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 - Gumwars

Pages: [1]
Suggestions & Concerns / Moderation Suggestions
« on: June 01, 2020, 08:20:10 AM »
Moderator for the TFES have the burdensome job of making sure all members, be they FE proponents or RE adherents, play by the rules so that the best possible discussion takes place for each part of the forum.  What happens with regular frequency can only be viewed as a partial success when it comes to enabling the best possible discussion.

My experiences on the web and in life have pointed to clear expectations being the best way to ensure members do their part.  What I have found in my time on this forum, is that many of the subforums do not have clearly defined rules, nor does the website in general have a clearly laid out TOS (terms of service).  Often, moderators work on a very loose and ambiguous set of guidelines, which likely causes just as much frustration for them as it does the members trying to post original content or respond to other members. 

What I suggest is that each subforum have a clearly defined set of rules (for those that don't, I do realize that some already have fairly clear expectations) along with a general set of rules for the entire forum.  These could, for example, include something like:

For Flat Earth Q&A -
1. No debate oriented questions, or questions worded that invite debate
2. No comments aimed at inciting debate, or questioning the validity of an answer given in response to a question about FE

Subforum rules should tie into the general forum rules of decorum regarding not being overtly rude, avoiding ad hominem tactics, staying on topic, and only digressing if the OP agrees it would contribute to the overall discussion.

A general warning should also be posted here informing members that should they violate those subforum rules, comments or posts may be moved or deleted.  Further, PM'ing members for first time offenses along with naming what rule(s) were violated, along with what action was taken could help prevent future missteps.

Additionally, providing a stickied comment at or near the top of each subforum with a list of hyperlinked, most popular topics titled "READ ME FIRST BEFORE POSTING" would help a bunch in reducing duplicate posts. 

These are, of course, suggestions.  Hope you all are doing well and be well. 

Flat Earth General / Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« on: November 08, 2019, 09:35:28 PM »
Greetings all,

So, back in August, Mr. Davis threw down a bit of a challenge to the "roundies" in an attempt to prove the truth behind the shape of planet Earth.  For those that would like to get caught up:

The premise is both simple and vague: take a quarter length mile of twine, stretch it between two sticks at a given height, place a candle at the center, and be amazed as the center will never dip low enough to burn.

This would be truly amazing if the following were true:

That Mr. Davis actually performed the task and discovered the problems in setting up the experiment.

Now, I'd love to recreate this experiment but John was rather lacking on some of the more important details.  I believe this oversight was intentional as to avoid getting any of us out in the field reproducing his work.  It is entirely possible that I am completely wrong and this was all a simple misunderstanding.

To be clear, I am 100% willing and able to perform this experiment.  I will document as much as possible, with photographs whenever able, and report those findings here.  All I ask is answers from Mr. John Davis, regarding the following so that I can recreate his experiment:

- What brand, ply, and fiber of twine did you use?
- What length, type, and diameter of pole or stick did you use?
- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?

I will gladly post my findings once these three simple questions are answered.

Flat Earth Debate / What can you conclude, based on visual evidence only
« on: September 24, 2019, 06:43:30 PM »
I noted in another thread that a high altitude photo provided -

Is evidence that the Earth is not an infinite plane.  This got me thinking that there is a fairly consistent, logical process we can apply that may not necessarily prove the Earth is a sphere, but I believe it conclusively proves it isn't flat.  Here's what I've got so far:

The Earth is not an infinite plane.  Any sufficiently high altitude photograph (like the one provided) that has Earth in the frame and the camera is pointed below the apparent horizon would show the entire visible area filled with land.  This would also show the portions of the landmass in darkness, with city lights dotting the unlit areas of the planet.  We do not see this, therefore it does not appear that the Earth is an infinite plane.

The Sun and Moon both travel on paths that take it completely below the horizon, 100% obstructed.  This would mean that the geocentric paths proposed by TFES are incorrect, at least to a point where a more comprehensive explanation is necessary.  In preemptive response to those that like to use "atmoplanic lensing" and other such refractory explanations, please take a look at the link below:

This provides an excellent computer model of a flat dome Earth along with the necessary behavior of light in order for a viewer to see a setting/rising Sun and Moon.  Please note that what light is required to do is not how we have observed it to behave.  While it is possible there is some unseen process in play, no experiments/hypothesis/conjecture to date from TFES has been sufficient in providing a rational explanation.

The Southern Cross/Sigma Octantis are visible south of the equator and do not present paradoxically.  If the azimuth equidistant projection with the north pole at the center is the most preferred map, then at then end of every longitudinal spoke at the southern most part of the map should be Sigma Octantis in the night sky.  This would present a paradox as this celestial object is a fixed, singular point and not a ring circling the map.  This proves that the Earth is not flat as well.

I'm sure there are others.  These three are what I could come up with in the time it took to write this.  Please feel free to add to it, or debate the merits of what I've offered.

Flat Earth General / General Question About FE Video Gaming Habits
« on: August 29, 2019, 07:34:41 PM »
Greetings fellow society members.

