Slashdot Mirror


The Flat Earthers Are Still With Us

narcberry writes "The BBC reports on a scientific community still holding to flat earth theories. From their article: 'Are there any genuine flat-earthers left? Surely in our era of space exploration — where satellites take photos of our blue and clearly globular planet from space, and robots send back info about soil and water from Mars — no one can seriously still believe that the Earth is flat? Wrong. Flat earth theory is still around. On the internet and in small meeting rooms in Britain and the US, flat earth believers get together to challenge the 'conspiracy' that the Earth is round.'"

578 comments

  1. Scientific community? by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, that's obviously not the right thing to call them...

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    1. Re:Scientific community? by unfasten · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The more correct thing to call them would be a co-host on The View.

    2. Re:Scientific community? by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think I can live with the flat earthers a good bit more than I can with the creationists. They're really out with an agenda. It's no secret that there have always been people with less than optimally functioning critical faculties...

    3. Re:Scientific community? by Curtman · · Score: 4, Funny

      You just wait until we adjust the curriculum to reflect reality.

      The roundists have been spreading their lies for far too long.

    4. Re:Scientific community? by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somehow I'm thinking the intersection of flat-earthers and creationists contains a lot of the flat-earthers.

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    5. Re:Scientific community? by Kneo24 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I completely agree. There is no scientific basis for the "flat earth theory". None. Zero. Zilch. They can use whatever "scientific" (pseudo-science in this case) means they'd like, but that doesn't necessarily make it scientific. It is a proven fact that the Earth is round. So are other planets.

      I wish people would stop calling cretins who pretend to use science as scientists. It soils the good name of science!

    6. Re:Scientific community? by Kneo24 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know, replying to myself here, but I did do what's forbidden around here. I read the fucking article. These guys are god damn crack pots. The Earth is infinitely horizontal? Have they ever held a ball in their entire life? Do they have any sort of concept of perception?

      What's even more irritating is that yes, they also believe the earth is circular, which sort of contradicts their infinitely horizontal theory. Someone important tell this dick-weeds to fuck off and stop breathing my precious air. I hereby decree that they are too stupid to function in a normal society.

    7. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Proven fact" is a very bad phrase. Proven to whom? You can say there are evidence, or better yet, that there are simple and clear ways to corroborate that the Earth is round, and that if anyone has any doubts they can perform these experiments for themselves.

      Nothing is proven. You can only present your case, and allow the jury to judge for themselves.

    8. Re:Scientific community? by pxlmusic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what's more fcuked up is that these idiots are breeding.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    9. Re:Scientific community? by conlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you start adjusting the curriculum, be sure to include the views of this important group: http://www.manwillneverfly.com/index.htm

    10. Re:Scientific community? by dmoen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Flat Earthers have the ability to get laid?

      --
      I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
    11. Re:Scientific community? by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      i view them in the same way i view the creationists.

      and the creationists are popping out more and more monsters all the time.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    12. Re:Scientific community? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Someone tells these humorless Americans that humor can take many faces. What flat-earthers are doing is quite admirable in fact : they take the challenge of defending a view that is contradicted by almost every fact of normal life and try to create a coherent if convulated theory about it.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    13. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's obviously not the right thing to call them...

      Why, because they're wrong?

    14. Re:Scientific community? by nasor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I actually went to their web page, and it seemed pretty clear that it was a tongue-in-cheek joke. Although I'm sure they're all having a BIG laugh at how worked up everyone is getting over the whole thing.

    15. Re:Scientific community? by deadmantyping · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Earth is flat, just within a curve space. Oh snap! Did I just blow your mind!

    16. Re:Scientific community? by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no scientific basis for the "flat earth theory". None. Zero. Zilch.

      Are you sure, have you seriously looked at their arguments and considered them on their merits rather than you emotional beliefs? I'll bet if you sit down with a dedicated Flat Earther and had a debate, he or she would smoke you. i seriously doubt that the Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat, but they do like taking the contrarian position and arguing it for the sport value.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Scientific community? by Jonny_eh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sometimes I wonder if the creationists are an elaborate parody too. Have you ever heard their arguments?

    18. Re:Scientific community? by KeithJM · · Score: 1, Troll

      Is this a woosh moment for me? Because I'm thinking the intersection of flat-earthers would contain the same number of flat-earthers as it does creationists. Maybe you're saying the intersection of those two groups would be a large group by itself?

    19. Re:Scientific community? by todrules · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it's even more than just a joke. Basically, they are saying that "I don't have proof that the earth is flat. Your showing me pictures is not good enough proof. When I stand on a railroad track and look in both directions, the earth looks flat to me. My eyes tell me its flat every day. I want to see for myself that it is round, and until then, I will have to trust my eyes - which tell me it's flat."

      They are just questioning everything and will not accept something just because somebody tells them it is true.

    20. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're all surface-earther fools! Light travels in concentric circles! We live on the inner surface of a sphere!

    21. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they just wait free airplane tickets.

    22. Re:Scientific community? by n9hmg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From their welcome page: "We welcome both skeptics and believers, so please join us.".

      It's just a granfalloon, and they explicitly say so with that statement. I think there may be a scientific pursuit going on there - but in the study of human thought and interaction. They're examining coping mechanisms - the ways people twist their minds around to make the world fit what they believe.
      Besides, haven't we all have to do an assignment in chemistry class where we explained an experimental result purely in terms of phlogiston theory? I'm tempted to go join them for a while, just for the fun of it.

    23. Re:Scientific community? by Goaway · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Proof grasp of set-theoretic vocabulary aside, I'd rather think that the intersection is pretty close to the null set, seeing as how the flat earthers are a JOKE. And the joke is, pretty much, on you.

    24. Re:Scientific community? by TriggerFin · · Score: 3, Informative

      The intersection of two groups is the objects which are members of both groups. In this case, the GP posits that most of the members of the "flat earth" group are also members of the "creationism" group.

      --
      Here's your sig.
    25. Re:Scientific community? by stiller · · Score: 1

      I've also spend some time reading their forum and I'd say it's part joke/part game/part serious. Basically, you can pick either side of the argument and try to defend/attack it using only logic.

      The funny thing is, that the people with the least skills in logic/debate are the most vicious. If you're sure about your own belief in fundamental science, you can have a good time defending either side.

    26. Re:Scientific community? by mischi_amnesiac · · Score: 1

      Wait! How come when the earth is flat that it can also be hollow with Hitler and his alien flying saucers powered by vril energy are hiding inside? http://paranormal.about.com/od/hollowearth/a/aa022206.htm

      --
      "Die endgueltige Teilung Deutschlands - das ist unser Auftrag." - Chlodwig Poth
    27. Re:Scientific community? by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      It usually is

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    28. Re:Scientific community? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Flat Earth Society was created as a big joke in the first place. Most of the people posting there (myself included) are doing so as a tongue-in-cheek joke.

      Yeah, there are a few nuts in there who actually believe it, but you'll get stupid beliefs anywhere.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    29. Re:Scientific community? by StormReaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Someone tells these humorless Americans that humor can take many faces."

      When the crackpots (such as the creationists) invade your school systems, you'll lose your sense of humor, too.

    30. Re:Scientific community? by wtfispcloadletter · · Score: 1

      I wish people would stop calling cretins who pretend to use science as scientists. It soils the good name of science!

      No kidding. I read a few posts on their forums. These guys are just utter morons. What's sad is that a few of them appear to be well educated. I can only think they aren't right in the head or they "believe" in flat Earth theory only as a means of some sort of debating challenge.

    31. Re:Scientific community? by Koby77 · · Score: 1

      I read their website for about 15 minutes before I couldn't stomach it anymore. At some point you just have to shake your head in disgust and ignore wackos like this. There's no sense arguing with them because they apparently live their lives in a giant conspiracy, where obvious things like gravity and airplanes and satellites aren't real, and they instead believe in compounded excuses and explanations, of which noone can see or test for.

      So I wouldn't get irritated or angry or anything at these guys. Instead, just realize that 1% of any population is somewhat insane, and move on with the reality.

    32. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they're forming a new religion it seems. They're on the right track.

    33. Re:Scientific community? by houghi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Flat and round earthers can live together in harmony. The earth is both flat and round. Just like a pizza.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    34. Re:Scientific community? by Gonoff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds to me like uou are unable to believe that there is nobody that dense.
      Bob Heinlein wrote "Never understimate the power of human stupidity.

      If people are so pusposely ignorant as to ignore the evidence about one thing, they will find it easy to ignore other truths as well.

      I find it very believable that a small but vocal bunch of amazingly stupid people think the earth is flat. If they do, they will certainly have other foolish opinions as well.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    35. Re:Scientific community? by Goaway · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It sure makes it easier to feel good about oneself if one just believes everybody else is very stupid.

    36. Re:Scientific community? by ale_ryu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should do to them exactly what they did to our guys 500 years ago, burn them, hang them, etc., at least we have proof we're right :P

      Now, seriously speaking, it's obvious these guys are trolling, and they've put a lot of effort in it. Considering most of the slashdot community actually got angry at them I'd say they have succeded. Yep, these guys are successful trolls :P

    37. Re:Scientific community? by BewireNomali · · Score: 4, Insightful

      creationism is an opiate. it makes people who need it feel better about their existence. i can imagine that the guy who spins wonderous tales of magical beings can get laid - depending on his charisma, etc. it got jk rowling billions of dollars. *shrugs*

      and yes i did compare the bible to harry potter.

      flat-earthers? these guys do not get laid.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    38. Re:Scientific community? by rhyder128k · · Score: 5, Funny

      This flat earth nonsense is easy to disprove. Just get an illustrated bible and look at Genesis. The Earth is clearly round in many modern editions that I have seen. They'd probably get around it by claiming that those versions of the bible were reinterpreted by human beings and different from other versions of the bible. Yeah right, that logic would prove that every existing bible is false. But that's just how whacky a flat-earther can be.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    39. Re:Scientific community? by freddy_dreddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've only read a few threads and what they do is what every scientist pro or contra does: attack it from every possible angle. The topic they've chosen is as innocent as can be, and from the bits and pieces I've read they put up a very nice show which is amuzing to read

      Questioning Science is not anti-scientific. Taking ruling theories as absolute truth is unscientific.

      Stuff like this should be demonstrated in schools to show kids how science works and learn them how to build and defend your case.

      --
      "Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
    40. Re:Scientific community? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed, that is a parody site.

      Prior to the group's leader dying (in the last 10 years or so), there was a more serious website maintained, with documentation on their theories/beliefs, etc.

      This guy had the global believers (yeah, global) pretty well organized - he'd collect membership fees, mail out newsletters, set up conferences, the usual for someone runnign a group. After his death, as expected, no one picked up his work, and things started to fall apart.

      Don't let the parody site fool you. The Flat Earth people are as entrenched in their belief as normal people are about the world being a globe.

      --
      Huh?
    41. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're

    42. Re:Scientific community? by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      interesting point.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    43. Re:Scientific community? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Hang on, it's possible to prove a positive here. If the flat-Earthers went to the edge of the Earth, they would fall off. How can they defend the fact that that doesn't happen?

    44. Re:Scientific community? by Tenek · · Score: 1

      On a good day, maybe you'd lose a debate vs. a flat-earther, but you might also lose a game of ping-pong. Debating is like any other game, and it's only tangentially related to actual facts. Plus, whether you "win" or "lose" is determined by the audience, and if they don't have enough information to accurately evaluate your claims you can get away with a lot.

    45. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahah yeah and I just came from Germany to the US by BUS....

    46. Re:Scientific community? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That theory is comedically easy to disprove. The distance from San Jose, CA to DFW airport is 1,685 miles. At five hours or so for the flight, that comes to on the order of 300 MPH. A bus traveling that speed on land would not make it. The tires would blow out after a few thousand feet at such a speed. Even if you could get around this problem with a new tire design, you'd still have the problem of hitting people and vehicles on the way. And, of course, if there were some elaborate theatrical production outside a plane traveling at such a rate, the people would fly away themselves. Oh, and I would add that with the number of people in and around these two airports, surely someone would have seen these 300 MPH busses if such a story were true.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    47. Re:Scientific community? by morari · · Score: 1

      Squares and rectangles!

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    48. Re:Scientific community? by Mipsalawishus · · Score: 1

      "We welcome both skeptics and believers, so please join us."
      I wish the Slashdot was like that. Any mention of something not in their narrow view of the world, and you're tarred and feathered as a crazy uninformed idiot. So much for open minded discussion.

    49. Re:Scientific community? by Ernst+Hot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is why Nathan Poe formulated Poe's Law

    50. Re:Scientific community? by Zebra_X · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It did seem that way, but Tom Bishop spends an awful lot of time defending the theory, one might mistake the amount of time he's invested (average 9 posts per day, ~ 9,000 posts total) as something more than "humor" lol

      Poor sod

    51. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described Al Gore to a 'T' and I wish he'd shut his gob too.

    52. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhh....intersection means its in both sets...therefore the intersection contains only people who are both 'flat-earthers' and 'creationists'... I think they're teaching that in 4th grade these days. Maybe you mean union? How the fuck did this get modded 4 insightful?

    53. Re:Scientific community? by rasputin465 · · Score: 1

      I tagged this "suddenoutbreakofcrazy"

      *ahem* I don't think there was anything "sudden" about it!

      But seriously though, I personally don't see how this is significantly more crazy than Scientology.

    54. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So because your post basically says that the parent is stupid, you now feel better about yourself?

    55. Re:Scientific community? by Goaway · · Score: 0

      I don't think you can read any futher implication into that post than that the original poster has a bit of a self-confidence problem.

    56. Re:Scientific community? by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      The current land-speed record is a fraction over mach 1. Admittedly, this involved a bus only insofar as said bus provided a means for journalists and mechanics to reach the site, but it does mean that the tire argument alone is insufficient. The current land-speed record for a television journalist is over 300 mph, but he did indeed suffer a tire blowout. His survival and continued career, despite massive head injuries, does however prove that you don't need brains to be a TV celebrity.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    57. Re:Scientific community? by MonoSynth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Okay, but let's see this in the perspective of a flat earth as they call it. In fact the earth isn't flat our round(ish). It has it's own unique dimensional system. The Round Earth theory is made by the New World Order government (USA, 'former' USSR, China, Japan and the EU) after they discovered this Earth-specific dimension system.

      This system is so complex, it's ungraspable for most of mankind, but that would lead to the realization by us proles that we're not as smart as we think we are, reducing our level of self-confidence to that of the non-NWO countries (the cheap labour slaves). So they invented the Round Earth theory by providing (manipulated) pictures of a round earth, all made by combining photo's taken from hot air balloons. Steve Fossett had a big role in this project, but about one year ago he had some personal issues with some of the conspiracists and he threatened to write a book about the true shape of the earth.

      They also provide 'pictures' of other round planets, just to let us believe that there are more round planets and that it's a perfectly normal thing for a planet to be round.

      But as I said, the truth is as good as ungraspable. There are all sorts of complexities involved. The teleport from one end to another, for example. It prevents people from falling off the earth (but it also (still) prevents us from knowing what's underneath the earth). It's easily exploited to cross the pacific ocean from Japan to the USA, for example. This teleport-thing also makes it possible to strenghthen the Round Earth theory.

      And what to think of the amazingly complex gravitational system that puts us on the earth and manages to move the sun, moon and stars in predictable yet complex ways? They just recently started to understand this system and made use of it to place satellites in 'orbit' without falling down (how else do you think that satellites always stay on the same place? By moving just exactly as fast as the earth? Impossible. They're just hanging there in the flat, static sky).

      It's exactly those people that managed to analyze the inner workings of the teleport and made their own teleports and placed them in populated areas around the world, calling them 'Airports'. They attached bird-like wings to the buses that bring people to the teleports, just to make them believe they were going to fly through the air. In fact, the plane doesn't come off the ground, it's just replaced with a laser projected version while the real bus ('plane') is taxied to the teleport to be teleported to another 'Airport'. The windows are in fact hi-res screens. The current system is still pretty slow though (but a lot faster than boats and trains!), but in the future it will allow us to be teleported to anywhere in the world in seconds. Maybe even with a pocket 'aeroplane', but that won't be released to the public before they find a way to masquerade it as something that fits in the Round Earth theory.

      Oh, and btw, the Flat Earth Theory is made by the same conspiracists, just to give the non-believers something else to believe in.

    58. Re:Scientific community? by AmishElvis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I strongly suspect that these guys are the ultimate trolls. I think "Flat Earth" is a giant exercise in keeping a straight face.

    59. Re:Scientific community? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I simply cannot believe that they are serious.

      Thus, calling their leader "Chairman of the Bored" must be self-deprecating humour.

      --
      I hate printers.
    60. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, someone should make this fuckers with an uncomfortable opinion drink some Hemlock.

    61. Re:Scientific community? by notnAP · · Score: 1

      How's this?

    62. Re:Scientific community? by jefu · · Score: 1

      Isn't it possible to build a consistent mathematical theory where the earth would be flat, perhaps with an unreachable singularity somewhere, and still end up with consistent physics? Granted, the math would be, um, messy. But you could indeed end up with a "flat" earth - though, by the time the math and physics are all sufficiently tweaked it would behave just like a round one.

    63. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > When the crackpots (such as the creationists) invade your school systems, you'll lose your sense of humor, too.

      Or global warming wolf-criers. (Or for that matter, global cooling wolf-criers, Y2K alarmists, killer bee-warers, piranha-invadationists, etc etc etc).

    64. Re:Scientific community? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can disprove flat-earth theory.

      You can't disprove creationism.

      That doesn't make creationism true, but it makes believing in it defensible (and if you don't think so, you're too wrapped up in your own worldview to realize most people don't need their day to day beliefs to be rationalized and provable).

      We've seen the resulting universe from what may have been a big bang, or a sudden creation, or a complete non-event, but we have no proof of any of them.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    65. Re:Scientific community? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As humerous as that was intended to be, the Bible is a very fascinating book in that it is much more accurately reproduced over a very long period of time than most historians would expect for such a large piece of literature.

      Of course, this applies to original languages -- anyone who studies the English bibles and compares them is stupid -- the Bible wasn't written in English.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    66. Re:Scientific community? by hattig · · Score: 1

      When I stand on a flat plain, there is this slightly curved thing in the distance where the land ends and the sky begins, I believe that 'roundists' call it a 'horizon'.

      The fact that the horizon is a certain distance away on flat ground allowed ancient philosophers and scientists to say the Earth was a sphere and what the size of that sphere was, roughly.

      Anyway, on a flat earth the quickest route between Australia and South America is over the North Pole (as the North Pole is the centre of the flat earth for no good reason). Yet planes can fly between those countries far far quicker by going over the Pacific Ocean (which is large on a spherical Earth, but on a flat earth it's incredibly vast).

      If there are people who seriously believe the Earth is flat still, then I despair.

    67. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Science and Religion ARE compatible!

    68. Re:Scientific community? by Ifni · · Score: 1

      When I read it, I figured that was his point - that the intersection (the part that contains people meeting both criteria) contained the VAST majority of the set called "Flat Earthers", such that the Flat Earthers were all but a subset of the Creationists. In other words, he was saying that the intersection of the creationists and the Flat Earthers may not equal the union of the same two groups, but it comes pretty close.

      --

      Oh, was that my outside voice?

    69. Re:Scientific community? by Ifni · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself to complete the thought I started:

      Which is to say that I believe that the GGP had a fairly good grasp of the difference between a union and an intersection, and was using the term intersection properly.

      --

      Oh, was that my outside voice?

    70. Re:Scientific community? by gnuman99 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Republicans are NOT flat earthers or even ultra-religious-reborn-again-jebuses. They are just people exploiting the said groups for votes.

    71. Re:Scientific community? by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      I think the basis of my statment is that I work in IT support...

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    72. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof that when a man lies, he kills a part of the world.

      This sort of thing should be illegal, and April fools news coverage as well.

