Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.

  • 35 Replies
  • 11838 Views
?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:32:17 PM »
I would love to hear someone's answer to this.
1: There is a live webcam on the I.S.S. which allows you to see a view of the earth 24/7. So either NASA is somehow able to draw up photorealistic 30 frame per second video of the earth from a consistent viewpoint, constantly changing and showing the actual events on the ground and in the weather as they are happening, or there is something wrong with the 'space flight doesn't exist because it doesn't support my opinions' conspiracy.

2: You can see satellites from the ground. And the I.S.S. You can find dozens of amateur astronomy websites which will tell you when the I.S.S. will pass over any  part of the world next. And you can go and watch it. I've done it myself several times. I was even lucky enough to have it pass over while a space shuttle was approaching to dock, so that I could see the two arcing over the sky, seemingly with the space shuttle chasing the station down as it closed to dock. I've even had the pleasure of seeing the work of an amateur photographer who's hobby is taking pictures of the I.S.S. from the ground. Yes, real pictures taken with a normal nongovernment funded camera from right here on Earth. My favorite was his picture of the I.S.S. passing in front of the moon, a rather impressive feat of precision.

3: You can see the moon landings. I've also had the pleasure of seeing through a friend's telescope the dropped Saturn V booster which impacted the moon to provide data for geological sensors left behind by a previous Apollo mission. Undoubtedly, FE supporters will claim with no proof that any images of things such as the moon buggy or the bottom half of the lander are hoaxes because they disagree with their opinions. Nonetheless I will leave these rather cutting pieces of evidence to the side at the insistence of FE supporters that any photo evidence that contradicts their opinion is fake.

4: Commercial and international spaceflight. It's one thing to say that the Apollo program, and the literal millions of people involved with it all had 100% loyalty to the government, and that of all the countless scores of people who've been involved with the space program remained faithful and never gave up any secrets despite the fact that they were holding the truth away from the whole world for reasons that didn't benefit them in any way. But it's a whole other thing to say that every country involved in the space industry has never had anyone ever become disillusioned and gave away their secrets? What about the U.S.S.R.? They aren't even a country anymore, and most of their former population now resents or even hates what they did to them. So out of these all now resentful people, not one of them decided they would spill the beans that they had been lying for their country the whole time? What utter foolishness.

5: Seeing the curvature of the earth. I have seen the curvature of the earth. I am a hiker, and my favorite hikes are those that bring me to those glorious peaks, thousands of feet above the ground below, where the air is thin and the sky clear for hundreds of miles. And I have seen the curvature of the earth. No illusion, I have legitimately seen the world drop away as it gets farther away, so that far ridges and mountains look like they are half buried beneath the horizon. Not to mention the fact that through amateur rocketry I've also recorded video of the earth miles above where I can stand and look down from. And the curvature only becomes more apparent. Someone once on this forum said that this can be accredited to distortion of the camera. So, just for fun, I set up a straight grid of paper facing directly at the camera and took a picture. As you might expect, the grid was not distorted at all. The lines were still completely straight, not a pixel off.

6: Communications satellites. Communications satellites such as GPS, satphone, TV, etc. Are for the most part commercially funded and launched. And their affects are measurable from the ground. Not only can they be seen in the cases of Iridium Flares, but they also can be tracked and signal to them monitored. GPS signal depends on constant communication with several satellites, all of which must be tracked and connected to independently. So why would these companies who make GPSs decide to make GPSs disconnect for no reason to simulate loss of connection to satellites that don't exist? Why would they worsen their product compared to competitors for the sake of a conspiracy that doesn't even benefit them? Answer- they don't, because the satellites are actually there. And if this signal isn't coming from satellites, where in the (flat) world is it coming from? And why does the signal track to the sky if there is nothing there?

7: Accuracy of maps. If the flat earth world actually existed, langitude and longitude would break down, because they are based on a spherical earth and as such you would not be able to navigate a flat earth with a curved grid. It just wouldn't work. So why does it? Because the earth is curved. And the world itself would be physically broken in the process. If the world really is flat, then how does it narrow towards the poles? How in the (flat) world can you explain the fact that distances on a 2D plane don't line up with the spherical world, and as such distance is often misinterpret elated on flattened maps of large areas because the curvature of the earth is very incompatible with a flat world. In short: a 2D earth would break all of the physical natural laws because it would require the world to widen and narrow to fit it's 2D constraints, and these 2D distances don't line up with the real world.

