[Jonathan_Smith]

Hey guys I'm new here and here for a good reason. I am trying to make a video series debunking flat earth. I'm sure you're all quite confident I won't be able to do it, but anyway the reason I'm here is because so often members on both sides of the debate are so engaged in finger pointing and throwing insults that there is very little I can analyse of either side's arguments. I promise my video is going to be as objective as possible. There will be no mockery whatsoever of flat Earth theorists, just genuine, academic and educated discussion.

Therefore I would like to enlist your help in providing me with some concrete examples of why you believe the Earth is flat. I've heard many explanations, but here I want to hear concrete and concise explanations that fit the following criteria:

• No photographic evidence: since flat Earthers claim that globe Earth photos are CGI, the same standard applies to FE theorists.
• No evidence from the Bible: with all due respect to religion, the last thing I want is personal attack and to be honest citing the Bible will not benefit the flat Earth cause at all.
• Holistic consideration: very often flat Earth explanations are good for explaining one phenomenon but contradict with other FE theories, so if you want to sound persuasive you need to give evidence that is able to address natural phenomena in their entirety.
• Make sure you don't misread science: please confirm whether what you state is what modern science believes in before you start accusing them of fake science.

It would also help if you could provide a list of FE models that I can examine.

In the future I might also ask in more detail how you would respond to some of my explanations. Thanks in advance for whoever responds, I really appreciate your help in this project! Ultimately, I hope that FE and globe Earthers can finally come hand in hand and start realising that we share this planet no matter what its shape and that's all we need to know to be friends

[Tom Bishop]

Flat Earth does not need to be debunked. It is the empirical conclusion to our reality. It is the Round Earth theory and all of its unverified axioms that needs to be demonstrated.

You are trying to debunk the conclusion that rain comes from rainclouds; oblivious to the fact that rain coming from rainclouds is the empirical reality. The verification must be with those theories that make conclusions contrary to experience, and who have built an array of illusions and mathematical models that "explain" why the obvious truth is untrue.

Experience is the base reality which is true before all else. A theory trying to contradict our experience (and that experience goes much further than merely seeing a flat horizon) has a high burden to meet. At its core the Flat Earth movement isn't about a theory about the shape of the earth so much as it is an emperical movement in the pursuit of truth.

[StinkyOne]

Flat Earth does not need to be debunked. It is the empirical conclusion to our reality. It is the Round Earth theory and all of its unverified axioms that needs to be demonstrated.

You are trying to debunk the conclusion that rain comes from rainclouds; oblivious to the fact that rain coming from rainclouds is the empirical reality. The verification must be with those theories that make conclusions contrary to experience, and who have built an array of illusions and mathematical models that "explain" why the obvious truth is untrue.

I often wonder what reality you live in. To me, it is empirically clear that the Earth is round. I guess living by a large body of water helps that viewpoint. I can see a very defined horizon, which either means it dips out of sight or falls over an edge. Since I've been out in a boat, I know it doesn't fall over an edge. I also see the Sun set over this body of water and it is VERY clear that it is going down below the horizon. Oh, and then there's the science. Blows FE out of the water.

[Curious Squirrel]

Flat Earth does not need to be debunked. It is the empirical conclusion to our reality. It is the Round Earth theory and all of its unverified axioms that needs to be demonstrated.

You are trying to debunk the conclusion that rain comes from rainclouds; oblivious to the fact that rain coming from rainclouds is the empirical reality. The verification must be with those theories that make conclusions contrary to experience, and who have built an array of illusions and mathematical models that "explain" why the obvious truth is untrue.

Experience is the base reality which is true before all else. A theory trying to contradict our experience (and that experience goes much further than merely seeing a flat horizon) has a high burden to meet. At its core the Flat Earth movement isn't about a theory about the shape of the earth so much as it is an emperical movement in the pursuit of truth.

So not only do you not answer the question in any meaningful way, but you indirectly insult everyone who doesn't think the same way you do. Bravo. Yet in order to make your 'empirical reality' work, you need to discard proven-to-work at any testable scale math, create a new definition of perspective, and sidestep issues in physics. You also need to create a global conspiracy, on the order of scale of the Illuminati if not larger.

So please, how exactly is the idea of a flat Earth, an 'empirical reality' beyond "Looks pretty flat to me"? Because honestly, that's one of two things I've seen that the evidence for it doesn't rely on the truth of the very thing it's attempting to prove.

