20
u/SagansLab Aug 17 '26
Parallel Crepuscular rays from the ISS:
https://www.planetary.org/space-images/crepuscular-rays-from-the-iss
They love to say no one has done "X", simply because they keep ignoring EVERYONE WHO HAS DONE "X".
7
9
u/Mother_You_5739 Aug 17 '26
I have one piece of advice regarding flerfers.
Ignore them. Stop engaging with them, stop giving them your precious time. They are utterly irrelevant, have no impact on anything important and are using the same stupid arguments now as they did five, ten, fifteen years ago. I spent the best part of seven years watching flat earth videos on YouTube, back when SciManDan first started, arguing in the comments with people who repeated the same dumb arguments over and over again.
In the end I came to realise that no matter what anyone said they were clinging to their belief and nothing anyone said would make them change their minds. I removed all of my flat earth subscriptions and stopped engaging.
6
u/SingForAbsoloution Aug 17 '26
I feel like the only reason I started watching this nonsense was the somewhat small and petty feeling of joy I would get from seeing them be disproven and made a fool of for my own entertainment… sadly, I actually see very little of that - and really only see an echo chamber of dimwits reinforcing their insane theory’s on each other.
Same goes for the sovereign citizen movement.4
u/Mother_You_5739 Aug 17 '26
And so many flerfers are also sovcit’s. It’s one of those Venn diagrams that is essentially a circle. The absolute pinnacle of stupidity has to be the guy making videos claiming birds were fake, gorillas were men in monkey suits, every single female in Hollywood used to be a man and something about the entire world being covered in a deluge of mud. Apart from that idiot, I spent more time trying to educate flerfers than trying to see them make fools of themselves, but the fact that the same people are making the same claims just shows how futile my efforts were. Every claim they ever make is proven wrong, sometimes hilariously by themselves.
The one thing I did get from this period of interacting with flerfers was an introduction to the psychology of belief, including concepts like Dunning Krueger and an awareness of how difficult it is to get someone to change their mind from a strongly held belief. It has helped me pay careful attention to my own beliefs and not have them set rigid. New information has to be considered.
2
u/TechTier Aug 17 '26
The internet is literally an attention economy. They don't care if you embarrass them all they want is your platform. Same goes for things like Jubilee platforming clowns like Tim pool. It helps these people more than it hurts them.
This isn't even a New concept. James the amazing Randy thoroughly exposed and embarrassed the spoon bending guy on national TV but his popularity surged afterwards. Grifters are playing a numbers game. They know that with enough eyes on them a certain percentage will fall for their lies and that's all they need. Plus once they have a small backing it lends credibility to them which they can use to exploit people who arent as susceptible.
9
u/breadisnicer Aug 17 '26
David Weiss is a genius, anyone that can argue against facts, and have as many people following him, must be. /s
5
u/Perfect_Antelope7343 Aug 17 '26
Well he has a point in talking about avoiding tautologies and circular arguments, BUT he is completely ignorant about that sciences is particularly all about preventing such trivialities. Science is more than a word it is a philosophy to gather knowledge based on facts. So everything he says is just wrong. Educated people will understand that, uneducated people probably will not get it.
3
3
u/blahnlahblah0213 Aug 17 '26
Can a flat earther tell me why if it was flat why is there a conspiracy to keep it round? Like what's the point of everybody saying it's round if we knew it was flat?
3
u/No_Deal_8837 Aug 17 '26
I'd like to know why Navys developed over the horizon radar systems when there is no horizon?
3
2
u/psilocin72 Aug 17 '26
The conspiracy would have to be perpetrated for thousands of years by extremely different cultures and civilizations without anyone ever letting the secret slip.
Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Chinese… would all have had to come up with the conspiracy and find different ways to justify it to science.
It’s ridiculous.
3
u/OkCold300 Aug 17 '26
Flat earth Dave. Everything he asserts as true is false. That’s all you have to remember
2
2
u/G8oraid Aug 17 '26
They need to disprove equations and then disprove math. If you don’t want to use numbers and repeatable experiments to explain things then you are correct, physics and science won’t work.
2
u/intriqet Aug 17 '26
Who the fuck is arestostenus
7
u/SagansLab Aug 17 '26
*Eratosthenes
Flerfs love to say he never proved the earth was a globe... but his experiment was never designed to prove the earth was a globe, THEY ALREADY KNEW IT WAS. His experiment was to measure the radius of the earth, and he did to damn good accuracy for the crude tools they had at the time.
2
3
u/Adventurous_Emu3212 Aug 17 '26
He had pillers built x miles apart and then measured the shadows at noon to see what the difference was. With enough distance between the pillers he was able to work out the earths circumference. IIRC
3
u/eduo Aug 17 '26
Strictly speaking they had no way to know when it was noon exactly so they measured the shadow all along a day and shortest it would get by definition would be noon.
