Debunking Flat Earth

[Jimmy D]

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? ).

LOL secrecy.

How many millions of people are required to guard the "ice wall" of Antartica?
How many thousands of people have worked in cartography over the last 500 years?
How many have worked in the space industry?
How many in shipping? Aerospace? Global exploration? Geography? Geology? Astronomy? Meteorology? etc.

I repeat... LOL.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Time is on the side of people who believe in a flat stationary earth with the sun, moon and stars moving over the earth and waters above the earth, with God on His throne looking down.
The truth will eventually be reveled, if not before the second coming then the second coming will expose the lies.
It is really only something God can really expose.

Do you have scientific evidence for this, or are you basing it on stories you read in a religious book?

 

[USincognito]

He asked for proof of water sticking to a ball.

Anyone else here see this type of verbiage from 'for the lulz' Flerfer trolls rather than from sincere flat earth believers?

 

[SeventyOne]

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?

I did say that, because it's true.

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?

I'm sorry, but you guys aren't exactly standing on solid ground when you just assume the earth is a ball and therefore anything working on a ball can't work on a flat surface. Spare me the doublethink. I was being a bit absurd to demonstrate the absurdity of the original claim. I'm a bit tired of you all just making claims that "X" won't work on a flat earth when you still think ships go over a horizon. There isn't a one of you that has shown any knowledge concerning the nature of the very thing you are taking your time to argue against.

 

[A_Thinker]

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.

There is obvious proof of the FORCE of what we call gravity. Once again, you can FEEL that FORCE if you simply try to lift a 100 pound bag from the ground.

You must exert effort to generate a FORCE to LIFT a 100 pound bag from the ground. The FACT that you MUST generate a FORCE to LIFT anything ... means that there is another FORCE pulling back in the opposite direction. If there were no gravitational FORCE, ... you could lift items without exerting any FORCE. But we all know that that's not the way it is here.

It's what allows weightlifters to build their muscles by lifting weights. They exert a FORCE which counters the FORCE of gravity. And that bodily exertion triggers their muscles to GROW, so that they can become capable of generating even more FORCE. Weightlifters can also counter elastic FORCES ... but gravity is the most convenient FORCE for them to use to challenge their muscles.

As to "water sticking to a ball", most of us realize that we live and exist in a context ... which is not all the same. Some environments are warm, and some are cold. Mountain climbers will testify that there is less air at higher elevations ... than there is at sea/ground level. Things works quite differently out on the sea ... and underwater ... than they do for us on the land.

An honest questioner would admit that water behaves differently if you change or eliminate the force of the Earth's gravity. This is what gives Science its impetus. Science is OPEN to consider that things might work differently ... if you change the contexts in which the experiment is performed.

Again, honest debaters will acknowledge that following a shower, water sticks to the surface of your body ... to the extent that you have to towel it off. Also, sweat adheres to the surface of your irregualry shaped body. So, water does stick to irregular/curved surfaces. Change the context even more ... and we could see even more variation in the way that we expect water to behave.

 

[A_Thinker]

Flat Eartherism is not Science ... because it is NOT OPEN. It is DOGMATIC. You all really say the very same things ... just with a little variation here and there ...

"Water always finds its level"
"We can see too far"
"There is no curve"
"The moon is self-illuminating"
"There is no gravity"
"The Bible says that the Earth is flat"
"There is no continent of Antarctica"
"There is an Ice Wall all along the perimeter of the flat Earth disk."

And you bristle when anyone points out any flaws in these views ... or asks for proof that these views are true. You call all those who won't switch their belief to Flat Earth liars and collaborators, rather than just making honest arguments.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There isn't a one of you that has shown any knowledge concerning the nature of the very thing you are taking your time to argue against.

So how about providing references or links to the papers by qualified mathematicians, physicists, or engineers that provide a full mathematical treatment of flat Earth theory?

 

[Herman Hedning]

I'm sorry, but you guys aren't exactly standing on solid ground when you just assume the earth is a ball and therefore anything working on a ball can't work on a flat surface. Spare me the doublethink. I was being a bit absurd to demonstrate the absurdity of the original claim. I'm a bit tired of you all just making claims that "X" won't work on a flat earth when you still think ships go over a horizon. There isn't a one of you that has shown any knowledge concerning the nature of the very thing you are taking your time to argue against.

You're welcome.

 

[SeventyOne]

You're welcome.

Thanks?

I've been through all that stuff, or at least similar. I'm well into almost 2 years of looking at both sides. Also, scrap anything having to do with Sci-Man Dan, he's nothing but a buffoon, a source of entertainment for sure.

 

[SeventyOne]

So how about providing references or links to the papers by qualified mathematicians, physicists, or engineers that provide a full mathematical treatment of flat Earth theory?

I've done that on numerous occasions on past threads. Everything I posted was promptly ignored and ridiculed. I've decided if anyone really wants to find out, they will be able to find out for themselves.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've done that on numerous occasions on past threads. ...I've decided if anyone really wants to find out, they will be able to find out for themselves.

I've had a browse online and not found any serious mathematical treatments (except some debunking articles).

So how about a reference or link to the posts where you provided this information, or even just the thread name(s), or perhaps some keywords to search by, such as the name of one of these qualified individuals, or similar? Is that asking too much?

When you make a claim like the one you made in post #28, or the post I'm quoting, the onus is on you to support it.

 

[A_Thinker]

I've done that on numerous occasions on past threads. Everything I posted was promptly ignored and ridiculed. I've decided if anyone really wants to find out, they will be able to find out for themselves.

So, you won't/can't supply the name of one Flat Earth PHD, despite your claim to be able to do so ?

Just asking for a name ... who have you got ?

 

[durangodawood]

I dont think a single person here actually believes in a flat earth. Its simply too dumb.

This must be some kind of troll practice game thing that I'm too old to appreciate. or something.

 

[SeventyOne]

I've had a browse online and not found any serious mathematical treatments (except some debunking articles).

So how about a reference or link to the posts where you provided this information, or even just the thread name(s), or perhaps some keywords to search by, such as the name of one of these qualified individuals, or similar? Is that asking too much?

When you make a claim like the one you made in post #28, or the post I'm quoting, the onus is on you to support it.

So, you won't/can't supply the name of one Flat Earth PHD, despite your claim to be able to do so ?

Just asking for a name ... who have you got ?

I won't. Been ridiculed enough by the forum masses for anything I say or do on this topic. You are all on your own, and believe me, it's well-deserved.

 

[SeventyOne]

I dont think a single person here actually believes in a flat earth. Its simply too dumb.

This must be some kind of troll practice game thing that I'm too old to appreciate. or something.

That's usually the initial response we all have to the topic.

"It's dumb."
"What an idiot."
"Everybody knows it's a ball."

I've been there, but I'm not there any longer.

 

[A_Thinker]

I won't. Been ridiculed enough by the forum masses for anything I say or do on this topic. You are all on your own, and believe me, it's well-deserved.

Won't, can't, butt-hurt, etc. ... makes you pretty ineffective ...

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

IT's a little hard to figure out what you're trying to say here, or why it would mean the earth is flat, but consider these two photos:

It is not the dark side of the moon 'turning blue'. But the sky. You may have noticed that the sky is blue in the daytime and black at night.

You do not see any moon at all across the terminator (the edge of the lit part across its face) in the daytime. No perceptible light is coming from it.

This also helps us to determine that the sky (or atmosphere) is in front of the moon. We see the moon through the atmosphere. If the moon were 'in front of the blue', then we should be able to see the full disk. It is not that gremlins are out there painting the moon (lumps and all) exactly the same color as the sky. It's that only the brightly lit portion of the moon can be seen through the atmosphere. [When the sky is dark, sometimes the unlit-by-the-sun portion of the moon can be seen due to the light reflected from the Earth to the moon and back - earthshine, but in broad daylight this is too faint to be seen.]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I won't. Been ridiculed enough by the forum masses for anything I say or do on this topic. You are all on your own, and believe me, it's well-deserved.

Ah, OK. So, looking at your flat Earth posts on Christian Forums, you've posted a fair number on the subject, and refused to debate several times on account of past ridicule, which is fair enough; but to refuse to post your links to detailed analysis by qualified contributors because of past ridicule is odd, because any ridicule would be aimed at those analyses, not you.

However, although you've said things like, "I've discussed the science in great detail. ... There are past threads to peruse should one feel so inclined." and you've claimed that you've provided links to papers by qualified mathematicians, physicists, or engineers that provide a full mathematical treatment of flat Earth theory, "on numerous occasions on past threads", the site search facility doesn't turn up a single post you've made that discusses the science 'in great detail', or that contains relevant links to anything more than so-called 'primer' videos.

Given that you claimed to be "not convinced of a flat earth" in April 2017, and were still "shape agnostic" in July of last year, and that the links you claim to have posted would clearly be convincing, one would have expected to find those posts sometime after April 2017... but no - and not before that date either.

My evidence suggests that you haven't "discussed the science in great detail" in these forums, nor have you posted links to papers by qualified mathematicians, physicists, or engineers that provide a full mathematical treatment of flat Earth theory "on numerous occasions on past threads". However, it's still possible that I somehow missed all those "numerous occasions", or that the search facility did not reveal them.

You're welcome to show that you have done what you claim, and prove me wrong while doing so.

 

[SeventyOne]

Won't, can't, butt-hurt, etc. ... makes you pretty ineffective ...

Ah, OK. So, looking at your flat Earth posts on Christian Forums, you've posted a fair number on the subject, and refused to debate several times on account of past ridicule, which is fair enough; but to refuse to post your links to detailed analysis by qualified contributors because of past ridicule is odd, because any ridicule would be aimed at those analyses, not you.

However, although you've said things like, "I've discussed the science in great detail. ... There are past threads to peruse should one feel so inclined." and you've claimed that you've provided links to papers by qualified mathematicians, physicists, or engineers that provide a full mathematical treatment of flat Earth theory, "on numerous occasions on past threads", the site search facility doesn't turn up a single post you've made that discusses the science 'in great detail', or that contains relevant links to anything more than so-called 'primer' videos.

Given that you claimed to be "not convinced of a flat earth" in April 2017, and were still "shape agnostic" in July of last year, and that the links you claim to have posted would clearly be convincing, one would have expected to find those posts sometime after April 2017... but no - and not before that date either.

My evidence suggests that you haven't "discussed the science in great detail" in these forums, nor have you posted links to papers by qualified mathematicians, physicists, or engineers that provide a full mathematical treatment of flat Earth theory "on numerous occasions on past threads". However, it's still possible that I somehow missed all those "numerous occasions", or that the search facility did not reveal them.

You're welcome to show that you have done what you claim, and prove me wrong while doing so.

Here, I'll give you something...

 

[Strathos]

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.

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

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? ).

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.

You attributed several quotes to me in this post that I did not write.

 

[Freodin]

I did say that, because it's true.

Sorry, it is not true. It is not even false. It is just nonsense.

I'm sorry, but you guys aren't exactly standing on solid ground when you just assume the earth is a ball and therefore anything working on a ball can't work on a flat surface. Spare me the doublethink. I was being a bit absurd to demonstrate the absurdity of the original claim. I'm a bit tired of you all just making claims that "X" won't work on a flat earth when you still think ships go over a horizon. There isn't a one of you that has shown any knowledge concerning the nature of the very thing you are taking your time to argue against.

The difference - the very important difference - between the model of the globe and "Flat Earth" is that the globe has proposed, calculable, demonstrable and verifiable mechanisms behind its claims.

How do satellites work on a Globe? Basically newtonian mechanics. Forces that result in acceleration of objects with mass. Calculations to result in equilibrium of different forces involved in a certain system.

How do satellites work on a Flat Earth? Well... you don't know. There's no system to explain how they would work. There are a ton of asserted explanations that they don't work, that they are all lies and fakes... and those again do not have any explanation how these fakes would work.

Globe model tells us how it works. Flat Earth model makes claims that everythings is fake because the working explanation must not be real.