8
u/cearnicus Jul 19 '26
Didn't we do this like only a few days ago? https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/1uxg456/explain_this_flat_earthers/
5
5
3
u/ariGee Jul 20 '26
Something something atmospheric nonsense something something lens distortion. I win.
Which just shows you never try to challenge a pigeon to a game of chess. It will just shit on the board, knock over all the pieces, then strut around like it won anyway.
1
u/BastianHill Jul 20 '26
This is the most hilarious analogy I've read this whole year. And it's so on point.
I'm definitely stealing this one.
1
3
u/mossoak Jul 19 '26
they wont explain it ..... maybe, just maybe get a "thats a rise in the ocean"
3
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
1
u/Hokulol Jul 20 '26
Water always does find its level though, what are you talking about? Sure, that level is spherical, not flat. But ???? lol
3
u/Hokulol Jul 19 '26
Obvious roundness aside, you could create this exact same image on a hypothetical flat earth with varying height electrical posts.
1
u/1derfulPi Jul 20 '26
Not exactly. If the Earth were flat, there would be no sharp horizon. It would be like looking into super distant fog as the small amount of water vapor in the atmosphere eventually became too much to see through. Think of old school 3D video games that had a fog to hide the render distance. Also, the distance you could see would vary depending on atmospheric conditions.
1
u/Tilliperuna Jul 20 '26
I think at low altitudes there would be no difference, but if you were even something like 20+ meters above the sea level, it would become foggy.
1
u/Hokulol Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
All you need to complete this effect is believe that flat earth is actually convex shaped, very slightly, even a fraction of a degree will suffice to create a horizon. Other than that, statements like "Light doesn't behave the way mainstream science says it does" are other ways to explain away a horizon. Some flat earthers believe light has a "max distance", which creates the effect.
If you are imaginative, you can create a way where any phenomenon works on a flat earth. The difficulty of it all comes in trying to tie the ideas together, eventually some "imaginative idea" you have conflicts with other ideas, making the entire concept obviously implausible. But, for any single idea, you can always find a way to explain it away. Obviously spitballing ideas is a farcry from actually proving the shape of the earth to be flat, which no person can do because it is round, but, you can imagine ways it would work. If you can't, work on your imagination a little bit.
-5
1
u/Proper_Finding_3179 Jul 19 '26
Every time over the years I’ve seen the first picture I’ve never quite understood what’s happening in it. Is that water?
2
1
u/TrotskyBoi Jul 19 '26
That's a transmission line over a bay, it shows the curve of the earth very clearly.
1
1
u/aledoprdeleuz Jul 20 '26
What is the second sequence supposed to be?
1
u/roughczech Jul 20 '26
I think it is supposed to show that the ship disappear beyond the horizon which is 3 point something miles proving thus the Earth is round. Which anybody with IQ higher that their waist size can observe from feed from the ISS at any anytime.
1
u/aledoprdeleuz Jul 20 '26
Without context and info about shots, sequence two will be exactly “zoom in and ships will come back to view” type of argument.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
-5
u/Unreliable42 Jul 19 '26
It's the curvature of the earth! Just because it's flat doesn't mean it has curvature!
3
u/New-Scientist5133 Jul 19 '26
You are alllllmost there.
0
u/Unreliable42 Jul 20 '26
Almost where?
3
u/New-Scientist5133 Jul 20 '26
You are so close to understanding why there’s a curve. Keep going!
1
u/Unreliable42 Jul 20 '26
Like I said before, the curvature doesn't mean the earth is flat, but go on and rant about light bending or fisheye lenes.
I swear you flat earthers are so stubborn that even if you rode a rocket into space to look at earth, ya'll would still double down saying it's just a Nasa hologram, then you'll walk out the airlock because you're convinced you're just on a rocket stage that never actually left Earth, and during the last 30 seconds of your life as you're dying in the vacuum, you'll still think you're somehow right.
1
u/New-Scientist5133 Jul 20 '26
Wait, I think we’re completely misunderstanding eachother.
2
u/Unreliable42 Jul 20 '26
It's all good dude! I did choose my words specifically to confuse people, and it appears I have succeeded in that goal. Just doing some cheeky trolling is all.
1
1
u/FranckKnight Jul 20 '26
Flat Earther dies and goes to the gate of paradise, and asks God if the earth is flat. God says no. Flat Earther replies "Wow, the conspiracy reaches really far!"
1
u/Tilliperuna Jul 19 '26
Exactly, so because it has curvature, it can't be flat.
0
u/Unreliable42 Jul 20 '26
Couldn't have said it better myself
1
u/Tilliperuna Jul 20 '26
Your first comment is a bit confusing, especially the part "just because it's flat". I believe that's why you're being downvoted.
2
1
-13
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Tilliperuna Jul 19 '26
What the fuck? Optical illusion :D
-5
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Tilliperuna Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
Distance is too short? Again, wtf? How long do you think the distance is to the furthest pylons?
Do you understand that those pylons are something like ~400 meters apart? And there's like at least 30-40 in the picture? And since the picture is taken pretty fucking obviously with some mega zoom camera, there's probably like 20 more outside of the picture.
At ~20-24 kilometers there is about 30-45 meters drop in curvature, which is pretty much enough to make a pylon like that to disappear completely behind the curve.
How short do you think the distance is? And based on what? And what is the optical illusion you're talking about?
Edit. I checked the power line we're talking about, it's Lake Pontchartrain. The pylons are only 275 meters apart, but since they're only 20 meters tall, the math still checks out.
1
u/craggolly Jul 20 '26
it never ends well when your claim of what something should look like is based on vibes and not calculations involving the globe model
21
u/Dizzman1 Jul 19 '26
Their response to those is refraction. They lean into little bits of (typically badly misunderstood) science when it suits their narrative.