[Bishthebosh]

This question is mainly directed at Flat Earthers. It comes from a place of genuine curiosity.

If the Earth were proved to be flat, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what would this mean for you personally?
What do you imagine your life would be like if the debate were no longer necessary, and what do you think it would mean for humanity? Another way of thinking about this is: if everyone were convinced by your arguments - where would that leave you? What next?

With warmest good wishes

[TomFoolery]

This question is mainly directed at Flat Earthers. It comes from a place of genuine curiosity.

If the Earth were proved to be flat, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what would this mean for you personally?
What do you imagine your life would be like if the debate were no longer necessary, and what do you think it would mean for humanity? Another way of thinking about this is: if everyone were convinced by your arguments - where would that leave you? What next?

With warmest good wishes

Try for a new shape? 

Sorry, had to say that.

But for me, it if everyone agreed it was flat, that would mean that a lot of challenging questions would have been answered which would allow us to move forward developing new technologies that only work on the flat earth.

Right now, technology is so constrained by the spherical earth belief. When we build radio transmitters, we worry about a curve. We have to waste all this money putting satellites up high because we think the earth is a ball and we think that we can't transmit from any point to any other point.

Once we realized that we could simply build a tower that was taller than all the mountains, we could transmit high frequency radio signals to anywhere on the earth from anywhere on earth.

We have arcane flight paths and fuss around with great circles to try to patch things together, if the earth were proved to be flat, then navigating would be so much simpler.

I may not be exactly the right person to reply though because I myself have some questions that haven't been answered yet so I'm not your typical flat earther.

Hopefully others will chime in and give you a better picture.

[Bishthebosh]

This question is mainly directed at Flat Earthers. It comes from a place of genuine curiosity.

If the Earth were proved to be flat, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what would this mean for you personally?
What do you imagine your life would be like if the debate were no longer necessary, and what do you think it would mean for humanity? Another way of thinking about this is: if everyone were convinced by your arguments - where would that leave you? What next?

With warmest good wishes

Try for a new shape? 

Sorry, had to say that.

But for me, it if everyone agreed it was flat, that would mean that a lot of challenging questions would have been answered which would allow us to move forward developing new technologies that only work on the flat earth.

Right now, technology is so constrained by the spherical earth belief. When we build radio transmitters, we worry about a curve. We have to waste all this money putting satellites up high because we think the earth is a ball and we think that we can't transmit from any point to any other point.

Once we realized that we could simply build a tower that was taller than all the mountains, we could transmit high frequency radio signals to anywhere on the earth from anywhere on earth.

We have arcane flight paths and fuss around with great circles to try to patch things together, if the earth were proved to be flat, then navigating would be so much simpler.

I may not be exactly the right person to reply though because I myself have some questions that haven't been answered yet so I'm not your typical flat earther.

Hopefully others will chime in and give you a better picture.

I was hoping I’d get a response from serious Flat Earthers - but I appreciate the parody! 

[stack]

Yeah Tom, pretty much everyone picked up right quick on your angle. It's kind of the 'Oceans 7'; "I'm a genuine FE'r, but with some serious concerns about how we can really make this better, more vaulted and convincing" angle. It's known as the "Albatross", 'known to exist, never seen, but not untrue' gambit.

Commend your commitment to the role. Carry on.

[totallackey]

This question is mainly directed at Flat Earthers. It comes from a place of genuine curiosity.

If the Earth were proved to be flat, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what would this mean for you personally?
What do you imagine your life would be like if the debate were no longer necessary, and what do you think it would mean for humanity? Another way of thinking about this is: if everyone were convinced by your arguments - where would that leave you? What next?

With warmest good wishes

The only thing I can think of is I would no longer need to address comments like this one below.

This question is mainly directed at Flat Earthers. It comes from a place of genuine curiosity.

If the Earth were proved to be flat, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what would this mean for you personally?
What do you imagine your life would be like if the debate were no longer necessary, and what do you think it would mean for humanity? Another way of thinking about this is: if everyone were convinced by your arguments - where would that leave you? What next?

With warmest good wishes

Try for a new shape? 

Sorry, had to say that.

But for me, it if everyone agreed it was flat, that would mean that a lot of challenging questions would have been answered which would allow us to move forward developing new technologies that only work on the flat earth.

Right now, technology is so constrained by the spherical earth belief. When we build radio transmitters, we worry about a curve.

Horse hockey.

We have to waste all this money putting satellites up high because we think the earth is a ball and we think that we can't transmit from any point to any other point.

Horse hockey.

A vast majority of communications still takes place at an altitude of 10 miles or less above the surface.

