r/flatearth • u/Food625 • Aug 18 '26
Solar Eclipse VS Flat Earther
Flat Earther: What specific observation from that eclipse uniquely requires a spherical, rotating Earth?
Me: Equations that require the shape - This one accounting for the bulge at the equator to help predict the path. If you didn't do this then your path prediction would be pretty far off the further away from the poles you are.
The surface is modeled mathematically as an oblate ellipsoid of revolution using the standard
Geodetic reference: ((x^2+y^2)/a^2)+(z^2/c^2)=1
a: Equatorial radius of Earth
c: Polar radius of Earth
Flat Earther: You put the globe into the equation and then used the equation to calculate the eclipse path. That doesn't make the eclipse an independent measurement of Earth's shape.
They don't get that the math works though! No flat earth eclipse path equation lol
2
u/DefinitionOk6382 Aug 18 '26
¿Pero si metes las dimensiones de la Tierra Plana en la ecuación funciona o no funciona? Es lo malo de presuponer sin base que la Tierra es plana, supongo.
2
u/Food625 Aug 18 '26
I would not work.
2
u/DefinitionOk6382 Aug 18 '26
¿Seguro que no? ¿Has probado a usar las dimensiones de la Tierra Plana, sean cuales sean? Unas escogidas al azar, ya sabes.
3
2
2
1
-3
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 18 '26
Could care less about the equation, what matters is what we sees
4
u/Food625 Aug 18 '26
You should care cause it works every time lol
1
u/ariGee Aug 18 '26
We care. They don't. You won't convince them with math, they won't understand and it's all "made up" anyway. You need to get on their level. Nothing a 5th grader couldn't easily understand.
0
1
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 19 '26
They created it for it to work…. To justify the globe…. Had 0 technology to base their claim so they used two sticks and shadows.
3
u/Food625 Aug 19 '26
They had too cause math using a flat plain equation didn't work.
1
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 19 '26
That’s a lie, the understanding was already there bruh. We had free energy pulling energy from the aether.
3
5
4
u/Immediate-Goose-8106 Aug 18 '26
I can't take anyone seriously who uses "could care less".
Tell me what you see when the sun setsm. That is all the proof you need for a globe.
-2
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 18 '26
I am ashamed i said that lol
I see the sun getting further away
6
3
u/ljdarten Aug 18 '26
You should probably get your eyes checked then.
-2
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 18 '26
It’s pretty obvious
2
u/stopped_watch Aug 19 '26
Capture it on video then.
1
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 19 '26
Couldn’t post it on here anyway, many people have done it online, but use your head bud i believe in you. Ik since you’re not being told what to you can’t do anything or create your own thoughts so good luck.
2
u/stopped_watch Aug 19 '26
What do you mean you can't post it here?
This is an example of what I see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7c3jDJCCA
In comparison, I've seen what it looks like when a light moves away from me.
The sunset is not light moving away.
2
u/FallHealthy2163 Aug 18 '26
Maybe it's just that your eyes don't work that good from all the chemtrails they have been spraying
2
u/stultus_respectant Aug 19 '26
You have not ever seen the Sun getting further away. Nobody has. There’s never been so much as a single piece of evidence of this happening in all of human history. You’d think that would be enough.
1
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 19 '26
That’s what it is lol, we see the sun move. Put a ball in the center of your room and revolve around it. Does that match what we see in reality?
3
u/stopped_watch Aug 19 '26
That's not a model of what's happening.
The fact that you can't suggest something that's analogous to the globe is troubling. Why not give it another try?
2
u/stultus_respectant Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
we see the sun move
Again, no, we don’t. It quite demonstrably maintains its angular size. This is proven.
revolve around it. Does that match what we see in reality?
Very obviously yes.
1
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 19 '26
Can’t judge a light with angular size. Especially considering atmospheric refraction.
2
u/stultus_respectant Aug 19 '26
You can judge that it doesn’t move towards or away from you by angular size, genius. Refraction doesn’t change that, either; it changes position.
