$5,000 for Proving the Earth is a Globe

[Abdul Alhazred]

From Modern Mechanix 10-1931

$5,000 for Proving the Earth is a Globe (http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/05/19/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/)

Link has scans of original magazine article.

[NiallM]

Cheers for that!

That's a wonderful piece of reading.

[William Smith]

What does this have to do with the Challenge?

[Dark Jaguar]

I'll admit, this really doesn't have anything to do with Randi's challenge. Another forum would be best suited. At the same time, that was very entertaining.

[William Smith]

...
At the same time, that was very entertaining.

Agreed.

[Abdul Alhazred]

What does this have to do with the Challenge?

Just somewhat reminiscent of woo-woo counter challenges.

If a mod wants to move it, that's OK by me.

[NiallM]

It's probably best in another forum. In this forum, it may look like a chellenge that equates to the JREF challenge. You never know; idiots may put the two challenges on an equal footing.

It's still a brilliant piece of articulate unscientific crap and worth knowing about from a historical perspective. Thank you so much for showing it to me!

[Penny]

So, what is the simplest, most convincing piece of evidence that you would have cited to disprove this bloke's theory? I'd have started with the point that his plan doesn't seem to account for night-time, but I'm sure he'd have had a response to that.

Funny how these flat earths always have the North Pole in the middle, never the South.

[rjh01]

Actually the Earth is not a sphere. It bulges out around the equator. So his $5,000 is safe.

The simple proof that the Earth is not flat is that the top of a ship at sea and approaching you is visible before the rest of the ship. Done in ancient Greek times.

[Zep]

So if Peary had flown over the South Pole, where did he go? Under the disk?

The absolute insistence on maintaining the logical disconnect despite obvious evidence that destroys the original premise, lives on even today - we all know Victor Zammit and his crack-pottery, so I won't link to him again! :D

[rjh01]

It is all a lie. The world is flat. So no-one could have flown over the south pole. They would fall off the end or into a wall.

Have you ever been near the south pole? I rest my case.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Nowadays, unlike in 1931, a flat earther has to be a conspiracy theorist as well as a regular crackpot.

What with NASA and all that.

[Ladewig]

The simple proof that the Earth is not flat is that the top of a ship at sea and approaching you is visible before the rest of the ship. Done in ancient Greek times.


Ah, but the article addresses this "proof" and describes it simply as a trick of perspective and not true evidence of the earth's sphericalness.

[Skiltch]

Reminds me of the old 'proof' I saw that the Earth was flat. See, if it wasn't, people on the south pole would fall off, wouldn't they? :-D
(that was a joke)

[Jackalgirl]

It is all a lie. The world is flat. So no-one could have flown over the south pole. They would fall off the end or into a wall.

Have you ever been near the south pole? I rest my case.

My husband, a Navy Aerographer's Mate, ran around the south pole when he wintered-over there. : )

-- Kat

[rjh01]

A government employee. This is proof it is all a government conspericy to keep the TRUTH from us.

[Jackalgirl]

A government employee. This is proof it is all a government conspericy to keep the TRUTH from us.

I work for the government too, and I know they're not that competent. ; )

-- Kat

[Tirdun]

The world is neither flat nor a solid globe, you simple minded dolts. Its a hollow sphere and we're living on the inside of it. The ship sailing over the horizon is a bit of optical illusion.

[gnome]

Saw a marvelous "New Yorker" or "Punch" cartoon (can't recall which) that shows the first American astronauts in space, looking back at Earth, which is obviously flat. They radio: "Er... Houston, we're not exactly sure how to tell you this..."

[strathmeyer]

The ship sailing over the horizon is a bit of optical illusion.

Obviously, since light is bent by gravity.

[Dark Jaguar]

He claims that the shadow over the moon isn't the Earth's during a lunar eclipse by saying that during a SOLAR eclipse there have been sitings of the moon? First of all, wrong eclipse. I'm not sure anyone ever claimed that solar eclipses were light from the moon being blocked by the earth :D. Second of all, what sitings are these and how well documented are they? Are they just hearsay or has he actually compiled a well constructed series of observations confirmed by many others in their own observations? (So yeah, it's something with no evidence that wouldn't disprove the claim of what causes lunar eclipses even if it was so.)

And the ship's mast over the horizon is just a matter of perspective? What manner of perspective causes something to slowly drift down below the horizon? It wasn't a claim to see ships "shrinking into the distance", so comparisons of watching someone shrink until you can't see them aren't exactly the same. And, this is easily refuted anyway because you can use a telescope to make that distant thing look big again, so long as they aren't being obstructed by a chunk of the ocean being in the way mind you :D.

And his other refutation? The different constellations in different places being that the lowest glass layer is simply too close? Well, I seem to recall a LOT OF ASTRONOMERS making a number of observations that makes the sheer movements required of these domes ridiculous. Besides that, if that were the case there would be a lot of paralax scrolling observations, wouldn't there? People travelling by night seeing the low one slowly move past the higher one and the stars drifting by each other in that fasion? This is a claim he just made up on the spot (duh), but if he actually HAD decided to do a detailed study and actually observe such paralax action in the sky he would have some evidence. (The other evidence being throwing a large rock at it and seeing if it cracks, though if it did untold horrors from the void would surely engulf the Earth in everlasting darkness.)

And his little idea of the sun being on "one side" of the disk and running around in circles seems to assume "light can only go so far". Night wouldn't be so night-y if that was the case. We'd see the sun "way over thar" on the other side of the disk. It may be dimmer, but with all that light I don't think such a small distance as the other side of the disk would be nearly enough to make it NIGHT with the sun completely looking like it went below the horizon like that.

And the moon it's own light? What, is it only half lit up? That's a pretty strange satellite to have, and what exactly is causing eclipses if not that? I'd toss the "Earth is never an oval shadow or some other shape, always a circle over the moon" argument at him, but he doesn't seem to believe the earth causes the shadow over the moon.

That was a fun bit of reading, and a lot of it really reminded me of today's nutters (especially the whole bit about how "parrot like" the teachers in schools are and how he's a free thinker, which is true, thought is MUCH more free when annoying things like reason and a requirement for evidence are abandoned). At any rate, his ideas lack evidence, and too often, a lack of things as simple as logical consistancy (that eclipse thing is inpenetrable for me). Very entertaining!

Certainly I hope that others reading might no longer accuse me or other skeptics of answering "angrily", as I have no reason to be mad at someone most likely dead by now for ideas that are little more than a history lesson at this point anyway.

Sadly though, I realize that there ARE flat earthers out there. Taking them into space is out of the question, but perhaps all these people should be taken to some especially flat place like, I dunno, those salt flats in "Statesoda" USA?