https://archive.ph/vEoA7

The idea that the Earth is a sphere was all but settled by ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle (384–322 BC), who obtained empirical evidence after travelling to Egypt and seeing new constellations of stars. Eratosthenes, in the third century BC, became the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Islamic scholars made further advanced measurements from about the 9th century AD onwards, while European navigators circled the Earth in the 16th century. Images from space were final proof, if any were needed.

Today’s flat-Earth believers are not, though, the first to doubt what seems unquestionable. The notion of a flat Earth initially resurfaced in the 1800s as a backlash to scientific progress, especially among those who wished to return to biblical literalism. Perhaps the most famous proponent was the British writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). He proposed the Earth is a flat immovable disc, centred at the North Pole, with Antarctica replaced by an ice wall at the disc’s outer boundary.

The International Flat Earth Research Society, which was set up in 1956 by Samuel Shenton, a signwriter living in Dover, UK, was regarded by many people as merely a symbol of British eccentricity – amusing and of little consequence. But in the early 2000s, with the Internet now a well-established vehicle for off-beat views, the idea began to bubble up again, mostly in the US. Discussions sprouted in online forums, the Flat Earth Society was relaunched in October 2009 and the annual flat-Earth conference began in earnest.

    • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I thought it’d be pretty clear I’m an empiricist when it comes to epistemology. Solipsism is intensely unuseful. Why do you ask?

        • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Two problems with that comment there. Firstly, solipsism isn’t belief in nothing so the outcome of your assumption is ill informed. The second, and pretty glaringly huge problem is that I didn’t actually say that, or anything like it. Be honest, now…are you honestly engaging in good faith? Hmmm? Maybe you’ve just mistaken me for someone else.

              • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 days ago

                Drag still believes there must be a force of attraction between massive objects, even if Newton and Einstein got the equation wrong.

                • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  There is a force of attraction between any two masses. The equation is F=GMm/r^2. That one is good enough for nearly all practical applications, but Einstein’s field equations are better if you’re doing cosmology.
                  Do you think there is a better equation than those? You seem to imply that they’re wrong.

                  • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    Drag has decided not to discuss the quantum gravity problem, and just reassert that drag is a gravity believer.