8: The aether. Oh god why. The real world doesn't line up with your opinions, so you just make something up to explain it. I don't even want to tackle how revolting this piece of non-logic is.

9: Antarctica. In the FE hypothesis', Antarctica is always described as an ice wall encircling the 'borders' of the Earth. Why is this utter lies? Because you can go over and under the ice. We've crossed Antarctica. And came up on, you guessed it, the other side. You can claim its just another conspiracy, and they just magically teleported him around the circumference of the outer circle of the world with a whole bunch of also hoaxed scientific data and photographs. Yah right. We can also fly over it, drive over it, pilot submarines beneath the ice sheet, etc. Antarctica is not a wall.

10: Antarctica again. How could this massive southern ice plate even exist if it weren't for the earth being spherical? It gets colder the closer you get to a pole because of light hitting the earth at a more oblique angle due to the earth's curvature, thus scattering the light more and absorbing less light of what does hit the ground, and thus less heat. So... Is there some mystical source of cold at the ring and center of a flat earth or is there just a round earth?

11: Seasons. The FE hypothesis suggests that the sun is just a big lamp in the sky pointed at us, even though the other planets are lit up by it while they are orbiting around it.  So if that were true and the sun is a magic wobbling spotlight floating above the earth, then why would it wobble with variations that produce the seasons? Assuming that there is some unknown force holding the sun a fixed distance from the surface and wobbling it, then how could this force be imprecise enough to cause the sun's wobble to wobble over time, but somehow also contain this second wobble so that it only deviates a certain distance? It comes to mind how rediculous it is to make all this up to prop up the FE hypothesis rather than just admit defeat.

12: Gravity variations. The FE hypothesis requires gravity to not exist, or be weakened in some form, or else the FE would be destroyed by its own weight. So instead they say that the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s constantly by some unknown force which is also doing the same to the moon and sun. But this hypothesis does not match up with reality. It sounds, well, sound, unless you think about it a little bit more. Gravity weakens with distance, and as such if you measure gravity from a high elevation, it is weaker than 9.8, and if you measure gravity closer to the earth's core, the gravity is higher. But if it isn't gravity and rather acceleration, then this would mean the higher parts are moving slower and the low parts moving faster. So then we get that Louisiana would break off and fly ahead while the Himalayas would punch out and fall behind the rest of the world. More likely, the intense variation of heights would cause the FE to ripple and curl until it shattered and destroyed itself in a cataclysm of molten rock.

13: The atmosphere. I'd like to think that everyone here will freely admit that we breath oxygen, and that oxygen (as well as all the other major constituents of the air we live in) are gasses. (At least in their atmospheric temperatures) Well then everyone here has just disproved flat earth hypothesis yet again, because if the earth were flat, and not tearing itself apart, then the atmosphere would just blow away to the edges and fall away into space.

I personally can't wait to hear all the replies, and to get the arguments rolling. Everyone play fair, and may the best facts win!
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 08:44:23 AM by Blacksmith »
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Many rebuttals to FE hypothesises.
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2014, 11:39:38 PM »
Please don't make so many points in one debate post.  First of all, not many people are going to read all that (I certainly did not).  Secondly, you will have a much better debate if you present one point at a time.  Thanks. 

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2014, 11:48:54 PM »
If everyone only replied to the first few, I wouldn't mind. They all achieve the same thing.
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2014, 12:06:11 AM »
I'll start with the first one.  Star Wars looked pretty real with 70s technology.  How can you say that NASA can not do as well with much better technology?

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2014, 12:41:17 AM »
I'll start with the first one.  Star Wars looked pretty real with 70s technology.  How can you say that NASA can not do as well with much better technology?
No. 6 next please.

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2014, 06:51:15 AM »
I'll start with the first one.  Star Wars looked pretty real with 70s technology.  How can you say that NASA can not do as well with much better technology?
Because even with today's best movie making technology, it takes years for studios to prepare a half hour of CGI which often times can be very easy to identify. So to say that companies who's job it is to make these kind of film can't accomplish in years what NASA can accomplish in milliseconds en endurance for years on end is extremely foolish.
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2014, 07:27:12 AM »
I'll start with the first one.  Star Wars looked pretty real
lol, no it didn't.  Unless you were about 5 that is.

Aside from that, I wasn't aware of Star Wars being available on 24/7 HD streaming.

Life of Pi used 600 artists over several years to create a single tiger for a 90 minute film.  How many people do you suggest NASA employs?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2014, 08:04:21 AM »
How many people do you suggest NASA employs?
Duh... Don't act like you don't know. All of them! Well, all but a few FErs...

