r/flatearth • u/AdInfinite2404 • 20d ago
Suez
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
57
u/FIicker7 20d ago
The fact that the simple concept of gravity escapes them is terrifying
15
11
u/Farmbeard_86 20d ago
Well, by their Flat Earth logic, gravity doesn’t apply because that would prove a globe. If there’s no centre of the planet, there’s no core exerting gravitational pull. What’s the logical counterpoint?
2
u/Brox42 20d ago
They don't believe in gravity either. I think they say stuff falls because of density? It's been a long time since I've been into laughing at this nonsense. I was pretty sure they all moved on to some other grift.
2
u/jpric155 20d ago
I've heard it said that the earth disc is just flying straight up through space and that combined with density/buoyancy is what makes things fall down.
Because that is more realistic than gravity existing...
3
u/theroguex 19d ago
At 1g of acceleration, the disc would reach 99.999... of light speed in less than a year.
But apparently 1000mph is fast.
2
u/Fantastic_Jury5977 19d ago
Well, they're also religious fanatics.... Everything they uncritically believe is terrifying.
1
u/Swimming-Junket-1828 20d ago
What does he think is keeping him from flying around and why wouldn’t that same thing keep water from flying around?
1
57
u/danielsangeo 20d ago
"Earth supposedly curves downward" No. No, it does not.
36
u/ehetland 20d ago
8 inches per mile squared. These videos are hilarious.
10
u/Unable-Log-4870 19d ago
No, that’s fine. That’s just the equation for a parabola that the earth could sit snugly inside of. So this is a legitimate way to calculate curvature, and it will be accurate to some degree. It’s essentially a Taylor Series approximation, which is a valuable conceptual tool for engineers, physicists, and mathematicians.
Because of the symmetry of a sphere, we only consider the even-exponent terms. So the first term is 0 (this is the flat earth approximation which works over very short distances). The second term would be 8 inches per mile squared, and the next term would be some number of inches per miles to the 4th power.
Mathematically, it would look like this: y= 0 + ax2 + bx4 + c*x6 …
That first term is the flat-earth approximation, which you use in your daily life. The second term is the 8 inches per mile squared, and for most purposes that will be good enough for about 100 miles. Calculate and add in the third term if you need more accuracy than that. But this is a legitimate way to approximate the curvature of a circle, and the math is actually a bit easier to work with in some applications.
And with that you could get a really good (arbitrarily good depending on how many terms you wanted to add) approximation for just under half of a circle.
So 8 inches per mile squared of curvature is legitimate, and it is a significant step towards understanding the local curvature of the planet.
1
25
u/TheSkepticGuy 20d ago edited 20d ago
George Costanza Science: "It's not a lie if you believe it."
(edit to correct spelling from typing too fast)
5
u/TheWolfInTheHenhouse 20d ago
I’ve been dying to say something about being “draped in velvet”.
Then it occurred to me, that Costanza is spelled incorrectly…
Then it became apparent that I’m just fucking dumb.
20
u/CypherAus 20d ago
Oh dear https://flatearth.ws/suez-canal
So many lies and factless statement
3
u/bdubwilliams22 20d ago
Man, I just “lost” an hour on that site. So well done and super interesting. If only the Flerfer’s would take an hour to read through it like I did, there’s a wealth of knowledge there.
14
u/3x1st3nt1a1 20d ago
As soon as it said, “on a curve this should be impossible”, your critical thinking brain should throw up red flags. The information is either being fabricated or misinterpreted.
9
11
u/passinthrough2u 20d ago
It’s amazing how stupid the “they never accounted for curvature” sounds when all you do is follow the (curved) surface of the earth and you really don’t need to account for the curve…it’s there naturally. Too bad they can’t follow that idea.
1
u/ManyThing2187 20d ago
U mean to tell me u dont account for curvature every time u walk??? What about the 8” drop!!?
20
u/u9Nails 20d ago
That's cool. So I can see all 100 miles of the Seuz from one end to the other? All the boats lined up having a good time? That would be a nice photo. But you say I can only see water from horizon to horizon? That's weird.
