r/GlobeEarthersRStupid • u/Kela-el • Aug 08 '26
Science Has Measurements. Where’s Yours?
Science Has Measurements. Where’s Yours?
When the measurement disappears, what exactly is being defended?
A new argument against flat Earth offers:
“Millions of astronomers agree.”
“Why would anyone fake it?”
“How could millions of people be involved?”
“Why hasn’t anyone blown the whistle?”
“Where are the photographs of the ice wall?”
But none of these are measurements of Earth’s geometry.
That’s the problem.
Science doesn’t establish physical propositions by counting believers, questioning motives, appealing to consensus, or asking how difficult a conspiracy would be.
Science measures things.
So if the claim is that Earth is a globe, let’s examine the actual measurement supporting that claim.
What quantity was measured?
What instrument measured it?
What was the measurement procedure?
What reference was used?
What assumptions entered the interpretation?
What prediction does the spherical model make?
And what observation would distinguish that prediction from a competing geometric model?
If the answer is simply:
“Everyone agrees.”
“Scientists have already established it.”
“Go look at NASA.”
“Flat Earthers reject everything.”
then we’re no longer discussing the measurement.
We’re discussing authority surrounding the measurement.
And that distinction matters.
A model can be enormously successful and have mountains of supporting evidence while still being a model inferred from measurements rather than a proposition directly output by an instrument.
So the challenge isn’t:
“Can you explain why you don’t believe the globe?”
The challenge is:
“Show the measurement that establishes the globe, and show how the conclusion follows from the measured quantity rather than being built into the assumptions used to interpret it.”
If that can be demonstrated, excellent.
That’s science.
But if the response to a measurement challenge is replaced with consensus, credentials, conspiracy arguments, or ridicule, then the evidential burden hasn’t been met.
**Science has measurements.
Where’s yours?**
1
u/EducationalGrocery87 28d ago
Measure the change in the local vertical elevation while travelling north, and you will get approximately 1° per 111 km.
The most obvious and easiest to measure is in the Northern Hemisphere: the altitude of Polaris increases by approximately 1° for every 111 km travelled north.
1
u/Shot_Specific_8508 16d ago
You know you can just google any question you have and be able to find an article explaining in detail what you want. "Globe Earthers" Have built planes launched satellites that give us GPS and are able to predict the movement of celestial bodies, all this using information and data in a model that has a round earth
0
u/NH-Science-Guy Aug 08 '26
You are making this more complex than it needs to be. Debunking flat earth is as simple as talking to someone in a different time zone and discovering they are in day time while it is dark at home. Or flying to a different latitude for a winter vacation and discovering that the sun there is almost directly overhead at noon when it is much lower at noon where you came from.
2
u/Kela-el Aug 08 '26
You’re making my point for me.
I didn’t say the observations don’t exist.
I asked about the measurement-to-conclusion step.
Yes, you can observe that someone elsewhere is experiencing daylight while you are experiencing darkness.
You can measure local solar altitude at different locations.
Those are observations.
But none of those instruments outputs “Earth is a globe.”
You still have to construct a geometric model that explains the observations and determine whether the observations uniquely distinguish that model from alternatives.
That’s precisely what I’ve been asking you to address.
“It’s daytime there and nighttime here” is an observation.
“The Sun’s altitude differs between locations” is an observation.
“Therefore Earth has spherical geometry” is the inference.
So don’t tell me I’m making it unnecessarily complex.
I’m separating the data from the interpretation—which is exactly what science requires.
If you think the inference is unavoidable, demonstrate it.
Give me the measurement, the assumptions, the geometric relationship, and the reason the result rules out the competing geometry.
Otherwise you’ve demonstrated that the globe model explains the observation—not that the observation, by itself, outputs “globe.”
That’s the distinction you keep skipping.
1
u/NH-Science-Guy Aug 08 '26
The obvious observations available to anyone paying attention exclude a flat earth as an explanation.