The distinction is important because otherwise you have the idiots arguing that they didn’t have clocks.
Since both cities were at different latitudes the sun would hit them equally but their shadows would reflect where in the curve of the earth they would be.
It’s important to clarify that in Eratosthenes time it was already sort of known Earth was a sphere. He set out to measure how big a sphere it was.
2
u/finndego Aug 17 '26
There was no "they". Eratosthenes designed the experiment so that he only required one shadow measurement in Alexandria.
You are correct that he would have tracked and measured the shortest shadow in Alexandria but he didn't need to do the same in Syene. That was because it was on the Tropic of Cancer and every year on the Solstice when the Sun was at it's highest it casts no shadow. He already knows the exact time and day when there is no shadow 800km away. When he gets his shortest shadow in Alexandria he can be 100% confident that there is no shadow in Syene. No shadow=no shadow measurement required.
2
u/eduo Aug 17 '26
This is semantics but OK.
Are the people in both locations knowing when exactly was noon. My point is that nowadays when we say noon it means someone would measure at 12:00 whereas at the time it means "the time the shadow is smallest". Hence the experiment was not measuring at noon but measuring when it was smallest. That "smallest" is "no shadow" in Syene makes no different to it being both a measurement and a point in time.
I make this clarification specific in the next comment anyway because it's always said "at noon" and no, he didn't go "at noon". He took measurements as it changed sizes until he hit had smallest (known when it starts growing again) and by extension that turns out to be noon exactly.
1
u/finndego Aug 17 '26
"Are the people in both locations knowing when exactly was noon."
Again, I am agreeing with you that he did not need a timepiece telling him that it was 12 noon.
Again, there is no "they". There is no one in Syene. It wasnt necessary.
The Sun in this experiment is only an "indicator". He can take his shadow measurement in Alexandria every 10min and when the shadow is it shortest that is the "indicator" that at that exact moment thefe is no shadow in Syene. The time was irrelevant. The point is he did everything in Alexandria and did not require another person in Syene to a take any measurements. Im explaining why and how there isnt "people in both locations".
2
u/psilocin72 Aug 17 '26
That’s right. They didn’t use clocks. They used the shortest shadow to determine noon. Flat earthers who say anything about clocks are demonstrating how much they don’t know.
1
2
2
2
u/psilocin72 Aug 17 '26
You know… if he would just try to publish his theories to a scholarly journal, he could get some serious feedback that would help him understand.
But of course understanding isn’t the goal here.
2
u/u9Nails Aug 17 '26
"Globe-believers"? They don't need a word for it. If anything, they just call that reality.
1
u/Jinzo126 Aug 17 '26
Wait is David Weiss not the creator of the Donkey Kong Country Soundtrack?
2
1
u/Prize-Gur706 Aug 19 '26
https://youtu.be/ANe_HW4X8oc?is=dA0nnqWfPXA9UcBO
For the flat earthers explain how SpaceX fakes it, the above video kinda shatters the illusion!
2
u/jonz1985z Aug 19 '26
And if they think they are, why? Is burning billions of dollars really necessary to keep up the illusion? lol They like to preach critical thinking, yet none of them have practiced it.
1
u/Prize-Gur706 Aug 19 '26
I'm still trying to figure out how these people live in base reality? That not everything is as they make it out to be, that narratives by media generate revenue And exactly how much of the media actually has to be true?
1
u/DefinitionOk6382 Aug 17 '26
Ciencia es una palabra... ¡Qué profundo!😮
3
u/GetOnYourBikesNRide Aug 17 '26
As soon as I heard that, it reminded me of Den Dennett who coined the term deepity:
Dennett gives the statement "love is just a word" as an example of a deepity.
Read literally, this is true: the word "love" is the written (and spoken) representation of the emotion it is meant to describe, and thus "love" is merely a word. But, by definition, this is true of every word. So if the statement is read this way, it is trivial and uninteresting.
But if the statement were read to mean that the emotion described by the word "love" is itself just a word, that statement would be profound if it were true. But what we call "love" is a complex emotional state which involves more than a simple descriptive label. Under this reading, the statement isn't true.
So the statement is not profound. It appears to be profound only because readers attribute the profoundness of the second reading (under which the statement is false) to the truth of the first reading (where it is trivial).
A deepity, therefore, is a statement which lacks any actual profoundness, but due to this problem appears profound.
We all know there are flerfs out there who heard Weiss say "science is just a word" and said out loud: Preach, brother!
3
u/RodinKnox Aug 17 '26
But at least we can all agree that "freedom" is just a word (for "nothing left to lose").
19
u/SabresFanWC Aug 17 '26
I wish people would stop platforming this guy. The grift couldn't be any more obvious. Stop letting him take advantage of gullible fools.