200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Videobook

Hello

Im new to the site and to the FE theory. I saw the video "200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Videobook" on youtube and he is IMHO on to something, i mean there are some very logical things he says and there has been experiments done in the past that show the earth not to be a sphere. I dont know, bec i have not been doing any experiments on the subject but i wish that all peeps believing in a sphere could debunk them if you could, should be easy for you if they are lies without any substance!?
Im honestly interested in truth not believing, thats for chuch peeps

Thx

Haven't seen the video, but I guess it says that centrifugal force should fling us off the planet. That's wrong, look up the formula for centrifugal force, put in the correct values and you will see that the force is really very small, something like 0.2ms-2, which is small compared to gravity.

I watched a few minutes.  It's Eric Dubay. 

First 10 "proofs" all just showed a complete lack of understanding of 'level' and how something would curve with the surface while maintaining the same elevation.  I stopped at eleven.

Hello

Im new to the site and to the FE theory. I saw the video "200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Videobook" on youtube and he is IMHO on to something, i mean there are some very logical things he says and there has been experiments done in the past that show the earth not to be a sphere. I dont know, bec i have not been doing any experiments on the subject but i wish that all peeps believing in a sphere could debunk them if you could, should be easy for you if they are lies without any substance!?
Im honestly interested in truth not believing, thats for chuch peeps

Thx

List a few of the ones that sounds most convincing to you, ill give it a shot.

Haven't seen the video, but I guess it says that centrifugal force should fling us off the planet. That's wrong, look up the formula for centrifugal force, put in the correct values and you will see that the force is really very small, something like 0.2ms-2, which is small compared to gravity.

No... 

I watched a few minutes.  It's Eric Dubay. 

First 10 "proofs" all just showed a complete lack of understanding of 'level' and how something would curve with the surface while maintaining the same elevation.  I stopped at eleven.

Then please DEBUNK it?? Tell us how it works... and look at the rest of the video just for the discussions sake. 

List a few of the ones that sounds most convincing to you, ill give it a shot.

Actually i think many if not all of them are very interesting, so if you know so much about this question it should not be hard for you to DEBUNK them all??



Many of the so called evidence is actually not even his own claims but they are based on experiments done long time ago! I havent seen many more evidence than the 10 on youtube that claims that the earth is a ball, and they have been debunked by FE (at least from their perspective), ball believers dont even try to debunk the many claims that exist from FE...

Im going to wait until someone that knows what they talk about write, im not really interested in the kind of answers that i have gotten so far!
Many claim this to be an easy question (third grade knowlege) with simple answers, but no one seems to be able to DEBUNK his 200 claims? Intersesting...

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 27, 2016, 07:01:49 PM

I watched a few minutes.  It's Eric Dubay. 

First 10 "proofs" all just showed a complete lack of understanding of 'level' and how something would curve with the surface while maintaining the same elevation.  I stopped at eleven.

Then please DEBUNK it?? Tell us how it works...

A gain in elevation means one is moving away from the surface, correct?  So if one follows the curved surface of a spherical planet, one is not gaining elevation even though they are following a "downward" curve. Their elevation remains constant.  An exact straight line from a level starting point would slowly start to gain elevation at an increasing rate.

Here is point 10;  "The railroad between London and Liverpool is 180 miles long.  The railroad's midway station at Birmingham station is only 240feet above sea level.  If the world were actually a globe however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raised over a mile."

Now perhaps if the railroad started at liverpool at a slight downward angle and traveled in an exact straight line, it would be 'level' at the mid point at Birmingham and at the bottom of a deep trench (if not a tunnel at that point), and would eventually be at ground elevation again at the end of the line.

I'd have to run it through a calculator, but I'm going to guess he's also taking the total 'drop' over the 180 miles, and  using that number as the 'top of the arc' at the mid point.  This would also be wrong, as the 'hill' of curvature between two points is not going to be as much as the drop.  Someone that knows the math can give exact numbers.

Anyway, back to the railroad... If the railroad elevation roughly follows the curvature, and an elevation that is constant is following the curvature, then there will be no mile-high hill between the two points.

and look at the rest of the video just for the discussions sake. 

I'll get to it sooner or later I guess.  I don't have very high expectations though, since he demonstrates he can't even comprehend a circle (let along a 3-d globe) within the first 10 'points'.

#32 of his 200 "proofs" that the earth is flat:
"If gravity is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world's oceans, buildings, people, and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball then it is impossible for gravity to also, simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take off and travel freely unabated in any direction"

How is this a proof? He has no factual evidence that the force of gravity can simultaneously keep buildings on the ground, but allow things that can create lift to fly. It is merely conjecture. He does not have any science for any of his findings. It seems that half of his examples are allegories of things that happened 200+ years ago. I am not here to prove that the Earth is round, because if you can't tell that already, then you will probably never understand it. What I am here to do is prove that none of Eric Dubay's conjecture are based on fact.

Here's a question for all you FE'ers. If RE is a conspiracy, why would EVERYONE (but you) base our lives around the idea that the earth is round with satellites that provide cellphone service, GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS). Really, how would it go unnoticed for so long? Why would there be massive companies (i.e. Space-X), multi-billion dollar companies devoted to the exploration of space? I work for a company that has a hand in rocket production. Is my job just a figment of my imagination, or a conspiracy? Why would we create a complex description of physics just for a conspiracy? Are all of the smartest people in the world working to explain physics in a way that isn't true? I don't think so! Come on! It's common sense!

I am just going to do the first couple of minutes.

1-2) You can think it is fake or real up to you.  Live_ISS_Stream on USTREAM: Live video from the International Space Station includes internal views when the crew is on-duty and Earth views at other times... " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Notice the curvature from that altitude.  I have come to suspect that is the curve some FE's expect to be able to see flying in passenger planes or a little higher.  So when they do not see it as pronounced they use it as evidence of a flat Earth.  The ISS is flying at 405 KM the record for fixed wing craft is 112KM.  It is not easy to get up to the altitudes needed to take a picture of the curve and Eric Dubay fails to take into account the size of the earth in relation to the observer.

3-5) Has no understanding how gravity works and I guess it is hard for him to imagine their is no up in space.    Simple explanation gravity pulls stuff to the center of mass, that is why when planets, moons and stars form they form a circle.  The center of mass of the Earth since it is a sphere is the core.  Since up on the Earth is relative why wouldthe rivers and oceans not behave the way they do.
Quick counter what causes the tides on a flat Earth?

6) FEs love measuring over water.  They seem to not believe in refraction existing during those measurements, but use it to explain other stuff.  Basically light refracts, stick something 1/2 in and 1/2 out of water to see it for yourself.  Light tends to like refracting more over water, hence it follows the curvature.  Ask around about experiments conducted curve over land that can be recreated.

7) Not 100% true.  Building long suspension bridges the curve needs to be taken into account so the main supports are parallel with gravity. This will cause the tops of the supports to be a little further apart then the bottoms.  Simple put the curve does not need to be taken into account for building roads, etc because it kind of takes care of itself as you build the road since it falls with in most construction tolerances.  Anything two structures you build up and lets just say 200 meters apart and you what the distance between the two at things at the top to be a certain distance apart would need to take into account the curvature.

I stopped watching seems to repeat the same stuff, not really 200 proofs but the 100 proofs with extra examples.

Choose what to believe.

I will point this out look at the Bishop Experiment: The distances stated is 10 miles off, his observation height was likely rather far off, and taking into account refraction, particularly over water and a cold day which increases refraction it would have been odd for him not to see what is stated in the observations. 

Why is this still offered as evidence when the mistake in distance is known? http://imgur.com/a/BMQht

 I highly doubt the telescope was only 20 inches above the water. http://imgur.com/DJ2mczM

Take a look at the evidence provided in videos, the wiki, and these forums. 

Why is it hard to find an observation that does not omit at least one of these; distance, observer height, what is being observed?

How do they explain tides, eclipses, seasons, celestial navigation, that you can use a Foucalt pendulum to estimate your latitude, lunar phases, planets in retrograde,...?