Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AMann

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: March 15, 2016, 08:56:24 AM »
I havent seen any legitimate evidence the world is round on this thread yey

Then you failed to even watch the original video posted. It is simple enough for even those of sub-par IQ scores to understand.

2
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: March 13, 2016, 08:30:36 PM »
I bet you are a huge Star Trek fan... this is nothing but science fiction as far as I'm concerned. I know it's a noble thought that humanity is capable of this level of engineering prowess, but I just don't buy it. Maybe if they would release all the operational notes, calculations, and data and research that was involved in this project to peer review I'd be more credulous. But a link to their own website with 3 paragraphs and a rudimentary graphic is not enough for me.

Well, this was a completely useless comment. Your inability to grasp scientific and engineering concepts is in no way evidence against scientific and engineering feats.
Operational notes and calculations are not new pieces of information that require peer review to validate.
Woody provided you with some additional information to answer the questions you may ask (assuming you even care to know the truth).

This topic really has been hijacked from the original post of reasons why we know the Earth is round. Arguing the validity of the space program rather than attempt to show evidence against the round Earth only serves to show that there is no evidence. If there was real evidence of a flat Earth, ftat-Earthers would be rubbing everyone's faces in it.

3
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: March 06, 2016, 10:31:19 AM »
I still don't understand how gravity, an attraction of two different objects, can make one circle around the other. So it isn't a leap for me to begin to question things and research with an open mind.

Knowledge of what you do not understand is the right step towards asking appropriate questions and researching with an open mind.

While much of gravity is still a mystery to physicists, we do have a general understanding of how it works.
(The following is overly simplified, but you can easily look up additional information online - if you need some links to get you started, simply ask).
Although we often hear about (and treat) Gravity as a force, it really isn't. It's convenient that the general principles of force effectively work when calculating its effects between objects. For lack of a simpler way of explaining it, it is a 3-dimensional indentation in the fabric of space-time.
We can represent it easily enough 2-dimensionally. If you place an object on a trampoline, you can see an indentation which differs based on the mass of the object you placed on it. Let's say you place a rock melon in the middle of the trampoline. You also place marbles all around the trampoline at varying distances. The marbles closest to the rock melon will roll towards the rock melon until they reach it and can go no further. Some marbles further away may start to approach the rock melon slowly, but as they get closer, they will gain speed (sound similar to the increased speed due to the acceleration caused by gravity as an object falls towards the surface of Earth?) until they also meet up with the rock melon. Some of the marbles that are the furthest away may not be affected at all due to the indentation created by the rock melon not being large enough. Increasing the mass in the middle of the trampoline (substituting the rock melon with say a bowling ball) will create a larger indentation which will affect a greater area of the trampoline and cause more (if not all) of the marbles to roll towards it.
This is essentially the same effect seen when looking at celestial bodies. The effect is 3-dimensional instead of the simplified 2-dimensional explanation.

Now, for how orbits work.
Have you ever seen one of those donation funnels they often have at the entrances/exits of places like museums? You place a coin in the slot, let it go and watch it spin around the funnel, slowly making its way towards the center where it drops into the hole.
For an orbit to work, you need motion. If you simply place a coin on the funnel itself and let it go, it will not circle around, it will simply fall straight into the hole. The coin needs to be already moving (and not towards the hole - perpendicular to the direction of the hole for best results) and it will circle around. The same is true of celestial bodies. They need to be in motion or they will simply fall straight towards the object with greater mass. In the case of the funnel, the coin eventually falls into the hole. This would be horrible if it happened to the Earth lol. The reason why the coin falls into the hole is that it is constantly losing energy to friction. Less energy means less speed which results in smaller and smaller orbits until it reaches the point where orbiting the hole is no longer possible and it falls right in. If it wasn't for this loss of energy, the coin would orbit the hole at a set distance indefinitely. In space we do not have to worry about friction slowing us down, so our orbit continues along a set path until something happens to change it.
Again, what happens in the funnel is a 2-dimensional example of what happens. Gravity itself works in 3-dimensions (4 if you include Time, since relativity has been confirmed and we know that gravity affects the flow of time).