Once we realized that we could simply build a tower that was taller than all the mountains, we could transmit high frequency radio signals to anywhere on the earth from anywhere on earth.

We don't need to do this to begin with.

We have arcane flight paths and fuss around with great circles to try to patch things together, if the earth were proved to be flat, then navigating would be so much simpler.

What we have are routes that are depicted to be a great circle when formed to fit a globe.

[TomFoolery]

Yeah Tom, pretty much everyone picked up right quick on your angle. It's kind of the 'Oceans 7'; "I'm a genuine FE'r, but with some serious concerns about how we can really make this better, more vaulted and convincing" angle. It's known as the "Albatross", 'known to exist, never seen, but not untrue' gambit.

Commend your commitment to the role. Carry on.

Are you saying there's not some things that we could make better?

Fact is, there are some things that are a challenge to accept. Since NASA is lying and we're telling the truth, then we want to address those tough issues.
We don't want to be like NASA just making claims that appear false. We have our own "Bubbles in space" so to speak -- in other words, things that look just as absurd as NASA's bubble's in space.

But I do realize there are flat earther's (Nobody here of course!!) who actually are bigger liars than NASA and who just pretend to believe it to make ad revenue off their videos.

Is honest examination of our own knowledge really not part of the flat earth movement? How come you want to decry NASA for lying, and yet you want to cover up our "Bubbles in space?" How are we any different then NASA in that case?

Not me. I want the truth, all of the truth. About NASA and about my own belief. Is that allowed in FE?

[TomFoolery]

<snip>

Right now, technology is so constrained by the spherical earth belief. When we build radio transmitters, we worry about a curve.

Horse hockey.

We have to waste all this money putting satellites up high because we think the earth is a ball and we think that we can't transmit from any point to any other point.

Horse hockey.

A vast majority of communications still takes place at an altitude of 10 miles or less above the surface.

Ok, first of all, I'm talking about radio communications. Not marine data cables lying at the bottom of the ocean.
I agree there are large amounts of digital communications going over fiber optic bundles at the bottom of the oceans, but that's besides the point.

There are also untold gigabits per second being transferred every second wirelessly.

There are thousands of microwave point to point radio data links all over the world.
There are a billion satellite TV subscribers receiving gigabits of wireless data from satellites.

While you may not agree that satellites are up there, there is no question that there are a billion satellite dishes pointing up there slurping in data. Whether there are satellites up there or the signal is just bouncing off the dome, the path of the radio waves is definitely going above 10 miles.
Satellite dishes aim at the equatorial belt where there are supposed to be a bunch of geosync sats.

So when you say that the majority of communications takes place below 10 miles -- if you mean wireless, you're wrong. Unless you one to rule out one-way communications, but that's just being grumpy. A very significant portion of wireless communications takes a path to the recipient that goes over 10 miles. If you count it in bits (since video takes up so many bits) then the majority of wireless data takes a path above 10 miles.

But back to the main point: They simply do not build microwave radio links beyond the alleged curve of the earth. It's always this "We can't go further in a single hop than the curve of the earth allows."

You think I'm wrong? Just find me a single hop point to point microwave link that is longer than a curved earth allows. You won't find any, because  engineers are all died in the wool believing the earth is curved and they won't build a link farther than that because their math tells them it won't work!

(And to save me the trouble of saying this later, I'm talking about single hop point to point links, not multihop! There are lots of microwave links that go a  long ways by using a series of repeaters, natural or man-made reflectors, or even passive re-radiating antennas. Their math allows for that to work so they do that. I'm talking about a single point to point here with two microwave antennas aiming at eachother!)



 

[totallackey]

<snip>

Right now, technology is so constrained by the spherical earth belief. When we build radio transmitters, we worry about a curve.

Horse hockey.

We have to waste all this money putting satellites up high because we think the earth is a ball and we think that we can't transmit from any point to any other point.

Horse hockey.

A vast majority of communications still takes place at an altitude of 10 miles or less above the surface.

Ok, first of all, I'm talking about radio communications.

Yeah, I know you were talking about radio communications.

Your contention that radio transmitters are built, "worrying about a curve," is utter BS.

Not marine data cables lying at the bottom of the ocean.
I agree there are large amounts of digital communications going over fiber optic bundles at the bottom of the oceans, but that's besides the point.

There are also untold gigabits per second being transferred every second wirelessly.

There are thousands of microwave point to point radio data links all over the world.
There are a billion satellite TV subscribers receiving gigabits of wireless data from satellites.

While you may not agree that satellites are up there, there is no question that there are a billion satellite dishes pointing up there slurping in data. Whether there are satellites up there or the signal is just bouncing off the dome, the path of the radio waves is definitely going above 10 miles.
Satellite dishes aim at the equatorial belt where there are supposed to be a bunch of geosync sats.

