The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Heroeswearnohelmets on July 22, 2016, 08:03:23 AM

Title: Flat earth
Post by: Heroeswearnohelmets on July 22, 2016, 08:03:23 AM
https://youtu.be/h5i_iDyUTCg
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 23, 2016, 12:11:40 AM
Perhaps instead of 200 crappy proofs, you could give us just one decent proof? Just one is all I'm asking for. No one wants to sit through 200 of those things. They get repetitive pretty quickly. Choose the one you think is the strongest, write it down in non-youtube format like a normal person, and we can discuss it. If (when) it gets debunked, you can move on to the next strongest.
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: Woody on July 23, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
If you want a more condensed version just go with the 100 proofs.  The 200 are just the 100, but just basically repeating some to make it 200.
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2016, 12:48:16 AM
Quote from: Heroeswearnohelmets on July 22, 2016, 08:03:23 AM
https://youtu.be/h5i_iDyUTCg
Please, oh please, when you post a video give a list of the salient points and don't expect all readers to plough through "Eric Dubay" torture!

More stuff that's been debunked a thousand times.

Look, you would be far better finding ways to patch your own leaky ship before bothering about tellings how little you understand about the globe.

How could we ever doubt that the earth is a Globe when neither you no anyone else can explain how things work on the Flat Earth, when these very things fit in perfectly with the Heliocentric Globe. Maybe you could explain:

That's just for starters! When you really look into it the Flat Earth explains only ONE thing - "Why does the earth look flat?"
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: crutonius on July 25, 2016, 08:53:44 PM
Have you ever heard of a Gish gallop?  It seems they've evolved to Youtube form.

Well I'm bored so here goes:  Reverse order from 200 to 131 because well I don't have a reason for that actually.  Sorry for the formatting/grammar errors.  I banged it out kind of fast.

200,199,196 conclusions
198 assertion
197 assertion
195 false, overwhelming observation evidence
194 false analogy
193 assertion
191 assertion
190 non sequiter
189 this really isn't proof, the shape of the earth isn't particulary important until a civlization becomes sea-faring.
188 pendantics/assertion
187 false, the rotation of the earth is slowing down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
186,185,158,157 not how physics works, http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module1_Inertial.htm

flight
I could spend a lot of time picking these apart but I don't need to.  I just need one single flight that crosses the south pole http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/south-pole-flights
184,183,182,181,180,179,

178 Strawman, nobody uses google earth as a logical proof.
177 completely out of context.
176,173,171 as flat earthers are so quick to point out, a photograph isn't the same thing as proof
175  jpeg compression artifacts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact.  Try downloading the uncompressed version.
174 Citation please? 
172 video link?  The iss has a constant live feed, it orbits pretty quick but you can see the clouds changing shape.
170 false.  The iss can be discerned with binoculars.
169 false.  https://www.mydish.com/support/installation-manuals-page
168 citation?  My guess, they use cell towers as a fallback when weather conditions are poor.  Therefore they would seem to perform worse in rural areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access.  The flip side of this is if there are no cell towers how are they getting a connection.
167 The thermosphere is 85km above the Earth.  Low earth orbtit is around 2000km. 
166 non sequiter
165 buy a cheap telescope from wallmart and go to http://www.isstracker.com/ if you want to check this out yourself.
164 Are the footage of space walks and walking on the lunar surface also shot in a vomit comet?
163 Citation
162 Rockets are normally launched to get something into orbit.  Going straight up and then curving to achieve orbit is the most efficient use of fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch.
161 that's not how flight work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight
160 that's not how rockets work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket
159 that's not how gravity works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
156 Were they 10km up? http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/.  Otherwise this is a non sequiter
155 If the curved glass made a difference you would see it at ground level too.  Check your math on the horizon argument.
154 The red bull dive was a publicity stunt so they used a fish angle lens.  I don't recall them stating that the intention was to prove the earth was round.  Your math is still off on the horizon bit.
153,152  Non sequiter.  I live in a valley, does that mean the Earth is really a bowl?
151 check your math.  It technically is slightly irregular, the extreme distances just obscure that.
150 I'm quite sure you mean Sigma Octantis if you're seeing it from the southern hemisphere.  Check your constellations around it if you're in doubt.
149 They don't remain fixed.  They only seem like they do because of the extreme distances.
148 Ehh could somebody decode this?  I can't quite make sense out of it.
147 I don't know who measured this but I think they need to recheck their results.  Triangulating the distances using just a pole of a known height at 2 far enough places on the globe will indicate that one is much closer than the other.
146 Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure how this is proof of anything if it's true.
145 I don't know what photos you're looking at but it really looks like a sphere.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking read it and enjoy one of the marvels of the sky.  Why would observers in the southern hemisphere see a slightly different side?  Also why in a flat earth would the moon suddenly turn upside down when you're at the outer edge.  FE kind of shoots itself in the foot with some of these points.
144 link? I can't seem to find this.
143 If we had no atmosphere then yes. 
142 assertion.  Math, citations?
141 the toilets flushing a different direction are a popular misconception.  The coriolis effect just isn't that strong.  It is a thing though.  You can see for yourself http://www.carolina.com/teacher-resources/Interactive/modeling-the-coriolis-effect/tr10643.tr
140 That's not how a Foucault pendulum works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
139 Rowbotham botched this experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment He failed to take into account atmospheric refraction.  This is actually pretty easy to test at home.  Get a friend, a pair of bionoculars, go to the nearest lake larger than a few miles, get your friend to stand on the shore on the other side and see if you can see his feet or not.
138 The perspective argument is a bit of a red herring here.  Get a telescope with variable zoom.  Go to a port.  Zoom in and out on ships leaving the shore.
137,136 God damnit!  You're going to make me read up on eclipses?  I'll have to get back to you on this one.
135 Yeah I'm going to need a link to that data.  It sounds like another botched experiment.
134 That's not how reflection work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)
133 Moonlight is a whole hell of a lot weaker than sunlight.  The moon actually cooling things?  That's an experiment that no one can seem to reproduce. http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=1590436706491009951
132,131  I can't even...
 
