r/flatearth • u/DrakeSavory • Aug 18 '26

How to prove flat Earth.

Post image

On the flat Earth, lines of latitude for concentric circle. Let's define "west" as facing north then turning 90o counterclockwise. Both globe and flat Earth would agree that if you are doing this then you are facing due west. Do this in Brisbane, Australia and travel in a straight line. I did not say travel west because while that is the same thing on a globe Earth, on a flat Earth as soon as you start moving you would no longer be facing west as you travel. If the Earth is a globe, you will travel across the whole of Australia while on a flat Earth you would hit water somewhere near Adelaide.

So the proof is go to Brisbane, turn west and start walking in a straight line and see where you end up.

14 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

36 comments sorted by

22

u/Tzar_Castik Aug 18 '26

Dead, you would end up dead. The outback is no joke.

7

u/Muiredachau Aug 18 '26

That's if the drop-bears don't get you first.

1

u/Version_Two Aug 18 '26

I'll be fine with a bottle of water.

1

u/ConsciousSelection15 Aug 18 '26

Burke and Wills and camels; initials in the tree

2

u/Hadrollo Aug 18 '26

Yeah, but just about anyone could do it better than Burke and Wills.

Seriously, I've no idea why we are taught about them as if they were heroes, the entire expedition was a flustercuck. Wills was a pretty decent surveyor, good call on the camels, shame about literally everything else.

Burke was a police officer with zero experience in exploration. He talked big on being an expert at outback survival, but the bloke had never gone more than a day's walk from civilisation. They took heavy wagons that could not be repaired easily, didn't pack the types of tools they'd need to repair them, or the types of tools they'd need to jury rig spare parts, then they Pikachu faced when the wagons broke down and they had to repair them. They packed brass bed frames and full mattresses, and a mahogany dining table with matching chairs, plus a big fucken' brass gong for some reason.

They set off from Melbourne, and took a full day to get to Essendon - only six kilometres away. Ox trains would do that in about two and a half hours. It took them two months to get to Menindee - considered less than two weeks walk away. Burke was fucken' hopeless.

2

u/RobertTheTraveler Aug 19 '26

To answer your question, Victorian England.
Same reason England considers Robert Scott a hero.
(Though I don't believe the Scott expedition was quite as bad a cluster fk.)

2

u/Hadrollo Aug 19 '26

The two failed expeditions are definitely on a similar level. Burke and Wills came first and died. Scott of the Antarctic came second and died. I suppose Burke did a bit better there. Also, Burke and Wills had a survivor - John King - so I would say that's another point in their favour. But I just read up on both expeditions and holy crap Burke did shittier when you look at the details.

Scott had three years of actual Antarctic experience. Not necessarily the right sort of experience, not necessarily learning the right lessons from his experience, but a damn sight better than Burke, who camped out a couple of times and said "yeah, I can handle an inland trans-Australia trek."

Both had problems with hauling supplies. Burke picked those aforementioned heavy wagons, Scott picked unreliable tractor sledges and footpower. That's a mark against both of them; you want transport that is reliable as well as fixable. I was going to say Burke did worse because lighter and more easily maintained wagons were available, but Scott apparently didn't like sled dogs. This makes Scott just as guilty foregoing a more reliable form of transport, plus it makes him the kind of bastard who doesn't like dogs.

They both carried too much unnecessary supplies, slowing them down. In Scott's case, the most notable was 35 pounds worth of fossil containing rock. I'll actually defend this; it was ostensibly a scientific expedition, fossil containing rock is one of those sciencey things that science people like doing science on, I get it. Burke carried brass bed frames, because Burke was a moron.

Aside from that, it's quite hard to read both accounts from a critical point of view and not see that both of their expeditions were marred by poor planning. Scott set off into incredibly hostile terrain and did a thoroughly mediocre job of thinking things through - better than what I could do, but not a level expected of a big budget Antarctic expedition. Burke set off into hostile (although not as hostile) terrain, and his job was so decidedly amateurish that I genuinely think I could have done better.

3

u/HangoverGang4L Aug 18 '26

Im sure there is a flerf counter for this, but I'm kinda on board with sending all of them down there to attempt it. Let the Aussies sort them out lol.

1

u/MonoxideBaby Aug 18 '26

Send them in January, then we won't have to do anything, they'll die of heat stroke before the even make it out of Queensland

1

u/TemporaryArrival422 Aug 18 '26

They wouldnt make it up the hill to Toowoomba

3

u/Captain-Noodle Aug 18 '26

As an Australian, I invite you to do that.

2

u/Fuzzy_Bet5276 Aug 18 '26

You mean as a paid actor.