So when you say that the majority of communications takes place below 10 miles -- if you mean wireless, you're wrong.

No, I am not.

Nearly all communications originates and is received at a point below 10 miles in altitude.

Unless you one to rule out one-way communications, but that's just being grumpy. A very significant portion of wireless communications takes a path to the recipient that goes over 10 miles. If you count it in bits (since video takes up so many bits) then the majority of wireless data takes a path above 10 miles.

But back to the main point: They simply do not build microwave radio links beyond the alleged curve of the earth. It's always this "We can't go further in a single hop than the curve of the earth allows."

You think I'm wrong? Just find me a single hop point to point microwave link that is longer than a curved earth allows. You won't find any, because  engineers are all died in the wool believing the earth is curved and they won't build a link farther than that because their math tells them it won't work!

(And to save me the trouble of saying this later, I'm talking about single hop point to point links, not multihop! There are lots of microwave links that go a  long ways by using a series of repeaters, natural or man-made reflectors, or even passive re-radiating antennas. Their math allows for that to work so they do that. I'm talking about a single point to point here with two microwave antennas aiming at eachother!)

The only reason hop points exist is to maintain signal strength and reliability.

It has nothing to do with the mythological globe earth.

[Bishthebosh]

“What we have are routes that are depicted to be a great circle when formed to fit a globe.”

Totallackey’s last point above is very interesting. Qantas flight 27 from Sydney to Santiago takes 12 hours approx and flies directly across the Pacific Ocean. On a flat earth map these two points are pretty much on opposite sides of the disc Earth. To take the route it does over the Pacific would take 66 hours it has been pointed out. The flight has never gone across the Americas - the direct route on a flat Earth.

How do you account for this?

Warmest regards

[totallackey]

“What we have are routes that are depicted to be a great circle when formed to fit a globe.”

Totallackey’s last point above is very interesting. Qantas flight 27 from Sydney to Santiago takes 12 hours approx and flies directly across the Pacific Ocean. On a flat earth map these two points are pretty much on opposite sides of the disc Earth. To take the route it does over the Pacific would take 66 hours it has been pointed out. The flight has never gone across the Americas - the direct route on a flat Earth.

How do you account for this?

Warmest regards

I generally account for it by stating those accounts of this flight existing are false.

I do not believe these exist.

In order to take one of these flights one is required to submit the cost of the flight UP FRONT (NON-REFUNDABLE).

More often than not, the flight is cancelled or the purchaser is directed to a flight requiring one or more layovers or the supposed non-stop flight finds itself redirected to a layover, due to an in flight emergency.

If I recall correctly, one of these so-called NON-STOP flights on the way to Santiago had to miraculously make an emergency landing in ALASKA! LOL!

[TomFoolery]

So when you say that the majority of communications takes place below 10 miles -- if you mean wireless, you're wrong.

No, I am not.

So then do you deny that there are very roughly a billion satellite TV dishes receiving signals from transmitters that are above 10 miles AMSL? (Above Mean Sea Level)

Nearly all communications originates and is received at a point below 10 miles in altitude.

Except the one billion satellite TV customers, who are receiving a signal from above 10 miles? Or are you slicing a technicality maneuver and saying that even though there are a billion consumers each receiving those transmissions, they are only transmitted from a handful of satellites?
Or are you saying that the data transmitted from satellites originates from below 10 miles before being retransmitted from above 10 miles and therefore doesn't count?

The only reason hop points exist is to maintain signal strength and reliability.

It has nothing to do with the mythological globe earth.

But a bigger dish antenna and a more powerful transmitter can also increase signal strength and reliability at a fraction of the cost of putting an intermediate hop.
Remember, to have an intermediate hop, you gotta buy/lease the land, maybe cut a road to a mountain top, maybe even run power up there, as well in most countries as licensing another radio site. Much much more expensive than just using bigger dishes and more powerful transmitters!

But seriously, if you really think radio link engineers don't use earth curve in their link distances (rightly or wrongly) then just find me a link that's farther than the curved earth math allows.
The fact that they don't use longer links doesn't mean the earth is curved, it just means they believe it's curved and they are just going by what they learned in school without questioning it.

My argument here isn't that the earth is curved because radio link engineers believe the earth is curved, only that their practice of putting up radio links is hindered due to their false belief in a curved earth. In other words, if they knew the truth and knew it was flat, they could do longer links for cheaper!