4
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: March 06, 2016, 09:59:32 AM »
Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?

The one who chooses to ignore evidence.

Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.

I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one.

Of course it was an answer.
The likelihood that someone falls into the trap of confirmational bias is less dependent on the information given to the individual than their ability to look objectively at data and draw logical conclusions.

Not my fault that you asked a silly question and then failed to understand the answer.

5
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: March 02, 2016, 06:43:31 PM »
IMO opinion what I see displayed in this forum is we do not believe what we do not witness ourselves, unless the picture, experiment, video, etc conforms to the Earth being flat.

Actually, that is exactly right. Confirmational bias. Any evidence contrary to their belief is ignored and ridiculous made-up explanations are used as arguments. Their FAQ is full of fabrications and outright lies that they try to push as truth even though they have no evidence to back anything...

I had to laugh at the "educated guy" who posted that black holes were "holes" lol

Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?

The one who chooses to ignore evidence.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: March 01, 2016, 07:38:22 PM »
IMO opinion what I see displayed in this forum is we do not believe what we do not witness ourselves, unless the picture, experiment, video, etc conforms to the Earth being flat.

Actually, that is exactly right. Confirmational bias. Any evidence contrary to their belief is ignored and ridiculous made-up explanations are used as arguments. Their FAQ is full of fabrications and outright lies that they try to push as truth even though they have no evidence to back anything...

I had to laugh at the "educated guy" who posted that black holes were "holes" lol

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 04, 2016, 07:13:02 PM »
You wanting to put stress on a number that you want to not be true still does nothing for any argument you are trying to make.

No. I am putting stress on:

SAME REGION..

I've been very clear about that.

Again, you can try to teach me about things such as comets, but sorry I was taught that when I was around 4 years old.

So, let's see if we can sum up this conversation so far.
A video showing 10 reasons we know the Earth is round is provided. You immediately latch onto the pictures point and make a claim that doesn't even fit that loch ness and nonsense must be true then.
When that point was refuted, you latch onto the number 'millions' of pictures of Earth from space. You did not to count partial pictures of Earth so you asked for whole pictures of the Earth, specifically 10 because you had already found 5. Someone gave you the link to the DSCOVR:EPIC site where multiple pictures of the full Earth are taken every day and you can go to the gallery for even more pictures - more than 10. You want to know why the Moon is not visible from all the pictures. You were told why.
There was an argument at some point that composites were not pictures. You were given an explanation on why they were.
We have moved on to objects in the universe being round and why there is no reason for Earth to be any different. You latch onto the estimate on how many stars are in the observable universe. You do not like the number. You do not like the procedure they used. Points that do not refute that there are an incredible number of objects in the universe and that they are all round in nature.
You say that you simply do not subscribe to mainstream science, but everything you bring up suggests that you do not subscribe to science at all... You say that you are educated, but you show a lack of understanding about science and the scientific method. Science is not about someone saying "this is what I discovered. It is a fact", it's about someone saying "this is what I discovered. This is the procedure I used. These are my calculations. Feel free to retest to see if I am correct." Why do you think that science papers tell you the procedures to their experiments? Why do you think you were told the method to the estimate in the article you linked? To invite others to view their methodology and retest/reobserve and/or recalculate their findings.

Do you actually want to get back on topic and try to refute the fact that the Earth is round? Or do you simply want to keep nitpicking points that do not lend itself to a rational discussion?

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 04, 2016, 09:09:52 AM »
Some education systems are better than others of course.
Simply writing off an answer because it is simple without using the reasoning skills you were supposed to be taught in school is beneath an educated person...

Ok. Here is what you first attempted to "teach" me:

Now, try to realize that there are 30 billion trillion stars just in the visible universe. 3x10^22 (that's a 3 followed by 22 zeroes).

If you were a "teacher", would you teach this to children as fact?

I hope not... I am about to dismantle that erroneous statement very easily.

Here is how that calculation came about:

"The team carried out two sets of observations in the same region"

Source:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/02/the-visible-universe-seven-trillion-dwarfs-and-billions-of-undetected-galaxies-weekend-feature.html

SAY WHAT?

So they point their telescope into space only 2 times into THE SAME REGION...

And BOOM, they know how many stars are in space, and so do you!!

You can't use this mainstream nonsense as fact. It is not. And it's very easy to point that out.

So on point one of your "lesson", you taught me nothing other than how easily one can believe what they hear/read and, so easily spread that hearsay as fact... But really i already knew that...

This is a lot like trying to talk to a creationist about evolution. Always trying to push a point where they think they see a flaw and yet never doing anything to support their stance nor discredit yours.

Lovely that you even posted an article where the method used to get this estimate is explained.

Do you know what a significant figure is? It is one of the first lessons in every science course I have ever taught. In science we use significant figures when working with imprecise data. You cannot have more precise answers than you have data going in.
3x10^22
That is a big number. Want to know what happens to that number if the estimate is off by 900 trillion? It becomes, 3x10^22... the same. The number is so large that being off by 900 trillion stars in the calculation means nothing.

If you want to simply write off the pieces of the observable universe that you can't see yourself. Go right ahead. Now look up at the night sky and see how many stars there are. Every point of light you see, and the ones that you don't see right now due to being the wrong season and the ones from the opposite hemisphere are still an incredible amount of celestial objects. And every single one has been observed and guess what? All the stars you can observe yourself are round. The planets you can use a telescope to see are round. The rare comet that comes around, that you can watch are round. You wanting to put stress on a number that you want to not be true still does nothing for any argument you are trying to make.

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 04, 2016, 03:50:39 AM »


You having 2 boys and expecting to always have girls is a ridiculous counterargument.

Slight mistake in your quoting me there...

Always should be replaced by the word never.

I said "I have 2 boys and that means there is no reason to think I will ever have a girl".

But more importantly, I'd like to save you some time.

Myself and I am positive most of the people here understand all the principles you pointed out and then some.

You have to keep in mind "we" all know what mainstream science/school teaches us.

I myself excelled throughout school.

So, I don't aim to sound harsh, but there is little to "teach" anyone here.

RE'rs have a notion that flat earthers are uneducated. I think if you asked around you'd find that's not the case at all.

The fact that people who support flat earth do not subscribe to mainstream science, doesn't mean they don't understand it.

And in relation to your post, that was a good response to the question.

Now if that or even a bit of that was was said for #1 in the video then it would at least have an argument.

The kindergarten like statements of that video are just laughable. Truly, I was out and about today mocking it with some friends, to me it is just that funny.

lol - a little proof-reading on my part could have noticed that error as it did not make sense in context of what I was saying next :)

No one said that flat-Earthers were uneducated. At least those from developed countries get their basic education. Some education systems are better than others of course.
What is readily evident is that flat-Earthers fail to use their reasoning skills... that could certainly be the fault of a lot of modern education systems where teachers tell you what to think not how to think.

I would counter that rejecting scientific principles does mean that someone does not understand science. Science is not a body of knowledge. Science is a method of gathering and interpreting information using evidence and logic. This is why, in a good science classroom, you are not simply given facts to learn. You are shown how we discovered them. This is why Charles Darwin is talked about when learning Evolution, Hooke is brought up when talking about cells, Galileo when talking about heliocentrism, etc.
The rejection of the fact that the earth is round is silly since there are simple experiments that can be performed to show this. The shadow experiment is common enough in high school physics and trig classes...

Of course the reasons in the video are short - there is a reason why it's called MinutePhysics (the series is pretty decent as well as the spin-off: MinuteEarth). And they were listed as reasons why we know the Earth is round, not proofs that the Earth is round.
Simply writing off an answer because it is simple without using the reasoning skills you were supposed to be taught in school is beneath an educated person...

10
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 03, 2016, 06:22:53 PM »

The funniest part is that as long as there is one irrefutable reason why the Earth is round, then the flat Earth fallacy is wrong.

And that one irrefutable reason is what?...

Drumrolllllll.... Let's have it!

