Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
86
-
29
-
28
-
18
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@michaeljamesreed9054 - So you are yet another flat Earth believer who refuses to state the version of a flat Earth you believe for some reason. Why is that when it should be really easy for you? :-|
Here's a fact that ANY mathematician could tell you, "8 inches per mile squared" is the equation for a PARABOLA, not a circle! So clearly mathematics was never your strong point.
The equation "8 inches per mile squared" was highlighted by flat earth theorists who are clueless about mathematics, such as the 1865 flat Earth book "Zetetic Astronomy" by Samuel Birley Rowbotham ( a book that I own btw );
Quote "If the Earth is a globe, and 25,000 miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity-every part must be an area of a circle, curvating from the summit at the rate of 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. That this may be sufficiently understood, the following quotation is given from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, art. "Levelling."
"If a line which crosses the plumb-line at right angles be continued for any considerable length it will rise above the Earth's surface (the Earth being globular) ; and this rising will be as the square of the distance to which the said right line is produced ; that is to say, it is raised eight inches very nearly above the Earth's surface at one mile's distance ; four times as much, or 32 inches, at the distance of two miles ; nine times as much, or 72 inches, at the distance of three miles. This is owing to the globular figure of the Earth, and this rising is the difference between the true and apparent levels ; the curve of the Earth being the true level, and the tangent to it the apparent level. So soon does the difference between the true and apparent levels become perceptible that it is necessary to make an allowance for it if the distance betwixt the two stations exceeds two chains."
In other words, for his 1865 book Samuel got "8 inches per miles squared" from the section within the Encyclopaedia Britannica about LEVELING, which is a branch of SURVEYING and hence was a useful 'rule of thumb' tool for surveying way back in the 19th century. It was NEVER used by scientists or mathematicians to represent the shape of the earth back then and neither is it used to represent the shape of the earth today!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
And should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Because that's the way it should be with all due respect :-)
Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years.
In other words, if early last year I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings" for example, then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos.
Following the changes, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not difficult.
Again, that's how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance.
Oh and, the Earth is a globe. But before your '1 minute of explanation', please state which version of a flat Earth you believe in, since there are many to choose from, i.e. Dome or no dome? Edge or no edge? Pillars or no pillars? Globe sun/moon or flat sun/moon? Gravity or no gravity? etc.
4
-
@valherustinger7848 - To prove me wrong, flat Earth believers like yourself need to;
(a) Present two locations on Earth for which the distance measured on a globe of the Earth is different to the distance measured in the real world, where the margin of error doesn't explain the discrepancy, or
(b) Present a flat map of the whole Earth which is to scale and has no distortion, meaning we can work out any distance on Earth just by measuring it on the flat map and then multiply that measurement by the scale (just like our flat town/city maps).
I'd accept either (a) or (b), but both would be even better.
After all, I'm sure you accept it is impossible to wrap an accurate map of your town or city around a globe without distorting it, and therefore it is impossible to represent your town or city accurately with a globe, since distances measured on that globe will be wrong.
If the entire Earth was flat, then the same would be true, where it would be impossible to wrap a map of that Earth around a globe without distorting it, and therefore distances measured on that globe will be wrong.
Only if the Earth is a globe can all the distances measured be correct, and that's what we have with globes of the Earth that any of us can own :-)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Complete nonsense from start to finish :-)
For example you said "The united nations symbol is the flat earth map"
Nope, it's a silhouette version of the Azimuthal Equidistant 2D projection map (or AE map), also known to FE believers as the Gleason map, which is just one of MANY 2D projection maps of the globe Earth.
Flat Earth believers adopted than map because it happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside of the map and hence you claim that to be the wall of ice. That's the ONLY reason!
However, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted as a 2D projection of a GLOBE Earth via the lines of latitude and longitude, but it completely falls apart when interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth (just look at Australia for example, which is twice as wide as it should be and shaped like a sausage :-)).
To this day, despite over 150 years of flat Earth books, there is no ACCURATE map of a flat Earth in existence.
Seriously, present a link to an accurate flat map of your flat Earth where all the countries are the correct shape, the correct size and where all the distances are correct.
You said "We live under a firmament"
Great, then state the height of your claimed firmament dome, because no flat Earth theorist in history has ever stated that figure despite claiming to know the size and the altitude of the sun and the moon :-)
Eric Dubay is a charlatan where EVERY one of his 200 proofs have been debunked.
Anyway, you believe in God but you're clearly not a Christian, so what are you exactly?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@q-m-q1362 - You said "How's that going to add to your life?"
Likewise, since you are the person who started this thread, not me, remember?
You said "He exercised his freewill to decline the invitation. But never gave any real reason why."
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims (including the conspiracy theories that you don't believe yourself) then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
3
-
@amirankalandadze3230 - You said "So, Neil is incorrect and Nasa photoshoped balls are real?"
Pretending to be stupid doesn't make your point, it only supports my point (but hey, if you're not pretending... ;-)).
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Next? :-)
3
-
@pgomez2383 - You said "Dubay is the face of flat earth why not smash him and stop more from joining..."
Should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ColeBeeRyan - You do know that you can see satellites yourself, right? :-)
Anyway, I can prove it, but first we need to establish a baseline that we can both agree on.
So before discussing the globe itself, consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city.
EVERYONE can find an accurate map of their own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can use it to accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the map alone!
So do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You are essentially lying, even if it's just to yourself, and hence you need to do your own research instead of just parroting what others have told you :-|
Take eclipses for example...
...adding to MrSirhcsellor's excellent reply;
The Saros cycle was created by people over generations who observed eclipses and found PATTERNS in how and when those eclipses repeated.
By understanding those repeating patterns they were able to predict when certain types of eclipses would occur in future, to a good accuracy (a solar eclipse happens during a new moon, a lunar eclipse during a full moon of course)!
However, the Saros cycle does NOT give us the accuracy almost to the second of when an eclipse will start and end, nor does it provide us with the EXACT path of a total solar eclipse across the earth's surface, making it possible for people to prepare years in advance to be exactly where they'd need to be to observe the eclipse.
So the Saros cycle is not good enough for today's astronomy except for listing and categorizing eclipses.
For the precise details of an eclipse, including the start time and the end time and the exact path across the earth's surface, we need to use mathematics based upon the globe model.
Therefore please go ahead and present your evidence of a flat Earth model that predicts when an eclipse will start and end AND provides us with the EXACT path of a total solar eclipse across the earth's surface.
Without that evidence, your argument is proven to be null and void, but nice try :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
List all the science shows and science channels that Eris SAYS he approached for a debate on flat Earth and yet they refused him. That's right, he hasn't, he hides behind the safety of his and other conspiracy channels and conspiracy shows.
So by your logic, Eric is a coward :-)
Besides, Neil is 100% right to ignore him. After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Because science is based upon knowledge that is testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable my friend, it doesn't go by hearsay or gut feeling.
After all, do you apply that same argument to those who believe in ghosts/spirits, paranormal powers, out of body experiences, alien abductions, etc? :-|
So in the context of this video, someone believing the Earth is flat is not expressing an open mind, just the opposite with a denial of the facts.
Btw, I don't recall Neil rejecting the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe, only the idea of alien life visiting the Earth.
3
-
3
-
@a-k9161 - Wrong, instead you've proven my point perfectly and hence you've demonstrated why people like yourself are so easily taken in my charlatans :-|
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from my lazy friend;
[Disguised link which I'm sure you can work out]
tiny😮cc🖍️03eiuz
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So, is there any part of "practically a perfect sphere" that you don't understand? :-)
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth is literally shaped like a pear, instead he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
THAT my friend is how you do research.
3
-
3
-
You said "If my info is correct you agreed to do it."
Show me where Eric agreed to do it please.
In fact, show me Eric requesting to debate ANY scientist or debating ANY of the flat Earth theorists who he accuses of being government shills just because they have a slightly different idea of the flat Earth to his own (i.e. those he sees as rivals :-)).
In fact, show me ANY debate among the leading flat Earth theorists to arrive at a consensus about their flat Earth, such as whether there is a firmament dome or not, or the height of the dome if it exists, or whether the flat Earth has an edge or not, or whether gravity does or doesn't exist, or why there isn't an accurate flat map of a flat Earth (with plans to create one), or whether the sun and moon are flat or globes, etc.
So if flat Earth theorists don't even debate each other over their conflicting versions of a flat Earth, then why should scientists take them seriously enough to debate them over claims that they can't even decide themselves?
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "For example if the earth is spinning at around 1000 miles a hour and gravity holds everything in place with all the centrifugal force being created by spinning at such a speed we could not even lift up a leg from the pressure being exerted by these forces"
And that's the problem my friend, because that is NOT common sense, that's only an assumption that you came to based upon gut feeling without doing any calculations to see if your claim is true.
Simply put, it isn't.
Concorde for example flew at 1330 mph, and yet why do you think no-one inside that plane felt that speed? In fact, if you blocked out the windows then people inside couldn't tell the difference if they were inside a simulator going nowhere!
And science is only a religion to those who don't understand science.
People like Eric Dubay are |iars who know how to manipulate others, making claims that may sound logical to the uninformed but are all just nonsense, and so while you're saying you don't know if Eric is right, you are falling for many of the flat Earth claims that they make, claims that are intended to fool you, and apparently succeeding :-|
3
-
@SubMasters - You also said "By the way where's all the telemetry data from NASA?"
Where's it's always been, since nothing has been lost.
Telemetry data was always printed out into documents so that the tapes could be reused (the whole point of magnetic tapes!).
After each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables
.
So here's the mission report for Apollo 11 (for example) published in November 1969. It even includes the astronaut's heart rate telemetry data as they descended to the moon's surface, their heart rate during their time on the moon and their heart rate when they left the moon's surface (hence proving none of the telemetry data was lost);
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf
So if you want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but why should that mean you MUST blindly believe ALL the hoax claims without question?
And read this too;
www.firstmenonthemoon.com/about.html
Quote: "We have compiled hours of content available from public domain sources and various NASA websites. Thamtech staff and volunteers generously devoted their time to transcribe hours of speech to text. By using simultaneous space and land based audio and video, transcripts, images, spacecraft telemetry, and biomedical data — this synchronized presentation reveals the Moon Shot as experienced by the astronauts and flight controllers."
Hence that's the same telemetry data that conspiracy theorists claim was lost.
The point is, as I said before, once the telemetry data was printed out for a hard copy the magnetic tapes were reused.
So we don't have all the tapes (just as we don't have all the tapes for most space missions of the 60s/70s), but we have all the telemetry data that were ON those tapes .
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332 - You said "Okay then why isn't his description of an Oblate Spheroid shown in NASA official(but CGI) photos of the Earth ....."
Except it is my friend, but many flat Earth believers didn't listen to what Neil said but only to what they wanted to believe he said (btw, can you explain how you PERSONALLY determined if a photo of the Earth is real or CGI. Can you take me through YOUR methods please. You don't have to answer that, but please think about where that CGI claim comes from... ;-)).
For example;
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCKapivHGM
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
Therefore the Earth will also look like a perfect sphere in photographs taken in space.
The point is, if you want to believe the Earth is flat, then fine that's your right, but you effectively lose the argument when you distort what is actually being said by scientists and others about the Earth being a globe :-|
3
-
3
-
3
-
@koolkrapsandracetracks4068 - The first flat Earth books were published over 150 YEARS ago, it didn't start with Eric Dubay in 2014, hence all of those examples are from real flat Earth believers I've debated over the years from a belief that started long before Eric made it popular, so it is not up to you to decide which are genuine and which are not my friend.
Anyway, thanks for stating what you believe, but here are some of the issues I have with your claims;
1. Firmament dome, but how high? Why don't any FE theorists know the height of the dome when they claim to know the height of the sun and moon? Shouldn't they be able to determine the height by measuring the distance to the North Star?
2. Srch the net for "Antarctica Tours" and "South Pole Trips" and notice all the tours and trips YOU can book onto to visit Antarctica and the South Pole in Antarctica yourself, if you can afford it, which is well passed 60° South!
3. For thousands of years ALL eclipses of the sun have been seen to happen at EXACTLY the same time as the time of the New Moon, where the moon is at it's closest point to the sun in the sky.
Flat Earth believers seem to be unaware of that fact, since how can it be a coincidence that total and partial and annular eclipses of the sun ALL just so happen to occur at EXACTLY the SAME time predicted for the New Moon for thousands of years, predicted based upon the movement of the moon relative to the sun :-)
Think about that please.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So all anyone needs to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@testaccount3891 - You said "you should be able to duplicate the gravitational properties of Earth on a small scale in a lab...how do you isolate gravity?"
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is - It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@realeyesnolies6424 - Yes, the Earth is oblate as Neil said, but why do you assume YOU must be able to see that in a photo?
If you built a perfect scale model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high, or 300 cm, just under 10 FEET, then it would look like a perfect sphere.
However, although your model is 300 cm high, it would be 301 cm wide at the equator!
That's an oblate spheroid, the shape of the Earth to scale, hence there's NO WAY you can make out that tiny difference in the shape with the naked eye, instead it will look like a perfect sphere to your eyes and will look like a perfect circle in photos!
That's the point you're missing my friend.
So Neil is not lying, he is correct.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "it is not a real picture. It's a computer generated rendering of what the data shows. Colored and textured by CGI artists working at NASA. THIS IS A FACT."
That is not a fact my friend, that's a distortion of the facts used by others to claim those photos are fake :-|
ALL digital photography can be labelled fake and composite and hence "not a real picture" because of the way digital photography works.
For example, the photosensor within the camera in your photo doesn't detect color! Most people don't realize that.
So to create color with just one photosensor there are two main approaches, each with advantages and disadvantages;
1. We can take 3 separate photos of the same scene but through 3 filters, typically red, green and blue, and then combine all 3 images into one photo (the same method used to achieve the first color film photographs a century ago).
2. Place a filter with a mosaic pattern of red, green and blue across the photosensor so that some pixels are filtered red, some green and some blue, and then use a complex mathematical algorithm to reconstruct the color across the entire photograph (look up Bayer Filter as an example).
For photos and videos taken via phones and digital cameras method 2 is used, because only one image per frame is captured and the color worked out mathematically. To our eyes everything looks fine, but the color is not 100% correct across all pixels.
For science however, color is important data and therefore method 2 is unacceptable because the data is being altered. So method 1 is used instead, where 3 separate photos are taken in quick succession (of a planet for example) through different filters and then those separate filtered images are combined to produce the final image, where for a color image the color information is correct across all the pixels.
So by the same logic, every photograph that we've ever taken with any phone or digital camera is not a real picture, it is computer generated :-)
And yet we know all our photographs taken with our devices are real despite how the color is reconstructed, just as photographs taken in space are real despite how the color is reconstructed.
I hope that information helped.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lcx1876 - You said "you attacked me from the very beginning"
You seem to forget we have email notifications, but just the same, it's amusing that you once again focus on the people and make accusations and demands instead of contributing to the arguments being put forward, and hence you add practically nothing to the debate itself, as you've shown here.
Also, unlike you with terms like 'globers', I never use derogatory names to describe flat Earth believers, hence I never call them flerfs, or flatties, or even flat earthers, only flat Earth believers. FACT.
Likewise I refer to others as moon landing hoax believers or Apollo hoax believers, alien UFO believers, alien crop circle believers, ghost believers, etc.
You can't say the same.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@edwardcopeland5069 - You said "I don't know why dubay have turned down debates in the pass, but I know he wouldn't turned down one with Neil..."
You cannot know that when Eric has never had such a debate, not even with the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of being fake and working for the government (eg. Mark Sargent).
You said "...he and NASA wouldn't dare give Eric the Chance to hit back"
Again you're seeing what you want to see instead of looking for the facts :-|
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case.
Therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@spaceisfake2816 - EVERY photo taken by your phone was data captured by light falling onto the cmos sensor, which was turned into the final image.
Not only that, but your cmos sensor doesn't actually 'see' color, only light intensity (think grey scale), and therefore color has to be reconstructed via filters and mathematical algorithms.
By the logic of conspiracy theorists, that means ALL the digital photos that you've ever taken by phone or camera are fakes! :-)
And gravity is what makes it possible for gas atmospheres around a planet in the vacuum of space (a vacuum is NOT suction btw).
I kept the explanations above short because it's interesting that, like so many, you only question the established facts.
So for balance, given that you say no-one knows, can you name a few of the flat Earth claims that you personally question (and explain why), claims that makes you doubt the 'theory' that the Earth is flat?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hamptonsudduth621 - You said "HA! See a chained mind gets rattled and gets so angry! "
Nice try, but you'll need to do better than that :-)
You said "Atoms are scientific theory not fact."
Which proves a) You don't know what a scientific theory is, and b) You didn't know that not only have individual atoms been photographed, but for decades atoms have been arranged on surfaces via scanning tunnelling microscopes to create shapes and even words with individual atoms.
Hence that's an example of your ignorance of science, which led you to make that statement.
You said "And I've been sick before so I can safely assume viruses do exist but not all of them."
We are not talking about assumptions here, we are talking about facts. You only know about viruses because you accepted what you were told, not through research that you did yourself.
You said "Or why Evey picture ever taken of earth is a rendition or computer generated image."
A lie that you got from flat Earth theorists. Go ahead and tell me how YOU PERSONALLY proved that an image of the Earth was CGI. That's right, you never have.
Go ahead and give me an example of a stated photograph (not an image) of the Earth that is actually CGI (and hence a lie), together with the evidence of that lie.
Therefore you claiming others merely believe what they're told while you blindly parrot false claims told to you by flat Earth theorists (i.e. you believed what you were told) is the very definition of hypocrisy :-)
You said "But if getting mad and thinking you are better and smarter then me..."
Again nice try :-) But as I said, I can prove the Earth is a globe, therefore I find it interesting that not once have you shown any interest in the evidence of a globe Earth as mentioned :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's not an excuse, it's the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I listed above)? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@1USAUSA - An extremely ignorant reply.
Firstly, Neil is an astrophysicist, get over it :-)
Secondly, Neil didn't say the Earth is literally shaped like a pear and hence the fact that you believe he did really says a lot.
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCKapivHGM
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So which part of "practically a perfect sphere" do you not understand?
Therefore Neil did not say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
3
-
3
-
Why ask for what flat Earth believers never provide themselves? :-) After all, where's your 24/7 camera looking at the edge of the Earth?
In fact, where's a single photograph or video of your claimed edge of the Earth with the ice wall up against your firmament dome?
You said "Why 500 years ago every one knew the Earth was flat!!"
Completely false. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a globe around 2500 YEARS ago, where the Greek astronomer and philosopher Eratosthenes was the first to measure the size of the GLOBE Earth with good accuracy in around 240 BC!
Aristotle's 400 BC model of the universe placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center.
And for nearly 2000 YEARS, ALL Christian churches have said the Earth is a GLOBE, where they accepted as doctrine Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe that also placed a GLOBE stationary Earth in the center of the universe.
Flat Earth theorists made you believe knowledge of a globe Earth happened 500 years ago, but that's a lie. Copernicus was not famous for saying the Earth is a globe, they already knew that, he is famous for suggesting that the GLOBE Earth was not at the center of the universe, but instead he theorized that the sun was at the center and the GLOBE Earth and all the planets and stars orbited the sun, and the moon orbited the Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@koba2322 - You said "But that isn’t relevant whether it did or didn’t happen, don’t you think the most loved scientist going against the leader of flat earth would gain traction to the point the whole world would notice?"
A very naïve comment from you :-|
So should Neil also debate Concave Earth theorists, and Hollow Earth theorists, and crop circle theorists, and ISS hoax theorists, and paranormal theorists, and alien abduction theorists, and Electric Universe theorists, etc.
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other ridiculous conspiracy 'theories', then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people like Eric Dubay.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brettwerner1413 - I am calm my friend, however I suggest you take your own advice :-)
Anyway I'll address the rather pompous assumptions from you, where you said and I quote;
"Obviously ur mind is not open to the idea of questioning your beliefs. That’s ashame. We should always strive to learn more and understand better. Do u know how the geocentric model even works? Maybe research what you believe in exactly all the way thru."
Here's all the flat Earth books that I OWN and have READ;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
So besides Eric Dubay's free eBook, if you own and have read any of the books above and therefore would like to discuss the contents of one of those books in detail, then go ahead and name the book and present your argument from that book please.
I READ all those books (where most are very poorly written, hence it was a chore) because I wanted to get the information from the original sources, rather than secondhand from YT videos.
My original goal was to see if I could find an accurate flat map of a flat Earth where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all distances measured on that map are accurate and to scale.
No such map exists, hence further proving the Earth is not flat.
Simply put: No accurate flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth.
Therefore I've done my research and done so FULLY, going to the original sources behind today's flat Earth 'theories'.
What have you done in comparison? :-)
Anyway, are you finally ready for my evidence for a globe Earth?
2
-
@brettwerner1413 - You said "all I said was knowing heliocentric model and how that All works and the same thing for geocentric model. They both work. There’s loads of evidence for both sides.!
That's the problem my friend, there is no flat Earth model that works, they ALL fall apart upon the simplest of tests, and I know being a practicing amateur astronomer for over 30 years with a degree in mathematics :-)
Hence there's no flat Earth model that predicts the position of the planets for any given date, or comets, or sunrise and sunset times for any part of the Earth, or total eclipses of the sun including the path of totality across the Earth's surface, or even lunar eclipses (and no, don't mention the Saros Series :-)), and countless other astronomical events that are ALL predicted accurately with the heliocentric model.
That should be a red flag to those claiming there's any validity with the claimed flat Earth model, since flat Earth predicts nothing, zero, zilch :-)
And again, I am calm, but my writing style is direct and to the point.
2
-
@brettwerner1413 - You said "and I am ready for all globe proof."
Great, but my goal isn't to change your mind, it's only to present the facts.
Anyway, simply put, if you find a good 12 inch globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances measured will be correct!
For a 9 inch globe of the Earth the scale works out as 34.7 miles per millimetre, so 35 miles is a good enough approximation. And for a 15 inch globe of the Earth it's around 20.8 miles per millimetre, so 21 miles is a good enough approximation on that globe.
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first person in history to find a distance flaw in the modern map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE ;-)
Therefore the fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dazzadazza5255 - You said "why over vast distances of water can we see buildings/ land marks that mathematically and scientifically we shouldn't be able to see."
Because it has nothing to do with mathematics or science and everything to do with their lack of understanding, as I will explain and I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong :-)
Firstly, in practically EVERY flat Earth distance claim, they say the curvature of the Earth is 8 inches per mile squared. WRONG. That's an approximation which is good enough for distances visible by eye, but it's not the equation for a circle!
Secondly, notice how in EVERY buildings/landmark claim we never see it all the way down to the ground, only the top part of the building/landmark is seen. Why do you think that is if there's no curvature? Shouldn't we see it ALL on a flat Earth?
Thirdly, they NEVER take into account the height of the observer, where if you're at sea level you'll see to a specific distance, at 10 feet above sea level you'll see further, at 100 feet above sea level you'll see even further, and so on.
To prove my point, please give me THREE flat Earth distance claims to buildings/landmarks or whatever, and I'll show you how they're wrong.
In the meantime, have a look at this GIF file debunking the Toronto flat Earth distance claim;
http://stupidconspiracies.org/misc/toronto.gif
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Not_A_Tourist - You said "what's the point in retiring a rocket or technology when there's nothing in place to replace it?"
Because my friend, the Saturn V rocket was not built for space exploration or for scientific research, it was all about politics.
The USA needed such a rocket to get men on the moon before the USSR for the massive propaganda coup of capitalism vs communism.
Hence Congress gave NASA a massive increase in funding to make it happen, and once they were satisfied that the USSR can't match them (i.e. mission accomplished), Congress then withdrew all the extra funding for NASA, meaning no more Saturn V rockets could be built and so the planned Apollo missions 18 to 20 were cancelled.
You can see it clearly in NASA's budget over the years;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
It costs as much today to develop such a massive rocket as it did back then, hence the SLS development costs has been spread over 10 years, where it uses booster rockets and updated versions of the Space Shuttle engines (proven reliability and saving cost).
Simply put, the Apollo program was not sustainable financially, it was never meant to be, instead it was part of the Cold War for which NASA used the opportunity to get as much research and science out of it as they could while it lasted :-|
The USA's return to the moon should be more sustainable this time, and even more so when the private rocket industry takes over with SLS size rockets of their own (and larger) for less cost in future, eg. Space X.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kingbenjamin8655 - You said "Hey bud, Eric has reached out to this con artist Neil many times"
No he hasn't, his name has been mentioned but it wasn't Eric who initiated anything.
You said "Thats what science is supposed to be about...serious debate and challenging preconceived notions"
Yes, over actual science, not over pseudo-science like flat Earth, concave/hollow Earth, Electric Universe and so on.
You said "every person who worked on the theory that we are a ball from isaac newton forward are all masons"
People (the ancient greeks) first knew the Earth was a globe around 2500 YEARS ago, where Erathosthenes measured the size of the Earth to a good accuracy in 240 BC. So what has the masons got to do with anything? :-)
All Christian denominations throughout history say the Earth is a GLOBE, not flat. So are they all masons now?
You said "Science used to be amazing until all the people stopped questioning"
Wrong, science is still amazing but too many people are incredibly gullible and hence blindly believe charlatans who are only interested in building their base and making money out of conspiracy theories, rather than seeking and spreading the truth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SlobosReality - The problem is, videos at altitude claiming to show curvature or flatness are invalid tests unless people take into account the distortion caused by the field of view of the lens, and I've never seen anyone do that on either side of the argument.
For example, look carefully at videos making such claims and you'll notice that the higher the horizon is above the center of the screen, then the greater the curvature of the Earth. But the lower the horizon is below the center of the screen, then the more the Earth appears concave!
For example, go to timestamp 20:25 in the video I provided and watch it for about 30 seconds.
Look how the horizon goes from being a convex curve (round) to a flat horizon and then to a concave horizon (bowl) and so on.
And notice that there's a 'sweet spot' near the center of the screen where the earth appears to be flat.
This change in the shape of the Earth depending on where the horizon is in relation to the center of the screen is due to the distortion caused by the lens used. Not fish eye, often just a normal wide angle to capture a decent view of the Earth.
Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and the horizon appears curved or flat, and so then they say "Look at this, proof the shape of the Earth is X", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything.
I hope that helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hi, getting people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket, thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal for that purpose.
The world's most powerful rocket worked like a dream and so they were able to use the Saturn V to get their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
Now look up NASA's recent Artemis 1 mission, with its SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, where it recently took the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth on a 25 day mission to test all the systems, and it was a complete success.
Late next year the same SLS rocket and Orion space capsule will take a crew of astronauts to the moon and back (Artemis 2), and some missions after that will include a lander to take people to the surface.
Simply put, the SLS rocket is the new Saturn V and the Orion space capsule is the new Apollo Command Module, and so the USA have the technology today to send people to the moon.
I hope that helps :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
What's so special about flat Earth theorists over all the other conspiracy theorists?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)?
And out of all the flat Earth theorists available, why should Neil choose Eric Dubay who says he doesn't even know if his flat Earth has a dome or if his flat Earth has an edge? (Did you know that about Eric? :-))
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@neatoburrito1 - You said "That's easy, the Gleason's map. It's not a projection of the globe, that's a lie"
So you actually think Australia on the Gleason map is the correct shape despite the proportions being wrong? Really? :-)
Here's Gleason's OWN WORDS from his patent on the following link;
Links are blocked, so replace DOT and FSLASH as required;
isDOTgdFSLASHjI2gM5
Feel free to download the PDF too.
Quote; "The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles".
Hence Gleason confirms the map was created from the GLOBE of the Earth and he confirms the existence of TWO poles (i.e. North and South), something that flat Earth believers deny.
Gleason also says and I quote "I claim as my invention - The combination with a time chart of a circular time dial encompassing the circular map, a disk or dial graduated and divided to indicate longitude and sun time on any meridian line or intervening lines..."
In other words, Gleason CONFIRMS the map itself is not his invention, since it's just a standard AE projection map, instead what he added around the map is his invention. and hence THAT is his patent.
Therefore the real irony is, like ALL 2D projection maps, the Gleason map you mention is only accurate when projected BACK onto the globe that it came from and hence is only accurate when it's in the shape of a globe :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justinalexander3594 - Link: tinyurl.com/yaofv7u3
Book: "The Atlantean Conspiracy (Final Edition)"
by Eric Dubay
Quote: "They say "the winner's write history," and it is absolutely true: the most egregious example in modern times has to be the mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Gremany. Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
Hmmm, so it's poor little Hitler, a peaceful man who has been so cruelly misrepresented by the mainstream, according to your hero Eric.
Go ahead and browse through some of the rest of those pages from Eric's book in the link above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shaneennis9314 - Firstly, Gleason's own patent states that the map is a projection from a GLOBE Earth and he refers to TWO POLES! So how can it be an accurate flat Earth map? :-|
Secondly, here's the 'Gleason' map showing distances between various plane routes;
https://ibb.co/bud1Xf
Notice the distances MEASURED DIRECTLY from the map on the assumption that it's an accurate map of a flat Earth (diameter of 24,900 miles), and compare that to the distances MEASURED DIRECTLY on a GLOBE of the Earth.
The distances measured on a GLOBE of the Earth matches the real world distances confirmed by those plane routes (and even by vehicles for those routes over land only), and yet the Gleason map distances are WAY off, proving that map is not accurate.
But come on, look at the map my friend, look at Australia in the Gleason map where it is stretched to twice it's size and hence resembles a large 'twinkie' or sausage :-)
Surely you can admit that Australia is distorted on that map, as are other countries of the world (less so the closer they are to the centre).
Therefore it is not an accurate flat map of a flat Earth, it is a projection of a globe Earth onto a 2D surface (i.e. a 2D projection map of the globe Earth).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Savin Bullets - You said "Neil backed out. What a fckin Coward..."