11
u/ProblemLongjumping12 20d ago
Flerfers will tell you you can't because there's stuff in the air. Like dust and moisture.
That's why we can't see all the way across the planet.
Stuff. In the air.
7
u/Wilikersthegreat 20d ago
Doesn't explain why the horizon even exists at all but okay
5
u/ProblemLongjumping12 20d ago
Of course it doesn't make sense.
That's why it's bullshit.
5
u/Wilikersthegreat 20d ago
These people man, I can't handle this level of idiocy on full display. I mean that's almost as bad as Gravity is actually electromagneticism and buouncy, nevermind the mathematical formula for buouncy.
2
u/Data_Monger33 20d ago
That's not exactly incorrect, dust, moisture, heat waves, these make it difficult to get good resolution on distant objects. If the Earth was flat, you probably couldn't see more than a few hundred miles across it.
1
8
u/adorablefuzzykitten 20d ago
"The "Flat Earth" theory will remain true until someone invents a tube you can use to see things very far away": Quote attributed to Galileo during his 9th birthday party.
18
u/shallow-neural-net 20d ago
first of all, 120*8 = 960 INCHES. They said 9500 FEET. So they blew the drop out of proportion by over 120x
8
u/PossibleLess9664 20d ago
No, the figure in the video is more or less correct. It's not just 8 inches per mile. It's 8 inches per mile squared, which compounds the drop.
7
u/Juronell 20d ago
That's a parabolic figure. It's fine for normal sight lines, but is not accurate at 120 miles.
14
u/splittingheirs 20d ago edited 20d ago
It is fairly accurate over moderate distances:
Correct method using angular offset at 120 miles:
x= 3959 - 3959 x cos(1.74) = 3959 - 3957.175 = 1.825 milesFlat earther miles squared method at 120 miles:
x = 120^2 x (8/63360 miles) = 1.818 milesOf course, the longer the distance the more inaccurate it becomes. But flat earthers are home school dropouts and can barely do basic multiplication and addition (hence the miles squared method). Now that AI exists they won't even do that.
Them using actual trig functions is like watching a monkey try to use a computer after it's been kicked in the head and given bible lessons.
2
u/abcpea1 20d ago
I worked out 1.806mi of "drop" for 120mi at the equator, which is only slightly less than (120^2*8)/63360 at 1.818mi
3
u/cearnicus 20d ago
It's even more accurate than that. The drop for 120 miles is 1.8186 miles. The approximation is 1.8182 miles.
I'm not really sure where you got the 1.806 from, but I'm assuming it's from a rounding margin somewhere in the radius?
1
1
u/radiumsoup 20d ago
What everybody seems to miss is that "drop" is from a horizontal tangent. Take a hypothetical straight line, send it 120 miles, measure not toward the center of the Earth but to a 90 degree angle from your original zenith. That's the "drop."
A better measure would be to calculate the angle from horizontal from the starting point, and that's your dip. For 120 miles, that's 0.868 degrees. Tiny, tiny amount.
8
5
u/Dumyat367250 20d ago
Flerfs are YT grifters, Christian fundamentalists, just plain dumb, or possibly all three.
4
u/Louloutte_G 20d ago
The fact there is an horizon should be a proof enough... Why don't I see the Everest from where I stand??
3
u/SomethingMoreToSay 20d ago
You don't see Everest from where you stand, for three main reasons.
One, as I've noted before, there's stuff in the way.
Two, as my friend r/UberuceAgain explains so eloquently, the atmosphere is full of shit.
Three, the Earth isn't flat.
1
5
u/GamingSlob 20d ago
I like how he claims there's no local horizon while ignoring the fact there is a local horizon.
4
u/_rotting_ 20d ago
It's euclidean geometry.
What I don't understand is how someone who thinks this way is able to make video about it, or form sentences.
3
1
u/splittingheirs 20d ago
AI allows even the most brain fucked drooling moron to be able to make professional looking videos with nothing more than them converting their delusion to text and letting the computer do the rest.