Give us your "nail in the coffin".

You mean that there is only one of the points left that hasn't been refuted? lol
Only 10 points have been given and none have been refuted.

Oh you mean the video, I gotcha...

So the very first reason in the video...

1. "All other heavenly bodies are round and there is no reason to think the earth isn't the same."

Let me try it....

"I have 2 boys and that means there is no reason to think I will ever have a girl".

It's kindergarten childsplay at best.

The very first argument is not even an argument, its a gross and negligible statement...

Here's another example....

"I drive drunk all the time and have never got into a wreck, so therefore I will never get in a wreck while driving drunk".

See, but the drunk driver forgot that there may be other drunks on the road... you follow?

So, in short, the first "proof" is "this is this way, so this must be this way."

Can you explain the logic that makes #1 in the video a fact?

Then I will personally move onto #2 in the video...

1 is a step in logical progression.
We look up into the sky and we see that everything is rounded in shape. Stars are round, planets are round, moons are round, comets are round, asteroids are round (the smaller the object, the more imperfections from being perfectly round, but they are still in a 3-dimensional shape, not even close to a disk)... even nebulae expand out into 3 dimensions. There are no objects that are even close to being disk-shaped.
(Solar systems and galaxies are the closest to a flat design, but they are combinations of multitudes of objects. And they have a perfectly good reason for their shape:
)
You are welcome to look at the universe yourself. Take a telescope and look at our neighbors in the solar system. Take a look at the hubble telescope pictures...
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/heritage/

You having 2 boys and expecting to always have girls is a ridiculous counterargument. As any scientist, doctor, researcher, etc. would tell you, a sample size of 2 is not enough to draw a conclusion.
Now, try to realize that there are 30 billion trillion stars just in the visible universe. 3x10^22 (that's a 3 followed by 22 zeroes). That is just stars - and all of them spherical. Add in the planets orbiting each one, the moons orbiting the planets, comets, asteroids, ect. and you have an incredible number of object in the observable universe all displaying round features.
Here is a question:
Where are all the disk-shaped objects?

Now, our Sun is a star just like all the others. It has planets, moons, comets, asteroids, etc. that revolve around it just like the other stars that we have managed to get a close look at.
Here is another question for the middle of this:
Where are all the other disk-worlds that these other stars are revolving around?

Here is another question: Why is everything round?
The answer is a simple as something that the flat-Earth model cannot compensate for and so many deny it exists: gravity. Just in case you skipped this day at school: gravity causes objects to be pulled towards the center of mass of an object or group of objects. A sphere allows for the shortest distance between the center of mass and everything around it. For this reason, gravity slowly shapes all objects in the universe into spherical shapes.

So, the question you should be asking is:
If everything in the universe is round, this roundness is caused by gravity, Earth is made up of the same substances as the rest of the universe and Earth is also affected by gravity, why would a disk-shaped Earth even make sense?

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 03, 2016, 01:30:14 AM »

The funniest part is that as long as there is one irrefutable reason why the Earth is round, then the flat Earth fallacy is wrong.

And that one irrefutable reason is what?...

Drumrolllllll.... Let's have it!

Give us your "nail in the coffin".

You mean that there is only one of the points left that hasn't been refuted? lol
Only 10 points have been given and none have been refuted.

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: Argument via Empericism
« on: February 03, 2016, 01:26:53 AM »

RET predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable
[/quote]

Horrible argument with points made with a biased viewpoint and a closed-mind to what evidence and testability actually is...

Our Environment

"FET predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable"
False. Looking out the window (assuming you are not looking into hills and mountains) shows a horizon that ends at a specific distance that is variable to your elevation. It does not extend forever and it is measurable.

"RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable"
Testing the roundness of the Earth is as simple as measuring shadows at different locations at the same time. This shadow experiment is a common high school physics experiment and has been performed at various locations around the world. Testable.
You could also turn a telescope towards the horizon. If the Earth was flat, you would be able to see further with the aid of the telescope. You however find that the distance you can see doesn't change, the objects only appear larger. Testable

Gravitation

"FET predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer - Testable"
That is an inconclusive test. It tells you that either there is an attraction between you and the ground or that the Earth is accelerating upwards at a rate equal to the force of gravity. It does not conclude one over the other.

"RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable"
Physics is still working on ways to test for graviton particles. But that doesn't mean that gravity itself isn't testable. We can see the effects of gravity beyond the simply falling to the ground.
Objects weigh less the further from the ground they are. This is because greater distances between objects weakens their attraction. We even have a mathematical equation that gives us a relationship of the force of gravity as a measure of distance and the masses of the objects. This is one of the laws of gravitation.
Testable

Movement of the earth

"FET predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable"
Another inconclusive test. It would show either that the Earth was still and everything else moves or that the Earth is moving.

"RET predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable"
To be fair, the other celestial bodies are moving as well. And yes, we have the observational evidence to show this. But just worrying about the Earth, ancient attempts to map out various celestial objects around a stationary Earth proved that it wasn't so simple to make everything revolve around the Earth. They could do it with the stars, but planets were a problem. Simply making the planets revolve around the Sun does not eliminate all the inconsistancies... it only enhances them when trying to explain the difference in movements of the planets closer to the Sun than Earth and the ones further away.
We can observe the apparent changes in the tilt from away the sun as seasons change. Moving the Sun to compensate throws off the orbits of the planets, which we know doesn't happen.
Time zones are also a great way to show the movement of the Earth. Moving the Sun instead only leads to more problems due to planets appearing not to revolve around the Sun...

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 03, 2016, 12:59:33 AM »
All the argument here seems to be between one side saying that we should see the moon more often in certain photos than we do.


It appears you haven't been keeping up with the thread. Nearly the entire first page is about pictures and the rest of the thread....

And contrary to what you may believe, all that transpired BEFORE you entered the discussion.

The OP posted a video. 10 reasons earth is round... #10 We have pictures...

Someone said "We have pictures of lochness monster and big foot, so should believe those pictures are real".

So.. if you would kindly go back and read, you will CLEARLY see the bulk of this thread is about images.

Not entirely true. The comment about pictures of loch ness and other fantasy creatures was already debunked.
In spite of all the banter about pictures here, no one has yet shown a single picture to be false, so they are continuing to bang their head against the wall.

The funniest part is that as long as there is one irrefutable reason why the Earth is round, then the flat Earth fallacy is wrong. So, playing with pictures is futile.

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 03, 2016, 12:56:17 AM »
I was under the apparently mistaken impression that OP was:
How do we know the Earth is spherical?

I made a post http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4499.msg88069#msg88069
where I stated that the earth we live on simply cannot be flat
.

All the argument here seems to be between one side saying that we should see the moon more often in certain photos than we do.

What I am doing here is essentially repeating the earlier post, with a little different wording.

But, what about the crucial question? Let's look at the accepted dimensions of the earth.
From the TFES Wiki we have:
Quote from: Flat Earth Wiki
From: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects.
Presumably the distance from the north pole out to the equator can be taken as one quarter of this, 6,225 miles or 10,018 km.

I will use a rounded figure for the north pole to equator distance of 10,000 km, which is closer to the currently accepted value.

Then to get a figure for the equatorial circumference of the earth, we can look at the "definition" of the Nautical Mile:
Quote
A sea mile or nautical mile is, strictly, the length of a minute of arc measured along a meridian. It represents a minute of longitude only at the equator.
  Currently the Nm is defined as exactly 1,852 meters. 
So the circumference of the equator must be (1,852 m) x 60' x 360° = 40,003 km.

Again I will use a rounded figure for the equatorial circumference of 40,000 km.

But, on any flat earth map I have seen the equatorial circle circumference is simply the
circumference of a circle of radius 10,000 km, or 62,830 km.

I do not see any possible way of reconciling the quite accepted equatorial circumference of 40,000 km of the earth
with the flat earth equatorial circle circumference of 62,830 km.

What are your thoughts? Are my distances wrong?

