Comments on: The Earth is round! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:51:06 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: tom http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/comment-page-2/#comment-160121 tom Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:36:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/#comment-160121 One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, however, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere. I'd like to add a side note that always gets me to laugh. Every time one of these flatearthers feels high and mighty, they tell round-earthers to prove a round earth to them. Well try to prove anything to me beyond a reasonable doubt and you will more than likely fail. Anotehr point is how easy they come up with arguents that have no merit, like refraction being responsible for the difference in appearance of celestial bodies from their "flat earht" well if refraction is whats going on, the sky ould look alot fucking different-There are endless examples of flat-earthers trying to support thier arguments in the guise of knowledge, however they have no actual basis of proof to justify such arguments. If you really believe in a flat earth try proving it using the scientific process, you will fail-Now I'm not saying that the earth is this or that, just that the best model we have of understanding our observations of the earth is that it is in fact round, untill observations say otherwise you flatearthers are outta luck. By the way any of you flat-earthers ever been in an airplane? Ever been outside of your own towns, or are you afraid you will fall off the edges??? One of the oldest proofs of the Earth’s shape, however, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth’s orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth’s shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.
I’d like to add a side note that always gets me to laugh. Every time one of these flatearthers feels high and mighty, they tell round-earthers to prove a round earth to them. Well try to prove anything to me beyond a reasonable doubt and you will more than likely fail. Anotehr point is how easy they come up with arguents that have no merit, like refraction being responsible for the difference in appearance of celestial bodies from their “flat earht” well if refraction is whats going on, the sky ould look alot fucking different-There are endless examples of flat-earthers trying to support thier arguments in the guise of knowledge, however they have no actual basis of proof to justify such arguments.
If you really believe in a flat earth try proving it using the scientific process, you will fail-Now I’m not saying that the earth is this or that, just that the best model we have of understanding our observations of the earth is that it is in fact round, untill observations say otherwise you flatearthers are outta luck.
By the way any of you flat-earthers ever been in an airplane? Ever been outside of your own towns, or are you afraid you will fall off the edges???

]]> By: tom http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/comment-page-2/#comment-160047 tom Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:45:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/#comment-160047 With all of the observations and evidence for a round(Geoid/sphereical) earth that rotates on a tilted axis and revolves around our sun, it should be easy to come to a conclusion that a round earth is the best model we have. I do give the flatearthes one pat on the back for questioning accepted science though; if we believed in everything we were told without any doubts, their would be a lot less knowledge in our minds. I do think perception has a lot to do with this controversy. Realisticaly speaking if you can think it, it probably exists in some far off dimension or universe somewhere, and perception is all that seperates us from other dimensions/plains of existence, so perhaps we all observe things slithgly different on a mass scale? Who's to say that the earth is round or flat, maybe it is both depending on your perception and the vantage point of that perception. Really I belive the earth is round, square flat, trpazoidal, rectangualr, and triangular etc... all at the same time, it just tkaes the right perception to see/prove it. It is a little wierd that no one brought up any good arguments agaisnt the round earth, e.g. Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley experiment involving calculating the speed of the earth relative to the fixed "Ether". In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.They were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out. With all of the observations and evidence for a round(Geoid/sphereical) earth that rotates on a tilted axis and revolves around our sun, it should be easy to come to a conclusion that a round earth is the best model we have. I do give the flatearthes one pat on the back for questioning accepted science though; if we believed in everything we were told without any doubts, their would be a lot less knowledge in our minds. I do think perception has a lot to do with this controversy. Realisticaly speaking if you can think it, it probably exists in some far off dimension or universe somewhere, and perception is all that seperates us from other dimensions/plains of existence, so perhaps we all observe things slithgly different on a mass scale? Who’s to say that the earth is round or flat, maybe it is both depending on your perception and the vantage point of that perception. Really I belive the earth is round, square flat, trpazoidal, rectangualr, and triangular etc… all at the same time, it just tkaes the right perception to see/prove it.
It is a little wierd that no one brought up any good arguments agaisnt the round earth, e.g. Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley experiment involving calculating the speed of the earth relative to the fixed “Ether”. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it “trailed” behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car’s speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible “absolute” speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.They were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead “infer” from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the “ridiculous” notion of ether was thrown out.

]]> By: Rystefn http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/comment-page-2/#comment-68246 Rystefn Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:31:55 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/#comment-68246 Hey! I like watching boats sail... Hey! I like watching boats sail…

]]> By: Nigel Depledge http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/comment-page-2/#comment-68245 Nigel Depledge Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:48:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/#comment-68245 Mike J said: "There is the odd chance that the heliocenterist viewpoint that was pushed on the world by the Jesuits during the “enlightenment” is wrong, and that the earth is stationary , rotating, and wobbling with the sun planets and stars all rotating around earth." No, there isn't. Relativity aside, there is no consistent framework by which we can fit the observed facts to a view in which the Sun, planets and stars orbit the earth. Plus, it makes no sense based on what we know about gravity and the masses of the Earth, the Sun and other stars. Mike J said:
“There is the odd chance that the heliocenterist viewpoint that was pushed on the world by the Jesuits during the “enlightenment” is wrong, and that the earth is stationary , rotating, and wobbling with the sun planets and stars all rotating around earth.”

No, there isn’t.

Relativity aside, there is no consistent framework by which we can fit the observed facts to a view in which the Sun, planets and stars orbit the earth. Plus, it makes no sense based on what we know about gravity and the masses of the Earth, the Sun and other stars.

]]> By: Mark Martin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/comment-page-2/#comment-68244 Mark Martin Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:56:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/#comment-68244 Mike J., If geocemtrism were correct, no one would be able to navigate interplanetary spacecraft as they actually do: applying Newtonian (and Einsteinian) principles in an approximately heliocentric model. Probes to Mars would need to negotiate all those nasty epicycles!!! Mike J.,

If geocemtrism were correct, no one would be able to navigate interplanetary spacecraft as they actually do: applying Newtonian (and Einsteinian) principles in an approximately heliocentric model. Probes to Mars would need to negotiate all those nasty epicycles!!!

]]> By: TheBlackCat http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/comment-page-2/#comment-68243 TheBlackCat Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:05:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/#comment-68243 @ Mike J: That would require that they travel faster than the speed of light. @ Mike J: That would require that they travel faster than the speed of light.

]]> By: csrster http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/comment-page-2/#comment-68242 csrster Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:18:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/03/the-earth-is-round/#comment-68242 Come on Phil, teach the controversy! Come on Phil, teach the controversy!

]]>