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: crutonius on July 26, 2016, 08:46:59 PM
Several dozen more.  I'm getting the questions from http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html btw.  I'm certainly not going to wait through a youtube video that long.

129 Please just buy a cheap telescope.  They're actually kind of cool.  This one is absurd
128 It is impossible to tell time completely accurately without adjustment.  It's been a challenge for every civlization since the beginning of time.  http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Measurement_of_Time.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar
127  That picture actually works against this premise.  You can clearly see the brightest part of the reflection do not form a straight line to the observer.  I do see lesser reflections from ripples.
126 seasons don't work that way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
125 Well judging by the angles I'm seeing in that photograph it looks like the sun is roughly a mile up.  I doubt anyone thinks that's the case.  Perhaps this will clear things up https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-when-the-sun-is-moving-through-the-clouds-we-see-the-sun-rays-coming-through-at-an-angle
124.  That doesn't look like it's directly under it.  Also it's the wrong size.  Wouldn't it be an equal size if the Earth were flat?
123.  You don't need a space program to verify this one.  Just watch a few sundials from around the world and record their readings http://sunny.astro.washington.edu/sundialwebcams.php.  If you assume a flat earth the distance that you triangulate to will vary wildly with time of day and location.
122,121,114,113,98  argument from personal incredulity
120 Etymology is not the same thing as proof.
119  Even jupiter?  http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news/jupiter-big-bright-andbeautiful/
118,117  Tides don't work that way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
116 Are you sure you're not looking at the same universe I am?
115 All you need is a vacuum chamber to observe this for yourself  http://www.bestvaluevacs.com/5gvac.html
112 sigh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit
111 flights do fly over the antarctic http://www.gotravelyourway.com/2013/07/20/qantas-flight-qf63-from-sydney-to-johannesburg/
110,109,108 We've come a long way with navigation since trying to draw a circle on a piece of paper.  I assure you we can travel in a straight line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation
107,106  No ICP, that's not how magnets work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism
105,104,103,102,101,100,99 I might look this up later but given that the author can't tell the difference between Polaris and Sigma Octantis I'm going to go ahead and assume that he can't reliably tell the difference between constellations.
97 We've actually got a lot of data on the big bang.  It's a fascinating read, highly recommended.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 29, 2016, 08:32:20 PM
Quote from: crutonius on July 26, 2016, 08:46:59 PM
<#200 - #97>

The hero we don't deserve.

But seriously, you may want to slow down. The stupidity from that video might be contagious if taken in high doses.
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: crutonius on July 29, 2016, 11:02:04 PM
Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on July 29, 2016, 08:32:20 PM
Quote from: crutonius on July 26, 2016, 08:46:59 PM
<#200 - #97>

The hero we don't deserve.

But seriously, you may want to slow down. The stupidity from that video might be contagious if taken in high doses.

Oh I didn't watch the video.  I couldn't handle that even on a youtube documentary with good production value.  There's a link to a web page in the description that lists each point.  I'm actually learning a lot of things I didn't know by going through each point. 

I'm starting to wonder about the intentions of the author of this list, Eric Dubay I guess.  None of these points stand up to any scrutiny.  This video took  time to compile so he had to have known that.  Is it some kind of performance art?  A prank?  Is he secretly promoting science on Youtube by getting people to research things?  Or a more likely but also depressing option, he has no marketable job skills so he's attacking common knowledge to gain an audience and earn a few advertising dollars? 
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: Rounder on July 30, 2016, 03:35:40 AM
Quote from: crutonius on July 29, 2016, 11:02:04 PM
I'm starting to wonder about the intentions of the author of this list, Eric Dubay I guess.

Well, the Encyclopedia of American Loons (http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2016/01/1565-eric-dubay.html) has an opinion...
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: geckothegeek on July 30, 2016, 05:13:52 PM
I've been wondering if the intention of this (and "the other" fe website) was to post all this ridiculous flat earth nonsense to get people to do some research and find  out thow things really are.
The horizon and how to estimate the distance to it is just one example.(I did some research on this, too.)
The distance from the earth to the moon and the size of the moon and the ways this has been calculated and determined is another example.
(I was vaguely aware of this but I did some research into how Mc Donald Observatory did this and how some Amateur Radio Operators did this. This has been covered on other subjects on these websites.)


Or is The Flat Earth Society just a prank, too ? I don't think there is any  money involved other than maybe from dues or donations for membership in the FES ?

Maybe Rowbotham's intention  was to come up with the Flat Earth Society as just such an unusual subject that he could make some money by gaining an audience for  his writings and lectures.
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: Woody on July 30, 2016, 06:05:25 PM
I think evidence that this society is not 100% true believers in FE is they allow dissenting opinions.

Try asking questions, then questioning the answers other places on the web.  Dubay's site is a good example.  If you ask too many questions and/or question the answers you are given you will be banned.

Conspiracy theorist do not like being questioned or evidence they are wrong presented to them.  They tend to believe people not believing and questioning their evidence are part of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: geckothegeek on July 30, 2016, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: Woody on July 30, 2016, 06:05:25 PM
I think evidence that this society is not 100% true believers in FE is they allow dissenting opinions.

Try asking questions, then questioning the answers other places on the web.  Dubay's site is a good example.  If you ask too many questions and/or question the answers you are given you will be banned.

Conspiracy theorist do not like being questioned or evidence they are wrong presented to them.  They tend to believe people not believing and questioning their evidence are part of the conspiracy.

There is a  book about the conspiracy theories regarding the Titanc Disaster. The author was of the opinion that "Conspiracy theories are invented because some people just don't believe that something just happened."

I've been banned by another author on another book for about the same reasons. He made some errors but doesn't like to hear about them....mostly from rank, non professional readers. There were three other critical reviews, one which more or less said the author's conspiracy theories were more or less ridiculous. The author was called "snobbish" by one of his former students.

jroa knows that  I am a  trouble maker. LOL  I've been banned several times by the FES.
Title: Re: Flat earth
Post by: CableDawg on July 31, 2016, 10:13:35 AM
Quote from: geckothegeek on July 30, 2016, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: Woody on July 30, 2016, 06:05:25 PM
I think evidence that this society is not 100% true believers in FE is they allow dissenting opinions.

Try asking questions, then questioning the answers other places on the web.  Dubay's site is a good example.  If you ask too many questions and/or question the answers you are given you will be banned.

Conspiracy theorist do not like being questioned or evidence they are wrong presented to them.  They tend to believe people not believing and questioning their evidence are part of the conspiracy.

There is a  book about the conspiracy theories regarding the Titanc Disaster. The author was of the opinion that "Conspiracy theories are invented because some people just don't believe that something just happened."

I've been banned by another author on another book for about the same reasons. He made some errors but doesn't like to hear about them....mostly from rank, non professional readers. There were three other critical reviews, one which more or less said the author's conspiracy theories were more or less ridiculous. The author was called "snobbish" by one of his former students.

jroa knows that  I am a  trouble maker. LOL  I've been banned several times by the FES.

Being ignored is what really hurts though.