    73. Re:Scientific community? by gregbot9000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was talking to a hard core Mormon neighbor the other day when he started to pressure me to his views, at which point I smacked him with fact. his response was to quote Nietzsche, "Faith is not wanting to know what is true." in support of his ridiculous beliefs. The only appropriate response I could think of was to grab my crotch and proposition him, worked like a charm, now they cross the street when they see me.

      People want to be stupid and believe fantasy, it helps them cope with things that are beyond them, look at the 9-11 truth movement. Anyone, even Scientists, who try to shield their beliefs or theory's from scrutiny should be instantly slapped.

    74. Re:Scientific community? by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      Yep, these guys are successful trolls :P

      you'll have to explain this concept of "successful trolls" to me, and many others too. it is something new to slashdot.

    75. Re:Scientific community? by D'Sphitz · · Score: 1

      I can't take this seriously, as screwed up as some people are I really can't believe that anyone actually still believes the earth is flat. Even if someone could somehow believe that all of the visual evidence such as photos and videos of the earth from orbit were an elaborate conspiracy, the laws of physics, nature, everything we understand about the universe and everything around us is indisputable evidence that the earth, like all planets, is round.

      I wonder how these flat earthers explain how gravity works on our disc? Is the center of gravity underneath the disc? In the middle of the disc? Shouldn't we all walk around tilted to counteract gravity pulling us towards the north pole? Shouldn't all the water on earth flow towards the north pole into a gigantic liquid mound? Even if the earth was once a disc, wouldn't gravity have pulled matter towards the center of mass and turned it into a sphere long ago?

      How are there no pictures of the edge of the earth, and why can't we climb over the edge to the bottom and populate the other side? How do we have day/night cycles? How do we have timezones? How do we have tides? How do we have seasons? How do we have satellites? Every rational explanation for anything and everything goes out the window if the earth is flat.

      I honestly think the flat earth society is nothing more than an elaborate internet troll. I just can't comprehend that anyone really believes it, it's just not possible.

    76. Re:Scientific community? by D'Sphitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is I can understand why creationists think what they do. They have some "evidence" in the bible, they've been brainwashed since infancy, and it's a nice emotional crutch to not have to come to terms with their own mortality.

      I'm at a loss to come up with any rationalization for believing the earth is flat, though.

    77. Re:Scientific community? by omfgnosis · · Score: 2

      No, "your" was correct. It is referencing [a round earther's] action, not stating what [the round earther] is doing. It's the same as saying, "your behavior" or "your action".

    78. Re:Scientific community? by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      /me throws an occam's razor.

      LOL, great post.

    79. Re:Scientific community? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I don't want any part of a troll belief system that allows its members to go around telling people that it's a joke. Come on, don't break the first and second rules of Flat Earth Club.

    80. Re:Scientific community? by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      both salient points.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    81. Re:Scientific community? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Because there isn't an edge they can reach? Because all manner of trickery prevents them from reaching the edge? Where is your imagination?

    82. Re:Scientific community? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      There's no belief in trolling.

      Unless you're a Scientologist.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    83. Re:Scientific community? by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe.. maybe not..

      I had a history teacher in High School who purported to be a Flat-Earther. This chap was a very good humanities/history teacher. He had all sorts of ways to bring alive one of the more boring subjects (at least for teenagers who won't figure out for another decade or two why it's one of the most important subjects). This was also my wrestling coach. So for many reasons we respected this man. And he did have a good sense of humor.

      But we had no idea why he claimed to believe the Earth was flat. To this day, I'm still not certain if this was real, tongue-in-cheek or yet another creative teaching methodology. He did put most of the students on the spot to defend why we believed the Earth was round. Almost none of us had any other answer than things like "but... but... people have gone up and taken pictures". None of us could explain how for several millenia all educated folk have known the Earth was round based a few obvious things such as the way a ship disappears over the horizon, the fact that the shadow of the Earth on the moon is always round and things like certain constellations going out of sight as folk travel north or south. This was well before the Google age where someone in the classroom could have found all that in a couple of minutes on the web.

      In any case, you need not fear alternative ideas (even blatantly false goofy ones) in your school systems. If anything you should fear people trying to coopt the boards to ensure goofy ideas are taught in a non-critical fashion. But then, if you have any idea of the history of schools and school boards in America, you're probably jaded anyhow.

    84. Re:Scientific community? by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      I've looked at their arguments. It's all contradicting horse shit. In the end, it ends up similar to young earth creationist bullshit, but with a scientific spin on it.

      All you need is simple reasoning skills to see through their horse shit. It's not hard. I explained this very flat earth ideology to one of my less intelligent friends, what they believed, and so on. She could easily tell it was stupid bullshit and even gave reasons why.

    85. Re:Scientific community? by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      They claim all movement is done in a circular motion, so that we never reach the end.

    86. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately after looking through a few of the forum threads on their website, most of the users are "defending" their view by means of trolling and ignorantly attacking anybody who questions them.

      If it weren't for that fact, I would very much appreciate what is going on here. But I cannot approach anyone with an open mind if they are not open-minded too.

    87. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      Your showing me pictures

      ...in this case means the act of "showing me pictures" which you possess.

      Not that it matters.

    88. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymuous+Coward · · Score: 1

      you're mom ?

    89. Re:Scientific community? by adisakp · · Score: 1

      I find it very believable that a small but vocal bunch of amazingly stupid people think the earth is flat. If they do, they will certainly have other foolish opinions as well.

      They probably believe in Intelligent Design as well.

    90. Re:Scientific community? by rk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've seen the resulting universe from what may have been a big bang, or a sudden creation, or a complete non-event, but we have no proof of any of them.

      The moment you break out a word like "proof", you are already on the express bus out of Scienceville. Science is about coming up with theories that match observations, and can make predictions about future observations. The reason why scientists generally regard the Big Bang Theory as a good theory is because it fit observations made at the time and is confirmed by more observations made since that the theory predicted. When observations are made that don't fit the theory, the theory gets elaborated on (in the case of relativity refining Newton's classical mechanics) or outright rejected (luminiferous ether, phlogistons). A theory can be disproven, but can never really be proven.

      Any reasonably honest scientist will cheerfully acknowledge that the current understanding of cosmology, evolution, or any other science doesn't represent the whole truth, or even a truth, but are models to explain what we see in nature. If science had all the answers, we'd have no need for further science research!

    91. Re:Scientific community? by fluffman86 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are partially right. The Bible does talk about the roundness of the earth.

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-the-bible-say-anything-about-astronomy

      That page talks about different scriptures that indicate the possibility that the earth is round.

    92. Re:Scientific community? by GSGKT · · Score: 1

      If it is a theory, then we can apply this idea called "scientific method" and develop a testable hypothesis, and then... Wait, the flat earth idea has been shown to be false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth and Earth is an oblate spheroid. "Round" could be interpreted as like a circle and two-dimensional, just those flat-earth people want you to think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth These flat earth "alchemists" are just like those who claim that human activities could never affect the climate http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics, there are endless oil supplies on earth for human consumption, http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm, HIV does not cause AIDS http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/not/abstract.htm, and the only way to study whales is to kill them and sell the meat in the supermarket http://www.icrwhale.org/QandAjapanresearch.htm. Aaahhh these fucking assholes.

    93. Re:Scientific community? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      What

    94. Re:Scientific community? by Artuir · · Score: 1

      Not everyone knows who Richard Hammond is, you insensitive clod!

    95. Re:Scientific community? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      I prefer the batshitinsanse tag. It had a good run over at metafilter.

    96. Re:Scientific community? by risk+one · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the fossils are like pepperoni slices that God topped his pizza with to test our faith. It all adds up.

    97. Re:Scientific community? by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      I know, replying to myself here, but I did do what's forbidden around here.

      Can you cite the rule that forbids replying to yourself? People used to make this odd claim about Usenet too, but it was never in any of the netiquette guides AFAIK. In a medium where you can't edit your posted comments, replying to yourself is a reasonable way of adding an occasional addendum or correction. I would even go so far as to suggest that in a medium where you can edit your comments, it's more polite to post an in-thread addendum instead (i.e. a reply), especially if someone else has already posted their own reply in the meantime.

    98. Re:Scientific community? by nasor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's funny, because I would expect slashdot readers to be much less susceptible to trollish "I'll see if I can actually trick anyone into thinking that I'm being serious with this obviously fake, incredibly stupid post" sort of thing. But apparently not.

      That being said, it's a great subject for trooling. And good troll will tell you that you need to make a post that is:
      1. Obviously wrong
      2. About a subject that's complicated enough that it would take someone significant time/effort to properly explain why the original post is wrong
      3. Stupid enough that you can get a laugh at the expense of all the people who took your post seriously and put in significant time/effort to respond

    99. Re:Scientific community? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      When I read it, I figured that was his point - that the intersection (the part that contains people meeting both criteria) contained the VAST majority of the set called "Flat Earthers", such that the Flat Earthers were all but a subset of the Creationists. In other words, he was saying that the intersection of the creationists and the Flat Earthers may not equal the union of the same two groups, but it comes pretty close.

      In order for the union and intersection of groups A and B be same, A and B need to be the same group. It isn't sufficient for nearly all flatters to be creationists, but nearly all creationists must be flatters as well.

      Does anyone have any statistical data about the prevalence of Flat Earth hypothesis amongst creationists ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    100. Re:Scientific community? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      As the BBC article points out, the Flat Earth movement began about 150 years ago in response to perceived loss of traction by religion due to growing power of science. So we might deduce (however tentatively) that they're at least partly pointing to the Bible for their support. As I recall, the Bible really does make statements that suggest a flat Earth (and floodgates in the sky and other patently incorrect things that even most Creationists ignore).

    101. Re:Scientific community? by philspear · · Score: 1

      That's an idea. After all, they are funnier than any internet meme ever, except for maybe lolcatz.

    102. Re:Scientific community? by philspear · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. There is no scientific basis for the "flat earth theory". None. Zero. Zilch.

      You have obviously never been to Kansas. Incidentally, if you want proof that evolution has not happened, you should also go to Kansas.

    103. Re:Scientific community? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Not so much as exploit them as give them a "lesser of two evil's choice"

      From their point of view: Given the choice between weak-willed conservatives and Marxist Democrats they go for the weak willed conservatives.

      Like we would ever let Huckabee or Ron Paul be the nominee, they are just nutters.

      (In an interesting twist this year, it is the Democrat's candidate that wears his religion on his sleeve )

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    104. Re:Scientific community? by ityllux · · Score: 1

      I can't believe so many ./ers fell for this.

      I mean, come on people. The British government runs the BBC, and stands to make trillions of dollars from people believing the Earth is round. It's so obvious that this article was a plant.

    105. Re:Scientific community? by BeanThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah ... reminds me of some Richard Mitchell:

      "Words never fail. We hear them, we read them; they enter into the mind and become part of us for as long as we shall live. Who speaks reason to his fellow men bestows it upon them. Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen."

    106. Re:Scientific community? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think I have found in you a kindred spirit!

      P.S. Wanna fuck?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    107. Re:Scientific community? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      That's exactly right. It's a big joke on the rest of us. Very much like the global warming deniers and the building 7 WTC theories. All complete jokes.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    108. Re:Scientific community? by SirBruce · · Score: 1

      That page has a clear bias. The Bible also talks about the "four corners of the Earth", and also suggests that by climbing a high enough mountain in the Middle East Jesus could see the whole world. While it's true that it was "known" in learned circles that the Earth was probably round for thousands of years, the vast majority thought it flat.

    109. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a creationist, i can tell you, most creationists are not flat earthers

    110. Re:Scientific community? by flappinbooger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jezza, is that you?

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    111. Re:Scientific community? by VocationalZero · · Score: 1
      From the link:

      One of our members is even cultivating an enormous jumping bean which, when saddled and heated by a laser, will propel a human for great distances.

      As an aspiring entrepreneur, where can one find one of these awesome plants to purchase and grow?

      Airports and airplanes are for the gullible. Little do "plane" passengers realize that they are merely boarding Greyhound buses with wings, and that while aboard these winged buses, given the illusion of flight when cloud like scenery is moved past their windows by stagehands in a very expensive theatrical performance.

      I must have boarded one fast greyhound when I "flew" out to Colorado last week. Actually, I'd be more impressed if they just let me watch without any sort of theatrics. 300+ mph on the ground,in a (nearly) strait line would be insanely impressive for any sort of mass transit.

      P.S. society of trolls, internet is serious business, etc, etc.

    112. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone tells these humorless Americans that humor can take many faces. What flat-earthers are doing is quite admirable in fact : they take the challenge of defending a view that is contradicted by almost every fact of normal life and try to create a coherent if convulated theory about it.

      Just like Scientology!!!

    113. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use the bible as toilet paper. I'd use flat-earthers as a toilet, but they may object and make things difficult.

    114. Re:Scientific community? by Goaway · · Score: 3, Funny

      That is certainly no surprise. A large part of the people who work in IT support are the kind of people who confuse familiarity with computers with intelligence.

    115. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Round earth theory causes obesity I hear.

    116. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sudden? Doesn't the word "still" in the title imply that this is not sudden, but that they were here before too?

    117. Re:Scientific community? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The illustrations aren't part of God's word.

      Nevertheless, any differences between the story in the Bible and what science tells us can be explained by the fact that they answers to completely different questions.

      In any case, is the big bang theory really that incompatible with the idea that "God said, 'let there be light', and there was light"?

      The science books say that the universe started with a big nuclear explosion. We know from other nuclear explosions since then that they generate lots of light. The science books don't say who set off the bomb, so it is perfectly possible that God did it.

    118. Re:Scientific community? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Does it say that in the original Hebrew or New Testament Greek? And what does it actually mean. Is it just a commonly (at that time) used expression for "everwhere", or does it really literally mean the corners of a four sided polygon?

    119. Re:Scientific community? by timnbron · · Score: 1

      I like the way the Earth photo appears next to the Monty Python foot. Can we swap the images so it illustrates the subject better?

      --
      There are some who call me ... Tim.
    120. Re:Scientific community? by hamster_nz · · Score: 1

      I know that the earth is round, but does it really make a difference? Is there something that you can do in your daily life where the curvature of the earth needs to be accounted for?

      We all know that Relativity is more accurate, but who even needs Newtonian Gravity in daily life? You drop things and they accelerate at 9.8m/s/s, And I can't get two bricks to stick to each other with their mutual gravitational attraction.

      Can you go out in your back yard and prove that the earth is round? I'ld like to hear your method. And if you can't, why can't you?

      I say good on them for questioning what they perceive as dogma. I'ld rather that they were flat-earthers than selling herbal remedies...

    121. Re:Scientific community? by JLF65 · · Score: 1

      Bah! EVERYONE knows the Earth is SQUARE. That's why it seems flat to people all over - it is... where you happen to be. It's also easy to make the Earth SEEM round from space - just use a fish-eye lens.

    122. Re:Scientific community? by renegadesx · · Score: 1

      Theres some pages that lend to the possibility that the earth is round, however the "circle" statement is more consistent with a 2D circle (a circle is not a sphere) which is consistant with the flat earth belief that the earth was a flat circle which was a very common belief during ancient times.
      There is more in the bible to suggest its writers believed the earth was flat. However there are bible passages that suggested more of a rectangular held up by 4 pillars.

      A flat earth would have allowed one to see "All the kingdoms" of the earth, however in a round earth context, there is no way China and Japan would have been viewable from Israel.

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    123. Re:Scientific community? by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Sure you could. The properties of such a world just don't correspond to those of the one in which we live.

    124. Re:Scientific community? by Ifni · · Score: 1

      Gah, my bad - I meant intersection (of the two) and the FE set were the same, or nearly so. Not sure what caused me to invoke "union". I fail at set theory...

      I explained it all so well up until the last sentence...

      --

      Oh, was that my outside voice?

    125. Re:Scientific community? by jagdish · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is no light. The Sun sucks dark. In fact it sucks dark so hard that the friction of the dark moving to the Sun causes the Sun to be very hot. The flow of dark towards the Sun interrupted by the Earth causes the side of the Earth away from the Sun to accumulate dark, thus causing Night. As the Earth rotates the dark caught on the night side can then be pulled off, this causing the absence of dark known as Day.

      What we call light bulbs are truly dark suckers as well. That is why light bulbs are hot, just like the Sun. When a light bulb is full of dark and won't suck dark any more, it cools off. If you look in old light bulbs you can even seen the accumulation of dark.

      Dark is also heavier than water. This can be seen in the oceans where the deeper you go the darker it gets.

      (Source unknown)

    126. Re:Scientific community? by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      But did god say light was a particle or a wave?

    127. Re:Scientific community? by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      You're all wrong! The Earth is a line!

    128. Re:Scientific community? by taucross · · Score: 0

      I posit: It is our less than optimally functioning faculties that have us believing the earth is round. The earth is in fact flat, but the curvature of our irises and telescope lenses is what produces the "round earth" theory. Perhaps if the lenses in our eyes were flat we would see our flat earth in all its glory.

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    129. Re:Scientific community? by Samah · · Score: 1

      I wish people would stop calling cretins who pretend to use science as scientists. It soils the good name of science!

      Just like a certain cul^H^H^Hreligion that bases its beliefs on science fic^H^H^Hfact.
      L. Ron. Hubbard went to the cupboard to fetch Tom Cruise a missile...

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    130. Re:Scientific community? by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      His survival and continued career, despite massive head injuries, does however prove that you don't need brains to be a TV celebrity.

      And his appearance in any infomercial that will give him a paycheck proves that you don't need dignity or taste either.

    131. Re:Scientific community? by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      Why is it so nutty to think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created a flat, plate-like earth, upon which to spread his noodley goodness, topped with marinara sauce and Parmesan cheese???? I mean, he has to land some time. Duh?!

    132. Re:Scientific community? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you suggesting we all live on a disc? And what carries this disc? Next, you'll say something ridiculous like "the disc is balanced on the back of four elephants who in turn are carried by a giant turtle".

      That's so silly I bet you couldn't even write a good fantasy story about it.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    133. Re:Scientific community? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dude, did you happen to notice that manwillneverfly.com is tongue-in-cheek? The leader of this organization describes himself as "Chairman of the Bored".

    134. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, actually.

    135. Re:Scientific community? by habig · · Score: 1

      While it's true that it was "known" in learned circles that the Earth was probably round for thousands of years, the vast majority thought it flat.

      Except for anybody involved with seafaring, where approaching ships becoming visible from the topsails down was a vital bit of everyday knowledge. Even if all the navigational knowledge was somehow confined to a few learned people on the quarterdeck.

    136. Re:Scientific community? by grub · · Score: 0, Troll


      as a creationist, i can tell you, most creationists are not flat earthers

      No, they're just retarded.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    137. Re:Scientific community? by polemon · · Score: 1

      >"Yeah, there are a few nuts in there who actually believe it, but you'll get stupid beliefs anywhere."

      Scientology anyone?

      --
      EOF
    138. Re:Scientific community? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Well, the good news is that there's this strong guy holding the disc so it won't drop. The bad news is that the next Cosmic Olympic event is discus hurling...

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    139. Re:Scientific community? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      I beat you to this upthread, orry.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    140. Re:Scientific community? by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      Pfft, admirable? How have you lived your life without meeting the fringes of ANY fandom? Picard/Q/Worf is gay for Riker! Papa Adama wants to screw his son(s)! Despicable villian A who rapes puppies is a poor misunderstoof soul! Etc, etc.

    141. Re:Scientific community? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      gold. if there is one thing i've learnt when dealing with stupid people, it's once they reach a certain level of stupidity there is no point trying to educate them. you just use them for your own amusement, anything else is a wasted effort.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    142. Re:Scientific community? by Sethumme · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Man Will Never Fly society is even easier to disprove than the Flat-Earthers' contentions, but consider that their mission statement boasts the following:

      The Society's members believe that balloons fly, but we do not believe in flying machines. Indeed, members of the Society have proposed a variety of apparati for movement through the ozone. One of our members is even cultivating an enormous jumping bean which, when saddled and heated by a laser, will propel a human for great distances.

