Is flat earth stagnating? Or is that just a symptom of my having lost interest in it?
It seems like, going back a year or two, flat earthers were 'discovering' things and presenting 'proofs', and debunkers had lots to learn and get their heads around. The curvature calculators were embryonic. We didn't know how certain things work. There was tons to research and it was fun and educational. But now it seems like everything is known, on both sides, and nothing new is emerging.
Then there were the psychological aspects of it - and, probably like many, I initially went into it with the charming and naive belief that simply presenting evidence and facts would be enough for believers to see where they had gone wrong. It wasn't, of course, and nor was presenting even more and better and tailor-made facts and evidence, and that was a whole other journey in itself. I went through many stages - several of them recorded here - and now I seem to be at this place where I just don't care. It seems basically impossible to reason with a true-believin' flat earther, and the return on investment is poor.
I decided some months ago that it would be best if I just quit. But I don't find it easy to let go of such things, so I figured that making a video and presenting all I had learned on the subject - in a nice, sympathetic, straightforward way - would help make the break. I seem to be one of those guys who has to take his compulsions through to some sort of logical completion - or bitter end - before they're truly flushed from my system. So I began writing a script and making a start on the whole pain in the butt process - and then, as luck would have it, I came across a video that was 80%+ what I would have made myself:
It's a bit harsher than I would have done, and quite a bit longer - two and a half hours! - but basically encapsulates what I might have hoped to achieve, and is no doubt quite a bit better too. Don'tcha just love it when somebody else does the thing you've had an idea for, and saves you the hard work? And - even better than that - you get to see that all that hard work probably wouldn't have been worth it, and disbelievers and believers alike would have carried on much as before. I mean, good for this guy for doing that - and for other tireless debunkers such as
Sly Sparkane - but...I think I've got better things to do with my time than devoting the hours I have to attempting to fix others' wrong beliefs (so many others! so many wrong beliefs!).
It's really dawned on me in one-on-one conversations that, for those who want to believe in flat earth,
nothing actually gets through to them. Also, that even the most patently logical and simplest of experiments and pieces of evidence are actually way too complex for those whose brains are functioning in a way that has allowed something like flat earth to get in there in the first place. It's been staggering to try and get my head around that, but also completely useful - for I see now that many of the explanations that have been presented here and elsewhere are actually far beyond the comprehension levels of almost all flat earthers, including many who have been engaging in discussions on this site and appearing to at least have a basic understanding of the content, even if they disagree with the conclusions.
With this in mind, I've come to what I feel is something of a breakthrough - and that is to roll it right back and forget all about satellites and the ISS; forget about GPS and aeroplane and shipping routes; about angles and elevations and hidden amounts and refraction; the size and appearance of the sun and moon; orbits and planets and the impossibility of the disk and variances in the earth's gravitational field and mountains - for all that really matters is this:
External Quote:
Flat Earth 101 states that the horizon is always at eye level, and that this would only occur on a flat earth, whereas on a spherical earth the horizon would dip below eye level as the viewer's elevation increased. In general, however, evidence claiming to show that the horizon remains at eye level fails to include how this has been measured, even though there are several simple ways we can do this for ourselves. Here are six of the best:
1. Use a professional theodolite. Eye level is where the crosshair/zero degrees is:
2. Download and properly calibrate a theodolite app. Eye level as above:
3. Make your own theodolite using a spirit level:
www.metabunk.org/posts/204999
4. Use parallel lines to find the vanishing point (which is at eye level, and can easily be proven so):
www.metabunk.org/posts/209251
5. Use a homemade water level, which will demonstrate eye level:
www.metabunk.org/posts/207891
6. Take a picture of actual eyes, with the camera at eye height:
www.metabunk.org/posts/207592
Note: this last one, unlike the others, is merely an example rather than a demonstration - the camera in this photo is probably slightly below eye level, therefore his eyes appear even more above the horizon than they normally would. To do the experiment properly you would need to ensure the camera was level with the subject's eyes.
Now, having studied the above, the question is: "is the horizon always at eye level, or does it appear to drop increasingly below eye level the more the viewer's elevation rises?"
Source: here - but feel free to cut and paste and see what happens in your own flat earth discussions
In a way, there's no real need to go any further than that, and any future discussions I might have with flat earthers will start (and probably end) there. It immediately tests the water as to whether we're dealing with someone capable of intellectual honesty and a basic level of understanding, as well as illustrating whether they're really on a quest for truth, or whether they're actually wedded to a preconceived belief. Many, of course, will know what looking objectively at the above will mean for their model, and will go no further. Unsurprisingly, the few I've tried it on have completely dodged the question and refused to engage - which instantly shows me what I'm dealing with, and saves me the rigmarole of getting bogged down in the kinds of discussions I'm sure we all know only too well
I feel good about this. I feel good about the simplicity and the straightforwardness of it, and how quickly it cuts to the chase. I really feel like that's about it for me, as far as looking to educate others goes - and though I'd previously felt good about certain things like '
the north star test' and '
the mountain ranges experiment', it's become clear that, simple though they are to most, they're clearly way over the heads and capabilities of flat earthers, and necessitate a level of intellectual honesty that it's perhaps been a little naive of me to expect them to bring to the table.
Sticking to the horizon/eye level observation, however, is using their rules, their terminology, their understanding, and presenting it in a way that really ought to be simple and clear for anyone with a basic grasp of reality - and if that's lacking...well, again, there's really no point going further.
If, however, they realise that 'Flat Earth 101' is deeply and obviously flawed, and truly understand the implications for the model, then of course I'd be happy to take the time to talk them through some of the more puzzling points, or direct them to where they can find the answers. But that's a whole different ball game, played with someone exhibiting a whole different mind.
So that's my current plan for 'what to do with flat earthers' - and as for worrying about the growth of the movement: meh. The world is full of nutty beliefs, and this is just one of them. Who has time to fix them all? C'est la vie.