[Tom Bishop]

Flat Earth does not need to be debunked. It is the empirical conclusion to our reality. It is the Round Earth theory and all of its unverified axioms that needs to be demonstrated.

You are trying to debunk the conclusion that rain comes from rainclouds; oblivious to the fact that rain coming from rainclouds is the empirical reality. The verification must be with those theories that make conclusions contrary to experience, and who have built an array of illusions and mathematical models that "explain" why the obvious truth is untrue.

I often wonder what reality you live in. To me, it is empirically clear that the Earth is round. I guess living by a large body of water helps that viewpoint. I can see a very defined horizon, which either means it dips out of sight or falls over an edge. Since I've been out in a boat, I know it doesn't fall over an edge. I also see the Sun set over this body of water and it is VERY clear that it is going down below the horizon. Oh, and then there's the science. Blows FE out of the water.

Your conclusions are slanted. You say that you see that the sun go below the horizon, but did you really see that? How did you see the sun below the horizon?

If you were more honest you would say that you saw the sun go into the horizon, and that is all you saw, nothing more and nothing less.

[StinkyOne]

Flat Earth does not need to be debunked. It is the empirical conclusion to our reality. It is the Round Earth theory and all of its unverified axioms that needs to be demonstrated.

You are trying to debunk the conclusion that rain comes from rainclouds; oblivious to the fact that rain coming from rainclouds is the empirical reality. The verification must be with those theories that make conclusions contrary to experience, and who have built an array of illusions and mathematical models that "explain" why the obvious truth is untrue.

I often wonder what reality you live in. To me, it is empirically clear that the Earth is round. I guess living by a large body of water helps that viewpoint. I can see a very defined horizon, which either means it dips out of sight or falls over an edge. Since I've been out in a boat, I know it doesn't fall over an edge. I also see the Sun set over this body of water and it is VERY clear that it is going down below the horizon. Oh, and then there's the science. Blows FE out of the water.

Your conclusions are slanted. You say that you see that the sun go below the horizon, but did you really see that? How did you see the sun below the horizon?

If you were more honest you would say that you saw the sun go into the horizon, and that is all you saw, nothing more and nothing less.

Nope, I see it drop below the horizon. If it went into the horizon, it would be hitting Earth. I know it isn't the furthest I can see because I can also see stars low on the horizon and they are further away.

[toxicwaste]

we all know that the government is hiding things. but how do we know that they aren't hiding the earth is flat. if we had evidence they would say it is wrong this is BS.right away. but if you look up B.oB flat earth theory you will be amazed. 

[Tom Bishop]

Nope, I see it drop below the horizon. If it went into the horizon, it would be hitting Earth. I know it isn't the furthest I can see because I can also see stars low on the horizon and they are further away.

The earth ascends to meet the horizon, but the horizon is not the earth.

[Tom Bishop]

So not only do you not answer the question in any meaningful way, but you indirectly insult everyone who doesn't think the same way you do. Bravo. Yet in order to make your 'empirical reality' work, you need to discard proven-to-work at any testable scale math, create a new definition of perspective, and sidestep issues in physics. You also need to create a global conspiracy, on the order of scale of the Illuminati if not larger.

So please, how exactly is the idea of a flat Earth, an 'empirical reality' beyond "Looks pretty flat to me"? Because honestly, that's one of two things I've seen that the evidence for it doesn't rely on the truth of the very thing it's attempting to prove.

What do you mean that is all we talk about?

The meeting of perspective lines at a finite distance in reality is observed, yet you argue based on math that the lines don't really meet.

We see the sun move across the sky, yet you say it is an illusion and it is the earth that spins.

When we step off of a chair and go into free fall we observe that the earth rises upwards to meet us. We also feel it pushing upwards against our feet when not in free fall. Yet you argue that there are invisible graviton particles/bendy space pulling us to the earth.

Our entire theory is based on experiences and observations. Your theory is based primarily on illusions, mathematical models, undiscovered phenonema, etc.

[AATW]

We see the sun move across the sky, yet you say it is an illusion and it is the earth that spins.

When we step off of a chair and go into free fall we observe that the earth rises upwards to meet us. We also feel it pushing upwards against our feet when not in free fall. Yet you argue that there are invisible graviton particles/bendy space pulling us to the earth.

Do you understand anything about frames of reference. If you step off a tall building you observe that the earth is rushing towards you.
What does everyone else observe? Why is the person who is falling's observation "correct" and everyone else's the illusion?

Our entire theory is based on experiences and observations.

It isn't though, is it? Because when experiences (like of those who have been in space) or observations (like every single sunset, or tall buildings occluded behind the curve of the earth or long shadows at sunset or a load of other things) don't fit in with your model you either call them fake or explain them away in desperate and ludicrous ways like lampposts "seeing" your hand above them and angling their photons up towards it (despite the hand being physically lower than the lamp).

As I keep saying to you, and you keep ignoring. If the moon and sun are as close as you suppose then you could take some observations (you claim to base your beliefs on these, remember) and do some triangulation. It would only require a few of you and you don't have to be that far apart.

And you still haven't responded to how long shadows at sunset can be produced by a light source which isn't physically low on the horizon. Take a torch in a dark room, put an object on the ground and do some observations. You'll see that the only way of casting the long shadows you see at sunset is to lay the torch on the ground.

[Curious Squirrel]

So not only do you not answer the question in any meaningful way, but you indirectly insult everyone who doesn't think the same way you do. Bravo. Yet in order to make your 'empirical reality' work, you need to discard proven-to-work at any testable scale math, create a new definition of perspective, and sidestep issues in physics. You also need to create a global conspiracy, on the order of scale of the Illuminati if not larger.

So please, how exactly is the idea of a flat Earth, an 'empirical reality' beyond "Looks pretty flat to me"? Because honestly, that's one of two things I've seen that the evidence for it doesn't rely on the truth of the very thing it's attempting to prove.

What do you mean that is all we talk about?

The meeting of perspective lines at a finite distance in reality is observed, yet you argue based on math that the lines don't really meet.

We see the sun move across the sky, yet you say it is an illusion and it is the earth that spins.

When we step off of a chair and go into free fall we observe that the earth rises upwards to meet us. We also feel it pushing upwards against our feet when not in free fall. Yet you argue that there are invisible graviton particles/bendy space pulling us to the earth.

Our entire theory is based on experiences and observations. Your theory is based primarily on illusions, mathematical models, undiscovered phenonema, etc.

1) Never have I disagreed that they appear to meet. 'Appear' being the operative word. That's what perspective is. YOU however twist it to be something it isn't, a physical reality, rather than an artifact of representing 3D space on a 2D plane. Your entire hypothesis here is based on illusion.

2) Then take Geocentricity. The sun moving across the sky is not unique to flat vs round. There is nothing to be gleaned about the shape of the Earth from a simple statement of 'The sun appears to traverse the sky'

3) You argue there is an invisible force moving the Earth upwards, that affects everything not standing upon the Earth. How is yours any less incredulous?

Your hypothesis is based on interpretations of what you see, based upon the starting idea that the Earth looks flat. Everything is bent to be explained under that umbrella. Round Earth now has the observed reality of space flight that you deny, because you absolutely must decry every picture from space as fake. Not to mention a few decades of technological advancement in the arena of space, and the math and science that support it.

[StinkyOne]

Nope, I see it drop below the horizon. If it went into the horizon, it would be hitting Earth. I know it isn't the furthest I can see because I can also see stars low on the horizon and they are further away.

The earth ascends to meet the horizon, but the horizon is not the earth.

No, it actually doesn't. The Earth doesn't ascend to meet anything. The horizon absolutely is the Earth. (well, in this instance water on the Earth) I'm literally looking at it right now. You make claims and back them up with nothing. You're going to have to bring some hard evidence. It isn't magical perspective because I can raise my eyes and see clouds the are further away than the horizon. It isn't some impenetrable haze that I can't see through, because I can clearly see ships going over the horizon. I've heard your explanations for this stuff and they come up lacking. Why is your interpretation correct and mine wrong? This is the answer you have to prove to convince knowledgeable people that the Earth is flat.

[Tom Bishop]

We see the sun move across the sky, yet you say it is an illusion and it is the earth that spins.

When we step off of a chair and go into free fall we observe that the earth rises upwards to meet us. We also feel it pushing upwards against our feet when not in free fall. Yet you argue that there are invisible graviton particles/bendy space pulling us to the earth.

Do you understand anything about frames of reference. If you step off a tall building you observe that the earth is rushing towards you.
What does everyone else observe? Why is the person who is falling's observation "correct" and everyone else's the illusion?

Other observers to the chair experiment are not in another frame of reference. Everyone else observes the feeling of the earth pressing upwards against their feet while the experiment is occuring.

