upworthy

earth

Planet

Carl Sagan once easily debunked flat Earthers with just a piece of cardboard

The science doesn't lie.

Image via YouTube

Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos'

Over the past few years, there has been a growing number of people who believe the Earth is flat. A 2019 YouGov survey of more than 8,000 Americans found that as many as one in six are "not entirely certain the world is round."

Flat Earth Theory has, surprisingly, gained a lot of traction. A 2021 study published in the National Library of Medicine posited that the theory is buoyed by "the cognitive tendency to interpret, favor, and recall information in order to strengthen one's personal beliefs" or, in other words, confirmation bias. Though the "how" and "why" of Flat Earth Theory and its popularity is fascinating (and troubling, to be honest), the scientifically proven truth is that the Earth is round. It is a globe. It is spherical.

Of course, the knowledge that the Earth is round is not new. Ancient Greek philosophers across centuries studied and found evidence that the Earth is indeed round thousands of years ago. Way back in the 6th century BC, Pythagoras first proposed the Earth was round from observing the shape of the Moon. In the 5th century, Empedocles and Anaxagoras noticed evidence of the Earth's true shape by observing its curved shadow during lunar eclipses. In the 4th century, Aristotle argued the Earth was round after noting how ships disappear "hull-first" over the horizon line. In the 3rd century, Eratosthenes actually calculated the Earth's circumference using geometry and shadows with shocking accuracy.

earth, globe, sphere, flat earth, skeptics, scienceWe've got the whole (round) world in our hands. Image via Canva

Naysayers remain skeptical, and there's probably no changing their minds, but to this day, experts insist the Earth is round and back it up with cold, hard science. NASA posted this video just days ago. Watch:

- YouTubewww.youtube.com


Here's where Carl Sagan comes in.

Sagan hosted the original version of TV's Cosmos: A Personal Journey in 1980-81. According to PBS, Cosmos would become "one of the highest-rated programs in the history of public television" largely due to Sagan's ability for "reinterpreting intricate scientific jargon into elegant and memorable statements that the common person can easily conceptualize and appreciate." The show would be revived in 2014 with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson at the helm.

In the first episode of Cosmos, Sagan easily proved the Earth was a sphere using a piece of cardboard, some sticks, and the work of none other than the ancient Libyan-Greek scholar, Eratosthenes. Watch:

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

"How could it be, that at the same moment, a stick in Syene would cast no shadow and a stick in Alexandria, 800 km to the north, would cast a very definite shadow?" Sagan asked. "The only answer was that the surface of the Earth is curved," he concluded. "Not only that, but the greater the curvature, the bigger the difference in the length of the shadows."

Considering the distance between the two cities and the lengths of the shadows they produced, Eratosthenes was able to determine that the Earth had a seven-degree curve. He used that calculation to speculate the Earth was 25,000 miles in circumference.

These days, we know that the earth is 24,901 miles in circumference, which means Eratosthenes was less than 100 miles off. Didn't we say his accuracy was shocking? Not bad for over 2,000 years ago.


This article originally appeared five years ago.

From Your Site Articles
science
Science

Flat Earther visits Antarctica to see if the 24-hour sun is real and has an emotional reaction

Flat Earthers and "globe Earthers" came together for the truth-finding trip of a lifetime.

The Final Experiment/YouTube & Unsplash

Admitting you were wrong is not an easy thing to do for anyone.

Three years ago, a pastor from Colorado named Will Duffy found out that some people believed — still believed — that the Earth was flat. He couldn't believe what he was hearing. Hadn't we settled this debate centuries ago?! Not only was the debate continuing to rage on, but it was incredibly divisive and was part of a doorway to discredit even more crucial science.

He decided to take it upon himself to end the questions, once and for all. How? By taking a trip to Antarctica.

Duffy devised a project called The Final Experiment, in which he invited prominent "flat Earthers" along with a crew of "globe Earthers" to explore the most remote climate on the planet — together.

In a flat Earth model, Antarctica is usually depicted as an ice wall that encircles the rest of the planet. Sometimes, it's shown as its own distinct continent. However, by visiting Antarctica in the summer, the team would be able to see Antarctica's famous 24-hour sun, or midnight sun, up close and personal.

