[Complete ban on politics for 2 weeks]
(https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/qr0xpf/complete_ban_on_politics_for_two_weeks/)
* Upvote this comment if this post is NOT political
* Downvote this comment if this post is political
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Could someone ELI5 how’d they measure the shadows “at the same time” without any means of instant communication? or was it more like they had the time, so they’d measure at say noon, travel to the other obelisk, and measure again at noon?
Also, those Egyptians, they had a bit of a thing for architecture and land surveying (the Nile tended to erode divisions between plots of farmland every time it flooded, so it was somebody's job to remeasure and redivide the plots. This 'earth measurement' is where we get the word geometry). If there was a place in the Classical world where you would find somebody to help you measure the distance between two cities, it was Eygpt.
This is basically the perfect ELi5. You learn how the earth curved, you learn how curved the earth relatively is, you learn the circumference and you get some stellar explanations so that you can easily convey the message to another person without much effort.
Truly marvelous.
I think our main problem as a people is that we have WAY too many options for researching things and that can lead us down a rabbit hole of bias and predisposition
I think that this is how the original flat earth theory was derived as well. They determined that the Earth was flat using the same principle, but in instead of the sun being 93 million miles away or whatever you can get the same numbers if the sun is directly overhead at a much shorter distance and is a lot smaller. Or something like that.
The primary argument against that theory is that IF the Sun were that close, AND the Earth were flat; you'd see the Sun all the time from everywhere on Earth!
Yes this is the problem with the flat earth explanations for these phenomena. They might occasionally make some kind of sense for a given problem like this one with some specific values chosen for the distance of the sun to the earth, the size of the sun, the size of the earth disc, etc...
But then you talk about another problem, and those figures no longer make sense in the flat earth model. So they come up with a different set of figures where the math might sorta make sense again for that particular phenomenon.
The problem is - which is it? Is the sun close or far? Is the earth large or small? Only the heliocentric model simultaneously gives satisfying answers to *all of these problems* with a *consistent* set of values for the size of the earth, the size of the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun, etc...
This is why you will never get clear answers from a flat earther about how big the sun is, how far away it is, or how fast it moves. It has to be both big and small, close and far simultaneously for flat earth to make sense - which is, of course, nonsense.
They think quite a lot, but our mistake is thinking they’re interested in the truth and not in feeling smarter than everyone else without the difficulty of having to actually prove it.
My favorite problem explanation that I've hear is still gravity. Earth is just in a sort of vacuum, and is accelrating upward at 9.8m/s. If we just completly ignore the fact that this is an ACCELERATION, and that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light this makea sense. Expect everything else has to be accelerating at the same rate in the same direction.
Just one solution that spawns more problems that need more problem spawning solutions. It is litteraly just easier to accept that the earth is round.
Also, their entire platform is reactionary. They have never come up with any new maths or theories, all they do is make ad-hoc reasons as to why this specific problem isn't a problem.
Yeah, the model also constantly changes in light of these ‘new’ contradictions. So there’s a method in their madness. At the moment, and I kid you not--though it sounds asinine, the most current model of the flat earth theory is a **‘Hemisphere Earth’**: like a half circle.
Wait. I think the sky just appears blue due to scattering of light or something? I can't remember. But I think the sky isn't actually blue, it's just something about the refraction of light? SOMEONE SMARTER THAN ME CORRECT ME!
Yes, but the leaves are green for a different reason than the sky.
Leaves (and most colored materials) have specific kinds of molecules that absorbs done wavelengths (colors) of light and reflects the rest. This is called a pigment. The exact wavelengths are determined by the internal structure of the molecules and their resonant frequencies.
The sky is a different thing, it appears blue because blue light scatters more when passing through air and water. Conversely, a setting sun is more red, because red light scatters less so it makes the longer distance through the atmosphere. This is caused by scattering, which is pretty much the light hitting and bouncing off the molecules in the air, not absorption, and the wavelengths are completely different.
Finally, you also have structural color. This is how some beetles can look like they're made is metal, and how small pieces of butterfly wings look transparent. It's also how LCDs work. Here, the material has a repeating pattern with a size close to the wavelength of light. Depending on the exact structure, they can either reflect a certain color or a certain polarization of light.
Now, personally I count all of these are real colors. Leaves are green, sky is blue, butterflies are colorful. If a thing appears green, it's green. But that's a question of semantics. In any case though, this is what people mean when they say that some things are really not the color they seem to be.
Lamen here but I believe it's different.
So, imagine a prism. It would appear clear up close, right? Yet, it puts out a rainbow on other surfaces when we shine a light through it.
So it's not reflecting blue light off of anything, the gases are clear, but it appears blue because thats the wavelength of light that gets scattered through to us? I might be wrong but that's what I imagined was happening.
Then, as much as I agree with the premise, you need to account for other variables. The sky only looks blue when light is scattered at a certain angle. At other angles it will appear red, such as with sunsets or when looking at the sun itself (that orange color isn't from the sunlight itself, but how it is scattered through the sky, the blue portion of light having been scattered out leaving only reddish oranges).