?

Goggleman

  • 73
  • +0/-0
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2014, 08:07:08 AM »
I'll start with the first one.  Star Wars looked pretty real with 70s technology.  How can you say that NASA can not do as well with much better technology?

Suppose for a moment that they could do that convincingly.

How do you explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Incidentally, this experiment conclusively demonstrates that the moon is orders of magnitude further away than 3000 miles and has been independently verified with fairly cheap equipment by colleges and hobbyists all around the world.

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2014, 09:49:45 AM »
So, Jroa, care to take a crack at any of the others? I would especially like to discuss no. 12 because it seems to make a flat earth physically impossible.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 09:55:18 AM by Blacksmith »
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2014, 10:08:16 AM »
For #12: Gravity Variations, my theory is that the density of the Earth affects the amount of UA force that permeates through the Earth, affecting the perceived weight of objects. 

?

guv

  • 1132
  • +0/-0
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2014, 10:13:52 AM »
I just read the lot. Not hard at all. What is this FE mindset that cant time share. Has it to do with a lack of working brain cells.
The answer is real simple, dead right on all points. Real Earthers don't have to make up fairy tails to justify knowledge. Tough titties to the FE gang.

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2014, 10:17:53 AM »
But that does not explain the lack of effects of this unknown force. The density has nothing to do with it. In the real world, we've mapped the density variations, and they do create slight variations in gravity, but these variations do not line up with the altitude of the land, which is what really creates the variation. And, if, as you said, it is the density that creates the variation, that idea in itself is flawed. It basically means that heavier parts have more force supporting them, but force ≠ acceleration. This would only mean that heavier parts could be equally accelerating. If the force varies like it would seem to, if it were really the earth accelerating then this force would act the same in the objects as it does the earth. So how could this acceleration affect objects but not the earth? What is defined as the earth in this scenario and why does it not seem to include rock or dirt? After all, dirt is not well known for its antigravity properties. So in summary, the density/force cancel eachother out, and even at that, if the acceleration varies for objects, then how could it not vary for the ground? You can measure any object and this variation is present, including pieces of the earth itself. So if the acceleration was somehow different for the Earth than the objects on it, then everything on the surface would constantly be flying up into the atmosphere and then coming back down as it accelerates faster, then slower, than the ground beneath it. I call B.S. Also, this is, like you said, a theory, (and not in the scientific definition) so you have no evidence to support this idea.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 10:34:07 AM by Blacksmith »
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2014, 10:33:48 AM »
I am proposing that it is the composition of the Earth that affects the amount of UA Force that permeates it.  This is, in fact, the definition of a theory. 

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2014, 10:36:24 AM »
Sorry, read that post again, I heavily modified it.
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2014, 10:38:52 AM »
Density does not affect how much something permeates something?

?

Goggleman

  • 73
  • +0/-0
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2014, 10:40:48 AM »
For #12: Gravity Variations, my theory is that the density of the Earth affects the amount of UA force that permeates through the Earth, affecting the perceived weight of objects.

This is in direct opposition to Newton's second law of motion

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2014, 10:44:48 AM »
For #12: Gravity Variations, my theory is that the density of the Earth affects the amount of UA force that permeates through the Earth, affecting the perceived weight of objects.

This is in direct opposition to Newton's second law of motion

Really?  So wind blowing on a screen has the same force as wind blowing on a sail?  I am not sure what you are trying to say here. 

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2014, 10:52:53 AM »
Density does not affect how much something permeates something?
*Facepalm*
Permeation doesn't have to do with anything here. I don't care how this magic force gets there at the moment, I only care about the fact that it breaks the laws of physics and would result in all sorts of crazy stuff including, but not limited to, destroying the earth and levitating objects based on elevation!
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

?

Goggleman

  • 73
  • +0/-0
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2014, 10:59:37 AM »
For #12: Gravity Variations, my theory is that the density of the Earth affects the amount of UA force that permeates through the Earth, affecting the perceived weight of objects.

This is in direct opposition to Newton's second law of motion

Really?  So wind blowing on a screen has the same force as wind blowing on a sail?  I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

A few problems with that.

First, if the screen and sail are being acted upon only by the blowing, the sail will have higher acceleration and thus, a person standing on the sail will feel the sail pressing against them harder.

Second, if the disc of the earth transmits this proposed ethereal current unevenly, why doesn't it buckle?

Third, if variations in the earth's density allows the passage of this ethereal flux, how much could it possibly affect a small device attempting to measure gravity?

