The fact that the earth is a sphere has been known to sailors for centuries. Even before there was GPS, which cannot function without earthly satellites, they have determined their latitude with the height of the sun above the horizon, which would not be possible on a shallow earth, and that the flat maps they used were just an angular Mercator projection of the sphere, they also knew.
Everyone is convinced of the curvature by placing themselves on the beach with a binocular and seeing something like this:
Only that one sees a sharp horizon, whose distance depends on the height of the observer (and therefore cannot be the edge of the disc), should be sufficient with some thinking, because on a flat earth the horizon would be infinitely far away and would always disappear in haze.
Now, of course, there are people who paint an escape point on the horizon, and this is a popular auxiliary construct of painters and drawing to construct a credible perspective, but is wrong, because the escape point is infinitely far away and the horizon is not.
There are people who expect an angular deviation of the horizon under the horizontal from a sphere, but who forget that the radius of curvature of the Earth is more than 6000km, and that you have to go to at least 100km in height to see an angular deviation with the naked eye.
And there are people who recognize the sharp horizon, but say that it is flat – which cannot be the case, because the horizon is not an area, but a line, and it runs symmetrically around the observer in every direction equally far away: when you rise vertically with a rocket, this line slowly moves back to an ever greater distance until it finally corresponds to a large circle around the planet.
Furthermore, there are people who believe in standing waves between the edges of the earth's disc, and that the sharp horizon would come. With standing waves, however, the water does not stand still, it swings up and down, only the positions of the nodes are constant – so you should see different situations at different times, but you do not.
And then there are people who lead a rowing boat on the horizon, which is initially invisible due to the limited resolution of a digital camera, and then becomes visible with optical zoom – these people do not understand that zoom only increases the image, but does not draw things closer. The effect of the horizon can only be seen with sufficiently large vehicles whose lower part is then cut off from the horizon and is not visible with zoom – see the above videos. And then there are those who reject the above-mentioned view with the binoculars because "the lenses are made extra round so that it looks round" – also the human eye is round: who manipulated this?
I have written this once (and copy it since then) for those who desperately seek arguments against flat eagles, not for flat eagles themselves – who does not already accept reality, he will also not accept arguments. You can laugh about it, but only until such people get power*. The despair in argument can also be intent: as some alleged flat eagle wants to only annoy one, and then builds straw men, proud of his dialectical skill, such people are not interested in truth.
*) Conspiracy theory has believed that witches cause bad weather and burned innocent women, conspiracy theory has believed that Jews form a world conspiracy and gassed them. I'm not talking about ignorance, that's just lack of information and easy to fix by giving information, but conspiracy theory can't start with information, rejects it and rejects the angry one that brings it.
However, since empirical theories are always underdetermined with regard to their observation data, there can never be a 100% reliable proof of this because of scientific theoretical considerations, see:
But the theory of the sphere has proven itself. Verification in the sense of a doubtless evidence cannot be done in the empirical sciences. Proofs in this clear sense are done in mathematics, computer science and logic.
The hypothesis must be verifiable on the basis of its consequences; if it is checked, it is then either proven or verified, depending on the result, or revoked or falsified
This does not apply to theories. Your studies may have given you the ability to swallow around, but you don't understand much.
You write: "Theories in their nature are basically not completely verifiable or falsifiable. Hypotheses, however, always."
Here is your error: both empirical theories and empirical hypotheses cannot be verified without doubt. Even falsifying is not as unproblematic as you might think – see Quine DuhamThesis.
This is about the question of whether you can prove without doubt that the earth is spherical.
You write: " […] That the shape of the earth is very close to the shape of a sphere is doubtless and 100% proven."
No, it has not been proven 100%, even if I believe that the earth is spherical:
Since both theories and hypotheses cannot be dubiously verified, since they are always underdetermined with regard to their observation data, since several theories as well as several hypotheses always fit into a set of observation data, the assertion that the earth is spherical is not dubiously verifiable, it being completely irrelevant whether this assertion is a theory or a hypothesis.
The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is flowing, theory should be better tested and are usually more extensive than hypotheses.
Hää ðŸ ̃, so that the earth has a spherical shape, is a theory as I have claimed and now you suddenly admit that this theory is not entirely verifiable. That's exactly what I said. Yes wonderfully now you have changed your mind and tune me to ðŸTM‚
All right. That the shape of the earth is very similar to the shape of a sphere is initially a hypothesis, and not a theory. And this is dubiously verified. From your supposed science theory study, you don't seem to have stayed a lot.
No, there is numerous evidence that the earth is round (≠ exact ball)
it would be “Flat-Earthers” well possible that they are not really interested in the form of the earth, but rather that they are interested in the masses by their counterpart to the masses To get attention
Go to the travel agency and book loud destinations in a desired direction of the sky, up to the starting point. Take a compass with – except for the North and South Pole itself, the fun is quite good, and consider how you can come back at the starting point, at the windshield – next to a few other natural laws that are incompatible/explainable with the "disc"….
We live in an age of free, high-resolution real-time outboard video transmission from the International Space Station:
https://www.youtube.com/@NASA/streams
The fact that the earth is a sphere has been known to sailors for centuries. Even before there was GPS, which cannot function without earthly satellites, they have determined their latitude with the height of the sun above the horizon, which would not be possible on a shallow earth, and that the flat maps they used were just an angular Mercator projection of the sphere, they also knew.
Everyone is convinced of the curvature by placing themselves on the beach with a binocular and seeing something like this:
https://youtu.be/i0ObTd7DLMw
https://youtu.be/zYYZMJL5aBc
Only that one sees a sharp horizon, whose distance depends on the height of the observer (and therefore cannot be the edge of the disc), should be sufficient with some thinking, because on a flat earth the horizon would be infinitely far away and would always disappear in haze.