So should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Should Neil and Bill also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil and Bill make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
What's so special about flat Earth theorists over all the other conspiracy theorists?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jdg2921 - You said "my point is every time I look up at the night sky here in Australia, I always see the Orion constellation, no matter what season. It shouldn’t be that way"
Incorrect, you simply don't understand scale or perspective yet (you need to look into it).
Your logic is like someone on a train asking why a distant mountain appears the same every time they look out the window and yet all the trees they see next to the track are flashing by quickly, hence are just a blur.
You are effectively here saying the mountains should behave just like the trees, because you can't quite grasp the effect that distance has upon apparent movement and changes :-|
I'm trying to explain that the mountains are far away, significantly further than the trees, hence the movement/change is significantly less.
Now imagine a mountain a million times further away, how much slower would that move/change in comparison?
So I can't hold your hand and take you through it, you have to work it out for yourself, but the following may help you;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXypyrutq_M
Ok, joking aside :-), David has done a great job answering your questions, so please look into what he's saying.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bamainatlanta
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! A slightly flippant answer at the start? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
So why the quote mining all the time from conspiracy believers?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So there's no reason for Neil to make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate.
And Eric Dubay has never had an open debate with anyone who disagrees with his views. He doesn't even debate the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of working for the gvt to discredit flat Earth, such as Mark Sargent :-|
Eric doesn't even attend flat Earth conferences to put himself in a position to be questioned.
So by your own logic, Eric must be scared of debates, right? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332 - The point is, it's not an excuse, it's the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
2
-
2
-
@mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332 - You said "Btw Conspiracy theorists is a CIA term created to discredit critical thinkers"
No, that's a claim made up by conspiracy believers (which in itself is rather ironic :-)), where there's nothing wrong with the term conspiracy theorist, except to those who try to turn that term into a conspiracy.
It is FAR more respectful, accurate and honest than the derogatory names used by some, like "Flearthers" or "Flatties" or "Flattards" or "Hoaxers" or "Truthers/Troofers" etc.
Hence I don't say nonsense like "Flattard", I say flat Earth believer or conspiracy believer/theorist.
I don't say "Hoaxer", I say Apollo hoax believer or conspiracy believer/theorist.
Likewise, rocket hoax believer, Mars rover hoax believer, ET alien/UFO believer, Space Shuttle hoax believer, and so on.
So it doesn't make any difference whether the conspiracy is true or not, if something is claimed to be a conspiracy (eg. governments lying about the shape of the Earth WOULD be a conspiracy) then the theories are conspiracy theories presented by conspiracy theorists, and those who believe them are conspiracy believers.
So don't deny the term, own it :-)
2
-
2
-
@mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332 - Unfortunately you're only showing how easy it is for conspiracy theorists to manipulate you :-|
For example, you said "The stars remain the same for thousands of years meaning we aren't spinning"
Stars are incredibly distant and hence appear to move incredibly slowly relative to us, so that has nothing to do with the Earth rotating.
You said "They're hiding god ...Astronauts gone wild documentary...Im no bible thumper but these guys refused to swear on it"
A documentary made by Bart Sibrel who says the Earth is a globe, says space is real, and says spacecraft are real, Bart only claims the moon landings specifically were a hoax. So you are supporting the claims of someone who says your flat Earth beliefs are wrong! :-)
Besides globe Earth believing Bart is being as dishonest as someone going up to clean athletes, accusing them of being drugs cheats and then demanding they swear on the Bible to prove they're clean. Why would you assume athlete are drugs cheat for refusing to prove themselves to a stranger who insulted them? Likewise for the astronauts.
Also, watch that documentary again and notice THREE of the astronauts DID swear on the Bible and yet Bart still called them liars, AND notice how Bart tells EVERY astronaut that he spoke to 6 other astronauts and they all refused to swear on the Bible, which is impossible and hence a deliberate lie :-)
Btw, would I be correct to assume you're not a Christian then?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shaunb2110 - You said "Again, you told me to grow a backbone also."
Yes, based upon your behaviour.
And said "I'm not the one hiding behind a keyboard with some phony youtube name."
Then why not go the whole distance by posting your full address and telephone number here as proof of how 'brave' you are. Wouldn't that be a stupid thing to do? If you agree, then there's nothing 'brave' or 'courageous' about using your real name online. That's merely a CHOICE, and hence nothing to do with having a backbone.
So you are hiding as much as the rest of us, because as you know, it is far easier to have these kind of 'discussions' throwing attacks and insults online than it is to do so face to face! Right? :-) Don't pretend otherwise.
You said "As for the shape of the earth, what you think it is, degrasse, or your tag team partner has no bearing on my life or my happiness."
Firstly, no-one said it would affect you, secondly, if you really didn't care then you wouldn't be here, much less ingratiating yourself to your fellow flat Earth believers. It's as simple as that.
And I hope you feel you've made a difference by pointing out myself and F&BM to flat Earth believers to let them know who and what you think we are ;-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Putting aside the fact that the oceans are not flat, your next two claims are not only wrong, but YOU could prove them wrong if you actually tried.
Firstly the north star (Polaris) is not exactly on true north, it's about 0.75 degrees off true north, hence in time lapse photography (preferably zoomed in) it creates a star trail for a circle about 1.5 degrees wide, which is about the width of 3 full moons.
In other words, the north star 'moves'.
Secondly, the horizon drops with altitude.
For example; youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI
Clearly showing the horizon DROPS with altitude.
You can do that yourself with a half filled bottle of water, hence search online for;
"Bottled Water: A Simple Device for Observing the Dip of the Horizon"
Again clearly showing the horizon DROPS with altitude.
The water bottle test is something that you and every flat Earth believer can do the next time you're in an airplane, and yet you will not find a single example of any flat Earth believers carrying out that test and showing the horizon has risen to eye level, because ALL who have carried out that test have found the horizon DROPS with altitude.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@isntthatshameful1267 - You said "every flight manual teaches pilots earth is a flat plane."
Congratulations on proving you have a poor understanding of mathematics, much less mathematical models, where you clearly don't know what an assumption means with regards to models :-)
The same mathematical assumptions in a model that says the earth is a flat plane also includes some of the following assumptions; Air pressure is the same at all altitudes, Airplanes are perfectly rigid structures that never flex, Fuel levels don't go down and hence the airplane's weight is fix, There's no air currents and hence no winds, There's no air resistance, Temperature is the same everywhere, and so on.
The purpose of such assumptions is to simplify the mathematics, especially where certain factors wouldn't result in much difference to the accuracy given the scale involved.
So by your logic, those assumptions means airplanes are rigid structures with infinite fuel flying through air of a fix temperature without resistance in a world where wind doesn't exist :-)
Funny how flat Earth believers ONLY ever notice the flat plane assumption while conveniently ignoring all the other mathematical assumptions :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Joe suggested it on one of his shows by putting Neil on the spot, but it was never actually arranged, so your claim is false.
Besides, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
Also, Eric Dubay has never had an open debate with anyone who disagrees with his views. He doesn't even debate the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of working for the gvt to discredit flat Earth, such as Mark Sargent :-|
Eric doesn't even attend flat Earth conferences to put himself in a position to be questioned, which says a lot :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When using mathematics to model something in the real world, it is impossible to account for absolutely EVERYTHING, as it's often not needed, therefore assumptions are made depending on the accuracy needed, usually to simplify the calculations.
Hence the simplification of the calculations is easy to spot in mathematics because they're almost always identified as "ASSUMPTIONS".
For example at 8:20 in Rob's video it says and I quote "The two dimensional model for aircraft motion..."
A two dimensional model . A 2D model! 2D! We live in a 3D world, hence right from the start that's a simplified model. that represents the world in TWO dimensions ONLY.
So lets go through the list of assumptions;
a) The earth is flat and non-rotating, since the Earth's surface being curved or straight or moving doesn't effect the accuracy aimed for in this 2D model.
b) The acceleration of gravity is constant, which is not the case in the real world since it changes with altitude and density of the surface we're over, but the difference too small to matter in this 2D model.
c) Air density is constant. Again, not the case in the real world where air density (hence pressure) decreases with altitude.
d) The airframe is a rigid body. All aircraft bend and flex due to the forces upon them, but again this simplified 2D model assumes it doesn't.
e) The aircraft is constrained to motion in the vertical plane, due to only 2 dimensions in the model, as oppose to the 3 dimensions of the real world.
f) The aircraft has a symmetry plane (the x-z plane). Again due to 2 dimensions
g) The mass of the aircraft is constant, but in the real world the mass of an aircraft reduces as the fuel is used up.
So if YOU think that model is proof they're saying the Earth is flat, then that same model says the world is 2D, that gravity is constant everywhere, that air pressure is constant everywhere, that aircraft are rigid structures that don't bend, that aircraft never reduce in weight as fuel is burned, and so on.
Therefore to single out assumptions in a 2D model that just so happens to fit your beliefs as if those assumptions are statements of fact is laughable :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tj21415 - Thanks for being honest about your views, much appreciated.
But it's important to realize that confusion comes from trusting the word of those who are not qualified in the areas they're talking about. Because such people make all kinds of claims (eg. the horizon is always at eye level, boats over the horizon can be brought back with zoom, space footage is fake with wires or filmed in water tanks, people thought the Earth was flat 500 years ago etc) with the primary purpose of convincing their audience.
They don't care if their claims are true or not, they only care about people believing their claims, whatever those claims may be.
After all, what are Eric Dubay's qualifications for example? What has he personally sent up to high altitudes to view the Earth? What journey's around the world has he gone on to see it for himself? Why doesn't he try to raise the cash to visit places like the South Pole that he claims to not exist, or to Antarctica that he claims we are kept away from?
See my point? And here's how you know when conspiracy theorists are not being honest with you - They almost always set out create a single enemy for people to rage against, in this case NASA.
Think about it, there are 72 (yes SEVENTY TWO) government space agencies around the world, there are many private space agencies/companies around the world, a great many satellite companies around the world, but who do flat Earth theorists focus on almost exclusively? That's right, they focus on NASA as if it's the only one!
Can you not see the problem with their focus on NASA only, completely ignoring all the other space agencies? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidsandall - You said "The total lack of proof that there is gravity..."
Incorrect. Keep in mind the following definition of gravity please: The universal force of attraction acting between all matter
So here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidsandall - And lets address this again, quote "We do know what causes magnetism- electrons, neutrons, and protons"
I asked you how you know electrons, neutrons and protons exist (i.e. your trusted source), and I'm still waiting.
Also, EVERYTHING in your room right now, including YOU, consists of electrons, neutrons and protons, and so are YOU magnetic? So is the paper and the cloth and the aluminum and the plastic and the air and the water etc all around you magnetic?
Of course not, despite consisting of electrons + neutrons + protons, so you haven't explained magnetism, hence proving my point perfectly :-)
And READ the following;
www.livescience.com/32633-how-do-magnets-work.html
Quote: "Physicists have some understanding of how magnets function. However, some phenomena that underlie magnetism continue to elude scientific explanation."
Quote: ""We just observe that when you make a charged particle move, it creates a magnetic field and two poles. We don't really know why. It's just a feature of the universe, and the mathematical explanations are just attempts of getting through the 'homework assignment' of nature and getting the answers," Walker said."
Next? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
cowardlyyoungman - As anyone can see in this thread, you simply couldn't support ANY of the claims you made about the earth not being round and the earth being flat. Whenever confronted, all you could do is offer insults and racism.
So, now that you've effectively agreed that there's no accurate map of a flat earth and hence helped to prove the earth isn't flat, care to tackle the remaining 4 questions? Here they are again, just for you :-)
1) Exactly how high is the firmament dome?
2) Where is the accurate map of a flat earth? A map that doesn't have
Australia distorted to twice it's actual size and shaped like a sausage!
[Already done: Where we've established that no accurate map a flat earth exists]
3) Where is the mathematical model of a flat earth that would make it
possible to predict/calculate astronomical events?
4) Where is the equation to calculate how far across the earth's surface
we can expect to see for a given altitude on a flat earth?
5) How thick is your flat earth? If we compare it to a pizza, is it a
thin crust pizza, or a deep pan pizza, or is it bread all the way down
forever? :)
You also said "u think ur african-american.".
Nope. First you assume I'm white and now you assume I'm American. Such arrogance, such a lack of intelligence, where you fail to appreciate there's a world outside of America, which is rather ironic given that you call yourself African.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@drseanpatrick696 - On the contrary, it only proves you assume scientists should waste their time debating conspiracy theorists.
After all, should Neil also debate those who claim the Earth is hollow/concave, that the Universe is electric, that the moon is a spaceship, that the Space Shuttle was a hoax, that the ISS is a hoax, that Mars rovers are a hoax, that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs, that crop circles are made by aliens, that alien civilizations have been found on Mars and the moon, and so on?
What makes you think flat Earth theorists are a special case? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Zlics - You said "Neil says the earth is pear shaped, why haven't we seen an official image then of this pear shaped earth?"
Just because you don't believe something it doesn't justify being ignorant about it.
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
How can you think Neil meant the Earth literally looks like a pear shape?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BCStudios16 - You said "he was not put on the spot he brought it up."
He brought it up in this discussion with zero notes to fall back upon, that's the point I'm making, and therefore your argument is unfounded.
You said "He was advertising a book he just wrote and says he talks about this in his book..."
And have you read his book? Do you have it to hand for reference and hence you KNOW that he explicitly referred to them as K1 and K2? If you haven't, then your argument here is unfounded.
You claim "The point is he’s not speaking facts that he claims to know and then blanketing anyone in disagreement as not knowing facts. That’s being close minded, deterministic, and dismissive, three attributes that are in direct conflict with the idea of science."
And I completely disagree, since Neil being wrong in fields for which he is not an expert is something that can happen to anyone, and hence this would only be an issue if Neil was completely wrong in details within HIS field of expertise, which is astrophysics.
Finally you said "lastly I did not say he ‘should’ debate a flat earthen, quite opposite, in fact, I said I wouldn’t want him to. Someone with actual facts and data..."
And there again I disagree, because that person (eg a scientist) would be giving the flat Earth theorist the exposure and hence the credibility that he/she seeks.
After all, why should Neil or any scientist who don't debate other conspiracy theorists make it a special case to debate a flat Earth theorist?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rocketspushoffair - You said "We no for a fact there is a dome."
The most popular flat Earth theorist Eric Dubay says he doesn't know if there is a dome!
So since you know more than Eric Dubay, please state the exact height of the claimed dome.
You said "We know for a fact there is an ice wall edge."
But Eric Dubay says he doesn't know if there's an edge, an ice wall yes, but not sure of an edge according to him!
Hence some FE believers claim the Earth ends at the wall of ice, some claim the land goes beyond the wall of ice to a finite distance, some claim it's an infinite plane.
Why are you right (i.e. it's a fact) and the others wrong?
:-)
You said "Pillars, we have to take on faith. Sun, moon, again, we must speculate, but they could be spherical. We know for a fact they are close."
So please state exactly how far away the moon is please.
Do you agree with the popular FE claim that the sun and moon are 30-32 miles wide and circle the Earth 3000 miles up?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mysticnomad3577 - You said "you're irrelevant."
Put your nails away please, it's rude to scratch.
Anyway, I've spent enough time here for the moment and have discussions in other threads that I need to attend to, so I'll return here later.
In the mean time, here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations btw) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Bye for now, back later :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mysticnomad3577 - So I probably know far more about flat Earth theory than you do. For example, where EXACTLY do you think "8 inches per mile squared" originated from? I know because I read it in one of the flat Earth books that I listed, whereas 99.99999% of flat Earth believer have no idea where it came from.
Now, if we take Eric Dubay's "200 proofs Earth is Not a spinning Ball", EVERY ONE of those so-called proofs have been debunked.
Yes, ALL of them, ALL debunked (and some are so stupid that even a child could debunk it... which explains why you couldn't ;-)).
Regarding Mark Knight, I'm still waiting for you to present just ONE example of his 'work' to prove he has something more to offer than the completely debunked Eric Dubay.
So go ahead and state what YOU consider to be the BEST evidence from Mark. The ONE flat Earth claim that YOU believe is his strongest and hence his BEST proof of a flat Earth and present it here, present a link.
If it's in a long video featuring multiple flat Earth claims, then present the link AND time stamp together with a brief description of the 'proof'.
Therefore your assumption that I'm a newbie to flat Earth theory is wrong. If anything, you are the newbie in comparison :-)
I look forward to your BEST Mark Knight evidence. Just one claim please, the BEST one, the strongest one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@valherustinger7848 - Technically, Eric's research into WW2 is an example of how poor his research is, where you appear to be supporting Eric's views on the basis that it's what others have said before him.
The same therefore applies to flat Earth, since Eric refers to flat Earth books written over the last 150+ years, such as those by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Regarding not going out into space, do you really need to see your entire town or city from altitude before you can accept that a map of your town or city is accurate? :-)
If not, then why would you expect that to be required for the entire Earth?
My proof in this thread of the Earth being a globe also applies to accurate maps of our towns and cities, since they are so small compared to the size of the Earth that curvature makes no difference to the maps, where the natural rise and fall of the landscape is likely to be greater than any curvature across the map.
In other words, if you get hold of an accurate flat map of your town or city (one which provides a bar scale for distance, eg. 1cm = 1 mile), then ALL the distances measured on that map would be on the scale shown, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the map or how far apart they are!
That proves the flat map is an accurate representation of your town or city - likewise that proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is an accurate representation of the Earth :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hired_Management - Hi, lets address some of your key points, objectively :-)
You said "Theory is not “science” and is conspiracy.
Examples: Gravity, Vacuum of space, evolution."
The problem is, that's a misunderstanding of what a theory means in science.
https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html
"A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena."
Hence (staying on the topic of space) gravity is a proven scientific fact. The vacuum of space is a proven scientific fact.
Scientific theories are models that explain those facts, allowing us to understand our observations of natural phenomena and to make accurate predictions based upon that understanding.
I can provide proof of both gravity and the vacuum of space IF you want (hence will post in two separate replies if asked for :-)).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FDupp-og1mi - So just for you and your fellow flat Earth friends who may be reading this thread, I'll address this classic claim from you;
Quote "You believe this force is also a physical container that prevents our pressurized atmosphere, which lay adjacent to a near perfect vacuum, from being sucked into space."
Putting aside the fact that a vacuum is NOT suction (didn't you learn anything at school?), did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude and hence the higher we are the lower the air pressure?
Yes? Then good, lets continue...
At 10 miles up there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with a cheap vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept.
In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions with altitude, with no barrier in between and no closed container required.
Any questions? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@khirywashington371 - Yet again you prove you don't know how science works.
Google search: Peer review, and READ the links.
Then Google search: Peer review in science, and READ the links.
Come back once you've understood it please :-)
After all, are you really saying that you have NO EXPERTISE in anything yourself? Nothing from your hobbies/passions to your talents, to sports, to your career, to your qualifications, to gaming, to driving, to art to music, etc, nothing that you would consider yourself highly skilled or knowledgeable?
Now THINK about your best area of expertise and tell me who are the best people to judge you and correct you. Is it the people who are as skilled and as knowledgeable (or more) as you in a particular area, or other people who are clueless in that area?
2
-
@khirywashington371 - I'll repost what I edited into my last reply:
After all, are you really saying that you have NO EXPERTISE in anything yourself? Nothing from your hobbies/passions to your talents, to sports, to your career, to your qualifications, to gaming, to driving, to art to music, etc, nothing that you would consider yourself highly skilled or knowledgeable?
Now THINK about your best area of expertise and tell me who are the best people to judge you and correct you. Is it the people who are as skilled and as knowledgeable (or more) as you in a particular area, or other people who are clueless in that area?
So if you understand peer review, then go ahead and explain how scientists are not challenging other scientists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nicholasjameson3953 - Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims (including the conspiracy theories that you don't believe yourself) then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
So again, flat Earth believers are not a special case, therefore there's no reason to give them special treatment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidvalensi8616 - You said " one of their engineers Kelly Smith admitted it by accident while discussing something else. (Orion)."
And right there you proved my point perfectly!
The electrons of the Van Allen belt radiation are a problem for modern electronics, which packs a massive amount of incredibly tiny structures into its microprocessors. This makes them significantly more sensitive to the radiation compared to the crude electronics of the 70s and older, which didn't have that problem.
The NASA Orion video with Kelly Smith that conspiracy theorists distorted only ever mentions the issue of radiation upon the electronics, it says NOTHING about the effect of radiation on people.
The point being made was that people's lives will depend on the electronics WORKING, therefore they would not risk putting people into space inside Orion UNTIL they've tested it in space first.
Here are the exact words from NASA's Kelly Smith in that video;
Quote 1; "Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there's only one way to know if we got it right, fly it in space. For Orion's first flight, no astronauts would be on board, the spacecraft is loaded with sensors to record and measure all aspects of the flight in every detail"
Hence Kelly made it very clear that the focus is to test Orion in space FIRST to check all the systems before they put astronauts inside.
Quote 2; "We will pass through the Van Allen Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back..."
Notice that he's talking about the harm to ELECTRONICS only.
Quote 2 continued; "...But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space"
Again, Kelly makes it clear that they are testing the electronics. If the test proves the design has solved those radiation challenges, i.e. the electronics would not fail, THEN they will know Orion is safe to put astronauts inside on their way to the moon.
And yet on December 5th 2014, just months after that NASA Orion video, Orion was sent through the region of the belts with the highest radiation TWICE and it aced that test. Therefore they are now confident in sending people through the belts inside Orion in the knowledge that the electronics will not fail.
Interesting how NONE the hoax videos featuring that NASA video EVER mentioned the fact that Orion was tested in space inside the Van Allen belts SUCCESSFULLY just months later.
Why do you think they never mentioned it? ;-)
2
-
@davidvalensi8616 - And here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
2
-
2
-
Firstly he's an astrophysicist whether you like it or not :-)
Secondly, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or Crop Circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims (including the conspiracy theories that you don't believe yourself) then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HerbAsh - The 'mad' speeds are nothing compared to the even madder distances. That's the point :-)
Here's an example to give you an idea of the scale involved.
Our nearest star is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.367 light years away. In comparison, our sun is only 499 light seconds away.
Now imagine your head is the sun and you stretch out your arms to both sides and clench your fists to represent the Earth on both sides of the sun (i.e. 6 months apart during its orbit).
So lets say that's 5 feet to represent Earth's orbit - on that scale, the nearest star will be 261 miles away, and both our sun and the nearest star will be moving generally in the same direction at the speed of around 4.2 mm per hour!
And that's to the nearest star. Polaris is about 433 light years ago, about 99 times further away, hence on the same scale discussed above, that's about 25,900 miles away (a little further away than geostationary satellites).
Therefore, is it really any wonder why the star's positions barely during our lifetimes?
They do change over time, but it typically takes centuries for us to notice any slight changes that can be seen with the naked eye :-)
I hope that helps :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TTHH - You said "The stars depicted in these ancient charts are exactly as we observe the stars in the sky today."
Incorrect, that's your assumption with zero analysis carried out.
The individual stars we see in our night sky are in our own galaxy and they are all moving, it's just that the distances are so massive that we can't easily see the changes in our relatively tiny lifespans.
The first person to notice this was Edmond Halley (famous for the comet) in the early 18th century, where he noticed some stars were in different positions in ancient star 'charts'. When comparing the same stars to charts made in the 17th century, he was able to confirm how fast they were moving.
For example, he noted that our brightest real star Sirius had shifted about the width of the moon seen in the sky over a period of 1800 years,
So yes the Dunhuang is the oldest star CHART, with well over 1000 stars, but it's not a 100% match to star positions today, there are deviations in the positions, and it's not the only ancient reference to star positions.
And the planets aside, the fastest moving ordinary star relative to others in our sky is called Barnard's star, which shouldn't exist according to FE theorists :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gmayor8888 - You said "not thea pear shape one that neil told us about and nasa showing us photos with the perfect ball"
A very ignorant comment from you (just because you don't believe something that doesn't excuse being ignorant about it :-|).
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Any questions? :-)
2
-
2
-
@Gmayor8888 - And just to add;
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Please show me the debate between Eric Dubay and the flat Earth theorists who he claims are shills working for the government, such as Mark Sargent, because I must have missed it :-)
Anyway... Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@glenndejong6817 - WRONG my friend. NASA have NEVER said that about ANY photographs of the Earth.
Back in 2002, NASA's Robert Simmon created a series of images (not photographs) called "Blue Marble 2", where they were put together using something like 4 months worth of satellite photos taken in earth orbit. Therefore those satellite photos were stitched together using Photoshop to create full composite images of the Earth.
That's where the composite/Photoshop hoax claim originated from!
As Robert himself said, one of the most difficult parts of the project were the clouds, because over a period of 4 months the cloud cover all over the world changes, therefore it was a lot of work to make the cloud cover appear natural in his Photoshop images.
In other words, the "Blue Marble 2" images are NOT claimed to be actual photographs of the Earth, instead Robert and NASA explained at the beginning that they were images of the Earth that THEY had put together using 4 months worth of satellite photos, i.e. they are composites!
Robert Simmon ALSO said that the Apollo missions were different because they were sufficiently far from the Earth to be able to fit the entire planet within EACH photograph taken, and therefore that was what he was trying to recreate using satellite images (i.e. to recreate the original 'Blue Marble' photograph taken during Apollo 17).
Facts do matter my friend, except to conspiracy theorists and conspiracy believers :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@saltysergeant4284 - You said "sure. What experiment shows the motion, rotation, and/or spherical shape of the Earth?"
Great, so lets take it in a few short steps.
Before discussing the globe itself, consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city (if a map of a city 25 miles by 18 miles filled an A4 sheet of paper, then the middle of the map would need to rise just 0.23 mm to account for Earth's curvature!).
EVERY one of us can find an accurate map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem with many conspiracy believers is that your bias causes you to put aside common sense, logic and fairness :-|
For example, go and accuse a clean athlete of being a drugs cheat and a liar and a coward, and demand he swears on the Bible to prove he's innocent of taking performance enhancing drugs... and then tell us which hospital you're in so that we can visit you :-)
According to you, it doesn't matter which athlete you approach to make that accusation, if the athlete is innocent then he would never EVER become angry much less punch you, no matter how much you harass him, which is complete nonsense.
So if you put your bias aside then it doesn't matter whether you believe men landed on the moon or not, it doesn't matter whether you believe Buzz was lying or not, Bart Sibrel was harassing Buzz Aldrin even as Buzz was trying to walk away from him and he eventually snapped upon being called a lair and a coward, and therefore Bart got what he deserved.
It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@angelduran3323 - This is not the first time Eddie has expressed his flat Earth beliefs, this is not the first time he has expressed his doubts about the Earth being a globe or space being fake.
In fact, Eddie was on Joe's show, the SAME show, 2 years earlier talking about flat Earth and fake space where he was very vocal and loud about his views, and therefore surely it would have been Eddie's responsibility this time around to be more prepared, wouldn't you think? :-)
And given that they had this debate with Eddie before then they certainly knew what to expect, therefore the only panic in the room is in your head, where you're seeing what you want to see :-|
So I'm not going by this video only. And being open minded is not an excuse to ignore common sense, ignore reason and ignore facts.
I did my flat Earth research by acquiring and reading all the main flat Earth books published over the last 150+ years, where I identified common ideas and themes among them as well as many contradictions, together with poor reasoning and false assumptions within all those books.
My research was initially focussed around finding an accurate undistorted flat map of a flat Earth in just ONE flat Earth book.
It was no surprise to me that none of them provided such a map.
So tell me about your flat Earth research please.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@East_TN_Explorer - You said "By constantly talking about it, you give it life...If you ignore it, it [g]oes off."
That may work for some conspiracy theories, but others like flat Earth grow when ignored (like a disease :-|), with flat Earth followers taking that as proof it can't be debunked and therefore say flat Earth must be true.
Before 2015, when I was debating Apollo hoax believers online, people took being called a flat Earth believer as an insult. But after 2015 a growing number of people were happy to call themselves flat Earth believers, where they would troll EVERY space related video they could find to spread the word while claiming all science is a lie.
My point is, ignoring flat Earth believers allowed their numbers to grow rapidly thanks to flat Earth theorists like Eric Dubay (who originally believed in hollow/concave Earth btw :-)), until there were so many of them trolling space related videos that they could no longer be ignored, hence I began debating them when I couldn't get away from them any more.
2
-
2
-
No, it's the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they so desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
2
-
@joejosa8985 - You said "You said " most of those things fall into the same category of supernatural"
Alien/UFO based conspiracy claims are not about the supernatural (neither is the Electric Universe Theory), where I added the others for variety but could have included many more space related conspiracy theories, from Space Shuttle deaths hoax, to Mars rover hoax, ISS hoax, GPS hoax, and so on.
Many of those have been popular conspiracy theories LONG BEFORE the resurgence of flat Earth theory, therefore you have offered no reason for anyone to consider flat Earth any more important that the other conspiracy theories I listed, and others.
And in what way do any ET/alien conspiracies relate to flat Earth when flat Earth theory is based upon Earth being the only location for life and hence it claims planets are just lights (luminaries) in the sky and therefore are not even solid!
In other words, flat Earth theory explicitly says creatures from other worlds cannot exist!
Also, knowledge of the Earth being a globe has been around for 2500 years, which from my calculations (😉) suggests that people have known about the Earth being a globe long before the USA existed as a nation :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@theonemorpheous6992 - As an amateur astronomer for around 30 years, I am naturally drawn towards space related conspiracy theories, like Apollo hoax claims, flat Earth, ISS hoax, and so on.
Hence I've been discussing and debunking Apollo hoax claims for over 10 years online, where I own and have read almost all the leading Apollo hoax books, watched all the English language Apollo hoax documentaries, and watched countless Apollo hoax videos here on YT.
As a result, I know for a fact that there isn't a single Apollo hoax claim that holds up to close scrutiny. Instead they ALL fall apart upon close examination without exception.
So yes my friend, I have listened to all the arguments claiming a hoax and they are all proven to be wrong :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The film is NOT lost, we have ALL the film! Hence you are falling for the classic conspiracy theorist trick where they twist information into something it's not.
