The 3 big lies: atmosphere, gravity, refraction

Holy cow, you got me again. We need to wait for a scientist flat earther, TheMorgile or something.

Really, just what do you expect?
I couldn't measure and weigh an orange quickly, so will a Pink Lady apple do?
Diameter about 8 cm, mass about 200 g.
The "gravity" on the apple's surface due to its own mass is less than one billionth that due to the earth!  Nuff said?
Also, from what I could see in that video the orange was certainly still wet!
So, is a "flat earth scientist" is going to give a different answer?  And I thought that a "flat earth scientist" was an oxymoron!
Just a bit of advice I have given many times before:  Fix up the weaknesses in your flat earth model before attacking the globe.

From what I have seen at least 99% of flat earth supporters' criticisms of the globe earth are simply .

Quote from: acenci on January 31, 2016, 09:57:37 PM

Holy cow, you got me again. We need to wait for a scientist flat earther, TheMorgile or something.

Really, just what do you expect?
I couldn't measure and weigh an orange quickly, so will a Pink Lady apple do?
Diameter about 8 cm, mass about 200 g.
The "gravity" on the apple's surface due to its own mass is less than one billionth that due to the earth!  Nuff said?
Also, from what I could see in that video the orange was certainly still wet!

And, that is your final proof.

So, is a "flat earth scientist" is going to give a different answer?  And I thought that a "flat earth scientist" was an oxymoron!
Just a bit of advice I have given many times before:  Fix up the weaknesses in your flat earth model before attacking the globe.

From what I have seen at least 99% of flat earth supporters' criticisms of the globe earth are simply

due to a failure to understand the globe

.

That, or they're contrarians.  You say "I'm pointing up," they say "No, you're pointing down."  You say the sky is BLUE, they say "No, clearly it's green."

You can provide these people with all the evidence in the world, using videos, pictures, graphics, math, you name it, and it will never, ever be good enough.

It's the rough equivalent to banging your head into a concrete wall over and over again.  That's about how effective anything you can possibly say is.

THEN, when you DO provide actual hard evidence, they attack YOU PERSONALLY, calling you brainwashed, indoctrinated, say you need to UNLEARN, and other such things. 

There is no "Winning" with these people, since they change the rules of the game to suit their end.

At least that's what I've learned since being here.

Ain't it a cryin' shame,
~Xenos, Strange Man in a Hostile Environment

Typically, horizon type arguments come from something very low to the ground when other factors become important (refraction or mirages) or some horizon picture that is "high" in the sky demonstrating something (flatness or curvature).

When low to the ground, someone finds one picture when factors are unknown for the day. If several pictures are taken at the same time HIGHER than just a couple meters off the ground, the effect can be clearly seen. Refraction and mirages are negligible. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65105.msg1744796#msg1744796)

When looking at very high pictures (1) the location of the horizon on the frame of the flat camera (not fish-eye) matters:


and (2) at very high altitudes, both a disk and sphere are BOTH round proving nothing (look at a 1 ft ball/disk from 10 ft away).

People keep discussing this over and over and over again.

The problem is I am still a flat earther, because the curvature formula does not account for places and things that can be seen all over the world, and in videos made by non-flat earthers, unless you start using your magic words "refraction" and "mirages", but you cannot use them for every single instance we point out, in summer, winter, day, night, good weather, bad weather, very distant (200 kilometers, Elba seen from Genoa), not so distant (30 kilometers, like Dover seen from Calais).

Refraction is not magical.  It happens with water which is why if you put a spoon in a clear glass full of water then it will look distorted.  If you want proof that it happens in the atmosphere, then look at a star with a telescope on a windy night, you will see that the star apears to distort as if you are looking up at it from under water.  That's why stars sometimes "twinkle".  If you have ever been at high altitude then you would know that the air is much thinner there, making it harder to get oxygen.  If you measure the pressure of the air at the top of a mountain, you would find that the pressure is significantly lower then it is at the base of the mountain.  Refraction is based off of density, and if density decreases with altitude then the only possible outcome is that light refracts in a way that would apear to slightly reduce curvature.  It does change with the weather, but no weather conditions can get rid of the pressure gradient.

If you think that this would not happen then what mechanism would hinder it according to you?

What really "got me" about his reasoning was that he replied that the earth's gravity would pull away the water from the orange. So I have nothing to reply to that. I mean, it's a good reply.

The problem is I am still a flat earther, because the curvature formula does not account for places and things that can be seen all over the world, and in videos made by non-flat earthers, unless you start using your magic words "refraction" and "mirages", but you cannot use them for every single instance we point out, in summer, winter, day, night, good weather, bad weather, very distant (200 kilometers, Elba seen from Genoa), not so distant (30 kilometers, like Dover seen from Calais).

But if he tells me "hey, the orange's gravity cannot be seen because the earth is outweighing it", then that's good reasoning, and I need a TheMorgile to debate him properly. Or even Sceptimatic, if he comes back to the thread.