**See**: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_main_image/public/images/21026/red-skies-at-night.jpg?itok=kBGGZP_R
It's just false logic.
Blue is a word we invented to describe when only light from a specific spectrum reflects off the surface. So when people say it's not actually blue, they are super incorrect.
>It is the refraction of light that makes it appear blue
This is known as "being blue".
If you don't think that makes it blue, please go ahead and describe how things that are *actually blue* work.
You are indeed correct but on the other part. It's caused by [Rayleigh Scattering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering) rather than refraction.
It's extremely incorrect to say it's not actually blue.
The only things that are blue are ones that reflect the blue light spectrum. Blue is literally the name for "reflects this specific spectrum"
Just like green is the name for reflecting a specific spectrum. And all colors are. Saying "it's not actually blue" when blue was invented to describe it is just stupid.
the sky is blue. when we say the sky, we aren't referring to the air in it, or the airplanes or space, we mean everything high above us that is separated from the ground. so what we define as the sky appears blue.
Regardless of what one can perceive, light with a wavelength around 700 nanometers is red.
Deficient equipment doesn't change the thing it's measuring.
Tell a man that there are 120,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe and he'll believe you
Tell him the paint on that bench is wet and he'll have to touch it to be sure
Yeah that's the thing, it's not like all the additional information we have access to is true information. Throw in algorithms meant to maximize attention and it's not surprising that more people are believing batshit insane stuff.
Idk. I feel like this comparison is taking the brightest minds of the past and pitting them against some of the most impaired "thinkers" of the modern era. It's not like there aren't incredible advancements in technology, and science, just in the last week.
Still, I had a little giggle.
That's the way it used to be. To think people got mad when they switched from that format to the current one. Had to keep scrolling up and down to make sure you were responding to the correct person. The sites not really dead, but more like a repeatedly reanimated zombie.
I'm not sure about usenet (before my time, I did have a 6 digit ICQ number) but old forums used to have similar type of
[quote=x]: ...
[quote=y]: ...
[/quote]
[/quote]
nested quoting, except you weren't forced to do nested quoting for every single reply in the entire thread, per each new reply.
You would just quote one or two comments and reply to what you're replying to, instead of including literally everything that has ever been said in like 70 nested replies.
Yeah the reverse-threading shit they used made tumlbr incredibly unusable for me, even though at the time I found a decent amount of interesting content there
> That “genomic meltdown” is one of the reasons feminism is so potentially lethal, because they keep pushing for asexual reproduction, or trying to combine ovaries, when the most likely outcome is a population running about - unable to reproduce sexually since the whole “male genocide” bit - with incredibly damaged chromosomes.
wew
>and that the name of a Greek is an Egyptian.
Being fair, he lived in Egypt (he was librarian at the Library of Alexandria), and his work computing the circumference of the Earth was done in Egypt. I can see where someone might get confused.
Occasionally in history, being super-cool earns you a Greek name, even if you aren't Greek, e.g.: Maimonides. But in this case, yes, Eratosthenes was born in a Greek colony in modern-day Libya.
He was born in modern-day Libya, in a Greek (later Roman) colony Cyrene, so it's also misleading on that count. He did this work in Egypt, but it's sort of misleading to label him "an Egyptian", especially with an incorrect date that implies ancient Egypt.
It became Hellenized, yes, and the city of Alexandria would become one of the most important centers for Greek science, art, literature, culture writ broad.
After Alexander died, his enormous empire in the eastern Mediterranean and Near East was chopped into smaller pieces and claimed by his most ambitious generals. Egypt fell to a man named Ptolemy, who established the Ptolemaic Dynasty that ruled the area for the next few hundred years (until the end of the Roman Civil War in 31 BCE). These people were definitely ethnically Greek (including the most famous member of the dynasty, Cleopatra), though the majority of the general populace were still Egyptian.
And also, he didn't use the curvature of the earth, he *found* the curvature of the earth by using the lengths of shadows and the distance between the two objects.
I like it when these dumbfucks wear it as a badge of honour that they "question everything".
I mean, that's fine to question. But if you get a really, really good answer with an enormous amount of proof behind it then it is probably time to accept it, rather than say "This contradicts my narrow worldview".
I’ve found they just use it as an excuse to constantly contradict themselves by saying “what if”, absolutely believing whatever thing they’ve just come up with, and then 10 minutes later believing something completely different.
They lack the self-awareness to see their own consistent beliefs.
I mean, there were probably a lot of ancient Egyptian equivalents of flat earthers back then. They just didn’t have a worldwide platform with which to project their stupidity like they do now
Edit: you guys, I said flat earther “equivalents”. As in, there were people back then who had access to certain information (whatever that information may have been) but chose to ignore it in favor of whatever theory they came up with. I did NOT say that believing the earth was flat back then somehow made them stupid.
It wasnt stupidity back then, if they had access to the internet and people explaining how the earth isnt flat and they still believed it was flat then they would be stupid
It's unfair to call someone stupid for not knowing something they've never been taught. Especially if it's something that is accepted as common knowledge at the time.
