Debunking Flat Earth

[SeventyOne]

Lol, you cant prove it.

If he can make unfounded assertions that certain things wouldn't work on a flat earth with zero evidence, certainly I am well within my rights to to make the same claims about it already functioning on a flat earth with the same amount of evidence.

 

[Lost4words]

If he can make unfounded assertions that certain things wouldn't work on a flat earth with zero evidence, certainly I am well within my rights to to make the same claims about it already functioning on a flat earth with the same amount of evidence.

Thing is, science can and has proved the earth is a sphere

 

[d taylor]

I am still waiting for working models, demonstrating the claims that go with a spinning ball of water.

Anyone can start with a globe covered with water rotating.
Then show how a moon 250,000 miles away, can change the unlit side, which is black in their made-up outer space, to blue as seen on earth during daylight hours.

Surely if the science boys can receive images from over 4 billion miles away. My request should be a walk in the park.

 

[SeventyOne]

Thing is, science can and has proved the earth is a sphere

And that assumption is what is keeping you blind to your reality.

 

[Strathos]

I am still waiting for working models, demonstrating the claims that go with a spinning ball of water.

Anyone can start with a globe covered with water rotating.
Then show how a moon 250,000 miles away, can change the unlit side, which is black in their made-up outer space, to blue as seen on earth during daylight hours.

Surely if the science boys can receive images from over 4 billion miles away. My request should be a walk in the park.

It is, but you're just going to dismiss it.

Try this anyway:

Gravity - Wikipedia
Atmospheric optics - Wikipedia

 

[USincognito]

Evolution is totally different from things that we can 'actually' prove. Like a spherical earth. That is proven 100% by science, astronomy etc etc etc...

1. Evolution is no different than a spherical earth in a helicentric solar system. There is enormous evidence supporting both.
2. Nothing is ever proven in science and there's no such thing as scientific proof. All scientific propositions must have a potential for future fasification if new data leads in that direction. If a proposition is subject to potential future falsification it cannot be considered to be proven.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

[Strathos]

1. Evolution is no different than a spherical earth in a helicentric solar system. There is enormous evidence supporting both.

To be fair, the latter two are a lot easier to demonstrate.

 

[A_Thinker]

I am still waiting for working models, demonstrating the claims that go with a spinning ball of water.

Anyone can start with a globe covered with water rotating.

Then show how a moon 250,000 miles away, can change the unlit side, which is black in their made-up outer space, to blue as seen on earth during daylight hours.

Surely if the science boys can receive images from over 4 billion miles away. My request should be a walk in the park.

I wonder to whom you should send your requests ...

 

[USincognito]

If you feel the math is wrong by those you've seen, that's fine. There is work available out there by people with PhD's in Physics and degrees in engineering who demonstrate issues in the global math and put forward their own mathematical proofs for flat earth.

Name one.

 

[USincognito]

You want photographic evidence. Ok the ISS is stated to be going around the earth at 250 miles above the earth.

Speaking of the ISS:
1. Why can I use an app to determine exactly when it will appear in the sky overhead?
2. How does it move at superonic speeds and not be torn apart if it's a balloon?
3. How does it move at supersonic speeds and not produce a sonic boom if it's an aircraft?
4. If it's a balloon or aircraft, why is that photos taken of it show it looking exactly like the ISS and not like a balloon or an aircraft?

 

[USincognito]

To be fair, the latter two are a lot easier to demonstrate.

In the sense of direct observation, sure.

 

[Freodin]

If he can make unfounded assertions that certain things wouldn't work on a flat earth with zero evidence, certainly I am well within my rights to to make the same claims about it already functioning on a flat earth with the same amount of evidence.

You were the one who claimed that there was verifiable PhD level scientific evidence for the Flat Earth.

So why do you see the need to resort to such a drivel?

Assumption: The earth is flat.
Assertion: there are things that should not work on a flat earth... like satellite navigation relying on a net of object orbiting the globe.
Claim: these things work
Conclusion: we see these things work, we have assumed that the earth is flat, so these things work on a flat earth which proves that the earth is flat.

I hope you can see why this is not a scientific conclusion. In the same way we could conclude that the earth is hollow, a torus or non existentent.

Seriously: if there is good scientific evidence for the Flat Earth, why do people come up with "demonstrate that water can stick to a spinning ball" level nonsense?

 

[USincognito]

No they are not, its just they prove your so beloved science is lying. so you reject the evidence.

This sort of emotional verbiage makes it appear as if you are not a sincere flat earther, but are instead a troll doing it for the lulz. If you are a sincere flat earther, I'd suggest avoiding this sort of verbiage so we know to take you seriously.