Flat Earthers, crucially, do not typically believe that a 24-hour sun is possible. In their models, the sun would rise and set in Antarctica the same way it does everywhere else. The existence of midnight sun would, if not outright prove, at least heavily suggest, that Earth is a tilted sphere.

(Of course, there are already mountains of evidence and data that show the Earth is a sphere — and plenty of documentation of the existence of midnight sun. But never mind that for now.)

Duffy reached out to several big-name flat Earthers, and many declined to take the trip. But he was able to get a handful of brave explorers on board. The group flew deep into the interior of Antarctica, landing on an ice runway near Union Glacier Camp.

Will Duffy and his crew live-streamed the whole thing on YouTube via Starlink. The video begins at midnight, with the sun high in the sky — an absolutely stunning sight for many on the expedition. Duffy then allows each member of the team to share their thoughts on the journey and their observations.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Jeran Campanella, one of the most prominent flat Earthers on YouTube, spoke from the heart: "Sometimes, you are wrong in life."

"I thought there was no 24-hour sun, in fact I was pretty sure of it," he said bluntly after observing it with his own eyes. "It's a fact. The sun does circle you in the south. What does it mean? You guys are gonna have to figure that out yourselves."

He stopped short of definitively admitting that the Earth is a sphere, but he did confess that the Azimuthal equidistant map — the most popular flat earth model — no longer makes sense in his mind based on what he saw in Antarctica.

"I realize I'll be called a shill for saying that. And you know what, if you're a shill for being honest, so be it. I honestly believed there was no 24 hour sun, I honestly now believe there is. There it is," he said.

It seems silly, since most of us can acknowledge that a spherical Earth is settled science. But by making this admission on camera, Jeran risked losing his audience, his credibility in his community, and even his livelihood as a content creator with nearly 200,000 followers.

It took courage to finally admit that he was wrong.

"Respect for Jeran. He sounded shaken and he knows he's going to [receive] backlash," wrote a commenter on Youtube.

"I'm quite impressed by Jeran. He chokes up and was quite emotional, clearly this was a deep seated belief of his and he handled being proven wrong with grace. good for him," said another.

Why is it so hard for us to let go of deeply held beliefs? Beliefs aren't always logical decisions, but emotional ones.

A flat earth mapBy Strebe - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

Our identities and our sense of self get so tied up into what we believe. Belief in a conspiracy theory might start as genuine curiosity or confusion but quickly spiral into much more.

People even make good friends and meet romantic partners inside of communities based on their beliefs, so to let go of that is deeply threatening to our psyches.

"Our ego, or sense of self, finds comfort in our various identities. Just as we have fight, flight, or freeze instincts to protect our physical well-being, we defend our psychological sense of self when our various identities are threatened. This is why if someone makes fun of our favorite football team, city, state, country, music artist, political party, hero, religion, ideas, and so on, we feel a surge of emotion to defend them," writes Mike Brooks for Psychology Today.

Even when we see the truth with our own eyes, it can be hard to accept.

"I think what matters most is putting our egos aside," Lisbeth, another flat Earther that accompanied The Final Experiment to Antarctica. "Are we here for truth, or are we here to hold onto narrative and ego?"

Some people just need to see things with their own eyes to believe. And putting your most deeply-held beliefs on the line and going into new situations with an open mind, knowing core pieces of your identity may not hold up to scrutiny, is admirable — no matter what the rest of us might think about the validity of those beliefs.

Mark Herman, who also went on the voyage, said, "Who would have thought? Two groups of people who are so opposed in belief and ideology to the point where there's ridicule, there's shame, all kinds of horrible things, but when they come together, there's so much camaraderie and teamwork between people. I'm very thankful to be a part of it."

Watch the full video and I think you'll be surprised by how much beauty there is in this project, not only in the breathtaking Antarctic landscape and the wonder of never-ending sunshine, but in the humanity and vulnerability on display from each of the participants.

From Your Site Articles
flat earth
Democracy

It is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.

Abortion remains an incredibly polarizing issue but it doesn't have to be.

Wikicommons

Pro-choice and pro-life demonstrators face off

The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn't have to be.

People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women's rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.

Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life begins at conception, that abortion isn't something we'd choose—and we'd hope others wouldn't choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal.