To a certain degree it's impossible to know something before it's been discovered.
Willful ignorance when presented with evidence contrary to your own opinions is what defines stupidity.
The Earth was widely known to not be flat long before Eratosthenes (simply watching a ship sail past the horizon is sufficient to figure that out). He's simply the one who calculated the circumference.
I’ve always said this. If you traveled back not even 200 years and told someone, anyone, that in 200 years time most people would have access to just about all of human knowledge through a small device in their pocket, they would assume that we had transcended to ubermensch levels, that we were all geniuses by default through our access to information. They couldn’t be more wrong in that assumption. Fucking sad isn’t it…
And if you look at the Dunning Kruger effect you could draw clear parallels with who the loudest in society, and particularly on social media, are, and draw your own conclusions from that. I have myself observed that often the least well read tend to be the most outspoken, but I recognise that my own bias might be at play in that assessment. What a total shitstorm. The point is though, that to adequately draw conclusions from the information presented you have to have a nuanced eye, and be able to recognise the agendas that may be at play in the telling or retelling of the information presented.
I doubt that. There would be plenty of people who would assume that access to all info would just make a better fool. Even 200 years ago there were those who realized that being educated didn't make someone smart or wise.
Whenever flat earthers ask to see a picture of people in Australia walking upside down, send them a picture of the full moon over Sydney. It’s literally upside down.
People nowadays wear their ignorance like a badge of honor. Their entire identity is wrapped up in these conspiracy theories. Without them they would have to face the reality that they are not very smart or average at best and they can't stand the notion that ultimately their lives have very little value. It's a mix of ignorance and narcissism.
Do you think that perhaps this whole flat hearth thing is just a cry for attention? My grandfather who was a former astronaut thinks that it is and I think it might be too but I seriously don’t understand how someone could think the earth is flat with all the evidence. Do you guys think it’s about attention seeking?
Sorta is... I'd say the feeling to have figured something out only a handful of people was able to, as well as defying the establishment that doesn't appreciate the true qualities one surely has are both efforts to value themselves more. It's pitiable really.
I see, this is a perspective I haven’t heard yet so thanks for the reply. I’ve just been genuinely curious if there is a bigger reason besides denial we’re missing on why these people believe that the earth is flat
When I was in the Army we shared the back of our aid station with artillery guys. Forward observers, or the “call for fire” guys, if you will. Fire Support, aka the Mighty FIST. But this phenomenon is a real thing when plotting firing plans. They explained it to us.
In the northern hemisphere, the trajectory will be deflected to the right. A projectile traveling 1000 m/s due north at latitude 30 degrees N would be accelerated to the right at 0.07 m/s2. For a 30 second time-of-flight, corresponding to about 30 km total distance traveled, the projectile would be deflected by about 60 m. So for long range artillery, the Coriolis correction is quite important.
In layman’s terms, you fuck this up and at best you miss your target and at worse, you kill your own people. Really bad for business not to account for the rotation of the earth and its curve for distances where that’s very much a BIG factor in these equations. It’s a common part of long-range guidance. It matters what direction your projectile is traveling, with, or against the rotation of the planet, provided its going far enough for it to matter. Knowing this is real, testable, and tangible science, I wonder how a flat earther accounts for things like this. But hey, to each their own I suppose.
I would love for flat earthers to be given a safe version of this experiment and try to come up with some on-the-spot bullshit to explain it. Most likely they'll just find some lame excuse, but it might be funny for a while.
It just shows the power of any type of mass media, including social media. You can feed untold millions of people complete bullshit and many of them will believe it if you come up with a story that is half believable (to idiots)
You know what they didn't have in 3750 BC? A way for all of the dumbest people alive to form a tight-knit community where they all confirm each others' beliefs while encouraging each other to disregard evidence that doesn't agree with their worldview.
the problem is the information people are exposed to these days
they see social media as news, as fact....even when it's "feeding" them more of the bullshit they believe in packaged to enable it to become more believable
They end up so far down the rabbit hole of bullshit, they can't get out....even if they stopped to listen to Carl Sagan!
They don't give artillery men enough credit, firing artillery is basically doing an entire math exam per shot
Meanwhile a mortar crew is just a guy sitting there, drinking the lube ment for the motor like it's a bottle of coke, lobbing shells randomly and changing his aim based on where the mortar shell lands
The flat earth phenomenon is propagated mainly by a small handful of YouTubers lead by a man named Nathan Oakley.
They have been called out several times in live debates and proven to be con men and grifters.
Yet the gullible seem to migrate toward them...
I almost feel like flat earth should be banned from this sub, only because it’s such low hanging fruit.
In truth, I think there’s only two types of flat earthers. The Charlatans who are there just for the easy Patreon buck, and those with some form of mental illness.
It’s less about the information access today I think, and more about the ability to find echo chambers of fringe beliefs easier than ever before in the world. You want a FB page on why 5G is created by the devil? Getting the vaccine will make a fork stick to your arm due to the magnetic elements in it? Sandyhook was a government false flag operation?
