Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - TheEarthIsASphere.

Pages: [1]
Technical Support / username change
« on: August 17, 2018, 06:50:30 PM »
could an administrator change my username, if possible; preferred username would be "ULTRA MEGA luddite" (without quotation marks or any alteration to capitalization, of course)


The Lounge / what's up lads
« on: August 17, 2018, 06:46:32 PM »
been a few years

i see that things have changed a bit; gotta say that i liked the old forum design better. this new one feels too streamlined. also don't give a shit about what shape the earth is anymore lol; i couldn't care less if it was a flat plane, an oblate spheroid, or a nice pair of fat fucking titties

how's everyone been doing

The Lounge / Guess who's back?
« on: June 14, 2016, 09:57:44 PM »

On the debate section of this forum, the horizon often pops up from longtime users, or new users, using it as a way to prove that the Earth is round. Most times, the best excuse that the Flat Earthers can offer is "refraction causes the light to bend downwards". While they aren't wrong in how refraction works, they're wrong in using it as an excuse for the horizon.

To start off, I'm going to explain what a Refractive Index is. A Refractive Index determines how fast light propagates through a medium, and how much it bends. The Refractive Index of any medium can be determined using the formula n = c / v, where c is the speed of light in vacuum, and v is the speed of light in said medium. How much light bends as it propagates through the medium is determined using the formula n1 sinθ1 = n2 sinθ2, as described by Snell's Law.

Finally, here's the kicker - the Refractive Index of air is only 1.000277-1.000293. Compare this to the Refractive Index of a vacuum, which, by definition, is 1. This means that the refraction actually caused by the Earth's atmosphere is not even close enough to a large enough value to cause significant refraction.

In conclusion, the Earth's atmosphere would not cause a horizon on a flat Earth. Unless you flat Earthers can come up with a valid proof for why a horizon would exist on a flat Earth, the horizon remains the ultimate disproof of a flat Earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« on: December 09, 2015, 07:20:03 AM »
This is part one of a series of topics that will be ripping apart, and destroying Dual Earth Theory Fantasy. This post covers the "evidence" section of JRoweSkeptic's DEF page, which can be found here:

Alright, let's get going! Over the process of ripping apart DEF, I'll be targeting each individual paragraph from each section, and dissecting it.

The first question to ask is simple: what is evidence?
The answer is just as simple: observation.
Well. It appears that you, at least, know one thing about what constitutes "physical evidence". Let's see if you provide any sort of "physical evidence" that backs up your fantasy.

There is no form of evidence beyond this. To have evidence for a model, you need only observe something in line with what that model predicts. This is what science is based on: this is all there is. The best possible kind of model is one that explains all observations proposed.
Again you're right again. In order for a model to be, in the least, a theory, it needs to have physical evidence which lines up with what the model predicts, but, you still haven't provided any evidence yet. I'm still waiting.

Note, also, that experiments are merely a special case of observation. They are just a specific way to observe the rules of the world when applied to a controlled setting.
No shit. Was there a reason you needed to mention this? I'm pretty sure that most educated people know what an experiment is.

Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET.
What experiments are you referring to? Certainly not all of them. How do specific ones prove DEF? Do they prove DEF? Are you capable of providing an example or are you simply just making a baseless statement?

This doesn't mean much. Given enough time, any model could come up with explanations for everything. This is why we have Occam's Razor: to sort between two possible models, both explaining equal amounts, the question is which has more assumptions.
Your model has more assumptions, and little, to no evidence. This means, according to Occam's Razor, we should go with the round-Earth model, and scrap your "Dual Earth Fantasy", as there is more physical evidence and observations to prove the round-Earth model, than DEF.

Recall your experience reading these pages. All of DET falls into place from our definition of aether; so excluding assumptions shared between models (such as the origin of matter) the only one under DET is the idea of aether forming concentrations and travelling from high to low. Now, both of these are logical: deduced in the same way we may deduce any law.
Sure. From reading the pages, DET does, in fact, all fall into place and work perfectly if Aether exists. Except, you haven't given any proof for the existence of Aether. In fact, nowhere in the "Aether" section, or the "Evidence" section do you give any proof whatsoever that proves Aether exists. Without this necessary proof, we can logically deduce that Aether doesn't exist and that DEF is wrong.

To compare this to RET however, we need only look at the most obvious aspect not shared between them: gravity. The RE model of gravity is an unexplained property of mass bending space, and an unexplained consequence of this bending.
To make the claim that the bending of spacetime is "magic" is absurd, and simply proves that you don't do your research beforehand. The bending of spacetime is perfectly explained through Frame Dragging:

At the very least, the two models are equal: but note also how reasonable the DE assumptions are. Bith have some evidence behind them, while the RE model relies on hope.
No. They aren't equal. In fact, the assumptions you make in regards to DEF are simply bat-shit crazy. None of them have any real evidence behind them. In fact, the model here that truly relies on "hope" is DEF, not a round-Earth model.

It is simple hypocrisy to say this is not enough. You are more than welcome to provide an example of evidence which you believe does not match the definition given above: and if you cannot, you must concede that this definition holds, and therefore what follows from it is true.
No. It's not hypocrisy to say that assumptions aren't enough. You can't base an entire model around assumptions, as you've done with DEF. You need evidence. Physical evidence and logical deduction alike. You can't rely on just assumptions and logical deduction.

Occam's Razor favors DET over RET.
No, it doesn't. In fact, it favors a round-Earth model over DEF.

That should be enough. There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model over the RE model, though it requires resources I do not have.
No, it's not enough. I've already explained why.

DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
Aha, there's a keyword here: "predicts". This implies right away that you're making another assumption, therefore backing up the fact that Occam's Razor truly prefers a round-Earth model over DEF.

If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.
Let me ask you a question? What if someone performs this experiment, and it contradicts what you assume? Will you "secretly" revise your model to account for it or will you admit that you're wrong?

There we go. I've ripped it apart. I hope you enjoyed your model being ripped apart, and enjoy the future posts where it continues to get ripped apart.

Suggestions & Concerns / Serious: Jroa's moderator status should be revoked
« on: December 08, 2015, 03:29:11 PM »
Of this forum's moderators, Jroa is the worst. He's a moderator, yet on a regular basis, he violates the basic rules of this forum, and continues to do so with the title of moderator. He never actually seems to do any moderating anyways. Replies to topics that should be taken down "mysteriously" remain, even when he's present in the discussion.

On multiple occasions, I have found him violating the following rules:

  • Rule #2, explicit content:

    We are not talking about whom your mom is going to suck off tonight.  Please, keep up with the conversation.

    He is.
  • Rule #5, Flaming and Harrasment:

    Perhaps you can build another straw man that actually has the resemblance to making sense?  Just a suggestion.
    You and your gay commy pinko gay buddy are welcome to come over for dinner any time you want.  See, I am all for you rights to pork each other in the bum.  But, please don't do it at my house.
  • Rule #7, Troublemaking:

    You are welcome to share your ideas here.  Just be aware that you will have roundies jumping all over you.  They hate free speech and new ideas and only cling to their brain washed ways.
  • Rule #8, Low-content Posting/Derailment

    You can literally visit almost any thread Jroa has posted on, and you'll see him derailing in one way or the other.

This is just an extremely small list of crap that this forum's worst "moderator" continues to spew. You can find more littered all over the place here:;u=46321;area=showposts;start=0. You can also find many more examples on this thread here:

In short, this is a formal request to strip Jroa of his status as moderator, and possibly ban him for some period of time.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Water treatment, and such.
« on: December 08, 2015, 05:31:34 AM »
The title is self-explanatory. Discuss. If you want to provide evidence for either side, it'd be appreciated if you would cite your credible sources, rather than just making some claim with no base.

Arts & Entertainment / Favorite video games?
« on: December 01, 2015, 04:44:23 PM »
This just a general thread to post your favorite video games. To make a post for it, just say what your favorite game is, and describe why it's your favorite game. Let's not start any flame wars either on which game is better, but feel free to discuss a game. An example post might look like:

My personal favorite right now is The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. I just like the openness of the game and the general ability to "do what you want" in a vast fantasy world. I enjoy the main story, and the clever side quests one experiences. The concept of laws and punishments is an intriguing system that I liked as well.

Have fun! :)

There's a lot of stupid angry "talk" out there about how services like Windows 10 "steal" your "private" data and use it for "nefarious purposes". This is plain wrong. Services like Windows 10 collect your data primarily for these reasons:

- Creating an experience tailored to you, personally.
- Improving your experience by using that info to help diagnose issues.
- Sell your info to companies to create targeted advertising (similar to point one).

Now, before some of you start ranting about point three, I'm going to say this: virtually every web service, social media, forums, web browsers, etc. collects your data and sells it to create targeted advertising. It's not worth it to complain

So, instead of being whiny brats when a service collects data that really, isn't private from a legal standpoint, read the Terms and Conditions before using a service and decide if you actually want to use it.

Some of you religious folk may claim that humans have "free will", and nothing in our universe is truly predictable, everything is truly random. Even some non-religious folk like to make claims like these.

This is wrong, and I'll explain why.

If someone is given enough information, they can predict anything. For example, if I was given the state of every fundamental particle in the universe, I could predict anything, from a star going supernova down to a nanosecond, or what you, as a human are going to do next.

Near the beginning of time, and the creation of the universe (big bang), all the fundamental particles that make up our universe existed in a certain, "pattern", so to say, and it's this pattern and the specific interactions of the particles that determined all future events. If one particle had even just been in a different position after the big bang, then Earth might not have existed.

In short, there's no such thing as randomness or free will. Everything is predictable.

Flat Earth General / So, who'd like to go to space?
« on: November 24, 2015, 07:45:55 PM »
You may have heard of the commercial spaceflight company Blue Origin recently. They just recently around the time of posting, managed to land an engine body, without a parachute, for re-use. But enough of that, the real thing I want to get at here is this: Blue Origin is not a private organization like NASA which takes a select few to space. Rather, Blue Origin allows you to pay for a "ride into space". During the course of the ride, you'll accelerate up to an altitude of about 100KM, where you'll then experience weightlessness for about 4 minutes, and yes, see the roundness of the Earth. Essentially, all you have to do to get a flight into space are these things:
  • Be in a good enough physical condition.
  • Buy a ticket.
  • Get on the Blue Origin rocket.
  • Launch!
All I'm really trying to get at here is this: I can't wait until ordinary people start going up in those capsules, seeing the roundness of the Earth, and forever disproving FET.

You may claim it to be "yet another conspiracy", but maybe by that point you'll buy a ticket, and then see the roundness of the Earth for yourself. Have fun.

Promo video: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Booster landing video: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Information page:
Official website:

Okay, just to start off, I'm going to lay down a few things. For the sake of this discussion, let's just assume that the Earth is round, and all the current rules of the universe set forth by scientists are correct. Alright, now that we have that out of the way, let's continue.

Image, the human race has technologically progressed hundreds of thousands of years into the future. We now have vast fleets of spacecraft, that can travel all over the galaxy using faster-than-light travel achieved through the use of Alcubierre Drives. We now explore new planets, have discovered new intelligent life and have now settled humans down on thousands of unique life-supporting planets. At this point, our populations have jumped well into the trillions.

In this future, there's no concept of inequality either. There are no longer problems like war (although we do have an extraordinarily strong military), racism, violence, really any of the problems we're facing today. Essentially, in short, all of the social problems we're facing today have been eliminated.

In addition, human knowledge has rocketed far beyond belief. There are now technologies that can heal injuries or ailments instantly.  We now have the technology to physically live forever as well.

What would you think of living in a time period like this?

Flat Earth Debate / Seasons don't work on a flat Earth model.
« on: November 21, 2015, 03:47:52 PM »
Everyone (should) know how the seasons work. They're caused by the tilt of the Earth on its axis as it orbits around the sun. In the southern and northern hemispheres, the seasons are always opposite of each other, e.g, winter in the north, summer in the south, spring in the north, fall in the south.

How does a flat Earth model explain this, if at all? Seems like this is a pretty good disproof of a flat Earth model.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / What's your opinion on Communism?
« on: November 21, 2015, 02:31:42 PM »
I'm curious to know as to what people's opinions on Communism are. Before you post anything though, I want to say this: I'm not talking about Russian "communism", but rather the true form of Communism, as set forth by Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. So, what are your opinions?

To everyone out there who thinks that The Law of Gravitation is "impossible", and doesn't work (*cough* sandokhan), I'm going to build a simulation in Unity3d, using Newton's Law of Gravitation, and simulate two celestial bodies, gravitationally bound to each other. The simulation will probably be available somewhere on Dropbox when I get a chance to finish it.

Once and for all, I'm going to prove that it works.

Also, if you want to fill out the poll above, that'd be appreciated.

Update: I've locked voting because my simulation accurately proves that Newton's Law of Gravitation works.

Alright, the simulation is live! To run the simulation, download the source code from the links provided below and extract it from the .zip format. In order to run the simulation, just execute the GRAVITY_SIM_WINDOWS, GRAVITY_SIM_MACOSX, or GRAVITY_SIM_LINUX files. If you want to, you can also open the solution in Unity3d and execute it that way.

In order to move the camera, use the WASD keys. The arrow keys do not work. The white spheres orbiting each other are what you want to focus on.

If you find any issues related to running the simulation, please PM me with the issue and I'll see what I can do!

Download link:
Source code link:

Flat Earth Debate / Disprove or prove a flat Earth model. [Proof Section]
« on: November 18, 2015, 07:42:32 AM »
Here, you will post statements no longer than 10 sentences, proving or disproving a flat Earth model. Your statement cannot contain any of the following things:

- Crude language.
- A reply to a statement.
- Anything not related to a proof or disproof.

If you want to debate proofs, then post those replies in the topic linked below:

Flat Earth Debate / Disprove or prove a flat Earth model. [Debate Section]
« on: November 18, 2015, 06:55:52 AM »
Use this section to debate statements posted on the topic found at the following link below.

Please do not post proofs or disproofs here, please post them at the link above.

One thing you flat Earthers seem to have failed to address is the tides. The tides are a phenomenon caused by the gravity of the sun and the moon causing the oceans to rise and fall in certain places of the Earth. The following graphic illustrates this pretty well:

The black portions of the globes represent the Earth's oceans being affected by the gravity of the sun and moon.

How does a flat Earth model explain this effect? Don't deny that they are false as well, there are plenty of online gifs and videos to prove that they exist. To illustrate this you can even go see this effect for yourself. In fact, here's a short 1-minute video of the tides, in action:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

There's no denying it, you really can't come up with a good explanation for the tides on a flat Earth.

Flat Earth Q&A / Is there a list somewhere of the most common FE models?
« on: November 11, 2015, 08:17:31 AM »
I've been considering writing an article, or maybe a book about the flat Earth theory, but I'm having trouble finding a comprehensive list of the different, common models currently being used.

If any of you have a list of links or descriptions lying around describing the common models, I'd love to see them. Even though I don't believe in a flat Earth, I'm interested in seeing what the different, accepted models are these days.  :)

With a flat Earth model, all the stars in the sky should look the same based on where you're standing, as everyone faces the same direction on a flat Earth, yet, this isn't true. If one is in the southern hemisphere, they'll see a different night sky than someone in the northern hemisphere. Example:

How does the flat Earth model explain this? At this point, it doesn't seem to have much of an explanation to back it up, so I'd say this is a pretty good disproof of the flat Earth model.

Also, keep that DET bullshit out of here. I don't want to hear it. There's no proof for it, whatsoever.

Technical Support / I'd like to request a username change
« on: November 10, 2015, 08:43:35 AM »
I like my current username, but it's doing things like clipping under post text like this:

If you look at any of my posts you can see this in action. Ideally, I'd like to change my username to "EthanBierlein", or maybe "TheEarthIsRound". I haven't decided yet, but if this is possible, and anyone is willing, just notify me and I'll make a choice between the two.

There are many "proofs" that both prove, and disprove a flat Earth, and vice versa for a round Earth. This, however, may be the most reliable piece of proof that proves the Earth, is in fact, round, and not flat.

Satellites are a big piece of human society, without them we wouldn't have basic things like location tracking, GPS, maps, etc. Without satellites, we'd not be where we are today with all these modern capabilities. There are quite a few reasons why satellites disprove a flat Earth model, but the most important one is this: satellites move in a straight line across the sky, and then disappear beyond the horizon, because they're orbiting a round Earth. If they were "orbiting" a flat Earth in the fashion that the Sun and Moon would, they'd never dip below the Horizon.

Now, before you attempt to provide a "rebuttal", I've prepared a few responses of my own to common ones you may post.

Satellites could simply be orbiting around a flat Earth OP, like an orbit described with a round Earth model.

No. If gravity behaved like this, then the Earth would've formed into a spherical-ish shape, the way it has. You may argue that it's held in by some "magical force", but at that point, you're just making frivolous claims with no proof whatsover to try and prove the existence of a flat Earth.

But OP, satellites are just lights or computer generated visuals projected onto the sky by the most "evil" organization of all, NASA.

No. There are a few problems with saying this here. First off, in order to project a light into the sky, we need to have a surface to project it on. We can't simply project it onto a cloud, because the light would distort along with the shape of the cloud. Secondly, if this was happening, then we'd see light beams being projected into the sky from the ground somewhere, and I've yet to see any news about one of these things being discovered. Secondly, you can't just "project" a computer generated image onto the sky because again, we run into the same problem. You need a surface to project it onto, and we'd also be able to clearly find where it's being projected from.

OP, OP! These are clearly just a bunch meteors, comets, etc.!

No. These aren't meteors, or comets, or the likes. These bodies do not move in a straight, predictable pattern. The often flash across the sky before burning up in Earth's atmosphere, or are too far away and not visible. The reason these items are visible when they're far away is because, unlike satellites, are not composed primarily of highly reflective material.

You stupid round-Earther OP! Satellites are imaginary creations that satanists want us to believe exist!

If they don't exist, then what are the nice bright, slowly-moving dots you can clearly see in the sky on a clear, dark night? They certainly aren't meteors, or light projections.

Flat Earth Debate / I'd like to present a few proofs...
« on: November 02, 2015, 03:13:56 PM »
I've taken all these proofs from, so they aren't my own, but I think they're all quite good. I'm open to anyone trying to disprove them, but as it stands, I think these proofs are pretty rock-solid. There are quite a few there, but the below are some of the top proofs:

The shadow of the Earth on the Moon during an eclipse and the way masts of ships are visible when they are out of sight are the classical reasons.

Simplest, you say? There are two that strike me as being simple to demonstrate. Luckily someone on the internet has already spent some time to help us here to make these easy to illustrate:

1. Shadows differ from place to place

Eratosthenes carried out this experiment to determine the circumference of the Earth, already assuming its spherical shape; incidentally, the proof of such being consequential of the procedure.

However, a demonstration can be achieved by a simple, local experiment (as opposed to having a party venture to a distant enough point):

Take a piece of card (A3, or so), attach two obelisks to the card by their bases and, with a light source, produce shadows - now, slowly bend the card so that it becomes convex (that is, the side with obelisks attached bulging out) and watch the effect.

2. You can see farther from higher

There are numerous other ways of demonstrating that the Earth is round, or curved, at least, from analysing the center of gravity to simply observing the other round objects that are visible in space; but I believe these illustrations to be the simplest to comprehend.

Another way is the triple-right triangle:

1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90 degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90 degrees and walk again the same distance

After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" a half-finished square.

Sitting for a while by the seashore ought to make it clear the Earth isn't flat, even if you don't happen to see a ship go over the horizon. The edge of the discworld Earth would have to be just a few miles away, and there's no way that the entire, circular world would fit inside the circle that the ocean horizon seems to make.

Humans have not just known the Earth was spherical but actually have been measuring its radius for thousands of years.

Again, these aren't my own, but I'm open to anyone trying to disprove them, but I still think that they prove pretty solidly that the Earth is round and not flat.

Pages: [1]