I'm a bit of a gamer and enjoy all flavors of PC games.  In particular, games like Elite Dangerous, No Man's Sky, and Star Citizen are titles that I play regularly and got me wondering; do proponents of FE play and enjoy games like these?  If you do, what do you think of them and how do you view those title's implementation of astrophysics?

Flat Earth Debate / Hitchen's Razor and the Burden of Proof
« on: August 22, 2019, 09:35:42 PM »
Within the Flat Earth Debate, who has the Burden of Proof?

After spending the balance of this year on Reddit, discussing theistic topics on subreddits like Debate an Atheist and Debate a Christian, the notion entered my mind regarding the overall assertion made by believers in a flat Earth; who has the burden of proving this?

Does the burden lie with believers in the conventional knowledge that the Earth is round to refute the belief in it being flat?  Or does the burden lie with the proponents of the flat Earth belief in proving it is so?

The common assertion is that the Earth is spherical.  This, I believe, can be viewed as the predominant view agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of this planet's denizens.  Flat Earth, conversely, is a counterfactual perspective held by a minority. 

Simply put, the burden to prove the shape of the Earth is not the business of the majority opinion.  It is the task set before the believers that the world is flat to prove it to be so.  It must also be pointed out that attempting to disprove a round Earth assertion does not prove the shape of the planet; at best it merely refutes that point and reduces the position to a neutral or unknown state. 

As it stands, the flat Earth community has done essentially nothing to prove its case. 

Flat Earth Debate / Occam's Razor - The Law of Parsimony
« on: January 15, 2019, 09:10:14 PM »
Occam's Razor (or Ockham, depending on your tastes) is a principle that states one should not make more assumptions than the minimum required.  I believe both RE and FE should be observed using this device to see which requires more assumptions than needed.  When invoking the word "needed", in the case of RE v. FE, what we are doing is comparing the two models to see which requires more assumptions in order to justify its nature. 

I believe it is safe to say that both the RE and FE models are both tremendously complex systems.  Therefore, instead of attempting an "all or nothing" approach to comparing the two, it would better serve to compare the processes that comprise the two vis a vis.  For this approach, I will start by breaking down each model into super-systems and, if necessary, further explore each.

Each model can be expressed as a collection of the following super-systems:
  • Gravity
  • Light
  • The Celestial View
  • Geography/Geology
  • Government/Conspiracy


Round Earth Model (REM)

The round earth model assumes that all matter in the known universe possesses a quality that exerts a pull on all other matter around it.  This weak force is only amplified dependent on how massive the matter is.  Under this assumption, as the force is generally equal in all directions, large collections of matter naturally form spheres of a globular nature.  Gravity, as described under REM, is what holds matter to the surface of the Earth, including its atmosphere.  These observations are assumed to be associated with this single quality of matter.  This property of matter appears to be related to the Higgs boson particle, a quantum component of all matter within the known universe.  Evidence of this particle was theoretically discovered at CERN in 2013.

Flat Earth Model (FEM)

The flat earth model, per the TFES wiki, is a split set of assumptions. 

Assumption 1

The first assumption is that the Earth is flat because gravity, in the case of just the Earth, is very weak. The inhabitants of this disk do not detect this weakness because the entire object is accelerating upwards at 32ft per second/per second, a rate of 1 Earth gravity. 

This assumption requires another set of assumptions, which I will leave to the FES to assist with:
  • Assumption 1a, what forces caused Earth's formation to differ from the rest of the solar system?
  • Assumption 1b, what mechanism is at work accelerating Earth upwards at a velocity equivalent to 1 Earth gravity?
  • Assumption 1c, given 1b, what mechanism is at work preventing the "atmoplane" from sliding off the edges of the disk as it accelerates upward?
  • Assumption 1d, given 1b, why haven't Doppler red/blue shifts been observed consistent with Earth under acceleration?

Assumption 2

The Earth is an infinite plane of a given but indeterminate thickness, massive enough to present with 1 Earth gravity across its inhabitable area.  This object is stationary in a geocentric universe.

This assumption also requires additional assumptions as justification:
  • Assumption 2a, what mechanism created this infinite plane and why has it not been observed elsewhere in the known universe?
  • Assumption 2b, given 2a, what difference in mechanisms created the other planets and what exception took place in the case of Earth?
  • Assumption 2c ties into "The Celestial View" and will be discussed there



Atmosphere is held to the surface of the Earth by gravity and increases in density the closer to the surface it is.  This change in density causes light to bend downward as it refracts into the denser atmosphere.  The assumption is that light will always behave this way, dependent only on the material it is passing through.  Therefore, within atmosphere, light will always refract according to this behavior, and will always present as celestial objects appearing higher in the sky than they actually are.  This assumption has been verified through mathematical computation coinciding with observed phenomena.


Atmoplane assumes that light must behave in a manner opposite to REM; that is that celestial objects must appear lower in the sky than they actually are.  This assumption is derived from the known observation of the sun setting and rising.  This assumption requires additional assumptions be satisfied:
  • Assumption A, what mechanism is at work that changes known parameters of refraction consistent to what is observed within FEM?
  • Assumption B ties into The Celestial View, and will be discussed further in that section

The Celestial View


Given the previously stated assumptions of gravity and light, known visible objects within the universe exhibit behaviors and appearances consistent to what is observed elsewhere within REM.  Assuming a spherical model, celestial objects appear consistent with that assumption; objects in the each hemisphere are generally only visible in that hemisphere.  The sun and moon both rise and set consistent with this assumption; other objects within the heliocentric solar system exhibit behaviors consistent with these assumptions as well.  Exceptions do exist, but typically have extraordinary factors associated with their existence. 


Assumptions from FEM are distinct and separate for each celestial body.  According to the TFES wiki, the sun, moon, planets, and galaxies each have separate assumptions that define their movement, appearance, and composition.  Additionally, if considering sources beyond the TFES wiki, FEM proponents forward more assumptions describing these objects.  It is worth mentioning that nearly all of these assumptions require supporting assumptions for validation.

[to be continued]

Flat Earth Debate / Flat Earth Research; Published Papers
« on: January 12, 2019, 04:11:31 PM »
So, I'm chatting with Mr. Davis about the positively horrendous assumption that everyone, everywhere has been "indoctrinated" into believing an alternative set of beliefs, except for those that subscribe to the notion of a flat earth.  Within this discussion, I called Mr. Davis out that the flat earth movement has no published research beyond the silly arguments that take place on this website and others like it.  He responded by saying that I didn't look hard enough.

Well, I've been looking.  I discovered that a PhD student by the name of Amira Kharroubi published her doctoral thesis claiming that the heliocentric model was wrong and that the earth is a pancake of the snow globe variety.  For those interested please click the link below:

This paper appears to be a hoax.  You can read about that here:

Admittedly, that last link is a blog, but the argument made along with the accompanying support is compelling. has several papers as well.  However, the content of that website, along with its administration are under enough scrutiny that Forbes issued a warning to researchers and content contributors that they should avoid the site and, if already a member, delete your account.  To be fair, is used by legitimate sources for the purposes of getting their material into circulation while avoiding the higher costs commonly associated with being published in a journal.  This does, however, affect the quality of the content.

A brief look at the two pages worth of papers yields a few interesting facts.  There are only 16 people actively following "Flat Earth" as a subject, with more than half of the papers listed having the same author.  Also of note, many of the documents available are not research papers at all; you can find Eric Dubay's 200 proofs, along with many other "picture books" that have no substantive content other than multiple cut/paste images of random stuff.  The biggest issue I can find on the surface is that all of the papers have only one author.  It is also worth mentioning that a few of the papers are simply examinations of the flat earth phenomena and are not in support of it.

In short, my question is where are the research papers?  Mr. Davis?  Anyone?  I'm interested in reading what the finest among you have published, what experiments you've conducted that I can reproduce.  Specifically, and works that confirm the following:

That the composition of what we call atmosphere causes distant objects to become obscured so that we cannot see them, i.e., why can't I see Catalina Island from Long Beach, London from New York, Mt. Everest from anywhere (and vice versa). 

That the disk/plane/whatever is being propelled upward at ever increasing speed, creating the force the rest of the scientific community calls gravity.  I'm particularly interested in how I can verify this.

Why stars ten degrees or more below the equator are not visible in North America, in particular the Southern Cross and Sigma Octanis.  Are there any studies, with experiments, that I can read/reproduce that both explain and allow others to verify.

I'm ready to read folks.

Flat Earth Debate / What is the Equator called in FE?
« on: June 29, 2018, 10:27:31 PM »
Simple question as I don't believe we can call it that on a flat Earth.  Merriam-Webster defines the word "equator" as:

  • the great circle on a sphere or heavenly body whose plane is perpendicular to the axis, equidistant everywhere from the two poles of the sphere or heavenly body.
  • the great circle of the earth that is equidistant from the North Pole and South Pole.
  • a circle separating a surface into two congruent parts.

The first is out.  The second is out in most cases as the commonly offered FE map has no South Pole.  The last doesn't work either as the shape of the map south of the equator doesn't match the shape north of it (cannot be superimposed, i.e., congruent). 

So, what's it called?

Flat Earth Debate / The Flat Earth "Theory"
« on: May 25, 2018, 08:09:09 PM »
I submit that the notion that the Earth being flat is not a theory.  I've mentioned in other posts that it appears to be more a conjecture than anything.  Upon further review, I would classify it as a blind faith belief.  Here is my argument supporting these positions:

The definition of theory is, "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena."

The concept of a flat Earth cannot be used as a principle of explanation and prediction for any class of phenomena.  It cannot tell us when or where the next solar or lunar eclipse will occur.  It cannot assist in navigation.  It is not used for communications or logistics.  At best, it is a thought experiment.

Throughout this forum, with very little deviation, are members claiming it to be true for a range of "reasons" that are supported by: conspiracy, observations that are inconsistent or incorrect, and baseless assertions.  The only other topic with the same fervor of support, that I can think of, is religion. 

If the belief that is flat Earth cannot move from a position of blind faith to one that can provide predictable, independently verifiable experiments that prove it's assertions, then it will continue as nothing more than a silly notion.  Flat Earth is not a theory.  It is, at best, proof that ignorance is a tragic corner to fall into and, at it's worst, evidence that no matter our achievements there will always be a reminder of how backwards we still are.

Flat Earth General / Questions about NASA
« on: April 20, 2018, 09:38:41 PM »
How does NASA, with roughly 18,000 direct employees, manage to keep everyone away from Antarctica?  Using the globe earth measure of Antarctica's coastline, we have roughly 17,968 km to manage.  That would be roughly 1 NASA employee per km.  That would also mean that if NASA fully staffed the ice wall, there would be nobody left to manage all the photoshopping, fake ISS video feeds, fake satellite launches, etc. 

Given this is a 24/7 endeavor, you couldn't leave them all there year round either; there would need to be some sort of rotation, so how the heck does all this get managed?  Has anyone from the FES pondered the logistical nightmare this presents?  That is a whole bunch of places to find evidence of the conspiracy too.  Are other countries helping out?  If so, how many and who do you think is in on it?  Just how big is the conspiracy?

Flat Earth General / Is the Flat Earth model a CIA Experiment?
« on: April 18, 2018, 09:10:57 PM »
Let's think about this a moment.  The whole FE movement really started gaining traction in the late 20th century, something that was greatly assisted through the use of social media.  Before any of this, we had mostly stand alone individuals that had no real association other than thinly similar views on the Earth being flat.  No real science has ever been forwarded supporting the allegations or any substantive rebuttals of modern theories regarding physics, the shape of the world, heliocentric concepts, or the lot. 

If I subscribed to the notion that our alphabet agencies are generally up to no good what if, as a simple experiment, those in the spookier corridors of our darkest governmental halls decided to see if the most absurd ideas they could conjure would stick in the public consciousness?  So, they planted a seed so ridiculous that the bulk of average folk would out right reject the concept but the aim was to see how many wouldn't. 

Fast forward a handful of years and we have a core constituency that is so devoted to a concept that has been completely dismantled thousands of years ago.  It ticks all the check boxes for any conspiracy theorist; massive government cover-up, religious implications, by virtue of how its structured the few that are true believers get set upon by the "roundies" that attack endlessly, these devout few feel elevated because they alone are standard bearers for the "real truth" about the world, god, everything. 

If I wanted to see if a 100% lunatic idea could be made to see as gospel to a group of people, this would be an excellent test. 

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The Argument From Evil
« on: April 06, 2018, 07:18:14 PM »

I stumbled across two threads that I will try to tie together here.  I'm going to address this first and then in the next post, provide links to both threads (for those interested).  The matter at hand deals with two topics that appear to be fundamental to FE, as a foundational component to its faith.  The first is that the globe Earth conspiracy is perpetuated by Evil (note the capital E).  The second deals with a survey that John Davis pointed to.  That survey indicated that a disproportionate number of FE believers are also consider themselves very religious when compared to RE believers.  I believe these two topics are related.

With that, here is the issue and a disclaimer.  I am an atheist.  The reason for this belief is complex and I will use the issue as a proof for it. 

Here are the assumptions I'm going to use:  God/Creator/The Almighty is a morally perfect, omni-powerful being.  In this case, omni-powerful means that all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent.  Further clarification is that all knowing denotes fore and middle knowledge (knows everything that is happening and knows everything that will happen).  If any of these assumptions need clarification, we can fine tune along the way.

Evil, in the argument I'm going to provide, is defined as any event, case, or situation where a being (animal or human) experiences needless suffering.  Again, if we need to clarify this further, we can.

Here is the argument:

If God exists, and God is a morally perfect, omni-powerful entity, then God would not allow Evil to exist due to His/Its morally perfect, omni-powerful attributes.

Evil exists, therefore God does not exist.

If FE, or at least a large part of it hinges on the existence of God, then I contend that God does not exists, therefore the elements of FE that require an Almighty are not valid.

Flat Earth Debate / That's Not How This Works...
« on: March 30, 2018, 05:30:18 PM »
So, here's the deal:

A couple of sticky points that don't want to die continue to rise up, fail to be addressed, and resurface weeks down the road.  The FE crowd can't seem to offer an argument that explains the matter sufficiently (if at all) so, please, ELIF and provide reasonable responses for the following contentions:

1.  The Southern Hemisphere/The landmass south of the equator - FE, due to the nature of how the Earth is presented, cannot reasonably explain the paradoxical nature of Sigma Octanis, the Southern Star.  If Antarctica is a ring, then Sigma Octanis has no fixed location in the night sky as its point of reference, under FE, would present as the circumference of the disk/habitable zone/whatever. 

2.  The apparent size of the Sun, as viewed from the surface of the Earth.  The Sun is the most visible celestial object in the sky as seen from Earth.  If it were as close as some FE conjectures posit, it would not rise in the correct location (to some viewers), would grow and shrink in size up to 60% between sunrise and sunset.  Additionally, if the Sun was above a planar Earth, it would never set.

3.  As mentioned in multiple other posts, if only the Earth is flat, what explanation can be offered as to why?

For your viewing enjoyment, part 4 of a continuing series debunking the flat earth conjecture.

