Flat earth theory debunked: Why is the Earth not round?
Flat earth theorists are still arguing over how the Earth actually is.
In March, physicist and blogger Michael E. Crichton took the unusual step of presenting his findings at a conference in Washington, DC, that he called the International Flat Earthers Conference.
The topic was the “flat earth” and the speakers included a prominent physicist from Princeton University, an astrophysicist who studies cosmic rays, a physicist who runs a satellite communications company, and a journalist.
E. O. Wilson, a professor of physics at Princeton University who was invited to present on the subject, said in a video message that his research has been criticized by others as irrelevant and irrelevant to the real issue of whether the Earth is round.
The flat earth’s critics argue that Wilson is overstating the point of his work.
The flat earth, according to Wilson, is not a fact but rather an illusion created by our modern society.
In an interview with Science Friday, Wilson told me, “The flat Earth is a fiction.
The Earth is not round.”
He said that he’s been challenged on this by other physicists, and that he “never really believed that it was flat.”
In a subsequent post, Wilson wrote that he has since received a lot of negative feedback from his colleagues who are not convinced by his work and who are worried about the implications of his research.
In an email to me, Wilson said he has received numerous comments saying that he should not have been allowed to speak in a public setting.
“The fact is that I’ve received some negative feedback in the media about my talk,” he wrote.
Wilson, who is also a professor at Stanford University, wrote that the conference is “a great opportunity to get the facts straight.”
His message came in response to a question posed by a researcher from Princeton.
“I would like to ask a simple question: Why did you not include any mention of the flat earth at your talk?” asked Dr. J.D. Salter, an associate professor of Earth and planetary sciences at Princeton.
Salters response to Wilson’s lecture, which was also published in Scientific American, was, in part, in response.
Salter, who specializes in astronomy and astrophysics, said that Wilson “fails to recognize the fundamental problem with the flat Earth: that it is a distortion.”
“If the Earth was round, it would have been a lot more difficult to distort it,” Salter said.
At a conference held in January, Wilson was asked to present a video of a man holding a flat globe, and he said that while he has never believed that the Earth’s circumference is spherical, he did believe that “the Earth’s surface is flat.”
Wilson, in his post, responded to Salter’s statement that the flat surface is not flat: “The flat surface, I suppose, is something we’ve never been able to determine, but it does have a flat surface,” he said.
“It has a surface that is perfectly flat.”
Salter asked Wilson to provide a proof of that.
As Wilson has pointed out, there are some problems with his claims.
The earth’s surface does not “look like a flat flat disk,” according to NASA.
To Wilson, the “surface of the Earth appears flat” when viewed from above, and to a “properly flat Earth, there is no curvature.”
However, Wilson is wrong on two other points.
First, Wilson states that the surface of the earth’s crust is “almost exactly flat.”
But the crust is actually “a rough, irregular shape.”
The crust is much smaller than Wilson’s claim.
According to NASA, the crust of the continental United States is about 3,000 miles (5,000 kilometers) in thickness.
When Wilson speaks of the crust as being flat, he is essentially saying that it’s not very flat.
Second, Wilson says that “it’s not possible for the crust to be ’round.'”
He cites a paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience, where scientists measured the thickness of the “skeleton of the planet.”
When asked about this statement, Wilson pointed to a graph on his website that shows the thickness, or “crustal elevation,” of the surface at a given latitude and longitude.
It’s difficult to determine how tall or how wide the crustal elevation is because Wilson does not include the thickness in his calculations.
Additionally, Wilson did not mention the fact that there is a “sunken Earth,” which is actually a giant “dome” of molten rock that rises in the earth from below the surface.
So, Wilson has misrepresented what scientists have found about the Earth.
Wilson has not claimed that his work is irrelevant to this issue.
There are several problems with Wilson’s claims.
One, Wilson’s conclusions are not backed up by solid scientific evidence.
“In particular, Wilson relies