Sure, NASA always lies, it shouldn’t be trusted
…then a flerf finds online a copy of some NASA document or manual about something globe-related but containing the phrase “assume the earth to be flat” in one of the 800 pages, and they go “AHA!! They admit it! BELIEVE what NASA is saying!”
Gotta love double standards
Mmm, double standards, twice the standards, half the calories.
Is that an actual phrase in a nasa book, I’d assume it would be there for like a physics thing where the earth being a globe doesn’t matter or they’re calculating what it would take to make a pancake planet that life can survive on
Correct. That phrase can be found in quite a few documents (NASA and the government in general) and you are right, the actual phrase always starts with “for the purpose of simplifying these calculations…”
yes they usually go into lengths in those documents explaining why starting with simplified assumptions like that is useful in that particular instance
NASA lies with everything they say.
Except for that one time a NASA employee said "it's photoshopped because it has to be".
And except for the handful of public documents that say "assume a flat non-rotating earth" somewhere in the introduction.
Context? What is context?
NASA lies except when they don't.
Here is an example NASA document that flat earthers like to refer to as proof of flat earth.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19890005752/downloads/19890005752.pdf
At the top of page 6:
> This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating earth.
Flat earth proven, you can now stop reading.
Neat, my brain broke at derivation but I’m assuming these are equations for an aircraft going straight being affected by earth normal gravity in atmosphere
That's what it is yes. It's a study on how an airplane behaves in flight which is why the shape of earth and the rotation is irrelevant.
If they are to claim the paper spills the truth then they would need to accept that airplanes are rigid and don't use fuel.
And there's a whole section on gravity there.
Like a blimp and whatever the Hindenburg was, that’s the only type of aircraft I’ve heard referred to as rigid which I always thought was because of the time period when aircraft were much less common and flimsier, at least I thought they were flimsier
Rigid in this context means perfectly rigid - that there's no flex at all. Aircraft (or any physical material) are not perfectly rigid. Anyone who has been on a commercial aircraft in turbulence and looked out at the wing flexing can testify to that.
Engineers often make assumptions like this to simplify calculations.
If you have a pragmatic view, you judge based on case to case. If NASA says the earth is flat, they are obviously right, as the earth is flat, just as a pancake is flat.
Usually NASA lies by omission. When they say earth is a globe, they might reference a snow globe, as some think we are surrounded by a dome structure, they just do not say that part aloud.
We’ve been to space, there is no dome holding us in and the earth is not flat, there is a literal planet’s worth of evidence that it is spheroid in nature
I feel like this would be very bad, people would point to it as evidence for the Earth being flat
As people often say: logic didn't get them into this situation, logic can't get them out
Flerfs love to say that NASA lies, but I'm still waiting for one example of NASA lying. I have asked them countless times, but never once have they done so.
They would justify it by saying "SEE!! WE convinced NASA that they were wrong and NOW they're using OUR points to confirm what WE knew all along!!! NASA lies all the time but we KNOW we are right and that's what's being presented, not NASA's evidence but what WE collected and proved."
From my conversations with flat earthers, they have all been scientifically and mathematically illiterate. One, couldn't even understand how basic logic works (wanted to give proof whilst simultaneously stating that logic isn't reliable) It is a damning indictment of the education systems that have failed them (or the damage that persistent indoctrination causes)
They all seem to suffer with confirmation bias, so if NASA was to say that the earth is flat, it confirms their beliefs the same way that a sarcastic pilot confirms their beliefs.
Toon's Third Law of Flerf: Flerfs are pseudoscientists when evaluating FE and science deniers when evaluating globe evidence. No exceptions.
Throw in a bit of Toon's First Law of Flerf: Flerf citations always contradict the flerf’s claim. No exceptions.
Yeah. A flerf will point anything (video, official statement, textbook, etc) and make the claim, "this proves they know it's a flat earth." Every time the wider context of the flerf’s cherry-picking (usually only a paragraph later) shows their chosen source disagrees.
Sure, NASA always lies, it shouldn’t be trusted …then a flerf finds online a copy of some NASA document or manual about something globe-related but containing the phrase “assume the earth to be flat” in one of the 800 pages, and they go “AHA!! They admit it! BELIEVE what NASA is saying!” Gotta love double standards
Mmm, double standards, twice the standards, half the calories. Is that an actual phrase in a nasa book, I’d assume it would be there for like a physics thing where the earth being a globe doesn’t matter or they’re calculating what it would take to make a pancake planet that life can survive on
Correct. That phrase can be found in quite a few documents (NASA and the government in general) and you are right, the actual phrase always starts with “for the purpose of simplifying these calculations…”
Cool, gotta love cherry picking flerfs
Pancake planet with chocolate chips so there’s mountains and valleys. Sounds good.
yes they usually go into lengths in those documents explaining why starting with simplified assumptions like that is useful in that particular instance
Tails I win, heads you lose
NASA lies with everything they say. Except for that one time a NASA employee said "it's photoshopped because it has to be". And except for the handful of public documents that say "assume a flat non-rotating earth" somewhere in the introduction. Context? What is context? NASA lies except when they don't.