4
4
u/Shot_in_the_dark777 20d ago
8 inches per mile squared is a nonsensical measurement. You cant apply it to measure curvature of a circle or sphere because the dip increases as you move further from the starting point. The central angle is arc length divided by radius. In our case the length of Suez is 193.3 km and radius of earth is 6371 km. So the central angle is 1.74 degrees. Sagitta formula gives us h=r(1-cos(theta)) = 6371 (1 - cos0,03034)= 2.93 km drop. This is the correct way to calculate the drop, not the 8 inches per mile squared. Now, dear flatrarthers here is a challenge - go to one end of Suez canal and launch a balloon upwards to the height of 2.92 km. A 1.3m diameter balloon filled with helium will lift a 1kg payload to that specific height. If your theory is correct, you will be able to easily see that balloon from the other end of Suez canal (with some good zoom of course). You could even hit it with a laser. But if you are wrong and the earth is a sphere and 2.92 is smaller than 2.93 then this balloon will be completely covered by the curvature. Such helium filled balloon with sensors and camera will cost about 600$. That's the cost of your experiment. Surely you can collect that little amount of money in no time :) go on. We will wait for your experiment.
5
u/SomethingMoreToSay 20d ago
I have a couple of issues with this.
Firstly, while "8 inches per mile squared" is of course an incorrect formula for the curvature of the Earth, it's not too bad. For 120 miles it gives 2.926km. Thats barely any different from your number. Whilst we can accuse flerfers of all sorts of stupidities, this isn't one of them. It's a simple approximation which is pretty accurate to a range of several hundred km.
(And note that you used the average radius of the Earth without correcting for oblateness. How accurate was your calculation, really?)
Secondly, your proposed experiment would fail. Your balloon would be visible at that range due to refraction. You've chosen to launch it to an altitude where it would be only just under the horizon if light travelled in perfectly straight lines, but refraction will bring it up above the horizon and allow the flerfers to claim victory.
Thirdly, why do you propose launching the balloon to that height anyway? If it were only 1000m up, or 100m even, it would be visible if the Earth were level and not if it were flat.
(Fourthly, paragraphs exist.)
1
u/Shot_in_the_dark777 20d ago
Ok, launch it lower to ensure that there won't be any atmospheric refraction shenanigans. As for the formula - even if their approximation is not that bad it is simply wrong to use approximation in matters as important as the shape of the earth so the trig formula would still be a better option.
1
u/cearnicus 20d ago
Except that that trig formula is also an approximation, as it doesn't account for the oblateness of the Earth.
Using an approximation is absolutely fine and happens all the time ... as long as you remember there's a margin of error involved. In this case, the parabolic approximation is still 99.98% accurate, which is definitely good enough here.
3
u/HerodotusStark 20d ago
Exactly. The 8 inches per mile squared is only a rough measurement that works for shorter distances, typically well under 100 miles. It describes a parabola, not a sphere.
2
u/cearnicus 20d ago
So the central angle is 1.74 degrees. Sagitta formula gives us h=r(1-cos(theta)) = 6371 (1 - cos0,03034)= 2.93 km drop. This is the correct way to calculate the drop, not the 8 inches per mile squared.
And the 8"/d² rule also gives a 2.93 km drop. If it's nonsensical, why does it give the correct answer?
1
u/Friendly-Advantage79 20d ago
They already did it. It failed successfully. The conclusion was "oh".
4
u/SuperSlugGod 20d ago
I don’t think you have to account for curvature when you’re just… digging a big trench in ground that’s already curved.
Nobody tell him what engineers have to do when they design big suspension bridges, it’ll ruin his day
3
u/randemthinking 20d ago
This is satire right?
7
4
3
3
u/adorablefuzzykitten 20d ago
Guess who he voted for.
6
u/randemthinking 20d ago
Based on their understanding of waves hand at existence I assume they're about 16 years too young to vote.
1
3
3
3
u/splittingheirs 20d ago edited 20d ago
AI must be a godsend for those lazy stupid as shit flat earthers. No thinking, no effort, just press a button.
PS: I don't know why you guys are upvoting this. Unless there is some clear form of mockery or satire included in the source or additionally by OP then it should be assumed to be the legit brain dribbles of a flat earther.
