Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"

  • 36 Replies
  • 9785 Views
*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« on: August 14, 2006, 10:13:34 PM »
I posted this in the FAQ section for the piece "Better and Flatter Earths," but that was probably not the correct place to post it, so I am reposting it here for discussion.

Quote
"Yet it has been claimed that if the Earth were spinning round, there would be a howling gale all the time."

This is pure BS, because the atmosphere does in fact whirl around with the Earth- therefore we don't feel "howling gales". The atmosphere is held in by gravity. No gales. Ridiculous hypothesis #1 falsified.

"When this idea was explained, I did tentatively suggest that the trails might be due to the actual rotation of the Earth and not to the individual motions of the stars. Naturally, this objection was brushed aside with the contempt it deserved."

Not naturally at all. That objection is absolutely correct, and he doesn't even try to refute it- it's just ignored. The stars move, but they are so far away and they move so slowly relative to their great distance that we never notice the motion. The stars appear to move because the Earth rotates. What, do they believe the stars actually move in a circle around the Earth? If there's no gravity, what causes them to do this? Ridiculous hypothesis #2 falsified.

"If the axis pointed me (sic) way in summer and the opposite way in winter, then very tall buildings, such as the Eiffel Tower, would sway drunkenly from side to side..."

Buildings don't sway when the axis swings because the axis doesn't swing. This is a result of a horrible misunderstanding of solar system astronomy that anyone with a 3rd grade education could see through. When the Earth revolves around the sun, at the solstice one hemisphere is bent towards the sun, and at the other solstice the other hemisphere is bent towards the sun. It looks like this:



The axis never actually swings. The Earth's axis is consistently bent at an angle of around 23 degrees. Ridiculous hypothesis #3 falsified.

"By the refraction of light. If you watch the phenomenon several times, sooner or later you will see the entire ship apparently suspended in the air above the horizon- and I imagine you don't believe in anti-gravity?"

When a ship sinks over the horizon, and then sometimes may appear to be floating in the air, this is a mirage. A result of the ship's image being refracted back by the atmosphere. However, this effect would NEVER cause a ship to appear to STEADILY sink, or to sink at all. Not only that, but the mirage effect only happens under very specific atmospheric conditions, whereas EVERY TIME the ship appears to sink. Ridiculous hypothesis #4 falsified.

"You're falling into the elementary trap of supposing that a compass needle always points north."

In the flat Earth model, there should BE no "south". But there is. On a FE, the direction "south" should vary depending where on the disk you are- south would be the point where the radius that contains both you and the North Pole intersects with the edge of the world. But south is the same direction for everyone. Ridiculous hypothesis #5 falsified.

"Nobody has seen the Earth as a sphere; all that the spacemen have been able to do is see wider areas of the world at any one time, which is quite understandable. I believe you also consider the Moon to be a globe- but if you care to look at it this evening, you will see that it appears as a flat disk."

No it doesn't. It looks quite like a sphere, especially when you view it under high magnification and look at where the features curve away around the 'edges'. The spacemen do see the Earth as a sphere. It is a fucking sphere.

"Fakes, produced by reactionary scientists in order to conceal the truth about the shape of the Earth."

Well then I suppose every scientist in the world is a reactionary, because not one of them believes the Earth is flat. If you have to resort to labeling all the evidence a competing idea has as a conspiracy, your idea is probably dead. Especially since you fail to produce any memos, testimony, etc from inside the conspiracy. All we have is your word that there's a conspiracy, but even you guys don't claim there's actually any evidence for the conspiracy's existence, besides the fact that the MUST be a conspiracy if FE is true. Ridiculous hypotheses #6 and 7 falsified.

"Originally the Earth... 3,000 miles."

Since this is all speculation and is based on no evidence or testing, and there is in fact much evidence to the contrary that you can discover yourself without relying on "conspiracy" evidence, bullshit hypothesis #8 falsified.

"and the photographs they brought back were distorted due to the angle from which they were taken."

This is again BS, because a flat-ish cylinder viewed from an off-angle doesn't appear to be an oblate spheroid, but a cylinder:



Unless viewed face-on, the Earth would not appear circular- and not ALL of the photographs could possibly be face-on because many show entirely different portions of the planet.