The earth accelerates upwards because that is what is observed and experienced. The words "observed and experienced" definitely do not apply to "graviton particles".

While those theories of gravity may be "possible," they are not emperical in the sense that they can be observed and experienced like the upwards movement of the earth. This is why the accelerating earth is the better explanation.

[StinkyOne]

The meeting of perspective lines at a finite distance in reality is observed, yet you argue based on math that the lines don't really meet.

What happens to the train that travels on parallel tracks? If they meet, surely the train will jump the tracks. If it isn't a physical reality, than it is just how you perceive a scene and irrelevant.

We see the sun move across the sky, yet you say it is an illusion and it is the earth that spins.

You can't tell which one is moving - unless you want to invalidate Einstein's work. Pesky frames of reference.

When we step off of a chair and go into free fall we observe that the earth rises upwards to meet us. We also feel it pushing upwards against our feet when not in free fall. Yet you argue that there are invisible graviton particles/bendy space pulling us to the earth.

As has been stated, when everyone around you see you step off that chair, you fall. "Bendy" space has been proven by LIGO. That debate is over. Einstein was right yet again.

Our entire theory is based on experiences and observations. Your theory is based primarily on illusions, mathematical models, undiscovered phenonema, etc.

Yeah, those thousands of years of observations that proved the Earth round meant nothing. It's only a valid observation if it supports your claims. FE is a great study in confirmation bias. BTW, you know mathematical models are used to make predictions, right? If the predictions are inaccurate, the model is refined or discarded all together. If we lived in your world, we would be rolling around in horse-drawn carriages and not going out at night so as to avoid miasma. (night air that makes you sick) Next time you post a message, thank a scientist for your ability to do so.

[JohnAdams1145]

I should note that Tom is making a huge fallacy about saying "invisible graviton particles/bendy space'... at least modern physics is trying to explain this stuff.
FE hypothesis has:
1. "Celestial gravitation" -- "oh, we don't know where it comes from"
2. "Universal Acceleration" -- <insert dark energy/matter mumbo jumbo / no math, no observations, no experiments>
3. "Foucault pendulums / Coriolis effect are from the stars"


Do you honestly think that your introduction of even more unexplained junk without any sort of experimental/mathematical basis makes things simpler?

[AATW]

Other observers to the chair experiment are not in another frame of reference. Everyone else observes the feeling of the earth pressing upwards against their feet while the experiment is occuring.

The earth accelerates upwards because that is what is observed and experienced. The words "observed and expenirienced" definitely do not apply to "graviton particles".

While those theories of gravity may be "possible," they are not emperical in the sense that they can be observed and experienced like the upwards movement of the earth. This is why the accelerating earth is the better explanation.

No, you have not observed the earth accelerating. That is a complete lie.
All you have observed is that if you step off something you hit the ground.
You see the ground rising to meet you. Everyone else sees you falling to the ground. And yes, they feel that the earth is exerting force on their feet, you can measure that force with a set of scales.
So that is the observation. There is a force acting on you.

The claim that the force is being produced by UA is a rationalization, you have not directly observed UA.
You can assert that UA is equivalent to gravity but it is still a rationalization, and you then have to explain the Cavendish experiment which is easily repeatable and shows that there genuinely is a force between objects.

Gravity is still not well understood and gravitons are theoretical. But you could say that about the "Dark Energy" which apparently powers UA. How does that work? Or Celestial Gravitation. How does that work? You accept all this quite happily because it fits in your world view yet you sneer at gravity despite it matching observations and being demonstrated by the Cavendish experiment. This is an example of the different level of evidence you require depending on whether something fits your flat earth model or not.

[JohnAdams1145]

You can assert that UA is equivalent to gravity but it is still a rationalization, and you then have to explain the Cavendish experiment which is easily repeatable and shows that there genuinely is a force between objects.

Not to mention that the Cavendish experiment data yield a value of the gravitational constant G (well, this interpretation of his data came many years later...) which when applied to the Earth's spherical volume and a rough estimation of density of the Earth, gives a fairly reasonable value for g, the gravitational acceleration.

On the contrary, celestial gravitation is far too weak to keep things in orbit.

[Jonathan_Smith]

Um, guys, I don't mean to interrupt but can somebody please answer my question? If you believe that the Earth is flat then great because I need your help identifying all the FE models there are and I want evidence that fits the criteria so that I can better understand whether FE is a holistic explanation. Please, if you are just here to go back to that never ending cycle of accusations then you are most welcome to leave.