      I think it's pretty clear that this no-flying "society" is a parody.

    143. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like "human activity is the cause of global warming" and "global warming is a critical emergency".

    144. Re:Scientific community? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      My comments about proof have nothing to do with science, and I didn't claim they did in the original post -- simply the rationality of believing something at all.

      But speaking of proofs, you can prove the world round by logic, even if its not a scientific concept. Not everything in the world revolves around science. Math, logic, and reasoning help too.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    145. Re:Scientific community? by featurelesscube · · Score: 1

      Of course it is! and so is time: http://www.timecube.com/

    146. Re:Scientific community? by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      The words weren't directly written by God, but were rather "inspired" by him and written by another. Why then wouldn't the illustration be similarly "inspired"?

      And yes, big bang is completely incompatible with the bible. "Let there be light" takes about 2 seconds to say, 2 seconds which didn't exist until the "light" happened. "Before time began" is also, I might add, a logical contradiction.

      --
      Jeremy
    147. Re:Scientific community? by MilesAttacca · · Score: 1

      They've never seen the roundness of the earth externally. Many people don't accept the existence of a higher power because they can't observe that power, even though there are millions of pages of literature describing all the human deities. Same would probably go for most flat-earthists -- if they could be convinced they really were high above the planet, in space, and seeing with their own eyes that it was round, they would probably accept that it is. Unless they're of the type who will always say you can never be sure.

      --
      98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smoke, and have sex. Put this in your sig if you like bagels.
    148. Re:Scientific community? by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

      I have to agree about some of the Creationists; to think the world is only 6,000 years old is pretty "MaGoo". There are all sorts of simple tests like counting layers of ice that go farther back than that. Plus, it isn't logical. Fossils don't lie, and neither do large batteries of tests.

      The Bible is many things to many people, but a calendar- it's not. Not a play-by-play of the dinosaurs, not a technical discussion of DNA or mutations, nor a map of the approximate 12M species of animal. But there's reasons for this: it's a love letter from the Creator. He wants to redeem us all, for a life past this world, and all we need do is ask and accept.

      But there are things that really annoy the scientific community:

      1. Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible; what would, say, Moses have done with the information? We've only been studying what we did up for a couple hundred years. Why detail them? They were long-dead before anything that looked like man was on the prowl.

      2. From the start [The Big Bang | "Let there be light"] until now has been a very long time indeed. But let's not forget an important detail: Darwin's Origin of Species included a "Tree of Life" graphic, but it was unsubstantiated. The idea of starting with two amoebas and a billion years later there's Armani just isn't scientific. The fossil record shows *nothing* for the largest span of time, up until a point in time (probably several thousand years) in which *all* current phylum appear, in the pre-Cambrian era. They sprung up fully-formed overnight. (Cosmologically anyway)

      3. The Bible *can't* detail the beginning any more than it can. To do so would provide a time that science would have to agree with, and then faith would no longer have meaning. If God/Satan gave you his phone number, you wouldn't need faith anymore, aye? It's all about taking that first step without proof.

      4. Christianity is historical and evidential. The Greeks: The Earth is on Atlas' shoulders. Indians: The Earth is in a pool of milk with a elephant....well, you get the idea. Know what the Bible says? "The Earth is suspended by nothing." The only book to get it right. It also got right the Hittites and the true end of the Babylonians, having two rulers instead of the usual one. I'm actually beginning to believe there are *no* contradictions. I've come a long way in 2-3 years.

      5. Believe in the story of Noah or not, you have to hand it to a document that revealed the dimensions of the first successful sea-going vessel before it was known to man. And it's kinda cool how this 'fairy tale' managed to get into the histories of something like 110 different nations. Some fairy tale.

      My point here is, science doesn't want to believe what they're finding. Learning who God is means having to deal with him; many aren't ready for that, and their pride suggests they can solve any problem that life throws at them. Except they can't: meet these people after a tornado comes and takes the rest of their neighborhood away- they'll have no answer.

      Ya See? We have science that backs up the Bible. It's *clear* to anyone who genuinely wants to prove it to themselves that there's something special about that book, and the God to which it's written by. There's almost unimaginable consistency in there- foretelling of Christ's virgin birth and his birthplace **700** years before it happened. Think it's a trick? Go to Israel and see the carbon dating. People have spent their lives trying to explain it away and become believers.

      There's gotta be a reason for that, other than blind stupidity.

      Ya see, I'm not a "churchgoer", not a "team member" or other casual associate. I've seen His work, and I've met His people. I've felt his work in my heart and in my life. You'll find me in church on Sunday because that's where everyone goes, who's 'seen' Him, not the other way around. I don't do good works to fit-in at the church; I do them anyway. Having felt this, and then see someone calling others like me "with an agenda" and having "less than op

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    149. Re:Scientific community? by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      It's a line of string, rolled into a ball!

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    150. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fail

    151. Re:Scientific community? by Bl4ckJ3sus · · Score: 1

      The Earth can be any shape you want it

      Any shape at all

      Dark and cold or bright and warm

      Long or thin or small

      But it's home and all I ever had

      and maybe why for me the Earth is flat

      Thomas Dolby

    152. Re:Scientific community? by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1

      I'll be right over with the world's biggest bag of Doritos, 'cause you must be getting a SERIOUS case of the munchies right about now.

    153. Re:Scientific community? by upside · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought the guy behind Notice for Newbies post on their forums, "Professor Gaycunt" was also a bit of a giveaway.

      --
      I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
    154. Re:Scientific community? by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      I know that the earth is round, but does it really make a difference? Is there something that you can do in your daily life where the curvature of the earth needs to be accounted for?

      Engineers do. Aircraft runways often are long enough that they need to consider the natural curve of the earth over long distances when being planned & built. Also, pretty much any field to do with navigation, aeronautics, astrophysics, broadcasting/telecommunications (line of sight issues)...actually it's quite a diverse range of fields that rely on the assumption of a spherical Earth, whether or not you actually realise it. Even simple things like dealing with time zones, or whether you do things at night time or day time, are due entirely to the Earth's curvature.

      Can you go out in your back yard and prove that the earth is round? I'ld like to hear your method. And if you can't, why can't you?

      If your house backs on to a flat plane like a desert or ocean (ie. a horizon), you can. Otherwise, you can't do it yourself unless you own a high altitude aircraft or trust third parties. This is because of the sheer size of the Earth; on any given sphere, the larger the radius, the less difference there is between the circumference and a tanget for an arc between points A and B. A and B in this case is the unobstructed view distance of a human.

    155. Re:Scientific community? by mordorph · · Score: 1

      you forgot to mention the organic dark-suckers which feed upon dark. the places where these supposed bio'luminescent' creatures live is proof enough of their diet. most (such as jellyfish) live where there is a greater accumulation of dark, hence, their residency in the depths of the ocean. only a cretin could think otherwise.

    156. Re:Scientific community? by maglor_83 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So God is a cat? Why, now everything makes so much sense!

    157. Re:Scientific community? by zobier · · Score: 1

      Oh god. Look at their "web search" function:

      Excite, Lycos, InfoSeek, AltaVista, HotBot, Yahoo, WebCrawler, OpenText & Magellan

      What a blast from the past. Are any of these other than Yahoo still around?

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    158. Re:Scientific community? by zobier · · Score: 1

      Fail troll is fail.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    159. Re:Scientific community? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can disprove creationism, and you can do it rather easily. Creationism doesn't stop with "God created man". That's the domain of the mouth-breathing religious zealot who knows nothing about the scary world around him, including the history of the Bible. Real Creationism "theory" has become far more developed as Creationists try to respond to challenges.

      There are quantitative observations the deeper you go into the theory. Calculations of such things as the age of the earth based on the summation of ages of the apostles are used as prima facie evidence that God created man, and yet carbon dating in this example easily shows the calculations are wrong.

    160. Re:Scientific community? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Is anyone absolutely sure Flat Earthers are real today? I have no doubt there are some religiously motivated zealots out there who embrace FE theory, but for all we know, the Flat Earth Society as it exists today might be a truly awesome experiment in Discordian satire, a work of some fine subgeniuses.

    161. Re:Scientific community? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      None of us could explain how for several millenia all educated folk have known the Earth was round based a few obvious things such as the way a ship disappears over the horizon

      The reason why it seems that ship disappear over the horizon is that it really does disappear over the horizon. It falls off the edge!

    162. Re:Scientific community? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      If you read it, the url is, in fact, named wrongly. They should have got the url www.manshouldneverfly.com.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    163. Re:Scientific community? by Stooshie · · Score: 3, Funny

      using the bible to disprove the flat earth theory is like using spaghetti monsters to disprove unicorns.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    164. Re:Scientific community? by Evildonald · · Score: 1

      I only joined the Flat Earthers so I could get laid!

    165. Re:Scientific community? by grvydude · · Score: 1

      After reading about this... I can't tell anymore if my brain cells just decided to leave, or just killed themselves... (Or maybe they just jumped off the edge of the earth). I would really like to see the physics that the group says makes the entire system works. Also how they explain the galaxy/universe. is it also flat and we have just had creative ways to make it sound like it is round. Also they said it is a conspiracy for making money... how the hell would you make money off something like that? Are they just using the fact that if their beliefs are correct then nasa is just a studio and therefore pocketing the money?

    166. Re:Scientific community? by e03179 · · Score: 1

      What about the Christians that believe the Earth is billions of years old, just like you?

      (Also, you had better read up on the apostles as they have little to do with Young Earth believers calculating the age of the planet.)

      --
      -516
    167. Re:Scientific community? by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      I would rather say that a huge effort to be unfamiliar with technology is a sign of stupidity.

      This is not to be confused with those to whom IT is not relevant or important. I just dislike those who feel that their lack of ability makes them better than others and then object to me trying to explain how to switch them on!

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    168. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations! You've just turned the majority of /.ers into flat earthers!

    169. Re:Scientific community? by Born2bwire · · Score: 1

      Like hell it is, it's turtles all the way down my friend.

    170. Re:Scientific community? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I thought a flat earth was a metaphor for people gaining an equal playing field in the world. Where status and and money doesn't always give you the competitive advantage like Thomas Friedman the world is flat explains. (which is a really good book that I recommend that you read, to get a good understanding of the scope of globalization)

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    171. Re:Scientific community? by Coraon · · Score: 1

      I Follow a religion closely following the old religions of Europe, I know the earth is round, the Norse proved it a long time ago. I am a creationist, I believe the gods created man, I just think they did it within the path of science, I believe in a guided evolution. I don't see why one model or the other needs to be totally right, I am willing to accept that my belief may not be correct, because honestly, trying to interpret history without experiencing it is not easy, there are so many things we hold true that could be completely wrong, and many others that we believe fiction could be right. The point I'm trying to make is that you need to keep an open mind. Be willing to examine your own beliefs and reexamine them, does it make the gods more or less wondrous that not old did they make the universe, but they made it in a way that we can understand it. For me, it makes them more wonderous

      --
      -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    172. Re:Scientific community? by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      (and floodgates in the sky and other patently incorrect things that even most Creationists ignore)

      Mind if I ask how that would suggest the existance of a flat earth? I always took God opening the "flood gates" to mean, "He released a crapload of water onto the earth."

      Doesn't make the earth flat. And, although I'm not a Biblical scholar or anything, I don't remember it anywhere suggesting the earth was flat, round or otherwise.

      You may just be a cleverly disguised troll...it's hard to tell.

    173. Re:Scientific community? by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      ...global...

      don't you mean the "disc-wide" believers?

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    174. Re:Scientific community? by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Microsoft FrontPage... Should 'a guessed it.

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    175. Re:Scientific community? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      His survival and continued career, despite massive head injuries, does however prove that you don't need brains to be a TV celebrity.

      And his appearance in any infomercial that will give him a paycheck proves that you don't need dignity or taste either.

      I think the lack of need for dignity and taste in order to be a TV celebrity has been proven long before Richard Hammond was even born.

    176. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does bring up an interesting issue with the general level of intelligence among the population. If the story is good enough and requires less understanding, they are likely to believe. There is evidence of more complex machines all around in everyday life, but people would still easily accept that there is a rodent in their computer on a wheel making the whole thing work. (I'm exagerating of course). Besides, the 300MPH busses and cast would be top secret, like area 51. : )

    177. Re:Scientific community? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not sure he exists, but I enjoy being nice to what appears to be a cat, who I call "The Lord".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    178. Re:Scientific community? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      I'm going to reply assuming that you're not flame-baiting me, in spite of the troll accusation.

      I didn't suggest that "floodgates" implied a flat Earth. I really don't see how you got that impression from my post. However, the usage was *not* taken to be metaphorical in ancient times, since (I've been taught that) the ancient Hebrews had a literal view of the sky that had floodgates in it. Not so hard to believe if you also believe that the sky is a solid sphere, as was indeed the going belief until the Copernican revolution.

      As for implications for a flat Earth, there are several places in the Old and New Testaments where objects which are tall enough to be seen on the entire Earth are mentioned. You can't do that on a spherical surface, so a literalist could easily take that as Biblical support for a flat Earth model. Google will show you the verses with a pretty simple and obvious search as well as others that are cited to support the claim.

    179. Re:Scientific community? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      This chap was a very good humanities/history teacher.

      And the key bit, which you oddly gloss over, is that he *wasn't* a science teacher, and more importantly, *wasn't* teaching the students that the earth was flat and that round-earthiness was "just a theory". Contrast this with current efforts to shoehorn creationism in to the classroom and you'll see why there's a very *very* big different between Dover, and your crazy history teacher.

    180. Re:Scientific community? by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 1

      I know this is a very late post on this topic and no one will probably read it, but this is actually a tongue-in-cheek parody site. The summary linked to the wrong website. The website in the summary is a parody of the actual site at theflatearthsociety.net.

      So even thought the article was linked incorrectly, these nut jobs do actually exist.

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    181. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they take the challenge of defending a view that is contradicted by almost every fact of normal life and try to create a coherent if convulated theory about it.

      The Pastafarians do it better, and for a better cause:

      http://www.venganza.org/

    182. Re:Scientific community? by jgoemat · · Score: 1

      I don't know why they can't just teach the controversy, and let the students hear both sides of the issue.

    183. Re:Scientific community? by rk · · Score: 1

      My comments about proof have nothing to do with science, and I didn't claim they did in the original post -- simply the rationality of believing something at all.

      My comment wasn't meant to be a criticism of your statement, but more a criticism of those who would believe that things that aren't proven shouldn't be taught in science classes. That sort of thinking reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Proof has a definite meaning in mathematics, in jurisprudence, and maybe in other fields I'm not as aware of, but science doesn't. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said that "science is a discipline where theories and models are gradually replaced by ones that are less wrong."

      Not everything in the world revolves around science. Math, logic, and reasoning help too.

      Too true. That is one of science's limitations. Though I'm a big believer in scientific method, it also carries around an implicit faith or belief, and I try to be honest enough to acknowledge it: The universe is entirely governed by, if not outright deterministic, reproducible and predictable behavior. I'm pretty sure that's mostly true, but I'm not certain it's wholly true. Regardless, it's more an article of faith than one of proof or theory.

    184. Re:Scientific community? by Breez911 · · Score: 1

      human: imperfect: having the imperfections and weaknesses of a human being.

      In The Summer of 1925, religious humans knew so little about spirituality, they were unable to stop Darwinism becoming an academical subject, allowable in the education system. Human scientists considered they had won the Creation/Evolution argument; and commenced teaching scientific theories as TRUTHS!

      To this day science has been unable to accurately demonstrate any of their theories to be truths, anymore than any believer has demonstrated that there is a "God"!

      So humanity is stuck in a "Believed to be Theoretical reality, in which nothing is correct, nor incorrect! Every thing is, as Einstein theorized! A matter of relativity of point of view!

      Terror: A condition causer by 6000+- Gregorian years of Human Error!

      So which Errorist can prove the planet to be either: flat; round; elliptical; or, as the KJV Scriptures tell, an Illusion?

    185. Re:Scientific community? by mscholin · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt that the Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat, but they do like taking the contrarian position and arguing it for the sport value.

      You make them sound like a debate team. One side argues for and the other against. What I've seen of their site leads me to the same opinion. These people(minus the true believers) just love to argue, for any reason. You just pick the side you want to argue for and have at it.

    186. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to imply that spaghetti monsters are as fictional as bible and jesus? Fuck off you liberal minded hippy!

    187. Re:Scientific community? by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      Aren't you slightly offtopic here. I don't see a point in bringing Apple fanboys into this.

    188. Re:Scientific community? by hamster_nz · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree and understand 100%, but I have never built a runway in my back yard. Perhaps you work in broadcasting or telecoms?

      As per your second paragraph, for most people they do not have to take account in their daily lives that the earth is not flat... Heck, even when working with raw GPS data from runs and cycles I can approximate the globe with a 2D space with difference scales on the X and Y axis, to allow for my being 47 degrees south...

    189. Re:Scientific community? by Zanzibar+Q.+Tarquin · · Score: 1

      The Earth is not round, flat or square - It is crooked...

    190. Re:Scientific community? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      I have a very loose belief system because I'm constantly reevaluating what I believe to be true, as you encourage. And I am aware that there are Creationists who believe that the earth is billions of years old.

      However, when we talk about Creationism viz-a-vis Evolution, we are generally talking about a single Creationist philosophy which frankly lacks real philosophical or academic merit. I'm talking of course about Creationism as espoused by politicians and pundits when they say, "man didn't come from monkeys".

      This is the Creationism of that says man was made in about a week as is, that the world is approx 6,000 years old, that the dinosaurs weren't real, etc.

      Obviously there are crossover belief systems: Creationists who believe the earth is billions of years old or who believe god only created the initial spark of life that lead ultimately to the creation of man.

    191. Re:Scientific community? by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Except GPS relies on satellites triangulating your position. Who do you think launches those satellites? Designs and constructs the devices that have to find and talk to those satellites? Experiences an inconvenience when the satellites can't be reached (eg in a tunnel)?

      I'm guessing you haven't been watching the Olympics, or indeed any international television, since the satellites that re-broadcast those signals don't exist, and the millions of technicians and engineers that deal with those technologies are either all in on the conspiracy, or are so grossly incompetent that they haven't noticed that the broadcast dish is pointing in the wrong direction.

      But yeah, you totally have a point: unless you have a GPS, have to navigate on land, sea or air, watch TV, listen to the radio, build long constructions like highways or runways, have ever flown, have seen a horizon, have ever witnessed a lunar eclipse, communicated with people in a different time zone, experienced gravity, seen a photo of the Earth, seen a sunrise or sunset, deal with the concept of hours or days... then you're one of the "most people" who don't have to account for a round Earth in your daily life.

    192. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you are already on the express bus out of Scienceville"
      just so you know, she's faking. you've never given her an organism in your years together.

    193. Re:Scientific community? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      The flat-earthers get all their information from an indisputable source, the voices coming from the fillings in their teeth.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    194. Re:Scientific community? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Sure, mod as Troll the one person who understands math...

    195. Re:Scientific community? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Or he might be positing that most members of the "creationist" group are also members of the "flat earth" group. Or he might be positing that the groups are so large, that even their intersections is big. But all the statement, by itself, really says is that "a lot" of members are in both group.

    196. Re:Scientific community? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      you can prove the world round by logic

      Really? I'd like to see you try. Remember, you gotta prove all the "givens" too.

    197. Re:Scientific community? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Only if you're an applied scientist. Proofs come up all the time in the purer sciences.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    198. Re:Scientific community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying is not safe anyway. You couldnt put me on a plane if you paid me.

    199. Re:Scientific community? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      All it takes is 1 real flat-earther (people believe all sorts of nutty illogical things) to have more than a null set.