This episode addresses problems with the idea that the sun is 4800 km away, possesses as yet unexplained properties regarding how it casts light in specific directions, the issues with angular diameter and separation, as well as angular momentum/conservation of momentum.  This all sums up what the vast majority of Earthbound humans already know; the Earth is a globe, the sun is very far away, the moon is not covered with bio-luminescent shrimp, and this is the best website on the internet (if you enjoy watching trolls do their thing).

Flat Earth General / Public Service Announcement: The South Pole
« on: January 01, 2018, 03:17:15 AM »
Happy New Year!

To kick things off proper for 2018 you can personally visit the south pole for the sum of roughly $53,000 USD.  Please note that in the itinerary no mention is made of having your mind wiped, meeting anyone from NASA (unless they are on vacation making the trip as well), encountering killer penguins, or UN patrols.  Just a trip to the southernmost point on the globe.

This PSA is aimed at the men and women that truly believe that we live on a pancake-shaped world.  Here is an opportunity to finally find out if you are right about the lunatic notion that the world is a frisbee and visit the forbidden limit of the world.  While the cost is steep it's roughly the same as what a four-year degree costs in the US (depending on the field).  I would argue that you could either visit the south pole or invest in higher education; if you don't care for the cold I recommend the latter.

Flat Earth General / Public Service Announcement: Testing Flattards Series
« on: December 23, 2017, 08:17:40 AM »
Hope you all enjoy and seasons greetings!

Flat Earth Debate / RE v. FE Scoreboard
« on: October 10, 2017, 05:27:01 AM »
I think we should start tracking issues that go unresolved and provide a single thread where the community can view the overall success (or failure) of FEC (Flat Earth Conjecture).  Granted, I haven't been here very long so I'll be depending on all of you to help fill in the gaps.

As it stands, here are the big issues and their approximate outcomes:

Southern Hemisphere Constellations

Issue: FE cannot reconcile general positions of stars in the Southern Hemisphere.  FE cannot explain observable evidence contrary to what has been established by RE.

Resolved?:  No - FES has yet to provide a working (i.e. can be independently verified) explanation regarding the aforementioned issues.

Visible curvature at Lake Pontchartrain Causeway

Issue: Visible curvature evident by amateur photographers/videographers showing objects disappearing, bottom first, over a horizon.

Resolved?:  No - FES has offered "atmoplanic lensing" as an answer but has yet to provide a working model of how this phenomenon behaves in a manner that is reproducible or predictable.

Location and Movement of the Sun and Moon

Issue:  FE model for sun and moon movement create multiple contradictions with reality.  For clarity, the following:

Specifically, a FE model with the sun never crosses the horizon, it would be impossible for sunlight to illuminate the underside of cloud coverage, and the apparent shape and size of the sun would fluctuate dramatically throughout the day.  Most of these contradictions apply to the moon as well.

Resolved?:  No.  FES has not provided any substantial evidence supporting a position that the sun is the size or distance claimed along with the moon.

NASA Conspiracy

Issue:  FES claims that NASA is a component of, or central organization responsible for a global conspiracy preventing or restricting travel to Antarctica.  Additionally, NASA has also been responsible for a multi-decade long disinformation campaign using cutting-edge photo editing technology, and later, advanced computer-based image and video manipulation to perpetuate the illusion of space travel, a globe-shaped Earth, and numerous other clandestine operations.

Resolved?:  No.  FES has made multiple, unsubstantiated allegations but has yet to provide evidence that can be corroborated.


Issue:  FES contends that gravity does not exist.

Resolved?:  No.  FES has offered conjecture such as infinite upward acceleration, denpressure, and other responses.  To date, none have been sufficient in explaining or predicting phenomena to any measurable degree.


Issue:  No unified map for a flat earth exists that is universally accepted among the FES and explains apparent contradictions with known flight paths commonly used by commercial airlines (i.e., Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia).

Resolved?:  No.  No working map for a flat earth has been offered that reconciles anomalies in landmass size, distances between landmasses, and known non-government travel.

I know there are many others.  If you have time, please add what you've come across using the format I've provided above (for consistency).  Try not to editorialize. 

Flat Earth Debate / The Logical Death of Flat Earth Conjecture
« on: September 16, 2017, 01:31:37 AM »
So, here's another challenge for any flat earther that cares to take it on:

The celestial north and south poles. 

Before I dig deeper into that particular issue, there's another item that should be addressed as more a general concern.  What exactly has the concept of a flat earth solved?  In the greater scheme of human achievement, has the idea or notion of a flat earth made cartography easier or more accurate?  Is our understanding of the world in general improved with the concept of a flat earth?  What, exactly or generally, does the idea of a flat earth do for humanity overall? 

As best as I can figure, it has zero useful benefits to the average citizen of any nation.  As it has no working models to predict the behavior any celestial object, it is useless to astronomers.  Many of the ideas concerning thermodynamics are in various states of flux, so it is fairly useless to physicists and engineers.  We've seen ample indications that large public works type projects do account for curvature so a flat earth model is of little use there as well. 

If anything, flat earth conjecture only adds significant complexity to nearly all observed celestial movements; the amount of effort required to make even the most simple observations reconcile with a flat earth usually extend to a deliberate avoidance of data that does not conform to the FE worldview. 

Now, back to the original point.

Fact #1
Polaris is known as the celestial north pole.  It is oriented north of the equator and is roughly 1 degree off from geographic north.  All observable stars rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris, with Polaris itself actually turning in a very small circle, which is hardly visible.

Fact #2
The Southern Cross, which starts with the constellation Crux and much like the process of locating Polaris, an imaginary line is drawn which points to Sigma Octanis, marking the southern celestial pole.  It is worth noting that Sigma Octanis is not as close to true south as Polaris is to true north. When looking south, all observable stars rotate clockwise round Sigma Octanis.

Fact #3
Polaris is visible in the northern hemisphere and Sigma Octanis is visible in the southern hemisphere.  Either is viewable at the equator and, depending on the time of year, it is possible to see Polaris south of the equator or Sigma Octanis north of the equator.  However, traveling too far south or north will result in either star being obstructed, respectively.

Problem with a Flat Earth
There are two major issues with the celestial poles in a flat earth model.  The first is that if the "dome" concept is accepted and the map where the Arctic Circle is at the center, Polaris would be visible anywhere on the planet.  This is not the case as those in the southern hemisphere well below the equator never see Polaris.

The second issue deals with Sigma Octanis.  While under the FE model, multiple observers in the northern hemisphere viewing Polaris would all indicate, by azimuth, a similar direction the same cannot be said of Sigma Octanis.  As Antartica is depicted as a ring, the Southern Cross and Sigma Octanis become a paradox in terms of their location and presentation (in fact all southern constellations share this fate).

It goes without saying that a star visible near the south pole is visible in the same location regardless of where the viewer is.  If I'm standing in Austrailia looking south and west, Sigma Octanis should be in my field of vision.  If I'm standing at Cape Horn looking south, Sigma Octanis should be in my field of vision.  Under the flat earth model, where is Sigma Octanis?

Additionally, as stated before, what rationale is used to explain why Polaris is not visible south of the equator when the flat earth model presents a contradictory reality?  Where is Sigma Octanis in relation to Antartica? 

Face it, this flat earth nonsense is ridiculous.  I've sat and read volumes of conspiracy-laden drivel, every permutation of fallacious argument I learned about in school, and still this crowd is no closer to a solution as it was at the time of the Babylonians.  The FE community screams about observation, I saw such and such, it looks this way so it is.  Well, here's a simple observation that FE cannot prove; why isn't Polaris visible at the tip of Cape Horn, sub-Saharan Africa, or Austrailia?  Where is Sigma Octanis?

I await an answer but understand I will likely only get more fallacious crap.

Flat Earth Debate / There is no Flat Earth Theory
« on: September 12, 2017, 01:54:28 AM »
Good evening ladies and gentleman.  I am a new visitor to this association and would like to simultaneously introduce myself while offering you all a note of departure as well.  I intend to post and venture on to greener pastures.  While I will, from time to time, visit and respond to select challenges offered on this thread (and perhaps others) it really is a waste of time; something I intend to expand on shortly.  With that, on to the show:

If you have a moment, please visit this thread -

This passage has been titled, "The strongest arguments for the flat earth theory" which I intend to address item by item.  I'm not sure if this is truly the strongest arguments or a collection of some of the strongest but at any rate, I did not see anyone from the FES chime in so I will assume these are at least a fair representation of the "theory".  I will provide spelling and grammatical corrections when necessary for clarity.

Item 1. "NASA hoax: NASA's landing on the moon is a fake, and photos taken at so called space are fake. such that astronauts sometimes need to be in space, displayed in the studio in the world, sometimes suddenly disappearing in the international space station, sometimes displayed without gloves outside the station, and more other bullshits."

A common theme among nearly all claims of a flat earth is they are always devoid of reference, support, or citation.  With the 22 items I will be reviewing, this is present in every one of them.  One of the fundamental crutches of FE is a refutation of NASA's accomplishments as by proving their work invalid the rest of the theory has room to run.  The basic existence of an organization that disproves FE is a prime target, which is 100% dependent on an extremely elaborate conspiracy theory.  Before continuing, item 1 is closely associated with item 20, as both deal with man-made objects in orbit around a globe shaped Earth.  I will address both here and use item 20 as a place holder when I arrive there.

Let's look at what's claimed in the statement above: The lunar landings were faked.  Well, I could write a lot about how this was debunked, multiple times.  It would require an immediate extension to the Soviet space program as well as the more recent Chinese, which have both landed on the moon.  Both the US and Soviet missions (Apollo 11, 14, & 15 as well as Lunokhud 1 & Lunokhud 2) carried Lunar Laser Range Experiment equipment.  The US LRRRs were essentially mirrors designed to have a laser fired from Earth to determine the precise distance between the Earth and the moon.  The Soviet counterparts performed much the same role.  As of this writing, the Soviet units are still in operation and used by observatories the world over.  Now, I will go on record saying the equipment necessary to independently verify the existence of these units is out of reach for the average amateur astronomer.  But that does not prevent someone from verifying the data collected by the experiments.

Let me digress briefly, one of the key components of science within the realm of sanity and reason is that it can and should be verified by an outside source.  From everything I've seen from the FE community, there has not been one proposition that withstood even minor scrutiny.  Here is an example of a heliocentric modeled item proving itself through data verification.

Anyone can check the distance from the Earth to the moon, and I know it's more than 3,000 miles.  The logical argument goes something like this:  If it is the case that the independently measured distance from the Earth to the moon is within an acceptable margin of error, then the experiments conducted by the lunar landings to determine the distance from the Earth to the moon are at least correct.  As a note, this would validate multiple things; the moon is at a distance greater than that claimed by FE, the lunar missions conducted by the US and USSR resulted in a measurement that can be independently verified.  Here are the instructions to do so:

So with a good camera, a smart phone and a little trig you can measure the distance to the Moon yourself. Here's how:
-Step outside on a clear night when there's a full Moon.
-Set your camera up on a tripod, pointing at the Moon.
-With every image of the Moon you'll need to know the Moon's approximate elevation.
-Most smartphones have various apps that allow you to measure the camera's angle based on the tilt of the phone.
-By aligning the phone with the camera you can measure the elevation of the Moon accurately.

For every image you'll need to measure the apparent diameter of the Moon in pixels, seeing an increase as the Moon rises higher in the sky.
Lastly, the Moon's distance can be measured from only two images (of course the more images the better you beat down any error) using this relatively simple equation:

where d(t) is the distance from the Moon to your location on Earth, RE is the radius of the Earth, ht(t) is the elevation of the Moon for your second image, α(t)

is the relative apparent size of the Moon, or the apparent size of the Moon in your second image divided by the initial apparent size of the Moon in your first image and ht,0 is the initial elevation of the Moon for your first image.

So with a few pictures and a little math, you can measure the distance to the Moon."

This was borrowed from the American Journal of Physics. 

Another independent verification of the lunar landings comes from graphics card manufacturer nVidia, who provided this interesting perspective:


This is really the proverbial tip of the iceberg and represents to FE an unraveling red sweater, so to speak.  If the lunar missions were real, then the Mercury and Gemini programs before it would have had to happen.  If those happened, then it is reasonable to assume that the Apollo-Soyuz, Skylab, MIR, STS and the like all happened.  If those all happened then Hubble and ISS are both real.  Referring to something I touched on in another post, Occam's Razor is the skeptics' review of facts; which is more plausible, a grand conspiracy involving thousands of people across three continents is attempting to hide what would easily be a stupendous amount of information that can be determined by scientists and amateurs not directly involved with any governmental agency or, humans from Russia, China, and the United States have all visited the black sky.

Item 2 - Gravity: the impulse of mass gravity independence of gravitational acceleration can be destroyed by the demonstration of a simple helium balloon. however, you rarely see it. and there are no laboratory tests related to the masses being mutually attracted.

Well, I'm not too sure what to make of this one.  I believe what is trying to be postulated here is that objects that are less dense than the medium they are in somehow invalidate the existence of gravity.  The second point that there are no laboratory tests related to masses being mutually attracted is patently false.  The Cavendish experiments conducted between 1797 and 1798 captured this phenomenon. 

Item 3 - The vacuum effect of space: the power of vacuum is one of the most powerful within the known natural forces. it may seem low in theory, but it is practically high. you can carry a 300-pound glass with 2 vacuum holders in a hand size. but there is no answer to why the space that created the vacuum effect does not vacuum the atmosphere because it is a space.

Well, to start, the power of vacuum is not one of the most powerful within the known natural forces.  The order, from strongest to weakest, is strong nuclear, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and gravitational.  The reason the vacuum of space doesn't suck the atmosphere from Earth is because of the fourth most powerful force in nature; gravity.

Item 4 - All "objective" observations made reveal that the world has no necessary curvature.

I take the author to mean by "objective" is observations made with the naked eye.  The human eye is one of the most unreliable in the animal kingdom.  We have horrible night vision, see a limited range of the visible spectrum, and are afflicted with both poor micro and macro perception (we can't see too far and we can't see things up close well either).  Yet the FE community insists that observations made with this poor ocular instrument be taken over mathematical measure, photographic evidence made with tools far superior to the human eye, and inferential observations to the contrary.  This is overlooking the most obvious which is the naked eye can observe the curvature of the world.

This item falls into another pitfall of FE; confirmation bias.  The believer of this perspective simply rejects proof that it is incorrect while embracing any that is believed to validate it.  At best, the response has been blanket claims of tampered evidence or ad hominem rebuttals.

Item 5 - Google map and other maps can be destroyable by a compass has cost of 1$.

Umm, no.  I see no citation, no evidence, no proof, nothing but an unsupported claim that is patently false.  I can verify, as you can as well, that when I use Google Earth or Maps, enter my home address, verify what magnetic north is, it is the same as the military issue compass I have from when I was in the service.

Item 6 - The moon is seen in the daytime side of the world, and at the same time it is seen in the back of the world at night which is 180 degrees other side of the first point.

I don't see how this validates the FE theory.  The heliocentric, global model also behaves this way.