But just deal with the curvature formula, check out the discrepancies in your theory, and realize that we have been witnessing something historical. Affordable internet coming together with affordable digital cameras with powerful zoom lenses, coming together with a few freethinking individuals (e.g.: Matt Boylan and Eric Dubay)... they all came together and happened to uncover and divulge on the web the truth about the earth, on a much larger scale than in the times of Rowbotham, and all those who came before him.

If Earth itself is causing the water to fall off the orange, then what would cause the oceans, etc, to "fall off" a globe Earth if gravity is pulling the oceans toward that globe's surface?

As for refraction or mirage, I showed an example of how that allows objects to continue being seen on the previous page.

But just deal with the curvature formula, check out the discrepancies in your theory, and realize that we have been witnessing something historical. Affordable internet coming together with affordable digital cameras with powerful zoom lenses, coming together with a few freethinking individuals (e.g.: Matt Boylan and Eric Dubay)... they all came together and happened to uncover and divulge on the web the truth about the earth, on a much larger scale than in the times of Rowbotham, and all those who came before him.

Are the lighthouses in the video linked in your signature the "discrepancies" you mention?

If you pretend refraction doesn't exist, you can use the distances and heights provided for those lighthouses to calculate an effective radius of the Earth to place the horizon at the stated distances, using the same technique they were, only solving for the radius given the height and distance to horizon. You still get a sphere, just one that's somewhat larger than the earth actually is.

The effective radius is larger due to the fact that the atmospheric density increases as you get lower in elevation, which causes light rays to be curved slightly on a convex upward path; the curvature of the surface is also convex upward, making it look less curved than it actually is. Because of the reduced apparent curvature of the surface, the radius appears greater than it actually is. The amount of refraction depends on atmospheric conditions, but it's always there and, except in rare cases, makes distant objects appear higher than they actually are and, by the same effect, makes a more distant horizon than it would be without refraction.

That you assert refraction is "magic" or deny its existence is irrelevant. Those "powerful zoom lenses" are possible because refraction is real and well understood. Its effects due to the atmosphere are also well known and well understood.

Thanks to all for your difficult objections and feedbacks, but there is a time when I have to stop answering them, and I think that time has come -- otherwise this will turn into a full time job for me and a source of nightmares. OK, let's say I give up, hypothetically, and you win. Now you have exterminated all the flat earthers on this flat earth forum, so we can close down this forum... no, wait there is still a couple of flat earthers left. In the meanwhile, while all flat earthers have been exterminated on this forum... outside of this forum everyone else is becoming a flat earther, as you saw from the chart I showed you in an earlier post. So, this forum, with this name, will probably become your last reservation. Your days are counted.

Fine by me, but can't you yet see that silly things like spinning oranges cannot possibly prove the earth is flat!
You doubt "gravity", yet the "Universal Gravitational Constant" (G) has been measured a reported 61 times with reasonable consistent results!
I don't believe you have ever actually responded to ANY point I tried to put across!

I have never seen such stupidity as:
"In the meanwhile, while all flat earthers have been exterminated on this forum... outside of this forum everyone else is becoming a flat earther, as you saw from the chart I showed you in an earlier post. So, this forum, with this name, will probably become your last reservation. Your days are counted."


Sure "the chart" you "showed" "in an earlier post" simply proved that a lot of people are looking at the absolute rubbish on Youtube simply trying to knock down the globe!  As you have seen on this site, not all those are little ignorant sheepies believing that trash!

As I have said numerous times, you haven't the slightest chance of world acceptance until you can present a workable "Flat Earth Model".  That must include:

• An accurate map, so navigators and ordinary people can find their way around.  You DO NOT HAVE ONE!
• Some model of sun and moon motion that gives that correct times and directions of rising and setting.
• The model should give an accurate prediction of sun azimuth and elevation throughout the day.  This is used extensively in Solar Power plat design, shading design of buildings, etc.
• Some explanation of why "g" varies over the earth's surface.  Small variations in "g" are used in mineralogical surveying.

There are numerous more points, that until you have an accurate model makes your whole attitude simply a joke!

Thanks to all for your difficult objections and feedbacks, but there is a time when I have to stop answering them, and I think that time has come -- otherwise this will turn into a full time job for me and a source of nightmares. OK, let's say I give up, hypothetically, and you win. Now you have exterminated all the flat earthers on this flat earth forum, so we can close down this forum... no, wait there is still a couple of flat earthers left. In the meanwhile, while all flat earthers have been exterminated on this forum... outside of this forum everyone else is becoming a flat earther, as you saw from the chart I showed you in an earlier post. So, this forum, with this name, will probably become your last reservation. Your days are counted.

If I had a button in front of me that if pressed would make all flat earthers abandon flat Earth, then I wouldn't press it.  If I convince a flat earther that Earth is round, then I want to be sure that it's done fairly in a way that respects free will and relies on me being right.  I don't want to deceive, I want to enlighten.  Like any good scientist I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, and this is why I do debate.

Quote from: acenci on February 01, 2016, 01:41:58 PM

Thanks to all for your difficult objections and feedbacks, but there is a time when I have to stop answering them, and I think that time has come -- otherwise this will turn into a full time job for me and a source of nightmares. OK, let's say I give up, hypothetically, and you win. Now you have exterminated all the flat earthers on this flat earth forum, so we can close down this forum... no, wait there is still a couple of flat earthers left. In the meanwhile, while all flat earthers have been exterminated on this forum... outside of this forum everyone else is becoming a flat earther, as you saw from the chart I showed you in an earlier post. So, this forum, with this name, will probably become your last reservation. Your days are counted.

If I had a button in front of me that if pressed would make all flat earthers abandon flat Earth, then I wouldn't press it.  If I convince a flat earther that Earth is round, then I want to be sure that it's done fairly in a way that respects free will and relies on me being right.  I don't want to deceive, I want to enlighten.  Like any good scientist I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, and this is why I do debate.

Something tells me that if we were able to convince a flat earther that the Earth is round then they would never admit defeat but would rather just disappear with their tail between their legs and go quiet on these forums.

I suspect this has happened a number of times already. Apart from the odd die-hard, things are getting quieter on the FE front...

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 02, 2016, 11:24:51 AM

Quote from: acenci on February 01, 2016, 01:41:58 PM

Thanks to all for your difficult objections and feedbacks, but there is a time when I have to stop answering them, and I think that time has come -- otherwise this will turn into a full time job for me and a source of nightmares. OK, let's say I give up, hypothetically, and you win. Now you have exterminated all the flat earthers on this flat earth forum, so we can close down this forum... no, wait there is still a couple of flat earthers left. In the meanwhile, while all flat earthers have been exterminated on this forum... outside of this forum everyone else is becoming a flat earther, as you saw from the chart I showed you in an earlier post. So, this forum, with this name, will probably become your last reservation. Your days are counted.

If I had a button in front of me that if pressed would make all flat earthers abandon flat Earth, then I wouldn't press it.  If I convince a flat earther that Earth is round, then I want to be sure that it's done fairly in a way that respects free will and relies on me being right.  I don't want to deceive, I want to enlighten.  Like any good scientist I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, and this is why I do debate.

Something tells me that if we were able to convince a flat earther that the Earth is round then they would never admit defeat but would rather just disappear with their tail between their legs and go quiet on these forums.

I suspect this has happened a number of times already. Apart from the odd die-hard, things are getting quieter on the FE front...

That's because they're starting to realize that the whole concept is akin to a damn religion.  Seriously, the guys that ARE sticking around are more diehard than most zealots I've known...  And I used to work in the 10/40 window...

~Xenos

Hello everyone, beautiful observations, we're bringing the best out in each other, despite disagreeing on these other flat earth concepts.

I found interesting things in everything everyone wrote, and also agree with many things. There's no point in objecting.

Something I did not mention yet is 911. Do you all, with all your science and confidence, and education, believe that 911 was NOT an inside job? Do you all NOT think that it was a controlled demolition?

Because if you subscribe to the official description of events, then to my eyes this fact alone wipes out all your credibility in terms of critical thinking, and then I will be convinced that education harms your logical thinking, as I already think anyway. Instead what I consider really good is learning on your own. Also, I have nothing against "studying". What I am against is being forcefully taught things without having asked.

Asenci, you are arguing with blind sheep. They cannot believe one thing unless "the man" tells them it is ok to believe it. You have been here before and see how the brainwashed people gang up on someone who believes different than they are allowed to believe. Keep up the good fight brother.

Asenci, you are arguing with blind sheep. They cannot believe one thing unless "the man" tells them it is ok to believe it. You have been here before and see how the brainwashed people gang up on someone who believes different than they are allowed to believe. Keep up the good fight brother.

What on earth are you talking about with "unless 'the man'  tells them it is ok to believe it."
No man (woman, child, organisation or any other entity)  tells me what to believe.

You talk about sheep! It does not matter how logical arguments are,  most FEers just (including acenci) simply ignore them. I have at times spent a lot of time finding information asked for, just to be kicked in the teeth with a reply to the effect You're NUTS!


I think the Globe supporters talk with (more or less) with the same voice because it is a position developed over centuries to explain explain observations that puzzled early astronomers and "philosophers" (scientists today). This does not mean that the Globe position is static, as refinements are continually being made - that's what science is.

There is simply no accepted Flat Earth position. There are so many different ideas on maps, sun and moon movement, cause of "gravity" and the shapes of planets and stars, etc, etc.
The only common point seems to be "the earth is flat", but with no real understanding of the implications.

Ok Rabinoz, tell me one thing that NASA says that you don't believe.

Ok Rabinoz, tell me one thing that NASA says that you don't believe.

First you show which part he shouldn't believe and why. I personally think there's more to the moon landing than they'd show us.