It seems strange to me that so many flat earth supporters send post after post quibble about tiny problems they see in a satellite photo, or some feature of the globe, yet are simply quite unwilling to tackle (what to me are) glaring holes in their own model.
Part of this must be that so many of flat earth supporters simply do not understand the implications of what they claim to support.

Sounds like an accurate summation of this thread.

Your example is a great example on how the flat Earth model is flat wrong (pun intended ;-) )

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 02, 2016, 06:56:46 PM »
This topic is still derailed towards photos?
The photograph has only been around for almost 200 years and we have had access to space for less than a century. And yet, we have known that the Earth was round for at least a couple thousand years... It kind of makes arguing over pictures (which are simply the easiest way to show the Earth is round - by far not the only way) in an attempt to discredit the fact that the Earth is round an exercise in futility.

16
zetetic method:

modern medicine in general.
Double blind studies are Zetetic? ???

Since nothing has been proven using the zetetic method, they need to post lies... don't let it get to you lol

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 01, 2016, 06:13:36 PM »
Oh man, this tired old crap again. You didn't think to actually look around before posting, did you?

From the other FES website:

We get this video a lot, so I thought I'd make an easily found thread debunking it. If a mod could sticky this that would be awesome.

1. Other planets are round

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

2. Time Zones

This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

3. The Coriolis Effect

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

5. The Sun

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth, the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.

7. Magellan

Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

8. The Horizon

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.

9. Eclipses

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

10. Photographic Evidence

Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.

1. Other planets are round

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

2. Time Zones

This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

3. The Coriolis Effect

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

5. The Sun

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth, the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.

7. Magellan

Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

8. The Horizon

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.

9. Eclipses

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

10. Photographic Evidence

Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.[/quote]
[/quote]

Finally, someone that posts something else rather than the blatant lie that there are no pictures from space lol

I had already alluded to this post earlier and yes, I did read it. And the responses are full of fabrications.

1. Other planets are round.
There is no evidence that Earth is different and a lot of data that shows Earth is similar to other celestial bodies. Claiming something is different without evidence and contrary to the evidence is not debunking, it is misdirection.
Not debunked

2. Time Zones.
Spotlight Sun is a ridiculous argument. Fabricated to simply have an explanation, and yet if you actually think about it, it makes no sense.
The time zones are based primarily on location of the Sun overhead, culminating in a full day where the Sun falls below the horizon. But the Sun descending below the horizon itself should be a hint that the flat Earth explanation is incorrect. In the flat Earth model, the Sun would become smaller and smaller as it moved further away (especially due to the explanation that the Sun is really close to Earth). The Sun would also need to curve Northward more significantly in order to do a full rotation around whatever magical path the FE Fallacy has concocted in order to make it's full circuit of the Earth every 24 hours.
The size of the Sun does not significantly change as it passes through the sky during it's journey as it would have to if it wasn't millions of kilometers away from Earth. It doesn't even change in size from one season to the next as it would have to in the FE Fallacy to compensate for being located closer and/or further from the different hemispheres.
I could go on and on, but in the end, the spotlight explanation is ridiculous and once again we have a point that is not debunked.
Not debunked.

3. Coriolis Effect.
Sorry, but this is an observed phenomenon. You can see the effect yourself from the millions of pictures taken from satellites in orbit (you know the ones that people are arguing aren't real lol).
Try this site:
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
It was a great site to watch the epic blizzard that hit the NE US recently.
You can view the 2 different hemispheres and see that the Coriolis effect affects the 2 hemispheres differently.
The fun thing you can do on this site (as well as watching weather channels), is you can follow large storms as they form and hit different parts of the world in different hemispheres. One thing you can note is besides the Coriolis Effect causing the storms to spin in opposite directions, is that they have similar sizes. Not that we would expect otherwise, but if you were to spread the Southern Hemisphere out the way the Flat Earth is portrayed, the storms in the Southern Hemisphere would need to be significantly larger than their northern relatives in order to affect the areas in question in the time-frames shown. In fact, once the Earth in the Southern Hemisphere is laid out Flat Earth style, the storms now hit the areas affected at inconsistent times, which would be an obvious error when reporting the storms and in this day and age of instant communication would quickly show the error of the models. This does not happen though.
Another point the FE Fallacy fails at.
Coriolis Effect is not debunked - it's even stronger when you actually think about the implications.