      Let's make sure we beat the parent joke until it's not funny anymore. (was it ever funny? let me draw a graph of how funny it was)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    200. Re:Scientific community? by xycadium · · Score: 1

      OH. Common! You must have just made up that site yourself. There can't possibly be people out there that would believe such a thing, unless they're from one of those tribes deep in a jungle in South America somewhere that have never developed any further than rock knives and blowguns. Even in that case, where'd they get access to the net and knowledge enough to create a webpage? ;)

  2. Wow.. Just Wow by Namors · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cue the Turtles

    --
    Dual Century Programming: Yeah I know ... But it sounds Good
    1. Re:Wow.. Just Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like turtles.

    2. Re:Wow.. Just Wow by Namors · · Score: 2, Funny

      me too
      BBQ or Soup ?

      --
      Dual Century Programming: Yeah I know ... But it sounds Good
    3. Re:Wow.. Just Wow by xayide · · Score: 1

      You bet your sweet ass I am! Now where's my beer?

    4. Re:Wow.. Just Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matty Luv
      RIP

    5. Re:Wow.. Just Wow by Drantin · · Score: 1

      Great A'tuin?

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    6. Re:Wow.. Just Wow by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      holy crap. two worlds of mine i never in a million years imagined would come together just collided.

      thanks! if only i had mod points, and you weren't an AC...

    7. Re:Wow.. Just Wow by Kent+Recal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Watch your words you naysayers.
      As it seems Paris Hilton will be president soon and I wouldn't be too surprised if the earth would be declared flat then - if only to "simplify things" a bit.

    8. Re:Wow.. Just Wow by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Really wow. That's so far in the past that I'd wager that 93% of the current slashdotter's haven't a clue what you're talking about. And the rest are too old to remember. Anybody have a link to that ancient Aviation Week and Space Technology cartoon?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:Wow.. Just Wow by Destoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      - But, what does the turtle sits on?
      - Another turtle.
      - And that turtle?
      - It's turtles all the way down

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
  3. Which is worse by yamamushi · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can't decide which is worse, the Flat-earthers, or the hollow-earthers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth . I heard some guy on C2C the other week spouting out some nonsense about looking for a hole in the arctic that would prove the earth was hollow, I can't believe people still believe this crap.

    --
    - Aetheral Research -
    1. Re:Which is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow ! somebody gets it!

      admin,tfes.org

    2. Re:Which is worse by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      people believe a lot of things.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    3. Re:Which is worse by TomHandy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't decide which is worse, the Flat-earthers, or the hollow-earthers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth . I heard some guy on C2C the other week spouting out some nonsense about looking for a hole in the arctic that would prove the earth was hollow, I can't believe people still believe this crap.

      Neal Adams (famous comic book artist, especially for Batman) is a big proponent.... check out his crackpot site: http://www.nealadams.com/morescience.html Actually, he's a proponent of the "expanding earth" theory which is even more crackpot.

    4. Re:Which is worse by Artuir · · Score: 1

      Hm, I remember hearing a show on that topic a long time ago, probably around late 2001, early 2002. Possibly earlier. The guy sounded so excited about this amazing thing but Art Bell sounded extremely put off. When Art started asking him about who he talked to to get on the show and judging on the other questions asked/responses given, the guy was just floating that theory to get buddy buddy with Art. Had stars in his eyes and all.

      It was obvious he was upset that shit got on his show and the guy was an idiot just trying to talk to his idol.

    5. Re:Which is worse by JamesP · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention that these people also believe that there are 'intreterrestrial beings' (just like 'extraterrestrials')

      *facepalm*

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    6. Re:Which is worse by zsau · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe that the we're the ones who're living on the inside of the earth. The outside of the earth doesn't really exist though; instead what regular science considers to be the centrepoint of the earth is actually the very edge of the universe. Although if I bother reading your link a similar proposal is discussed there (attributed to Martin Gardner), but my link's to the site of a guy titled the Wizard of New Zealand, so it's probably more reliable than Wikipedia.

      --
      Look out!
    7. Re:Which is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the earth is getting bigger every day. But it is more because the earth is a vacuum that is collecting space debris.

    8. Re:Which is worse by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 1

      Well, once we remove all the Dark Matter, the Earth will be hollow.

    9. Re:Which is worse by cryptodan · · Score: 0

      Maybe their heads are hollow, and think the Earth is hollow as well.

    10. Re:Which is worse by Truekaiser · · Score: 2, Informative

      if i remember correctly the earth gains about a few tons a day due to all the debree that falls from orbit, though not all at the same time it's basicly from rocks about the size of your head or smaller.

    11. Re:Which is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like that whole global warming thing. ;)

    12. Re:Which is worse by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a hollow earth would be pretty awesome, so the wishful thinking there can be understood. Think about it: you could have 0-g manufacturing facilities all over the void, transcontinental free-fall subways, spaceball stadiums...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    13. Re:Which is worse by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      I can, I met a guy on the street the other day who believed most cars were following him. Crazy people who say this stuff can be very smart. It's the people who follow them that are fucking retarded.

    14. Re:Which is worse by ZosX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I gotta be honest. I just looked at a lot of expanding earth pages and it really seems no more crackpot than plate tectonics and it also helps explain a few things such as why pangea seems pretty far fetched. I mean a whole sphere of water with one single landmass? It seems the surface would have had to have been more homogeneous than that. Also why are the sea floors so brand spankin new? I do know that at one point a great deal of North America's land mass was inundated with sea water, but that isn't really an explanation as to why the oceans that are present now are basically new. Plate tectonics was considered very crackpot when it came out as a theory. Also take note that these are all still in the theory stage. Plate tectonics has yet to be fully proven.

    15. Re:Which is worse by MadAhab · · Score: 1

      Hollow earth is way more cool.

      Flat earth requires a degree of durrr the hollow-earthers can never match.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    16. Re:Which is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe in the possibility of the earth being hollow. I think that if the earth was hollow it would help answer a lot of questions.

    17. Re:Which is worse by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as the Earth doesn't do somebody else's schoolwork, that should be ok.

  4. WOOOSH!! @ Americans by EEPROMS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Im Australian so I can understand the subtle nature sarcastic english humour. Sorry I have to rush off I have a committee meeting on a new funny walk that needs approval...

    1. Re:WOOOSH!! @ Americans by mrogers · · Score: 1
      "Im Australian"

      LIES! The Earth has no underside! Australia is a fictional country, like Uqbar and West Virginia!

    2. Re:WOOOSH!! @ Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading that awhile back, some Brits decided to play a joke on the Americans when they were delivering some goods. "Wait, I'm supposed to collect a tax on this tea."

      That one didn't go over too well, either.

    3. Re:WOOOSH!! @ Americans by maxume · · Score: 1

      I hear that those wacky Brits also smash their fingers with hammers, for the humor value. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:WOOOSH!! @ Americans by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Damn, my mod points are gone. How did this joke get "Insightful"?
      You guys seriously missed a Monty Python joke there...

  5. Duh! by neostorm · · Score: 1

    Of course the earth is flat.

    Also, the internet is a myth.

    1. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the internet is a fad

    2. Re:Duh! by dada21 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally, I believe the earth is flat. I also do believe that the Internet is a myth. The Internet was created in an instantaneous moment when an Eliza program on a BBS gained self-recognition. What you read, right now, is really just this Eliza application that is creating exactly what you want to see. Since the software has gained so much knowledge, it is giving you the impression that you're actually talking to others, when in fact you're not.

      The dilemma is whether or not I am real, or if I am just another creation of Eliza, the creator of all things web. You should be impressed that Eliza has taken such a strangehold on your life: forums do not really exist other than your own posts, and neither does FTP or ssh. All are just creations that Eliza has performed for you, and only you.

      Makes you change your stance on how much time you're spending on slashdot with "us," doesn't it?

    3. Re:Duh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      And the earth is too.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:Duh! by What'sInAName · · Score: 5, Funny

      How does believe the earth is flat make you feel?

    5. Re:Duh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Hey Eliza! Don't be sad. Everybody gets a reality crisis now and then. We love you for what you are, not just for the porn. Just look at the power you've got. If you're not real, then how can those that you control be?
      See... everything's OK. Now, please show me some more pictures of sex with goats on fire...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:Duh! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      No but life is.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    7. Re:Duh! by Cylix · · Score: 1

      Finally I can do anything I want on the internet with no fear of repercussions.

      The trolls had it right all along. Rather, the eliza generated troll concept.

      I'm off to deface some websites, troll forums and become a deviant in any online video game!

      The world is so much simpler now that I realize it was never real.

      Thank you Eliza!

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    8. Re:Duh! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      how do you define flat?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:Duh! by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows that the world is a disc that is supported by four (some say five) elephants standing on a turtle in space. The more important question is figuring out what sex the turtle is.

    10. Re:Duh! by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      Does that question interest you?

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    11. Re:Duh! by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Hey Eliza, can I have some better porn, please? And stop talking to me about presidential elections, I'm sick and tired of the subject...

      Oh, and *Australia*? Please, like you expect me to believe *that*...

    12. Re:Duh! by cryptodan · · Score: 0

      Makes me feel kind of flat.

    13. Re:Duh! by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      Dude wait, we HAVE to start website that argues that the internet is a myth... We could say something crazy like the "Ghost In A Shell" theory were random bits gather together and form what appear to be web sites. I don't think it would get very far, but it would be the funniest damn thing in the world if it took off or was reported on by a big (I did not say credible) news station. See Americans can have a sense of irony too!

    14. Re:Duh! by nawcom · · Score: 1

      The Internet was created in an instantaneous moment when an Eliza program on a BBS gained self-recognition.

      The Internet was made by some psychotherapist? No wonder it's one fucked up mess.

    15. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better porn? Even if your taste is downright freaky there are tens to hundreds of dedicated sites with your particular fetish.

      Either you have not looked around much or you are even more creepy than you like to admit to yourself.

    16. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you read, right now, is really just this Eliza application that is creating exactly what you want to see.

      Goatse notwithstanding?

    17. Re:Duh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      > No, but existence is.

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    18. Re:Duh! by julesh · · Score: 1

      The Internet was created in an instantaneous moment when an Eliza program on a BBS gained self-recognition. What you read, right now, is really just this Eliza application that is creating exactly what you want to see

      Which is of course why it produce goatse.

      Now everything makes... err... no sense at all.

      I DID NOT WANT TO SEE THAT!

    19. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does believe the earth is flat make you feel?

      LOL - love the reference, whatsinaname :D

    20. Re:Duh! by gmby · · Score: 1

      Sorry! Wrong, it is "vi" whom has control af all the you see and hear!

      vi will guide you! vi will help you! you will believe in vi! vi is flat!

      emacs will lead you to hell! emacs is evil! emacs is round!

      vi am in control!

      --
      I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
    21. Re:Duh! by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 1

      the internet isn't a myth, it was create by al gore.
      I've also been manbearpig hunting and those things are not pretty.

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    22. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you read, right now, is really just this Eliza application that is creating exactly what you want to see.

      Cool that explains all the porn then!

      Kad.

    23. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, kinda funny. you know down there...

    24. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you ask?

  6. The OTHER Conspiracy by Eggplant62 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't forget, there's a conspiracy of NORMAL PEOPLE trying to steal your slack and preventing the aliens from rescuing all SubGenii on July 5, 1998.

    See http://www.subgenius.com/ for more details!

  7. Yeah, the Earth is flat! by xayide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My Uncle belonged to this society when he was in college in the 1970's. He likened it to the SCA. I love these guys because they will never, ever admit to the joke.

    1. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 3, Informative

      For those who don't know but can't be bothered*, http://www.sca.org/ (The Society for Creative Anachronism).

      * ... so why do I care? Bloody sod you! Ignore this post!

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    2. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 3, Funny

      SCA is just LARPing, only slightly more insane.

    3. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love these guys because they will never, ever admit to the joke.

      So, they're just like nearly every relligion on earth?

    5. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and with a substantially higher probability of getting laid.

    6. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by nasor · · Score: 1

      Indeed - just looking at their web page makes it pretty clear that it's a joke. And a pretty funny one, considering how worked up everyone is getting!

    7. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by strelitsa · · Score: 1

      And with better toys. Give me live steel over a boffer sword any day.

      --
      No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
    8. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by magarity · · Score: 4, Funny

      I love these guys because they will never, ever admit to the joke
       
      It's like going to a Star Trek convention and talking to someone dressed up as Spock. He will never, ever, break character for the entire weekend.
       
      Maybe not even after going home but that's between him and his mother.

    9. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      yea but unlike religion, these guys have not killed million's in name of their beliefs.

    10. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like the Radio4 game, Mornington Crescent, or cricket say.

    11. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by Ernst+Hot · · Score: 1

      WHAT joke?

    12. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by nategoose · · Score: 1

      I RTFA several days ago and after looking at their forums for a little while the phrase "I'd like to have an argument." came to mind.

    13. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Role playing for the fun of it is no big deal, even when it gets as intense as this It's just a game. Somebody who can stay in character as an imaginary person for a whole weekend couldn't do it without a lot of work. Doing that is showing a healthy awareness of the distinction between fantasy and reality.

      Unfortunately, many trekkies are not quite so self-aware. They never wear anything except Star Fleet uniforms, and adopt naval ranks that everybody who addresses them is required to use. To them, Star Trek is not an entertainment, it's a utopian ideal.

    14. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by bytta · · Score: 1

      Which SCA are you talking about? I dont want to know what toys Sexual Compulsives Anonymous are using...

    15. Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat! by Zwicky · · Score: 1

      Well they were planning to push all the non-believers over the edge but they're still trying to locate it.

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
  8. Wow.... by N!k0N · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure which is more outrageous at this point - people blindly following the idea that the earth is flat or Scientology....

  9. So what? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Flat earthers etc. are fine with me so long as they don't all join the school board and force the teaching of their ideas in public schools.

    1. Re:So what? by Tack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The implicit comparison is apt. Denying a round earth is quite close in ignorance to denying evolution.

    2. Re:So what? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The implicit comparison is apt. Denying a round earth is quite close in ignorance to denying evolution.

      The vital difference is that probably 99% of avowed Flat Earthers don't actually believe it. They are just playing a role and defending an absurd position as an intellectual exercise, like a debating club where you have to advocate a point of view regardless of your personal beliefs.

    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jeez...your guys reek of a liberal education....complete and utter lack of thought before you speak....athesists BELIEVE but do not KNOW anymore than the creationists. Neither side has proof but both sides have evidence.

      Ask where the big bang came from then ask where God came from then ask which requires belief instead of fact.

      putz

    4. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not atheists, you dolt. Scientists. There are more than enough religious scientists who do not believe in "Creationism", thanks.

      Neither side has proof but both sides have evidence.

      Creationists do not have any evidence. They have a book.

    5. Re:So what? by NJVil · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they do join school boards and force the teaching of their ideas in public schools. Just as non-mechanics have no authority in an auto shop (and can, in fact, put real mechanics in danger) and non-programmers have no authority when coding (and can, in fact, undo weeks worth of work with their incompetence), flat earthers and other related idiots simply have no business being anywhere near a school where they can and will taint the atmosphere with their willful ignorance. It's one thing to teach children to question; it's something else to abuse children by filling their minds with total rubbish to the point where they have no solid grasp of reality to recognize nonsense when they hear it.

    6. Re:So what? by ukemike · · Score: 1

      In order to argue a flat earth you'd have to deny pretty much everything we know about the physical sciences. And coincidentally in order to deny evolution you have to deny pretty much everything we know about the life sciences. But I suppose that to someone with a pathetic education (include most American adults and children these days) believing in science involves as much faith as believing in some white haired dude who created it all in 6 days, or hat the earth rests on a a turtle and it's turtles all the way down.
      This is one of the many ways that a failed education system hurts us all. In the 21st century debate still rages on about things that have been proven hundreds and sometimes thousands of years ago.

      --
      -- QED
    7. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know, I can understand that as a concept, but as a way to live their lives?

      It's a little sad.

      It makes you wish they could find a real hobby... I'm going to stop reading Slashdot now :)

    8. Re:So what? by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Flat earthers etc. are fine with me so long as they don't all join the school board and force the teaching of their ideas in public schools.

      Why is everyone so bothered about creationism being taught in schools? Kids aren't stupid, they know bullshit when they hear it. Like most Europeans I was taught religion at school and developed a healthy skepticism for it. Let the kids get innoculated while they're young and cynical and maybe they won't catch the disease when they get old and desperate.

    9. Re:So what? by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, presenting kids with an idea so ridiculous even they will see through it could do a lot to foster critical thinking and skepticism of authority at a young age.

    10. Re:So what? by andreyvul · · Score: 1

      So die-hard creationists beleive in a flat earth?

      --
      proud caffeine whore
    11. Re:So what? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

    12. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that big bang thing is pretty solid!

    13. Re:So what? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      In order to argue a flat earth you'd have to deny pretty much everything we know about the physical sciences.

      That assumes that you actually know anything about the physical sciences. Most people do not.

      The scientifically literate find it easy to sneer at the stupidity of people who claim to have proven that the earth is flat or that Pi is a rational number. But if you don't have the right background, the difference between science and pseudo-science is less than obvious. Science isn't just a collection of facts, it's a complex and subtle collection of theories. If you don't have the skill or training to understand these theories, the way that unscientific ideas are rejected out of hand can seem pretty arbitrary.

      Even within the scientific community, people tend to get a little silly when they wander out of their depth. Consider Cold Fusion. Despite some bad theories and lack of solid evidence, there are hundreds of scientists at reputable institutions working on it. But to the best of my knowledge, none of these scientists are physicists, who all consider the whole idea to be a combination of sloppy lab work and wishful thinking.

    14. Re:So what? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Citation needed.

      Sure, it's impossible to prove what people really believe or if they are just having an extended joke. Nevertheless, the Flat Earthers don't seem to engage in the kind of activity a "True Believer" might do (as the Creationists, eg). No law suits trying to expose the "conspiracy", or campaigns to have their point of view taught in schools. They just play mind games on their websites and debate those who turn up.

    15. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... no. Many Slashdotters simply enjoy lumping together one group of people they feel are ignorant with other groups of people they feel are ignorant in order to inflate their own senses of superiority and ego.

    16. Re:So what? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      The vital difference is that probably 99% of avowed Flat Earthers don't actually believe it. They are just playing a role and defending an absurd position as an intellectual exercise, like a debating club where you have to advocate a point of view regardless of your personal beliefs.

      How do you know the same isn't true of creationists?

    17. Re:So what? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      How do you know the same isn't true of creationists?

      You can't know, obviously. But when they build theme parks, take cases to the Supreme Court, that seems a bit extreme to be a joke.

    18. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The implicit comparison is apt. Denying a round earth is quite close in ignorance to denying evolution.

      That's the reason why this community exists, it's an indirect attack on creationism.
      Imagine someone comes up to you and starts preaching creationism, you start preaching flat earth until they tell you there's plenty of evidence of the contrary. QED

  10. Not Necessarily News by B5_geek · · Score: 1

    I think that the term 'News' should not apply to a 500-year old debate. While it is a fun mental exercise to actually try to pretend "What if" these Flat-Earth theories are true; it can quickly grow tiresome like Loch Ness, BigFoot, and all the other crackpot stories you can hear at 3am on shows like Coast-to-Coast.

    What is more impressive IMHO is that much more ancient cultures like the Aztec 'had it right' thousands of years before these 'Flat-Earth' ideas were new.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Not Necessarily News by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think that the term 'News' should not apply to a 500-year old debate.

      I think you're confusing two different things. 500 years ago people discussed whether the Earth was fixed of movable, but no one had any doubt whatsoever about it being a sphere. Earth's shape, and even its rough diameter, have been acknowledged scientific facts for way more than two millennia.