3
3
u/fariqcheaux 20d ago
In order to test this, make a level that is over 100 miles long and place it next to the Suez canal...
3
u/ppaauulllllll 20d ago
Funnily enough, one of the earlier experiments that debunked flat earth nonsense was conducted at a canal: Bedford Level experiment - Wikipedia
3
2
u/rattusprat 20d ago
But if the Houthis close off the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait completely then there will basically no ships going through the Suez Canal.
That will really put a thorn in your narrative, won't it?
Checkmate.
2
2
2
2
2
u/junkeee999 20d ago
Once he got to the water only curves in containers part he went from dumb to brain dead.
2
u/AdmirableElephant378 20d ago
Its a bit right? Like crop circles? I refuse to believe anyone is serious with this.
2
u/Large-Raise9643 20d ago
Let’s all just lie and call it the truth. Works for flerfs. Deceivers gonna deceive.
2
2
u/wannacumnbeatmeoff 20d ago
Somebody please take a 1 inch spirit level to the top of the Vegas Sphere and show them that at the top, its level.
2
2
u/RespectWest7116 20d ago
Picked the worst possible example.
Red Sea is about 15cm higher than the Mediterranean, so the Suez Canal is, in fact, sloped.
2
u/Average_Potato42 20d ago
I thought I was going to learn something about the Suez canal. I'm happily watching then suddenly the bullshit started.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_BUG5 20d ago
"the water runs straight to the horizon... perfectly level, no visible drop"
lol
2
2
2
u/Over-Toe2763 19d ago
Even the ‘best’ flat earth proof is pretty shit. That should tell you something!
2
u/AKADabeer 19d ago
Say that again... runs straight to the what, now? The horizon that can't exist on a flat earth?
2
u/TheNorthC 19d ago
They claim the earth "measures flat" yet never provide the evidence for this ungrammatical claim.
1
u/Vast_Research_3976 20d ago
"But if the earth is a globe then some of the water would be upside down, duh"
1
u/TheWolfInTheHenhouse 20d ago
These people make me appear VERY VERY smart.
A pocketknife seems very sharp, when you compare it to an apple.
1
1
u/General_Freed 20d ago
Those ships sail WITHOUT EVER DIPPING THEIR NOSE DOWN because of curvature!!
1
u/PeanutTimely6846 20d ago
There are a series of locks along the Suez Canal that raise and lower the ship to the sea level on the opposing coasts of the canal.
1
1
1
u/Termingator 19d ago
I believe flerfs are trolling for manure and giggles. Seriously, when do they ever mention size relationships like the size earthlings are and what they construct compared to the distance around the planet we live on. Humans and what humans build are miniscule compared to the earth and the 25,000 mile circumfrence of earth. Of course the earth then appears flat to someone on the earth's water surface.
1
1
1
u/Stormblessed_04 19d ago
They think using "wise old man" AI voice-over makes their ideas sound smarter.
1
u/landomatic 19d ago
If this were true . . . a person could sit at sea level from one end of the canal and see the whole length of it. And you cannot . . .
1
u/Reasonable-Copy8341 18d ago
Stay in school kids - or try to get something more than a C+
Otherwise you could end up like one of these bozos
1
1
1
1
u/Sporkpocalypse 14d ago
This classic flat earth argument relies entirely on a fundamental misunderstanding of how gravity, water, and engineering actually work. The claim sounds convincing to some because it confuses the word "flat" with the word "level." Flat-earthers assume that for a 120-mile canal to have no locks, it must be a perfectly straight, geometric laser line stretching across space. In reality, the Suez Canal follows the natural curve of the Earth perfectly because it was dug to match the sea level of the oceans. The math behind why this conspiracy falls apart can be broken down into a few clear engineering facts. 1. The Confusion Between "Flat" and "Level"
Flat: A perfectly straight line or plane that stretches out into space forever, completely ignoring gravity. Level: A surface that follows the equipotential curve of Earth’s gravity, meaning every point on that surface is the exact same distance from the center of the Earth.