4. Triangles.
Really? It's a conjecture? In this day and age where you can purchase drones and GPS guidance systems to keep you on track, this experiment is impossible? This is far from impossible and can be done by someone with the right tools, time and desire.
Not debunked, you simply haven't done it.

5. The Sun.
Of course the Sun is moving. But in FE, the Sun is moving around a set path relative to the Earth. What magic causes that? lol
And of course, your comment about calculating the distance to the Sun is another example that shows how the Flat Earth Fallacy fails. As said above, as the Sun moves through the sky during the day and during the year (different seasons) it's apparent size in the sky remains the same. This would not happen in the Flat Earth model because of how close the Sun is to the Earth and how small it is. The Sun would be largest when directly overhead and smallest at sunrise and sunset (2 things that would look differently on a Flat Earth), which we do not see, and the Sun would be larger during the summer and smaller during the winter, which we also do not see. Instead we see a uniform size of the Sun regardless of the time of day or year, which is inconsistent with a Flat Earth.

6. The Stars
The disk revolving around the North Pole is exactly what he knows the Flat Earth model looks like. And it certainly does not provide the same effect as a round Earth.
If you look at the night sky and compare the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere, you will notice some similarities. Both have the same concentration of stars and both sets of stars travel across the night sky at the same rate for instance. Now, if you look at the flat Earth model, both of these could not be true.
In the Southern Hemisphere, there would need to be more sky to compensate for the extra space needed to fill in the gaps, which would require the stars to move more quickly across the sky in order to go completely around the Earth in 24 hours.
If you look at any composites of the movement of the night sky in the Southern Hemisphere and compare them to their equivalent composites in the Nothern Hemisphere, you will find that the movements are the same at each equivalent lattitude during the same seasons. In the Flat Earth model, the paths of the stars would be larger arcs across the sky in the Southern Hemisphere due to the paths the stars would take - again this is not true.
Another point not debunked but only weakens the flat Earth fallacy.

7. Magellan
The disk of the Earth explanation is still refuted by the inconsistencies in the time it takes to circumnavigate the Earth. In the flat Earth fallacy, the Southern hemisphere is much larger than the Northern hemisphere, which would show up quite easily in the travel logs of the ships due to the increased time needed to move in the Southern Hemisphere than the Northern...
While the author of the video may not have used the model of the flat Earth you subscribe to, the point that circumnavigating the globe does not show a flat Earth is still true.

8. The Horizon.
Large waves will obscure apparently small objects? While this is true, you would be able to see these large waves and since waves undulate, you would be able to see changes in visibility over time due to the presence or lack of presence of any large waves. We do not see this. The distance that objects can be seen is consistent per location. Places like Kansas where there are no waves also show the same effect. Objects to not simply vanish over distance, they dip below the horizon. This would not be true on a flat Earth.
Pair that up with other points from above, like the size of the Sun not changing as it dips below the horizon instead of becoming smaller and smaller and once again we see that the flat Earth fallacy fails miserably.
Another point not debunked but make a fool out of the flat Earth fallacy.

9. Eclipses.
He is talking about eclipses where the Earth goes between the Sun and the Moon. Something that could not happen in a flat Earth for starters. But also, it shows the shape of the Earth across the face of the Moon, which is round not an infinite plane, which I have seen argued on this site.

10. Photographic evidence.
Your made-up assertions are worthless if you cannot back it up with any evidence.
You can follow the website provided above if you want, but all of the millions of pictures from space (the number includes all of the weather satellite photos and pictures from ISS, in spite what some assumed) show the Earth is round. And the pictures do not show the inconsistencies you would expect in a flat Earth: the Southern hemisphere is not extended and is consistent with the dimensions of the globe, the pictures show the curvature (distortion would not go only one way) and the pictures show the continents going around the curvature of the Earth, not going flat...
But hey, at least your explanation admits that there are pictures from space, even if you have to create new fallacies to explain how the pictures look lol

Once again, flat-Earth explanations fail and are inconsistent with each other: obvious fabrications in a desperate attempt to hold onto the core belief that the Earth is flat in spite of all the evidence to the contrary... cognitive dissonance anyone?