 

[USincognito]

You can not even see a sun, moon and stars that is local to to earth. so why would i expect you to be able to see the distance from the earth in these two photos show the same distance or just a mile or two in difference.

Quit wasting my time with your poor perception of distances.

Oh my. Someone must not understand that Felix Baumgardner made his jump during the day. That meant the capsule was in daylight. One cannot see stars in daylight. I have no idea what position the sun and moon were relative to the capsule and camera, but if you think that they should both appear in the same section of sky visible in the photos then you really are in over your head on this subject.

 

[Freodin]

Oh my. Someone must not understand that Felix Baumgardner made his jump during the day. That meant the capsule was in daylight. One cannot see stars in daylight. I have no idea what position the sun and moon were relative to the capsule and camera, but if you think that they should both appear in the same section of sky visible in the photos then you really are in over your head on this subject.

Well, it's "space". And everybody knows that "sun" and "moon" are in "space". As are "stars". And "galaxies".

So every image from "space" must include sun, moon, stars, a couple of satellites zipping by and three or more spiral galaxies in the background. If it doesn't, it is obviously "fake".

 

[plugh]

Anyone can start with a globe covered with water rotating.
Then show how a moon 250,000 miles away, can change the unlit side, which is black in their made-up outer space, to blue as seen on earth during daylight hours.

Seriously, if you think that the "dark" side of the moon is actually dark, or in your words "black", then it's time for you to go back to basics. Or school. Or both.

If that's what you are working from then the rest of your drivel is understandable. Sad, but understandable.

I do hope you are a troll, as it would be really awful to be you if it were for real.

 

[USincognito]

But don't you think to yourself, "why now?" Kind of convenient it's all happening when belief in a ball-Earth is collapsing, huh?

LOL! This overblown rhetoric is almost as funny as some of the claims about Flerf.

Maybe hire some more crisis actors and pay some millionaire-passenger actors to pretend they've been in space, and it'll all blow over - crisis averted?

And here we have the tin foil defense. As long as flat earthers can appeal to a conspiracy, no amount of actual evidence will ever convince them.

I mean, you can't believe half of these millionaire puppets they throw in our faces got there by legitimate means. Look at Suckerberg. If that dude were the real deal, rather than someone paid to stooge for the CIA, we'd all be rich - even the odd Hamster.

Try actually presenting some evidence for Flerf instead of posting rhetoric like this.

 

[Freodin]

Seriously, if you think that the "dark" side of the moon is actually dark, or in your words "black", then it's time for you to go back to basics. Or school. Or both.

If that's what you are working from then the rest of your drivel is understandable. Sad, but understandable.

I do hope you are a troll, as it would be really awful to be you if it were for real.

It's really depressing that it has come to that point.

When Poe's Law was created, it was set in the very small framework of Creationism. It was set up at a time when the "modern / social media" Internet was still rather new, and even the "modern" Creationism was an established topic. Whatever you might think about the "classic" Creationists... real trolls were rare among them. Even the shills had to put quite some effort into their presentations.

But with the new Flat Earthers? You just cannot say. Poe's Law is in full swing. There is no way to distinguish between the real believers, the shills, the trolls, the real believers who seem like trolls because they simple accept what the trolls proclaim, the shills who believe all kind of stuff, but hooked on to Flat Earth just because it is the newest fad in the Conspiracy World.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well, it's "space". And everybody knows that "sun" and "moon" are in "space". As are "stars". And "galaxies".

So every image from "space" must include sun, moon, stars, a couple of satellites zipping by and three or more spiral galaxies in the background. If it doesn't, it is obviously "fake".

Satellites is a real give away. They don't exist

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

It is, but you're just going to dismiss it.

Try this anyway:

Gravity - Wikipedia
Atmospheric optics - Wikipedia

He asked for proof of water sticking to a ball, not unfounded, unproven theories. We're aware of what is claimed for magic gravity - what we lack is actual proof of the magic.

LOL! This overblown rhetoric is almost as funny as some of the claims about Flerf.

I'm glad it amuses you to read it as much as it amuses me to write it.

And here we have the tin foil defense. As long as flat earthers can appeal to a conspiracy, no amount of actual evidence will ever convince them.

Not at all. Just calling out what colour bunny the magician is going to pull out of the hat next. Easily refutable by picking someone new from the audience, rather than one of the stooges he planted earlier. Science is testable and repeatable, remember? A magician's tricks must be done in secrecy, with only a select few volunteers (e.g. millionaire/billionaire crisis-actor types - Richard Branson, anyone? ).

Try actually presenting some evidence for Flerf instead of rambling gibberish like this.

I don't need to convince myself, and I won't convince the willfully ignorant. Just regard my posts as a pre-emptive "I told you so", for the day some of our globalist readers finally realise the truth.