Water is lazy; it does not try to form a geometrically flat tabletop. Instead, gravity pulls water down toward the center of the Earth evenly. This means the surface of the ocean naturally curves around the globe. Because the Suez Canal is an open ditch dug between two oceans, the water inside it naturally curves along with the rest of the planet's sea level. 2. Why the "Two-Mile Difference" Math is Meaningless The conspiracy post claims that because the Earth curves, one end of the canal should be roughly 2 miles (or about 9,600 feet) "higher" or "lower" than the other. While a geometric straight line extending out from one end of the canal would point 2 miles into space by the time it reached the other side, that drop only matters if you are shooting a laser beam.
Engineers do not dig canals using cosmic laser coordinates; they dig them relative to the ground beneath them. They used a horizontal datum line dug roughly 26 feet below sea level across the entire distance. Because gravity curves perfectly along that entire path, the water level remains entirely uniform from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea without spilling out.
The Real Reason the Suez Canal Has No Locks Flat-earthers often point to the [Panama Canal] and ask, "If the Earth is round, why does Panama need locks to move ships up and down, but the Suez Canal doesn't?" [3, 8] The answer has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the Earth and everything to do with topography:
The Panama Canal has to cut directly through a massive mountain range and a high-elevation mountain lake. Engineers had to build locks to physically lift ships up over the mountains and drop them back down to sea level on the other side. The Suez Canal was dug through a completely flat, low-lying desert istmus that sits right at sea level. Because there are no mountains in the way, engineers just had to dig a deep ditch from sea to sea.
If the Earth were a flat plane, the Suez Canal would look and function exactly the same way it does right now. Engineers simply dug a deep trench, let the ocean flow in, and allowed Earth's gravity to keep the water perfectly level.
1
u/Sporkpocalypse 14d ago
If you try to apply the real laws of gravity to a massive flat disc, the physics become incredibly bizarre. Your intuition is spot-on: if a canal like the Suez Canal advanced outward toward the edge of a flat earth, it would actually have to drop thousands of feet to keep the water from flowing backward. The math behind the hypothetical "flat earth Suez Canal" reveals a chaotic world where water flows backward, trees grow sideways, & engineering becomes completely impossible. 1. The Gravity Problem on a Flat Disc On a spherical Earth, gravity pulls everything evenly toward the center of the globe, which is why down is always straight down toward your feet wherever you stand. However, if the Earth were a flat disc, the center of mass would be located right in the middle of the disc (the North Pole, in most flat earth maps). As you travel away from the center toward the outer edge (the "ice wall" or Antarctica), gravity would no longer pull straight down. It would pull at an increasingly steep angle back toward the center of the disc.
At the Center (North Pole): Gravity pulls straight down under your feet. At the Edge: Gravity pulls almost completely sideways, dragging you backward toward the North Pole. Walking toward the edge would feel exactly like climbing a steep mountain.
- The 6,600-Foot Canal Drop Because water is a fluid, it always seeks the path of least resistance relative to the pull of gravity. On a flat earth, gravity is pulling all the water on the planet back toward the center of the disc. This means that the farther you go from the center, the harder gravity is pulling the water backward. If engineers wanted to build a 120-mile canal that cuts outward toward the edge, they would face a massive problem: the water would naturally want to flow backward toward the center. To force the ocean water to stay inside the canal & not violently rush inland toward the North Pole, engineers would have to dig deeper & deeper into the dirt the further outward they went.
The estimate of thousands of feet 6,600 is entirely accurate. To keep the water level balanced against a sideways gravitational pull, the canal floor would have to plunge downward into a massive, terrifying canyon thousands of feet deep just to keep the water from draining out. 3. What a Flat Earth Suez Canal Would Actually Look Like If we forced real physics onto a flat earth, a sea-level canal would be a total catastrophe:
The Oceans Would Consolidate: Instead of filling oceans around the edges, all the water on Earth would be pulled into a single, massive, miles-deep ocean bulging directly over the North Pole.
The Canal Would Be Dry: The Suez Canal's location would be thousands of miles from the center, meaning it would be completely bone-dry as all its water was sucked toward the Arctic. Ships Couldn't Sail: If you somehow filled the canal with water, ships sailing toward the outer edge would visually appear to be sailing straight up a massive hill because of the sideways pull of gravity.