9th and last bullshit hypothesis- utterly falsified. Good day, "Independent Thinkers".
the cake is a lie

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2006, 10:57:41 PM »
Quote
Not naturally at all. That objection is absolutely correct, and he doesn't even try to refute it- it's just ignored. The stars move, but they are so far away and they move so slowly relative to their great distance that we never notice the motion. The stars appear to move because the Earth rotates. What, do they believe the stars actually move in a circle around the Earth? If there's no gravity, what causes them to do this? Ridiculous hypothesis #2 falsified.

I started a thread on this but never got an answer.
 belive this site to be a hoax. But belief is irrelevant in science so the debate goes on.

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2006, 05:58:17 AM »
Quote from: "lunarlense"
I started a thread on this but never got an answer.


Well that is how this place works, any arguments that well and truely disprove a flat Earth beyond all doubt or point out the flaws and assumptions in their own argument, is hastily ignored.

Just accept silence as golden, if there is no counter presented, then obviously anyone who seriously believes the Earth might be flat has realised they can't present anything to discredit any of the round-Earth arguments given.

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2006, 06:10:18 AM »
I bet some FEer will come in here, ignore the post and the arguments laid before them, and instead start talking about something else. They always do.
t's round, guys. Get over it.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2006, 11:15:50 AM »
I'm going to keep bumping this up until an FEer gives me a coherent response. This isn't just going to go away.
the cake is a lie

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2006, 12:23:36 PM »
The angels sang a heavenly chorus
From the clouds descended Chuck Norris
He delivered a kick to this thread's bum
and sent it to the top of the FE forums.

Bumpage all the way.

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2006, 01:54:32 PM »
The Sun in that diagram should be at least a million times larger.
y the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe.

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2006, 03:32:21 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"




This diagram shows a red wire or string of some sort holding four earths in place in their orbit around the sun.  

If you need to resort to such childish flights of fancy as multiple planets and magic strings to make your round earth theories fly then I would put it to you that what you don't have there is a good theory.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2006, 10:29:16 AM »
Oh, fuck you.

Any Flat Earthers care to actually respond to this? It ain't going away.
the cake is a lie

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2006, 11:53:48 AM »
Bumped again.
the cake is a lie

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2006, 01:52:24 PM »
Bumpage.
the cake is a lie

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2006, 02:14:41 PM »
Well look I only read a tiny little bit of your 'proofs' but as for that ship sinking thing...

it's because of waves.

If the surface of the water were smooth and glass like you would be able to see the ship forever until it hit the ice wall, assuming clear skies and a good telescope.

However, as the ship gets further and further away and you're looking at it, waves which are closer to you get 'big' enough to obscure your view of the ship.

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2006, 02:19:52 PM »
Look... try rolling down a hill.

Good luck doing that on a ROUND earth!

moron.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2006, 02:27:07 PM »
Waves rise and fall. The ship still appears to sink, even when the waves fall. Even on a day with clear water, this happens. Such days are rare enough in the North Atlantic, but I have observed ships leaving Boston Harbor on calm days. The ship appears to sink. FE cannot explain this.
the cake is a lie

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2006, 05:12:10 PM »
Can a moderator possibly split this topic at Drake's first post? He is distracting from my original topic, which I still wish a flat-earther to attempt to refute.

Anyways, bumped again. If you guys can't tackle a college sophomore's refutation of one of your core documents, you don't have much going for you.
the cake is a lie

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2006, 05:21:37 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Can a moderator possibly split this topic at Drake's first post? He is distracting from my original topic, which I still wish a flat-earther to attempt to refute.


I went ahead and removed them because I'm fairly certain Drake is a troll; however, if you want me to create another thread and put all of those posts into it I can.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2006, 05:41:25 PM »
as i have told dysfunction and i will tell you, i do not live under any kind of a bridge, and dysfunctions lack of an attention span is not my doing, but the devils.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2006, 06:29:34 PM »
I'm ignoring Drake, and bumping this again. Dogplatter, Dionysos? Anybody want to tackle this?
the cake is a lie

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2006, 06:55:48 PM »
Teeshirt fo sale! Only five dolla!



he world seems round when I wear my old glasses.

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2006, 06:57:26 PM »
Oops, forgot the C in dysfunction. I'm too lazy to go change it. :P

*edit* Ok, I have nothing better to do, so I remade it.
he world seems round when I wear my old glasses.