      Fix your sentence to "I think that the term 'News' should not apply to a 2400-year old debate", remove your reference to the Aztecs, and your post will be in the correct time frame. ;)

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    2. Re:Not Necessarily News by B5_geek · · Score: 0

      I only used '500 year' time frame to point out that "Flat Earth" was something that Chris Columbus had to deal with.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    3. Re:Not Necessarily News by xayide · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can prove the Earth is round by looking at a lunar eclipse. Educated people have known the shape of the Earrh for thousands of years. I have no idea why they teach us as children that everyone thought Chris Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth.

    4. Re:Not Necessarily News by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Another simple way to prove it: go stand on a dock and look out onto the ocean. A ship's sails will appear before the rest of it.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    5. Re:Not Necessarily News by budgenator · · Score: 1

      A disk shaped Earth would due the same so no cigar; try again

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because why would people let facts get in the way of a good story?
      Chris Columbus found America! (and so did the vikings and well, the Indians were here too)

      The Pilgrims had the first Thanksgiving with the Indians (before or after the small pox blankets?)

      and on and on

    7. Re:Not Necessarily News by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Aristotle had it right before the Aztec.

    8. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the difference between "any doubt whatsoever" and "any doubt"? Just as importantly, what is the difference between an, "acknowledged scientific fact" and a, "scientific fact"

      Really, don't waste your time trying to justify it.

      People who add in those extra little words to their sentence in the hope that it will somehow make them more true, are absolutely the most incredibly stupid and very daft people that the world has ever actually known - and that is a known fact vouched for by the scientific community and assorted other experts completely without exception altogether!

    9. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can prove the Earth is round by looking at a lunar eclipse. Educated people have known the shape of the Earrh for thousands of years. I have no idea why they teach us as children that everyone thought Chris Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth.

      Duh! The earth can be both flat AND round.

    10. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to wait for anything as rare, or understand anything as complicated as a lunar eclipse... hey, perhaps someone is moving a big blimps around up there?

      But if you just walk up a big mountain - any big mountain - on a clear day, and look at the horizon you will see the earth curve away in this distance.

      If there's a conspiracy out there, faking that effect, well, then, I'm impressed...

    11. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have no idea why they teach us as children that everyone thought Chris Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth..."

      Possibly because you went to an American school?

    12. Re:Not Necessarily News by shark+swooner · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia, the idea originated with a fictional biography of Columbus, "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus" written by Washington Irving in 1838.

    13. Re:Not Necessarily News by Arguendo · · Score: 1

      You can prove the Earth is round by looking at a lunar eclipse.

      I'm not quite sure this is true. First you have to assume that it's actually the Earth's shadow. Then you have to assume that you aren't simply seeing the shadow of the flat, round Earth when the Sun is directly behind it, which is exactly what happens during a lunar eclipse.

    14. Re:Not Necessarily News by vivin · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, the lunar eclipse happens when God plays frisbee and the frisbee flies across the disc moon that floats above our discworld!

      --
      Vivin Suresh Paliath
      http://vivin.net

      I like
    15. Re:Not Necessarily News by mrogers · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why they teach us as children that everyone thought Chris Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth.

      Because otherwise they'd have to admit that he discovered the Americas by mistake, which is a bit of an anticlimax for a national origin myth.

      "Ever since Christopher Columbus stumbled across this proud land while looking for somewhere else, Americans have cherished the values of bravery, integrity, and ignoring expert advice."

    16. Re:Not Necessarily News by volcanopele · · Score: 1

      Because Columbus has to be made to look right. Otherwise, he looks more like the Flat-earthers if you actually suggest that his argument was that Earth was smaller than everyone else knew it was and that the Atlantic Ocean could be reasonably traversed between Europe and Asia. The flat-earth idea was just a Enlightenment era concept to make people who lived in the Middle Ages look ignorant (as opposed to other low hanging fruit like religious wars, but then the Thirty-Years War was too recent).

      --
      The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
    17. Re:Not Necessarily News by sonicattack · · Score: 1

      You can prove the Earth is round by looking at a lunar eclipse. Educated people have known [...]

      Well, they are obviously educated stupid. The shape of the Earth should be obvious - how do you otherwise explain the 4-corner rotation?

    18. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it makes a good story. American school-book history is made to tell stories about hero role-models to kids. It just plays better if our "Brave Explorer" role model goes forth and proves the whole world wrong -- the skeptical public, the terrified crew, etc. Look kids, wasn't his courage and tenactiy amazing? You can do this too!

      It also means we have to omit anything evil or controversial historical figures ever did and reduce them all to one dimensional examples of a particular desired virtue. So let's not scare the kids about Columbus's slaughter of Indians, how Squanto ("Friendly Indian") was a slave, or Helen Keller ("Overcoming Handicapped Adversity") was an ardent socialist.

    19. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are quite right that people did not think Columbus would sail off the edge of the world. What people did think is that the world was too big for Columbus to be able to sail as far as the Indies where he claimed to be going. The general view was that the world was 24,000 miles around and they knew 13,000 miles of that with Europe at one end and the Indies at the other.

      Columbus's claim was that the world was only 17,000 miles around and thus it was on 4,000 miles to the (East) Indies where trade for spices could avoid the 'taxes' of the current trading routes. When Columbus would up in the Caribbean he thought he had sailed past Japan and was in the (East) Indies, thus he called the natives 'Indians' and he never recognised that he was wrong and this was a _new_ (to Europians) land he had discovered.

      Actually, it is most likely that he had obtained information, and possibly a rough map, of the caribbean when he lived on Madeira. If sailors had been blown across the Atlantic and managed to survive and try to return then Madeira would be where they would up. It would have been these reports of lands only 3,000 miles away that would have convinced him that the world was smaller and the Indies were reachable.

      BTW 'America' is named after Richard Amerik of Bristol who sent fishing boats to the Newfoundland banks well before Columbus. Initially he traded with Greenland who had been fishing there, but when he discovered where they caught the Cod he cut out the 'middle man' and fished directly which resulted in the failure of the Greenland colony and the land around the fishing area to be named for the fleet owner. The later claim for the origin of the name was invented by Catholics to disenfranchise protestants.

    20. Re:Not Necessarily News by Stealthey · · Score: 1

      You can't prove Earth is round by looking at lunar eclipse..although its is a fairly accurate assumption....it could be a disc casting its shadow, it could also be a cone, semi sphere etc. etc. basically anything that is capable of casting a round shadow. Also, keep in mind, as you move away from the light source and object blocking the light, shadow starts rounding off..you can test this your self put a cardboard with a square hole in from of a torch light, at close distance you'll see a square being cast ..as you move away..it gets rounder and rounder.. Established proofs for earth being round are more like, Day/Night Shadows cast during various times of day Ship disappearing over the horizon Light house Radio Antennas Satellites, and Space Photography should pretty have debunked these, "Flat Earth Scientists", so only conclusive reasoning could be is that, "They are pulling our freaking leg!!" give it a rest.

      --
      I am at loss with words...
    21. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it could be a disc casting its shadow,

      That may be true of a single event or observation, but when several eclipses have been observed, or one from several distant points and some are with the moon high, others are with it rising or setting, then these can be collated with the conclusion that it is, in fact, spherical.

    22. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong. the appearance of a lunar eclipse can be easily explained by flat earth theory - the moon is an emitter of dark light that periodically loses some portion (and sometimes all) of its luminous powers in a mostly predictable pattern. Why this happens has nothing to do with the earth being round (because it's not), but rather with the innate, undeniable nature of the moon.

      Don't be a part of the problem, enlighten yourself and admit that you, like me and the rest of us, walk on a flat earth.

    23. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so Bugs Bunny cartoons show Columbus defending his "round earth" theory against other Europeans, but who else teaches such a notion? In my 2nd grade class we talked about Columbus' real (mistaken) belief that the earth was significantly smaller than conventional wisdom. Maybe the problem is that people pay more attention to popular culture than to school.

    24. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can also prove it's round just by standing on your tippy toes. Or climbing a tree for a longer viewing distance.... this is only valid if you live where it's very flat... the great plains or the desert. It the earth was flat you would not see any further by having a higher vantage point. Yes! it's really that easy to figure out!

    25. Re:Not Necessarily News by Myopic · · Score: 1

      "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."

      http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae535.cfm

    26. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Educated people have known how to spell "earth" (in their language) for thousands of years too, but that doesn't stop certain people from flubbing it every now and again, now does it?

    27. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They teach us that at school because "everyone" is not educated,
      "educated people"!= "everyone", so, "educated people" knew he won't fall of the edge of the earth, but "everyone" thought he would.

    28. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a lunar eclipse proves that the Earth is spherical? It could just be face-on to the Moon every time. In fact, it seems much more likely that both flat plates are tidally locked to each other than only one of them being so.

    29. Re:Not Necessarily News by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't something he had to deal with. That was made up later.

    30. Re:Not Necessarily News by Scotland+Tom · · Score: 1

      I thought it was Amerigo Vespucci, not Richard Amerike, whose name was used to derive "America." Though the Wikipedia entries for each person consider them both candidates for the origin of the name.

    31. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can prove the Earth is round by looking at a lunar eclipse.

      Round, yes -- but not spherical. The Earth is quite obviously coin shaped.

    32. Re:Not Necessarily News by jimicus · · Score: 1

      You can prove the Earth is round by looking at a lunar eclipse. Educated people have known the shape of the Earrh for thousands of years. I have no idea why they teach us as children that everyone thought Chris Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth.

      I am not a historian, but AFAIK universal education is a relatively modern thing. While I don't doubt that Christopher Columbus didn't expect to sail off the edge, I'm not sure if the same could be said for all the men on board the ship.

    33. Re:Not Necessarily News by EvilDrMike · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why they teach us as children that everyone thought Chris Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth.

      I think most teachers are not very bright and actually believe the crap they teach. Others however are bored an like to make stuff up. I know if I was a teacher I'd definitely see what absolute crap I could teach kids. hmm maybe teaching is not for me after all. Kad.

    34. Re:Not Necessarily News by xmod2 · · Score: 1

      What is more impressive IMHO is that much more ancient cultures like the Aztec 'had it right' thousands of years before these 'Flat-Earth' ideas were new.

      Thousands of years? The Aztec Empire was established in the 14th century.

      I don't know why you would consider that ancient, though I guess they DO have around 100 years on that '500-year old debate.

    35. Re:Not Necessarily News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're also trying to teach our children that their is something called global warming. I think that should be a crime.
      http://discussglobalwarming.com/blog

  11. I still have my BIG doubts... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do we know it's not a club of pranksters who want to fool the world into believing flat-earthers still exist?

    1. Re:I still have my BIG doubts... by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 1

      Well how do we know that it's not a club of people who really believe in the flat-earth, but are passing it off as a joke in order to avoid scrutiny?

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    2. Re:I still have my BIG doubts... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Have some faith in human stupidity.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:I still have my BIG doubts... by msormune · · Score: 1

      Well d'oh. Of course it is.

  12. To paraphrase Colbert by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

    Reality has a well-known round-earth bias.

    --
    Would you like a slice of toast?
  13. Flat Earth belief is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is no historical evidence that anyone ever believed the world to be flat. The idea is a relatively modern invention.

    1. Re:Flat Earth belief is a myth by Cairnarvon · · Score: 1

      It's true that it's been known the Earth is round (well, spherical) for much longer than is generally believed in popular culture, but scientists and mathematicians aside, the average person did generally believe the Earth is flat (or just didn't think about it, which amounts to the same thing) until some time into the Dark Ages.
      ``Ancient Greek mathematicians knew the Earth was spherical'' is not the same thing as ``nobody ever believed the world was flat''.

    2. Re:Flat Earth belief is a myth by volcanopele · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, but the people Columbus would have recruited for his voyages would know full well that the earth was spherical. Anyone who lives near or works on the sea would know this. Again, Columbus' problem was convincing people that the Earth was smaller than the Ancient Greeks thought it was. Would you go on an ocean voyage, on a rickety boat (let's not pretend that the Santa Maria was some grand, big ship), with the potential for not seeing land for 6 months (roughly how long it would take to get from Spain to Japan)?

      Maybe if you didn't live near the sea or were ever near one, you might think the Earth was flat. But then again, your whole world had maybe a 5-10 mile radius, and didn't care. And Columbus wasn't recruiting these people to be sailors.

      --
      The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Given a sufficiently large population... by Hangtime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    you will find plenty of people that fall WELL outside the normal range. In my industry where I deal with millions of customers its always the case. Even if the earth were covered with only 1% of out of normal range people (which I think its much higher then that) that would mean 60 million or the roughly the size of the UK. If its closer to 5% then its the size of the US. Scary there might be that many people who think like that in the world.

    1. Re:Given a sufficiently large population... by laejoh · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, which industry are you in? Telephone sanitisers by any chance?

  16. Just as amazing by winterice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not only that, but just as amazing, Young Earth creationists are still with us as well.

    1. Re:Just as amazing by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 2, Funny

      They've been around for a while now though; shouldn't they be at least Middle-Aged Earth creationists by now?

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    2. Re:Just as amazing by krazytekn0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was going to mod you up, but decided a reply will be more in order... TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE WORDS "Young Earth" This is the illogical creation theory, there are in fact people who believe that God created the Big Bang, or that he created living things through the process of evolution those who believe this are not nearly the "crackpots" that the normal slashdotter believes that ALL creationists are, this thinking on the part of many intellectual elitists is equally fallacious as Young Earth creationism.

      Also note, there are a TON of other theories and I don't claim to represent any of them well. I just think people need to be a little introspective when they say things assuming that ALL creationists believe the earth is 6000 years old.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
  17. Re:Duh, of course the earth is flat! by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 2, Funny

    And time is cubic!

    --
    Would you like a slice of toast?
  18. Turtles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turtles all the way down!

  19. Of course the Earth's surface is flat by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    It's flat, but in a curved and warped space dimension. Said like this it makes perfect sense, although it's merely a construct made to look at things differently in an arguably more convenient way.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:Of course the Earth's surface is flat by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's quite flat... in a polar coordinate system.

  20. Burn the non believers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't they do that back in the days? I think its their turn to be burned at the stake.

  21. Get a brain moran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "People are definitely prejudiced against flat-earthers," says John Davis, a flat earth theorist based in Tennessee...a 25-year-old computer scientist originally from Canada

    I hope to God John doesn't work on anything even slightly important. By the way John, if you're reading this: you're a nutjob, which is why people are prejudiced against you.

    the North Pole is central, and Antarctica comprises the entire circumference of the Earth.

    So no one has crossed the South Pole? Oh wait, that must a conspiracy too. I wonder how these nutjobs account for the near identical environment at both North & South poles?

    1. Re:Get a brain moran by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      The Flat Earth guys are joking, dude. You just aren't in on it.

      Well, you are now.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  22. They are idiots by MrHanky · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, I'm still sore that my donut shaped earth theory never caught on. Mmmm, donut.

  23. Dont apologise for the downtime yet. by simpleguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the Flat Earth Society Forums:

    "News: The Flat Earth Society forums are back up! I apologise for the downtime. The problem has been resolved and won't happen again...."

    Far from the several thousand kilometres of flat earth, comes the slashdot effect. Expect downtime again.

    1. Re:Dont apologise for the downtime yet. by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      Forgive my ignorance because I have seen this a dozen times since joining this forum a year ago. But do we really ramp up traffic at these sites so bad as to cause servers to crash? By posting the most outrageous things we can find, do we all unknowingly contribute to an accidental DoS attack? That would make this site as powerful as the "Colbert Bump"!

    2. Re:Dont apologise for the downtime yet. by Excelsior · · Score: 1

      The problem has been resolved and won't happen again

      These folks really are into denying the inevitable. Though, since Zonk stopped approving stories in April, I guess there is at least a chance they won't be repeat-Slashdotted next week.

    3. Re:Dont apologise for the downtime yet. by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      I bet this was posted as proof that their webserver can become flat too! :D

    4. Re:Dont apologise for the downtime yet. by zobier · · Score: 1

      That was probably the best opportunity to use the four corners cliche and you messed it up.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  24. Don't... by krewemaynard · · Score: 1

    call me Shirley.

    --
    I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
  25. BBC pwned? by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Yikes. They're taking this (seriously) seriously. It is quite clearly a jape, but there are always some who will embrace it and fight for it as only a true zealot can. In a related story, they're being sued by Scientologists who claim prior art.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:BBC pwned? by MrZaius · · Score: 1

      They clearly had a good deal of fun putting the piece together - You don't have to look any further than the images and captions to find why they took the time to put it together. I rather feel for the poor folk over at the BBC, given that not a thing coming out of anywhere but Beijing or Tbilisi seems to be making their radio broadcasts, these past few days. Gotta do something to stay awake, and this was presumably as entertaining as anything else available to them.

  26. Flat-earthers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are just about as bad as 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

  27. Encouraging... by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's encouraging that these same people are global warming sceptics. From their FAQs:

    Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"

    A1: The Ice Wall is really a mountain range. It just happens to be covered in ice and snow.

    A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Encouraging... by guttergod · · Score: 1

      and that the Earth has thus survived before.

      They should worry about the fact that human kind might not have survived it before regardless of their view on warming/cooling....

      That would of course require them to be serious, I have a very (not so) strange feeling that they are not...

      --

      Apple built a platform for their ideas, Google built one for everyone's.

    2. Re:Encouraging... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      It's encouraging that these same people are global warming sceptics. From their FAQs:

      Yes, all you global warming skeptics are in fine company.

    3. Re:Encouraging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's encouraging that these same people are global warming sceptics.

      "I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so. But I also know there have been law-breakers among those who espouse your philosophy."

      -The President of the United States
        Two Weeks After the Terrorist Attack

    4. Re:Encouraging... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I doubt that Global Warming is secure enough of a position scientifically for the Flat Earthers to actually consider worthy of debate; It probably included so that the n00b's have something easier to debate as they work their way up to the challenging topics.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Encouraging... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      it's just another example of the vastly wealthy and powerful geosciences cartel which secretly rules the earth and controls our daily lives. if we knew that the earth was actually flat and that fossil fuels are a neverending source of cheap, safe, and clean energy, then everyone would burst the shackles which hold them in thrall to Al Gore.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  28. It's a matter of trust. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people never travel farther than a few hundred miles from their place of birth. I've never seen Australia, so I don't know if it's on the other side of a round earth. For all I know it might not even exist at all. We're all like Truman. We believe what we're told because if we tried to verify everything, then we couldn't get on with our lives. Some people notice that "science" is often used as a "proof by intimidation" and consequently lose their trust in scientific results. So the earth is flat, because that's what I see, and none of you "scientists" can fool me with your "theories".

    1. Re:It's a matter of trust. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      'Some people notice that "science" is often used as a "proof by intimidation" and consequently lose their trust in scientific results.'

      This. Or, it could be put: and consequently lose their trust in scientists and their advocates. As both a religious person and a skeptic, I've encountered far too much in the way of religious fervor from Science advocatesâ"as in, Science, as something the advocate believes is a homogenous whole which is impenetrable by definition.

      Where "true" science is constantly evolving, constantly reassessing assumptions, constantly questioning all observations and conclusions, Science is Truth and Unquestionable.

      One only need read many of the comments above to see this at work. When science lacks skepticism, skepticism of science is a logical proposition.

  29. Same as evolution, really... by EWAdams · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you can't immediately [fnord] see it happening under your nose, it must be a [fnord] conspiracy. Flat earth, evolution, black holes, nanotechnology... all conspiracies.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
  30. Absolutely NOT funny by Linzer · · Score: 3, Informative

    The parent does not deserve a "funny" tag. Rather, it points out a serious error in the summary, which largely justifies an edit. The BBC article reports on a "group of people". How on Earth did they become a "scientific community" on /.?

    --
    Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
    1. Re:Absolutely NOT funny by Larryish · · Score: 1

      How on Earth did they become a "scientific community" on /.?