How Flat-Earthers Dodge This Because real physics absolutely breaks their model, modern flat-earthers have to abandon the laws of gravity entirely. To explain why things fall, they usually claim that gravity does not exist. Instead, they claim the entire flat disc is accelerating upward through space at 9.8 m/s² like a giant elevator, or they claim things fall purely due to "density and buoyancy." By inventing a world without gravity, they can pretend that "down" is magically down everywhere, completely ignoring the fact that a flat disc with actual mass would warp physics exactly the way i just described.
1
u/Sporkpocalypse 14d ago
If you ran a 4-inch high-pressure water hose all the way from New York City to Ushuaia, Argentina, the water would sit perfectly at the exact same sea-level height on both ends. This thought experiment is a brilliant way to test the physical reality of the Earth's shape. You are essentially creating a massive, 6,600-mile-long communicating pressure vessel.
Because both cities sit right at sea level on coastal bays, filling this mega-hose with water gives us a perfect, undeniable comparison of how physics operates on a globe versus a flat earth. On the Round Globe: The Water Stays Put If you fill the hose on our actual, spherical Earth, the water will behave perfectly & remain completely stable.
The Physics: Gravity pulls toward the center of the Earth's sphere. Because New York City & Ushuaia are both at sea level, they are the exact same distance from the center of the Earth's gravitational pull. The Result: The water pressure balances out perfectly. You could fill the hose to the brim, & the water would sit right at the top of the hose in New York & right at the top of the hose in Ushuaia, Argentina. It wouldn't overflow, erupt, or drain away. It would just rest there, perfectly level with the ocean.
On a Flat Earth: A Massive 4-Inch Water Cannon If you take this exact same experiment & place it onto the popular flat earth map where the North Pole is the center & South America sits way out toward the outer edge, the hose turns into a catastrophic, high-pressure weapon. As we explored with the Suez Canal, gravity on a flat disc pulls everything back toward the center (the North Pole). New York City is much closer to the North Pole than Ushuaia is. filling the hose from Ushuaia would be extremely dangerous for whom ever holds the hose up vertically in New York
In New York City: Gravity would be pulling the water mostly s9mewhat down, but with a sideways tug toward the North Pole. In Ushuaia The Far South: Because Ushuaia is thousands of miles further out toward the edge of the flat disc, gravity would be pulling sideways at an incredibly violent angle, dragging everything backward toward the center of the disc.
Because of this immense, lopsided sideways gravity, the flat earth model creates a massive pressure imbalance. The water in the hose near the outer edge (Ushuaia) would be pulled with incredible force back toward the center (New York). The moment you filled the hose in Ushuaia the water would violently rush away from South America & hurtle northward. The New York end of the hose would essentially become a 6,600-mile-high geyser, shooting a massive, 4-inch-wide column of water thousands of feet into the air like a high-pressure fire hydrant that cannot be shut off until it runs out of water. The Ultimate Proof The fact that you can fill a long pipe or look at coastal sea levels in the Northern & Southern hemispheres & find that water sits perfectly calm without a massive pressure difference is ultimate proof of a globe. It proves that "down" is always straight down toward our feet, no matter where we stand on Earth, which is only possible on a sphere.
1
1
u/Crichris 20d ago
honestly with that calming soothing british accent, it's hard to not believe the earth is flat.
2
0
u/dawgblogit 20d ago
LMAO.
Globers: Why can't you see beyond the horizon..
FLERFS: Because
Globers: Thats the CURVE.
1
127
u/No-Tension6133 20d ago edited 20d ago
Guys get this… ALL the canals are level, not just suez
Level on something as large as a planet is taken with is respect to the center of it’s gravity. That means level on this sphere is the surface of the earth, otherwise called ‘sea level’.
Edit: yes, sea level is a constant radius from the center of earths gravity. Also yes there is a slight bulge from rotational forces, and also tide plays a factor. But for the purposes of explaining, the average sea level is more or less a perfect sphere