Now, of course, there are people who paint an escape point on the horizon, and this is a popular auxiliary construct of painters and drawing to construct a credible perspective, but is wrong, because the escape point is infinitely far away and the horizon is not.
There are people who expect an angular deviation of the horizon under the horizontal from a sphere, but who forget that the radius of curvature of the Earth is more than 6000km, and that you have to go to at least 100km in height to see an angular deviation with the naked eye.
And there are people who recognize the sharp horizon, but say that it is flat – which cannot be the case, because the horizon is not an area, but a line, and it runs symmetrically around the observer in every direction equally far away: when you rise vertically with a rocket, this line slowly moves back to an ever greater distance until it finally corresponds to a large circle around the planet.
Furthermore, there are people who believe in standing waves between the edges of the earth's disc, and that the sharp horizon would come. With standing waves, however, the water does not stand still, it swings up and down, only the positions of the nodes are constant – so you should see different situations at different times, but you do not.
And then there are people who lead a rowing boat on the horizon, which is initially invisible due to the limited resolution of a digital camera, and then becomes visible with optical zoom – these people do not understand that zoom only increases the image, but does not draw things closer. The effect of the horizon can only be seen with sufficiently large vehicles whose lower part is then cut off from the horizon and is not visible with zoom – see the above videos. And then there are those who reject the above-mentioned view with the binoculars because "the lenses are made extra round so that it looks round" – also the human eye is round: who manipulated this?
I have written this once (and copy it since then) for those who desperately seek arguments against flat eagles, not for flat eagles themselves – who does not already accept reality, he will also not accept arguments. You can laugh about it, but only until such people get power*. The despair in argument can also be intent: as some alleged flat eagle wants to only annoy one, and then builds straw men, proud of his dialectical skill, such people are not interested in truth.
*) Conspiracy theory has believed that witches cause bad weather and burned innocent women, conspiracy theory has believed that Jews form a world conspiracy and gassed them. I'm not talking about ignorance, that's just lack of information and easy to fix by giving information, but conspiracy theory can't start with information, rejects it and rejects the angry one that brings it.
the best proof of the shape of the earth is a photo of a moon eclipse when the shadow of the earth falls on the moon; who doesn't look intrigued?
I don't think the Earth is flat, it's a bullet.
However, since empirical theories are always underdetermined with regard to their observation data, there can never be a 100% reliable proof of this because of scientific theoretical considerations, see:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem-Quine-Thesis
You confuse theory and hypothesis. That the shape of the earth is very close to the shape of a sphere is doubtless and 100% proven.
But the theory of the sphere has proven itself. Verification in the sense of a doubtless evidence cannot be done in the empirical sciences. Proofs in this clear sense are done in mathematics, computer science and logic.
You didn't understand. I studied science theory at the university. Several theories always fit into a set of observation data.
That's just wrong.
This does not apply to theories. Your studies may have given you the ability to swallow around, but you don't understand much.
You write: "Theories in their nature are basically not completely verifiable or falsifiable. Hypotheses, however, always."
Here is your error: both empirical theories and empirical hypotheses cannot be verified without doubt. Even falsifying is not as unproblematic as you might think – see Quine DuhamThesis.
This is about the question of whether you can prove without doubt that the earth is spherical.
You write: " […] That the shape of the earth is very close to the shape of a sphere is doubtless and 100% proven."
No, it has not been proven 100%, even if I believe that the earth is spherical:
Since both theories and hypotheses cannot be dubiously verified, since they are always underdetermined with regard to their observation data, since several theories as well as several hypotheses always fit into a set of observation data, the assertion that the earth is spherical is not dubiously verifiable, it being completely irrelevant whether this assertion is a theory or a hypothesis.
The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is flowing, theory should be better tested and are usually more extensive than hypotheses.
Are you serious about the term? Theory is something different than a hypothesis. Why the hell can't you understand? And no exactly what I wrote…
Hää ðŸ ̃, so that the earth has a spherical shape, is a theory as I have claimed and now you suddenly admit that this theory is not entirely verifiable. That's exactly what I said. Yes wonderfully now you have changed your mind and tune me to ðŸTM‚
By the way, the same applies to hypotheses
"Verify without a doubt," who writes this in relation to an empirical theory, does not really have any idea of science theory.
In principle, empirical theories cannot be verified without doubt.
And again you confuse theory with hypothesis….
Theories in their nature are basically not completely verifiable or falsifiable. Hypothesis, however, always..
Empirical theories cannot be verified, you can try to falsify them, but even there are problems
All right. That the shape of the earth is very similar to the shape of a sphere is initially a hypothesis, and not a theory. And this is dubiously verified. From your supposed science theory study, you don't seem to have stayed a lot.
Of course, and when you look at the edge of it, you see the turtle and the elephants…
you're wrong.
we are on the round earth experiment.
No, there is numerous evidence that the earth is round (≠ exact ball)
it would be “Flat-Earthers” well possible that they are not really interested in the form of the earth, but rather that they are interested in the masses by their counterpart to the masses To get attention
that would be the knowledge of ajkcdajefiu!
Go to the travel agency and book loud destinations in a desired direction of the sky, up to the starting point. Take a compass with – except for the North and South Pole itself, the fun is quite good, and consider how you can come back at the starting point, at the windshield – next to a few other natural laws that are incompatible/explainable with the "disc"….
The MUST be flat, even if others claim the opposite:
:-
What is the end of the earth?
An object which is quite close to a sphere and can be described sufficiently well with a reference ellipsoid adapted to a geoid.
I think you're confused. The Earth a Plate is a conspiracy theory ., Another quite stupid.
if the earth was a disc, I could at least bite over the edge.
One dimension among us is that
I think she's a parallelogram.
If you take care of physics, you can answer the question yourself.