I have been known to compare Climate Change Deniers to Flat Earth believers (especially when someone says "Today is cold! So much for that Global Warming theory!" and I counter with "My back yard looks pretty flat! So much for that 'Earth is Round' theory!"). Actually, I still believe that's an accurate analogy. BUT... The head of the Flat Earth Society believes in Global Warming (and evolution). Actually, being wrong on only one of three issues puts him ahead of most people...
So you are apologizing to flat earthers for equating them to climate change deniers right? It is pretty sad when a loon that denies the earth is round (and therefore denies gravity) can see the light. I think he just wants a free trip to space so he can see it for himself. Of course he could just watch the NASA/SPACE channel on TV and skip the whole riding on a giant silo full of explosive gasses thing. I wonder if they don't believe in gravity? Something needs to be 3D-ish to make G work out...
Now where have I heard that before It is really kind of funny, to read denialists of both camps using the same pseudo-reasoning.
Good laugh. Im an AGW skeptic and I believe the Earth is round. No wonder you all never speak about the horizon.
Well scientifically, the gravity of celestial bodies is seperate from what their shape might be. Mass, not necessarily shape, is what determines a planet's gravity. Sure, the big bang theory, along with the formation of stars, helps explain why every planet would be spherical...but I can see how most would find gravity a seperate concept from a spherical planet. Granted, this is all fairly crazy...since I would think that if you're that far in denial that any photo from outerspace is "fake", you would also be quick to deny any of that valid science stuff when it comes to global warming, evolution, natural resources, and many other examples. Just look at the resident AGW deniers who chose to believe some things, and have been exposed to ignore all the science that doesn't fit their ideas.
But for a land mass as big as the earth it would fold into itself. Gravity is extremely weak obviously, but in large masses it makes itself known. The flat earth map didn't seem to scale things differently. Since it is known we have drilled 7.5miles down, the flat earth is at least 7.5miles thick. Even as thin as 7.5miles, it seems like the extents would be pulled in to the center. I guess it would be pretty easy to work out mathematically. Just pick an average strength of earth, and approximate volume, and compute the force. But yeah, if you disregard photographic proof then what would happen with math and science!? lol
The gravity that matters to most of us is a law, very different from a theory. Laws describe what happens and can be used to calculate what will happen. Newton laid down the law in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Theories explain why it happens. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explains why it happens.
Yeah, but that requires a whole basis in math and science! I think the main scientific proof for most celestial bodies being spherical where that they were formed as being swirling clouds of gas/particles. There's just some continuation in logic to then assume that organic matter can evolve and that climates are always changing their equalibriums. My point was that some people can not think in those terms.
This doesn't explain why large spherical bodies that have a large chunk knocked by a celestial collision still end up being spherical. The spherical shape comes from gravity being stronger than the mechanical strength of the materials. Below a certain size, asteroids can be any shape, and some are found to resemble potatoes, peanuts, or barbells. Above some size, they all collapse to approximate spheres.
And also, importantly, it can be wrong! Just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is a correct law. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are wrong (Einstein's special relativity provide laws for planetary motion which are more accurate). The distinction made by some people about laws and theories completely ignores the way those words are used in science.
On a related point: Climate change study: More than 300 months since the planets temperature was below average - The Washington Post 300 months = 25 years
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University. So if a baby falls out of a window it is "God" pushing it down to its death? That's a benevolent (and highly intelligent) God for you.
Or cartography. I have often wondered what flat-earthers think the world looks like. Any particular discontinuity (NPI) can be shown to be wrong simply by going there. Of course, some of the hardest work in cartography is trying to map a spherical surface onto a planar piece of paper. So if the world was flat, that would all be easy. (The only tricky part would be making (completely inappropriate) globes for those round-earther fools.)