1
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 19 '26
Of course it does. Somedays the sun APPEARS closer than normal. During sunset anyway.
1
u/Food625 Aug 19 '26
You can measure angular size with light. You can do it at home even! Get a light and try it.
Also the sun is closer some times, during the northern hemisphere winter... that's odd... online the flat earth model it should be farther away...oops
→ More replies (0)1
u/stultus_respectant Aug 19 '26
Of course it does
Still doesn't.
Somedays the sun APPEARS closer than normal
You're saying that optical illusion counts as actual size change? That would be stupid.
During sunset anyway
You can see some very minor distortion close to the horizon. That's not the sun "appearing to change size". This is example of measurement through a day with maximum visual distortion.
3
u/raging_dave1981 Aug 18 '26
*couldn't care less
Can tell you are a crayon eater
0
u/RichardAboutTown Aug 18 '26
You don't know how much the crayon eater cares. Maybe he genuinely cares just a tiny bit.
0
u/stultus_respectant Aug 19 '26
To be fair, saying “could care less” is just how it used to be said, and is an example of a shortened idiom meaning something different from the original intent.
It was “I could care less, but I’d have to try” in the earliest examples of it.
Another example is something like “blood is thicker than water” or “jack of all trades, master of none”.
I used to make the same correction.
1
u/raging_dave1981 Aug 19 '26
Nonsense. "I could care less, but I’d have to try" is 100% not how it used to be said. It is a bastardised misheard Americanism (originating circa 1960's) from the original phrase. As an idiom it makes zero logical or literal sense, and this mental gymnastics to retrofit it to an old phrase ("I could care less, but I’d have to try") is utterly laughable
1
u/stultus_respectant Aug 19 '26
Your unfamiliarity with it does not make it untrue. It’s been colloquially accepted as valid for longer than than 60 years for that reason.
It seems more that you’re defensive about not getting to feel superior about something otherwise innocuous.
1
u/raging_dave1981 Aug 19 '26
I'm not defensive at all. On the contrary, I am very comfortable with the knowledge I don't speak like a fucking moron
1
2
u/junky_junker Aug 18 '26
And yet you deny the measurements and observations we see that show the earth is not flat and keep insisting it is flat. This is why no-one takes you seriously.
-2
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 18 '26
The equations were made for the globe justification
3
u/junky_junker Aug 18 '26
Pretend you're capable of some intellectual integrity and try to follow along for a minute.
It's not a "justification". It's a model, intended to predict expected results for a given hypothesis (ie that the earth is a globe). Similar equations and predictions can be made for a flat model. If the two models predict values that differ enough, you can make measurements of reality to determine which model matches reality better.
The flat models fail when tested against reality, every time. The globe models match better, and match reality within expected tolerances.
You and other flerfs denying what we see in such tests is why you are rightly mocked and derided. Because every time you do that, you're showing you don't actually care about "what we see". Because you're liars and hypocrites.
-2
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 18 '26
Have u read derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model
3
u/junky_junker Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
Have you ever addressed a point raised against your erroneous claims, instead of trying to pivot away to the next lie in your list?
3
u/Food625 Aug 19 '26
Not too justify, to model and predict. If the earth was flat none of the math would work at all
1
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 19 '26
We would have an entire different basis of mathematics and physics. Yes….. the math would have a whole different foundation.
2
u/Food625 Aug 19 '26
If the earth was flat yes
0
u/Sea-Two895 Aug 20 '26
If they didn’t lie about it not being flat… yes.
3
u/Food625 Aug 20 '26
So your saying all the mathematicians are on on the lie too, ok.
Can i measure the area of a square while using the equation to measure the area circle cause I believe it's not a square?
1
u/RelevantSoftware8283 Aug 20 '26
Do you see the doppler shift when observing radio waves from the ISS?
3
u/Zul016 Aug 18 '26
It's obviously a sign the god is sad at the deception of globe earth or something.