It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here's why.


There's far too much gray area to legislate.

No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells" should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.

I personally believe life begins at conception, but that's my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don't know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on."

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it.

Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I'm not okay with that.

a man holds a sign for pro-choice arguments reading "our life - our decision"a man holding a sign that says our life - our decisionPhoto by Aiden Frazier on Unsplash


One reason I don't support banning abortion is because I've seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.

I've heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.

I've heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

I've heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.

I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman's medical decisions, and I don't think the government should either.

pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators face each otherIt is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.


Most people's anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don't believe that anyone's religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!" when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)

I also don't want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I'd never have to make, but wouldn't want banned. I don't understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.

Protestors gather outside Supreme Court after Dobbs decision

a crowd of people in front of the Supreme Court after Dobbs decision

Photo by Sarah Penney on Unsplash

And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being's creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother's body. And while I don't think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn't something the government should be in the business of doing.As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God's hands.

Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn't the way to go.


The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.

Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has been falling since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.

Outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.

At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that's where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can't co-exist in the real world.

Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that's where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.


This article originally appeared on 01.22.19


From Your Site Articles
abortion rights
Science

Sorry, Everest. Here's why we can't officially declare you the tallest mountain on Earth.

Measuring a mountain is a lot more complicated than you think.

via Mário Simoes/Flickr

Sunrise on Mount Everest

If you asked people what the tallest mountain on Earth is, most would respond with Mount Everest, which is on the border of Nepal and Tibet. Everest is the highest peak in the Himalayan mountain range, rising 8,849 meters (29,032 feet) above sea level.

Everest is also commonly seen as one of the high points of human conquest. Scaling the mountain and reaching its peak was once known as one of the most significant challenges a human could undertake.

However, according to Joe Hanson, PhD, host of PBS’s “Be Smart,” Everest may not be the tallest mountain on Earth. In a video called “Why No One Can Agree on What's REALLY the Tallest Mountain,” he shows that height is in the eyes of the beholder when it comes to mountains.

Hanson is a science writer, biologist, and educator whose work has been published in WIRED, Nautilus, Scientific American, Texas Monthly, and other publications.

“Everest checks in at 8,848.86 meters tall today. But we still don't really know if that's right. Because on a planet that isn't perfectly round wrapped in a crust that keeps moving, measuring a mountain turns out to be way harder than you think,” Hanson opens the video.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

Hanson says that the title of tallest mountain on Earth has changed more than a few times over the last 300 years. In the 18th century, Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador was considered the tallest, but in 1908, that honor switched to Dhaulagiri in Nepal. Thirty-nine years later, that honor was taken by Kangchenjunga on the border of Nepal and India, until Everest usurped it just five years later.

There are two major problems with definitively ranking the tallest mountains on Earth. First, there is no universally accepted rule on what a mountain is or how one is defined. Second, mountains aren't the massive unchanging things that they appear to be.

What is the tallest mountain on Earth?

If you count the submerged part beneath the water, Hawaii's Mauna Kea is 20% taller than Everest. If you just measure base-to-summit, then Denali in Alaska is the tallest. "Everest only takes the title because most of the time, we measure mountains from sea level," Hanson says.

Everest is considered the tallest mountain because we measure from sea level, but that’s not the most reliable place to start. Due to Earth's gravity and shape, sea level varies across the globe, creating different elevations across the various oceans and seas. Scientists average these variations to create a “mean” sea level, the baseline for measuring mountain heights.



“But these days, the commonly accepted view is to measure a mountain's height above mean sea level. So Everest gets the title of tallest, despite other mountains having pretty strong claims to the throne,” Hanson says. “So, to summit all up, it's pretty easy to figure out where a mountain ends, but not everyone agrees on where a mountain starts. So when it comes to figuring out what's really the tallest mountain, maybe first we should get to the bottom of that.”

The funny thing is that even if Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth, it may not be that way forever; according to Hanson, Nanga Parbat in Pakistan is growing faster than Everest and could eclipse its famous neighbor in the next couple hundred thousand years. So, enjoy your time in the spotlight, Everest. In a few hundred thousand years, you may be downgraded to number two.

From Your Site Articles
our planet
Trending Stories