But if you think I'm wrong, then find me a single-hop microwave link (or a single segment of one) where the radio path would cut through the earth if the earth was curved.
I will check into it and if it checks out to my satisfaction I'll happily admit that at least one radio engineer ignored the round earth belief. You said I'm wrong, so please show me. Fair enough?   

[TomFoolery]

I generally account for it by stating those accounts of this flight existing are false.

I do not believe these exist.

In order to take one of these flights one is required to submit the cost of the flight UP FRONT (NON-REFUNDABLE).

More often than not, the flight is cancelled or the purchaser is directed to a flight requiring one or more layovers or the supposed non-stop flight finds itself redirected to a layover, due to an in flight emergency.

If I recall correctly, one of these so-called NON-STOP flights on the way to Santiago had to miraculously make an emergency landing in ALASKA! LOL!

Good point. It would take some teamwork, but with someone at each airport with a zoom camera like a P900, and a little rooting around we could find out the tail number for the flight when it left one airport then we could see if it arrived at the other airport.

If that tail number didn't show up when flightradar24 said it had landed safely nonstop, then there you go.
Obviously the flight tracker websites say it flies the route in the specified time, but a set of eyes on the ground at each end could very easily disprove it.
Anybody near these two airports? Unfortunately, I'm not near either one.

[Bishthebosh]

“What we have are routes that are depicted to be a great circle when formed to fit a globe.”

Totallackey’s last point above is very interesting. Qantas flight 27 from Sydney to Santiago takes 12 hours approx and flies directly across the Pacific Ocean. On a flat earth map these two points are pretty much on opposite sides of the disc Earth. To take the route it does over the Pacific would take 66 hours it has been pointed out. The flight has never gone across the Americas - the direct route on a flat Earth.

How do you account for this?

Warmest regards

I generally account for it by stating those accounts of this flight existing are false.

I do not believe these exist.

In order to take one of these flights one is required to submit the cost of the flight UP FRONT (NON-REFUNDABLE).

More often than not, the flight is cancelled or the purchaser is directed to a flight requiring one or more layovers or the supposed non-stop flight finds itself redirected to a layover, due to an in flight emergency.

If I recall correctly, one of these so-called NON-STOP flights on the way to Santiago had to miraculously make an emergency landing in ALASKA! LOL!

Well that is odd, because QFA27 left gate 59 at Sydney airport at 11:25 (33 mins late) today and landed at Comodoro Arturo Merino Benitez International Airport in Santiago at 13:23 today (as you will probably note it must have crossed the international dateline to arrive on the same date 2 hours later - the actual flight takes approx 12 hours) You can look at any flight on uk.flightaware.com. I have used this to track family’s flights.

It would be impossible for it to stopover in Alaska - the flight path is entirely in the Southern Hemisphere. So you are either just making that up, or have been totally misinformed. Can you point to the source of your info that it made a stopover in Alaska?

These emergencies you mention are also odd, given that Qantas has a pretty good record for flight safety, being the only airline in commercial aviation history never to have had an accident.

Have you ever flown? You ALWAYS have to ‘pay upfront,’ and all airlines, Qantas included, offer refunds subject to all the usual terms and conditions you would expect from any reputable commercial business.

Now, I don’t mean to come across as totally dismissive of what you say, I’m sure you must have your reasons, but I’m quite shocked that someone would argue that a flight simply does not exist as a way of arguing about the impossibility of a route.

Source for evidence that flight QFA27 flew today, along with its recent history of flying that route is linked below.

https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27

With warmest regards (and I mean that).

[Bishthebosh]

Just to add to my last posting. There is a video on Jeranism’s (a prominent Flat Earther) channel about Max Igan’s flight from Santiago to Sydney. Jeranism thanks Max for demonstrating the flight exists. Max spent time in the cockpit with pilot & co-pilot. In looking on YouTube I found a number of videos from people on these flights going either way; these are posted by both Flat Earthers and Globe Earthers. Time seems to vary depending on direction and head wind - typically 13.5 hours Chile to Oz and just over 12 the other way.

Correction: the video in the cockpit does not appear to be Max Igan himself but someone else.


Warm good wishes.

[TomFoolery]

The only reason hop points exist is to maintain signal strength and reliability.

It has nothing to do with the mythological globe earth.

So you're saying it's just pure coincidence and not peer pressure? All those microwave links are built as if the earth was round. And you're saying it's not because of the engineer's belief in a curved earth?

Have you thought any about "satellite" tv dishes, how they always point up at the equatorial belt?

[Bishthebosh]

OK, so this has drifted off topic. My fault as well as others.

I’m still genuinely interested in Flat Earther’s views on what would it mean if a flat Earth were proven.

Happy for people to private message if you don’t want to put your thoughts on the forum, then have a private dialogue which can stay between ourselves.