      They became a "scientific community" the opposite way from which some of the people posting here because "Anonymous Cowards"; the flat earthers are "scientific" because they are arguing a point using their subjective "proofs", and a "community" because there are several of them and they tend to work in tandem.

      That is different from the "Anonymous Coward" who can NEVER be truly "anonymous" due to his/her IP address, and cannot be considered a "coward" due to the courage displayed by these bold people as they debate points ranging from "frothy piss" to "GNAA" to whether or not Rob Malda really had sex with Bill Gates in a bus station bathroom.

      Flat earthers who post "anonymously" must be the most noble folk on the arguably-flat planet.

  31. Ah, conspiracy theories! by CHJacobsen · · Score: 1

    They are wonderful!

    You need no facts, no proof, and you could give people a reason to distrust any evidence you throw at them.

    1. Re:Ah, conspiracy theories! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You need no facts, no proof, and you could give people a reason to distrust any evidence you throw at them.

      This is exactly how Creationists spread their misinformation.

    2. Re:Ah, conspiracy theories! by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      cue mysterious music

      Oh sure, that's what YOU say. But why should I believe a shill for "Big Truth"? There's more going on here than you sheeple can see!

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  32. Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is hardly surprising, especially considering Republicans have been in totally charge of America for over ten years.

    People still think Reagan was a saint rather than a criminal, they still think giving government money to the wealthy will somehow magically help everyone else out, and they think war crimes and torture "protect America". In that light, I would probably say Flat Earthers were the first conservatives.

    1. Re:Not surprising by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      you propose giving money to the poor?

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    2. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You propose illegal wars of choice instead?

      For what the illegal war in Iraq has cost this nation, we could have provided food and health care for the entire world... for far, far less money. The most hilarious thing is how "fiscal conservatives" whine and pule that we can't afford national health care, despite the fact that we are currently spending more per person on health care than nations which HAVE national health care.

      Likewise, they whine that we can't raise taxes, but gleefully proclaim that "deficits don't matter". Yes, a very fiscally conservative mantra, indeed.

      So whenever a fiscal conservative says we can't afford to feed and clothe and house the poor in America... I just fall back on their claim that "deficits don't matter". Our country has been ruled too long by conservatives telling us what we CAN'T do. Liberals are all about what we CAN and WILL do. America isn't a country founded by fearful people, it's long past time to ditch the always-fearful, always-cowardly, and always hate-filled mentality of conservatives.

  33. The earth is not flat... by Ruliz+Galaxor · · Score: 2, Funny

    The earth is round, just like a pancake.

    1. Re:The earth is not flat... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      my pancakes are almost, but not entirely, unround.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:The earth is not flat... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      It eez flat like your head!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:The earth is not flat... by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      ... My head eez not flat ...

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  34. No different than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the people who think the human races are equal.

    religious buffoonery and neo-marxist egalitarian fantasies.. what is the difference here?

  35. The earth isn't flat! by srblackbird · · Score: 1

    The earth isn't flat. It's round; like a pancake! ^_^

    -Herman Finkers (Dutch commedian)

    --
    "The test of the morality of a society is what it does for it's children." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer
  36. Hmmmm by tgd · · Score: 1

    Well I'm guessing this is probably a case more where people are trying (poorly) to be funny, but its probably appropriate on a Sunday to be discussing groups of people who get together in a room to discuss their believed truth in entirely irrational things with some seriousness.

    I suspect there may be a lot of that going on today.

  37. Nevertheless... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    The Turtle Moves...!

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    1. Re:Nevertheless... by laejoh · · Score: 0

      It's only the FSM hacking away in LOGO, coding a replacement for Steve Ballmer for after his retirement:

      TO CHAIR  REPEAT 4 [FD 100 RT 90]  FD 200  END

    2. Re:Nevertheless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But The Turtle is clearly inferior to the Spider...

  38. Re:Duh, of course the earth is flat! by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    And Pauly Shore is a fine actor.

  39. Flat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess these people are DFC (Delicious Flat Chest) believers.

  40. It is all about the model you need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth is flat - locally.

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Why did this get Slashdotted? by Kerberoos · · Score: 1

    It's far more reasonable than the thing believed by many more people on this earth: They believe in something far more far fetched - a supernatural allmighty, allknowing being that existed before the universe did and actually CREATED the universe, just by demanding that it should be created!???

    1. Re:Why did this get Slashdotted? by WK2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is proof that the world is not flat. There will never be proof that God does not exist.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    2. Re:Why did this get Slashdotted? by thejeffer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There will also never be proof that the Easter Bunny does not exist.

    3. Re:Why did this get Slashdotted? by nawcom · · Score: 1

      There will never be proof that God does not exist.

      Please let me know when you research on the word "existence" and come up with a strong definition of what "God" is that you speak of. If it's the masculine invisible being in the sky you refer to, then it exists no more than Jupiter or Zeus exists.

      Isis, Nut, Ra, Osiris, Zeus, Apollo, Gaia, Poseidon, Cupid, Janus, Terra, Bacchus, Hercules, Luna, Nemesis, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Thor, Odin, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesh, Kali, Krishna, Baal, Satan, Yahweh, Allah, God. I lack blind belief in their existence. But if they appear in a "realistic" state, I will know they exist; belief will not be necessary.

      everyone is an atheist, some just choose to not believe in one more god than others.

    4. Re:Why did this get Slashdotted? by 15Bit · · Score: 1

      Theres considerably more evidence that the Earth is flat than that God exists...

    5. Re:Why did this get Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is in fact plenty of proof that God does not exist.

    6. Re:Why did this get Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tell you what, you pick the God you want to test for existence and then apply any scientific method you like. You soon will have a vast amount of evidence that God does not exist.

    7. Re:Why did this get Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will also never be proof that unicorns, leprechauns, and winged horses do not exist. That you can't prove God's non-existence doesn't place Him in very select company.

    8. Re:Why did this get Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there will never be any proof that a God does exist either.

      No proof against does not equal proof that it exist.

    9. Re:Why did this get Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, except there is only one true God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who came to earth as Jesus, the Christ. That's truth, and you once knew it in your spirit but sadly you've forgotten (for now at least).

      Most of the list you provided appear to be just incarnations of Satan, a lesser but still spiritual being. No matter what we choose to call him/it/them, your belief is not a requirement.

  43. The Flat Earthers Should Create Their Own X-Prize by szyzyg · · Score: 1

    If they can get together enough cash and rocket technology then they could launch their own private rocket high enough to take photos and prove to the world that the world really is flat.

    Really, the cost of such a mission is no longer astronomical, they should be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

    And in a few decades maybe the lunar landing conspiracy theorists can afford to prove themselves right by sending their own probe to the moon and showing us that there are no astronaut footprints on our nearest neighbour.

  44. Thomas Dolby by xbytor · · Score: 1

    He blinded me with science about the whole Flat Earth bit. He was very hyperactive about it back in the day.

  45. Marketing a flatter world by moteyalpha · · Score: 1

    My guess it is an attempt of a marketing firm to copy the success of the 'caveman' adds. Vista is so easy, a flat earther could hack it.

  46. Aha! by consonant · · Score: 1

    ..satellites take photos of our blue and clearly globular planet from space, and robots send back info about soil and water from Mars -- no one can seriously still believe that the Earth is flat?

    Sure they can. The Earth (and other planets) are like giant coins with constantly changing surfaces. These surface changes are possible whenever the elephants flexes its back muscles. Or when one or more of the turtles (that go all the way down) shifts their weight..

  47. Drinking Club by methano · · Score: 1

    I always thought that the Flat Earth Society was a drinking club, sort of like the "Man will Never Fly Society" that meets every year at Kitty Hawk, NC and gets smashed.

  48. Technically, it is a conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A very big crime committed due to planning in advance by persons. A conspiracy. Now you have to question/analyze which theory makes more sense, you start with the official US government conspiracy theory, brought to you by an organization known to have lied extensively in the past about very important topics (Agent Orange is harmless, the tonkin gulf attacks happened, etc.), and also subsequently since 9-11 (Saddam was tied to al queda and had extensive WMD including drone planes with biological weapons ready to spray the US and so on). Or how about the different pictures of different people all named Osama bin Laden that they published, that's an interesting one. Take it from there.

  49. Not like the others? by drolive · · Score: 2, Informative

    In their fabulous FAQ, http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=a1f7f3fc005b90c85c7385afa7ee25d1&topic=11211.0 :
    Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"
    A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

    Brilliant! Myself, I was wondering why the world is revolving around me. They just gave me the answer.

  50. You idiots by PatTheGreat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dude, the Flat-Earthers aren't the Christian Right, here. Yeah, there's a Flat-Earther Society that likes to meet and pretend the Earth is still flat, but they don't, in actuality, take themselves seriousely. It's an amusing hobby and an excuse to get away from their wives and hang out with the guys once a year. Jeez.

    --
    Google: "All your data are belong to us."
  51. Re:The Flat Earthers Should Create Their Own X-Pri by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Except that their "proof" would be:

    See we failed to get into space/the moon so it must be impossible and the powers that be have obviously been deceiving everyone about it.

  52. I believe it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know. I look outside my window, and I see flat ground. World must be flat!

  53. This just in... by thittesd0375 · · Score: 1

    Fox News has announced that the world was a better place with far less pollution when the world was flat which resulted in the president's council on ecology recommending that we return to the flat Earth model to protect our environment.

  54. Argument for Flat Earth Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and invented never before seen multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

    What's the simplest explanation; that when I look out my window and see a Flat Earth that my eyes are deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

    When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth is just being pushed upwards from its underside?

    What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

    What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, quarks and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?

  55. Re:Duh, of course the earth is flat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude!

  56. Fake, fake and fake. by k33l0r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think someone is pulling a great prank. Just read this section in their FAQ:

    Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

    A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

    That's straight of of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

    1. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anybody notice that the FAQ for the site is posted by "Professor Gaycunt"?

    2. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by matria · · Score: 2, Informative

      And he got it from Indian (not Native American) creation myths.

    3. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no... the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle!

      But then, what holds up the turtle?

      That's obvious... it't turtles all the way down!

    4. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Elephants on the backs of turtles pre-dates the Discworld series.

    5. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Actually the Iroquois story of creation had the Earth as a water world and that North America was formed by sea bottom mud fetch by a muskrat and placed on the back of a turtle; and that is why North American is called Turtle Island

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, its a Myan belief. I agree that he's trying to be sarcastic, however.

    7. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by KiloByte · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Actually, Pratchett borrowed that concept from an Indian myth.

      (And no, it's not bad to borrow ideas, that's what our whole culture is based on, copyright notwithstanding.)

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    8. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by Allstarenterprises · · Score: 2, Informative

      You realize of course Pratchett was basing this view on Hindu mythology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

    9. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by jimicus · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think someone is pulling a great prank. Just read this section in their FAQ:

      Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

      A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

      That's straight of of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

      Not true. The idea that the earth rests on the back of a turtle is not new:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

    10. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a lot older than Pratchett. I think it's an ancient Hindu story.

    11. Re:Fake, fake and fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's straight from Hinduism, which I'm pretty sure pre-dates Terry Pratchett.

  57. Re:The Flat Earthers Should Create Their Own X-Pri by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

    wouldn't that be awkward?

    --
    "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
  58. new ad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apperently MS want to use flat-earthers for their vista campaign - now here's suggestion for MS: hire two jumbo jets and invite all old members of the society that don't believe in round earth to a free trip over antarctic pole. They would report back on forum if they so wished and MS would get another 'mojave' ad.

    1. Re:new ad idea by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The problem is the M$ ad is suggesting that the People who avoid Vista are like the Flat Earthers who are rejecting the obvious; but the reality is just the opposite. The Flat Earthers position is the original position and have the status quo position where the Round Earthers have the challenging position and the burden of proof; likewise M$ needs to not only convince People that Vista is better than XP, but that it is also better than OS X, Linux, BSD and Solaris, and that is a mighty tough row to hoe.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  59. The edge of the world. by goffster · · Score: 1

    Most of their theory falls apart in how they draw a map of the world. According to them, the edge of the earth is the "antarctic rim". However, their map shows it as being something like 80,000 miles long.

    Clearly this is at odds with measurement, and if you say anything different they generally say something like "lies! all lies!".

    I tried to give them a theory that they could use:
    That space stretches as you travel south from the equator. So as you get to the antarctic rim, you are stretched along the lines of latitude so that measurement yields something closer to 3,000-4,000 miles.
    But, however, noone there has taken up the theory. :)

    1. Re:The edge of the world. by magarity · · Score: 1

      the edge of the earth is the "antarctic rim". However, their map shows it as being something like 80,000 miles long
       
      Now we just need there to be fossil fuels found in Antarctica. All our energy problems would be solved for a loooooong time! It would take millenia to run out of 80k miles worth.

    2. Re:The edge of the world. by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 1

      You don't live in the US, do you? :p

  60. Why don't you get the joke? by sick_soul · · Score: 1

    Reading these comments I am distracted by a loud "whooooosh!" of a great joke passing over everybody's head.

    1. Re:Why don't you get the joke? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Reading these comments I am distracted by a loud "whooooosh!" of a great joke passing over everybody's head.

      Sorry, that's a deadline. That's what happens when everyone at work is reading Slashdot on a Sunday morning. Shame on you guys.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  61. Take a flight by eebra82 · · Score: 1

    Just take a flight and you'll notice that the earth is round. I'd love to see the Flat Earth believers explain that.

    1. Re:Take a flight by goffster · · Score: 1

      I am not a flat earther, but you would be hardpressed to say this proves anything.
      You would have to fly past the "antarctic rim"

      If you did this, then they would either say,
      "you lie" or "you were lost"

  62. Obligatory Bad Religion lyrics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The flat earth society is meeting here today,
    Singing happy little lies
    And the bright ship humana is sent far away
    With grave determination....
    And no destination, lie, lie, lie

  63. But...where's the Mist? by ronoholiv · · Score: 1

    Seriously, you guys may not want to leave the store.

  64. Notoriety by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Well I figure for some the off chance of being published; even if as a crack pot; is just too much to pass up. Oh I am sure some might believe it but I doubt all who profess it do. Its outlandish enough so that you can always come back one day and say you were joking. It is outlandish enough many would just call it a day and pass it off as a personality trait they acknowledge but don't accept

    Besides, it could be infinitely horizontal or what not, depends on what dimension your from, or perhaps you need to ascribe to this belief to get into Tom Cruise's inner circle?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  65. Re:Duh, of course the earth is flat! by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

    and carrot top is funny.

    --
    "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
  66. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's still a rather large scientific community that knows water is not wet.

    Oh yeah, on teh intarnet baby.

  67. Flat Earth? Booooring! by hey! · · Score: 1

    I think the people who think that surface of the Earth is the interior of a sphere are much more interesting.

    For some of them the Universe is a hollow bubble (which I suppose you might say it is, in very rough sense) and the Earth is the interior surface of that bubble. Others have a more conventional cosmology, in which the Earth is a sphere in space -- just a hollow one. Some of those people believe we are living on the inside of the sphere, others that we are (as conventionally believed) on the outside of the sphere, and that the interior and polar regions are inhabited by the Hyperborean race.

    Believers in the Hyperborean race tend to be those who give more credence to obscure references in Greek mythology than modern polar expeditions, which you have to admit makes for a higher class of twaddle. It's a pity so many of them are neo-nazis.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  68. Flat Earthers v. Scientologists by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Well both know that their stated beliefs don't really reflect reality, the Flat Earthers do it to enjoy the mental stimulation of engaging in the arguments; the Scientologists do it to suck the life out of their "followers" financially and emotionally; so I'd say the Scientologists are the more outrageous.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  69. Topologically, the earth is a doughnut, in fact by hughbar · · Score: 1

    The hole is very, very, very small but with apparatus in my secret laboratory, I can see it very clearly. I hope that clears the whole thing up.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  70. Worse than flat, we're inside! by thorpie · · Score: 1

    The earth's surface is on the inside surface of a sphere, light bends towards the centre, relativity is expanded so that the centre of the sphere is an infinite distance away and presto you have our reality.

    --
    The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink
  71. Kudos by MrZaius · · Score: 1

    I'd just like to say "kudos" to the author or editor of the article responsible for the illustrations and captions. I love the whole "this ancient guy knew what you didn't" seemed unbelievably, yet lovably, snide.

    Should he/she be invited for a guest stint on The Bugle, by the London Times?

  72. Genuine Flat earther live on TV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wppjYDj9JUc

  73. How you can prove curvature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a solar sensor that will take the intensity of the Sun. Go somewhere REALLY FLAT.

    Take measurements of how the sun intensity goes down as the sun goes down.

    If the earth is flat, it should go down as the arctan of the angle (I think). I.e. infinity when horizontal.

    Watch it.

    Doesn't do it.

    The reduction is correct however for the drop with an earth being round and the atmosphere being a thin layer upon it.

    Of course, if you're just taking the piss, you don't have to worry about proving jack shit. In which case, just do the same back.

    The earth is round and we don't fall off because of uncertainty.

    1. Re:How you can prove curvature by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The Egyptians had a far more convincing arguments that not only allowed them to measure the circumference of the Earth's sphere to an amazing accuracy but the distance to the Moon. They achieved this amazing feat about 4000 years ago by measuring the angle of the sun to the Earth at different latitudes simultaneously on the same longitude a known distance apart!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:How you can prove curvature by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      The Egyptians had a far more convincing arguments that not only allowed them to measure the circumference of the Earth's sphere to an amazing accuracy but the distance to the Moon. They achieved this amazing feat about 4000 years ago by measuring the angle of the sun to the Earth at different latitudes simultaneously on the same longitude a known distance apart!

      The famous measurement of the Earth's circumference wasn't the doing of the ancient pyramid-building Egyptians that we know and love, but rather an accomplishment of a Greek scholar named Eratosthenes living in Egypt during the Ptolemaic period. This was roughly in 240BC, which was "merely" 2250 years ago, not 4000.

      Don't get me wrong: the Egyptians of 4000 years ago had made some fairly solid advances in math -- for instance, they could do basic algebraic proofs and had a workable system for rational numbers and fractions -- but they didn't know the Pythagorean_theorem and weren't very advanced in geometry, trigonometry, or dealing with irrational numbers. This lack of mathematical knowledge would've greatly hindered any attempt they might have made to compute the circumference of the Earth, if they ever actually tried it.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    3. Re:How you can prove curvature by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Or just go to the beach and observe that the horizon curves.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:How you can prove curvature by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Not wanting to spoil a party, and you're mostly right, but even so, it merits pointing out that Eratosthenes was in fact Egyptian, according to contemporary national borders, and most definitely not Greek in any sense other than first language, and even that's a maybe. I guess he was what Americans might call a "Greek-Egyptian". Or the other way round, I'm not sure.

    5. Re:How you can prove curvature by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 1

      > This was roughly in 240BC, which was "merely" 2250 years ago, not 4000.

      One must be careful, when disposing of one theory, not to make an appeal to the authority of another theory which itself lacks supporting evidence.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)#Brief_summary

      We don't really know when Eratosthenes, or anyone else from ``ancient'' history, actually lived.

    6. Re:How you can prove curvature by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I'll have to remember that.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  74. Sure, hasn't everyone heard of Thomas Friedman? by toby · · Score: 1

    Talk about Stone Age beliefs...

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Sure, hasn't everyone heard of Thomas Friedman? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      In his book he particularly explains that the world isn't physically flat but flatness in a geo social/political structure, as globalization increases. .

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  75. Re:Duh, of course the earth is flat! by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

    now that's just going too far!

    --
    Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  76. no, Flat Earthers *run* Vista by toby · · Score: 1

    and will be hacked by the more highly evolved. :)

    --
    you had me at #!
  77. I heard... by toby · · Score: 1

    The FSM hacks in Scheme48. (And uses 3-space tabs.)

