they vote for the dumb bully Trump.
Bro
80% trolls actually
So, the thing about this is that flat earthers will never actually do math or listen to the results of math.
If they did that, they wouldn't be flat earthers in the first place.
@@anlumo1 Very much this. Being terrible at highschool math is a prerequisite for being a flat earther.
I actually measured the average Gaussian curvature of the earth using the NASADEM data set (publicly available), whence I got the radius of curvature, and it was 1/sqrt(ab), where a, b are from WGS84. Note that NASADEM has heights relative to The Geoid, not The Ellipsoid, so it is locally flat if you're a hydrologist.
But you can transform that into ECEF and get the true shape of the surface, at 30m postings, in a Cartesian coordinate system.
It has a curvature product--of which there can be many, but the 2 popular ones are:
1) the radius of curvature of height contour lines.
2) rate of change of slope along the steepest slope.
They come in 15' squares, and look very, very cool in a color display.
at 12:40 , to way justify that we can ignore y² is a bit weird, we can't consider it negligible since it's the value we are searching ! But we can make the assumption that y² is negligible and verify if the assumption was correct at the end ( wich is true, obviously). It's not much, but let's not give them a rigor "mistake" ( more likely popularization) to focus on and forget the rest of that nice video
its not weird - that is just a fact. if R >> y then it follows that Ry >> y². So as long as the distance we are talking are relatively small compared to the >6000km of radius it doesnt make much of a difference.
60 km is way beyond the horizon at sea, yet the error introduced from this linearisation is still less than 1%.
It was a quick explanation, but totally valid. Go ahead and solve the problem with the y^2, it’ll be more complicated, and the answer will be nearly identical.
how I counter flerfs: explain Lunar eclipse
Define lunar
@@Globeisahoaxx Are you American?
😅
In FE lore, there's a special dark object that passes under the moon during a lunar eclipse, and never shows up at any other time.
@@Zodiac4711 they think the earth is flat and only an American is dumb enough to think that, so yeah
@@dafurious6457 Well, to be honest, we also have flatties here in Germany.
But at least they know what lunar means.
😅
One argument I haven't seen much is that if the earth was flat a nuclear explosion would be bright enough to be seen everywhere on earth.
Their response will just be that nukes are fake
Good point!
Let's add it to the humongous pile of good arguments for spherical Earth that the flat earthers will completely disregard.
I kinda want to know what flat earthers think about gravity, that it's just universally downward and not a result of mass? How does their sun and moon stay up in the sky and not fall down to the Earth?
@@skulkingshadow Some believe the ground is accelerated "upward" and/or buoyancy is involved in the role of gravity tho in that case they generally call it as "density". (No need to tell me how dumb it is, just passing on what I've happened to read)
For Sun and moon there's little to no consistency. Some saying it's a projection on the 'dome', others that they're just flying incorporeal "lights" (yes.. the moon too) or [insert supernatural/miraculous phenomena here] so they don't weigh anything or in sun's occasional case, the fiery ball of gas floats because "helium is lighter than air".
My flat earth relative says he straight up doesn't believe in gravity. Wish I was making that up...
The problem with this proof is that while it's a great one, flat earthers don't listen to proof, so it's just completely pointless
That’s because globe is a lie. It’s a fact
@@Globeisahoaxx👈🏻Good job, op! You triggered one.
To append to the 8"/mi² section:
At 10 miles, the expected drop is 800', however to measure how far below the horizon an object would be expected to be observed, the reference point would not be the observer, but the observer's horizon.
Since the horizon of a 6' observer is 3 miles, the distance you need to calculate the drop from is only 10 - 3 = 7 miles, at which the expected drop is 392", or 32' 8".
Thus, you would expect to see the top 17' 4" of a 50'-tall object 10 miles away from a 6'-tall observer.
Don't forget to use at least standard refraction in your calculations. About 1/6 or 1/7th of the calculated geometric drop.
The idea of a flat earth is almost as silly as the imperial system...
Ooh, so clever and edgy!
It has its uses, not in science of course
Are we really still having this conversation?
I'm astounded that some people believe the earth is genuinely flat.
It's locally flat, and that's good enough for me
@@dj_laundry_list fair
But you see, flerfs cant math
7:58
On the refraction bit, it actually refracts the other way. Everything would appear higher than it should be. So you should actually be able to see the ENTIRETY of the flat earth disk from anywhere just from refraction alone.
Doesn't matter how much evidence you put forth in front of those unwilling to accept reality.
If the earth is flat, there is no limited area the sun shines. Regardless of position, it’s visible everywhere on a flat earth, duh.
mean, at first glance it looks flat, until you walk around... The first sunrise you see the sun sunk in the sea it's over 😅
The kicker is that such reflections can indeed produce a horizon, but the gradient in air temp needed to produce such complete reflections at a decent angle is pretty large. And there are issues with mountains and towers and such things, if the horizon beyond a certain distance is due to an optical effect, namely a reflection in the air, then you should see a mirror image of whatever peaks above the optical horizon so to speak, like you see a mirror image of the sky in the air above the hit water in the autumn or above pavement when it is cooking in the sun. Sometimes you will see something like that far away where the angle is low when there is an inversion like that over the ocean by usually not, and when we look at the horizon when there is no such effect there is no reflection and a simple optical effect is simply ruled out.
Bold of you to assume flat eatthers can do math.