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2014, 11:02:15 AM »
For #12: Gravity Variations, my theory is that the density of the Earth affects the amount of UA force that permeates through the Earth, affecting the perceived weight of objects.

This is in direct opposition to Newton's second law of motion

Really?  So wind blowing on a screen has the same force as wind blowing on a sail?  I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Well that just sunk your own ship. To test this anology, imagine a sheet, representing the world. The fabric varies in density in different areas, allowing more or less air through in different areas. We'll start with this screen in an air tunnel, with the edges held in place so that the weight doesn't crumple it. If we place objects at different points around the sheet, of course the varying air flow will make them float at different heights above the sheet. However, if we remove the objects and let it float on it's own, then we encounter a problem. The varying air flow causes the sheet to begin to ripple, with denser parts lifting above the less denser cloth, because they catch more air. Because of this, the sheet will quickly tumble over and fall to the ground. To summarize: A flat earth is only possible if acceleration is constant, and it most certainly is not.
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2014, 11:31:24 AM »
I am proposing that it is the composition of the Earth that affects the amount of UA Force that permeates it.  This is, in fact, the definition of a theory.
It is, at best, a hypothesis, not a theory.  Not a scientific theory anyway.

So, if the earth is travelling somewhere very, very close to the speed of light and still accelerating, why isn't it torn to pieces?

In fact it would be impossible for a force pushing the disc at various accelerations and it not be torn to pieces.  How can one part of the disc be accelerated at, say 9.811 m/s/s and another at 9.808 m/s/s and they not leave each other behind?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2014, 11:53:40 AM »
Also, #6 was requested to be discussed, so let's do that.
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2014, 02:28:03 PM »
What, running out of excuses, J? Unheard of in a FE believer. Come on, if you're right then why can't you prove it??
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45166
  • +98/-138
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2014, 06:24:38 AM »
I'll start with the first one.  Star Wars looked pretty real with 70s technology.  How can you say that NASA can not do as well with much better technology?
Not really.  In the original, uncleaned up version, you could see boxes around the TIE fighters that didn't match the background as they were buzzing around.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2014, 09:11:46 AM »
Also, #6 was requested to be discussed, so let's do that.
Stratellites and Pseudolites can perform the same functions as your satellites supposedly do. 

?

Goggleman

  • 73
  • +0/-0
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2014, 09:32:52 AM »
Also, #6 was requested to be discussed, so let's do that.
Stratellites and Pseudolites can perform the same functions as your satellites supposedly do.

What's the observable-by hobbyist ISS-shaped object that passes through the sky every 93 minutes?

You know, this one. I've seen it through a telescope myself.

(Photo taken by hobbyist Ralf Vanderberg using a telescope on the ground)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Isshtv120090917200858nm.jpg

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2014, 09:45:56 AM »
I'll start with the first one.  Star Wars looked pretty real with 70s technology.  How can you say that NASA can not do as well with much better technology?
Not really.  In the original, uncleaned up version, you could see boxes around the TIE fighters that didn't match the background as they were buzzing around.

Not to mention that there have been documentaries showing the process of creating the special effects in Star Wars.

So far I haven't seen anything like this explaining how the thousands of hours of HD footage produced by NASA and other agencies is produced, unless you count the vague speculation on this and other conspiracy sites. Which I don't.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2014, 09:52:07 AM »
Also, #6 was requested to be discussed, so let's do that.
Stratellites and Pseudolites can perform the same functions as your satellites supposedly do.

Any examples of where functions that are currently attributed to real satellites have been discovered to actually be performed by these other devices? Any examples of an actual working stratellite yet?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • +0/-0
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Many Rebuttals to Flat Earth Hypothesises.
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2014, 10:08:28 AM »
Also, #6 was requested to be discussed, so let's do that.
Stratellites and Pseudolites can perform the same functions as your satellites supposedly do.
What a laughable excuse. These pseudolites and stratolites are real communication utilities that are completely different from satellites. So, even if there were millions of these things giving coverage to every square inch of earth like satellites do, that would only explain that the signal exists. It wouldn't explain why they would fake it, why the signal comes from space, why we can see satellites orbiting the earth, all the satellite launches that occur all the time, why gps's require connection to multiple satellites that we can track on the screen and see them in the same places in the night sky, etc. That's a half baked excuse, so please give a little bit of a better reason than, "Satellites disagree with my opinion so I'm going to pretend that there is another signal source which doesn't match up with the actual signal and is nowhere to be seen."
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever: