41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.

« on: September 20, 2017, 01:07:35 AM »

Seems that a lot of these threads are bumping up against the issue of "perspective". Flat-earthers seem to think that it's a magical force that makes all the things they wish weren't true disappear. Perhaps we should start another thread where we can try to define this concept together? Here's the dictionary definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perspective notice, no mention of mysterious forces here..

One obvious flaw with the FE argument is that they seem to think that perspective causes parallel lines to actually touch or maybe even cross, whereas this is not at all what happens. There is no evidence of this happening, and common sense & logic tell us that this is impossible. In another thread, I think Tom was getting close to saying that perspective somehow changes reality (which it so obviously doesn't, it only affects the viewer's perception of reality). Perhaps we need to start with the concept of asymptote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote -- In essence, while the parallel lines do seem to converge at a distance, they never actually meet, and the certainly do not cross. By the way, as an aside, this explains the whole "light spreading through the clouds" phenomenon, that flerfers like to use as supposed "proof" that the sun is way closer than science tell us it is. [sarcasm] After all, why do we need observations, measurements, logic, and reasoning, when it just looks like it's closer? [/sarcasm]

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: September 19, 2017, 08:24:17 PM »

Why do we need to declare that viewpoint as true? Why not some other viewpoint? You have not provided a coherent argument for why that viewpoint is truer than all other points around it.

Wow, just wow... I never said one viewpoint is "truer" than another, I was merely pointing out that we were discussing the one where we see the earth, sun, and clouds from the side. Since you're having so much trouble understanding me, I'll try to make it easier for you. Please answer the following questions:

1) do parallel lines exist, at least in theory?
2) in the flat earth model, does the sun move parallel to the supposedly flat surface of the earth?
3) are the clouds generally moving parallel to the supposedly flat surface of the earth?
4) is the sun above or below the clouds?
5) does light move in a straight line?

Let's start with that. Please try to coherently answer these questions.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sun

« on: September 19, 2017, 08:09:37 PM »

I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.

Coming from someone who doesn't seem to have read the wiki, this doesn't mean much. If you claim to have read it, I'd suggest doing it again, because you are lacking in the very basics. If you need help, I would suggest asking.

They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.

You really do not understand how burden of proof works, do you?

Unlike the majority of flerfers, my reading comprehension is just fine, and reading some nonsense once is enough for me.

In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sun

« on: September 19, 2017, 03:56:18 PM »

I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.

"No one knows" -- umm not quite, it's more accurate to say "everyone knows, but the flatheads missed the memo (the class, the physics book chapter, etc.)".

"I don't know" -- that's the most accurate statement a flattie can make. If you really, actually think about it, you guys don't actually have a single explanation for any phenomenon, just a bunch of "why's" and "i don't understands".

If gravity doesn't exist

They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.

45

Flat Earth Community / Re: POLL: Dear Flat Earthers, what kind of evidence would convince you the earth is round?

« on: September 19, 2017, 03:50:06 PM »

For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?

Potentially.

Great, that's what I was looking for! Dear RE readers, perhaps we should put together a kickstarter campaign and raise some money to send these poor souls on a trip like this: http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ I am guessing that many flerfers cannot afford this, or would avoid going at all costs just to make sure their precious belief system is not shattered, but maybe we can find a few who still have their doubts.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: September 19, 2017, 03:42:52 PM »

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:

 -- I think you're letting him off the hook to easily!

The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

Nope, it provides an erroneous depiction of perspective. When viewed from the side, a distance away, parallel lines remain parallel. Here's a video I just made to demonstrate this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l0e7yca4uk2y836/IMG_0081.MOV?dl=0 In my video, the view from above onto the entire page shows parallel lines, just like the surface of the supposedly flat earth and the sun that supposedly travels over it in the diagram 3D made. You see the lines begin to converge ONLY when I move the camera closer to one end of the lines. The video you posted is a typical example of flerfer confusion: the author is wrongfully using converging lines in a side view, which never occurs.

Thoughts?

This is a good video. If I were to repurpose it I would use it to explain that parallel lines are not always parallel and are highly dependent on the perspective of the observer. Your parallel lines do not remain parallel as you move the camera around in your video. When the camera gets close to one end the lines appear to be somewhat pointed towards each other. If those lines were to continue onwards they would eventually touch. You cannot have to lines angled at each other and continuing forever without touching.

Although the lines seem to be parallel from one view point; perspective causes them to point towards each other from another view point, and touch at a vanishing point with enough distance, much like a railroad perspective scene.

It is also possible to draw lines which are angled slightly away from each other in a non-parallel angle and make those lines parallel by moving your camera around the scene. The concept of whether the lines are parallel or not depends on your perspective. There is not one view point which presents fundamental truth -- they are all true.

Your error is that you drew the scene from one view point and arbitrarily declared that viewpoint to be true, for no real particular reason. If you had rested your face on your table, such as where you rested your camera at one of the ends of the lines, and drew lines on the paper, you could equally declare that viewpoint to be more true than all others. And then when you looked at it from above it would look differently. Which is true and why? Is truth based merely on what is more comfortable for your head?

Nice try, but no, Tom! First off, it sounds like you didn't read my previous post carefully - please find it in you to re-read it again until you understand what actually said.

Parallel lines always remain parallel (otherwise they wouldn't be called parallel lines, now would they?), they just SEEM to converge from the viewpoints I showed in my video.

The viewpoint WE WERE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING is the one from the side (equivalent to what I was showing with the camera above the notepad with the lines) -- this is where the FE "understanding" of perspective fails miserably, and this is the error in the video you posted (from the side view, the lines should remain parallel). You have not addressed this issue, and flerfers are yet to produce a convincing drawing of their model of how the sun supposedly moves away. Do give this a try, we would all love to see your attempt at this.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Homemade footage of curvature of the earth

« on: September 19, 2017, 05:58:17 AM »

Why always so belligerent Obviously.  I imagine you could shoot down many more people if you weren't so flippant.  It's clear that's your goal, and you could do much better I imagine.

Guilty as charged. I'm really having trouble staying respectful when it comes to this topic. Plus the FE apologists are fairly belligerent themselves a lot of the time, and there are a lot of passive-aggressive undertones in their statements. But really, my only excuse is that I've been debating it for a while now, and I am pretty tired of the way logic and reason are dismissed...agh, see, there I go again

Underneath all the anger and sarcasm though, I am curious to see if I can help even one flerfer open his/her eyes to see and understand things. Maybe junker will forgive me and address the actual issues I mentioned. Or he could just ban me or whatever, and I guess he'd have the reason to do so, but that still doesn't change the truth.

Oh, and by the way, I keep wanting to mention this: have any of you flatheads here checked out the flat earth questions on Quora? There's such a wealth of great evidence there - if you're truly open-minded, I would highly recommend.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.

« on: September 19, 2017, 05:50:47 AM »

Dear RE people, I suggest that as a general strategy we should refrain from complex proofs like this and really press on the simpler, easily observable stuff.

The FE has obvious holes in relation to concepts like gravity, momentum, inertia, as well as motion of planets and stars. Notice, for example, that when the topics like the sun's movement or video and photographic evidence come up, there's usually a sudden hush on their end (because this is the kind of stuff they have no logical explanations for). We should press on with these topics until flerfers run out of excuses.

[/plea]

Curious, and this has nothing to do with the reply I just made to you on another thread, but who do you consider FE'ers in this thread?

I meant this more as a general statement, and I figured that there'd be more RE'ers reading this thread than others.

49

Flat Earth Community / POLL: Dear Flat Earthers, what kind of evidence would convince you the earth is round?

« on: September 19, 2017, 05:47:37 AM »

For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help? Or if you went to space? Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?

Very curious to hear your response.

And I bet you're wondering what would in turn convince me that it's flat - glad you asked!

