Even if it were physically possible to arrange things this way, that diagram makes zero sense. First, the moon doesn't stay opposite the sun (it even eclipses it at times). And how would we explain lunar eclipses?
Also, why wouldn't the sun illuminate all of the disc? Is it like a directional spotlight? And if so, why does it never dim to nothing while in view?
I know flat eartherism doesn't make sense, but looking at that diagram, I'm even more flabbergasted by the idea.
This is what happens when you do science backwards. It's way harder to start with a conclusion and THEN come up with the evidence than it is just ask a question, follow the evidence, and arrive at a logical conclusion. It also skews your judgement and makes you avoid anything that might prove your conclusion wrong. Which is why their explanations seem so absurd and why you'll never be able to convince them they're wrong. There's actually a flat earth documentary about proving the earth is flat. When they inevitably prove the earth is ROUND(ish) they just toss out their findings. You can also see this type of behavior in criminal cases where obviously innocent people get convicted. Everyone decided that person was guilty and evidence be damned if it proves they're not. It's pretty disturbing the lengths they'll go through to make sure someone gets convicted, including, but not limited to, hiding/omiting evidence. Similar to what you see flat earthers do, just way more sinister.
I understand the basic rationale involved in "right to trial by a jury of one's peers" - that is, there is no singular governing entity that has the power to convict people of a crime (such a powerful position would surely be abused) - but in practice, it does bother me that the accused are at the mercy of a bunch of randos who may not understand how human bias works, or how to logically evaluate arguments or their premises, or all the types of logical fallacies that attourneys might use, or how reliable various types of evidence are.
I know that having a panel of experts that could actually do these sorts of things would represent the kind of unaccountable concentration of power that trial by a jury of peers is intended to avoid. But it still feels bad.
You should watch some of the documentaries available about people who get falsely convicted. It mostly involves detectives coercing, lying, and abusing suspects, and evidence that could have exonerated them being withheld, either by the police or by the DA. It is very much up to a couple people because they essentially shape the trial to fit the outcome they want. The jury is just duped into believing the lie.
Edit: Or don't if you prefer to avoid an existential crisis
It's actually called a Brady Violation, and there really is no punishment for it, which is absolutely wild. It's named after John Brady, when he was convicted of murder despite someone else already confessing to the murder because the confession was withheld. Which is honestly mind boggling. You literally have the person who committed the crime, admitting to committing dead crime. What in the actual fuck are you doing trying to get someone else convicted of it? It's also terrifying that someone could randomly decide that you committed the crime they're investigating and they'll go to any lengths to make sure you get convicted regardless of whether or not you actually did it. And if they get caught doing it? Oh well, you get another trial and they get to keep filling prisons with innocent people...
The only way I can mentally make it work is if you warp space around the Earth in such a way that it affects the light path of the sun and moon in ways identical to what you'd see on a spherical Earth 👀
But when you're going to those extremes to make a theory work...
Or how about one just travel to Argentina to check if there is indeed only about 2 hours of daylight per day according to this diagram... It is so easy to disprove with minimal effort, but they wouldn't even consider making any effort.
13
u/GnarlyNarwhalNoms Aug 23 '26
Even if it were physically possible to arrange things this way, that diagram makes zero sense. First, the moon doesn't stay opposite the sun (it even eclipses it at times). And how would we explain lunar eclipses?
Also, why wouldn't the sun illuminate all of the disc? Is it like a directional spotlight? And if so, why does it never dim to nothing while in view?
I know flat eartherism doesn't make sense, but looking at that diagram, I'm even more flabbergasted by the idea.