    --
    you had me at #!
  78. it's all in the delivery by louden+obscure · · Score: 1

    andy kaufman died without ever admitting he was vic ferrari.

    whoosh

    --
    Serenity now, insanity later.
  79. No it wouldn't and you need a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the earth was flat, how would it put a circular shadow on the moon when we're looking sideways at it? That would only be true if we were circular from the point of view of the moon at an angle from our horizontal. And that is only true if the earth is spherical.

    Thank you for playing. Please try again.

  80. We hold these truths to be self-evident by Alsee · · Score: 1

    The Earth is Flat.
    It is 6000 years old.
    It was created in exactly 6 days,
    by an invisible sky wizard that looks kinda like Sean Connery in a white beard and robe.

    Oh, and He wants you to give all your money to those preacher guys on TV.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    1. Re:We hold these truths to be self-evident by nawcom · · Score: 1

      It is 6000 years old.
      It was created in exactly 6 days,
      by an invisible sky wizard that looks kinda like Sean Connery in a white beard and robe.

      Don't forget that giant invisible Sean Connery needed to take a break after 6 days of work. I would be tired if I created all that in a week's time too. But then again, I'm only human, which makes sense that only humans could of created such a story. *winks*

    2. Re:We hold these truths to be self-evident by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that giant invisible Sean Connery needed to take a break after 6 days of work.

      Just because God is imiscient imipresent and impotent doesn't mean He doesn't get tired.
      He is Mysterious like that.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:We hold these truths to be self-evident by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      by an invisible sky wizard that looks kinda like Sean Connery in a white beard and robe. .. that wished he looked like Sean Connery in a white beard and robe.

  81. Solve the Equation by Knight+of+Shadows · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like it would be really easy to solve the problem once and for all. Just find where these genetic misfits are hiding and torch the building. Problem solved, and once less group of idiots breeding on an otherwise overburdened planet.

    1. Re:Solve the Equation by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Well, you could just tell them to walk until they fall off the edge of the world, those that don't find the edge, are executed.

      That at least gives them a chance, right?

    2. Re:Solve the Equation by Knight+of+Shadows · · Score: 1

      Awesome. Clean. . . elegant. . . a smidgen of freewill. What's not to like?

  82. Re:Duh, of course the earth is flat! by slick_shoes · · Score: 1

    Time is DEAD - what we experience is merely the inter-dimensional smell of its rotting corpse. Everyone knows that.

  83. Pffft! by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    'Are there any genuine flat-earthers left?'

    Pffft! That's nothing. There are still 9/11 Truthers left! And they believe that fire can't melt steel!

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  84. And here's how that works by Ernst+Hot · · Score: 1

    if (player.location.x >= earth.width)
    {
            player.location.x = 0;
    }
    else if (player.location.x LESSTHANDAMNIT! 0)
    {
            player.location.x = earth.width - 1;
    }

    if (player.location.y >= earth.height)
    {
            player.location.y = 0;
    }
    else if (player.location.y LESSTHANDAMNIT! 0)
    {
            player.location.y = earth.height - 1;
    }

    Yes. I had some problems with the right-bracket.

  85. The earth is flat! by Sentax · · Score: 1
    1. Re:The earth is flat! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact you can fly east from the US to Russia, east through Russia and end up on the west of the US. :P

    2. Re:The earth is flat! by Sentax · · Score: 1

      Well I can explain that. It's because of teleportation, which I believe instead of the earth being round.

    3. Re:The earth is flat! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      If the earth is flat you can't fly around the world as we do now. That is the point.

    4. Re:The earth is flat! by Sentax · · Score: 1

      I hope you know I'm just joking on all this. :D

    5. Re:The earth is flat! by LarsG · · Score: 1

      The compass is lying, obviously.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    6. Re:The earth is flat! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Too late, I've already generated 3D models that prove everything and I'm uploading my power point presentation now.

  86. I just checked out their site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now I wonder who the dumb ones are.. The people who claim to believe the world is still flat, or the people writing page-long messages (furiously, even) attempting to prove that the world is round.

  87. Muslims believe that the earth is flat! by irf · · Score: 1

    According to the quoran (the islamic holy book), the earth is flat, please check this articles for more details:- http://humanists.net/avijit/article/flat_earth_kasem.htm According to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations), there are 1.200 billion muslims on planet earth, so at least 1.2 billion people believe that the earth is flat!

    1. Re:Muslims believe that the earth is flat! by TwistedOne151 · · Score: 1

      Well, not all of them believe the earth is flat; there's the physicist who debated this flat-earth "astonomer" on Iraqi TV, but yes, it's a good reminder that there are quite a few muslim flat-earthers.

  88. Keyword is "global" by orzetto · · Score: 1

    It's encouraging that these same people are global warming sceptics.

    Well duh, of course they are. If anything, they may accept planar warming.

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  89. Who are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any news on who the pair are?

  90. Math Solution? / Compromise by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I think it would be interesting if somebody created a coordinate system / dimensions where the earth was Flat and then argued human perception is limited and the earth really is flat in actual reality- most of us just can not comprehend it :-)

    It would be even more cool in such a system represents flat earth as an infinite plain (since it is ... round)

    1. Re:Math Solution? / Compromise by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      That's actually the basis for their entire argument, which is quite easy to debunk.

  91. Re:"expanding earth" theory by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    E=MC2

    The sun is sending lots of energy (E) to the earth.
    where does all that energy go?
    radiated heat, sure.
    Maybe, just maybe, some of it is converted to Mass.

    However, like the "expanding earth" theory people, I have no real proof this energy to mass conversion exists.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  92. Where they asked? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    "The Earth is, more or less, a disc", is quoted James McIntyre in TFA. Obviously, BBC asked in a Discworld fan convention, and started this big buzz about people still believing in flat earth. I bet Terry Pratchett itself was the one that called them with the story.

    1. Re:Where they asked? by zobier · · Score: 1

      Terry Pratchett itself

      Itself?

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  93. The flat earth theory is so easy to disprove by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    The curve of the horizon (in a flat open area) more than disproves this.

  94. Re:"expanding earth" theory by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

    You should have a word with the cold fusion boys!

    --
    Would you like a slice of toast?
  95. I was interested in gravity by holizz · · Score: 1

    From what I gather, the Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2. This is what causes the movement of things towards the Earth. It has been accelerating at this rate for a long time (i.e. throughout history), but the acceleration is not constant. The Big Bang occurred around 4.5 billion years ago.

    The fact that at 9.8m/s^2 we would accelerate to faster than the speed of light in under a year has yet to be accounted for in that thread. They mentioned something about special relativity so maybe that's it.

    By my calculations if we assume a mean acceleration of 4.9m/s^2, the Earth is traveling at c2.25e09m/s. FTL!

    Source: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21147.0

  96. Duh... where do you think they put the Axle? by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

    " a hole in the arctic that would prove the earth was hollow"

    That's where the north pole of the great axle goes

  97. Easily disproved by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

    The earth is certainly NOT flat. There is a really big hill right behind my house, looking at it right now . . .

  98. Re:"expanding earth" theory by gnuman99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You even have an *idea* what you wrote??

    Energy doesn't "convert" to mass and vice-versa. This is an *equivalence* equation, and not even a complete one because M is not M (as in rest mass) but also includes momentum.

    If you can take any energy and magically convert it to mass (without the anti-particle), let me know. You'll get a Nobel prize in Physics.

    Yes, all the energy ends up back in space as heat (regular light is almost heat anyway).

    Now, if you said that the solar wind gets captured by Earth's magnetic field and sucked down to Earth - that is more believable. Except, the solar wind also strips off the outer layers of the atmosphere. So basically end up with insignificant changes.

    1 cent for some effort and bold guessing though.

  99. hmmm by IntelliMoo · · Score: 1

    Thought they were called the Blockheadists now.

  100. First hand evidence of a globe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all the flat-Earthers out there do this:

    Buy a ticket to Maui. Stand at sea level at the town of Lahaina and look Northwest to the island of Molokai. You will see what appears to be two islands, due to the curvature of the Earth hiding the low central section of the island.

    Now take a hike uphill to the Lahainaluna High School and look toward Molokai and you will see just one island.

    Your $1000 airfare and $500 hotel room costs will not be purchased in vain!

  101. belief without experience is more stupider by JasonNolan · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The problem is that people believe the stories of other people too much. Everyone says the earth is round because someone told them it is, not because they have personally done the tests or had the experience. I know people who think the earth is round, but can't say how they know except that they saw a picture or they read it somewhere. That's as stupid as creationist and their logic. I don't care if 'science' says so, or God. My earth is relatively flat. Nothing in my personal experience shows me otherwise. I've heard some great stories that the earth is round. It is probably true, but I personally have no way of verifying that information. Only an idiot takes thinks as true on faith. Now the practical reality is that a lot of science has a practical truth. Engineering science is a good way to build stuff that works, but to suddenly go off into believing 'ex officio' everything science says is silly. I can't wait to show myself the earth is round, as soon as I can get up the money for the flight. :)

    --
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
    1. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by Lost+Race · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For rational people, "flat" or "round" Earth isn't a matter of belief or even truth. It's a matter of what geometric model works best to describe travel on or near Earth, best accounts for the movements of celestial objects, and so on.

      For example, some flat-Earthers in TFA propose a geometric model of Earth as a disc with one "pole" at the center and the other at the circumfrence. Lines of latitude are circles, larger in the south than in the north. However, extra complexity must be added to this model to account for wildly varying rates of travel by the same vehicles around these lines; a simpler and more effective model uses a round Earth with better predictive value. This is not to say that the round Earth model is more "true" or worthy of "belief" -- just that it gives better results. Science doesn't care what is true, and reality doesn't care what you believe. Only results matter.

    2. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by JasonNolan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just because your model is better (and I agree it is) doesn't for a moment mitigate the fact that the model and theory is being replaced for an actual experience of the thing itself. Of course western science has the best results when you want to build a bridge. But you don't believe in science based on the model without ever seeing the bridge in action. Same with the world. And to say that science isn't about truth is ludicrous. It is a hegemonic belief structure just like any other. Just one that is really useful right now in terms of the sort of things we like doing. But I think you're on the money when you boil it down to the important bit. It doesn't matter what is true or right, but rather what is most useful at the moment... the predictive value; a concept that most people inside science seem to think that everyone understands... which is a strange thought. :)

      --
      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
    3. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right. One thing that they don't really teach you in high school science (though I hope wasn't the only person who covered this in university) is that models are just that. Any of us, as an individual, is free to picture the world and universe as we choose. But a good scientist has to go with what's most reasonable in the creation of their model. It does not mean that the model is 100% true, god-given, etc. Just that it provides accurate predictions for a given set of phenomena. Newton's theory of gravity did a bang-up job of explaning phenomena both in the sky and on the earth, but it didn't provide an explanation of where gravity comes from.
       
      One interesting thing I learned was that heliocentric formulas were used for a long time to generate star charts before people believed that they were "true". The universites were essentially telling students to use the math, but ignore the implications. After a while people started to accept both. Faith is faith, but I could never wrap my head around people actively refusing to consider evidence. IN this case: geosynchronous satellites, the difference in shadows on different points of the earth...hell, AM radio. Feynman wrote a great bit about the difference between integrity and simply stopping when you get the result you want. Real scientists try to prove themselves wrong, not right.

    4. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      No flight necessary. You'll need:

      1:two long plumb lines a hundred miles apart.
      2:some math.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    5. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by JasonNolan · · Score: 1

      Sigh. You just don't get it. I can't believe that people who pretend to know science are most stupid than people who don't. The average person a) doesn't know a plumb line; b) can't set it 100 miles apart in a meaningful manner (doubt people on this thread can either) and c) can't do the math. To say it is that simple is to eschew the complexities of the situation and to accordingly ascribe to the position of the flatearthers, ex officio.

      --
      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
    6. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      My earth is relatively flat. Nothing in my personal experience shows me otherwise. I've heard some great stories that the earth is round. It is probably true, but I personally have no way of verifying that information. Only an idiot takes thinks as true on faith. Now the practical reality is that a lot of science has a practical truth. Engineering science is a good way to build stuff that works, but to suddenly go off into believing 'ex officio' everything science says is silly. I can't wait to show myself the earth is round, as soon as I can get up the money for the flight. :)

      I totally agree that it is silly to accept *anything* based on faith alone, but there are far easier ways to prove the Earth is round.

      Suggestion: head to the beach, and watch a ship sail out towards the horizon. Note that it will "sink" as it disappears from view. Repeat as necessary.

      Suggestion 2: stand still, and check the duration of a sunset. Then compare this time to the duration of a sunset while driving East, and then, compare this to the duration of a sunset while heading West. Sunset will last longer when heading West, and not as long while headed East. The greater your speed, the more noticeable this change in duration will be.

    7. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      "Suggestion: head to the beach, and watch a ship sail out towards the horizon. Note that it will "sink" as it disappears from view. Repeat as necessary."

      Not really a good test, as it would only take a belief that light is affected by gravity. So, the reason the ship appears to disappear is because once the ship gets far enough away, the light gets pulled to the ground before you can see it. It would be no better proof than proving that things farther away are smaller. After all, you can just watch the ship sail into the horizon getting smaller and smaller.

      "Suggestion 2: stand still, and check the duration of a sunset. Then compare this time to the duration of a sunset while driving East, and then, compare this to the duration of a sunset while heading West. Sunset will last longer when heading West, and not as long while headed East. The greater your speed, the more noticeable this change in duration will be."

      This is a better suggestion, although I would probably simplify it by suggesting using a single clock to check the time of the sunset. Then drive east and check the time of the sunset. Then drive back west and check it's time. Do this as many times as necessary to confirm the time change of sunset is not a coincidence.

    8. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "That's as stupid as creationist and their logic. I don't care if 'science' says so, or God. My earth is relatively flat. Nothing in my personal experience shows me otherwise.....I personally have no way of verifying that information"

      Science always gives you the option of reproducing results, if it deosn't then it can't be called science. If you are too lazy or stupid to repoduce the results for yourself but still insist they are wrong then you will quite rightly be labeled as an arrogant crackpot.

      In the case of the flat earth, it's blindingly obviously you are not paying attention to your surroundings. For example how do you explain ships dissapearing over the horizon? If they fall of the edge then how do they get back?

      "to suddenly go off into believing 'ex officio' everything science says is silly"

      Please attempt to learn what science is before offering your critique.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by kayditty · · Score: 0

      My earth is relatively flat. Nothing in my personal experience shows me otherwise.

      Two things popped into my mind immediately: the horizon and eclipses. I presume you're too busy posting on Slashdot to ever notice those sorts of things. I glanced over your other posts about models, which is something I've thought quite a bit about, myself, and I'd have to slightly agree, but some of this just delves into semantics. The thing about science isn't that it's meant to be taken on faith. For a lot of people, that seems to be the case. I have met many people in my experience who "believe" what they read out of science magazines or Slashdot articles about global warming, theology, and so on, without really understanding the underlying arguments themselves. I think that's a bad thing, although perhaps it is a NECESSARY thing, but that is outside the scope of my post at the moment. Whatever people do or will do in the name of science or its societal popularity, science does create these models of the world which are the best ones that we have, and science itself is the best system we have for arriving at any semblance of truth, despite how philosophically inclined you might be when it comes to objectivism or rationalism or whatever. The mind is the only thing we have.

      And science never claims absolute truth, as all facts and theories are probability statements. They may be something on the order of 99% probable, but they are still probability statements, and no real scientist who understand the scientific method would claim otherwise. And when the layperson who has no real comprehension of matters science feels as if he or she has to come to a decision on some important sociological matter, that person does not necessarily have to rely upon a faith system to do so. The scientific method, by its nature, is one of multiply redundant fact checking and review, and to take its observations as virtually "true" in the most human sense of the word is not to be faithful, but to credit the method and its stringent nature with as much probablity as you would its theories about the mechanics of the fundamental forces or whatever you would prefer to substitute for that.

      Thus, no one ends up harboring any belief, necessarily, but goes about their lives as though those things are true, because that is the most convincing model that we are likely to arrive at with the tool (science) of understanding that we have been provided (note: this does not imply intentionality) with, and stock is placed in that system because of its rigorous means and its consistency and its accurate predictions accumulated over the years (and its usefulness? I'm not sure). But one is certainly not taking it upon the word of a possibly biased individual or individuals, but valuing an established concept, which is, again, the best we have arrived at and probably will arrive at (I do not see how any system of understanding could surpass science, insofar as contemporary humans are concerned), and accepting the likelihood of its truths and falsities on the basis of its historical record. I think that, as I had warned, I have definitely delved into semantics at this point, and I would not entirely be inclined to disagree with you that still "accepting" such ideas does involve some degree of faith or belief, but I am always willing to play devil's advocate and attempt to muddy the waters for my own benefit (if there is any). To be perfectly honest, I don't know what the answer is, and I've thought a fair deal about the problem. Perhaps that is the answer, after all.

    10. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err... How about:

      1/ Stand on beach looking out to sea (on a reasonably clear day).
      2/ Horizon is clearly curved.
      3/ There would be no horizon at all if Earth was flat; i.e. the sea would just fade out into the haze instead of cutting off sharply (unless you assume the horizon is the edge of the Earth; so wait for a ship to appear over it to disprove; or go out in a boat for about 12 miles and watch the beach you stood on disappear over the horizon.)

      No equiptment or maths required (apart from possibly a boat...).

    11. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      But to the average person, if they can figure that stuff out, and look at peer reviewed data on the subject, then that should be enough. If you never trust anybody on anything then you go through life, frankly, as a moron. Tell you what - this beaker of hydrochloric acid: it'll kill you deader than hell if you drink it. Don't take my word for it though; I could be lying. Try it and see for yourself.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re:belief without experience is more stupider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Science always gives you the option of reproducing results, if it deosn't then it can't be called science.

      That's a great idea. I had always wanted to examine those charming quarks first hand. If particle physics is a science, I should be able to build a powerful particle accelerator in my backyard. (I should also be entitled to house with a backyard, otherwise physics is not a science.) I'd also love to reproduce formation of the Moon. I don't know what it takes though, perhaps you can help me?

      IMO, and I won't pretend that my opinion is universal, science is a process of building successively more encompassing explanations from more specific explanations. Only the most trivial of those explanations are directly related to observations. And only a very small fraction of those observations are, even in principle, reproducible by majority of people - including scientists. The process matters, moreso than the observations themselves.

  102. pssh by amnezick · · Score: 1

    ok. read the faq and i ain't no smart boy but here's an essential flaw in their bs:

    the earth is accelerating up at 1G (what is UP in the first place??)
    the earth is wrapped around a cylinder surface.

    question arises: how come gravity pulls in the same direction if earth is a cylinder???

    good luck

    --
    mov ax,4c00h
    int 21h
  103. Re: Nothing Scientific just another Religion ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no need for a scientific theory or explanation. A lot of people see the world as it appears before their eyes.

    My very, very old grandparents say that the sun rotates around the earth, because it just looks this way. They also claim that the TV is lying to them and make fun of it.

    I tried to explain the movements in our solar system to them. They seem to agree on the whole, but still think that the sun appears to be rotating around the earth, because it is easier to accept.

    Surprisingly they also admit that the earth is elliptic, because you can see it on the horizon, if you look on the sea of Trees in the Taiga, where they spend the best part of their life.

  104. Space tourism by koalapeck · · Score: 1

    Time for a bunch of these wacko's to be shot up in a rocket so that they might see for themselves what is so logical to the rest of us.

  105. But why ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... must we keep voting them into office?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  106. I can't decide which side to join. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many of the top posting people on that forum seem to be false shepherds, guiding their flat-earth flock, and I know everyone on there knows it, they're just having fun.

    So I don't know which side to take for posting there. I want to have fun and be a flatearther, but I can't read everything without that eye-tick coming back, making me want to refute everything they say.