Here's what would do it for me... pretty much any one of these:

1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
2) seeing pictures of "the real" Antarctica, the wall, the edge, the turtle - whatever it is you think is there?
3) seeing a logical explanation of your take on this amazing force called "gravity", which I guess you ignore, or don't believe in, or just use other words like "density" or "acceleration" in its place (w/o really explaining anything)
4) proper FE map with distances -- if your fantasy is indeed real, then why are you taking so long to go outside and map it all out? maybe you'll be the first one to reconcile all the flight time issues that have been pointed out oh so many times!
5) hearing an actual scientist (with like an actual degree in Physics or something, someone who's published real papers, done real research, maybe taught in a university)   come out in favor of FE and explain how it all really works

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.

« on: September 19, 2017, 05:34:19 AM »

Dear RE people, I suggest that as a general strategy we should refrain from complex proofs like this and really press on the simpler, easily observable stuff.

The FE has obvious holes in relation to concepts like gravity, momentum, inertia, as well as motion of planets and stars. Notice, for example, that when the topics like the sun's movement or video and photographic evidence come up, there's usually a sudden hush on their end (because this is the kind of stuff they have no logical explanations for). We should press on with these topics until flerfers run out of excuses.

[/plea]

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Homemade footage of curvature of the earth

« on: September 19, 2017, 05:27:11 AM »

You've finally said something interesting!

It isn't up to the FE side to prove your videos to be fake. It is up to you to prove they are real as you are the one who is attempting to use them as evidence.

I thought that flerfers have always dismissed all space footage as fake pretty much automatically (because they start with the premise that the earth is flat, and anything that doesn't match this conclusion is ignored). This is the claim, and the burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. It's just like "innocent until proven guilty": you're accusing everyone around you of lying, yet you fail to provide any proof. Just because some silly youtube video told you that NASA lies, does not make it true.

Or we could turn the tables and say that everything presented as evidence on this website is fake (which it actually is for the most part, aside from other gems caused by general lack of understanding of reality, paranoia, and confusion) - now try proving to me that it's not

I am pretty sure even in RE the horizon doesn't curve upward. You should probably gain an understanding of things like fisheye lenses as well as barrel distortion.

What? Where did you see the horizon curve "upward"? Are you complaining that the camera is shaky? Homemade, remember? And fyi, the iphone camera does not have a fisheye lens, nice try though.

52

Flat Earth Community / Re: Exposing a flat earth liar: Eric Dubay

« on: September 19, 2017, 03:36:16 AM »

Yep, this seems to be a trend with flathead content and conspiracy theories in general -- they always wanna blame someone for the world being unfair, and who's easier to blame than the jews? They'd blame the black people if they could, but you get your ass kicked these days for doing that. But jew-hating -- that seems to be quite acceptable amongst the uneducated. Hence all the flerfers, holocaust deniers, and antivaxers. It's easy to be duped into believing one lie, if you already believe a few others of the same sort.

This is definitely a trend not to be ignored, so thank you for pointing this out!

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why do stars change on FE

« on: September 19, 2017, 03:28:20 AM »

So when you hear "perspective" - you should mentally translate that to be "I have no clue".

+1 !!!

Tom, since you seem to understand the FE "theory" so well, why not just draw us a few diagrams to help us visualize how things "really" work?

Under the theory of the Ancient Greeks you should be able to see all stars when under any point; but this infinite nature of perspective theory has never been demonstrated.

Please don't try to tarnish the accomplishments of the greeks. First of, they never said anything like that (and if you think they did, please point us to a source). It's really not that hard, Tom: the Earth itself blocks many stars from our view, so of course not all stars are visible "under any point". Also, some light sources are too dim compared with others in the sky, so they're not as visible (like when the sun is out, we typically don't see the stars because they are so dim in comparison).

And by the way, this is another hole in the FE myth: if the sun does disappear from view with increasing distance (unlike what actually happens - Earth's rotation), then how come we can still see the distant stars near the horizon at night, despite the fact that they are further away and more dim?