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 01, 2016, 03:21:24 AM »
That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?

lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.

If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.

Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.

All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.

THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!

When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.

Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!

You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.

If I am wrong I will shutup.

I said there were millions of photos of Earth, not that there were millions of photos of the complete Earth. The composites themselves are often made of hundreds of photos themselves. And yes, every photo from the ISS is a photo of Earth and included in the millions of photos taken from space of Earth.

Shall I simply give you the link to NASA's website so you can browse pictures? I figure that is something simple enough that you do not need me to hold your hand.

No I have already done that. I am asking you to. Under those conditions above.

Just 10 photos of the whole earth from space. It's that simple.

You've changed your wording and tone a little but haven't provide just 10 pictures of the earth from space.

You said millions. So hey I am giving you only 10.

Again when you can't find even 10 supposed photos of the earth you must ask why.

I've done my research. I have only found 5 on the NASA website. I am asking you to find just 10.

You say surely they must be there but you'll see they are not. But please provide us just 10 real photos of the earth from NASA.

You say it's not hard, so let's see it.

Saying that I changed my wording to compensate for your misunderstanding of what I said is rather devious of you lol

Your question has nothing to do with this topic. If you found 5 complete pictures, then you have found some complete pictures. Congrats - you can see that the Earth is round. Asking someone else to find more for you simply because you don't think it can be done only shows that you have no argument at all. You are simply pushing the photo issue even though the fact that the Earth is round has been known thousands of years prior to the space program and the invention of the camera.

Challenging someone to find you pictures when you have already found some only shows the degree to which you wish to hold onto your fallacy.

If you have no argument, you can stay out of the discussion.

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 01, 2016, 03:13:24 AM »
Mods, hasn't this ridiculous video been debunked thoroughly enough that a thread featuring it automatically belongs in Angry Ranting by now?

If only it had actually been debunked. I saw prior threads involving the first video and they failed to debunk it. The debunking constituted denials and outright lies, nothing more.

20
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 01, 2016, 03:11:43 AM »
Doing things like combining multiple pictures to create a larger picture from satellites too low in orbit to see the entire Earth is not doctoring, it's editing. The same can be said of using parts of multiple pictures to create an image of the Earth without cloud cover. Not only is this editing publicized in the pictures it's done in, it is not done to every picture and even the pictures used to create the larger pictures are still available for view. There are still thousands of unedited pictures of Earth taken from space. Simply claiming they are fabrications because you do not want them to be real is denialism, it doesn't make them any less than the damning evidence against the flat Earth fallacy that they are. It only shows you are close-minded.

They are literally fabrications and you just said so yourself.

Photos can be (and are) manipulated and are therefore not admissible as evidence.

Not to mention that of all the points given about why the Earth is a round and not flat, you only choose the one that you simply claim is manufactured.

I chose the proclaimed #1 "reason" of the video - apparently the main pillar of RET - and pointed out that it is indisputably manufactured. You've since agreed. What's the problem?

I did not say they were fabrications. I said some of them were edited by combining photos. There is a very big difference. In one, the pictures are completely made up. In the other, all the original photos still exist and are available to view.

Photos can be manipulated, but there is always evidence of tampering. This is why photos certainly are admissible as evidence. They are used in every courtroom in the world. They are used in showing evidence for scientific papers. If you want to dismiss a photo, you need to actually show that it is fake.

The problem with taking the position that photos can be manipulated and therefore nothing else is true is that photographic evidence is not even the basis for our knowledge that the Earth is round. It is simply the most straight-forward and impossible to deny unless someone simply claims forgery. Since there is no forgery, it is only denialism.

It has been known that the Earth is round for thousands of years prior to any space program. The evidence is there and is irrefutable.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >