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.govIt 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?