Because Apollo 11 was the first mission NASA couldn't guarantee that the live TV broadcast to the world would work, so they recorded their own BACKUP of the moonwalk broadcast just in case.
If the world couldn't watch the moon landing live, then NASA would have processed their BACKUP copy and send the footage out to TV studios worldwide for them to broadcast to their audiences.
But the live TV broadcast DID work, it was successful, where millions of people watched Neil and Buzz on the moon live, and so NASA's BACKUP copy wasn't needed.
That is why NASA's backup was lost, because as far as NASA were concerned TV studios around the world already had the footage and so the tapes with their backup could be reused (as magnetic tapes often were).
It's only decades later when some realized that NASA's backup copy would have been a clearer version of the moonwalk that they realized they should have kept it, but by then it was too late.
So all that was lost is a clearer BACKUP copy of the SAME Apollo 11 moonwalk footage that we've ALL seen.
Nothing else was lost, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12, or Apollo 13 (failed mission), or Apollo 14 or Apollo 15 or Apollo 16 or Apollo 17.
Simply search YouTube for "Apollo EVA" and you'll find hour after hour after hour of footage recorded on the moon during the Apollo missions.
Therefore your claim that "the film has been lost and their is no proof of its existence" is completely wrong, where you got it wrong because you believed the conspiracy theorists who twisted the facts :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@notallowed337 - Think of it in this way.
When scientists talk about the shape of the universe/space, they are talking about how space could be distorted (curved) or not distorted (flat). It's confusing because they are not talking about a surface when they say flat, only about distortion of space.
For example, if you take a piece of paper (flat surface) and drew two parallel lines on that paper, then the lines would never meet, no matter how large the sheet of paper.
If you take a ball (curved surface), draw a line for the equator and then drew lines that are parallel at the equator, then those lines will meet at the poles.
The angles of a triangle on a flat sheet of paper adds up to 180 degrees.
The angles of a triangle on a ball adds up to more than 180 degrees.
We know this works on the small scale, but does it work on the scale of the universe?
If space is flat, then parallel lines on a flat sheet of paper would still be parallel even if that paper was the size of the universe, and the angles of a triangle drawn on that same flat sheet of paper would add up to 180 degrees even if the triangle filled that universe size sheet of paper.
So far, scientists haven't found any evidence of distortion in space that would cause infinitely long parallel lines to meet (or move apart) or for the angles of an infinitely large triangle to add up to more or less than 180 degrees, and therefore they conclude that space is flat.
Like I said, it's a bit confusing, but when you hear or read "space is flat" translate that to "space is not distorted" and it may start to make sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@toddpeachey6427 - You said "So I've got no doubt that you've got some globe complication that can be easily figured out.
I do take a look at proofs for the globe if they make some sense."
Great, then please look at my very simple proof below, because I've presented it to many flat Earth believers over the years and none of them have found it to be "easily figured out".
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
For a 9 inch globe of the Earth the scale works out as 34.7 miles per millimetre, so 35 miles is a good enough approximation. And for a 15 inch globe of the Earth it's around 20.8 miles per millimetre, so 21 miles is a good enough approximation on that globe.
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first flat Earth believer in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stillmagic5969 - Another unintelligent reply from you (again, I'm sorry but it's true :-|).
ANYONE who has done some acting can be credited as an actor, even if they only made a brief cameo.
Hence numerous sports stars, politicians, musicians, artists, designers, scientists etc, have done some acting and hence are credited as actors, including Stephen Hawking.
What you're saying here is that no matter what someone's career is, the moment they do ANY acting that means they are ONLY actors and not professionals within their usual careers 🙄🙄🙄
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "lso clips of contradictory astronaut testimonials of visibility of stars."
Nope: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=277
Feel free to watch that video from the beginning.
You said "Pettis also says he'd go the moon in a nanosecond but the problem is we destroyed the technology and its a painful process to build it back again. What a joke"
Don Pettit saying he would go back to the moon in a nanosecond but we've lost/destroyed that technology, means we no longer have a Saturn V rocket in SERVICE TODAY to get us there, because the Saturn V rocket is retired.
The USA were not able to send people up to the ISS from 2011 to late 2020 because they lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. they no longer had a Space Shuttle to get them there, the Space Shuttle is retired. Finally they have that technology back with Space X rockets.
The world hasn't been able to send 100 people across the Atlantic at supersonic speed since 2003 because we have lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. we no longer have a supersonic passenger plane, Concorde is retired.
Understand it now? Destroyed or lost doesn't mean EVERYTHING is destroyed/lost, it means we don't have it in SERVICE TODAY, i.e. it's gone, lost, destroyed, never to come back.
The Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle and Concorde will never go into service again, that technology is lost/destroyed (i.e. the infrastructure and services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone).
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence we will soon have the SLS rocket, due to launch this year, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth for its second test in space. And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost/destroyed, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - Your video actually supports my point, since there's a simplistic idea among the makers of such videos that stars should either be visible in space or they shouldn't, where they fail to understand that it's not a black and white issue.
Here's a few quotes about when we can and cannot see stars, from Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins' 1974 book "Carry the Fire: An Astronaut's Journey" -
In orbit around the earth, quote:
"...Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight...Towards the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a bl@ck void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight...".
In the shadow of the Earth during his Gemini mission, quote:
"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different; this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human has ever had... My only complaint is that the protective coatings of my visor do not allow an even more spectacular look at the stars."
When entering the shadow of the moon, quote:
"...To add to the dramatic effect, we find we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the moon now, in darkness for the first time in three days, and the elusive stars have reappeared as if called especially for this occasion...".
With Neil and Buzz on the surface and whilst in the shadow of the moon, quote:
"...Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a bl@ck void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars".
That is consistent with everything we've heard from Neil and Buzz and other astronauts (including your video) ever since people first went into space.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - So let me complete the job and address your remaining claims from that block of text.
Quote: "The onboard computer was way less powerful than our phones."
Before the Apollo missions, BOTH the USA and USSR landed several craft on the surface of the moon using even less computing power than that available to the Apollo missions.
In 1970, 1972 and 1976, the USSR landed sample return craft (that stood around 12 feet high and weighed about 6 tons) on the moon, called Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24. Each craft collected a tiny sample of moon dust and then returned that sample back to Earth for analysis.
Therefore the calculations required to travel to the moon, then land on the moon and then return to Earth doesn't change just because we stuff people inside the craft, the calculations are exactly the same!
So if it was possible for unmanned craft to land on the moon (and some returned) with less computing power than Apollo, then it was more than possible for men to land on the moon using the superior computing power available to the Apollo missions.
But of course, as a flat Earth believer, you think none of that happened for manned or unmanned spacecraft.
2
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "NASA openly admits they need to figure out how to safely get through the van Allen belts before they can go beyond low earth orbit. But they weren't a problem in the 60's. Weird."
For exposures lasting a few hours, the electrons in Van Allen belt radiation is a problem to electronics, not to people.
The electronics used during the Apollo missions consisted of circuits and wires big enough to be seen with the naked eye, hence they were not effected by the electrons in Van Allen belt radiation.
In contrast, today's electronics consists of circuits that are so tiny that we need very powerful microscopes to see them.
The smaller the circuits/components then the more sensitive they are to radiation, and hence as microprocessors got more powerful over the years by packing more and smaller components into each chip, they became more and more sensitive to radiation in space, especially the Van Allen belts, and so modern electronics need to be radiation hardened and/or properly shielded to protect them.
Simply put, take an early 70s electronic calculator into the Van Allen belts and it would work without problems, whereas your smartphone would crash within seconds.
So the radiation was not a problem for the Apollo spacecraft, but it is a problem for modern spacecraft with their modern electronics, and therefore modern manned spacecraft must be tested in space FIRST to make sure the electronics has been properly protected against the radiation before they risk putting people inside (since their lives will DEPEND upon the electronics working).
Any questions?
2
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "Have you seen the lunar lander? It looks like something to crackheads made in one night with duct tape and gold foil."
The LM was a very strong and sturdy spacecraft, and so to judge it by outside appearance alone is a shortsighted view often seen from those who know nothing about engineering.
Here's a photo of the LM's crew cabin framework during construction, and remember there's the rest of the craft to be built around this;
airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/stories/LTAInspect.jpg
Here it is today: www.americanspacecraft.com/images/lunarmod/kcsc/engmod/IMG_2308.jpg
So how is that a tin can or tin foil? That cabin alone is very solid and well constructed.
Now lets add a little more;
airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-module-test-article-lta-1a11d
And lets add even more with many more photos to be found here: goo.gl/e9xT8G
The point is, the LM was a very solid and well constructed craft, where like so many spacecraft it needed additional protection on the outside, such as from the sun and micrometeorites.
Hence it wasn't about how it looks, it was all about what it DOES. The gold foil (mylar + kapton film) reflected away all the heat from the sun, as did the panels of mylar which also acted as micrometeorite shields, where they didn't need to be airtight or aerodynamic because the LM was designed for the vacuum of space, not the dense atmosphere of Earth.
They were not interested in making the LM look great, they were only interested in making sure it WORKED.
If they wanted to fake it, then with YEARS to prepare and a MASSIVE budget, don't you think they would have made the sleekest, most elegant looking, beautifully finished Lunar lander you could imagine, where it would have met all the expectations of an audience used to watching sci-fi films? :-)
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=so3QJLfwRgw
tinyurl.com/qgfw8xy6
tinyurl.com/yutcpl4i
So, all talking about people not being able to see stars at night in airplanes, with the SAME explanations I've given regarding space, where in airplanes there's no light source as bright as the sun to cope with at night and yet many people still have problems.
But search around and you'll find people who, due to conditions in the plane and/or carrying out some of the suggestions mentioned in the links above, were able to see stars during a night flight.
Well gee, so many contradictions, right? :-|
After all, shouldn't EVERYONE be able to see stars on a clear night in an airplane ALL THE TIME?
Why should the lighting inside the airplane (cabin lights), lighting outside the airplane (moon) and other factors effect when we can and cannot see the stars. That shouldn't happen in your opinion, right?
So if we read one person saying he could see stars at night on his flight from Paris to New York, and another person saying he couldn't see stars at night on his flight from Paris to New York, then that's a contradiction that means one or both of them are lying and so they probably never went on that flight. Right? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - No contradiction, you're just taking descriptive statements with no context, i.e. where on the ISS (which windows), in the sun during the 90 minutes or in the shadow of Earth for 90 minutes, looking towards the sun or away from the sun, ISS light on or off, hands up against the ISS windows or not, etc.
Nothing is known other than brief general descriptions without details, just your bias and ignorant assumptions.
Hence for ALL those people who couldn't see stars on an airplane, by cupping their hands into a cylinder and using that to block out surrounding light, then as long as the moon wasn't in there eyes then they would see stars.
If you want to point out contradictions, then give me two astronauts who describe the same viewing conditions and positions in the ISS (including the location of the sun) but what they saw is different.
If you can't do that, then you have no argument kid.
You said "And I CAN poke holes in a theory without being required to come up with a replacement theory"
No, you claim the Earth is flat, so that's your stated your theory, that's your stated belief, so if you can't explain your theory then that means it is null and void and therefore you're in no position to claim any others are wrong.
So again, present hard evidence of the ISS being a hoax, not your weak "he said she said they said" nonsense, since that is not evidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lunarisingdotcodotuk - You said "Also, why won't he debate a 'flat earther'?"
For the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people like Eric Dubay.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pantheraleoromanus6241 - Sure, now can you find a source to Eric Dubay actually saying he was preparing to debate Neil, because I can't find that, I can only find third hand claims to that.
Flat Earth conferences have nothing to do with the Flat Earth society, where they are attended by numerous flat Earth believers without controversy, including Eric Dubay followers, and yet never Eric Dubay himself.
The point is, Eric Dubay appears to see other flat Earth theorists as his rivals, people who are taking business away from him, and so he accuses them of being government shills and liars just for stating flat Earth claims that are different to his own (even when HE says he doesn't know).
So when Eric says he doesn't know if the flat Earth has an edge but other flat Earth theorists says there is an edge, then why don't they EVER get together to decide once and for all with debates and investigations?
When Eric says he doesn't know if the flat Earth has a dome and yet other flat Earth theorists says there is a dome, then why don't they EVER get together to decided once and for all with debates and investigations?
Why are ZERO flat Earth theorists willing to have such debates and investigations into clearing up flat Earth discrepancies among them?
See my point? Flat Earth theorists NEVER EVER have those debates among themselves to establish the 'truth' behind the flat Earth they say they believe, so why should any scientist debate any of them when they don't even engage in debates among themselves?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Firstly, what's so special about flat Earth that Neil should debate flat Earth theorists ahead of the conspiracy theorists for SO MANY conspiracy theories which are far bigger and far more popular than flat Earth, such as ET UFOs, alien abductions, moon landings hoax, Chemtrails, etc.
Secondly, the fact that you think you should see the difference in the shape of the Earth from being a perfect sphere in photos says it all.
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DBBMed - But remember, he started off at the planetarium as a tour guide 5 years after qualifying as an astrophysicist. Clearly he was looking for something new and more interesting in his life than just research.
Neil shows a common pattern of many famous and successful people, where they spend much of their lives looking for something beyond the ordinary, often craving fame and fortune, and hence ego and arrogance often comes with that drive :-)
So yes, I know he was wrong about the mountains, but all I'm saying here is that being wrong and making mistakes doesn't make someone an idiot, even if you don't like that person :-)
We probably agree on more things than we disagree, so lets end this discussion and agree to disagree over certain points.
Agreed?
I'll leave the last word to you... so In the meantime, all the best to yourself, your family and your friends in these difficult times.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Also, should Neil (for example) also debate those who claim the Earth is hollow/concave, that the Universe is electric, that the moon is a spaceship, that the Space Shuttle was a hoax, that the ISS is a hoax, that Mars rovers are a hoax, that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs, that crop circles are made by aliens, that alien civilizations have been found on Mars and the moon, and so on?
What makes you think flat Earth believers are a special case? :-)
And what has being well spoken got to do with what is actually said?
2
-
@justadudehello4198 - Link: tinyurl.com/yaofv7u3
Book: "The Atlantean Conspiracy (Final Edition)" by Eric Dubay
Quote: "They say "the winner's write history," and it is absolutely true: the most egregious example in modern times has to be the mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Gremany. Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
Hmmm, so it's poor little Hitler, a peaceful man who has been so cruelly misrepresented by the mainstream, according to Eric.
Go ahead and browse through some of the rest of those pages from Eric's book in the link above.
And how about this: https://www.facebook.com/ericdubaz/posts/eric-dubay-flat-earther-holocaust-denier-httpswwwyoutubecomwatchvqnvqussuqh4-eri/299595257178507/
He's a foul piece of work my friend, regardless of whether you believe his flat Earth claims or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
...
"Now, nothing seems plainer to me than that the facts are opposed to the theories hence the theories must be wrong, and, if wrong, Zeteticism and the Bible is most likely right; if right, school children should no longer be compelled to believe that which astronomers have long known they cannot prove— a supposition to be a fact."
"We do find some, sorry to say, that cling to the popular error, at the sacrifice of the unpopular truth. While some are declaring that they have nothing to do with the matter, yet we still hear them preaching the Earth a Globe, and are teaching it from their high schools and colleges"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mynamemylastname7179 - Anyway, I have to address this claim from you;
"Mathews B' i,'b, 'l'e 1537 SAYS Flat Earth... 2Smauels 11 11"
No, that verse refers to flat earth meaning flat ground, i.e. earth as in soil, not Earth as in the world we live on.
Here it is in the King James Bible;
"And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing."
So what next? A gardener says he "dug up the earth" and you think he's claiming to have dug up the entire world?
What about grabbing a handful of earth? ;-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nas0ng - You said "Just don’t tolerate stupidity, and assumptions based on “he attacked my hero...derp...duh...if he don’t believe NdGs lies he must believe the earth is flat!”"
Which is an example of the stupidity and assumptions that you claim to not tolerate, so less of the hypocrisy please.
This has nothing to do with hero worship, this is about trying to find out who posted the comment and why.
Sure I didn't read your comment as fully as I should, that's my fault for skimming, but whenever I encounter someone new I like to know where they're coming from, and one way is to check their channel, for which I found you were subscribed to "FLAT EARTH BROTHERS".
Now 99.99% of the time such a channel name would indicate a flat Earth channel, and hence a subscription would indicate a flat Earth believer, hence my question, for which all you had to do was say no and (if you wanted) explain why.
As for Neil, I see nothing wrong. Sure he makes mistakes, especially when relying upon analogies to get a point across to a wide audience on a broad range of subjects, but at least he tries.
If many more scientists were doing what Neil is doing then there will be far more for accessible scientists for the average person to listen to, making the errors of one scientist less of an issue, and perhaps we would then have less gullible people blindly believing everything they see and hear in conspiracy videos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Flat earth expert? Eric Dubay? The guy who says he doesn't know if a flat Earth has an edge and doesn't know if a flat Earth has a dome? R i g h t :-)
Also, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mysticnomad3577 - You cried "do you think you are on a spinning pear globe as Neil told you".
Thank you for proving you can't think for yourself so perfectly :-)
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere"
So which part of "practically a perfect sphere" do you not understand son?
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
Next?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@universalchiro - Thank you for proving my point, including the fact that you still don't know what "trolling" means (look it up and return once you've understood it).
You said "The etymology of the word science means to know, knowledge of something"
So go ahead and present a link to the etymology of the words 'Bible' or 'Religion' or 'Christianity' etc, and find one that means and I quote: "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information".
Hence you cherry picking definitions of science while conveniently offering no comparable links for religion doesn't make your case, it only proves mine.
Lets take the definition of religion from that SAME website for example;
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=religion
Please quote where it states anything that can be compared to science.
Hence your claim that "Science means to know. The Bible teaches us to know God, how things began, how life began, how the atmosphere formed, how to treat life, and so much more" is laughable, since the Bible is based upon FAITH, it is not based upon facts.
In other words, as I said from the start "Religion is not science. Science is not religion".
So if you really need to convince yourself that the Bible is science, then such desperation shows your faith is very weak indeed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's a few quotes from Nikola Tesla that YOU can find yourself, where he confirms the Earth is a globe;
"I may state, that even waves only one or two millimeters long, which I produced thirty-three years ago, provided that they carry sufficient energy, can be transmitted around the globe"
"Invariably it was found that these waves, just as those in the air, follow the curvature of the Earth and bend around obstacles"
" At 3600 m.p.h the plane travels about 19,500 miles. Earth's rotation adds 5500 to the total"
"Each of them will be preferably located near some important center of civilization and the news it receives through any channel will be flashed to all points of the globe"
"to utilize the heat contained in the earth, the water, or the air for driving an engine. It is a well-known fact that the interior portions of the globe are very hot"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cactine No problem my friend :-)
I'll copy and paste part of a reply I posted to someone else recently;
"Getting people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.*
Back then, the American's built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the Soviets built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the Soviets didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program and are working towards building their own Saturn V class rocket for their future manned moon landings."
Today America has that capability again with the SLS rocket, where it will take the Orion to the moon and back in a few months to test both the rocket and space capsule.
If that mission is successful, then the SLS will take people back to the moon by 2025. However if that mission is a failure, then depending on the issue they will be unlikely to return until years after 2025.
Lets see what happens this year :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@koba2322 - You said "That’s it, clearly you don’t want to have the rest of our generation be helped because you clearly don’t care about them so that’s on you"
Oh sure kid, because the countless replies I've posted over the years debunking flat Earth claims in so many flat Earth videos is a perfect example of me not caring right? :-)
So get over yourself p[lease, because the fact that you fell for Eric's 'mad' act (like someone pretending to be disappointed about the cancellation of something they didn't want to do in the first place) is a perfect example of how people like Eric manipulated others into believing the Earth is flat.
Scientists and ordinary people like myself and "Frankie and Benjy Mouse" and many other 'debunkers' can only put the information out there for people like yourself to read, but we cannot force it down your throats to make you understand, you must WANT to read it and understand it yourself, you must WANT to listen and to learn.
In other words, it is not the responsibility of scientists to find a cure for 'stupid', but they can (and they do) provide the means for people to cure themselves of stupidity :-)
(Btw, I'm not calling you stupid my friend, in case my last paragraph comes across that way)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aarongerisch9618 - Lets ask the experts on the bible shall we? :-)
As I said, believing the Earth is flat is non-Christian (I used to say it's anti-Christian, but I feel that's too harsh a term to use upon reflection). As I will now explain...
...Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE (that is a fact!). None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe.
Even Creationists, i.e. those who take the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE! Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, but you may not like what you find there. In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming the flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity.
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1633 for daring to say the GLOBE Earth orbited the sun, when at the time all the Christian churches 'knew' that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the GLOBE stationary Earth!
So who should I believe when it comes to the Bible? Nearly 2000 YEARS of Christian churches who say the Earth is a GLOBE? All the biblical scholars from those churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts to produce ALL the Bibles you've ever read who say the Earth is a GLOBE? The Creationists who take the Bible literally who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Over 2 BILLION Christians worldwide who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Or some random people on the internet who claim the Bible says the Earth is flat? :-)
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, it has never been and never will be. Therefore if you believe ALL the Christians above are wrong or lying about the shape of the Earth and hence you insist the Bible says it's flat against all Christian beliefs, then you are not a true Christian my friend. Sorry, but it's true :-|
2
-
@pascalthe8th66 - That's irrelevant, is Neil suppose to go out there and directly debate every prominent space related conspiracy theorist out there? From flat Earth, to ISS hoax, to moon landing hoax, to Mars mission/rover hoax, to Space Shuttle hoax, to hollow/concave Earth, etc?
So it's up to Eric Dubay to contact the shows and make the necessary arrangements, it's not for others to go chasing after him.
You said "I would guess they wouldn’t want him on because he would probably make them look silly."
On the contrary. If you read through his "200 proofs Earth is not a spinning ball" then not only will you find multiple contradictions in his claims, but you will also find claims that are SO EASY to debunked because they are either lies or are so idiotic that Eric will be the person made to look like a fool :-)
Seriously, you really can't see any flaws in Eric's "200 proofs" eBook?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@themarlawnpodcastnetwork - A ball is not specifically a perfect sphere, a ball CAN be a perfect sphere but a ball can ALSO be distorted, just like golf balls, rugby balls, American footballs, tennis balls, cricket balls, soccer balls, baseballs, beach balls, etc.
They are not perfect spheres, no-one says they have to be perfect spheres, but they are all balls, where except for the rugby and American footballs then can all be described as spheres or globes.
And go ahead and do a quick image search for "round pear" and then explain to me how you think a cube is closer to a ball than those round pears.
For example, there's the 'Olympic Asian Pear'.
I look forward to your explanation :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because it's the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I listed above)? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@steely1neverwane - The video you provided is an opinion piece which is skewed towards certain sciences (mostly medicine and environment) and uses the selected examples to infer that this devalues science (hence the crises) and this somehow applies to all science, which is nonsense.
The whole point being missed is that science is self correcting, hence if an erroneous paper is published, then at some point it will be called out by other scientists spotting flaws in the methodology, and/or analysis, and/or conclusions. Something that doesn't happen with conspiracy theories.
So again, I go by the results, where the results are all around us, including everything that makes this communication possible.
After all, this topic video is about the shape of the Earth, so please point out where a published scientific paper is lying about the Earth being a globe, and that the scientists involved were paid to lie :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deemann894 - No problem and thank you specifying the Bible you read, however my point still remains for Isaiah 40:22, because there's a good reason why some Bibles say circle, some say sphere, some say globe etc.
The Hebrew word being translated by all those Bibles is the word 'chug' which means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
Simply put, 'chug' does not mean a flat circle.
Also, Job 22:14 uses the same Hebrew word 'chug', for example from the KJV Bible "...and he walketh in the circuit of heaven", where other Bibles say "vaulted heavens", "circuit of heaven", "vault of the sky" etc.
So multiple meanings for the same word, where it comes down to the translation and interpretation.
Btw, which church produced the King James 1611 Bible?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theluckycharms81592 - You said "to settle this once and for all?"
NOTHING would be settled my friend! :-)
Even if you took Eric Dubay into space and he SEES the globe Earth with his own eyes and returns saying "Yeah, I was wrong guys, Earth really is a globe", do you really think flat Earth believers would just say "Well gee, I guess that's it then, Earth is a globe after all!".
Nope, they will cry out "Liar!", "Shill!", "How much did they pay you Eric?", "How much did they threaten you Eric?", "Traitor!" etc.
That's the mindset of conspiracy believers :-)
1
-
@theluckycharms81592 - So Neil not debating them is the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there, some of which I've listed above, where some are FAR more widespread and FAR more popular for longer than the comparatively recent flat Earth 'fad' :-)
1
-
@theluckycharms81592 - You said " but doing so will prove he's a fraud causing him to lose his followers, which is where he gets all his power."
Again it would make no difference to the flat Earth followers, because they would only see him as a fraud AFTER he changed his mind, not flat Earth as a fraud, and hence would simply continue with their FE beliefs and just listen to other flat Earth theorists (which they currently do anyway).
You said "You act as if we're all delusional or idiotic..."
Wait, lets stop there please... "WE"? Who are "WE" please? Flat Earth believers? :-)
You said "I'm just critical of eveything, even more so when one side (the educated side, round earth) seem to run away and hide from debates from the other. (Supposedly the idiots, flat earths)"
That's completely false, where that assumption comes from a less than objective outlook my friend.
In what way are you critical of flat Earth please? Can you give me an example?
The key point here is; You still haven't offered any reason why Neil should treat flat Earth theorists as a special case for debate, ahead of theorists of other claimed 'conspiracies' that are significantly more widespread and significantly more popular than flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nagualchris2 - And you've allowed charlatans like Eric Dubay to do your thinking for you, where you're demonstrating a lack of critical thinking yourself. See, it's very easy to make such comments about others ;-) Anyway...
Before I present proof of a globe, the following is an important point to consider. first:
ALL OF US can find an accurate flat map of our town/city, a size where curvature of the Earth would be negligible. That map will feature a small bar or line indicating the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km etc. In other words, it tells us the scale of our map.
Because of that, we can take any two locations or any route on our map and measure it to work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In other words, we can take as many locations and routes on our map as we want, making that observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence that conforms to the scientific method.
Do you agree with the above?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nagualchris2 -
Flat Earth theorists latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice.
However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart. Just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie, far from your comment that and I quote "The land maps are relatively correct".
For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distances could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed to be correct by actual journey's over sea and land);
https://ibb.co/bud1Xf
If the Earth really was flat, then producing an accurate flat (2D) map of a flat Earth would be orders of magnitude easier than creating a 2D map of a Globe Earth. So after over 150 YEARS of published flat Earth books, where is the map?
So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen.
Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged around a globe is accurate, it works, it has worked for centuries, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth.
And not only that, it is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable, exactly what science method is based upon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FutureCivilWarHero - So here's the key point that you're missing...
...Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
Neil has made the point several times before that such debates only gives conspiracy theorists the publicity they seek, it has nothing to do with science.
Now if Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists like Eric Dubay, but that's not the case.
Therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only those who do no research themselves would think that, but here are the facts that you couldn't be bothered to find out for yourself;
The pear-shape analogy came from the following;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE
I'll break it down for you;
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So Neil didn't say the Earth literally looks like a pear (which was just an analogy off the top of his head), he said the Earth is an oblate spheroid that is a fraction wider below the equator than above the equator (hence the pear reference), but the difference is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
But as always, conspiracy theorists quote mine and cherry pick and hence distort what Neil was saying, and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dennisking4589 - You said " I do not think one would exist unless someone endeavored to do so"
An exceptionally weak argument even by your standards, where you have just admitted that no such flat map of a flat Earth exists!
A flat map is a 2D representation of a specific area, and so for the flat map to be accurate the size of the area doesn't matter if it's generally flat throughout.
Therefore the area mapped could be just 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or a 1000 miles by 1000 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on.
If it's flat, then we can represent that entire flat area accurately with a flat map because the shape is essentially the same, i.e. flat.
Our entire Earth has been mapped, therefore if the Earth was flat then the map of the entire Earth would be flat and ACCURATE without distortion.
A map of a flat Earth should ONLY be distorted if wrapped around a different shape, such as a globe, and yet a globe is the ONLY shape where the map of the Earth is not distorted (as my proof shows)!
You said "..in fact...YOU could with a simple software program"
WRONG, since it is mathematically impossible to wrap a flat surface around a globe without distortion or to flatten the surface of a globe without distortion, hence computers can't get around that fact.
1
-
@dennisking4589 - You said "YOU must provide evidence it is a globe....and a map made to represent mathematical equations is not proof, it is a representation of math by image."
Again a very weak argument from you based upon wilful ignorance and denial (sorry but it's true :-)).
Everything you've said there applies to accurate flat maps of our cities, and yet even someone with a low IQ can understand that no mathematical equations are required to accurately work out distances on that flat map, since it's just the city layout on a smaller scale.
If ALL distances measured on that flat city map are correct and hence no-one can find any errors, then that proves the flat map is accurate and undistorted, therefore the entire map is correct.
Can anyone wrap that city map around a globe without distorting it? NO! Just doing that will bring north and south and east and west closer together and therefore the map will be distorted and therefore distances measured will be wrong.
The accuracy of globes of the Earth would be IMPOSSIBLE is the Earth was flat, because it is mathematically impossible to wrap a flat surface all around a globe without distortion.
The map of the Earth around a globe is not distorted, it is correct, therefore that proves the Earth is a globe whether you like it or not. Get over it, or around it if you prefer ;-)
When you can present a flat map of the entire Earth that is accurate and undistorted, only THEN can you argue that the Earth is flat.
Come back if you ever find such a map :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielswish41 - You said "so please, I am curious to know: what is the difference between the definition of the word theory, and the word theory, when it comes to science. Are you serious hahah"
Come on, really? After a 10 second search on the internet;
Quote "Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing."
Quote "Does theory mean something different in science?
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts."
Quote "The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid."