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2006, 06:58:42 PM »
a dysfunctional T-Shirt you say eh?, well i dont know about that.  I'll have a red on please.

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2006, 08:36:25 PM »
Quote from: "Modiga-Disabled"
Quote from: "lunarlense"
I started a thread on this but never got an answer.


Well that is how this place works, any arguments that well and truely disprove a flat Earth beyond all doubt or point out the flaws and assumptions in their own argument, is hastily ignored.

Just accept silence as golden, if there is no counter presented, then obviously anyone who seriously believes the Earth might be flat has realised they can't present anything to discredit any of the round-Earth arguments given.


Perhaps they don't answer you because you're throwing immature tantrums.

And dysfunction, I hope you get your answer.  I'm afraid, however, I have not seen many FE'ers active lately.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2006, 08:44:10 PM »
Dogplatter, TheEngineer, and Astantia are around, though I'm not sure if TheEngineer is really an FEer. Most of these points represent fairly basic scientific concepts, so if the FE model is really true they should be able to respond without trouble.
the cake is a lie

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2006, 09:36:07 PM »
Bumpage, once again.
the cake is a lie

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2006, 09:21:37 AM »
Bump.
the cake is a lie

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2006, 12:55:57 PM »
Bump-ba-da-bump-bump.
the cake is a lie

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2006, 02:21:11 PM »
Dear dysfunction,

Let me provide an explanation about that ship that bothers you so much. I am not sure if it is true, but it seems to be reasonable and may work. I shall try to operate with very obvious things that could be easily verified.

First of all, I have never personally observed that illusion of a ship sinking below the horizon. If what you say is true, the explanation might be the following.

What I observed many times while driving was that a distant part of the road became much like a mirror and, when the weather was fine, often even seemed to disappear, merging with the sky. You probably are also aware of such a phenomenon, too. Why is that? The road is apparently not a mirror. You can always stop the car and check if I am telling you the truth. First of all, the road is most often grey or dark. Then, it's surface is neither polished not even, for it contains many irregularities: particles, small stones, paint etc., and most of them are quite noticeable even from some distance. Nevertheless, a distant part of the road looks like mirror, reflecting light and apparently covering the irregularities.

My explanation is that when I was looking at a distant part of the road at a very small angle, I saw the reflection of the light from a thin layer of air covering the surface of the road and its irregularities. That is why the distant part of the road appeared like a mirror, and I do not see any other explanation. That layer of air over the road must obviously have had a certain depth, which was enough to hide from me both the imperfectness of the road's surface and small objects laying on it.

It seems quite likely that a similar phenomenon over the sea surface might lead to your illusion. The ship is not sinking below the horizon. Instead of that, you are observing it at progressively smaller angles and, when the size of the hull becomes visually small enough, that air layer over the sea surface hides the hull from you, so it seemingly disappears. The masts are higher than the hull, and that is exactly the reason why you still see them for a while. Since the sea surface is highly reflective by itself (comparing to the road surface), the difference between the distant part of the sea and the rest of it is not that obvious as in the case of the road.

I do hope I satisfied your healthy curiosity. Again, I am not sure if this is a correct explanation but it seems to be a good working hypothesis. There are many optical illusions in the atmosphere, but it seems to be no need to invent such an extraordinary reason as round Earth to explain them. People often saw two (or more) Suns, green beams etc. etc., so what?

Also, may I humbly ask you why, when you see a ship sinking below the horizon, you believe that this is what's really happening? After all, isn't it the very RE theory itself that constantly teaches us not to believe our very own eyes? We clearly see that the Earth is flat; no - they say us! it is round, but we do not see the "roundness". Everyone in healthy mind sees that the Sun is going around the Earth; no, they say, the Sun is OK, this is the very Earth that is going around the Sun and - on top of all that - is also rotating around its "axis"! What an unbelievable lie! If the Earth was rotating, making the full turn every 24 hours, as the RE theory tells, its equatorial part would be moving with supersonic speed. There is absolutely no proof of that, no shock waves etc. On the basis of this alone, the false theory of RE ought to be dethroned and replaced by another, true, theory, that restores the human dignity and asserts, once and forever, our irrevocable right to believe our own eyes and our indispensable freedom to make our own conclusions.

