Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/03/25/flat-earth-preaching-rocketeer.html
…
Hughes’s steam-powered death chair was able to carry him to a distance of 1,875 into the air
I can’t be the only one wondering 1,875 what into the air, right? Feet? Metres? Inches? Miles? Empire State Buildings? Light nano-seconds?
A window sea on any airline going almost anywhere would get him about 30,000 feet or higher. A lot cheaper than what I imagine he spent also.
Ah, but that’d involve untrustworthy science
The windows might be LCD panels or something to continue the epic planetary-level conspiracy of a round earth…
Kessel runs.
About 500 Ell I guess…
Coudn’t use a ‘scientific’ unit now, could he?
There are many ways to disprove the flat earth theory.
For example, we now have powerful telescopes capable of seeing great detail in the Moon.
If the Earth was flat, you should be able to use such a telescope to see, say, the Rocky Mountains from India or China, or Mount Everest from Hawaii.
Unless Flat-Earthers also believe the Moon is closer to Earth than Brazil is to Austrailia, they should realize that the fact that you cannot see the tallest mountains from anywhere on Earth, means that their arguments are silly, indeed.
The moon is only 3000 miles above the flat Earth.
We get so used to a carefully staged countdown ritual, it’s almost surreal to see a rocket launch with everyone looking the wrong way.
Quatloos. For the newcomers.
I knew there had to be flaws in my argument.
Most obviously:
- Stand on the beach.
- Wait for a sailing vessel to approach from offshore.
- Observe that the ship’s masts become visible before the hull does.
…which is why Earth-is-not-flat has been common knowledge for thousands of years. No complicated science or technology required.
Hull yeah!!
Oh, now THAT is an esoteric reference! RESPECT!
Ah, the so-called sinking ship effect. The flat Earth community has an explanation for that.
In fact, they have explanations for all of the obvious arguments. They are wrong, but they are not idiots, and have been producing books and articles on the subject for quite a long time, and the quality of the arguments in these writings is not terrible.
Will nobody else say it?
Hooray!
I must add, however, that I remain unconvinced. Maybe round-earth doctrine is just too stubborn.
Was actually the first thing I thought of when I first heard of this anti-science wing-nut.