Seriously, why couldn't you find that yourself instead of just laughing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fawqman2764 - Regarding a vacuum, you don't clearly don't understand what a vacuum is my friend :-)
A vacuum is an absence of matter, and hence from our point of view here, is the absence of air!
Our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude, i.e. less air. I'm sure you know that, hence I'm sure you are also aware of the difficulty in breathing for mountain climbers and balloonists or anyone at high altitudes.
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 TIMES less air compared to sea level, that's a medium vacuum.
At 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's also a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is a MILLION times less air, that's a high vacuum.
Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Therefore there isn't a sharp line where we suddenly go from our pressurized atmosphere to the vacuum of space, instead it is a gradual process, where with increasing altitude there's decreasing air, resulting in gradually increasing vacuum conditions as I've shown above (normal pressure -> low vacuum -> medium vacuum -> high vacuum -> ultra high vacuum and so on).
So with it clearly explained and demonstrated that we encounter increasing vacuum conditions with altitude as there's less and less air, you should finally understand how we go from the pressure of our atmosphere here on the surface of the Earth to the vacuum of space without a barrier in between.
1
-
1
-
@fawqman2764 - Don't be deliberately stupid please (but hey, if it's not deliberate.. ;-)). According to flat Earth theorists, space is FAKE!!! Flat Earth believers claim ALL satellites are fake, that ALL spacecraft are fake and so on, and say that because they claim space is fake, a hoax etc.
So how can a photo of the Earth be taken through a round window in low Earth orbit when flat Earth theorists EXPLICITLY claim that low Earth orbit is impossible because space is a lie, a hoax, fake, etc!
Therefore if you stand by your claim that the photo I provided was taken from low Earth orbit, then you are saying space is real and hence you are going against your own flat Earth theories.
So please try again son, but this time THINK before you reply :-)
Here's my question again: Present your evidence to prove this 1969 FILM photograph of the Earth is CGI (no excuses please);
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/36/5344.jpg
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fawqman2764 - Regarding Polaris, which is actually a fraction off true north btw, hence it circles true north in a circle which is about the width of 3 full moon's (i.e. in a small circle 1.5° in diameter), the stars circling true north is exactly what we expect on a globe Earth.
You would claim it is also explained by stars circling the north pole in your flat Earth. Ok fine, lets hold that image in our heads.
Now here's the problem, at the south pole (that people like Eric Dubay claims to not exist despite the fact YOU can book YOURSELF onto a tour of the south pole if you can afford it) the stars are seen to circle around a point directly overhead called true south, whereas at the north pole the stars also circle around a point directly overhead called true north, but in the OPPOSITE direction to stars at the south pole.
That is also explain perfectly by a globe Earth, but it is not explained at all by your flat Earth, because your FE model only has ONE point where stars are suppose to circle around, and that's around the north pole.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonfriend143 - (Again) Come on my friend, really? :-)
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by ONLY 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your oblate spheroid model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonfriend143 - There is no dirty history from NASA, only false claims made by conspiracy theorists (hence again you can't give me any examples of NASA saying their images from space are CGI).
You also seem to forget that NASA isn't the only government space agency, there are over 70 government space agencies around the world, a great many private space agencies/companies around the world, a great many satellite companies around the world, and so on.
The fact that you think this is all about NASA proves how easy it is for conspiracy theorists to manipulate you.
I'm not going to wade through my post history going back years just to find the threads on Eric and Dave's videos where I had discussions with them, especially when it serves no purpose. But feel free to search yourself :-)
And since you appear to have ignored my previous point... In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up.
So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time! :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReverendRichardSeeland568209 - Oh sure, he won the debate so convincingly (according to you) that I can't find any references to his success here on YouTube or on the internet, and you can't provide any links.
So again, where is it? If what you said was true then Eric and his disciples would have been shouting it out for the world to hear, and yet it's no where to be found!
It seems you have a different definition of the word "won" to everyone else ;-)
And while you here, perhaps you can say which version of a flat Earth you believe in? Because there are a number of versions out there and yet none of you seem to be able to make up your minds (including Eric).
For example;
- Does your flat Earth have a firmament dome? If yes, then how high is it? If no, then why do some claim there's a dome enclosing the Earth?
- Does your flat Earth end at the wall of ice? If no, then how far does the land go beyond the wall? Why do some say it ends at the wall?
- Does your flat Earth rest upon pillars? If yes, then how many pillars are there and where are they positioned?
- Is the sun and moon in your flat Earth shaped like discs or balls?
- How far away is the sun and the moon in your flat Earth?
Also, can you provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth? A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth?
To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - All your points have been debunked countless times, but you simply deny the evidence presented.
Alan Bean did know about the Van Allen belts, but YOU are referring to Bart Sibrel's "Astronauts Gone Wild" where he edits the footage to make it appear that Alan was talking about Apollo 12, when in fact Alan was talking about not being sure if they went through the belts in SkyLab 3 (he was the commander).
Also, the Van Allen belts are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (it would take a WEEK inside the worse parts of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation) and so it was of no importance to the Apollo astronauts. They were only informed about the belts during training for background information, not because it was relevant to their mission.
So, would you like me to address the first 3 points you mentioned before Alan? :-)
Also, the people who built the wonders of the world had all kinds of weird and ridiculous ideas about the human body and how it worked, and yet I doubt you refer to their 'knowledge' when you or someone you love is ill. After all, how can they be wrong, right? :-)
Besides, we've known the Earth is a globe for around 2500 years, so don't they count as wise ancients too?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - You said " No it comes from NASA ie: Naša = to deceive."
Nope, but that does show how easy it is for conspiracy theorists to manipulate and control you.
NASA does NOT mean deceive in Hebrew, that's a lie from those who distort the bible. (you know, the kind of people you believe without question).
The Hebrew word meaning deceive is Nasha, pronounced as "Na-shar" (you can HEAR it on the following link);
www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h5377
NASA in Hebrew, pronounce as "Na-Sar", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take;
www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Word_of_the_Week/Archived/Nasa/nasa.html
So apparently conspiracy theorists think words are the same even if you add an extra letter, which is a load of shiRt :-)
Anyway, to highlight my point further;
https://hebrewwordlessons.com/2019/01/20/nasa-lift-carry-and-bear-the-weight/
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H5375/nasa.htm
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/nasa.html
https://bibleapps.com/hebrew/5375.htm
https://www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H5375-nasa-page-2.html
https://studybible.info/strongs/H5375
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - You said "So if we can believe Nasa then there’s your number, and triangulation of sun’s rays also point to about 3000 miles or so give or take a few."
EXACTLY the same claim is made about the distance of the moon, where flat Earth believers claim the moon and sun are the same size and circle the Earth at the same 3000 mile distance.
But here's the problem...
We can measure the moon's distance DIRECTLY using radio waves without any reference to the structure of the solar system, hence it doesn't require complex mathematics based upon an assumed model of the solar system.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you think the Earth is a globe, or the Earth is flat, or the Earth is hollow/concave or whatever, the measurement of the moon's distance using radio waves will always produce the SAME result, a result which is INDEPENDENT of your beliefs.
Radio enthusiasts since the 1950s have sent signals to the moon and timed how long it takes to echo back. The time measured for the return signal is always consistent with the moon being around 240,000 miles away, not 3000 miles up :-)
For example:
rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/
searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/moonbounce
www.discoverthebluedot.com/news/moonbounce:-record-your-message-to-be-bounced-off-the-moon
We know the measurements are accurate because the timing of the echo of radio signals is how radar works, where they use that time to determine the distance of the object(s) being tracked.
If the moon was only 3000 miles up, then the echo would take a fraction of the time to return compared to bouncing radio signals off an object 240,000 miles away.
This is an important observation which has yet to be explained by any flat Earth theorist, but it is explained by the moon being 240,000 miles away.
And therefore if the size and distance of the moon in the flat Earth model is wrong, then the sun is also the wrong size and the wrong distance in that model.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - And just to pick up on this claim "I’d give you one but your freemasons keep us from exploring those parts of the earth."
A classic flat Earth theorist lie that you fell for :-)
EVERYONE is free to explore where ever they want in Antarctica, there's no military there to stop you!
The problem is, no-one owns Antarctica (that's the point of the Antarctica treaty), so who is going to spend the cash and risk their lives to rescue YOU if something goes wrong after you wandered off without making any arrangements FIRST for a rescue plan?
So no-one is restricted from exploring Antarctica, that's why EVERY YEAR there are expeditions for which NO-ONE in history has EVER reported being prevented from going.
For example, look at this list of expeditions (go to the top of that page too);
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions#21st_century
Again, the issue for explorers is that if they get into trouble then there will be no-one out there to rescue them UNLESS they'd made sufficient arrangements and preparations in advance, and hence they HAVE to follow a pre-planned route (show me a route that has been banned).
Therefore you can't just wander off where ever you like in Antarctica and then expect a massive search operation if you go missing, a search which has to be paid for.
So what exactly is stopping a flat Earth believer from getting onto an expedition to Antarctica when no-one can know if you're a flat Earth believer?
Antarctica is the last unspoiled continent on Earth!
Hence the Antarctica treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming part of it as their own. It protects Antarctica from nations and private companies exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other resources, ruining the environment in the process. It protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes.
But as always, conspiracy theorists like to distort the facts, where in this case it is flat Earth theorists who twisted that treaty into a lie that people are prevented from exploring Antarctica :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - The videos on my channel are for evidence during my discussions in threads, not for having discussions there (most started as either unlisted or private videos, hence there are significantly more that I've uploaded).
The video you refer to is not mine, hence I provided the link to the original video in the video description, so that you or anyone else can go to the original video and discuss it there, with the maker of that video.
And yes, it proves Bart is lying, and if you had even a 1% understanding of the subject you're denying, then you would have realised why Bart's claim was impossible.
The fact that you claim a 'sound studio' is amusing because Bart says the astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, which YOU deny as a flat Earth believer and hence your studio claim, but why would they need to fake being in low Earth orbit just to fake using an insert in a window to fake being half way to the moon? :-)
And here's NASA's budget over the years, explain to me why you think their budget today is the same as their budget back in the 60s;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - It's a shame that I have to ask people like you the following: If truth is on your side, then why do you need to lie and/or spread lies?
Neil did not say the Earth is literally shaped like a pear, and yet you're happy to parrot that claim without doing ANY research yourself. Why is that?
Here's where the pear shape reference originally came from (a simple analogy by Neil to make a point);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So which part of "practically a perfect sphere" do you not understand?
Therefore again, Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
In other words the oblateness of the Earth and the south bulging a fraction more than the north is too small to see in photographs, where to our eyes it looks like a perfect sphere, but measurements shows the Earth is not a perfect sphere.
So again, why do you need to lie to make your case?
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - You said "I’ve seen all your earth pics and they admit to being photoshopped... so there’s that."
Two lies in one, well done :-)
Back in 2002, NASA's Robert Simmon created a series of images of the Earth (not photographs) called "Blue Marble 2", where they were put together using something like 4 months worth of satellite photos taken in earth orbit. Therefore those photos were stitched together using Photoshop to create full composite images of the Earth.
As Robert himself said, one of the most difficult parts of the project were the clouds, because over a period of 4 months the cloud cover all over the world changes, therefore it was a lot of work to make the cloud cover appear natural in the Photoshop images.
In other words, the "Blue Marble 2" images are NOT claimed to be actual photographs of the Earth, instead Robert and NASA explained at the beginning that they were images of the Earth that THEY had put together using 4 months worth of satellite photos, i.e. they are composites of hundreds, if not thousands, of photos!
Robert Simmon ALSO said that the Apollo missions were different because they were sufficiently far from the Earth to be able to fit the entire planet within single photographs, and therefore that was what he was trying to recreate using satellite images (i.e. to recreate the original 'Blue Marble' photograph taken during Apollo 17).
But as expected, conspiracy theorists took that ONE project to recreate images of thefull Earth in 2002 using satellite photos and twisted it into a claim that NASA admits to faking photographs of the Earth using Photoshop, which is as dishonest and it is ignorant, and yet you fell for it hook line and sinker :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "Neil the shill tell us where's the telemetry data for Apollo 11. NASA lost it?"
Where's it's always been, since nothing has been lost.
Telemetry data was always printed out into documents so that the tapes could be reused (the whole point of magnetic tapes!).
After each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables .
So here's the mission report for Apollo 11 (for example) published in November 1969. It even includes the astronaut's heart rate telemetry data as they descended to the moon's surface, their heart rate during their time on the moon and their heart rate when they left the moon's surface (hence proving none of the telemetry data was lost);
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf
So if you want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but why should that mean you MUST blindly believe ALL the hoax claims without question?
And read this too;
www.firstmenonthemoon.com/about.html
Quote: "We have compiled hours of content available from public domain sources and various NASA websites. Thamtech staff and volunteers generously devoted their time to transcribe hours of speech to text. By using simultaneous space and land based audio and video, transcripts, images, spacecraft telemetry, and biomedical data — this synchronized presentation reveals the Moon Shot as experienced by the astronauts and flight controllers."
Hence that's the same telemetry data that conspiracy theorists claim was lost.
The point is, as I said before, once the telemetry data was printed out for a hard copy the magnetic tapes were reused.
So we don't have all the tapes (just as we don't have all the tapes for most space missions of the 60s/70s), but we have all the telemetry data that were ON those tapes .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dodgybodger3124 - Hi, I can help you there :-)
Srch YT for the video "Zoey interviews Buzz Aldrin"
At 7:10 in that video;
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't go to the moon? No! Buzz saying we haven't been to the moon in such a long time? Yes!
Watch the whole video if you have the time, where it's clear that Buzz says we (i.e. himself and other astronauts) did go to the moon :-)
1
-
@dodgybodger3124 - People accused of being part of a conspiracy are always claimed to be scared, or nervous, or |ying, or acting etc. It's standard for any conspiracy theory ;-)
So alarm bell number 1 can be switched off.
The only people who claim the Van Allen belts are impossible to go through and survive are conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves.
I can quote Dr Van Allen's exact words about going through belts, where he says we'd need to remain inside the region of the belts with the highest radiation for ONE WEEK before it could kill us. So passing through in 2 hours is not a problem.
So alarm bell number 2 can be switched off.
And didn't NASA just build and launch the most powerful rocket in history, the SLS, which took the Orion spacecraft to the moon, a spacecraft designed to carry 4 astronauts, where after a 25 day mission to test everything the Orion spacecraft landed in the sea, just like the Apollo missions. That mission was called Artemis 1.
So alarm bell number 3 can be switched off too ;-)
But yes, thanks for polite response and hence making this a good discussion :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leontassone5201 - You said "If all the so called experts can't prove otherwise I'd be confident in saying you got no hope but im listening"
Ok, but first I need to establish that you have a basic understanding of maps (sorry if that sounds a bit patronizing, but it's important to establish a baseline that we can both agree on).
Consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city.
ALL of us can find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the bar scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the flat map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shanepeterman6054 - You said "LOL wow, there is no accurate globe map and you think I have one of FE?!?"
Wrong son, as I will demonstrate.
The MAP of the Earth is just ONE piece of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe.
Take a globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the length and work out the distance in miles (based upon the size of the globe) and it will match that distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air.
That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth. No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you choose to measure
.
NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map.
So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen.
Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged around a globe is accurate, it works, it has worked for centuries, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth.
Next?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shadowsun33 - And now you're going further and further off track :-)
Firstly, you can point out the bad in almost ANYTHING, that doesn't negate the good.
Secondly, I don't care what you believe, but given we're here on a public forum, then we're both free to express our opinions, including challenging those we disagree with.
Thirdly, if you're saying (which appears to be the case) that you don't know the shape of the Earth because its too complex, then you're in no position to claim that others are wrong when they say the Earth is a globe for example.
I know the Earth is a globe because of the FACTS (in numerous fields) which are indisputable, but if you choose to believe otherwise and see yourself as being one of the 'enlightened' people who knows what the future will bring (cue weird and spooky music), then be my guest :-)
1
-
@shadowsun33 - You said " Indisputable evidence that the Earth is a globe??? Have you ever been to space yourself? Have you seen our Earth from space?"
Why would I need to see the Earth from space myself? Just use intelligence and common sense (we have that for a reason, you should try it ;-)).
The MAP of the Earth is just ONE example.
Take a globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the distance and work out the distance in miles and it will match that distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air.
That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth. No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you choose to measure.
NO OTHER SHAPE offers that, much less a flat circle, like the AE/Gleason map.
Flat Earth theorists latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice.
However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)).
For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distance could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed by actual journey's over sea and land);
https://ibb.co/bud1Xf
If the Earth really was flat, then producing an accurate flat (2D) map of a flat Earth would be orders of magnitude easier than creating a 2D map of a Globe Earth? So after over 150 YEARS of published flat Earth books, where is the map?
So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen.
Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged across a globe is accurate, it works, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
@brainstorm3446 - Don't just make it up please, I have a degree in mathematics (well, a combined "Mathematics, Statistics and Computing" degree where I loved the 'Computing' but hated the 'Statistics' part) and so it's clear your level of mathematics is rather low (nothing wrong with that btw, just don't pretend to know more than your level (see what I did there? ;-)).
An example of using cycles for prediction would be the ancient Saros series/cycle, which made it possible to predict solar eclipses centuries into the future, but it can only say what will happen (total eclipse on this day, partial eclipse on that day), it cannot give any more detail than that.
The mathematical model of the solar system featuring moons orbiting planets orbiting the sun, can work out the path of the moon between the Earth and the sun with such accuracy that the exact path of the shadow across the Earth's surface can be calculated to the nearest second, meaning for the next 50 years of total solar eclipses anyone can view a map of the shadow across the Earth and know where they will need to be to see the total eclipse and know the time the eclipse will start and when it will end.
That's the difference!
So where's the mathematical model of a flat Earth that can do the same? That's right, it doesn't exist :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mithrandir
You said "sounds like you have been reading too much flat earth society controlled opposition. it's a cliff not a wall, a wall has two sides."
From Mark Sargent's "Flat Earth Clues"
Quote "If you look at the AE or Flat Earth overhead map, you see the problem. To even determine the scope of the outer wall, you have to circle it. It would have taken months, if not years."
From Eric Dubay's "The Flat-Earth Conspiracy"
Quote "if you set a bearing due South from anywhere on Earth, inevitably at or before 78 degrees Southern latitude, you will find yourself face-to-face with an enormous ice-wall towering 100-200 feet in the air extending to the East and West the entire circumference of the world!"
From Edward Hendrie's "The Greatest Lie on Earth"
Quote "Antarctica is the rim of the flat earth. Upon reaching Antarctica, explorers are first met with a massive ice wall that is between 1,000 and 2,000 feet thick, with 100 to 200 feet of that thickness rising above the water"
Rob Skiba asks "WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THEY DRILLED INTO AN ICE WALL NEAR THE FIRMAMENT IN THE 60s?"
youtu.be/_bebl31yOO0
I can post several more, where you are effectively claiming ALL the above and more are controlled opposition, which is very amusing :-)
So the term "ice wall" or "wall of ice" or "wall" or similar has been used as the description by MANY flat Earth theorists, it's THEIR description, and therefore if you have a problem with that description then YOU need to take it up with them.
YOU go and tell ALL those flat Earth theorists that it's a cliff and not a wall. Is that clear? :-)
Until then, the common description used by flat Earth theorists to describe that structure is a wall, not a cliff, and therefore a wall is what it is according to flat Earth theory.
1
-
@Mithrandir - You said "btw which version of the ball earth do you believe in? a breif summuary in your own words woild suffice."
Well putting aside the fact you think 99% of flat Earth theorists are wrong about a wall, there's only one 'version' of a globe Earth, hence the fact that you think there are many versions says it all :-)
So lets step it up with my proof of the Earth being a globe (and yes, my proof in my own words), which I have presented to countless flat Earth believers over the years and yet none of you can find fault with it.
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first globe denier in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
I look forward to your example of two locations on Earth for which the distances measured on a globe are wrong.
1
-
@Mithrandir - I just realized my reply is not showing up for others, so I'll repost it;
You said "you showed me quotes of other people describing it as a wall, i however do not describe it as a wall, it's a cliff, a cliff shoreline."
I proved leading flat Earth theorists refer to it as a wall, which is why I said you should take it up with them if you have a problem. It is said by them to be an ice wall, a wall of ice, even the side of a cliff is often referred to as a wall (i.e. "cliff wall"). So case closed in the respect.
You said "what your'e doing is arguing semantics, it's pointless"
Yes it's pointless, and yet YOU are the person who started it, not me :-)
I presented my proof of the Earth being a globe in this thread, you'll even find it in the 'ABOUT' section on my channel, where I'm waiting to see if you can be the first flat Earth believer to debunk it, since none have so far (because none of you can).
Proving the movement of the Earth is secondary, where I've never heard of 'Stationary Earth Theory' only 'Flat Earth Theory' and so the shape of the Earth is what we're here to discuss FIRST.
Any questions before you try to debunk my proof of the Earth being a globe that you keep avoiding :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaneennis9314 - You said "He won't debate because he knows he'll end up looking stupid af. And he can't afford that."
You take that view because like so many conspiracy believers you see your conspiracy as being something special, different, important, when it's not.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc?
The list goes on and on, many of which are more popular and widespread than flat Earth.
The point is, why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for all other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I listed above)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaneennis9314 - You said "Helio-centrism is pseudoscience, a fantastical scenario based on a fantasy believed in by you."
The mathematical model for "Helio-centrism" calculates with incredible accuracy countless astronomical events many years and even many DECADES in advance, and hence for centuries has allowed astronomers to prepare well in advance for astronomical events, from lunar/solar eclipses (including the path of totality across Earth's surface), sunrise/sunset times for any location on Earth at any time of year, planet positions as the move across our skies, return of comets, the position of satellites orbiting planets, and so much more.
That PROVES the mathematical model works, it is accurate because it represents reality., i.e. the Earth is a globe orbiting the sun.
In contrast, the flat Earth 'model' calculates absolutely nothing, it predicts absolutely nothing, well except the prediction that people like Eric Dubay will continue to grow richer from gullible flat Earth believers ;-)
You can't even present an accurate flat map of your claimed flat Earth, a flat map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct. That should have been FIRST thing provided and yet it doesn't exist despite over 150 years of flat Earth books. Fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really? Then perhaps you can say which flat Earth you believe in, because there are a number of versions claimed :-)
- Does your flat Earth have a firmament dome? If yes, then how high is it? If no, then why do some claim there's a dome enclosing the Earth?
- Does your flat Earth end at the wall of ice? If no, then how far does the land go beyond the wall? Why do some say it ends at the wall?
- Does your flat Earth rest upon pillars? If yes, then how many pillars are there and where are they positioned?
- Is the sun and moon in your flat Earth shaped like discs or balls?
Also, can you provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth? A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth?
To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice.
However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)).
I look forward to your version of a flat Earth and (if possible) an accurate map of that same flat Earth :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaman3069 - Then just reject science and all the 'evil' that science has created and live a simpler life without science... starting by rejecting the very same technology that you're using right now to send your replies ;-)
A knife is a great tool, a vital tool, where as a species we wouldn't be where we are today without it, but a knife is also a weapon, one which has killed countless people throughout history.
Hence weapons are power, and there isn't a single example of power that isn't abused in by certain people, whether that power comes in the form of weapons, money, science, religion, government, laws, status, resources etc, it's easier for people to just demonise power than it is to focus on the actual abusers of that power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nerfunkal - Irrelevant my friend :-)
Gravity is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as magnetism is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as light is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as electricity is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is.
Hence to explain how gravity works, we have theories of gravity. To explain how magnetism works, we have theories of magnetism. To explain how light works, we have theories of light. To explain how electricity works, we have theories of electricity.
The problem is, when scientists say they don't know what 'X' is, some people take that to mean the scientists are saying 'X' doesn't exist.
But that's not the case, the scientists know "X" exist and they have theories that explains and predicts how "X" works, it's just that they don't know what it really is (Replace 'X' with 'Gravity' or 'Magnetism' or 'Light' or 'Electricity' etc).
I hope that explanation helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And to others who may be reading this thread in future, here's some info that would clearly go over Sophies head.
To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history, which NASA achieved with the Saturn V thanks to increased funding for that purpose.
The key point is - the Saturn V rocket was not built for space exploration or for scientific research, it was all about politics!
The USA needed such a rocket to get men on the moon before the USSR for the massive propaganda coup of capitalism vs communism.
Hence Congress gave NASA a massive increase in funding to make it happen, and once they were satisfied that the USSR can't match them (i.e. mission accomplished), Congress then withdrew all the extra funding for NASA, meaning no more Saturn V rockets could be built and so the planned Apollo missions 18 to 20 were cancelled.
You can see it clearly in NASA's budget over the years;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
It costs as much today to develop such a massive rocket as it did back then, hence NASA's new and more powerful SLS rocket (due to launch this year) has development costs spread over 10 years, where it uses booster rockets and updated versions of the Space Shuttle engines (proven reliability and saving cost).
Simply put, the Apollo program was not sustainable financially, it was never meant to be, instead it was part of the Cold War for which NASA used the opportunity to get as much research and science out of it as they could while it lasted :-|
The USA's return to the moon should be more sustainable this time, and even more so when the private rocket industry takes over with SLS size rockets of their own (and larger) for less cost in future, eg. Space X.
1
-
1
-
@rickstark1917 - You said "Sure. An accurate map is a good representation."
Great. The key point is, you can give that accurate map of your home town/city to someone visiting for the first time, where he/she can not only navigate your entire home town/city thanks to the map, but can also work out the distances for any journey accurately too. All from ONE accurate map.
The other key point is, that same map helps to prove the shape of the Earth.
Why? Because a map is a 2D representation of an area, and so for the map to be accurate the size of the area doesn't matter if it's flat.
Hence the area mapped could be 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on. If it's flat, then we can represent that ENTIRE flat area accurately with just ONE flat map.
So the question is, where is the accurate flat map of a flat Earth where we can take any two locations on the map and measure it to work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct (just like our town/city map), proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of a flat Earth?
No such flat map exists! :-|
1
-
@rickstark1917 - You said "No such map exists for globe earth either."
And that takes us to the CORE of the evidence and hence the proof of the Earth being a globe, because what you've said is incorrect.
Get yourself a decent globe of the Earth, then select two locations on that globe, for example Tokyo in Japan and New York in the USA, and measure the distance between them in millimetres (i.e. as a direct line across the globe of the Earth).
Now measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres.
The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles to the millimetre by using a calculator to divide 24900 by the circumference of your globe in millimetres. Lets call the answer to that calculation 'X', and therefore 'X' is the scale of your globe.
So now you can check the distance between New York and Tokyo by taking the distance you measured on your globe in millimetres and then multiply that number by 'X' to get the distance in miles. It will match the real world distance (well, give or take natural errors in your measurement).
You can now check ANY two locations on Earth using that same method, i.e. measure it in millimetres on your globe and multiply that number by 'X', and it will match the real world distance.
The larger and the better your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good).
So try it please. Get yourself a globe that you can hold and touch, work out 'X' as I described, and now you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations on Earth in miles directly from your globe!
That would be impossible if the map of the Earth around the globe was wrong. That would be impossible is the Earth was not a globe.
That alone proves the Earth is a globe, since there is no flat map of the Earth in existence for which you can do the same :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mr.miller3432 - Hi, I know the scene you're speaking of my friend :-)
From that scene, conspiracy theorists carefully selected what to show their audience and hence they mislead the viewers, where it's easy to be caught out if you don't check the claims yourself.
Hence try looking at the following objectively to see if you come to the same conclusion as before:
Here's the part of the footage that hoax believers don't show you, where we see the astronaut fall, and then calls out for help and the other astronaut goes back to help him up;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocsV9hxMndk&t=130
To recap, we hear the astronaut on the ground say at 2:14 "Give me help!", then see the other astronaut run towards him to help, where he positions himself so that the astronaut on the ground uses his left hand to grab onto the right hand/arm of the astronaut standing up.
Watch that clip several times to see what's happening, and listen to their exchanges which appear to be as follows;
"There you go"
"'kay just push... start pushing on my hand"
"Give me your hand"
"Ok, here we go"
And so with help from the astronaut who went BACK to help him, he gets up in the 1/6 gravity of the moon (i.e. 1/6 his weight on Earth).
Be honest now, after watching the full scene with the original audio several times and without the editing and comments from conspiracy theorists, can you now see that it's not what the conspiracy theorists claimed? :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@suppaduppa - I know exactly what Eric says, and what you claim about the South Pole is completely FALSE.
EVERYONE is free to explore where ever they want in Antarctica, there's no military there to stop you!
The problem is, no-one owns Antarctica (that's the point of the treaty), so who is going to spend the cash and risk their lives to rescue YOU if something goes wrong after you wandered off without making any arrangements FIRST for a rescue plan?
So no-one is restricted from exploring Antarctica, that's why EVERY YEAR there are expeditions for which NO-ONE in history has EVERY reported being prevented.
For example, look at this list of expeditions (go to the top of that page too);
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions#21st_century
Again, the issue for explorers is that if they get into trouble then there will be no-one out there to rescue them UNLESS they'd made sufficient arrangements and preparations in advance, and hence they HAVE to follow a pre-planned route (show me a route that has been banned).
Therefore you can't just wander off where ever you like in Antarctica and then expect a massive search operation if you go missing, a search which has to be paid for.
So what exactly is stopping a flat Earth believer from getting onto an expedition to Antarctica when no-one can know if you're a flat Earth believer?
Antarctica is the last unspoiled continent on Earth!
Hence the treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming part of it as their own. It protects Antarctica from nations and private companies exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other resources, ruining the environment in the process. It protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes.
THAT is the point of the treaty. It doesn't stop anyone from visiting or exploring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lov4570 - Which proves my point, thank you.
None of the flat Earth videos have been deleted, unless by the user or through the channel being deleted (by the user or for breaking the rules).
Any deleted videos would appear as blanks in every playlist that it was added, and yet where is the outcry from FE believers who say all the FE videos have vanished from their playlists?