Warm wishes.

[AATW]

I'd be interested to know by which criteria they would claim it's proven. Given that, well, the globe earth has long since been proven. Were there any lingering doubt that would have gone when rocket technology got to the point where we could get into space and see the globe earth for ourselves.
Now, of course, it's possible that all that is fake but you could claim that about anything. I've talked on here before about the great kangaroo conspiracy - imagining a conversation where I deny all evidence of kangaroos existing, claiming photos and video of them are faked, people who claim to have seen are liars and so on. If you deny as fake all evidence of something you decide not to believe in then you can continue not to believe it and claim that it hasn't been proven.

[ChrisTP]

I'd be interested to know by which criteria they would claim it's proven. Given that, well, the globe earth has long since been proven. Were there any lingering doubt that would have gone when rocket technology got to the point where we could get into space and see the globe earth for ourselves.
Now, of course, it's possible that all that is fake but you could claim that about anything. I've talked on here before about the great kangaroo conspiracy - imagining a conversation where I deny all evidence of kangaroos existing, claiming photos and video of them are faked, people who claim to have seen are liars and so on. If you deny as fake all evidence of something you decide not to believe in then you can continue not to believe it and claim that it hasn't been proven.

Imagine if scientists and NASA came out and said it's actually flat, flat earthers would believe them in a second even after refusing to believe them before on the basis that they're 'liars'. Would all flat earthers convert to round earthers?

[Bishthebosh]

I'd be interested to know by which criteria they would claim it's proven. Given that, well, the globe earth has long since been proven. Were there any lingering doubt that would have gone when rocket technology got to the point where we could get into space and see the globe earth for ourselves.
Now, of course, it's possible that all that is fake but you could claim that about anything. I've talked on here before about the great kangaroo conspiracy - imagining a conversation where I deny all evidence of kangaroos existing, claiming photos and video of them are faked, people who claim to have seen are liars and so on. If you deny as fake all evidence of something you decide not to believe in then you can continue not to believe it and claim that it hasn't been proven.

Imagine if scientists and NASA came out and said it's actually flat, flat earthers would believe them in a second even after refusing to believe them before on the basis that they're 'liars'. Would all flat earthers convert to round earthers?

I get both your points entirely. The point of my original question is that I’m fascinated by the motivation for the FE belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Let’s face it - what we experience is exactly what we would experience living on an enormous sphere (and we can watch the Earth from space 24/7 on live-feed from the ISS). Why try to argue otherwise? I wonder what the value of the belief is?

I would encourage FEers to consider my original question seriously. Consider what life would be like not to have to argue for this belief (remember that in the thought experiment in the OP the question has been proven in your favour and universally accepted), what would life be like? In theory this thought experiment could lead you to realising its value to you now ie. the value to you holding the FE belief. Understanding that can open all sorts of mental doors...

The question is a form of what is called ‘the miracle question’ from Solution Focussed Therapy. I have found it of great personal use over the years.

Warm regards.

[TomFoolery]

I would encourage FEers to consider my original question seriously. Consider what life would be like not to have to argue for this belief (remember that in the thought experiment in the OP the question has been proven in your favour and universally accepted), what would life be like? In theory this thought experiment could lead you to realising its value to you now ie. the value to you holding the FE belief. Understanding that can open all sorts of mental doors...

The question is a form of what is called ‘the miracle question’ from Solution Focussed Therapy. I have found it of great personal use over the years.

Warm regards.

I know this probably isn't the kind of response you want, but I don't think the kind of person exists who you are seeking to answer your question.
I'm not your typical flat earther because I am not afraid to look at tough questions. I've asked a lot of questions, and flat earthers either don't know there are any tough questions, or they think somebody else has the answer. I don't think you're going to find very many who can tell you how they think their lives would be different because in fact they haven't thought that far ahead. The ones who have thought that far ahead have gotten out, because they can't handle finding out that there are difficulties.

I was introduced to flat earth knowing there was difficulties so they do not surprise me.

So for those like me, if the dispute was over and the earth was flat, engineering would expand being no longer limited by the belief in a curved earth surface. Ways would be developed to gather solar energy 24 hours a day once we realize the sun is actually above the earth at all times.

Then there are people like Mr. Bishop who, if I understand correctly, believe the earth is accelerating upwards, and by now going trillions of times faster than the speed of light.
But many flat earther's don't accept that the earth is moving at all.

I'm not sure the "typical" flat earther exists, and they tend to not have thought very far ahead.
But come on gents, prove me wrong 
I too would like to know what fellow flat earther's envision for the future when it's been proven and it's the de-facto knowledge!