"Top 10 Reasons We Know The Earth is Round" Debunked?

From Tausami's thread in Q&A:

We get this video a lot, so I thought I'd make an easily found thread debunking it. If a mod could sticky this that would be awesome.

1. Other planets are round

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

2. Time Zones

This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

3. The Coriolis Effect

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

5. The Sun

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth, the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.

7. Magellan

Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

8. The Horizon

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.

9. Eclipses

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

10. Photographic Evidence

Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.

____

I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond to this thread, or if a mod locked it. It's not up for discussion. This is just to let newcomers know that they can't 'destroy FES with a single video' as so many hope to. It's not that easy. Sorry.

Seriously, this isn't a debate thread. If you want to debate it, feel free to make a new thread. I'm not responding to questions or concerns in this one.

1. Okay, it's possible you're right. Not very likely, but possible.

2. Again, possible, but not very likely (and very hard to explain as simply as on a round earth).

3. Have you ever studied meteorology? Or been hit by a hurricane or cyclone? Or fired a projectile over very long range (such as long range target shooting, or artillery)? The Coriolis Effect is very real, and the evidence is far from contrived.

4. This is not an impossible experiment, just a bit impractical for anyone without a substantial amount of money to spend on it.

5. It's pretty much impossible for the sun to move in such a way as to both fit in with FET and match observed motions. And no, 'bendy light' just doesn't make any sense, so is not an acceptable explanation. Also, repeating Eratosthenes's experiment with various distances between the two points will give various distances for the sun if you assume a flat earth, but consistent measurement of the circumference if you assume a round earth.

6. No, a flat earth will never produce the same effect, it is pretty much impossible. And again, 'bendy light' is not an acceptable explanation.

7. Possible, certainly.

8. Perspective? Seriously? SMH

9. "...or vice versa." I've never seen the moon go behind the sun. Lunar eclipses only occur during a full moon, when the sun and moon are furthest apart.

10. "Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth..." Sooo, are they actual photos (and videos) taken from space? or very good forgeries? Make up your mind! Oh, and in case you missed it, photos are flat anyway. That doesn't mean that a photo I take of my car shows my car to be a cardboard cutout, it just means that the photo can't show everything about it's subject.

Many of your points seem to not counter Tausami's arguments in anyway.

Many of your points seem to not counter Tausami's arguments in anyway.

What about the ones that do?

Here's a summary of what I was trying to do:

1. Conceding the possibility that Tausami could, hypothetically, be right.
2. Conceding the possibility that Tausami could, hypothetically, be right, but noting that it's not really very plausible.
3. Pointing out that Tausami is incorrect, and why.
4. Nitpicking.
5. Pointing out that Tausami is incorrect, and why.
6. Pointing out that Tausami is incorrect, and why.
7. Conceding the possibility that Tausami could, hypothetically, be right.
8. Questioning the sanity of anyone who thinks 'perspective' explains objects being obscured by the horizon.
9. Pointing out a flaw in Tausami's statement.
10. Pointing out some faulty reasoning relating to photos of earth taken from space.

Further on 9: IMHO, lunar eclipses are not satisfactorily explained in FET, and only make sense in the context of a round earth getting between the sun and the moon.

I was just about to launch my own "debunk" thread when I saw yours SM, so I thought I'd add my own 2 cents to it.

First of all, Pongo, nice of you to make a vague, sweeping assertion without actually engaging any of Scintific Method's points "in anyway"

So, here we go:

1. Other planets are round

Pongo's response:
According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

Yeah, of course everyone would take issue with this. Obviously in FET the Earth is different. Is there any part of the "theory" that explains WHY it's different? As far as we can tell, the Earth is made of matter, just like the other planets. We know what kind of elements the Earth contains because we have studied them in detail right here at the source. We know what kinds of elements the other planets contain from things like emission and absorption spectra. So it would stand to reason that the same physical laws apply to Earth as well, since we know nothing about matter that suggests it would behave differently in different places in space. In light of this, the fact that other planets are round is a pretty good point, and Pongo's unsupported argument that it is different is unconvincing.

2. Time Zones

This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

I don't see where Henry assumes that the Flat Earth is the same as the Round Earth, in fact his point rests on an important difference. On a Round Earth, it's easy to see how the terminus would follow something like a great circle when the Earth is lit from one side. The spotlight would produce a curved terminus so that dawn would occur at different times depending on latitude, even at the Equinox, which we know doesn't happen.

3. The Coriolis Effect

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

Evidence for the Coriolis force is well established. It's essential in predicting weather patterns for instance. If you want to talk about making assumptions, you can examine the assumption of a force, the AW, that has never been observed or even talked about outside FET. When you can make calculations based on this Aetheric Shadow Wind that match observed effects at the very least, then you might have something. Until then, this is just another vague handwave that does nothing to to dispute the point in the video.

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

Maybe not this exact experiment, but calculations of flight paths, GPS location etc. rely on this kind of spherical (or oblate spheroidal) geometry, and guess what? IT WORKS.

5. The Sun

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth, the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

Since Henry has very good reason to assume a Round Earth, he's warranted to do so. But it's true, Eratosthenes did make this same (very reasonable) assumption in calculating the circumference of the Earth. As for the distance to the sun, you're only making a much bigger assumption that the Earth is flat. And as has been pointed out countless, countless times on this forum, the Sun distance calculation based on 2 points is not valid, 3 points are required.

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.

Again, done to death in other threads and still no answer from FET. You can't explain how the stars rotate one direction around the North Pole, and a different direction around the South Pole, if the Earth is a flat disk, or any other flat shape. The star trails would not even appear to be circular unless you were very close to the North Pole. At the South Pole (or rim continent) they'd look like ellipses.

7. Magellan

Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

Since I don't know exactly how Magellan navigated, I can't really say much for certain on this point. However, if he navigated by stars and sextant, I think he would have been totally lost when he traveled far South of the equator, for reasons related to point 6.

8. The Horizon

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.

And looking out over a calm lake at the Chicago skyline across lake Michigan, you should be able to see the buildings from top to bottom, however you don't. There is refraction, yes, but that doesn't account for this. We know how refraction works. And there is no such thing as bendy light.

9. Eclipses

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

And how do annular eclipses work exactly, when the sun and moon are supposed to be the same size? Try placing two equal sized balls in front of you, one behind the other, and see if you can see the entire edge of the one behind. Henry is not assuming everything the same, he's pointing out how it works in RE, but not in FE.

10. Photographic Evidence

Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.

I don't know about you, but I've take a flat round plate and look at it from an angle - yes there is curvature, but it is not an arc, it's elliptical. Subtle difference, but only a sphere would give a true arc shape at any angle. Camera distortion? Funny that the distortion ALWAYS shows the horizon curving down. If the camera were at fault you should expect to see some pics showing the opposite. And as always, the last ditch effort when you don't understand something - Conspiracy! I'm sure there are conspiracies aplenty in the world, but space travel is not one of them. If it was really just nationalistic propaganda, or a money making scam - WHY go into such detail? WHY put themselves at risk constantly with new photos, videos, data, when everything they put out puts the whole conspiracy at risk? Wouldn't it make much more sense to put out just enough to keep it going, and be as vague as possible? Do they REALLY need dozens of photos EVERY DAY from the ISS that would take days or weeks to produce in such detail? As well as extremely realistic videos, not to mention LIVE interviews showing zero-g conditions that last FAR longer than any microgravity parabolic flight can EVEN THEORETICALLY produce? It boggles the mind that you think that such a conspiracy could be kept going even briefly, much less for over 50 years, without more than a few cranks here and there "blowing the whistle" on it. And if you want to say that the majority of the population are just mindless sheep who don't care and just believe anything, then you have to answer my point that there would be NO REASON for the vast, VAST detail involved.

As I said before, most of these points are covered in much more detail in other threads. To take all 10 in one thread and just wave them away like that, like you have never seen the counter arguments in your life, is really laughable Pongo.

Oh dear. I always feared the day this thread would come. This is going to be a complete pain in the arse, arguing this many points at once. I warn you, I am a chronic procrastinator. For simplicity's sake, I'll just respond to the points that actually argue.

3. I personally account for Coriolis in AWT. You're arguing with the wrong person, I'm afraid.

4. No, it's impossible. I promise you, if you can provide me with a methodology that actually works, I'll test it this summer.

5. For the first, I'm not much of an astronomer. You'd be better off debating someone else about that. For the second, that's reductio ad ridiculum, which is a logical fallacy. For the third, that's because of aetheric eddification.

6. reductio ad ridiculum

8. reductio ad ridiculum

10. Low Earth photographs, generally taken by amateurs, are obviously real. They show exactly what a Flat Earther would expect them to. The images the NASA claims were, for example, taken from the Moon are patently fake.

How are points 6 and 8 Reductio Ad Ridiculum?  There is no mockery in the rebuttals?

How are points 6 and 8 Reductio Ad Ridiculum?  There is no mockery in the rebuttals?

Yeah, I don't think he quite knows what that means exactly. And is he responding to my post, or Scintific Method's, or...?

Anyway the responses were so brief they didn't really engage. Each point really needs it's own thread, which of course has been done before, though I don't mind doing it all again. What I'd really like to see is some proper debate, there's even a forum dedicated to it. Even there I mostly see a lot of mudslinging and lazy one word answers. Haha, who would make a good impartial moderator here?

The fact that it is here and has been here for quite some time, with the comings and goings of round earth indoctrinated students, scientists, shills, wannabe scientists and trolls, shows that not only is it strong but it's proving a pain in the arse to debunk.
The reason it's proving a pain in the arse to debunk is, because in the main, it's correct in terms of it being a flat earth.

I would contend that the actual reason the FES is still here is that, despite FET being repeatedly debunked, people like yourself completely ignore (or completely fail to understand) the evidence used to debunk FET. For example:

9. Eclipses.

The reason for how they say eclipses work, doesn't make sense as they say the earth casts a shadow and the moon moves into that shadow, yet how do you get a shadow in the blackness of space?

Do I really need to explain this? Really?

So you don't understand how light and shadows works but have drawn a reasonable approximation of how light and shadows works. Even for you this is a good one

Please explain why an atmosphere is needed to create a shadow.

Light does not require an atmosphere to propagate. All you need is a surface to reflect back some of the light along a clear border and you perceive a shadow.

Indeed. A shadow isn't anything; it is merely the absence of light rays hitting a surface due to an object obstructing it. As, according to the round Earth model, the moon reflects the sun's light, if the Earth were to pass between the sun and the moon, we can only see the portion of the moon that the sun's light rays are hitting. Darkness does not exist - only the absence of light.

So, in the RET, the shadow does not extend through space to touch the surface of the moon, but rather the sun's light rays do not reach the surface of the moon to illuminate it.

A shadow is created when light cannot pass through an object and scatters around it, lighting up on a surface, leaving the object shone at, as a shadow, which is fine if space was a wall or floor but space is black or shall I say devoid of anything to create a shadow.

I think you answered your own question here. That does make sense that a shadow is really only seen on a surface. So when the moon moves into an area where no sunlight is shining because the Earth blocks it...?