The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: devils advocate on October 06, 2017, 07:59:19 AM
-
Hi All
I was watching a few Eric Dubay vids last night and then You Tube linked it to many other Flat earth Proof vids. I am keen to watch some good ones that demonstrate the proofs of flat earth. Unfortunately all the ones I watched (Even those with specific titles including"Proofs of flat Earth" etc") were lacking of any actual proof :'(
They were kinda vague conspiracy threads and seemed more like trailers to the actual proof films than the proofs themselves.
I would really appreciate if any FE'r could post the links to the vids that they feel show the FE position best? Even if anyone was converted as it were by a vid I would love to watch it.
We could then use this thread to discuss/debate them
:D
-
Hi All
I was watching a few Eric Dubay vids last night and then You Tube linked it to many other Flat earth Proof vids. I am keen to watch some good ones that demonstrate the proofs of flat earth. Unfortunately all the ones I watched (Even those with specific titles including"Proofs of flat Earth" etc") were lacking of any actual proof :'(
They were kinda vague conspiracy threads and seemed more like trailers to the actual proof films than the proofs themselves.
I would really appreciate if any FE'r could post the links to the vids that they feel show the FE position best? Even if anyone was converted as it were by a vid I would love to watch it.
We could then use this thread to discuss/debate them
:D
I don't remember if it was here, or the other FES forums, but most FE talk I've seen on Dubay label him as fringe even by FE standards, and don't give him much credibility.
-
Curious Squirrel,
Who in the FE community has any bit of credibility? Honestly just really curious, I am not trying to patronize you.
Scientifically or within the science community? Not sure anyone.
I personally feel there are a couple that I would respect if they were to present experimental results, and be up for discussing and attempting to duplicate or disprove those results. Naming them feels a bit too close to witch hunting by not naming other's so I don't feel comfortable doing that. But look around the forums enough and they stand out imo. I can send you a PM if you're really interested in it, there's at least a few on each forum.
-
Just trying to see if any credible scientist/mathematician (someone that has advanced degrees from an accredited university) have any good points?
Do you realize how stupid this is? Here is what the :National Center for Science Education, Inc. says
"This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction."
"The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".
Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory."
https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory
Then there's this little problem with your so called "credible scientist/mathematician" who have yet to figure out what 95% of the universe of their world is. They can blah blah, drop mics but in fact they are retards, less than a child's brain.
Run along now, if you want answers you can address me as J-Man, I'm privy to most everything in life son.
-
Just trying to see if any credible scientist/mathematician (someone that has advanced degrees from an accredited university) have any good points?
Do you realize how stupid this is? Here is what the :National Center for Science Education, Inc. says
"This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction."
"The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".
Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory."
https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory
Then there's this little problem with your so called "credible scientist/mathematician" who have yet to figure out what 95% of the universe of their world is. They can blah blah, drop mics but in fact they are retards, less than a child's brain.
Run along now, if you want answers you can address me as J-Man, I'm privy to most everything in life son.
Please don't attempt to misrepresent things you find. Your videos are already bad enough at that without you using a satirical article and making it look like they actually have said the material contained therin. It's dishonest in the extreme, and indicates you aren't bothering to read or listen to what you're posting other than finding something that has keywords in it to make it look like it supports your view.
Everyone else get a good look, this is why I don't normally engage with J-man. His post here is appearing to present the contents of the linked article as though it was something they actually said, when in reality the very first sentence of the article tells the reader it's a satirical take on the Evolution shouting match back in 2007. I do apologize if this is considered bad form, but J-man's post seems in poor taste in the extreme here.
-
Curious Squirrel,
Who in the FE community has any bit of credibility? Honestly just really curious, I am not trying to patronize you.
I can send you a PM if you're really interested in it, there's at least a few on each forum.
I would appreciate that CS, whenever you get time that'd be great! Cheers :D
-
Do you realize how stupid this is? Here is what the :National Center for Science Education, Inc. says
"This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction."
"The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".
Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory."
As usual, you can't take anything JMAn posts seriously. He provided a link and a quote, probably assuming shallow people would read the quote and see that it had a source and not look any further.
Here is the opening of the article that he skipped over
This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.
-
Curious Squirrel,
Who in the FE community has any bit of credibility? Honestly just really curious, I am not trying to patronize you.
I can send you a PM if you're really interested in it, there's at least a few on each forum.
I would appreciate that CS, whenever you get time that'd be great! Cheers :D
Is this code for who are the paid shills? The ones that twist the truth to meet the RE agenda while acting all FE.
-
Is this code for who are the paid shills? The ones that twist the truth to meet the RE agenda while acting all FE.
As usual J-man you make no sense, please rephrase your message less ambiguously
-
Is this code for who are the paid shills? The ones that twist the truth to meet the RE agenda while acting all FE.
As usual J-man you make no sense, please rephrase your message less ambiguously
He appears to believe that people like our Inquisitive Sciuridae friend and I are paid by...someone...to post here. I'd REALLY like to figure out who does the paying because so far, I've not seen a single paycheck.
The business of "gravity being only a theory" should be expanded upon.
Science uses the word "theory" to mean "the best explanation we have for some phenomenon of nature". It doesn't mean "some vague idea we have" - it's just recognition, that no matter how solid we think we know something - there is always a possibility (however remote) that a better explanation might one day show up. Newtons "Laws" of motion seemed to be a totally solid, impossible-to-be-wrong statement of how the universe operates. But then Einstein showed up and proved them to be only an approximation. We don't say "Einstein's Law of Relativity" - we say "Einstein's Theory of Relativity"...because there is always a chance that it too is only an approximation.
But with any theory (or "law") - whatever replaces it has to explain everything that the original law explained...and then add something that it missed.
Newton's law of gravity ('theory') explains a large range of experimentally determined things. Why planets orbit the sun, why planets and stars form at all. Why there are galaxies, why things fall when we drop them, why every heavenly body of any size is a sphere and why smaller bodies don't have to be.
Anything that is "wrong" with this thing that's 'only a theory' isn't in these matters. It would have to be something that provides a better explanation at the scales of quantum theory - or which explains the surprising rate at which the universe is expanding - or which avoids the need for mysterious "dark matter".
This replacement theory would explain all of the things that gravitational theory explains - also in one simple rule.
The Flat Earther's can't do that. Their theories are a patchwork quilt of dozens of things that have great gaps in them (they can't explain WHY the stars, sun, moon, planets move in the way they do). Most of the pieces are no more than names. "Celestial currents" for example. The name is claimed to be an explanation for why things up in the sky move the way they do. But it doesn't explain anything - it's a name for an explanation that doesn't exist.
Some of the pieces don't fit with experimental evidence. For example: "Universal acceleration" fails to explain the lesser gravity at the equator and the greater gravity at the poles. Their half-assed version of gravity has to be switched on and off to explain why some things are pulled by the moon and other things aren't. Universal acceleration requires that it be ignored or "shielded" by some objects and not others.
So the FE "theory" (it's not really a theory because there is no verifiable experimental evidence - it's a "hypothesis" - an untested idea) isn't a replacement for gravitational theory because it cannot explain things like the tides or the orbits of planets.
If it WAS a replacement for gravitational theory - it would have to explain why the earth is round...something which it exists specifically to avoid.
So blathering on about how "gravity is only a theory" is to misunderstand almost everything.
-
Is this code for who are the paid shills? The ones that twist the truth to meet the RE agenda while acting all FE.
I've been posting for fun, is getting paid an option? That would be awesome! If you know where I can sign up for that please let me know. Thanks.
-
Well I've carried on my research as unfortunatley no-one has offered any of their favourites. I discovered this video,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF9AS_4BBWs
Looks legitimate. I doubt even 3D could debunk this guy.
-
Now this one is using flight times to prove the flat earth map: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyAh9OENJPU
And political/safety issues aside the points raised from 20:24 do raise some questions
-
Now check out from 24:09. Using the stars to debunk the round earth model
-
Now check out from 24:09. Using the stars to debunk the round earth model
So he says...the Earth rotates, the Earth orbits, the Sun orbits, the galaxy moves...so why to old sundials work?
That's his argument at 24:09 - right?
Well - a sundial only depends on the relative position of sun and earth. So the fact that the sun orbits and the galaxy moves is irrelevant.
Sundials only work BECAUSE the earth rotates - so that's just fine. Sundials do need adjusting though - they don't tell the right time through the year because the Earth is tilted on it's axis. An ancient sundial is no different than a modern sundial - they work equally well, but that's because they are both pretty much the same thing.
His argument is a bunch of "WOW! HOLY COW!" stuff - that's irrelevant to the discussion. When you trim down what he said to what matters:
1) The earth rotates once every 24 hours.
2) The earth orbits once every 365 days.
It's been doing this at pretty much those speeds for a hundred thousand years. Nothing has measurably changed to make old sundials not work.
The orbit of the earth introduces errors in sundials - and that error has been the same for a million years at least.
So all we care about is the rotation rate of the earth - and that hasn't changed.
He likes to use "scare tactics" like quoting the linear surface speed (1000 mph he tells us excitedly!) - when all that actually matters for sundials is that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours - which is a speed exactly half as fast as the hour hand on a clock....which (not coincidentally) is why sundials work (when correctly adjusted for the season).
Just another bullshit video...nothing new here at all.
-
As always 3D provides the science to answer the speculation :-) I didn't consider the sun dial angle but that does raise some questions that the video cant answer. It's a shame that no FE'r has offered a compelling vid to save me wading through this shit in the hope of finding something challenging. Cheers for your response 3D, you're a legend
-
As always 3D provides the science to answer the speculation :-) I didn't consider the sun dial angle but that does raise some questions that the video cant answer. It's a shame that no FE'r has offered a compelling vid to save me wading through this shit in the hope of finding something challenging. Cheers for your response 3D, you're a legend
Of course this brings up the issue of how sundials would work in FE. I'm guessing "magic perspective" is a part of the answer :-).
-
Has all the proof anyone would need. Remember Jim Jones and his Kool-aid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4sdGMx0gcg
-
Has all the proof anyone would need.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4sdGMx0gcg
All the proof that you have nothing of substance to contribute, seriously what the hell was that crazy video meant to offer? Thought you should know There's 3 billy goats asking where you've gone, they muss you.
-
I never really liked Dubay, the conspiracy and Neo-Nazi aspect of him plus the fact that he views the FES and all other planarists departing from him as controlled kinda gets me ignoring him. I don't particularly favor his perspective on flat earth either.
-
The flights from Johannesburg to Perth:
https://www.google.com/search?q=south+african+airways+flight+280&oq=south+african+airways+flight+280&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.4488j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
9 hours or so non-stop. Totally debunks the section on flight times.
It's clear that he chose a route with little service and looked at flights that stopped part way. If you run an airline and you don't have enough demand to go nonstop Jo'burg to Perth, you stop in Malaysia or somewhere. But when you do go non-stop, no freaking problem.
-
Here's the flight tracker link for South African 280: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAA280
-
This crap that is super easily googleable is sad. When the guy says "Flights from X to Y all land in Z", you can actually just google "flights from X to Y" and often find non-stops. Every single example he gives is easily refutable:
22:39 - Santiago to Johannesburg, claims that instead of flying direct every flight refuels north of the equator in senegal.
South African has flights from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo Brazil non-stop, 10 hours or so (see below). You can then connect to Santiago.
Again, ask yourself how many people want to make this trip and if a non-stop all the way to Santiago makes sense.
23:19 calls out the exact Jo'burg to Sao Paolo flight which does exist, South African 222
https://www.google.com/search?q=south+african+airways+flight+222
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAA222
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAA222/history/20171014/0900Z/FAOR/SBGR
23:38 Santiago to Sydney. Qantas flys this non-stop, Qantas 28
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28/history/20171013/1630Z/SCEL/YSSY
14 hours or so, just as predicted
SO FAR EVERYTHING THIS GUY OBJECTED TO ACTUALLY REINFORCES ROUND EARTH.
He is just DELIBERATELY ignoring easily found flights, or perhaps charitably when this video was made the flights didn't exist. But they do now.
-
OK, so the star trails stuff is also pretty silly.
24:44 Asserts that the galaxy is moving at 670 million mph. No sources given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy
The milky way is moving at 627 km/s, which is only 1.4 million mph, so he's off by 2 orders of magnitude
Asserted: Sundials are still accurate after centuries. What? Of course they are. Noon is noon, how could it be anything else?
Asserted: Star charts are all the same throughout history.
This is only because history is so short and human lives are so short.
Stars that are closer to earth have easily observable proper motion, for example Barnard's star:
http://astronomer.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Barnard_199_-to_2007.jpg
It's easy to do the math to show that even at stellar speeds, the distances in the galaxy are so vast that constellations evolve very very slowly.
You need to consider timescales about 100 times longer than humans have been painting on cave walls: https://www.wired.com/2015/03/gifs-show-constellations-transforming-150000-years/
26:16 - he asks how a star that is super far away could stay still given all the motion. The farther away something is, the LESS its apparent motion. How is this not obvious to him?
26:30 - claims without any support that Polaris is visble from as far south as 20 degrees south latitude. This is simply not true.
Here are some pictures of star trails taken from Ecuador, 0 degree latitude. We know Polaris is right at the middle of the swirly part to the north, which is exactly on the horizon.
Find me a single picture of Polaris taken from the southern hemisphere.
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html
27:00 claims Ursa Major "right next to polaris" is visible from the southern hemisphere, shows a picture of Ursa Major from the NOrthern Hemisphere.
Of COURSE Ursa Major is visible from the southern hemisphere - it only goes to about 63 degrees north "celestial latitude" if you want to think of it that way, so you'd see it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/North_Hemisphere.png
This also means that "right next to Polaris" is like 27 degrees away. That's HUGE!
He claims Ursa Major is visible to 30 degrees south, and since it's close to 30 degrees away from Polaris this puts the lie to the notion that Polaris is visible at all.
27:10 Vulpecula can be seen down to 55 degrees south! Well, yeah, it's only at 25 degrees north or so. The sky is 180 degrees across, if your latitude is within roughly 90 degrees of a star you can see it if the time of year is right.
27:15 "Taurus, Pisces and Leo" are all signs of the zodiac. These are zodiacal signs because the ecliptic (where the sun goes) passes through them. This means that they are all within 23 degrees of the celestial equator.
All of this seems to be claiming that something in one celestial hemisphere isn't visible from the other, but guess what: this would be like claiming the sun should disappear for the entire northern hemisphere for the winter. This is just crazy.
-
OK, now if you look at any of these videos and see something that you think is interesting, I want you to google for just 2 minutes and see if you can find easily some evidence to refute the claim.
Seriously, non-stop flights for nearly all of the things he claims don't have non-stop flights. Seriously.
-
OK, now if you look at any of these videos and see something that you think is interesting, I want you to google for just 2 minutes and see if you can find easily some evidence to refute the claim.
Seriously, non-stop flights for nearly all of the things he claims don't have non-stop flights. Seriously.
Cheers Douglips, this is exactly the sort of debate I wanted when starting this thread, still waiting for a true Flat earther to offer something of substance to debate (J-man clearly doesn't count as he no more believes in FE than 3D he just enjoys trolling) >:(
-
Well here is the proof I've been searching for....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWZGky6Rc0
Surely we can all agree now.