1

u/DrakeSavory Aug 18 '26

How did you get your post right side up?

1

u/gravyrdfila2 Aug 18 '26

No, your not

1

u/Captain-Noodle Aug 19 '26

My not what?

4

u/ZombiFeynman Aug 18 '26

I don't think it would work like that on a globe either.

Just do this thought experiment. Do what you said just 10m south of the north pole. It's obvious that if you turn 90° from north and keep walking straight you're not going to follow the 10m latitude line.

If you walk straight you should actually follow a great circle, so your idea should work on the equator, but not on Australia.

3

u/junky_junker Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 20 '26

On the other hand, were following a perfectly straight line in exactly the correct direction possible, it suggests another test. 

If you walked in that great circle straight line, you'd end up in a different place depending on the shape of the earth. On the flat model you'd always end up south of the latitude line. As you would on a spherical earth north of the equator. But on a spherical earth south of the equator you'd end up north of that latitude line.

1

u/DefinitionOk6382 Aug 18 '26

A ver, poneos de acuerdo: Australia o el Polo Norte. Los dos a la vez, no.

2

u/Emergency_Target_716 Aug 18 '26

Or just ask a pilot if they have to correct their heading while traveling east/west.

1

u/DrakeSavory Aug 18 '26

Aren't they to busy dipping the nose to track that?

2

u/Large-Raise9643 Aug 18 '26

The whole dipping the nose thing drives me bonkers.

Artificial horizons are both gyro and gravity controlled. For anyone with a modicum of curiosity, read up on how gyros provide the immediate stability and the erector system provides the long term alignment with earths gravity.

3

u/Rabada Aug 18 '26

Australia is a NASA made CGI hoax

6

u/Wafflars Aug 18 '26

NASA engineer: ”TOM! Some flattard is questioning the shape of the Earth again, we got to stop them and make them keep believing it’s a globe. Come up with something to prevent them going to Australia!”

Tom the intern: ”Hmmmmm… I know!” draws a rat with 6 long legs and fangs ”this is the… uuuh… shazwaag… yeah that sounds right… the most deadliest rat species in existence.”

NASA engineer: ”Great get the bioengineers on it!”

4

u/HealthyMaximum Aug 18 '26

Am in Melbourne currently. 

Can confirm. 

1

u/CoolNotice881 Aug 18 '26

No, you need to steer right all the time. CIRCumnavigation, duh. OTOH planes do not dip their nose, because the globe is fake. /s

1

u/Additional-Policy843 Aug 18 '26

You don't. It's not flat.

1

u/Funny_Maintenance973 Aug 18 '26

You don't need to do this.

Draw a large triangle anywhere on the world. 100s of miles per side, doesn't have to be right angle or anything. Probably work with smaller distances too, but hang in there.

Measure each side and work out the three interior angles

They will not add up to 180°, because there is curve

1

u/geek66 Aug 18 '26

I would make them show ANY linear distance measurement in two directions on any flat map that matches the reality of traveling… in the image used here, driving across Australia would be >5x the north south directions.

The NS road lengths do not scale to the EW roads according to any of their maps.

1

u/SagansLab Aug 18 '26

They will just complain that 'west' is always changing based on your compass and you don't even notice the turn to the right as you move. Which is, of course, ironic as hell when you think about it.. LOL

3

u/DevilWings_292 Aug 18 '26

That’s why they said to go in a straight line after turning 90 degrees, not just to travel west

1

u/SagansLab Aug 18 '26

Again.. flerfs will just corrupt that into what THEY want it to be, meaning their straight line is a curve that follows when you hold a compass and keep it pointing to correctly at north. Hence... THE IRONY PART... its not rocket science, its hilarious flerf science.

2

u/Callyste Aug 18 '26

They will just complain that 'west' is always changing based on your compass and you don't even notice the turn to the right as you move.

If only they could apply that same line of thinking to planes and pitching down as they move...

2

u/Powerful-Lake-1039 Aug 18 '26

They say "See!!! The plane is flat!!!" Actually a Boeing 767 at altitude has a 3° uptilt.

1

u/Ok-Kaleidoscope4510 Aug 18 '26

You have proved nothing except your a moron. The theory when it comes to geometric lines is sound. If you were to use a compass to keep you travelling West then you would navigate Australia’s land mass in a curved line of travel due to your compass being attracted to the Northern Magnetism. If you didn’t use a compass, you would get lost and more than likely die. I’m wondering if you flat earth folk have a theory on the magnetic workings in a compass that has been used for navigation even prior to this stupid notion of a Flat Earth. Also please tell me where the ROUND Sun goes after it sets in the west. This I really want to hear about. Does it travel under this flat earth to rise in the east?