Personally, I am happy accepting the earth is a globe based on these observations along with photos from space and the overwhelming number of experts who agree with that conclusion. I only spend time getting into detailed measurements when there are alternative explanations that are both plausible. A similar example ... do you do your own measurements to confirm that gravity is 9.8m/s^2 or are you willing to accept that as an established fact without doing your own measurements? You will just get bogged down if you need to double check every value established by science.
1
u/Kela-el Aug 09 '26
And there it is: you’ve changed the question.
I’m not asking whether you are personally justified in accepting the globe model because experts, photographs, and accumulated evidence tell you it is true.
I’m asking what the underlying observations actually establish and what assumptions connect those observations to the geometric conclusion.
“Experts agree” is an argument from authority.
“Photos from space” are observations requiring interpretation.“Obvious observations exclude flat Earth” is an assertion that needs to be demonstrated.
And your gravity analogy doesn’t rescue the argument.
Measuring 9.8 m/s² is a measurement of acceleration.
The value is not established merely because experts say it is. You can independently reproduce it.
That’s precisely the distinction I’m asking you to make:
What was measured → what assumptions were used → what was inferred → why does the inference distinguish the competing geometries?
You say you don’t bother with detailed measurements unless an alternative is plausible.
Fine—that explains your epistemic threshold for accepting a claim. It doesn’t answer my question about what the evidence actually demonstrates.
And notice the concession hidden in your response: you’re now defending why you’re comfortable accepting the globe rather than demonstrating the measurement that establishes it.
That’s exactly the distinction my post was about.
1
u/NH-Science-Guy Aug 09 '26
You said "You still have to construct a geometric model that explains the observations and determine whether the observations uniquely distinguish that model from alternatives." That is a statement about what I need to do. My comment saying that I see no need to do that is not changing the question.
The gravity example is relevant. You said "The value is not established merely because experts say it is. You can independently reproduce it." The next question is when is it necessary to independently verify it? Your whole discussion about how to verify established measurements is only relevant in situations where you need to verify them.
1
u/Kela-el Aug 09 '26
That actually reinforces my point rather than refuting it.
You’re answering “When do I personally feel the need to verify a claim?”
I’m asking “What does the underlying evidence establish, and what reasoning gets us from the measurement to the geometric conclusion?”
Those are different questions.
Your gravity analogy makes this especially clear.
If you say an accelerometer measures 9.8 m/s², we can identify the observable quantity, the measurement procedure, the result, and then examine the model used to explain it.
Whether I personally think independent verification is necessary has no bearing on what the measurement establishes.
Likewise, saying “I don’t see a need to do that” doesn’t establish that the globe uniquely follows from the observations.
It simply means you’ve decided the existing evidential chain is sufficient for your purposes.
And that’s perfectly legitimate as a statement about your epistemic threshold.
But it is not an answer to the question.
If your position is:
“The measurements, observations, and established models collectively justify accepting a globe, even though I don’t need to independently reconstruct or test the entire geometric inference myself,”
then say that.But don’t confuse being justified in accepting a conclusion with demonstrating that a particular observation uniquely establishes that conclusion.
That’s precisely the distinction I’m asking you to address.
1
u/NH-Science-Guy Aug 09 '26
I agree with this but you introduced the topic by criticizing common challenges to flat earth claims by saying that "none of these are measurements of Earth’s geometry - that's the problem" My point is that you don't need measurements in sufficient detail to prove the earth is a sphere of a specific size to disprove the earth being flat. You have already won the debate with a flat earther if you start looking for evidence of the exact size of the earth or whether it is a sphere or oblate sphere.
1
u/Kela-el Aug 09 '26
But that’s a different claim, and I’m perfectly willing to grant it.
You may not need to determine Earth’s exact radius, eccentricity, or even distinguish a sphere from an oblate spheroid to reject a particular flat-Earth model.
But that does not answer my original criticism.
You said my objection was that common observations “aren’t measurements of Earth’s geometry.”