Dixi
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2006, 03:03:16 PM »
The reason the road appears to meet the sky in the distance is merely perspective, and this phenomenon has the same explanation in either RE or FE models. The reason the road may sometimes become mirror-like in the distance is an atmospheric effect. If you pay attention, you will notice this effect only happens on hot days; pavement is a material that can soak up a lot of heat, and this shimmering 'mirror' effect is due to water on the road's surface evaporating. No comparable effect exists over the ocean, because sea water is usually considerably colder than the surrounding atmosphere. Some rare mirage effects occur over the ocean, but the phenomenon of the ship 'sinking' is not rare at all: it happens EVERY TIME a ship sails away. Every time, no matter what conditions, no matter what the size or construction of the ship.

Now, you know that the other planets are round, right? You can clearly see that they are round through a telescope, as the surface features rotate around the planets' surfaces. But if you were on, say, Venus, don't you think the surface would look just as flat as on Earth? Very large spheres appear to be flat to observers on their surfaces. If you don't believe that, blow up a balloon; you will notice that the curve of the balloon becomes more gradual the larger the balloon gets; this is simple geometry. If you could blow up a balloon to the size of the Earth, it would appear to be totally flat.
As for there being 'shock waves'- you seem to believe that the atmosphere would just sit there while the Earth and all the people on it rotated, so that there would appear to be massive winds all the time. No. The atmosphere is held in by Earth's gravity, and rotates along with the Earth just as we do, so to us it appears generally not to move at all (besides localized winds and such).
the cake is a lie

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2006, 06:45:40 PM »
Dear dysfunction,

" The reason the road may sometimes become mirror-like in the distance is an atmospheric effect. If you pay attention, you will notice this effect only happens on hot days;"

Not only; today, for example, was not hot but the effect was perfectly observable.

"this shimmering 'mirror' effect is due to water on the road's surface evaporating."

Not likely, for I also observed it after several days of very hot weather in the afternoon, so the water from any conceivable precipitation had probably been evaporated.

However, if you are right, you have just proven the validity of this explanation for the ship in the sea, for the sea must always have abundant water vapours over its surface.

"sea water is usually considerably colder than the surrounding atmosphere."

So must be the road, if the water is constantly evaporating from its surface. This effect is being used in a device called hygrometer. You can easily check it yourself. Take two identical thermometers, wrap the bulb of one of them with a layer of tissue and moisten the tissue with a few drops of water (tape water would do the job). Soon you'll likely see the difference of the temperatures, the wrapped thermometer will show a lower value (except when the relative humidity is 100%).

Frankly, my impression is that you've just proven my hypothesis.  


"you know that the other planets are round, right?"

Dear dysfunction, that passage looks like irrelevant diversion from the topic. I must confess that I've never been, as far as I remember, on other planets. I do not know if they are round or not (by the way, RE tells us some planets are not round, they call them asteroids). I have never observed a sinking ship here on Earth, much less on another planet. Besides, your favourite RE theory teaches us not to believe in what appears to our eyes. That is yet another interesting point: we are supposed not to believe in what we see here on Earth but believe in what we see through a telescope. Be consistent. If you do not believe in what you see here, why would you believe in telescopic observations?

"But if you were on, say, Venus,"

according to RE, I would be immediately destroyed, at temperature of about 400 degrees C, pressure of ca. 100 atmospheres, in an atmosphere of sulphuric acid vapours.

"Very large spheres appear to be flat to observers on their surfaces."

Therefore, there's no means to learn if they are flat or round.

"The atmosphere is held in by Earth's gravity, and rotates along with the Earth just as we do"

Precisely. So the air over equator is rotating together with the equator and staying over the Earth's poles, right? Therefore, the speed of this equatorial air is 40,000 km / 86,400 s = 0.463 km/s, or 463 m/s, relatively to the air over the poles, correct? However, this speed is considerably higher than the speed of sound, which is about 330 m/s. So, that equatorial air, according to RE, must be moving with a supersonic speed in relation to the air over the poles. In that case, it must overcome the sound barrier approximately at 30 degrees of latitude in both hemispheres, creating massive shock waves. Where they are?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Refutation of "Better and Flatter Earths"
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2006, 07:22:29 PM »
Bumping your own thread is retarded, and you should be banned for it on general principles.

Quote from: "dsyfunction"


Oh, fuck you.


An even better ban reason. If you can't keep it civil, you'll be ignored.