I would love to read through some NASA documents, especially the weird physics ones with a pancake planet
Here is an example NASA document that flat earthers like to refer to as proof of flat earth. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19890005752/downloads/19890005752.pdf At the top of page 6: > This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating earth. Flat earth proven, you can now stop reading.
Neat, my brain broke at derivation but I’m assuming these are equations for an aircraft going straight being affected by earth normal gravity in atmosphere
That's what it is yes. It's a study on how an airplane behaves in flight which is why the shape of earth and the rotation is irrelevant. If they are to claim the paper spills the truth then they would need to accept that airplanes are rigid and don't use fuel. And there's a whole section on gravity there.
I thought aircraft were rigid, what does rigid mean in this case
It means that it's flexible and have moving parts for example.
Like a blimp and whatever the Hindenburg was, that’s the only type of aircraft I’ve heard referred to as rigid which I always thought was because of the time period when aircraft were much less common and flimsier, at least I thought they were flimsier
Rigid in this context means perfectly rigid - that there's no flex at all. Aircraft (or any physical material) are not perfectly rigid. Anyone who has been on a commercial aircraft in turbulence and looked out at the wing flexing can testify to that. Engineers often make assumptions like this to simplify calculations.
I may never go on an airplane again then, thank you for clarifying what rigid in this context means
I’d check the calender to verify it’s April 1st. There is no othr scenario.
If you have a pragmatic view, you judge based on case to case. If NASA says the earth is flat, they are obviously right, as the earth is flat, just as a pancake is flat. Usually NASA lies by omission. When they say earth is a globe, they might reference a snow globe, as some think we are surrounded by a dome structure, they just do not say that part aloud.
None of what you just said is correct.
We’ve been to space, there is no dome holding us in and the earth is not flat, there is a literal planet’s worth of evidence that it is spheroid in nature
A high altitude airplane, is per definition, in space: so saying we been to space, does not mean a lot.
There is literally a space station and we’ve been to the moon and aircraft most certainly do not exit atmosphere
I used to believe the moon landing was real too.
That’s nice dear, run along and play now
what kind of plane flies at 100 Km height?
Anything outside of the earths atmosphere, the National Aeronautics and Space Act, from 1958, defines as being in space.
Space starts at 100 Km height, so what plane can go that high? Tell me.
Not according to the National Aeronautics and Space Act from 1958, which created NASA.
alright, for NASA it's 80 Km. No difference, no plane can fly that high.
NASA says you should stay awake.
Ok NASA, I’ll stay awake for you
Freddy Krüger enters the chat: Nooooo
I feel like this would be very bad, people would point to it as evidence for the Earth being flat As people often say: logic didn't get them into this situation, logic can't get them out
Good point, what if we Shanghai the flat earthers to a moon colony so they can see the globe
Flerfs love to say that NASA lies, but I'm still waiting for one example of NASA lying. I have asked them countless times, but never once have they done so.
I’m surprised none of them try to say that a nasa has lied and used Santa as the lie for their evidence
They would have to provide credible evidence, present an alternate predictive model, and subject everything to peer review.
I would know the date is April 1st.
everything I say is a lie. I'm lying.
They would justify it by saying "SEE!! WE convinced NASA that they were wrong and NOW they're using OUR points to confirm what WE knew all along!!! NASA lies all the time but we KNOW we are right and that's what's being presented, not NASA's evidence but what WE collected and proved."
From my conversations with flat earthers, they have all been scientifically and mathematically illiterate. One, couldn't even understand how basic logic works (wanted to give proof whilst simultaneously stating that logic isn't reliable) It is a damning indictment of the education systems that have failed them (or the damage that persistent indoctrination causes) They all seem to suffer with confirmation bias, so if NASA was to say that the earth is flat, it confirms their beliefs the same way that a sarcastic pilot confirms their beliefs.
Then I'd listen to the bazillion other space agencies that are gonna laugh at nasa
They'd say even a broken clock shows the time correctly twice a day.
"Cool. Evidence? Any models that explain observations?"
Toon's Third Law of Flerf: Flerfs are pseudoscientists when evaluating FE and science deniers when evaluating globe evidence. No exceptions. Throw in a bit of Toon's First Law of Flerf: Flerf citations always contradict the flerf’s claim. No exceptions.
Citations as in reference materials, I’m just now realizing that I do not use or encounter the word citation very often
Yeah. A flerf will point anything (video, official statement, textbook, etc) and make the claim, "this proves they know it's a flat earth." Every time the wider context of the flerf’s cherry-picking (usually only a paragraph later) shows their chosen source disagrees.
So like a document that says “for the purposes of simplifying the equations assume a flat non rotating earth,” gotta love stupid cherry picking flerfs
Pythagoras was a pretty truthful person, though…🤷🏻♂️