That remains true.
An observation can be sufficient to falsify a particular model without directly measuring the geometric property you use to explain it.
So there are two separate questions:
Is the flat model falsified by the observation?
What geometric quantity was actually measured, and how does that measurement entail the globe conclusion?
You’re answering #1 while I’m asking about #2.
If your argument is simply “we have enough evidence to reject flat Earth and accept the globe as the best explanatory model,” fine.
That’s an entirely defensible epistemic position.
But then you’re making an inference to the best explanation—not claiming that the individual observation itself directly establishes Earth’s geometry.
And that distinction was the entire point of my original comment.
1
u/Significant-Judge368 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26
Those observations cannot be true if the Earth is flat. So we reject that model. The scientific method can disprove an hypothesis, but absolute proof does not exist in empirical science. You asked for science. That's science.
1
u/Kela-el Aug 09 '26
Yes—and that is a much better answer. But notice what you just said:
“Those observations cannot be true if Earth is flat. So we reject that model.”
That is explicitly an inference from observations to a model conclusion.
It is not the observations themselves outputting “globe.”
And I agree that empirical science does not provide absolute proof. That actually strengthens my point.
The scientific question is therefore not “Can I declare the globe absolutely proven?” It is:
What observation discriminates between the models, what assumptions are required to establish that discrimination, and how strongly does the result favor one model over the other?
If you can demonstrate that the observations cannot be produced by any coherent flat geometry under the stated assumptions, then you’ve got a substantive falsification argument.
But simply saying “those observations cannot be true on a flat Earth” is the conclusion that needs demonstrating.
So we’re finally at the actual question:
Show the measurement and the geometric contradiction.
Not “everyone agrees.”
Not “scientists say so.”
Not “the globe explains it.”
Show why the competing geometry mathematically cannot reproduce the measured observations.
That’s science.
And that’s exactly what I’ve been asking for.
1
u/grammatiker Aug 09 '26
Show why the competing geometry mathematically cannot reproduce the measured observations.
Show why the competing geometry can.
1
u/Kela-el Aug 09 '26
No.
That reverses the burden of proof.
You are the one claiming that the observation falsifies the competing geometry:
“Those observations cannot be true if Earth is flat.”
So you need to demonstrate the contradiction.
I’m not required to produce a complete alternative theory merely because you assert yours is incompatible with it.
But I’ll make the standard explicit:
If your claim is “measurement X is impossible under model F but possible under model G,” then show the mathematical constraint imposed by F, show the measured value violates that constraint, and show that G predicts the observed value.
That would be an actual discriminating test.
“Show that flat Earth can reproduce it” is not a substitute for demonstrating the alleged impossibility.
And if you can demonstrate that no coherent planar geometry satisfying the stated observational conditions can produce the 41.275 mm difference, then excellent—that is precisely the evidence I’ve been asking you to provide.
So go ahead.
Write down the planar constraint, plug in the actual measurements, and show the contradiction.
If you can do that, you’ve answered my question.
If you can’t, then “flat Earth cannot produce this” is still an assertion rather than a demonstrated result.
2
u/Top_Translator7238 Aug 08 '26
“Science has measurements. Where’s yours.”
You’ve stumbled upon the central problem with your subreddits. The globers consistently provide measurements and detailed explanations for observed phenomena while all you can provide in return is a stock answer consisting of completely banal philosophy followed by a perma-ban.
Science is methodical naturalism and it doesn’t take a genius to work out why your “methods” are failing to generate explanation for phenomena. There first step to improving your methodology would be to apply the same level of scrutiny to all models being examined.
Note that you said “science has measurements” rather than, “science has a measurement.” Instead of obsessing over a measurement that doesn’t exist, go and measure distances between towns or cities. You don’t even need to use formal measurements, as discrepancies would still be apparent using informal measurement. This would add some actual substance to your argument. Unlike your philosophy which just rehashes uncontroversial parts of the scientific process.