Item 7 - The daytime and nighttime air temperature differences are proved by me which is much more in the southern hemicircle than northern hemicircle. the reason for this difference is that the sun travels much more in the southern hemisphere and is closer to the surface than the northern hemisphere.

"Proved by me" a.k.a. anecdotal evidence without independent verification.  No chart of temperatures are provided, no measurements of how much more the sun travels in the southern, dare I quote, hemisphere, just a claim we are expected to take at face value.  Interestingly, no relationship is discussed or explained as to how this supposed behavior results in the delta between daytime and nighttime air temperatures.

Item 8 - The measurements with the sphere maps representing the northern hemisphere, the same one on the flat map representing the northern hemicircle by same value. maps containing the northern hemisphere are actually nonsences. the distance between the two points to be selected from the northern hemisphere on a globe depicting the world is actually different. The data used in google and yandex are not taken from the round but taken from the circle earth map.

The problem with FE maps is that there are just so many to choose from.  Simply put, there is no unified FE representation of the Earth other than it is flat.  The distortions in distances created by a flat map cannot be ignored and cannot be explained by anyone in the FE community.  Adding to that last point, ad nauseam arguments do not suffice as an explanation. 

Item 9 - Religious arguments: the phrase "upholstering the earth as a carpet" was used in Quran, and it was told that the devil had brought Jesus to a high mountain and showed all the kingdoms of the earth from there. if this argument is used well, it would be impossible for the pious of 2 billion Christians to deny it.

"It would be impossible for the pious of 2 billion Christians to deny it." - The fallacies are strong with this one.  First, any faith based argument is difficult to refute; not because it is correct or true, but because a faith based defense follows - god said so and god can't be wrong.  Second, we seem to be conflating Islam and Christianity, which I understand at the base these two are essentially the same but near the top there is some divergence.  I'm not sure what point is being made here but it doesn't seem to help the FET.

Item 10 - Rain: rain does not always rain in the cloudy weather. Sometimes it rains when there is no cloud. for there is water on the face of heaven. but they can hardly reach the surface because the distance is long and the layers are different. occasionally it is raining because of the direct sky. There is nothing to say by popular fake scientists about this matter except denying.

I guess the wind doesn't exist on a flat earth.

Item 11 - Conservation of energy: no such thing as. when two waves in the opposite from one over the other, the energies go down to zero.

Citation?  Journal article?  Anything??  Just a claim and that's it?  Well, without the laws of thermodynamics including the conservation of energy, this would be a very weird world.  Just sayin'.

Item 12 - Speed of light: our work shows that internet ping times between some lines are about 6 times faster than light speed. the speed limit of light is a bullshit.

The only BS here is this ridiculous assumption.  First off, what is being mentioned here was already debunked, for your reading pleasure:

If you use a packet tracer so that the entire route of a giving ping is listed, it becomes quite easy to determine that your Internet is not faster than light.

Item 13 - It can not be explained by round model by the fact that the great earthquakes are located in the outer part of the world on the Indonesia-Australia line called the Oceania in the outer world according to the flat world model and there are no earthquakes in the middle parts of the world. it should have a uniform distribution by the model of the round earth but it isn't.

Why would earthquakes be uniformly distributed in an RE model?  Ever hear of tectonic plates?  What exactly is the "middle parts" of the world?  This statement belies a fundamental lack of understanding regarding geography, physics, and geology.

Item 14 - We are always seeing the same face of the moon; proves the moon is 2-dimensional.

The moon's rotational period is the same as its orbital period.  If the moon was 2-D, it would appear as an ellipse as it got closer to the horizon.   It doesn't so it isn't.

Item 15 - The sun and the moon, first one is the source of the daylight and the other one is the light of the night, have about same apparent size can't be explainable by a 3d universe model. Actually there is about infinity probability.

Yeah, they appear roughly the same size because one is flipping massive and really far away.  Kinda like this:

Item 16 - The compass is constantly rotating at the exact north pole, but such an experiment can not be done in the south pole. because there is no pole in the south.

Umm, no.  If there is no south pole, a compass would not be able to point north.  Magnetic fields are defined by having a positive and negative pole, just like our planet has.

Item 17 - Old maps: old maps support flat earth theory.

Yup, they also support sea monsters, dragons, and all sorts of other nonsense.  I suppose I should chuck this computer I'm typing on and see if I can find one of those old punch card computers because they were better back then?

Item 18 - The rate of increase in the number of believers in the flat earth is also a strong evidence. according to this, in 2020 the entire world will believe in the flat earth because you can not cover the facts with pressure, it will find a way for itself.

I'm sure Jim Jones would agree with you.  You should try to do a survey in your city to see how much traction the FET is getting.  Really.

Item 19 - Antarctica: Antarctica, ice wall and mountains surrounding our world. every work done in the south direction to the end was not found. most of the investigations have been stuck in the glaciers and have come back to the end. The place described as a pole is not a pole and the compass still shows southward direction.

This is another patently false claim, or in other words known as a bold face lie.  Dude, there are a number of books, live video feeds, information galore that disproves this.  The world was circumnavigated, pole to pole, in 1982.  There are research stations there right now, with real people like you and me, doing work at this very minute. 

Good grief.

Pages: [1]