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Homemade footage of curvature of the earth

« on: September 19, 2017, 03:17:40 AM »

If they are not on-topic or are low-content, then yes they get treated the same way.

Hmm, I think you just may be a bit biased here, junker

I expect you to stop derailing the thread.

Dude, the thread was silent for a while there... I hardly think I did any damage, but fine, have it your way - let's get back on track here, while you enjoy your power trip.

Now, astronauts call ISS "home" for about 6 months at a time, so I think this 24-hour live stream video of Earth's curvature is very appropriate here: You can literally check in any time of day or night and remind yourself that the Earth is round. I'd love to see someone try and find proof that it's somehow fake.

One other video, if you insist that they have to be of true home-made quality:

There are countless videos from a wide variety of sources showing our planet's curvature, and photos too. There are maybe 2-3 very sketchy, lo-fi videos that are shown in all the FE "proof" videos to demonstrate the Earth's supposed flatness. I wonder why...

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: September 19, 2017, 02:53:15 AM »

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:

 -- I think you're letting him off the hook to easily!

The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

Nope, it provides an erroneous depiction of perspective. When viewed from the side, a distance away, parallel lines remain parallel. Here's a video I just made to demonstrate this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l0e7yca4uk2y836/IMG_0081.MOV?dl=0 In my video, the view from above onto the entire page shows parallel lines, just like the surface of the supposedly flat earth and the sun that supposedly travels over it in the diagram 3D made. You see the lines begin to converge ONLY when I move the camera closer to one end of the lines. The video you posted is a typical example of flerfer confusion: the author is wrongfully using converging lines in a side view, which never occurs.

Thoughts?

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Homemade footage of curvature of the earth

« on: September 19, 2017, 01:03:03 AM »

** crickets **

Yet again, all a true flerfer can do is pretend they haven't seen the evidence...

Hi there. Please refrain from low-content posts in the upper fora. If you having nothing to add to the discussion, then don't bother posting. Warned.

Lol.. Just pointing out the obvious here.

Speaking of content, what is the number of things per post I should be pointing out for it to be considered "enough-content"? Do you treat flerfer posts that have nothing but a denial of facts, plus maybe a crappy youtube video attached the same way? Don't think so... If you guys are sincerely seeking the truth here, shouldn't you address every hole that's being pointed out to you? Why are there no more flathead responses here? A simple "I admit, the Earth is round" would do nicely, and that's plenty of content right there by the way, even though it's only 6 words

It just seems like every thread ends this way.

Was this enough content? I'm new here, so still learning about your unusual ways

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Homemade footage of curvature of the earth

« on: September 19, 2017, 12:50:27 AM »

** crickets **

Yet again, all a true flerfer can do is pretend they haven't seen the evidence...

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: September 19, 2017, 12:43:35 AM »

That video is hilarious! Tom, have you never seen a building from the side? Not at an angle, as it's shown in this video, but actually from the side? Parallel lines remain parallel. It doesn't matter how things looks from the viewer's perspective in this case, because WE are not looking from his/her perspective, we are looking from the side. You are trying to dodge the question again, but no luck this time!

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.

« on: September 18, 2017, 09:11:45 PM »

Even a single sunset (or sunrise for that matter) is enough to prove that the Earth is round. How can we possibly see only half the sun if it's supposedly circling over a flat plane?

Is there another thread where this is discussed by any chance? I started one, but it turned out to be too angry for the sensitive flerfer souls. I'm working on toning it down

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?

« on: September 16, 2017, 04:59:51 PM »

Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.

Tom, what should such data look like in your opinion?
 
Also, as others have pointed out, you have obviously gone off on a tangent and derailed the thread (seems to be a pattern with you).

The OP presents a really simple idea -- according to the current FE map, southern hemisphere really should freeze because of how much the sunlight would scatter over that area. This is one of ~1 billion other issues with your little "theory". Until you have an actual response to this, we can count this as yet another loss for flerfers.