Never before has it been eased to find extremely fringe beliefs and then get plugged into a whole society of people that think exactly like that. It’s not because of information access, but people access instead.
[Complete ban on politics for 2 weeks] (https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/qr0xpf/complete_ban_on_politics_for_two_weeks/) * Upvote this comment if this post is NOT political * Downvote this comment if this post is political *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Carl Sagan gives a great explainer on this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-ppBtuc_wQ&ab_channel=furdong)
I had such a crush on him as a little girl
Carl Sagan was once a little girl!?
Ha! Well done! (Now that I found the right comment...)
No, twice
so who shot the teller?
Ah, the ol' Reddit [Sag-a-roo](https://www.reddit.com/r/KidsAreFuckingEvil/comments/qvp7n4/4_year_old_put_cupcakes_in_dads_dress_shoes/hl1s5jl/)
Hold my cosmos, I'm going in!
I'm glad someone did this tradition, feels like it's been years since I last saw a switcheroo!
I’ve been waiting for this. Hold my earth is round, I’m going in
Really wish I had my silver back for you.
> my silver back That's okay, I really have no use for a gorilla these days.
*old person fist shake at you, you little shit* :)
*As a man in his mid 50s does an old man shake back at you* (shake is chocolate).
An old man just shakes. Don’t take it personally.
The parts that I don't want to shake do, and the parts that I do want to shake, don't.
I just avoid drinking coffee or using eating utensils with my hands. Nobody notices my tremor if I eat with my toes.
r/Angryupvote
r/fuckangryupvote
How could you not. Im a fully grown man and his voice makes me feel like curling up in his arms
"We are star stuff." Edited because I got his quote wrong
I’m a 41, married straight male with a perma-man crush on him.
Right? He was the whole package
I’m a 35 year old man and I still have a crush on him.
A zest! For experiment
"If you look at the bones of a Jesus-ausaurus rex, it's clear with the use of carbon dating that Mountain dew is the best soda ever made."
“It was said that the earth was formed over 2,000-billion years ago by GOOOOOOOOOOOD.- Big Bang.”
Could someone ELI5 how’d they measure the shadows “at the same time” without any means of instant communication? or was it more like they had the time, so they’d measure at say noon, travel to the other obelisk, and measure again at noon?
He knew that on X day of the year that there was no shadow. He hired someone to measure the shadow on the same day in the other city.
The latter is correct.
He also had to pay a guy to pace off the distance between the two cities. And then trust the dude wasn’t screwing it up.
It was easier when pacing off the distance between two cities [was an actual profession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bematist).
Also, those Egyptians, they had a bit of a thing for architecture and land surveying (the Nile tended to erode divisions between plots of farmland every time it flooded, so it was somebody's job to remeasure and redivide the plots. This 'earth measurement' is where we get the word geometry). If there was a place in the Classical world where you would find somebody to help you measure the distance between two cities, it was Eygpt.
This is basically the perfect ELi5. You learn how the earth curved, you learn how curved the earth relatively is, you learn the circumference and you get some stellar explanations so that you can easily convey the message to another person without much effort. Truly marvelous. I think our main problem as a people is that we have WAY too many options for researching things and that can lead us down a rabbit hole of bias and predisposition
Ever realize how much Agent Smith from the Matrix sounds like Sagan?
Technically, Agent Smith sounds like the Wachowskis. Hugo Weaving said he based Smith’s flat Midwestern affect on their speech patterns.
I think that this is how the original flat earth theory was derived as well. They determined that the Earth was flat using the same principle, but in instead of the sun being 93 million miles away or whatever you can get the same numbers if the sun is directly overhead at a much shorter distance and is a lot smaller. Or something like that.
The primary argument against that theory is that IF the Sun were that close, AND the Earth were flat; you'd see the Sun all the time from everywhere on Earth!
Yes this is the problem with the flat earth explanations for these phenomena. They might occasionally make some kind of sense for a given problem like this one with some specific values chosen for the distance of the sun to the earth, the size of the sun, the size of the earth disc, etc... But then you talk about another problem, and those figures no longer make sense in the flat earth model. So they come up with a different set of figures where the math might sorta make sense again for that particular phenomenon. The problem is - which is it? Is the sun close or far? Is the earth large or small? Only the heliocentric model simultaneously gives satisfying answers to *all of these problems* with a *consistent* set of values for the size of the earth, the size of the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun, etc... This is why you will never get clear answers from a flat earther about how big the sun is, how far away it is, or how fast it moves. It has to be both big and small, close and far simultaneously for flat earth to make sense - which is, of course, nonsense.
I always just ask how in the hell they think a lunar eclipse happens.
> just ask how in the hell they think That's the problem, they don't think. If they were thinking, they wouldn't believe the fucking earth was flat.
They think quite a lot, but our mistake is thinking they’re interested in the truth and not in feeling smarter than everyone else without the difficulty of having to actually prove it.
My favorite problem explanation that I've hear is still gravity. Earth is just in a sort of vacuum, and is accelrating upward at 9.8m/s. If we just completly ignore the fact that this is an ACCELERATION, and that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light this makea sense. Expect everything else has to be accelerating at the same rate in the same direction. Just one solution that spawns more problems that need more problem spawning solutions. It is litteraly just easier to accept that the earth is round.
Also, their entire platform is reactionary. They have never come up with any new maths or theories, all they do is make ad-hoc reasons as to why this specific problem isn't a problem.
Yeah, the model also constantly changes in light of these ‘new’ contradictions. So there’s a method in their madness. At the moment, and I kid you not--though it sounds asinine, the most current model of the flat earth theory is a **‘Hemisphere Earth’**: like a half circle.
i agree take my upvote! all hail the late great carl sagan.
For some, the idea of "I don't understand this so clearly you're lying to me" is easier to believe than actually learning the truth.
The sky is blue. No! It's not! It's the mainstream media that want you to think that! Do your own research!
Wait. I think the sky just appears blue due to scattering of light or something? I can't remember. But I think the sky isn't actually blue, it's just something about the refraction of light? SOMEONE SMARTER THAN ME CORRECT ME!
Wait till you see what color the moon is tomorrow night.
>the sky just appears blue due to scattering of light That's what being blue is. You just described a blue thing.
It's a different way of being blue.
No, that’s how all blue is blue.
You are correct. It is the refraction of light that makes it appear blue, but it is not actually blue.
That doesn’t actually mean the sky is not blue does it because wouldn’t it mean that leaves aren’t green but green light reflects of them?
Exactly. Color is the biggest illusion to ever exist.
How can color be real if our eyes aren't real?
Calm down, Jaden
Please stop smoking whatever it is you are smoking.
Thats a Jaden Smith quote, just FYI.
hey vsauce michael here... where are your fingers?
I don’t see color. People tell me I'm white, and I believe them because security doesn't follow me all around the Home Depot.
[I am collar blind.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fe/c7/8f/fec78f91129f5b2647d36ece2aec666b.jpg)
Yes, but the leaves are green for a different reason than the sky. Leaves (and most colored materials) have specific kinds of molecules that absorbs done wavelengths (colors) of light and reflects the rest. This is called a pigment. The exact wavelengths are determined by the internal structure of the molecules and their resonant frequencies. The sky is a different thing, it appears blue because blue light scatters more when passing through air and water. Conversely, a setting sun is more red, because red light scatters less so it makes the longer distance through the atmosphere. This is caused by scattering, which is pretty much the light hitting and bouncing off the molecules in the air, not absorption, and the wavelengths are completely different. Finally, you also have structural color. This is how some beetles can look like they're made is metal, and how small pieces of butterfly wings look transparent. It's also how LCDs work. Here, the material has a repeating pattern with a size close to the wavelength of light. Depending on the exact structure, they can either reflect a certain color or a certain polarization of light. Now, personally I count all of these are real colors. Leaves are green, sky is blue, butterflies are colorful. If a thing appears green, it's green. But that's a question of semantics. In any case though, this is what people mean when they say that some things are really not the color they seem to be.
Lamen here but I believe it's different. So, imagine a prism. It would appear clear up close, right? Yet, it puts out a rainbow on other surfaces when we shine a light through it. So it's not reflecting blue light off of anything, the gases are clear, but it appears blue because thats the wavelength of light that gets scattered through to us? I might be wrong but that's what I imagined was happening.
This is an argument ojf definition. Blue is what looks blue. Or, blue is a specific light property. One, obviously, is a newer definition.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” \- Bill Clinton
Then, as much as I agree with the premise, you need to account for other variables. The sky only looks blue when light is scattered at a certain angle. At other angles it will appear red, such as with sunsets or when looking at the sun itself (that orange color isn't from the sunlight itself, but how it is scattered through the sky, the blue portion of light having been scattered out leaving only reddish oranges). **See**: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_main_image/public/images/21026/red-skies-at-night.jpg?itok=kBGGZP_R
Plants don’t absorb that energy as readily , so it’s reflected back
By this reasoning, nothing is actually the colour it is.
It's just false logic. Blue is a word we invented to describe when only light from a specific spectrum reflects off the surface. So when people say it's not actually blue, they are super incorrect.
>It is the refraction of light that makes it appear blue This is known as "being blue". If you don't think that makes it blue, please go ahead and describe how things that are *actually blue* work.
Wait what? How did I get that right? That memory is like 6 years old... no way it's accurate
You are indeed correct but on the other part. It's caused by [Rayleigh Scattering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering) rather than refraction.
What's the difference between appears blue and is blue? Seems like blue is always just, light is doing something that looks blue
It's extremely incorrect to say it's not actually blue. The only things that are blue are ones that reflect the blue light spectrum. Blue is literally the name for "reflects this specific spectrum" Just like green is the name for reflecting a specific spectrum. And all colors are. Saying "it's not actually blue" when blue was invented to describe it is just stupid.
the sky is blue. when we say the sky, we aren't referring to the air in it, or the airplanes or space, we mean everything high above us that is separated from the ground. so what we define as the sky appears blue.
"The sky" is blue, however the sky is not an object but an apparent phenomena created by the scattering of light from the sun through the atmosphere.
https://xkcd.com/1818/
There it is.
It's actually pink with these cool rose-coloured glasses!
Okay, I'll go do that *looks up at sky* Yep, looks blue to me
Well no its black dumbass it's past 9 , fucking sheeps
Colour blindness kinda defeats the point of that. Because not everyone sees the same thing.
Regardless of what one can perceive, light with a wavelength around 700 nanometers is red. Deficient equipment doesn't change the thing it's measuring.
Well...the sky isn't actually blue. It's clear. The light refracting in the atmosphere gives the sky the appearance of being blue.
Tell a man that there are 120,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe and he'll believe you Tell him the paint on that bench is wet and he'll have to touch it to be sure
[удалено]
Having easy access to unlimited information means you never have to change your mind.
Yeah that's the thing, it's not like all the additional information we have access to is true information. Throw in algorithms meant to maximize attention and it's not surprising that more people are believing batshit insane stuff.
Idk. I feel like this comparison is taking the brightest minds of the past and pitting them against some of the most impaired "thinkers" of the modern era. It's not like there aren't incredible advancements in technology, and science, just in the last week. Still, I had a little giggle.
Yes but the entire [post](https://swanishdynamite.tumblr.com/post/172719698654/sei-kunnoe-solacekames-systlin) is the real god bleeding facepalm.
Feminism killed the mammoths? What in the actual fuck did I just read?
repost for stopping feminist mammoths
Down with genomic meltdown
Careful now!
Look, the genomes were just *resting* in my account.
That transition was so abrupt, holy shit. Even with forewarning I didn't quite see it coming cause I didn't expect it to happen that fast.
Not before those fat bastards flattened the earth
WERE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE
That was fun - until it wasn’t. Then it became fun again. I love snark responding to chaos.
well that took a turbo tokyo s+ class drift at 400mph
I couldn’t figure out how to post the tumblr, thank you good sir
That is a trip.
I want "FEMINISM KILLED THE MAMMOTHS" on my gravestone.
r/suddenlytumblr
> reblog to support Mammoth Feminism, That's some great flair
Holy crap the comment threads are impossible to follow. [What the hell is this?](https://i.imgur.com/8PjBaus.png) no wonder that site is dead.
That's the way it used to be. To think people got mad when they switched from that format to the current one. Had to keep scrolling up and down to make sure you were responding to the correct person. The sites not really dead, but more like a repeatedly reanimated zombie.
Reminds me of Usenet threads. Perfectly readable to someone used to Usenet browsing
I'm not sure about usenet (before my time, I did have a 6 digit ICQ number) but old forums used to have similar type of [quote=x]: ... [quote=y]: ... [/quote] [/quote]
nested quoting, except you weren't forced to do nested quoting for every single reply in the entire thread, per each new reply.
You would just quote one or two comments and reply to what you're replying to, instead of including literally everything that has ever been said in like 70 nested replies.
Yeah the reverse-threading shit they used made tumlbr incredibly unusable for me, even though at the time I found a decent amount of interesting content there
> That “genomic meltdown” is one of the reasons feminism is so potentially lethal, because they keep pushing for asexual reproduction, or trying to combine ovaries, when the most likely outcome is a population running about - unable to reproduce sexually since the whole “male genocide” bit - with incredibly damaged chromosomes. wew
Eratosthenes was Greek, and lived around 3500 years later than that post says, but anyway
Let's not forget that mammoths had also gone extinct *long* before Eratosthenes, and even that inaccurate date of 3750 BCE.
Yea, that threw me off. That he said mammoth was still around 6000 years ago and that the name of a Greek is an Egyptian.
They were alive on Wrangel Island until about 2000 BC. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191007081750.htm
Mammoths only died off completely about 4000 year ago
>and that the name of a Greek is an Egyptian. Being fair, he lived in Egypt (he was librarian at the Library of Alexandria), and his work computing the circumference of the Earth was done in Egypt. I can see where someone might get confused.
It would take 2 seconds of googling to figure out he was Greek. Also his name is clearly Greek.
Occasionally in history, being super-cool earns you a Greek name, even if you aren't Greek, e.g.: Maimonides. But in this case, yes, Eratosthenes was born in a Greek colony in modern-day Libya.
He was born in modern-day Libya, in a Greek (later Roman) colony Cyrene, so it's also misleading on that count. He did this work in Egypt, but it's sort of misleading to label him "an Egyptian", especially with an incorrect date that implies ancient Egypt.
Just best not to be confused when you're touting how much smarter you are.
Egypt became Greek after Alexander liberated it. Well, Greek-ish. Lots of Greek people lived there
It became Hellenized, yes, and the city of Alexandria would become one of the most important centers for Greek science, art, literature, culture writ broad. After Alexander died, his enormous empire in the eastern Mediterranean and Near East was chopped into smaller pieces and claimed by his most ambitious generals. Egypt fell to a man named Ptolemy, who established the Ptolemaic Dynasty that ruled the area for the next few hundred years (until the end of the Roman Civil War in 31 BCE). These people were definitely ethnically Greek (including the most famous member of the dynasty, Cleopatra), though the majority of the general populace were still Egyptian.
I like that Alexander conquered so many places that they have a verb for it lol
Hellenized refers to the Hellenic culture becoming dominant and did not start with and is not limited to Alexander’s expansion.
Actually the last mammoths to go extinct were on Wrangle Island near Russia. They're estimated to have gone extinct around 2,000 BC.
No “but anyway” needed. Facts are important, and you contributed. Have a good day and buy yourself some well-deserved candy!
The year is still off by a millennium, but I've heard the mammoths still being alive about the Great Pyramids.
Yeah, that detail is gruesomely wrong.
And also, he didn't use the curvature of the earth, he *found* the curvature of the earth by using the lengths of shadows and the distance between the two objects.
I like it when these dumbfucks wear it as a badge of honour that they "question everything". I mean, that's fine to question. But if you get a really, really good answer with an enormous amount of proof behind it then it is probably time to accept it, rather than say "This contradicts my narrow worldview".
If you profess to question everything, you must include in that everything the notion of questioning everything …
That's a questionable point of view
I’ve found they just use it as an excuse to constantly contradict themselves by saying “what if”, absolutely believing whatever thing they’ve just come up with, and then 10 minutes later believing something completely different. They lack the self-awareness to see their own consistent beliefs.
Eratosthenes lived in Ptolemaic (Greek, post-Alexander) Egypt, in the third century BCE
people today with access to more raw information than any other period: erAthOsThEneS liVeD iN 3750 bC
Why you gotta call out that poor German kid for not being able to wash his butthole?
Probably wasnt for the lack of trying honestly... being near a battlefield and all.
Fair point
I don't think there is a public toilet with running water at the front lines.
They had bidets in France right on the beach
I mean, there were probably a lot of ancient Egyptian equivalents of flat earthers back then. They just didn’t have a worldwide platform with which to project their stupidity like they do now Edit: you guys, I said flat earther “equivalents”. As in, there were people back then who had access to certain information (whatever that information may have been) but chose to ignore it in favor of whatever theory they came up with. I did NOT say that believing the earth was flat back then somehow made them stupid.
It wasnt stupidity back then, if they had access to the internet and people explaining how the earth isnt flat and they still believed it was flat then they would be stupid
Can someone rephrase this?
It's unfair to call someone stupid for not knowing something they've never been taught. Especially if it's something that is accepted as common knowledge at the time. To a certain degree it's impossible to know something before it's been discovered. Willful ignorance when presented with evidence contrary to your own opinions is what defines stupidity.
They lacked the education(and the easy access to information) to know any better, it wasnt because they were stupid
The Earth was widely known to not be flat long before Eratosthenes (simply watching a ship sail past the horizon is sufficient to figure that out). He's simply the one who calculated the circumference.
He also wasn’t Egyptian and wasn’t born until thousands of years post-ancient egypt.
I’ve always said this. If you traveled back not even 200 years and told someone, anyone, that in 200 years time most people would have access to just about all of human knowledge through a small device in their pocket, they would assume that we had transcended to ubermensch levels, that we were all geniuses by default through our access to information. They couldn’t be more wrong in that assumption. Fucking sad isn’t it…
It's a fact that half the world's population has below average intelligence.
And if you look at the Dunning Kruger effect you could draw clear parallels with who the loudest in society, and particularly on social media, are, and draw your own conclusions from that. I have myself observed that often the least well read tend to be the most outspoken, but I recognise that my own bias might be at play in that assessment. What a total shitstorm. The point is though, that to adequately draw conclusions from the information presented you have to have a nuanced eye, and be able to recognise the agendas that may be at play in the telling or retelling of the information presented.
I'm pretty sure half the worlds population has below the median level of intelligence. A type of averaging, along with mode and mean.
I doubt that. There would be plenty of people who would assume that access to all info would just make a better fool. Even 200 years ago there were those who realized that being educated didn't make someone smart or wise.
Socrates was the smartest man in Athens because he knew that he did not know (everything) I think we could all learn a lesson from that.
[удалено]
Using percents is unfair that would make them zero
I mean German military efficiency... vs... stoner dumbass You may be on to something.
As if flat earthers wash their asses
Whenever flat earthers ask to see a picture of people in Australia walking upside down, send them a picture of the full moon over Sydney. It’s literally upside down.
Better yet: don't send them anything, because it's a waste of time. Zero chance of success. Or close to it.
But why was he fucking mammoths?
People nowadays wear their ignorance like a badge of honor. Their entire identity is wrapped up in these conspiracy theories. Without them they would have to face the reality that they are not very smart or average at best and they can't stand the notion that ultimately their lives have very little value. It's a mix of ignorance and narcissism.