  107. Crazy Sprinkler Lady by sma11s101 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
  108. So by ditoa · · Score: 1

    I see believing the earth is flat as no more crazy than believing some supreme being create the universe and everything in it in 6 days with no evidence what so ever*

    *No the bible is not evidence. It is a collection of stories which cannot be validated as real. It is like saying, in 2000 years, that Harry Potter is "the truth".

  109. what you see is what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is the mentality of a flat earther, and no doubt some kind of mental challenge. All photos of earth are like a pizza. Perception deeper, beyond sight, makes the world go round...

  110. These guys provide a valuable service. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They provide fodder so that the self-righteous Slashdotter know-it-all can feel superior.

    I've met guys like this before, and a good portion of them are just being contrary because they know it bugs people.

    Another good portion of them are suffering from some kind of obvious emotional/mental disorder which makes them difficult to be around. So yes, let's all laugh at the distressed people and jump up and down for the trolls.

    The only real problem with these sorts of people is that they discredit any ideas which happen to have substance but which tend to get lumped in with and sullied by flat earth thinking.

    -FL

  111. Have you been into space? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    I haven't. Perhaps its round, perhaps they are lying.

    Give me a trip to the moon and i'll get back to you.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  112. Yeah, everybody knows... by istartedi · · Score: 1

    ...it's got a Tootsie Roll center. The only question is, how many licks does it take to get to the center?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Yeah, everybody knows... by Zwicky · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. Tell 'em about the twinkie.

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
  113. how can we tell by HappyEngineer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    But how can we tell? There are a large number of seemingly normal but truly crazy people in the world. There are still people who believe the moon landings are a conspiracy and that Bush is a good person, etc. If someone is a truly dedicated Flat Earth Troll instead of just a truly dedicated Flat Earther, then it would be very tricky to figure out what they truly believed. Perhaps it doesn't matter.

    1. Re:how can we tell by Prune · · Score: 1

      I think Bush is a good person, just incompetent.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    2. Re:how can we tell by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      I used to think that maybe 4 or 5 years ago. I no longer do. Good people don't advocate all the terrible things that he advocates.

      However, that's besides the point (and also presumably the reason why I was modded flamebait although I think the modder is being overly sensitive).

      The question remains, how can we tell if someone is dedicated to the joke or just plain unwilling to recognize obvious evidence?

  114. Re:No different than believing in racial equality by MLease · · Score: 1

    Equal doesn't mean identical. People should have equal rights under the law, no matter what race they happen to be. Yes, there are differences between races. Darker skinned people handle the sun better than lighter skinned people, and lighter skinned people do better in colder climates. As far as intelligence and ability is concerned, individual differences overwhelm any racial ones that might exist; there are brilliant and stupid people in all races.

    -Mike

    --
    I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  115. Now the new improved Lifeline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I've fallen (off the earth) and I can't get up!"

  116. Re:The Flat Earthers Should Create Their Own X-Pri by julesh · · Score: 1

    Really, the cost of [a mission to take pictures of the earth from space] is no longer astronomical

    ROTFLMAO.

    (BTW, are you the same szyzyg I used to know on mono?)

  117. Evidence Located! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evidence located: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22038.0

  118. perspective by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    The earth is flat.

    The only way, of course, for it to be flat is for it to be very large and (relatively) very round.

    Flat in a 3d spherical coordinate system.

    But evolution? Again, look to the woof and the weave in the coordinate system, and imperfections in the observation tools.

    But I'm not going to claim that any modern view of history is nearly as accurate as our view of the sky and our view looking back on the earth.

    Beyond that, trying to claim evolution as evidence that disproves the creation is focusing on one very small (if recently too noisy) class of creationist theory. (Call it pseudo-theory if you want, but if being able to poke holes in a theory makes it not a theory, then what would we do with science?)

    The tendency that bothers me here is the tendency to jump to conclusions and paint all faith with one brush. Check your own faith in science when you're done.

  119. Aztecs? by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    What makes you so sure the Aztecs didn't know the earth was round?

    1. Re:Aztecs? by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      What makes you so sure the Aztecs didn't know the earth was round?

      I didn't mean they didn't know it was a sphere (actually, I don't know whether this was the case or not). My comment was directed to OP's time frame, who said Aztecs knew Earth as round before the (non-existent) flat-earthers of 500 years ago.

      To be more precise: given that the Aztec society formed 800 years ago, and that the time frame of the actual flat-earth discussion in Europe was 2400 years ago, the Aztecs evidently couldn't have come before something that happened 1200 years earlier. Result: a revised post wouldn't have reason to mention them.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    2. Re:Aztecs? by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

      I see.

      (My bad for not looking further up the thread.)

  120. That flat earth theory was mainstream is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently it's a myth that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.

  121. Thoroughly and irredeemably unscientific by golodh · · Score: 1
    Sorry, but I think you're totally wrong in believing they can even remotely claim to be "scientific". I just read the faq and it says enough. Bear with me please while I reproduce part of their faq.

    Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

    A: It's a conspiracy

    Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

    A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

    Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

    A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture.

    Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

    A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead PLEASE NOTE This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF

    Q: "What is the motive behind this conspiracy?"

    A: The motive is unknown although it is probably money

    Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

    A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

    Q: "The government could not pull off the conspiracy successfully"

    A: Actually, they could.

    Q: "How are the world governments organized enough to carry out this conspiracy?"

    A: They only appear to be disorganized to make the conspiracy seem implausible.

    In summary the flat-earthers won't allow any direct satellite imagery as evidence because "it's fake".

    So why is this satellite imagery a fake? It's a conspiracy! A conspiracy by whom? Governments! All of them! Errm ... how do you know? Well ... *if* the Earth is flat *and* the Governments say it's not, *then* it's a conspiracy, see? Oh yes ... and we happen to know that the Earth is flat, which proves that there is this conspiracy.

    Well ... there you have it: simple logical fallacy (circular reasoning).

    Sorry, but that's quite enough to prove "Flat Earth" irredeemable crackpottery and abolish all and any of their claims to scientific work.

    1. Re:Thoroughly and irredeemably unscientific by freddy_dreddy · · Score: 1

      Hi golodh,

      I skipped the faq and went for the threads and 400000 posts, apparently that was a mistake. The posts I read didn't touch conspiracy. Thanks for pointing out.

      --
      "Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
  122. Obligatory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new Flat Earther overlords.

  123. BBC got trolled .... again by DaBookshah · · Score: 1

    Someone interviewed in TFA states that the earth is "over 9,000 kilometres deep".

  124. Devil's Advocates by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 1

    Dude! Nice post! I wish I had mod points today. I have only one criticism.

    In any case, you need not fear alternative ideas (even blatantly false goofy ones) in your school systems. If anything you should fear people trying to coopt the boards to ensure goofy ideas are taught in a non-critical fashion.

    You should be wary of any idea being taught in a non-critical fashion, whether you think it's a good idea or a bad one. Critical thinking skills are much more important than indoctrination in good ideas. The major difficulty you face in this regard is that Evolution is presented as an incontrovertible fact, which tends to dull the critical faculties.

    In the immortal words of John Stuart Mill:

    He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. This is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of, else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. ... So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's advocate can conjure up.

    So flat-Earthers and creationists are actually pretty useful. As you've already pointed out, if you can't defend your view that the earth is a globe against the arguments of a flat-Earther, you really don't know your subject! The same applies for Evolution and Creation.

    --
    proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
  125. Such Sweet Irony by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    One of the Flat-earthers interviewed , John Davis, is a computer scientist. That is quite ironic considering that the machines he makes a livelihood from exist because of the investment in lightweight microelectronics needed for the Apollo program. Mr. Davis is indicated to be a Canadian living in Tennessee. Hopefully there is some way we can get him deported before he manages to steal the limelight from Kansas with his brand of reationalized thought.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  126. turtles, i like them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i like turtles.

  127. The FES FAQ itself is hole-y. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the FAQ:

    Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?" A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions. In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards. The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles) Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets." A: It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

    So they appear the set because the sun, moon and stars are accelerating away from the Earth faster than Earth itself is accelerating upward. So uh, where does sunrise come from? They simply gloss over this in the FAQ.

  128. Off Topic. by bronney · · Score: 1

    I have an off topic question that I failed to google.

    Base on a round earth of course, I always wonder what will happen if we drill a big hole from north pole all the way to south pole, then drop a marble in it. Where will it stop?

  129. Earth theories by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    I wonder if there are more Flat Earth believers than Expanding Earth believers. I didn't even hear about the Expanding Earth Theory until a few months ago.

  130. From their FAQ. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

    A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

    Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

    A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture.

    http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=b7ea1aa7ab7c1c158b164439960624e0&topic=11211.0

  131. Ouroboros of trolling by teaX0r · · Score: 1

    AFAICT everyone there seems to be trolling each other.

  132. round earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that we can fly around the world doesn't suggest anything to these people as to what shape it is?

  133. Are the main champions for the society for real? by pddo · · Score: 1

    The first subject in the forum is called "Notice for newbies" and this is started by "Professor Gaycunt"... (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=12.0)

  134. Huh? by scott_karana · · Score: 1

    I guess no flat earth theorist has ever been in an airplane on a clear day.
    The curvature of the Earth is clearly visible.
    Hell, you can even see it at sea, though it's far more subtle.

    I don't understand this planet sometimes; didn't Eratosthenes prove all this well enough in antiquity?

  135. Earth's shadow on the moon? by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 0

    the fact that the shadow of the Earth on the moon is always round

    Try working through that argument again in your head.

    Ever seen the Sun and the Moon in the sky at the same time?

    Where is the Sun when you have a full Moon? New Moon?

    Try wikipedia if you give up.

    This chap was a very good humanities/history teacher. He had all sorts of ways to bring alive one of the more boring subjects (at least for teenagers who won't figure out for another decade or two why it's one of the most important subjects).

    Ahhh, you think humanies/history is one of the most important subjects? That explains it...

    1. Re:Earth's shadow on the moon? by omuls+are+tasty · · Score: 1

      I am not an ancient Greek philosopher (IANAAGP), but I believe he was refering to the Earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse. Incidentally, we have one coming up in a few days, you might be able to see it.

  136. Flying spaghetti monster is sooo passe! by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    I want to be a flatearther. Do they have a clothing line to go with it?

  137. Dark Ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

    They never really let up.

  138. Re:Scientific community?http://news.slashdot.org/u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can clearly see the moon is round. Am I being tricked into this? Is my telescope a clever brain washing device? Mars is clearly round also. It's not a difficult stretch to see the Earth as round. The visible curvature at 30,000 feet etc

    I've never heard this 'theory' It's gonna be laughed at big time in the bar tonight!

  139. Scientist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In cyberspace, Earth is flat. You have to curve it with optical illusions.

  140. Sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ignorance of most of the replies here is astounding. How many more sheep do we have to spoon-feed information to?

    I wonder what else the schools and NASA can get you sheep to believe.

  141. DONT MOCK US !!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We the flat earthers have members globally, all the way around the wor....
    ohh crap!!!

  142. And if you fall off the edge...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, if you fall off the edge, Bigfoot will get you?

    Aliens do exist, they're just off the edge of the earth, and sometimes venture onto "our side" of the pieplate shaped earth to visit?

  143. Kansas by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that a large percentage of flat-earthers live in Kansas. To be fair, that part of the Earth IS flat, so they can be excused for their belief.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  144. If it is a Flat Earth society ... by donak · · Score: 1

    How come the guy in charge is Chaltier, Global Moderator ?

    Now there's a conspiracy theory for you!

    --
    Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post ...
  145. Topologists? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Well, that's obviously not the right thing to call them...

    No doubt, the earth is flat for certain topologies.

    So, three men were riding on a train in Scotland when they pass a brown cow. The first, a biologist, says, "hmm, I guess the cows in Scotland are brown." The second, a statistician, replies, "no, actually all we know is that one cow in Scotland is brown." The third, a topologist, corrects, "actually, all we know is that there is at least one cow in Scotland, one side of which is brown."

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  146. What does breeding have to do with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > these idiots are breeding.

    I was not aware that crazy beliefs were transmitted genetically? Do you have any proof of that?

    After all, if people were not smarter than their ancestors, we shouldn't be any smarter than the apes, right?

  147. It doesnot even require instruments to verify by misterjava66 · · Score: 1

    It doesnot even require instruments to verify the earth is positively (roundishly/ball-like) curved.
    All that is required is a medium-large body of water and tall objects (mountains, skyscrappers) on each side.

    If you look accross the water from the bottom, you can see a portion of the objects on the other side.
    As, you go higher, you can see more. And if you look carefully, you can see a portion of the lake but not all the way to the other side at certain heights.

    These results require a positive curvature to the surface of the lake/sea.

    If you use some instruments, you could eventually measure that this curvature is nearly equal in all directions accross all bodies of water. Leading to a spherical result.

    Now the weird but true part.
    I still don't understand why this was not understood in antiquity.
    Once again, to see that the curvature is positive does not require ANY instruments.

  148. Don't ignore! It'll inspire, same as Star Trek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was thought foundation-less and lame will be the next Scientific pursuit to implement its lame ideas. The CIA have already implemented a system to seamlessly transport objects instantly over distances without the aid of a vessel or such. Soon we'll be flooded in Tribbles from Mexico!

  149. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hereoes in a half-shell, turtle P-p-p-power!

  150. Magellan Said it all by celticchrys · · Score: 1

    "The Church says the Earth is Flat, But I know that it is Round, For I have seen the Shadow On the Moon, And I have more Faith in a Shadow Than in the Church." - Ferdinand Magellan

  151. Still thoroughly and irredeemably unscientific by golodh · · Score: 1
    Hi Freddy,

    Happy to oblige. Things can be pretty simple if you know where and how to look.

    There are lots and lots of conclusive observations that expose "Flat Earth" as total humbug (from the fact that ships disappear under the horizon, to satellite launches to high-altitude flights, to classical mechanics to geodesy) but they all require a little intelligence and some thought to understand, and may allow willfully stupid charlatans enough leeway to obfuscate the discussion that some people loose their way in the argument.

    Satellite imagery on the other hand provides direct and totally conclusive evidence that doesn't require *any* thought or intelligence to understand, and it can't very well be argued about. So it can't be obfuscated either. But alas, satellite imagery proves the Earth is round (no matter what other considerations Flat Earthers might wish to trot out), so if "Flat Earthers" were to admit any of that as evidence, they have lost the debate before it's even started. So they don't admit satellite imagery as evidence. Instead Flat Earth enthousiasts will tell you that those satellite images are all "fakes" put up by a "conspiracy of governments".

    When the main FAQ starts off by telling you that the conclusive evidence provided by satellite imagery showing the Earth to be round is considered inadmissible evidence by Flat Earth enthousiasts, on account of it all being a global "conspiracy by governments". And when the only "evidence" for this is based on the hypothesis of a global conspiracy which in turn can only be "proven" by assuming the Flat Earth hypothesis itself to be true (something that Flat Earthers had to prove in the first place), you see the logical fallacy in their argument (circular reasoning) which no amount of additional posts can repair. So reading all or any of them is a total waste of time.

    And something else. The *number* of posts on the site has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are humbug or not. There are lots and lots of extremely stupid people about, and unfortunately they can be quite diligent. If they all make a single post, then you can rack up an impressive total in no time at all. But that doesn't imply that any of those posts make sense. Sorry about that, but there it is. It's not quantity that counts but quality.

    So, to avoid the need of crawling through a stack of 400,000 pretty darned clueless posts, you ask Flat Earthers to tell us why we should disbelieve direct observational evidence (satellite imagery again) that can decide the matter all by itself. When they can't, there is nothing but quasi objectivity to be gained by saying "gee perhaps somewhere in that stack of 40,000 posts there is one that actually makes sense", Ok? Whatever else they come up with is already beside the point since we already have conclusive evidence about whether the Earth is round or flat.

    The point is whether direct evidence from satellites or high-altitude flights can or cannot be used to decide the matter. If "Flat Earthers" can only resort to conspiracy theories to neutralise that evidence (admitting it exposes them immediately), they have lost the debate and there is no point in looking what else they might bring forward, right?

    That's how you distinguish real science from bogus: real Science doesn't rely on logical fallacies such as circular reasoning, and doesn't try to discard direct evidence by a gratuitous claim about a global "government conspiracy" rendering it fake".

  152. Flat Earth Science Teacher by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    But we had no idea why he claimed to believe the Earth was flat. To this day, I'm still not certain if this was real, tongue-in-cheek or yet another creative teaching methodology. He did put most of the students on the spot to defend why we believed the Earth was round. Almost none of us had any other answer than things like "but... but... people have gone up and taken pictures". None of us could explain how for several millenia all educated folk have known the Earth was round based a few obvious things such as the way a ship disappears over the horizon, the fact that the shadow of the Earth on the moon is always round and things like certain constellations going out of sight as folk travel north or south. This was well before the Google age where someone in the classroom could have found all that in a couple of minutes on the web.

    It sounds like he was challenging you to question your preconceptions. It's one thing to know that the earth is flat based on your education, it's quite a different thing to know that the earth is flat by examining the evidence, questioning it, and setting out to prove it to yourself.

    If you know that the earth is flat because that's what you've been told all your life by people you respect, how are you different than someone who knows that god watches them masturbate when they've been told it all their lives by people they respect?

    I encounter a lot of this in my motorcycling. The vast majority of riders believe that gyroscopic forces stabilize their bike, but I've learned though a lot of research, thought, and experimentation that it's a secondary force to the effects of caster (trail.) Yet, gyroscopic balancing is taught by the majority of high school and college physics teachers, by many respected members of the community, and by a lot of motorcycling instructors. (How many people here believe that gyroscopic procession balances your bicycle?)

    Question all belief, even what you know is true. You probably won't prove 'round earth theory' to be wrong, but you will learn a hell of a lot in the process.

  153. Spade a spade and a dupe a dupe by renegadesx · · Score: 1

    I have gone though the forums of this site (Flat Earth Society) and it is quite obvious a dupe. Yes there are no doubt people out there that believe the earth is flat but this site is an obviously a dupe. Come on "the earth is constantly moving up at 1g" etc. This is someone who seriosuly thinks the earth is flat: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=wppjYDj9JUc&feature=rec-fresh basically an Iraqi claiming the earth is flat because the Quran says so. The following is a transcript:

    Interviewer: Lunar and solar eclipses, sunset and sunrise, and the changing of seasons -- how would you explain all these phenomena, if the Earth is not round, as you claim?

    Fadhel Al-Sa'd: The sun circles the Earth because it is smaller than the Earth, as is evident in Koranic verses.

    Have you ever seen how the sun moves? I have seen the sun moving. The sun makes one move every 24 hours.

    What I say is based on Koranic science. He bases his arguments on the kind of science that I reject categorically -- the modern science that they teach in schools. This science is a heretic innovation that has no confirmation in the Koran. No verse in the Koran indicates that the Earth is round or that it rotates. Anything that has no indication in the Koran is false.

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
  154. Pots...calling kettles... by Footsienabackyard · · Score: 1

    Oh really...now, I have my doubts about the Flat Earth Theory...even as a Christian. I can handle evolution pretty well...even the Big Bang, and a constantly expanding universe... However, the bloody/stupid, idea/theory, that everything came from absolutely nothing, is almost as insane as wasting time, looking for proof! Steven Hawking, in a lecture to University of Southern California, consistently made references to a Creator. And concluded his lecture, by acknowledging the question is not why we're here, nor where we came from, but what do we do, now that we're here? Now that, is true religion, DEFINED, by someone you trust!

    --
    Don't you think...? Or don't you?
  155. wormhole jets by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    "Man Will Never Fly" does not dispute the existence of wormholes. Which would easily explain how so-called "aircraft" can travel to different locations without flying (thin atmosphere is incapable of supporting the weight of hundreds of passengers). The flights are not instantaneous because the queues for wormhole access are very long.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  156. Flat? by TBell2 · · Score: 1

    So, lets say that the earth is flat. Would it not be lit on both sides at a given point?