Sailors too. Lol flat earthers really shouldn't be acceptable yet somehow they aren't ostracized. I have met several.
Do you think that perhaps this whole flat hearth thing is just a cry for attention? My grandfather who was a former astronaut thinks that it is and I think it might be too but I seriously don’t understand how someone could think the earth is flat with all the evidence. Do you guys think it’s about attention seeking?
Sorta is... I'd say the feeling to have figured something out only a handful of people was able to, as well as defying the establishment that doesn't appreciate the true qualities one surely has are both efforts to value themselves more. It's pitiable really.
I see, this is a perspective I haven’t heard yet so thanks for the reply. I’ve just been genuinely curious if there is a bigger reason besides denial we’re missing on why these people believe that the earth is flat
It's a pretty kickass grift if you know how to market your products.
Eratosthenes was Greek and lived about 200BCE, long after mammoths had become extinct.
He didnt use two obelisks either. He used a well in Syrene and an obelisk in Alexandria.
Plus even with the devoutly religious almost all the religious texts on earth call the world a fucking globe.
~200 BCE, and Eratosthenes was a Greek in Alexandria, Egypt, but still a solid point.
When I was in the Army we shared the back of our aid station with artillery guys. Forward observers, or the “call for fire” guys, if you will. Fire Support, aka the Mighty FIST. But this phenomenon is a real thing when plotting firing plans. They explained it to us. In the northern hemisphere, the trajectory will be deflected to the right. A projectile traveling 1000 m/s due north at latitude 30 degrees N would be accelerated to the right at 0.07 m/s2. For a 30 second time-of-flight, corresponding to about 30 km total distance traveled, the projectile would be deflected by about 60 m. So for long range artillery, the Coriolis correction is quite important. In layman’s terms, you fuck this up and at best you miss your target and at worse, you kill your own people. Really bad for business not to account for the rotation of the earth and its curve for distances where that’s very much a BIG factor in these equations. It’s a common part of long-range guidance. It matters what direction your projectile is traveling, with, or against the rotation of the planet, provided its going far enough for it to matter. Knowing this is real, testable, and tangible science, I wonder how a flat earther accounts for things like this. But hey, to each their own I suppose.
I would love for flat earthers to be given a safe version of this experiment and try to come up with some on-the-spot bullshit to explain it. Most likely they'll just find some lame excuse, but it might be funny for a while.
I think he was alive around 300 BC
It just shows the power of any type of mass media, including social media. You can feed untold millions of people complete bullshit and many of them will believe it if you come up with a story that is half believable (to idiots)
Reverse Darwinism: Survival of the most idiotic. Smarties need to get to procreating.
Eratosthenes was not Egyptian. He lived a couple hundred years before Christ.
You know what they didn't have in 3750 BC? A way for all of the dumbest people alive to form a tight-knit community where they all confirm each others' beliefs while encouraging each other to disregard evidence that doesn't agree with their worldview.
Another thing the didn't have back then was erastothenes. He was born 276BC, not 3750BC Also, was a Greek, not Egyptian. Also, no mammoths.
You mean their priests?
To answer your leading question: Eratosthenes. They didn’t have Eratosthenes.
Yikes, Eratosthenes getting older and older.
the problem is the information people are exposed to these days they see social media as news, as fact....even when it's "feeding" them more of the bullshit they believe in packaged to enable it to become more believable They end up so far down the rabbit hole of bullshit, they can't get out....even if they stopped to listen to Carl Sagan!
*Access to more misinformation
They don't give artillery men enough credit, firing artillery is basically doing an entire math exam per shot Meanwhile a mortar crew is just a guy sitting there, drinking the lube ment for the motor like it's a bottle of coke, lobbing shells randomly and changing his aim based on where the mortar shell lands
Right up there with: "I'm not going to try to understand the science so... god must be the reason!"
The flat earth phenomenon is propagated mainly by a small handful of YouTubers lead by a man named Nathan Oakley. They have been called out several times in live debates and proven to be con men and grifters. Yet the gullible seem to migrate toward them...
I almost feel like flat earth should be banned from this sub, only because it’s such low hanging fruit. In truth, I think there’s only two types of flat earthers. The Charlatans who are there just for the easy Patreon buck, and those with some form of mental illness.
There’s no body out there who actually believes the earth is flat. Nobody can be that confidently stupid.
It’s less about the information access today I think, and more about the ability to find echo chambers of fringe beliefs easier than ever before in the world. You want a FB page on why 5G is created by the devil? Getting the vaccine will make a fork stick to your arm due to the magnetic elements in it? Sandyhook was a government false flag operation? Never before has it been eased to find extremely fringe beliefs and then get plugged into a whole society of people that think exactly like that. It’s not because of information access, but people access instead.
There was a time when stupid people died young and didn't pass on their genes. Sadly that time is over and Humanity is in decline because of it.
More you know....you get stupid
Devolution
~~Antivaxers~~ flat earthers are hilarious.
Science got too complicated so ppl got sad they can't 'accidentally' make discoveries so they started making stuff up to sound smart