So instead of listening to those distorting what is being said, here are the facts...
Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if a few years ago I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings", then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos, which is unacceptable!
Following the changes however, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
That's how it should be!
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not difficult (you don't need their exact URL, you just need to be smarter in your search).
That's also how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view, but the videos and links are still there, you just have to work harder and smarter to find them :-)
1
-
@lov4570 - You said "There's no globe model that can be used to travel."
😂 What are you talking about?
ALL navigation maps are 2D projection maps, where ALL are 2D projections of a GLOBE Earth onto a 2D surface. Hence all location references (co-ordinates) are via the latitude and longitude taken from the GLOBE Earth.
Eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections
In the link above, scroll down until you find the Azimuthal equidistant map.
Even that map, the 'Gleason map' that flat Earth believers like to falsely claim as their own, is stated by Gleason HIMSELF to be a projection from a GLOBE in his patent! Yes, Gleason himself says the map is created from a GLOBE of the Earth.
2D projection maps are used because they are easy to carry around, where they can either represent the entire Earth or 'zoom' into regions of the Earth to provide greater accuracy and more detail. Orders of magnitude more convenient and easier and more accurate than carrying a GLOBE of the Earth around!
ALL 2D projection maps are distorted, including the AE/Gleason map, whereas GLOBES of the Earth are not distorted.
If the Earth was flat, then a flat map would exist where there is no distortion and it would be impossible to wrap that map around a globe without distorting it.
Likewise, if the Earth is a globe, then the map around the globe will have no distortion and it would be impossible to flatten that map without distorting it.
In other words, the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe with zero distortion proves the Earth is a Globe.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lov4570 - Nope, conspiracy theorists (who have never sent anything into space themselves!) make that claim by distorting what scientists who have sent craft into space actually say.
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know about the radiation belts named after him, right? ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markisokawa2067 - Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is - it doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sure, the same Eric who says he doesn't know if his claimed flat Earth has an edge or if it has a dome :-)
Besides, should Neil also debate those who claim the Earth is hollow/concave, that the Universe is electric, that the moon is a spaceship, that the Space Shuttle was a hoax, that the ISS is a hoax, that Mars rovers are a hoax, that extra-terrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs, that crop circles are made by aliens, that alien civilizations have been found on Mars and the moon, and so on?
What makes you think flat Earth believers are a special case? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@averagejoe8564 - I find it amusing when people like yourself make it so personal from the start. No discussion, no debate, just straight in there with your insults. Shame :-)
Anyway, don't ask for what you can't present yourself. If you want something you can see with your eyes as proof the Earth is round, then I could provide photos of the Earth, but you will only claim they are fake (like all flat Earth believers).
The problem is, FE believers ask for 'real' pictures of the entire globe Earth when none of you can provide 'real' pictures of th whole of your flat Earth, not even ONE. You can't even provide ONE picture of your claimed wall of ice up against your claimed firmament dome.
So yes, I can provide what I consider to be the best evidence that the Earth is a globe, evidence that no flat Earth believer has been able to debunk. And yes, it is something you can see (perhaps not in the way you think) but it is visual.
Are you sitting comfortably? Ready?...
1
-
1
-
@averagejoe8564 - Anyway, I'll get to the point... my proof centers around the map of the Earth, which is just ONE piece of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe.
So take a globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), and then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the distance and work out what that distance would be in miles, and it will match that distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air.
That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth. No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you happen to choose to measure.
NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map.
Flat Earth theorists latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice.
However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)).
For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distance could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed to be correct by actual journey's over sea and land);
https://ibb.co/bud1Xf
If the Earth really was flat, then producing an accurate flat (2D) map of a flat Earth would be orders of magnitude easier than creating a 2D map of a Globe Earth. So after over 150 YEARS of published flat Earth books, where is the map?
So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen.
Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged around a globe is accurate, it works, it has worked for centuries, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth.
1
-
@averagejoe8564 - Yes, yes, yes, I have have provided you with proof, which you can see with your eyes and even measure yourself.
But like ALL flat Earth believers you cannot debunk it, and so you run away from it instead. So thank you for proving my point so perfectly :-)
You said "An image, a video. 240p, 480p" - And I told you not to ask for evidence that you can't provide yourself, especially when you would just cry "fake" without any proof of it being fake.
Where's your image or video showing the whole of your flat Earth? That's right, it doesn't exist.
Where's your image or video showing your wall of ice up against your firmament dome? That's right, it doesn't exist.
So again, don't be a hypocrite by asking for the kind of evidence you can't provide yourself and evidence that you only dismiss as fake without proof.
Now address my proof that you ran away from.
1
-
@averagejoe8564 - You said "I will not address your proof."
Of course not, because like ALL flat Earth believers, you can't debunk it, so thanks again for proving my point :-)
You said "Haha! 25 years and your still an amateur."
What an incredibly ignorant comment, even by your low standards.
All over the world there are a HUGE number of people who take photography seriously, where it's one of their main hobbies/pastimes and therefore they are referred to as amateur photographers. In other words, they do it for the love of photography, NOT as a career.
Likewise, all over the world there are a HUGE number of people who take astronomy seriously, where it's one of their main hobbies/pastimes and therefore they are referred to as amateur astronomers. Again, they do it for the love of astronomy, NOT as a career.
I can list several more amateur 'professions' (eg. amateur dramatics, amateur football, amateur basketball, amateur radio, etc...).
The fact that you didn't understand that suggests you are either very unintelligent, or you're very young and hence haven't grown up as yet (because it would be embarrassing for a grown adult not to know that).
So stay ignorant son, when you grow up and gain life experiences, perhaps you'll be in a better position to learn.
And finally you said "Follow Christ everyone!"
Flat Earth is a non-Christian belief, therefore if you believe the Earth is flat, then you are not a Christian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aceventura5398 - Again, Polaris is incredibly far away, therefore I'm not here to hold your hand to make you understand distances, but I will address the Polaris never moves claim.
The only reason we call that star Polaris is because it happens to be the closest naked eye star to true north.
True north is the exact point in the sky that all the stars revolve around, where it does change over time very slowly.
Polaris is currently about 0.75 degree off from true north, and so if you pointed a camera at Polaris and zoomed in to create a time lapse video for several hours, then you will notice that Polaris creates an arc for a circle about the width of 3 full moons.
So like all the other stars seen when we're north of the equator, Polaris ALSO revolves around TRUE NORTH, and therefore Polaris does move, just not as much as the stars around it.
Now ask yourself why all flat Earth theorists incorrectly claim Polaris never moves, which is why you believed it never moves too :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rossreynolds4835 - You said "NASA is controlled by the government" and "USA schools were forced to teach the round earth theory".
So what?
Are we to believe that ALL flat Earth believers lack the intelligence to get careers working for NASA, or working for the 70+ other space agencies worldwide, or the many private space agencies worldwide, or the many satellite companies worldwide, etc? What exactly is stopping them from getting those jobs?
Last time I checked, there wasn't a test that can identify flat Earth believers (like the test for Replicants in Blade Runner). No-one can know you're a flat Earth believer unless YOU tell them, so why hasn't a SINGLE flat Earth believer ever got into a position to expose the claimed flat Earth from the inside?
Consider ALL the people that flat Earth believers claim are hiding the secret of a flat Earth, such as space agencies and companies, the military forces claimed to be keeping us away from the wall of ice, members of governments, and so on.
And what about all the people claimed to be making sets and putting astronauts in harnesses to fake weightlessness, or faking such space footage in water tanks? What about all the people behind the cameras and sound and props? What about all the computer graphics experts creating the countless thousands of claimed CGI photographs and CGI video effects?
The list goes on and on and on, and yet somehow not a SINGLE flat Earth believer has manage to get a job in ANY of those careers to expose the flat Earth conspiracy based upon their firsthand experience.
So can't you see just how stupid it is to believe that out of the MASSIVE number of people who would have to be involved in hiding a flat Earth for all these centuries, that not even ONE person would have exposed it and revealed their role in the claimed conspiracy? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markemery6104 - You said "Gravity has never been and can not be proven it’s the necessary mystery ingredient needed to facilitate he globe illusion."
Nope, that's what flat Earth theorists have told you, but they are lying to you for their own motives.
So here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
[Disguised link to get through YT filter]
tiny😮cc🖍️z4eiuz
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flint20001 - I'm fully aware of ALL those verses, so here's the problem with your claim...
...Firstly, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit!
Secondly, Christian churches/denominations for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. Fact. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because we can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary.
In other words, the ONLY thing they had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
So all those who tell you the Bible says the Earth is flat are attempting to corrupt your faith, where apparently they are succeeding :-|
1
-
@flint20001 - Nope, everything I've said is correct, you simply cannot handle facts son :-)
Btw, your reply is shadow banned, no-one else can read it!
And I see no reason to tell you how to get around the ban given the rudeness of your reply to me. Anyway...
Your reply is just ignorance from start to finish, but I must pick up on you referring to Isaiah 40:22
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various bibles;
King James: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims: "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible: "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
That's because the Hebrew word being translated by those bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" - Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.
Therefore circle, globe and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
So as I said, there are no verses that EXPLCITLY say the Earth is flat, it is only implied by people like you who distort the Bible.
Stop being a traitor to your faith!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Juan - So are you telling me that you don't KNOW that the earth is flat, you only believe it MAY be flat? If your beliefs are strong enough, then you KNOW, you don't merely believe.
Therefore I think you're making excuses not to discuss the moon landings (which is fair enough if you don't want to discuss it, but just say so if that's the case :-)).
You said "There's this documentary called 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" Go watch it and learn."
I've watch EVERY moon landing hoax documentary and discussed almost every moon landings hoax claim (just as I've read ALL the major flat earth books released over the last 150 years!), so I know that documentary inside out.
Please watch and learn how the makers of that documentaries lied to you to make his case;
YouTube video: Addendum: A Funny Thing Happened...
goo.gl/sm2mN3
It's only 4.5 minutes long, but shows you how the film maker Bart Sibrel deliberately lied :-)
The lesson is, don't always assume that those who tell you what you want to hear are being honest, don't assume they would never lie, don't assume they can't ever be wrong, don't assume they are interested in spreading the 'truth'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Juan - Sorry, I got no notification of your reply otherwise I would have answered 2 hours ago :-)
Anyway, look at this photo taken on earth - goo.gl/a9apNT
According to you and certain hoax believers, that photo on earth is fake, must be nearly light source rather than the sun, right? So tell me, in what way are the shadows in that photo any different to the Apollo photo you provided?
Here's another example, this time of distant vehicles and nearby rocks;
goo.gl/6qSNYB
Except the sun being on the other side, we can clearly see shadows directions just like your Apollo photo, which again means you must believe that photo taken here on earth has a nearby light source instead of the sun, right? :-)
Let's go further and flip that photo, change it to black and white and draw the same yellow lines as your Apollo photo;
goo.gl/qqJKwp
So how is that any different to the Apollo photo you provided.
I could go even further on your Apollo photo, but surely the above is enough for you to see that the hoax claim is wrong.
If not, then explain why we can see exactly the same shadows cast by the sun here on earth if it was impossible as claimed.
1
-
Juan - I don't think anyone looking at the photos I provided would say they are reaching my friend when they demonstrate EXACTLY THE SAME shadows that you claimed to be impossible, and saying you can't believe the footage is really an argument from incredulity ;-)
You said "Also how all the tech to go to the moon was supposedly destroyed"
Not correct, as I will explain, so please read on my friend because this is important...
It is destroyed in the SAME WAY that supersonic passenger airplane tech was 'destroyed' with the lost of Concorde, which first flew in 1969, hence we passengers today can no longer cross the Atlantic at supersonic speeds! It is destroyed in the SAME WAY that the 'space truck' tech was 'destroyed' with the lost of the Space Shuttle, where today we can't carry out many of the tasks made possible by the Space Shuttle, and the USA currently can't even put a person into space.
The point is, NONE of that tech is destroyed, it's simply old and retired. If a company wants to send people across the Atlantic at supersonic speeds, then it will build a brand NEW plane, not recycle the old Concorde tech. If a nation wants the capabilities offered by the Space Shuttle, then it will build a brand NEW Shuttle, not recycle the old Space Shuttle tech.
Likewise, sending people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history. The Saturn V was such a rocket and STILL holds the record by FAR. We don't have such a rocket today but we will soon, hence no-one is going to recycle old Apollo tech to send people to the moon, they will build brand NEW tech. Look up the 'Falcon Heavy' and future rockets from Space X, and look up the soon to be launched "SLS Rocket" from NASA/Boeing.
You said "all Apollo files were lost like that's ultimate confirmation it was all BS"
Not correct, as I will explain - NASA recorded a backup of the Apollo 11 moonwalk TV broadcast onto telemetry (magnetic) tapes just in case the live broadcast worldwide didn't work. If the live TV broadcast failed, then NASA would have processed their backup and send it out to TV studios worldwide. But the broadcast DID work, the whole world saw it live, so NASA's backup wasn't needed any more, and THAT is what they lost (i.e. their BACKUP).
NONE of the photos from Apollo 11 was lost, none of the color TV footage on the way to the moon and back was lost, nor was any of the film lost. Absolutely nothing was lost from Apollo 12, or Apollo 13 (the failed mission) or Apollo 14 or Apollo 15 or Apollo 16 or Apollo 17.
So how is losing the BACKUP of the SAME Apollo 11 moonwalk that we've ALL seen already and losing nothing else an example of NASA losing ALL THE APOLLO FILES?
Can't you see that you've been caught out by conspiracy theorists who twisted what actually happened?
Hence I'll end by saying if you choose to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine your entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't mean you MUST believe ALL the hoax claims WITHOUT QUESTION. A true skeptic is suspicious of ALL info coming from ALL sides, not just the info from one. Therefore you should apply equal skepticism towards conspiracy claims too if you want to find the 'truth'.
Anyway, you take care too and thanks for an enjoyable discussion :-)
1
-
Come on Juan, really? :-) You actually think the SAME people who claim ALL photos of the earth from space are fake, that ALL video of the earth from space are fake, that ALL live video of the earth from the International Space Station are fake, that ALL photos of the earth from satellites are fake and so on, are going to accept the footage you demand?
And since when is it ALL up to NASA to produce the footage you ask for btw? There are over TWENTY space agencies worldwide, agencies who have sent their own spacecraft to the moon, to the planets, to asteroids and to comets (and even landed on a comet), so why don't you conspiracy believers ever ask them?
In other words, please explain your obsession with NASA when over twenty space agencies can do what you guys often ask NASA to do :-)
So no Juan, it would NOT shut you up or shut up any of the conspiracy believers, because even if NASA did as you asked, then along will come your conspiracy theorists who will upload videos claiming it's fake, that it's all CGI, and people like YOU will agree with them, as you've shown already in the conspiracy claims you believed without checking the evidence for yourself.
The fact that you blindly parrot the 'composites' claim without even knowing what composites are effectively proves my point, i.e. that you and your fellow conspiracy believers will FIND reasons and excuses to claim that ANY footage is fake.
You will NOT look at the footage you requested and say to yourself, "Gee, I guess I was wrong then", so don't pretend otherwise, because on the SAME DAY you will start to seeing videos claiming it's fake and you will WANT to believe them and therefore you will believe them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just stating a fact because I've seen it happen time and time and time again over the years, with goal posts constantly being moved by conspiracy theorists :-)
1
-
Juan - Only a tiny MINORITY of people think it's a hoax, therefore only a minority wouldn't believe it because they WANT to believe it's a hoax. For example, look on YouTube for videos of those who claim airplanes are holograms and then tell me what footage you can provide that will convince them otherwise :-)
You said "I think you need to look at all the footage again with a different mindset", with all due respect my friend, I do look at the footage and ALL the claims objectively, which is something most conspiracy believers can't say themselves :-)
That is, as an amateur astronomer for over 20 years I didn't automatically dismiss the Apollo hoax belief as nonsense, instead I acquired and READ ALL the major Apollo hoax books, watched ALL the published Apollo hoax documentaries and have watched countless hoax videos on YouTube, therefore there's barely a hoax claim that I haven't discussed in detail.
Why? To find out a) What the conspiracy beliefs are and what claims are being made, and b) To find just ONE CLAIM that holds up to scrutiny and hence supports the conspiracy.
The same for the flat earth claims, where I acquired and READ ALL the major flat earth books released over the last 150 YEARS and I'm waiting for that ONE definitive proof of a conspiracy.
Remember, to prove a hoax or that the earth is flat, you only need to prove that ONE of the conspiracy claims are true with evidence that can't be disputed. That's all! And yet I'm still waiting to find that ONE claim for either the moon landings or flat earth that is correct after all these years.
1
-
Juan - You asked "If you don't mind me asking, what prove did you manage to find for the globe earth?"
I don't mind at all, but I could spend and hour or more listing all the proof for a round earth, but lets keep it VERY simple and practical, lets focus on the MAP of the earth itself as proof.
Take a globe of the earth today that you can buy from many shops in YOUR country and look at ANY country/nation on that globe. It's size and shape will correspond to any 2D map of that one particular country/nation.
Because maps are trying to represent a 3D globe earth onto a 2D surface, there's a certain amount of distortion as a result, where the larger the area the greater the distortion. But generally, what you see in a 2D map of one specific country is the same as what you would see of that country on the globe earth.
However, if the earth was flat, then the arrangements of land masses on that flat earth would be 2D and therefore it should be possible to represent the ENTIRE flat earth as a 2D map without any distortion, and yet no such map exists!
Flat Earth believers latch onto the AE/Gleason 2D projection map because it stretches Antarctica around the outside, but it is clear to any person that the further south you look in that map, the more the countries are distorted. Hence Australia for example is stretched to TWICE its actually size and is shaped like a sausage.
In contrast, Australia on a globe of the earth is perfect and matches exactly what we see in maps.
Also, we can take ANY two cities in different parts of the earth and measure their distance PHYSICALLY with a piece of string on a globe of the earth with reasonable accuracy (just need to convert the length to miles). But for the flat earth, there's no 2D map in existence that will allow you to do that accurately!
Again, if the earth was flat, you should be able to work out the distance of ANY two locations on earth with a piece of string and/or a ruler with reasonable accuracy, and yet that PHYSICAL activity that the average everyday person can do themselves with a GLOBE of the earth cannot be done with ANY 2D map of the entire earth!
So until flat earth believers can provide a map of the claimed flat earth where the distances between ANY two locations on earth can be measured accurately, then the claim that the earth is flat will remain unfounded :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Juan - No-one said there's only one map, there are a GREAT many 2D projection maps where each have advantages and disadvantages, but what they ALL share are distorted countries around the earth!
What they also ALL share is the fact that they are 2D projections of the SAME GLOBE EARTH you are denying. In other words, the GLOBE EARTH is flattened out to create the SAME maps you speak of and all other 2D projection maps (hence the term 2D 'projection').
And you can try to trivialize the distortion all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you cannot provide a flat earth map where ALL the countries on that map are their true non-distorted shapes, but on a globe they are their true shapes and sizes, i.e. not distorted.
As I said, the arrangement of land masses on a flat earth is 2 dimensional, therefore a 2D map of a flat earth should be PERFECT, and yet no accurate map exists because such a map is impossible.
Flat Earth map = Incorrectly shaped and incorrectly proportioned countries
Earth Globe = Correctly shaped and correctly proportioned countries
Therefore since the globe is the only shape able to represent ALL countries on Earth correctly, then the shape of the Earth is a Globe, whether you like it or not.
But hey, provide the accurate flat earth map that I've been asking for and everything could change :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Juan - You said "There's even an intro to explain the curvature somewhat. Watch it and learn what the world looks like without those fishy eye lenses."
Again Juan, that's an example of people seeing what they want to see, hence it's nothing but ignorance that you're being taken in by (sorry but it's true). You do know there are even people who use such videos as proof that the earth is concave/hollow, right?
Flat earth theorists claim that not only is no curvature ever seen, but they claim the horizon is ALWAYS at eye level, it never drops lower with altitude in the way we would expect on a globe earth.
Well, lets take a moment in your footage where the balloon is settled and horizontal, such at 4:14 onwards. Pause the video at say 4:15 and put something on your screen to mark the height of the middle of the horizon and notice that it remains at that level as the camera rotates.
Now see what happens at 4:33 where we can presume the balloon is even higher, the horizon is LOWER than it was at 4:14, which is something flat earth theorists claims to never happen because they know it would happen on a globe earth.
It would be interesting to know the altitude of the balloon and 4:15 and at 4:33, but whatever it is, according to your flat earth theorists, the horizon should have been at the same level, not lower as the balloon rose higher :)
1
-
1
-
@jdg2921 - Because that the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there, including those that contradict flat Earth claims? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
@ROBERTPUNU - No my friend, firstly the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit!
Secondly, Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because you can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary.
In other words, for most of its history the ONLY thing Christian churches had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
Those who tell you the Bible says the Earth is flat are attempting to corrupt your faith, where apparently they are succeeding :-|
1
-
@ROBERTPUNU - For example, you referred to Isaiah 40:22.
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various Bibles that is being referred to here;
King James Bible (1611); "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims Bible (1582); "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible; "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (1st or 2nd Century AD); "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
New American Bible; "The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth..."
Catholic Public Domain Version; "He is the One who sits upon the globe of the earth..."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English; "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
Matthew's Bible (1537); "That he sitteth upon the circle of the world..."
That's because the Hebrew word 'chug' being translated by those bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
Again, no Christian church in history has ever said the earth is flat, only a globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ROBERTPUNU - I understand exactly what you're saying, and you're wrong.
Have you actually read the original Hebrew and Aramaic text that the churches translated?
No, you haven't!
Therefore all you've EVER read are the TRANSLATIONS of the original text, and hence you have ONLY ever read the interpretations by the TRANSLATORS of that text to produce the Bible's you've read.
So when ALL the Bible translators say the Earth is globe, including those who produced the King James Bible, then the Earth is a globe according to them.
Your opinion is irrelevant, but you're entitled to it of course.
That is, if someone wants to claim the Bible says the Earth is concave or hollow, then that's their right, but it doesn't make them correct.
So again, I'll take the word of those who produced the Bibles you've read :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leesog3203 - Continued... So lets expand that fact about maps of our towns/cities to the entire world.
Take a globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the length and work out the distance in miles (based upon the size/scale of the globe) and it will match the distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air.
That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth. No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you choose to measure.
NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map referred to by flat Earth theorists.
So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen.
Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged around a globe is accurate, it works, it has worked for centuries, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@servo6620 - I'll answer your point in two ways.
1) Men first reached the south pole in 1911/1912, but didn't return until 1956, 44 years later. Men first reached the lowest point in earth's ocean, the Mariana trench, in 1960, but didn't return until 2012, 52 years later. So why would 48 years to return to the moon seem so remarkable? :-)
2) To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in HISTORY, where they achieved that with the massively expensive Saturn V rocket.
But to make it possible, Congress increased NASA's budget by several times what they receive today to allow them to build, maintain and launch rockets/craft like the Saturn V;
Look at NASA's budget over the years and you'll see what made it possible and why it ended;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
Once Congress knew the USSR couldn't get their 'moon rocket' to work and therefore couldn't send their cosmonauts to the moon, Congress withdrew ALL THE EXTRA FUNDING, and so NASA couldn't afford to build any more Saturn V rockets and Apollo missions 18 to 20 had to be cancelled, as were NASA's other plans, such as a moon base!
Now look up NASA/Boeing's SLS rocket due to launch next year. By building upon existing technology and spreading the costs over many years, they have created a rocket that has the size and power of the Saturn V rocket, and hence the SLS rocket will take the Orion capsule around the moon and back to Earth on its debut launch.
In 2023/2024, the SLS is again scheduled to take Orion around the moon and back to Earth, but this time with a crew of astronauts on board for a mission lasting 8 to 21 days.
NASA originally planned to build a lander to take astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon in 2028, but the Trump administration are trying to bring that forward to 2024, but I feel it's more like to happen closer to NASA's original date unless there's competition from elsewhere.
So the rocket is the KEY to getting people to the moon, and the USA will have that technology again once the SLS rocket launches next year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harambey - You said "Also the head of NASA moon landing was a nazi, he used to hang the slowest employees in front of everyone to make them work harder
That’s the man who started all this lol, a fooookin NAZI"
With no evidence that he supported Nazi views or carried out any atrocities (so your hanging comment is a lie that you believed!).
Now listen to flat Earth theorist and 'hero' Eric Dubay from his book "The Atlantean Conspiracy (Final Edition)";
tinyurl.com/yaofv7u3]
Quote: "They say "the winner's write history," and it is absolutely true: the most egregious example in modern times has to be the mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Gremany. Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
Hmmm, so it's poor little Hitler, a peaceful man who has been so cruelly misrepresented by the mainstream, according to Eric.
So who's the real Nazi?
Go ahead and browse through some of the rest of those pages from flat Earth theorist Eric Dubay's book in the link above, the guy who helped the resurgence of flat Earth belief, a guy who is a Nazi sympathizer and a holocaust denier!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@duncanvantongeren4646 - As I expected, you typed a lot just to demonstrate that you have no basis to claim distances are wrong or even questionable :-)
Hence it was amusing to read the following from you about distances in flat Earth claims, quote "but this is not THAT BIG of a problem, since we are dealing with relatively short distances, that would therefore also be more easily checked by other means".
So here's some flat Earth distance videos;
Flat Earth: Chicago Skyline Proves The Earth Is Flat | A Must Watch!
(Uploaded by tayekenzy earth)
Flat Earth Proof: Oahu seen from Kauai more than 90 miles away
(Uploaded by Terry Robinson)
Does This Photograph Prove That The Earth Is Flat?
(Uploaded by okreylos)
And to quote Eric Dubay; "In fact, the record-breaking longest distance zoom photograph ever taken recently showed Pic Gaspard from Pic de Finestrelles a whopping 275 miles away, at a height of under 10,000 feet, where, based on correct curvature calculations, the entire mountain should be invisible behind several miles of curved Earth"
So above are distances of 60 miles, 90 miles, 197 km and 275 miles, ALL stated by many flat Earth theorists and believers to be FACT.
All those distances can be found and measured directly on a globe and they will be correct on that scale.
Now go ahead and name a flat map of a flat Earth where those distances are all correct on that map to scale :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardturpin3665 - So to address your claim in more detail, the girl asked Buzz and I quote "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?". Notice the words "in such a long time". THAT was the context of the question and hence that was the context of Buzz Aldrin's reply to the girl.
Buzz said we haven't gone back because we haven't (a flippant answer). He said it's his question because for YEARS he has been asking exactly the SAME question as that girl, where HE ALSO wants to know why we stopped going to the moon and HE WANTS TO KNOW why we're not going back to the moon!
Here are the exact words spoken...
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
Is that a rather convoluted answer? Yes! Is that Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No! Is that Buzz saying we haven't been to the moon in such a long time? Yes!
So again, why all the untruths from conspiracy believers?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robmitch4unconditionallove - You said "no I can't debunk it.... "
Well, at least you're being honest :-)
The point is, EVERY DISTANCE WORKS on a globe of the Earth, which would be impossible if the Earth wasn't a globe.
That would be like wrapping a map of your city all the way around a globe without distorting it, which would be impossible, because your city is not a globe and so it could never work.
You said "But what I can do.... Is ask for a pic of our globe"
There are countless pics my friend, but FE believers automatically dismiss them as CGI, including pics taken on FILM during the Apollo missions.
My argument is that people should ask for the type of evidence they have themselves, and hence until FE believers can present pics of their claimed ice wall up against the claimed firmament dome, then they shouldn't be asking for pics of the Earth, pics that they would just dismiss as fake :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tj21415 - You said "i just stumbled upon this eric guy and I like how he explains things and gives data and truths to back it up."
Which proves my point! (Sorry, but it's true).
For example, Eric Dubay claims the South Pole doesn't exist and yet you can book yourself onto a tour of the South Pole NOW if you have the cash, and hence take the same tour that hundreds of people take every year, for example;
https://goo.gl/yciTTa
Eric claims no-one has seen the mid-night sun in Antarctica because we are prevented from going there at that time (claim number 57 in his "200 proofs...").
And yet click on 'Discover more' on the link above and you'll find they list "Experience the 24-hour daylight of the Polar summer", which is exactly what Eric claims is a lie.
Hence EVERY claim that Eric Dubay makes has been debunked, because they are either based upon ignorance or (like the example above) based upon lies, which you blindly believed without question.
If you didn't blindly follow Eric, then you would have checked some of the claims he makes for yourself and discover they're false by yourself :-)
Also, you are clearly not a Christian, so what do you consider yourself to be in terms of religion?
1
-
@Tj21415 - You posted: https://youtu.be/X-huF7fRlnA
Thanks for the video, because it's exactly what I meant my friend.
When stunt people do similar somersaults, they have a cable attached to each side of their waists to allow them to rotate.
However, because of the cable, they need to make sure they pull their legs and arms inwards to avoid hitting the cables as they rotate.
You can see this in action on the following link;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlebgX5Uj8g&t=54
As you can see, if their legs or arms aren't kept out of the way of the cables, then they would catch the cable and stop rotating.
Now watch your video again (but mute the sound to avoid distraction) and imagine there's a cable on either side of that astronaut's waist.
Notice how during his somersault he doesn't move his arms in to avoid any cables, instead his arms would have to pass through the claimed cables, possibly twice!
And not only that, notice that the microphone he's holding has a long wire attached, so if he is suspended by a cable, how did the microphone wire pass straight through that cable as he rotated?
Finally, look again at the astronaut in the USMC t-shirt. Notice that he reaches out to grab the astronaut to steady him, but because he's not looking at him directly he almost misses, where he catches the pocket of the astronaut with his little finger and pulls (look carefully).
Hence the video maker completely misinterprets what we're seeing in that footage, where he sees what he wants to see and therefore makes things up without checking if what he's saying is true :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So all you need to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JH-qy7zw - You said "I don't think you're understanding my position, I'm not supporting either side of dogma. I'm saying only that people are more skeptical nowadays because of intentional and/or unintentional bad information. Science is science, but humans are flawed."
Thanks for clarifying your position my friend :-)
However, where we differ is that I see that as being mostly due to the widespread availability of such information and the widespread availability of misinformation, where just like the discussion we're currently having, has been made possible due to the world wide web.
When I was young, most I my access to information came from books, newspapers, TV and radio, where in most cases great efforts were made to filter that information to ensure it was correct, or at least, as correct as it could be.
On the internet however, there is no equivalent filter, and therefore people can say almost anything they like knowing that it could be picked up and spread around as a fact, often because others may WANT to believe it's true and hence will repeat it without checking.
1
-
@JH-qy7zw - Hence the subject of this video, the flat Earth, is nothing new. The first flat Earth book was published over 150 years ago and numerous flat Earth books followed. Most people had never read those books much less heard about them since there was no world wide web back then, and so that's the way it remained for a century and a half for the modern flat Earth movement.
So throughout most of those years the flat Earth was something most people laughed at, even using it as an insult to call others stupid. But today we have people who are happy to call themselves flat Earth believers, all because it has gained traction and a level of acceptability thanks to the world wide web and those who successfully exploited it for that purpose.
My point is, nothing has really changed in terms of governments or science or other authorities, what has changed is the widespread access to information today, good and bad, right and wrong, thanks to the world wide web, which has given a public voice to ideas and beliefs that were once inaccessible to most.
You said "Unfortunately people like absolutes and not to move from those positions. That happens on either side of the spectrum."
Agreed :-)
1
-
1
-
@davidsandall - You said "We do know what causes magnetism- electrons, neutrons, and protons. We can make light"
Again we do not know what magnetism is, therefore we have theories to explain it. We do not know what light is, therefore we have theories to explain it. We do not know what gravity is, therefore we have theories to explain it.
I presented you with two experiments that proves the existence of gravity.
I'm STILL waiting for you to explain the measureable and predictable force of attraction seen :-)
So on a related note, how do YOU know electrons, neutrons, and protons exist?
Did you carry out tests yourself that revealed the atom and its structure?
If not, then name your trusted source for the existence of those atomic particles please, a source that has verified those particles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel - I would be more than happy to enlighten you IF I knew you were willing to listen and hence know that my time isn't wasted.
For example, I have a two volume book (about 600 pages) called African Americans in Science by Charles W Carey Jr.
It's an inspirational reference book that I open at random every so often to read about the achievements of black people in science throughout history (I hope to find a similar book for the rest of the world).
That way I can find out more instead of waiting for black people to become well known just because someone wrote a book that became a Hollywood movie, hence I can find out about the people who are often missing from history books and documentaries and films.
Brilliant men and women like the astrophysicist Dr George R Curruthers, better known for his work during the Apollo missions (which by definition you claim to be a hoax, but please continue...), for example (selected because he can be found on YT);
Commemorating George Carruthers and Apollo 16
goo.gl/ezQgAH
As a side note, here's a photo of the crew cabin for the Apollo Lunar Lander being built (early stage);
goo.gl/gh5qjn
Interesting? Yes? But who cares, right?
So that's where I'm coming from Daniel, but feel free to assume I'm who you prefer me to be, but I prefer to seek out and learn what black people have done and achieved throughout history that most people don't know about, instead of putting down white people (especially in racist ways) and hence achieving nothing.
Regarding the Earth, people have known it's a globe for well over 2200 YEARS (Eratosthenes was the first person to measure the size of the globe earth to a good accuracy a few centuries BC), and for almost 2000 years, ALL Christian churches and ALL churches based upon the bible had said the earth is a globe.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg, so to claim proof of the earth being a globe comes from NASA (formed only 59 years ago) is nonsense.
You said "U just have ur religion of science."
Hence I assume you're not religious :)
1
-
Daniel - I got a fraction of your reply in my notifier window, but it does not show up in the thread (perhaps you added links? Or edited it too many times? Either way, you have caused it to be flagged as spam and hence no-one can see it.
Fortunately I have the notification email.
However, you automatically dismissing a book that you haven't read (on racist grounds) that list the achievements of a great many black American scientists, many who have NEVER EVER been given the recognition and credit they deserve, is shameful! Especially coming from a black guy who has done nothing in his life that comes close to the achievements of such individuals (with all due respect :)).
And don't refer to yourself as "we" again please, it's extremely pretentious.
You're not interested in history, you are only interested in your own preferred version of history, which is something completely different.
Now lets get back to the heart of this subject, where you ignorantly said "In the history of cosmology you should understand the shape the earth never was proven"
Wrong, the shape of the earth has been proven to be a globe, for a few thousand years in fact, hence the fact that you couldn't tackle the 5 basic FE questions I put to you proves your ignorance.
Still, I smiled at your pompous and egotistical comment of "You cannot hold a candle up to me".
I prefer to let my posts do the talking son.
So either put up or shut up over those flat earth questions. I shot down your naive comment about the map and yet you have yet to offer a counter argument. So where is it given that you believe yourself to be so informed and so clever? Where is the non-distorted flat earth map that I asked you for?
Again, if the earth is flat then a 2D map will be a representation of a 2D arrangement of land masses (i.e. the earth), which means there should be ZERO distortion in a 2D map of a flat earth.
So go find me that accurate non-distorted flat earth map. No more excuses please, since no accurate non-distorted flat earth map means the earth is not flat. Fact :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k9slife - You said "why do they dig through mountains and flatten all hills in front of them,"
Well duh! ;-) Because mountains represent a huge RISE in the land, and so if they can't find a safe and manageable route around the mountain for the train to travel (as some have), then they will blast through PARTS of the mountain instead of trying to go over it, hence carve out a path around the side or dig a tunnel through, or both.
So again, your argument is false.
Consider this. Take an A4 size map of an area with hills and mountains and valleys that you want to lay a train track. Imagine if the longest side of that A4 map represent 25 miles. If you lay that map on a perfectly flat table, then the curvature of the Earth would be the equivalent of raising the middle of your map by just 0.25 millimetres!
If you made a model of that same area based upon the A4 map, then a 1 mile high mountain on your map would be 12 millimetres high on your model!
Think about that please.
The mountain you have to deal with rises up 12 millimetres (1.2 cm) in a small section of your model, whereas the curvature of the Earth only raises your model up to a maximum of 0.25 millimetres at the centre!
So as I stated, when laying down railway tracks, the engineers are only concerned about the rise and fall of the landscape itself, not the curvature of the Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@5jjt - With all due respect, nothing is being thrown at Christians, and I think it's rather insulting to act as if Christians are weak little sheep cowering from the evil wolves :-)
The Bible doesn't explicitly mention the shape of the Earth. Hence although the Hebrew word for "ball" can be found in the Bible, it is never used to describe the shape of the Earth.
Likewise the Hebrew word for "flat" can also be found in the Bible, but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Hence Christians arrived at the shape of the Earth through other means, eg. science and astronomy and mathematics, and therefore nothing was thrown at them or forced upon them.
So can you not see the problem with those who claim the Bible says the Earth is of a specific shape when it's never explicitly stated in the Bible?
Therefore those who are doing the deception you speak of, are those claiming the Bible says the Earth is flat. Because they are CHOOSING to interpret certain verses within certain Bibles that way, where at best they can only claim it IMPLIES a flat Earth, but in no way does it explicitly say the Earth is flat.
Simply put, if any person thinks the Earth is flat then that person cannot call himself (or herself) a Christian :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whataworld369 - You said "And many skeptics like myself..."
Skeptics apply that mindset equally, not to just one side only.
Therefore you are a flat Earth believer, a globe denier, not a skeptic :-)
And what's so important about flat Earth that Neil should make it a special case?
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realeyesnolies6424 - Also, what better person to listen to about the Van Allen belts than Dr Van Allen himself...
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year!).
Therefore if the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
I hope that information helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyornelas9374 - You said "out of curiosity how do get from me saying the Bible is the truth as I'm not a Christian?"
Because flat Earth is NOT a Christian belief, so those claiming the Bible says the Earth is flat are deceivers.
For example, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit !
Also, Christian churches/denominations for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because you can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary.
In other words, the ONLY thing they had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
Those who tell you the Bible says the Earth is flat are attempting to corrupt your faith, where apparently they are succeeding :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tabascoraremaster1 - While I wait for your quote, you also said "...and Neil Disgrace refuses to go in debate."
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wsxcde21 - With regards to Neil, he doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims (including the conspiracy theories that you don't believe yourself) then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's a few quotes from Nikola Tesla that you can find yourself, where he confirms the Earth is a globe;
"I may state, that even waves only one or two millimeters long, which I produced thirty-three years ago, provided that they carry sufficient energy, can be transmitted around the globe"
"Invariably it was found that these waves, just as those in the air, follow the curvature of the Earth and bend around obstacles"
"At 3600 m.p.h the plane travels about 19,500 miles. Earth's rotation adds 5500 to the total"
"Each of them will be preferably located near some important center of civilization and the news it receives through any channel will be flashed to all points of the globe"
"to utilize the heat contained in the earth, the water, or the air for driving an engine. It is a well-known fact that the interior portions of the globe are very hot"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegoodshepherd7777 - There is curvature, but we can come to that later.
Let me put the following to you with regards to Eric's "200 proofs".
Download Eric Dubay's "200 proofs" free eBook (a quick search on Google will find it).
Here's just one example of the ignorance of Eric Dubay;
In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up.
So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time!
Seriously, can you not see the major flaw in his argument? :-)
Just look at these examples of sun rays (crepuscular rays, or God rays) through trees (replace [SLASH] with /);
goo.gl[SLASH]XNnweq
See how many photos of trees you can find there showing the sun's rays passing through the trees in EXACTLY the same way we see the sun's ray's passing through clouds in Eric's photo.
Therefore if you apply the SAME logic as Eric, then those rays through the trees proves the sun is not 93 million miles away, nor is it 3000 miles up, but instead the sun is just above the trees! Right? :-)
So come on, can you really not see the MAJOR flaw in proof number 125?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegoodshepherd7777 - So while I wait for you to explain Eric's sun distance claim from that photograph (no more cowardly excuses please :-)), I'll address this comment from you.
Quote "You can’t prove gravity dude, they even admit this."
Wrong, gravity is a proven fact.
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said "Eddie is like me in the sense of not believing everything they are told, he always questions the truth."
And 99.999% of people who claim that are lying to themselves :-) Because they (you) don't question everything you're told, you ONLY question everything that official authorities say (governments, scientists, teachers, doctors, etc).
In other words, you only question ONE-SIDE, which is not being open minded as you claim, but is in fact the complete opposite.
So if you question everything, please list 3 claims that you question from those who say the Earth is not a globe please, and explain why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - Men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972, those are the fact my friend.
But we can't just make up our own versions of space and expect it to be taken seriously.
For example, you said "I believe that the earth is round, yes, and that man can only be in orbit, and cannot go beyond van allen belt, and that most theories of various universes, nebulae, space travel, aliens are all fantasies"
So please say who you trust for the information that you believe please (trusted sources), making sure those sources have actual experience.
For example, how do you know the Van Allen belts even exist? Who told you?
Remember, the Van Allen radiation belts are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE and hence can't be seen or detected from Earth's surface, which is why they were not discovered until 1958 when rockets with radiation detectors flew into them.
Therefore the ONLY people we can fully trust about the Van Allen belts are those who have built rockets/spacecraft that have flown into the belts to measure the radiation.
So if you trust those sources when they say there are INVISIBLE belts of radiation around the Earth, then you must also trust those sources when they say the radiation is not a problem for people to pass through in just a few hours.
But if you're saying the radiation in the belts is fatal no matter what and so we can't pass through them, then those same sources must be lying about the radiation and therefore we can't trust them about there being any radiation belts at all!
So which is it? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said " you have every right to believe, but at least don't block comments, because you have videos that don't make sense like the shadows one, what do you mean with that video?"
Because I'm not trying to grow my channel by attracting people there just to get clicks/views, I simply upload videos for use in discussions, like the one we're having here :-)
There are far more videos uploaded than the ones you're seeing, where I make some public when it makes sense.
As for the video with the shadows, that was to debunk a claim within the SAME DOCUMENTARY that your wires video comes from, called "What Happened on the Moon", where David Percy was making claims that shadows seen in certain Apollo footage was impossible in the sun and therefore proves they used artificial lights.
My shadows video matches the angle and shadow lengths seen in the Apollo video, proving we see the same changes in shadow size here on Earth in the sun as we saw in the Apollo footage, proving the SUN cast those shadows and not an artificial light.
So yes, it doesn't make sense on it's own (I intended to use it in a video that debunks that hoax claim) but never go around to it.
But again, that's because I'm not trying to grow my channel, I'm only using it to hold information for debates :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said "can u see the wires? =P"
That's a rather silly argument which is not comparable.
Have a look further into the effects of "2001" since YOU brought it up.
Watch the following two part video (10 minutes each) that lists ALL the problems with the "2001" moon scenes;
YouTube Title: Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 1)
YouTube Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw
YouTube Title: Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 2)
YouTube Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK3Jnl6Zyhk
In the scenes shown in part 2 in particular, notice that no attempt is ever made to simulate 1/6 gravity for 'astronauts' on the lunar surface. Instead, they are made to walk slowly with precise steps, with ZERO signs of 1/6th gravity throughout.
To this day, no science fiction film or any sci-fi series worldwide has recreated the perfect 1/6th gravity seen in hour upon hour of uncut Apollo footage (where even the kicked up dust falls at 1/6 gravity). Not even the world's best special effects experts have been able to recreate perfect 1/6th gravity without CGI (which they didn't have during Apollo), and even today, CGI still doesn't look quite right.
Moon hoax believers typically claim slow motion and/or wires was used to fake the Apollo footage in 1969-1972. But if that was the case, then the best special effects experts would have matched and then surpassed the 1/6th gravity seen in Apollo within a few years of the moon landings using slow motion and wires!
So the reason it hasn't been matched is because it's impossible to create perfect 1/6th gravity in a studio here on Earth.
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said "but again, I don't want to argue with anyone, let alone an American patriot"
Except I'm not American, so nice try but you missed the target :-)
There's no evidence of NASA lying, but countless examples of conspiracy theorists lying.
You said "...and you may have noticed that I'm using the translator to explain what I mean, and I can't always do it in a better way"
Well done :-)
You said " Therefore, we stop here, you believe but I do not, and we are all well, because I am no longer unhappy or happy believing what I believe. this subject adds nothing to my life."
That's fine, I wish you well.
But I would say that although it adds nothing to your life, I always believe that facts are worth defending and truth is worth defending, whether it matters to some people or not :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Firstly, addressing the POINTS that people make on a public forum is not trolling.
Secondly, on a serious note, please try to be one of the rare flat Earth believers who actually TRIES to understand gravity (I don't mean that sarcastically, instead I genuinely mean that).
You don't have to believe it, but that shouldn't stop you trying to understand it.
Your question of "If gravity is so powerful, why are there clouds in the sky?" is a perfect example of you not understanding gravity, where a) You think it's ALL about the Earth attracting objects to the surface, and b) You forget that all matter on Earth has weight, including air.
So are you willing to TRY to understand how gravity works even if you don't believe it exists? If so, then I'll be happy to continue :-)
1
-
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - None of your videos addresses my proof of gravity, instead they're just examples of videos you blindly believe and hence you've allowed him to do your thinking for you (with all due respect :-)).
So tell me what YOU think Tony! That is, tell me which version of a flat Earth you believe in, because there are a number of versions claimed :-)
For example;
- Does your flat Earth have a firmament dome? If yes, then how high is it? If no, then why do some claim there's a dome enclosing the Earth?
- Does your flat Earth end at the wall of ice? If no, then how far does the land go beyond the wall? Why do some say it ends at the wall?
- Does your flat Earth rest upon pillars? If yes, then how many pillars are there and where are they positioned?
- Is the sun and moon in your flat Earth shaped like discs or balls?
- How far away is the sun and the moon in your flat Earth?
Also, can you provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth? A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth?
To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice.
However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)).
I look forward to finding out your version of a flat Earth and (if possible) an accurate map of that flat Earth :-)
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Nope, my gravity experiments were 100% proof of gravity that you couldn't debunk.
When you attempted to do so, you presented a video from an Electric Universe believer, where you clearly didn't understand that the EU theory says the FORCE that science calls gravity DOES exist, but they say science is wrong to say it's a DIFFERENT force called gravity, but instead they say that gravity is actually explained by the electrical nature of matter.
That is, according to the EU theory of the video YOU provided, everything we see from gravity happens, hence they say the laws of gravity are correct, but they say it's electricity not a different force.
In other words, your own video proves the results I provided, it only disagrees with the force that causes it. And also, the EU theory says the universe structure and movement is EXACTLY as science reports it to be (globe Earth orbiting the sun), except they say electricity instead of gravity is responsible.
So I suggest you do a little bit of research first before posting videos that you found on YouTube after a search, videos that says the Earth is a globe, NOT flat :-)
1
-
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Wrong, because you don't understand what a vacuum is.
A vacuum, from our point of view, is an absence of air!
Most people know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude, i.e. there's less air as we climb. I'm sure you know that too, hence I'm sure you are also aware of the difficulty in breathing for mountain climbers and balloonists or anyone at high altitudes.
So lets go higher...
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 TIMES less air compared to sea level, that's a medium vacuum.
At 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's also a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is a MILLION times less air, that's a high vacuum.
Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Therefore there isn't a sharp line where we suddenly go from our pressurized atmosphere to the vacuum of space, instead it is a gradual process, where with increasing altitude there's decreasing air, resulting in gradually increasing vacuum conditions as I've shown above (normal pressure -> low vacuum -> medium vacuum -> high vacuum -> ultra high vacuum and so on).
So given that explanation of how we encounter increasing vacuum conditions with altitude as there's less and less air, you should now understand how we go from the pressure of our atmosphere here on the surface of the Earth to the vacuum of space without a barrier in between.
Next? :-)
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - That's called willful ignorance, something you should have grown out of by now. I don't need to test it myself (when and how did you test that atoms exist?), countless people have tested and measured our atmosphere LONG before NASA ever existed, hence it's amusing to see the obsession that flat Earth believers have with NASA, where you seem to think everything began with NASA.
As I said, you didn't even know what a vacuum is, and in addition to that, you clearly don't even know that air (like all gases) has mass and hence here on Earth it has weight.
You said "I used to think like u a believer in globular earth anything flung at me"
And then you watched YouTube videos and became no different to all those who claim the Earth is hollow, the Earth is concave, the Earth is convex, the moon is hollow, the moon is a spaceship, the moon is a hologram etc, where they all insist they are 100% right and everyone else needs to wake up :-)
You said "Who is it that pulls ur strings?" and "I’m sure ur just trying to protect ur livelihood".
Sure, the classic conspiracy believer's attack of "You are being paid...", the discussion equivalent of "In case of Emergency - Break Glass!" :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Ok, you still haven't answered my questions, but you've put forward some other FE claims which we can look at.
You said "Water, it always finds its level anyone can try and test simple experiments on ur own to prove that water is flat,level and not curved."
Nope, water 'finds its level' thanks to gravity. Place water into weightless conditions (i.e. negate the effects of gravity) and water pulls itself into a ball, it never flattens out. Just look at numerous water experiments on board the ISS for example.
You said "Sea level is level and there is still no proof of curvature".
Curvature is clearly seen here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9mRkNNwHjo
And here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA
And here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROaZ9cyTO4
You said "I could go on for hours trying to educate u on all sorts of topics but u get paid for this and I don’t"
If I was being paid, then I would make numerous fake FE believer accounts to post ignorant comments that make FE believers appear stupid, but fortunately there are people like you doing that already (see, it's easy to throw around insults ;-)).
You said "Critical thinking is taken away at an early age" as you've demonstrated here by showing how much flat Earth theorists have brainwashed you into believing the Earth is flat (see, it's easy to throw around insults ;-)).
So lets both try a little less insults and focus instead on the details and the facts. Yes?
While you try to address the points I made above, would you like me to state one example (of many) that proves the Earth is a globe?
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Denial isn't a counter argument. The videos I provided ALL demonstrate clear curvature of the sea, something you claimed didn't exist.
Lake Pontchartrain is 100% proof, so no more words needed. And if you think the Mile markers should appear to be leaning forward, then state exactly how much and how you would measure it in that footage. In other words, either put up or shut up :-)
The Cargo ship video is a perfect example which shouldn't exist if the Earth was flat. Show me a video for example where someone arranges objects on a perfectly FLAT table, then lowers the camera and the objects closest to us appear on the table but the object at the back appear partially below the table.
The 3rd video can be created by ANYONE who goes there, therefore you saying it looks fake is irrelevant. Where are the videos from flat Earth believers who have gone there to film it for themselves and shown a different result? That's right, they don't exist because the results would be the same :-)
Therefore curvature has been proven, where your only argument here is denial, and hence only prove my point.
Interesting that you had nothing to say about the fact that water is only level when influenced by gravity, where taking away the effects of gravity results in water pulling itself into a ball.
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Nope, you even presented a video from an Electric Universe believer who proved gravity exists, but as an EU believer he said the force under discussion is not called gravity, instead it is based around electricity (ergo, the Electric Universe). In other words, the force exists, he confirms that, he only questions WHAT that force is!
And it's been proven that without gravity water is not level, it will instead pull itself into a sphere.
So far you have failed to debunk the videos I provided, and better still, you provided a video that confirms the FORCE that science calls gravity, where your video only disputes WHAT that force is (so nice own goal there :-)).
And earlier I asked you if you wanted to see MY evidence of the Earth being a globe, and yet you appear to be afraid to say yes :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HuWhiteNat - Your last reply doesn't show up in my notifier window, but anyway...
You said "no, I’ve observed the high level debates. Your side gets obliterated over and over."
No, that's a weak argument where you're effectively admitting you have no counter arguments to the points I made earlier :-)
So again, when an object like a ship or boat is too far away for you to see it with the naked eye, then you have no basis to claim it has travelled far enough to have vanished below the horizon, and therefore ALL those flat Earth boat claims are proven to be wrong.
You said "Also, the Bible suggests flat earth."
No it doesn't, which is why ALL Christian churches in history say the Earth is a globe (a stationary GLOBE at first), where none of them have EVER said the Earth is flat. Fact!
You said "The globe model is relatively recent...."
No, people have known the Earth is a globe for around 2500 years, and Christian churches have known the Earth is a globe throughout the entire history of Christian churches.
Flat Earth is not a Christian belief, only a globe Earth is :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bojanivanovic6850 - You said "and also every nasa video is curved cause of fish eye lense and then you have amateur baloon and no fucking curve."
That's completely false, and is actually a demonstration of ignorance and lies on BOTH sides.
The problem is, videos at altitude claiming to show curvature or flatness are invalid tests unless people take into account the distortion caused by the field of view of the lens, and I've never seen anyone do that on either side of the argument.
For example, look carefully at videos making such claims and you'll notice that the higher the horizon is above the center of the video, then the greater the curvature of the Earth. But the lower the horizon is below the center of the video, then the more the Earth appears concave! (see link below).
And notice that there's a 'sweat spot' near the center of the video where the earth appears to be flat.
This change in the shape of the Earth depending on where the horizon is in relation to the center of the video is due to the distortion caused by the lens used. Not fish eye, often just a normal wide angle to capture a decent view of the Earth.
For example, look how the horizon goes from being a convex curve (round) to a flat horizon and then to a concave horizon (bowl) in seconds here;
youtube.com/watch?v=sWUZDOQm_HE&t=1226
Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and hence the horizon appears to show a globe or the horizon appears to be flat, and hence they say "Behold, proof that the Earth is flat/globe", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything.
So the need for honesty and correct experiments applies to BOTH sides.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't automatically mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various Bibles;
King James Bible (1611); "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims Bible (1582); "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible; "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (1st or 2nd Century AD); "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
New American Bible; "The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth..."
Catholic Public Domain Version; "He is the One who sits upon the globe of the earth..."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English; "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
Matthew's Bible (1537); "That he sitteth upon the circle of the world..."
That's because the Hebrew word 'chug' being translated by those bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
Again, no Christian church in history has ever said the earth is flat, only a globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Susan, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So there's no reason for Neil to make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate.
And Eric Dubay has never had an open debate with anyone who disagrees with his views. He doesn't even debate the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of working for the gvt to discredit flat Earth, such as Mark Sargent :-|
Eric doesn't even attend flat Earth conferences to put himself in a position to be questioned.
So by all means believe the Earth is flat if you want, but I don't get why so many flat Earth believers are putting Eric up on a high 'debating' pedestal that he hasn't earned :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nope, flat Earth theorists told you that by distorting the facts, knowing that certain people would fall for their claims without question.
They use the logic that if for example you bit into an apple and discovered it was fake apple, then that means all apples are fake, regardless of the reasons for the fake apple, such as being made for a centerpiece, for a movie prop, for decoration, a work of art, etc.
Besides, are you saying you believe the Earth is flat? :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So all you need to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregoryrogalsky6937 - Actually I have done my own research, but nice try ;-) When I first started looking into flat Earth claims a few years ago, it occurred to me that creating a flat map of a flat world would be orders of magnitude easier than trying to create a flat map of a globe world. So I searched for that map by going back to the main sources, which were the flat Earth books published over the last 150+ years.
Therefore I own and have read ALL the following flat Earth books;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
I also wanted to carry out that research because I didn't want to make statements about the flat Earth that weren't true, such as saying no accurate flat map of a flat Earth exists only for someone to say "Wrong, read the book XYZ, you will find the accurate map you're looking for there!".
As it is, the only map that is EVER presented by flat Earth theorists is the Azimuthal Equidistant map, or AE map, otherwise known to flat Earth believers as the Gleason map, which is NOT accurate as a flat map of a flat Earth, it's just one of many 2D projection maps of a globe that only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the globe Earth.
So the question is, why? If the Earth really was flat, then why isn't there an accurate flat map of a flat Earth? The answer is, no such map can be created because the Earth is not flat.
THAT my friend is doing the research you claimed I hadn't done :-) I know that the claim that the Earth is flat is wrong, but I still gave the theory its due respect by READING the source material from the oldest to the present day, and I watched numerous videos, to ensure that my conclusions were based upon research, not opinion :-)
1
-
1
-
@gregoryrogalsky6937 - Nope. It's hilarious that you deny the need for a map as proof. I don't know which country you live in, but if I told you that all the accurate maps of your country are a lie and claimed it was shaped like a perfect equilateral triangle, then I should be able to provide you with an accurate map of your country that was shaped like an equilateral triangle as proof!
You and your fellow countrymen can then check my map for accuracy, comparing my map with real journeys to see if they match. If you start to find large errors in my map, then clearly my map is wrong and therefore your country is not shaped like an equilateral triangle as claimed.
People in EVERY country on Earth can find accurate maps of their countries and use those maps to navigate their own countries by land and air and in some cases by sea. This proves their maps are accurate. NOW, we can take ALL those accurate maps of each country and arrange them onto a sphere to produce an accurate GLOBE map of the world, which is what we've had for centuries.
In contrast, no amount of effort will allow you to arrange all those accurate maps of every country into an accurate flat map of the Earth. The point is, since it works perfectly for a globe but doesn't work for a flat surface, then that proves the Earth is not flat, it proves the Earth is a GLOBE.
Therefore there are no excuses for the lack of an accurate flat map of a flat Earth.
Simply put: No accurate flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth :-)
1
-
1
-
@gregoryrogalsky6937 - No Gregory, the brainwashed accusation is used by believers of almost EVERY conspiracy theory out there, where they label anyone who doesn't buy into their conspiracy claims as being brainwashed, sheep, shills, etc, where you ALL seem to think you're superior and special for your beliefs, when in fact you are no different to the 'brainwashed' people you speak about, you simply exchanged one authority for another!
I'm an amateur astronomer for over 20 years, where I carry out my OWN observations and experiments over those years, so it's not a matter of just believing what I'm told. But a perfect example of you believing what you're told is your comment "Look up and see the north star..That never moves in relation to flat unmoving earth". Wrong.
The north star, or Polaris, is not perfectly centered upon true north, it's about 0.75 degrees off. Hence over a period of 24 hours it makes a small circle about 1.5 degrees wide, that's about 3 times the width of the full moon in the sky!
Polaris is a naked eye star that just so happens to be very close to true north, THAT'S WHY we call it the north star! You thought that star didn't move because you listen only to flat Earth theorists, you never listen to science and hence you restrict your knowledge.
You also said "Do you feel it spinning". We don't feel speed, we only feel acceleration and deceleration, hence you no move feel the Earth moving than airplane passengers would feel they're flying at 550+ mph or passengers on Concorde would have felt they were flying at 1300+ mph.
And you said "Does water lay flat or not". Yes, thanks to gravity. Remove the effects of gravity by placing water in weightless conditions and it tries to pull itself into a ball! Water never flattens out in weightless conditions.
And you said "Wake up", the same chant used by believers of EVERY conspiracy theory in existence :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donalddunston7964 - And for others reading this thread (since I expect this will go over your head too);
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donalddunston7964 - Great, so others reading this thread can see the stupidity of someone who accepts that magnetism, light and gravity are real, but thinks theories of magnetism, light and gravity are just guesses.
As stated multiple times already, theories in science are not guesses, they are not about what something is in the natural world (although some may), theories are about explaining what we observe in the natural world, explaining the observed facts, hence allowing us to understand what we observe and even predict how a specific phenomena will behave under certain circumstances.
Hence using theories of gravity to accurately predict the path of a spacecraft travelling in space and accurately calculating how that spacecraft will be effected by the gravitational pull of the planets and their moons are NOT guesses. The theories work and hence the theories are proven.
You said "You've never been to space".
Which is ignorant beyond belief, since going into space doesn't suddenly make someone an expert on space, just as seeing light doesn't make someone an expert on light, just as owning a magnet doesn't make someone an expert on magnetism.
So go ahead, be loud and proud of your ignorance son, but it doesn't impress anyone except yourself.
End of story and discussion :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@troydanielson4766 - You said "Eric Dubay got his account closed for talking about flat earth."
No, Eric Dubay got his account closed because of his OTHER beliefs.
For example, from his book "The Atlantean Conspiracy" ;
tinyurl.com/yaofv7u3
Quote: "They say "the winner's write history," and it is absolutely true: the most egregious example in modern times has to be the mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Germany. Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
Hmmm, so according to Eric it's poor little Hitler, a peaceful man who has been so cruelly misrepresented by the mainstream.
And how about this: https://www.facebook.com/ericdubaz/posts/eric-dubay-flat-earther-holocaust-denier-httpswwwyoutubecomwatchvqnvqussuqh4-eri/299595257178507/
So his account wasn't closed because of his flat Earth beliefs, it was close because Eric a Nazi sympathizer who claims the Holocaust was a hoax!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrtruth-id3nr - My friend, whenever you find a claim on the internet, you should always try to trace it back to the original source, in particular any specific original source mentioned, in this case Harvard University.
Google search: "Researchers at Harvard University announced today that they have found what appears to be a message from God written inside the human genome"
You'll find numerous websites repeating that claim verbatim, especially forums and videos, but NO WHERE can you find an official report of that incredible 'news' on any official news or science website, not even on Harvard University's website;
For example: news.harvard.edu/gazette/tag/dna/
So I dug a little further and found the following (may be slow to load btw);
http://www.religioustolerance.org/message-from-god-in-human-dna.htm
I found it easier to read the archived copy on WayBackMachine on the following link;
https://web.archive.org/web/20160708121911/http://www.religioustolerance.org/message-from-god-in-human-dna.htm
In fact, simply do a Google search for: Charles Watson Harvard, and see if you can find any reference to a real person named Charles Watson at Harvard, other than that DNA article that spread over the internet :-)
Hence it's a made up claim, something we see a lot of on the internet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mysticnomad3577 - You said "NASA Avation Document 1207 page 6 in summary clearly states the earth is relatively flat and stationary. So is NASA lying?"
Once again you prove my point perfectly :-)
Let me direct you to someone that flat Earth disciples have often referred me to on that little subject, which is Rob Skiba.
Here's one of his videos of that subject: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI1fn4ETGXY
So let me take you through what neither you nor Rob understands, but I do given my degree in mathematics.
When using mathematics to model something in the real world, it is impossible to account for absolutely EVERYTHING, as it's often not needed, therefore assumptions are made depending on the accuracy required, usually to simplify the calculations.
The simplification of the calculations is easy to spot in mathematics because they're almost always identified as "ASSUMPTIONS"
For example, at 8:20 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI1fn4ETGXY&t=490
Right from the start it says and I quote "The two dimensional model for aircraft motion..."
A two dimensional model . A 2D model! 2D! We live in a 3D world hence right from the start that's a simplified model that represents the world in TWO dimensions ONLY.
So lets go through the list of assumptions;
a) The earth is flat and non-rotating, since the Earth's surface being curved or straight or moving doesn't effect the accuracy aimed for in this 2D model.
b) The acceleration of gravity is constant, which is not the case in the real world (changes with altitude and density of the surface we're over) but the difference too small to matter in this 2D model.
c) Air density is constant. Again, not the case in the real world where air density (hence pressure) decreases with altitude.
d) The airframe is a rigid body. All aircraft bend and flex due to the forces upon them, but again this simplified 2D model assumes it doesn't.
e) The aircraft is constrained to motion in the vertical plane, due to only 2 dimensions in the model, as oppose to the 3 dimensions of the real world.
f) The aircraft has a symmetry plane (the x-z plane). Again due to 2 dimensions
g) The mass of the aircraft is constant, but in the real world the mass of an aircraft reduces as the fuel is used up.
So if YOU think that model is proof they're saying the Earth is flat, then that same model says the world is 2D, that gravity is constant everywhere, that air pressure is constant everywhere, that aircraft are rigid structures that don't bend, that aircraft never reduce in weight as fuel is burned, and so on.
Therefore to single out assumptions in a 2D model that just so happens to fit your beliefs as if those assumptions are statements of fact is dishonest, or at best, extremely ignorant.
Now go ahead and list all the assumptions stated for "NASA Aviation Document 1207" please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As Jon correctly points out, it is NOT the job of scientists to convince the ignorant. Scientists do their jobs and present their findings by following scientific principles and methodologies. Hence their information is available, their data is available, and hence the facts are available,
After all, here are just some of the conspiracy theories I've discussed over the last year alone - Flat Earth, Concave Earth, Hollow Earth, Hollow moon, the moon is a spaceship, ISS is fake, the Space Shuttle was a hoax, all Mars rovers are hoaxes, Earth visited by aliens in UFO, NASA covering up evidence of alien civilizations on the moon and Mars, we went to the moon in minutes and Mars in hours using alien technology held in Area 51, crop-circles are messages from aliens, alien abductions, the Universe is Electric, rockets can't work in a vacuum so ALL space missions are hoaxes, and many many more.
So are scientists REALLY suppose to waste their time debating ALL those claims and more? Are YOU going to decide which claims are worthy of debate with scientists and which ones are not? :-)
Or could you understand the idea that if ANY of those conspiracy believers wanted to have their claims taken seriously by scientists, then they have to follow scientific principles and present solid evidence and hypothesis that are measureable, observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable?
1
-
1
-
- You said "scientists have to be able to defend their theories outside of a lab, this is the most important part science."
Which is EXACTLY what they do through the scientific methodologies they follow. Therefore if people want to claim it's wrong, then they should be able to do so via those SAME methodologies.
"I think this" and "I think that" and "I believe this" and "I believe that", is not science.
You said "Anyone can create an experiment in a lab to prove whatever they want"
Wrong and rather naive my friend, because that is not proof in science.
Yes a scientist can falsify evidence and hence make claims that are essentially lies. But as stated, science is about being measurable, observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable, and therefore his/her results will NOT be accepted by other scientists until THEY carry out the SAME experiments and arrive at the SAME results.
Hence if YOU published a scientific paper of your 'experiments' to prove your 'theory' and hence your work got through the initial peer review process, then other scientists worldwide reading your paper will try to tear it apart, especially those with theories that compete with your own and so it's in their interest to prove you wrong!
Therefore they will not read your paper and take everything you say as gospel truth, instead they will look for errors, look for flaws, look for anything that can prove you're wrong, including carrying out your experiments to see if the results are correct.
If they find out you're wrong, then they will shout it out from the rooftops. THAT is how science works, and hence that is how science has been so successful for centuries, because it is self correcting and self managing, causing the truth and the facts to rise to the surface.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@captainsalty5688 - You said "Plus the radiation is way too intense past low orbit. Throw in the power of the sun and the radiation being thrown off that. It's impossible with humans."
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@valherustinger7848 - You said "So I gave up on that and started looking at curvature and thats what solidified it for me that the earth is not a globe. We cant even prove curvature using math. There is actually no proof the earth is a globe unless you accept images from space and believe what Nasa tells us is 100 percent accurate..."
Unfortunately, like many people, you are very easily manipulated by conspiracy theorists, and hence you fall for every trick in the book that they use and you repeat every trick they present to you, as you've shown in your replies here :-|
So since you claim to have spent years searching for proof of the Earth being a globe, try the following please;
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first globe denier in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
1
-
1
-
@valherustinger7848 - So to you and other flat Earth believers reading this thread, I say the following;
The mathematics of our solar system and globe Earth allows us to accurately calculate sunrise/sunset times for ANY location on Earth for any date (past/present/future), the positions of all the planets and their moons for any date/time, the positions of asteroids, lunar and solar eclipses including the path of totality across the Earth's surface, high/low tide for any coastal region worldwide for any date, phases of the moon and Mercury and Venus, transits of Mercury and Venus, the path and location of comets, and so much more...
There are even books that make the mathematics and equations available for ALL to use, including books that make it accessible to the average person, such as "Practical Astronomy with your Calculator or Spreadsheet", where even YOU can calculate sunrise/sunset times and solar eclipses and planet positions etc.
In other words, the globe Earth is proven mathematically and the mathematics WORKS perfectly.
In contrast, flat Earth 'theory' calculates absolutely NOTHING, zero, zilch, which makes it useless.
In other words, the flat Earth predicts nothing except that the bank accounts of people like Eric Dubay will continue to increase thanks to the gullible who swallow everything he and other flat Earth charlatans say :-|
Sorry, but it's true my friend. But hey, that's fine by me too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rockmih - You said "I didn't focused on anything, you mention flat earth because its an easy way for you to dismiss Eddy."
I mentioned flat Earth because it accounts for over 95% of the discussion of this 1 hour video with the title "Eddie Bravo Goes DEEP on Flat Earth".
So why are you purposely ignoring that fact?
You said "The carbon dating is limited to nothing"
Wrong, carbon dating is limited to the carbon-14 found in organic remains, since all lifeforms on Earth are carbon based, and hence the radioactive decay of carbon atoms within the remains of lifeforms limits the accuracy to 50,000 to 60,000 years, where after that period the radioactivity left the carbon atoms is so low that the results cannot be trusted.
One guy was making the point that we can estimate the age of certain dinosaur bones by the rock layers that they were found in the Earth (as Joe said "The stratas") and yet Eddie responded saying "Well if you're talking about Carbon dating", which they were NOT.
Therefore carbon dating that EDDIE brought up has nothing to do with the dinosaurs that EDDIE was talking about.
So again, the accuracy of carbon dating has nothing to do with dinosaurs, as I explained to you before, so Eddie is wrong.
Learn to understand what you hear and read before replying :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ty-Leo - Let me just pick up on one point of yours, which was "It doesn't matter what Eric Dubay is, it is what he is saying and proving as science is based on observable and provable experimental evidence."
Your same Eric Dubay claims the South Pole doesn't exist, and yet Google Search: South Pole Tours, and tell me what you find please. Also Google Search: Antarctica Tours and tell me what you find please.
That's right, lots of South Pole and Antarctica tours, where if you can afford it then YOU can book yourself onto a tour to the South Pole, like so many other people have done every year for DECADES!
Not only that, but you can carry out experiments that PROVES you're at the South Pole, such as;
a) At night, set up a camera pointed up at 90 degrees to capture the paths of the stars using time lapse.
You will notice that the stars circle clockwise around a point in the sky called true south. Exactly OPPOSITE to the North pole where the stars will be seen to circle COUNTER CLOCKWISE around a point in the sky called true north.
b) At the right time of year, you will be able to observe 24 hour daylight (i.e. the midnight sun that Eric claims to not exist in the south) where the sun moves across the sky from right to left without dipping below the horizon.
Exactly OPPOSITE to the North pole 6 months later where the midnight sun results in the sun moving across the sky from left to right while staying above the horizon for over 24 hours.
In other words, the same "observable and provable experimental evidence" at the South Pole that you speak of proves the South Pole exists!
1
-
1
-
@Ty-Leo - You said "I've tried 5 times to link a video to you on here"
Unfortunately links are blocked on some videos, and therefore replies with links are automatically deleted.
So you'll need to disguise the link (eg. replace . with 😮or the word 'PERIOD' and replace / with 🖍️ or the word 'FORWARDSLASH', etc).
It's a hassle, but you'll get there in the end :-)
That said, I never post links to long videos expecting others to watch them, neither do I watch such videos sent to me.
Instead, within a debate, I expect others to EXPLAIN in their own WORDS the points they're making, where a short video (3-4 minutes max) or a long videos (with a timestamp to the relevant part) may be used to support the points they're making.
In other words, if you're posting a video to do all the talking for you then I'm not interested, but if you're using a video to support the points you're making in the way I've described above, then go ahead :-)
1
-
@Ty-Leo - You said "Show me any proof of gravity as one of the first things I stated is still to be a theory."
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;;
[Disguised link to get through YT filter]
tiny😮cc🖍️z4eiuz
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@khirywashington371 - You said "show the evidence lmao"
Fine, but this is not specifically for you, this is for anyone reading this thread now and in future.
I will take you through it in a few steps.:
So before discussing the globe itself, lets take an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as a town or a city.
EVERYONE can find an accurate map of their own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance using our map.
Therefore we can take any two locations on our map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
So do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
(In other words, if the scale of your map was 1 mile per cm and you measured a route from A to B across the streets of your town/city map that was 3 cm in total, then that would be 3 miles in the real world. And if the direct distance (eg. via a drone) from A to B was 1.5 cm on your map, then the direct distance would be 1.5 miles in the real world.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexthurman6808 - Your video is a classic example of how flat Earth 'theorists' lie to you and even to themselves :-|
The problem is, videos at altitude claiming to show curvature or flatness are invalid tests unless people take into account the distortion caused by the field of view of the lens, and I've never seen anyone do that on either side of the argument.
For example, look carefully at videos making such claims (like the one you provided) and you'll notice that the higher the horizon is above the center of the video, then the greater the curvature of the Earth. But the lower the horizon is below the center of the video, then the more the Earth appears concave! (see link below).
And notice that there's a 'sweet spot' near the center of the video where the earth appears to be flat.
This change in the shape of the Earth depending on where the horizon is in relation to the center of the video is due to the distortion caused by the lens used. Not fish eye, often just a normal wide angle to capture a decent view of the Earth.
For example, look how the horizon goes from being a convex curve (round) to a flat horizon and then to a concave horizon (bowl) in seconds here;
youtube.com/watch?v=sWUZDOQm_HE&t=1226
Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and hence the horizon appears curved or the horizon appears flat, and so they say "Behold, proof that the shape of the Earth is X", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexthurman6808 - You said "Well yeah that would be the case. Thats how models work. You could form a made up model to fit the given measurements. Say the earth is flat for arguments sake. Take the measurements and form it into a sphere. Its as simple as that."
Wrong my friend, hence you didn't get the importance of the proof I provided.
We can take the world's most hardcore flat Earth believer and lock him in a room with a globe, a measuring tape and a calculator and give him 100 locations pairs around the Earth at random and ask him to work out the distances.
Assuming he made no mistakes then his 100 measurements would be correct!
Likewise, take an area on the globe small enough for the curvature to have negligible affect on a map, such as a flat map of your city, and you can lock him in a room with that flat city map (which will have a bar scale to tell us how long a mile/km is on that map), a measuring tape and a calculator and give him 100 locations pairs around your city at random and ask him to work out the distances.
Assuming he made no mistakes then his 100 measurements would be correct!
There are NO flat maps of the entire Earth for which he can do the same, since ALL flat maps of the Earth used for navigation are projections from a globe Earth, and therefore all such maps are distorted by definition, including the AE/Gleason map.
The size of a flat area doesn't affect the accuracy of a flat map of that area, and therefore if the Earth really was flat then we would have accurate flat maps of a flat Earth that are undistorted and therefore we can work out distances on that map in exactly the same way as a city map.
Simply put: No accurate undistorted flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bssorg4689 - Nope. The Hebrew word meaning deceive is actually NASHA, pronounced as "Na-shaw".
NASA in Hebrew, pronounced as "Na-Sar" or "Naw-Saw", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take, for example;
External links are blocked, so replace DOT and FWSLASH as required in the links below;
isDOTgdFWSLASHDyy9sN
Quote: "The Hebrew word of the week is nasa ("to lift up, take up, carry")"
Here's a few more links;
isDOTgdFWSLASHgDYJJB
isDOTgdFWSLASH0q3abY
isDOTgdFWSLASHCtWTNt
So just because something fits in with your views it doesn't mean you must believe it without question and without thinking for yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devilla800 - Here's a link to Eric Dubay's "200 proofs" free eBook;
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
Here's just one example of the stupidity of Eric Dubay;
In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up.
So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time!
Seriously, can you not see the major flaw in his argument? :-)
Just look at these examples of sun rays (crepuscular rays, or God rays) through trees;
https://goo.gl/XNnweq
See how many photos of trees you can find there showing the sun's rays passing through the trees in EXACTLY the same way we see the sun's ray's passing through clouds in Eric's photo.
If you apply the SAME logic as Eric, then those rays through the trees proves the sun is not 93 million miles away, nor is it 3000 miles away, but is in fact just above the trees! :-)
And what about these photos taken underwater at sea;
http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/images/Gentle%20Giant%204%20new.jpg
http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/images/Articles/chelonia_mydas_milisen.jpg
Clearly the sun is not 3000 miles up, it's just above the surface of the sea, right?
So come on, can you really not see the MAJOR flaw in proof number 125?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Chriscrumley1972 - The Bible does not EXPLICITLY say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all IMPLICIT!
Can you find verses in the Bible that EXPLICITLY says the Earth is stationary? Yes you can!
For example, Psalm 93:1;
"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."
And Psalm 96:10
"Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity."
So those are EXPLICIT statements saying the Earth is stationary and hence it doesn't move. They are not implied, they are not open to interpretation, they are direct statements.
Because of that, until a few centuries ago all Christian denominations believed a GLOBE stationary Earth was at the center of the universe. No official Christian church or denomination in history has ever said the Earth is flat.
Can you find similar verses in the Bible that EXPLICITLY states the shape of the Earth, much less EXPLICITLY says the Earth is flat?
No my friend, there are no such verses, and therefore flat Earth is not a Christian belief, flat Earth has nothing to do with the Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxsmith695 - You continue to prove my point :-)
Neil is a trained astrophysicist who has published scientific papers in scientific journals.
ANYONE can be labelled an actor if they did just ONE acting role, including YOU kid.
Hence professional athletes, professional basketball players, professional football players, doctors, nurses, policemen, judges, pilots, teachers, musicians, soldiers, and so many more, have ALL been labelled actors because they acted in a role at least once, even if it was just a cameo.
But according to you, all the above and much more are no longer professionals in their fields the split second they did some acting, instead they are all just actors from now on :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidrizzutojr4937 - You said "But as I'm sure your aware, some arent interested in truth only in hiding it!"
Yes, they're called conspiracy theorists ;-)
But seriously, don't you see the pattern of ALL conspiracy theorists who ALL claim to have the absolutely 'truth', and that their 'truth' exposes everything else as a lie?
Don't you see they all use the same tactic of identifying a group to hate and distrust, eg. scientists, governments, agencies, authorities etc, and hence use that tactic to say don't listen to them, listen to us instead?
That's why conspiracy theorists NEVER debate or even challenge each other, because there's nothing to be gained by doing so.
But grow a base of followers by convincing them that those 'evil' groups have lied to us and therefore we must fight back, with the conspiracy theorists leading the way, is very appealing to many and also very lucrative for the theorists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@opxchaos5757 - I don't automatically bash conspiracy theories, if I choose to debate them then I prefer to research them first so that I know exactly what the conspiracy believers are talking about.
Hence for the flat Earth, I went in search for an accurate (and hence undistorted) flat map of a flat Earth, and therefore I acquired and read ALL the following flat Earth books (instead of just watching FE videos);
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
To cut a long story short, no such accurate map exists, for which there's NO excuse if the Earth really is flat.
There are also multiple versions of a flat Earth across those books (and in videos and websites), hence I like to ask flat Earth believers which version they believe, for example dome or no dome, edge or no edge or infinite plane, gravity or no gravity, globe sun/moon or flat sun/moon?... etc
I hope that explains where I'm coming from on this topic :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jordanclark1700 - Thanks for your reply and your honesty here, much appreciated.
Please note that my replies below are not meant to sound as harsh as they may appear, they are just my direct responses to your arguments which I've said to others before.
You said "What I believe is there’s more than enough reasons to question what we’re told..."
I understand what you're saying, but those who tell me that rarely ever question the 'theorists' they listen to, instead they view those theorists like angels who can never be wrong and can never lie, which is to ignore human nature :-|
You said "God created the heavens and the earth with a firmament (dome) a closed system over a round flat ish surface surrounded by an Ice wall that serves as all the waters container."
The problem is, the Bible doesn't state the shape of the Earth, it neither explicitly says the Earth is flat or a globe, therefore claims of a Biblical origin for a flat Earth are unfounded.
After all, every Bible you refer to was produced by Christian churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts, and yet all Christian churches throughout history say the Earth is a globe (albeit a stationary globe for most of that history), none have ever said the Earth is flat.
You said "That everything works as it was designed by a creator...."
And that's where I have a problem with that argument my friend, because the Creator is said to be all knowing and all powerful and yet for some reason creating a universe with gravity that resulted in a globe Earth is beyond the Creator's power? Think about it :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulmbanjwa6743 - Thanks, but that's the problem with your flat Earth claim.
Flat Earth theorists latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice.
However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)).
For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distance could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed by actual journey's over sea and land);
https://ibb.co/bud1Xf
And don't take my word for it, even your fellow flat Earth believers are beginning to realize this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51aPK-MtWQ
According to the video maker Richard Kallberg, he is working on an accurate version of the flat Earth map. Problem is, he said that about 8 months ago and there's still no sign of it :-)
If the Earth really was flat, then producing an accurate flat (2D) map of a flat Earth would be orders of magnitude easier than creating a 2D map of a Globe Earth! So after over 150 YEARS of published flat Earth books, where is the map?
Simply put: No ACCURATE flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth
1
-
@paulmbanjwa6743 - Not correct at all my friend.
The International Space Station (ISS) is by far the largest artificial satellite up there, and hence that's a perfect example for us to focus on.
The ISS can be spotted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for 20 years WORLDWIDE.
There are apps you can download on your phone right now that will tell you the EXACT location of the ISS and will tell you EXACTLY when YOU would be able to see it pass overhead in your location (date and time and position in the sky).
You can also find apps and websites that will tell you when the ISS will be seen to pass in front of the moon and the sun in YOUR location (a transit), again providing you with the exact date and time.
Hence I have seen the ISS pass overhead a number of times, as have countess people around the world, where it looks like a VERY bright star moving across the sky with the naked eye.
Many people have even videoed and photographed the ISS satellite as it passed in front of the moon and sun as predicted, and posted their results on YouTube (there's nothing stopping YOU from doing the same).
For example (using the flat Earth believers favorite camera):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDIPZFqfGGo
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD3yuFVQSyo
So the fact that the ISS has been up there for 20 years and can be seen ALL OVER THE WORLD at the location it's predicted to be and at the exact date and time stated means something IS up there whether you like it or not.
So denial that something man made is up there is NOT an answer, neither is any claim that NASA is somehow beaming CGI into the cameras of everyone worldwide or projecting holograms :-)
Therefore the question is, if that's not a space station up there as seen and recorded by countless people all over the world 24/7 for 20 YEARS, then what is that ISS shaped object that we can ALL see for ourselves?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Instead of throwing insults, why don't you tell us which version of a flat Earth you believe in? Because there are a number of versions out there and yet none of you seem to be able to make up your minds.
For example;
- Does your flat Earth have a firmament dome? If yes, then how high is it? If no, then why do some claim there's a dome enclosing the Earth?
- Does your flat Earth end at the wall of ice? If no, then how far does the land go beyond the wall? Why do some say it ends at the wall?
- Does your flat Earth rest upon pillars? If yes, then how many pillars are there and where are they positioned?
- Is the sun and moon in your flat Earth shaped like discs or balls?
- How far away is the sun and the moon in your flat Earth?
*Also, can you provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth? A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth?
*
To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice.
However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)).
I look forward to finding out your version of a flat Earth and (if possible) an accurate map of that flat Earth :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grant5392 - You said "planets are all CGI generated"
So NOW you are trying to claim that composite photos are CGI, which is not what you said before you posted your link, and hence that addition to your CGI claim is pure ignorance (and desperation :-)).
Photographs taken in space and broadcast back to Earth are DIGITAL, and ALL digital photographs are manipulated, INCLUDING EVERY DIGITAL PHOTO you've taken with your camera/phone! So are all YOUR digital photographs fake too? They must be by your logic!
The sensor in your camera only detects light intensity NOT colour.
I repeat, the sensor in your camera only detects light intensity NOT colour.
To produce colour, a special filter grid is used, where a software algorithm is run to calculate the colour of EACH pixel based upon a complex calculation from the surrounding pixels, resulting in the final colour image (Google Search: BAYER FILTER for example).
The problem with the above method is that some colour information is lost, making it useless for science which requires precise values.
So spacecraft use multiple filters instead to combine the images into one.
For example, a colour photograph of the Earth would consists of a photo taken with a red filter, then with a blue filter and finally with a green filter, where the 3 photos are then combined to produce the final colour image.
THAT is manipulation. It can't be avoided because CMOS sensors are not colour, therefore colour must be created by using filters, either as a matrix/grid for single photos, or as separate photos through different filters combined into one image.
*In other words, photographs from space are as fake, CGI, photoshopped as ALL the photographs you've taken with your phone or digital camera.
*
Fact matter, they really do :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So there's no reason for Neil to make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate.
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
Also, someone like Neil debating a flat Earth theorist would only give that theorist the publicity that he craves but doesn't deserve.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roybutler9323 - Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum. At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions.
After all, what's separating the crushing pressures of the ocean floor miles down from the low pressure of water at the surface of our oceans? The pressure is higher the lower we go down into the ocean, due to the weight of the sea above.
Likewise the pressure of our atmosphere is higher the lower we go towards the surface of the Earth, due to the weight of the air above.
So weight creates the pressure at lower levels, and that weight is caused by gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelhaggerty2766 - That's a link to THIS same topic video! Try again please :-)
Anyway, have you ever heard of the word "analogy"?
Definition: A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification
Here's where the pear shape reference originally came from (a simple analogy by Neil to make a point);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So which part of "practically a perfect sphere" do you not understand? :-)
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
1
-
1
-
@michaelhaggerty2766 - Firstly, this was about your claim that Neil said the Earth was shaped like a pear. I've proven it was an analogy by Neil, not a literal statement, therefore you were wrong.
Secondly, $10000 is nothing :-) James Randi was offering that to anyone who can prove paranormal powers way back in the 60s! It ended up rising to $100,000 and then to $1 million.
So let them raise it to say $250,000+ and THEN we can talk :-)
Thirdly, if you want to talk about the flat Earth in general, then fine, I'm more than happy to present ONE solid evidence that the Earth is a globe, if you're happy to present ONE solid piece of evidence that the Earth is flat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iamnoone483 - Planet is derived from the Ancient Greek word "planḗtēs" meaning wanderer, i.e. a name given to 'stars' that wandered across the skies, which at the time were the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. In other words, they were known as the wandering stars.
Sea level and ground level is with respect to ALTITUDE (i.e. height), not flatness! If someone said he raised his hand until it was level with his nose, you would understand that to mean his hand is at the same height as his nose!
A vacuum does not suck, that's not what a vacuum is. A vacuum is simply a lack of matter.
Gravity is a proven fact with experiments that can't be explained by the naive claims about buoyancy or density.
There is no accurate flat map of a flat Earth. Flat Earth believers like to bring up the AE/Gleason map, but it doesn't work as a flat map of the Earth, the distances are wrong (just look at the shape of Australia for example!).
Even some flat Earth believers are beginning to realize this now: www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51aPK-MtWQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JiboiaJin - You said "well the Bible says the earth is fixed and unmovable. It also speaks of the 4 corners of the earth. This is the Bible, so can you explain that?"
I already did when I said and I quote "their message was that the Earth is a globe (again, a stationary globe for most of Christian history)."
That's because, putting aside the fact that the Bible is not a science book, you can find verses agreed across all Bibles that explicitly says the Earth doesn't move, but there are ZERO verses across all Bibles that explicitly states the SHAPE of the Earth.
All the Bibles you've read are translations of the original Hebrew and Arabic texts, where ALL those who translated the texts say the Earth is a globe, i.e. the Christian churches who produced those Bibles.
4 corners of the Earth simply means everywhere, i.e. as far north, south, east and west as we can go, it does not literally mean 4 corners.
After all, ALL depictions of a flat Earth show it to be circular in shape, none of them show the surface of the Earth to be square, and the last time I checked there are no corners on a circle either :-)
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments demonstrates gravity.
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 - In contrast, here's something you can do yourself.
Get yourself a decent globe of the Earth, then select two locations on that globe, for example Tokyo in Japan and New York in the USA, and measure the distance between them in millimetres (i.e. as a direct line across the globe of the Earth).
Now measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres.
The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles there are to the millimetre by dividing 24900 by the circumference of your globe in millimetres. Lets call the answer to that calculation X, and therefore X is the scale of your globe.
So now you can check the distance between New York and Tokyo by taking the distance you measured on your globe in millimetres and then multiply that number by X to get the distance in miles. It will match the real world distance (well, give or take natural errors in your measurement).
You can now check ANY two locations on Earth using that same method, i.e. measure the distance in millimetres on your globe and multiply that number by X, and it will match the real world distance.
The larger and the better the quality of your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good).
In other words, you can accurately measure ALL distances and routes on a physical GLOBE of the Earth in the same way that you can accurately measure ALL distances and routes on a physical flat map of your town/city.
That alone proves the Earth is a globe, where there is no flat map of the Earth in existence for which you can do the same :-)
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 - You said " .....thank you for your input. "A dollar store globe proves the globe, everybody!" Try using northern hemisphere math to navigate the southern hemisphere. One side of a sphere is as good at charting the other half as any other, right?"
Not sure why you would think the northern hemisphere is the same as the southern hemisphere, anyway :-)
I explained how we can ALL use a physical globe of the Earth to work out the distance between any two locations on Earth.
Therefore name any two locations on Earth for which you trust the distance given (hence it could be across land, or in the middle of the ocean, or both), the further the distance between the locations the better.
Now work out the distance using a physical globe of the Earth as I described earlier, and compare it to the actual distance. It will be the SAME, give or take the expected margin of error.
In fact, there isn't a SINGLE two locations on Earth for which the measured distance between them on the physical globe of the Earth is found to be wrong! I've even asked flat Earth believers to give me an example over the last few years and I'm still waiting for just ONE.
That should be impossible if the Earth was flat, where flat Earth theorists/believers would have listed COUNTLESS distance discrepancies on a physical globe of the Earth if those distances were wrong.
How is that possible if the Earth is not a globe? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonflatearther - I explained how Google Earth works, so besides satellites which part of "from airplanes, balloons, helicopters, drones, etc" did you miss? :-|
Anyway, before going any further, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? A brief summary in your own words would suffice.
I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge (finite plane) or no edge (infinite plane)? More land and seas beyond the ice wall? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun and moon or flat sun and moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc.
Once you say which flat Earth you mean, then your comments here will be in context of your flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonflatearther - You said "You coming to me and saying some douchebag told you something is no different than me coming to you and saying that I read it in the Bible"
When that 'douchebag' is one of the founders of Google Earth, then his words on how Google Earth works matters more than your uninformed claims about Google Earth.
Mark Aubin, co-founder of the product that was renamed Google Earth;
"Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes – even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.
The next step is processing the imagery. We scan the film using scanners capable of over 1800 DPI (dots per inch) or 14 microns. Then we take the digital imagery through a series of stages such as color balancing and warping to produce the final mosaic for the entire area.
We update the imagery as quickly as we can collect and process it, then add layers of information – things like country and state borders and the names of roads, schools, and parks - to make it more useful. This information comes from multiple sources: commercial providers, local government agencies, public domain collections, private individuals, national and even international governments. Right now, Google Earth has hundreds of terabytes of geographic data, and it's growing larger every day."
But hey, what would he know, right? :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZEUSILLZAU - It's amusing how you tried to pre-empt what I'm about to say ;-) Anyway...
Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with a cheap vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions, with no barrier in between and no closed container required.
Any questions? :-)
After all, what is separating the incredibly crushing pressures of the ocean floor miles down from the low pressure of water at the surface of our oceans? The pressure is higher the lower we go down into the ocean, due to the weight of the sea above. Again, no barrier in between and no closed container.
Likewise the pressure of our atmosphere is lower the higher up we go, and higher the lower down we go towards the surface of the Earth, due to the weight of the air above. Again, no barrier in between and no closed container required.
So no container or barrier is needed. Weight creates the pressure at lower levels, and that weight is caused by gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LunchBox_SB322 - You said "and NASA says that the curvature has a 8" inch per mile drop."
Ok, thanks for your flat Earth description, but lets focus on your claim regarding NASA, because that's a problem.
Firstly, it's 8 inches per mile squared, and secondly NASA doesn't say that for curvature.
8 inches per mile squared is the equation for a parabola and was a useful 'rule of thumb' for curvature during surveying in the 19th century because it was easy to work out (it could be done in your head), and it was rather good for naked eye distances.
The equation for curvature based upon a circle/sphere is far more complicated however and therefore can't be done in your head (unless you're very talented in that respect).
Only flat Earth theorists/believers are obsessed with the "8 inches" equation, where for curvature it's not used by NASA, it's not used by mathematicians, it's not used in any field today and yet you didn't know that.
So here's my problem - I thought commercial pilots required a good understanding of mathematics, physics and geography, so how could you think curvature drop is 'officially' measured as "8 inches per mile squared", and even worse, get it wrong by saying "8 inches per mile"?
Something doesn't add up with your credentials my friend ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericbeins7254 - You cried "apparently it is to hard for you to follow a link and watch a video but I know you like to be spoon fed information"
You haven't provided any links, so I don't need to be spoon fed son, I was waiting for YOU to present an example to represent your argument. But clearly that request went over your head.
You said "Microwave dishes can only work in line of sight. If the Earth was a sphere or 🍐 shape their usable distance would not be more than 50 miles."
Which proves just how IGNORANT you are, it really does, because for some reason you don't appear to realize that ALTITUDE is important too. Yes, ALTITUDE son.
Read the following link;
https://blog.aviatnetworks.com/from-the-field/the-worlds-longest-all-ip-microwave-link/
That's a microwave link over a distance of 193 km, or 120 miles.
As pointed out in that link, the altitudes of the two sites connected by that microwave link are 1600 meters (5250 feet) and 250 meters (820 feet).
So here's a curvature calculator that takes into account the HEIGHT of the observer above the surface;
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=120&h0=5250&unit=imperial
The height of 5250 feet and the distance of 120 miles has been entered, where you'll notice that 652 feet is hidden below the curvature of the Earth, meaning that the remote location at 820 feet is 168 ABOVE the horizon and hence DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT.
And don't just take my word for it, since on the link I provided it present a graph showing exactly that, with the words "Figure 1. Microwave Path Profile showing antenna elevations and path clearance over effective earth curvature ."
So go ahead and present your 235 km example and you'll find that the altitudes of the two locations results in direct line of sight communication!!!
So much for all your insults, where you clearly should have been looking in the mirror when you made them.
Have a nice day and thanks for the laugh :-)
1
-
@ericbeins7254 - You cried "I just have personal question for you, why is it that you don't use your given name?"
You cannot be that stupid with all due respect. So you actually think that by using a name that can pass for a real name then that automatically makes it that person's name?
So if instead of "Yazzam X" I called myself something like "Simon Johnson" or "Mark Sheldon" then you would assume that's my real name? No evidence required, no proof needed, just blind acceptance of my name?
There's absolutely ZERO evidence that your name is 'Eric Beins', just as there would be ZERO evidence that my name is "Mark Sheldon", so to claim you're a 'real man' and not 'scared' to use your real name for which there is no proof is just laughable, and hence something I would expect from a kid.
So go ahead and show how 'brave' you are by telling us your telephone number and your home address and give us links to personal documents (say a scan of your passport) to prove you really are 'Eric Beins'. But that would be even more stupid, right?
So cut out the childish nonsense. The whole point of profiles online is the ability to be anonymous, for which the VAST MAJORITY of people here ARE anonymous, even if they use names that can pass for REAL names, and yet those names are not their actual names!
1
-
1
-
@ericbeins7254 - Finally, I only mentioned my credentials because of your patronizing and condescending remarks and assumptions, such as and I quote;
"You should learn how to use your own brain first before you start mimicking so-called professors."
And "Do some research in technology yourself and you will see you been lied to. You don't need a degree for that."
And you've continued that way throughout this thread.
So I'm more than happy to discuss astronomy in detail with you for example, and from a practical perspective.
And when it comes to research, I didn't 'research' flat Earth claims by watching YT videos, instead I decided to get hold of as many flat Earth books released over the last 150+ years as I could and I READ them all (and most are very badly written), to get the information from the original SOURCES.
Here's a list of my flat Earth books;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
So besides Eric Dubay's free eBook, if you own any of the books above then I would be more than happy to discuss the contents with you.
My initial goal was to see if any of those books claimed to have an accurate non-distorted flat map of a flat Earth, but no such map exists!
Therefore I've seen the arguments from both sides, and hence I know for a fact that the Earth is a globe, where NONE of the flat Earth claims holds up to close scrutiny.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericbeins7254 - So in all your ignorant uneducated waffle, you STILL cannot present any web links or specific details of the 200+ km microwave link that you claimed was impossible on a globe Earth, therefore you are lying.
Therefore you are a proven liar and a coward, and so I have to ask, if you REALLY believe truth is on your side, then why did you feel the need to lie to make your case?
You don't even have the courage to say "Ok, I was wrong about the microwave link, but I still don't think the Earth is a globe because....".
No, instead you want to avoid that to jump onto other laughable claims (sun rays? really? lol), despite the fact that I provided you with a 193 km microwave link that was CLEARLY made possible thanks to the altitudes of both sides of the link.
So either put up or shut up. Give me details of your claimed impossible microwave link and I'd be more than happy to present you with the same test and hence proof of a globe Earth that I've provided for MANY others on YouTube, where none of you can offer an explanation.
I'm waiting, so present the microwave link that YOU claimed was impossible or just admit you made it up or admit you made a mistake. In other words, act like the man you claim to be, since right now I appear to be talking to a boy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blake - YOU say that, but I have had discussions with SO MANY flat earth believers who claim no curvature at all can be seen at ANY altitude.
I make the point that if the earth was the flat circle they claim it to be, then the horizon should appear to curve at altitude, just not as much as you would expect from a globe earth. They typically deny that.
Eric Dubay, the author well known to the flat earth 'community', is one of those who insists in the very first claim in his free eBook "200 proofs..." and I quote - "The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos."
Hmmmm :-)
And that's just one of many inconsistencies in the FE hypothesis (since it's not a theory).
For example, many claim the flat earth is covered by a firmament dome and yet some don't believe there's a dome. Some claim the flat earth is a circle surrounded by a wall of ice (up against the firmament dome), others claim it goes beyond that point to an unknown distance with land kept hidden from us. Some claim the flat earth is square. Some claim there's no such thing as gravity, others claim the flat earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2 creating what we perceive as gravity. And so on.
There are some very basic questions that should have been answered if the earth really was flat, and yet they have never been answered.
Hence the earth clearly is not flat :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxsmith695 - You continue to prove my point :-)
Neil is a trained astrophysicist who has published scientific papers in scientific journals.
ANYONE can be labelled an actor if they did just ONE acting role, including YOU kid.
Hence professional athletes, professional basketball players, professional football players, doctors, nurses, policemen, judges, pilots, teachers, musicians, soldiers, and so many more, have ALL been labelled actors because they acted in a role at least once, even if it was just a cameo.
But according to you, all the above and much more are no longer professionals in their fields the split second they did some acting, instead they are all just actors from now on :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nemesisxxprime - You said "how can I link you to a REFERENCE VIDEO used in the scientific community as the reference and raw unedited tapes?"
Nice try, but I HAVE ALL THE SPACECRAFT FILMS APOLLO DVD BOXSETS that you speak of, up to APOLLO 17! (Do the capital letters help btw? :-)).
I bought them long ago, over a period of about a year second hand on eBay, hence got the entire series for a fraction of the cost (buying only a few direct from Spacecraft Films to complete the set).
Much of the Apollo footage uploaded to YT were ripped directly from those Spacecraft Film DVDs, so I would know immediately if any of the footage has been tampered in any way.
You gave a claimed example of less than a 2 second response, so STATE your exact source if it wasn't YouTube.
If YOU own the appropriate Spacecraft Films DVD boxset and hence that is what you're referring to (since that is what you're implying here), then name the boxset and name the disk number and chapter title.
So yes my friend, I own and have watched ALL the raw unedited footage/audio in ALL of the Spacecraft Films Apollo DVDs, therefore there can be no more excuses from you, so please state your exact source and details here as I've requested (but hey, nice try :-)).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DaviDamir - While I wait for your best evidence, I'll address this question "also can we see stars in space?"
Astronauts state when we can see stars and when we can't, it all depends on the circumstances.
Here's a few quotes about when we can and cannot see stars, from Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins' 1974 book "Carry the Fire: An Astronaut's Journey" -
[When in orbit around the earth], quote:
"...Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight...Towards the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a black void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight...".
[When in the shadow of the Earth during a Gemini mission], quote:
"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different; this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human has ever had... My only complaint is that the protective coatings of my visor do not allow an even more spectacular look at the stars."
[When entering the shadow of the moon], quote:
"...To add to the dramatic effect, we find we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the moon now, in darkness for the first time in three days, and the elusive stars have reappeared as if called especially for this occasion...".
[With Neil and Buzz on the surface and whilst in the shadow of the moon], quote:
"...Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars".
That is consistent with everything we've heard from Neil and Buzz and other astronauts since people first went into space.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DaviDamir - You said "i also like the convex / concave amateur videos of reaching "space".amateur rockets flying straight up coming to a complete stop also."
Which are perfect examples of the ignorant talking about what they don't understand, and people like you believing them :-)
So lets start with the flat Earth believers rocket claim, where they say it's an example of a rocket hitting the firmament dome.
Here's what typically happens;
1) We see an amateur rocket with an on board camera launch.
2) The rocket begins to spin faster and faster.
3) We hear a sound and the rocket suddenly stops spinning.
4) The rocket stage separates.
5) Flat Earth believers jump up and down crying "It hit the firmament dome!!!".
For example: "Rocket hitting the flat earth dome"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4
And now here are the FACTS behind such footage;
a) Those rockets are designed with tail fins to make them spin through the air to give them stability (like when a dart or arrow or bullet spins through the air).
b) The rocket cannot deploy the payload safely while it's spinning, so a method is used to stop the rotation called *yoyo despin.
*
c) At the desired altitude, yoyo despin is deployed, which consists of weights at the end of cables which fly outwards (look up how and why it works).
d) In the footage we can see and/or hear the yoyo despin being deployed and so the rocket stops spinning.
e) The payload is then deployed and that rocket stage falls back to earth.
We don't see the yoyo despin device in some videos because the camera was mounted BELOW the device, and hence it's behind the camera.
For a clear example of yoyo despin where the camera is mounted ABOVE the device so that we can see and hear it, watch the following YouTube video please;
"Dizzying Up And Down Rocket Flight Captured By On-Board Cam | Video"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7S8yyYrAw
At 1:35 in that video, we can actually see the cables of the yoyo despin device being deployed and then the rocket stage separates moments afterwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7S8yyYrAw&t=93
Notice the rocket stops spinning in the SAME way and we hear the SAME sound that was claimed to be the rocket hitting the dome!
Again, in some other videos the camera is placed BELOW the yoyo despin device, so we don't see it, we can only hear it.
So when you look again at flat Earth videos claiming rockets are hitting the dome you should have a greater understanding of what is really happening, and therefore you will know those videos are wrong (to the point of lying).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DaviDamir - You said "
i guess im so easily fooled"
Correct ;-)
And said "dude youre just failing to impress me with your "evidence""
'Dude', I'm not here to impress you and I never waste time trying to change the minds of those whose minds are made up already, so get over yourself please, you're not important :-)
I simply present the FACTS and let OTHERS reading threads like this to decide for themselves.
You said "is it a coincidence a scramjet has the same speed as the iss"
And what relevance do you think a theoretical scramjet has to this discussion?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet#Vehicle_performance
Quote "Theoretical projections place the top speed of a scramjet between Mach 12 (14,000 km/h; 8,400 mph) and Mach 24 (25,000 km/h; 16,000 mph).[41] For comparison, the orbital speed at 200 kilometres (120 mi) low earth orbit is 7.79 kilometres per second (28,000 km/h; 17,400 mph)."
Orbital speed of the ISS = 17,100 mph
Next?
1
-
@DaviDamir - Theoretical predictions are what they say they are, i.e. theoretical predictions. Hence you're in no position to claim otherwise.
And learn to understand what you read son, on that page it says and I quote "For comparison, the orbital speed at 200 kilometres (120 mi) low earth orbit is 7.79 kilometres per second (28,000 km/h; 17,400 mph).[42]"
That's the speed to maintain low Earth orbit at 120 miles up, NOTHING to do with a scramjet. The ISS is higher and hence requires a slight slower 17,100 mph.
So where does it say a scramjet travels at 7.79 km/s?
Instead it says for a scramjet and I quote "Theoretical projections place the top speed of a scramjet between Mach 12 (14,000 km/h; 8,400 mph) and Mach 24 (25,000 km/h; 16,000 mph)".
So stick to discussing the Scramjet, don't give me details about your personal Scamjet :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A wise man wouldn't blindly believe the claims of conspiracy theorists who say the US government lost proof and footage of the single most important event in history, much less over look the fact that there were SIX manned moon landings in total.
The ONLY footage that was lost was NASA's BACKUP copy of the Apollo 11 moonwalk, since that was the first time they would attempt a TV broadcast from the moon and so they made a BACKUP copy just in case people worldwide couldn't see it live on their TVs.
But the whole world did see it live and so NASA's backup copy of the SAME footage that we've all seen already wasn't needed, and so it was eventually lost.
All the other Apollo 11 footage is still available, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12 (except Alan Bean damaged the TV camera), or Apollo 13 (failed mission), or Apollo 14, or Apollo 15, or Apollo 16 or Apollo 17.
With a quick search you can find all the hour upon hour upon hour of Apollo footage here on YT, and on websites you can find scans of all the original Apollo photos, where from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 the astronauts took nearly 15,000 photographs, ALL available for YOU to see.
So remind me, which proof or footage is missing again? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SonOfKong33 - My point is, to this day no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (remember, no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to advanced CGI, which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s.
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way in terms of gravity, THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MissMillyHerself-kt6yx - Firstly, your solid block of text is not visible in this thread, probably too long and/or includes comments that triggered the YT AI to act, a problem that we all face (btw, ever heard of paragraphs? :-)).
Anyway, I can see your full reply in my email notification only, where you started with "And the basis of this statement is?..."
The basis of my statement is your reply to worldisfilledb9334, where you played the "I have a degree" card to dismiss him laughing at Eddie with regards to math, where no-one with a degree in mathematics would fail to see the flaws and lies in the mathematics presented by flat Earth theorists.
And what really caught my attention was the "them and us" comment from you where you said and I quote "Don't be misdirected. ..Just because your "internets" and other external forces are telling/convincing you that this theory is all of rubbish and all evidence and research has been blocked, pushed down, made restricted or in all ways extremely difficult to access on this matter, does NOT mean there's isn't an entire raft of us who believe we can either prove otherwise, or add some serious credence to the conversation. Our platform has just been pulled beneath our feet. Don't sell yourself short because you "think" you know something."
So any 'group' can make any claim they want no matter how ridiculous and make any accusations against others that they want, and yet deserve to be taken seriously on that basis? No need for them to present evidence that actually holds up to scrutiny?
Would you apply the same to a growing group who claim mathematics is all lies and evil as they proceed to present some of the most laughable arguments you've ever heard? :-|
So in what way does a belief in a flat Earth warrant being taken seriously when it presents no evidence to support it that holds up to scrutiny, not even one.
You said "Do I agree that he is (along with many others. More than people want to believe) are on to something? Or that the earth may be flat....well yes, yes I do."
And that's the problem, hence THAT is the basis of my reply, because someone with a degree is mathematics (which I assume you were saying) should be able to quickly see through any flat Earth claims based upon mathematics, so I have to question your comments and motives here when you fail to see how flat Earth mathematic claims are wrong, especially given your 13 day old account.
I doubt this is your first YT account, so what was your main account before please? Or is that a secret? :-|
1
-
1
-
@MissMillyHerself-kt6yx - I'm going to try to focus on your comments that are directly relevant to this discussion and ignore your side tracking remarks.
Anyway, you said "Its a little alarming that you say anyone with a "ridiculous" theory or notion or idea does not DESERVE to be taken seriously....Seriously? I in no way think you are ridiculous I do however think (as far as the fundamental basis of this theory and being able to prove or put a full stop to which argument is right or wrong) that you are certainly "punching above your weight) and more over not willing to admit that possibility."
Whenever I choose to look into a conspiray theory, I take the time to do my research.
As a practicing amateur astronomer (on and off :-)) since the 70s who started to see more and more flat Earth believers trolling the science videos I was participating in, where they set out to spoil discussions with cries of "fake", "lies", "hoax" etc, I decided to look into flat Earth theory so that I know what I'm talking about and hence would avoid misunderstanding and misrepresenting their claims.
Rather than watch videos on YT like most flat Earth believers, I decided to go to the original sources and hence find and read as many of the flat Earth books I could find published over the last 150 years or so.
Here's the flat Earth books that I've acquired and READ;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
So I'm certainly not punching above my weight, and I've done my research, but nice try with your assumption :-)
My initial goal for acquiring all those books was to see if just one of them featured an accurate undistorted flat map of a flat Earth.
None of them do, as I expected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beetlejuice4357 - [Edit: This reply is shadow banned btw, so only you can read it in your notifier window if you expand the reply and NOT the thread]
If someone tried to project the map of the Earth around a cube then it would be distorted, and hence it would take you no time to find two locations on that cube where the distance measured DOESN'T match the real world distance, proving the Earth is not a cube.
If someone tried to project the map of the Earth around a pyramid then it would be distorted, and hence it would take you no time to find two locations on that pyramid where the distance measured DOESN'T match the real world distance, proving the Earth is not a pyramid.
If someone tried to project the map of the Earth around a cylinder then it would be distorted, and hence it would take you no time to find two locations on that cylinder where the distance measured DOESN'T match the real world distance, proving the Earth is not a cylinder.
The point is, I've presented my proof to flat Earth believers like you for YEARS and yet not one of you has ever found even ONE example of a distance on a globe that doesn't match the real world distance, hence proving the globe is the only shape where the map of the Earth is not distorted, and therefore proving the Earth is a globe :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "then show you the NASA photos on their website of the Lunar module made of wafer thin Aluminium, kitchen foil stuffed into holes, missing rivets, and held together with duct tape."
And right there I would stop you, because if I covered a car in wafer thin aluminium foil and held it all in place with duct tape, would you come to the conclusion that the car is MADE out of wafer thin aluminium foil?
Of course not, and yet THAT is the logic you're presenting here :-)
Another perfect example of flawed logic is "Also guided by a computer 1 millionth of the power of your mobile phone."
During the 60s the USA and USSR landed several unmanned spacecraft on the moon with even LESS computing power, and in 1970 and 1972 and 1976 the USSR landed spacecraft that collected a tiny amount of moon dust and then returned that dust back to Earth for analysis, again with LESS computing power.
The calculations needed to send a spacecraft to the moon, and then land and take-off and return to Earth, doesn't change just because we stuff people inside, the calculations are exactly the same.
So if there was enough computing power to send all those unmanned spacecraft to the moon and back with LESS computing power than the Apollo missions, then clearly there was more than enough computer power available for the Apollo missions.
Therefore I wouldn't say you were crazy, just ignorant and uninformed ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Irrelevant my friend :-)
Gravity is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as magnetism is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as light is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is.
Hence to explain how gravity works, we have theories of gravity. To explain how magnetism works, we have theories of magnetism. To explain how light works, we have theories of light.
The problem is, when scientists say they don't know what 'X' is, some people take that to mean the scientists are saying 'X' doesn't exist.
But that's not the case, the scientists know "X" exist and they have theories that explains and predicts how "X" works, it's just that they don't know what it really is (replace 'X' with 'Gravity' or 'Magnetism' or 'Light' etc).
I hope that explanation helps :-)
1
-
1
-
@buddyfeno5224 - Thanks for replying, I'll focus on the main points.
You said "I believe we're under some kind of solid Dome / electromagnetic torus field, its rotation creates the electromagnetic field Tesla discovered"
I didn't ask you to make up a version of a dome :-) If you believe there's a solid dome then fine, but don't claim to know any more than that.
Btw, why do so many flat Earth believers refer to Tesla?
You said "i dont believe its a plane that goes on forever, many things are unknown due to the taking over of pseudo science..."
Don't blame others for flat Earth believer's lack of research and unwillingness to explore please. That's a flat Earth believer problem, it has nothing to do with others.
For example, ALL flat Earth theorists claim the South Pole doesn't exist, and yet not ONE flat Earth theorist has ever booked onto a tour of the South Pole to prove those tours are fake. Tours that ANYONE can go on if they can afford it :-)
You said "the earth is motionless and proven by science"
Either you trust science or you don't. You can't cherry pick and distort the science when it suits you. If science can't be trusted then don't refer to science as evidence.
You said "the Biblical creation is the closest ive seen and supported by real science"
Again this has nothing to do with science that you don't trust, and neither has it got anything to do with the Bible.
There are ZERO verses in the Bible that explicitly states the shape of the Earth, flat or a ball, and throughout most of Christian history the producers of every Bible you've read, i.e. Christian churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts, have said the Earth is a globe (albeit a stationary globe until recently). No Christian church or denomination in history has ever preached a flat Earth, only a globe Earth.
After we've discussed the points above, I would be happy to present my proof of the Earth being a globe that you (yes YOU) can directly check yourself, proof that has nothing to do with science :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kipthecourtjester - This is about my proof of a globe Earth, so lets stay focussed on that please, since you did agree to listen. Remember? :-)
You said "It’s a ‘flat’ map."
Correct. That's the point! Remember, I said and I quote "lets take an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as a town or a city."
Hence on the scale of a town or city, the natural rise and fall of the landscape will typically be more than the effect of the curvature of the Earth, therefore we can ignore curvature just as we usually ignore hills and valleys for general maps of our towns/cities.
Hence I'm trying to establish something that we can both agree on here as a starting point, and I think we can both agree (?) that if we could fly a craft up high enough with a camera to photograph a town directly below, then we can create an accurate photograph (flat) of the entire town, even if we took multiple photos and 'stitched' them together, instead of capturing the town all in one shot.
Then if we 'traced' over that flat photograph of the town to graphically capture all the streets and buildings and landmarks etc, then we would have created an accurate flat map of our town.
After all, if the map of the town/city was wrong, then people using that map would find out VERY quickly that the map is wrong and therefore will stop using it because they found out through experience that they can't trust it. Right?
Do you agree with the above? If not, then please explain why not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But before leaving you to your own ignorance, I must address this perfect example (that caught my eye) of your ignorance and your gullibility and your lack of research when you parroted without thinking;
Quote: "NASA means deception in Hebrew."
NASA does NOT mean deception or deceive in Hebrew, that's a lie from those who distort the Bible. The Hebrew word meaning deceive is NASHA, pronounced as "Na-shar" (you can HEAR it here);
www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h5377
NASA in Hebrew, pronounced as "Na-Sar" or "Naw-Saw", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take.
www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Word_of_the_Week/Archived/Nasa/nasa.html
Quote: "The Hebrew word of the week is nasa ("to lift up, take up, carry")"
Here's a few more links;
bibleapps.com/hebrew/5375.htm
www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H5375/nasa.htm
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/nasa.html
messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H5375-nasa-page-2.html
studybible.info/strongs/H5375
hebrewwordlessons.com/2019/01/20/nasa-lift-carry-and-bear-the-weight
Therefore the fact that you believed the flat Earth theorist claim about what NASA means in Hebrew proves just how easy it is for flat Earth theorists to manipulate you, hence proving the ignorance of your comments in this thread.
Simply put: If after reading the above you still think NAShA is the same as NASA, then your opinion on this subject is clearly a load of SHIrT ;-)
Bye :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "Censorship is very real. You can't even search for exact title of some of the popular videos without scrolling through pages and pages of debunking videos"
Which means the "shoe is on the other foot" now, as I will explain :-)
Not long ago, Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy links/videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if a few years ago I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings", then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos, which is unacceptable!
Following the changes however, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
That's how it should be!
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not that difficult (you just need to be smarter in your search).
That's also how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance. (i.e. you have to wade through pages of debunking videos now as I had to wade through pages of conspiracy videos back then).
Therefore it's not censorship since nothing has been deleted, it's just not as easy for you as it was before.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view of course, but the videos and links are all still there, but you just have to work harder and smarter to find them compared to a few years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bronneberg315 - If it makes no sense to you, then that's how it will remain, since I've explained it already.
I've also been an amateur astronomer for over 30 years, that's just one of my passions, and hence over those years it's the space related conspiracy theories that have caught my attention and interest.
As for hitting an easy target, how can they be 'easy' if they're suppose to be right and I'm suppose to be wrong? :-)
I could also ask - why are you spending so much time day after day having debates with people you don't know online like myself? So were you bullied at school and now need to take it out on strangers online? Is this your job now? ;-)
Of course I'm not being serious in my last paragraph above but you can't pretend that if you told all your family and friends about this thread and the discussions you've had with me (a stranger) over the last 4 days that they would all be impressed. You can't pretend that none of them would see your presence here in a negative light (even if they don't say it to your face).
Still, whatever you reply next, I think I prefer to end this here. Despite the insults that crept in (you really can't help yourself it seems :-)), I actually enjoyed the discussion we've had over the last several replies and so I prefer to leave on that 'relatively' more positive note.
(Btw, there is a partial solution that conspiracy believers can use on YouTube for getting around the low priority in searches, which still surprises me that no-one has thought of it as yet... but that's a discussion for another time).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johngeraghty1142 - Incorrect, since neither Neil nor Eric agreed to such a debate, therefore there was nothing for either of them to back out from.
Besides, should Neil also debate those who claim the Earth is hollow/concave, that the Universe is electric, that the moon is a spaceship, that the Space Shuttle was a hoax, that the ISS is a hoax, that Nibiru (Planet X) is on it's way to destroy the Earth, that Mars rovers are a hoax, that extra-terrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs, that crop circles are made by aliens, that alien civilizations have been found on Mars and the moon, and so on?
What makes you think flat Earth theorists are a special case for debate? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truthsauce - You said "But how can we know for SURE that he really WASN'T told to be quiet?"
How can we know for sure Joe isn't a trained assassin? :-)
Any of us can make accusations about others, but without evidence our accusations will be unfounded.
I understand that your problem is with Joe switching from being a moon landing denier to a moon landing supporter, but why should it ONLY be suspicious in one direction?
That is, no-one finds it suspicious when someone becomes a moon landing denier, a flat Earth believer, a vaccine denier, a covid denier, or a believer of other conspiracies.
But whenever a well known conspiracy believer changes his mind and stops believing the conspiracy, then others are quick to claim that the 'authorities' got to him to keep quiet, often with claims that there were threats to him or his family.
It appears to be based upon the assumption that once you go wack you never go back ;-) (Well, I thought that was funny...I hope you didn't take offense).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thisyoureadwrong - So much ignorance from you in just one solid block of text, well done :-) Btw, ever heard of paragraphs? They're very useful for making text more readable! Try using them.
For EVERY conspiracy theory in existence you can use Google to find so-called evidence, so don't use that as an argument.
You said "There is not a single picture of the entirety of the planet as a "Globe""
A classic flat Earth believer lie, where you tell yourselves it's all CGI and Photoshop with ZERO evidence to support your claim.
For example, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, Earth was captured in nearly 800 FILM photographs (no CGI or Photoshop back then), with many showing the entire Earth.
So if I present of one of those Apollo photos here, explain the process YOU would personally go through to determine if that photo is real or fake.
Your little "indoctrinated" comment is a classic conspiracy believe attack that you ALL use against others who don't share your beliefs. So tell me, do you believe atoms are a hoax? If not, then by definition you are indoctrinated.
You said "The UN logo is the flat earth itself"
No son, the UN logo is a silhouette of the Azimuthal Equidistant map that flat Earth believers claim to be a flat Earth, despite the fact that even flat Earth believers are beginning to see the flaw in that claim: www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51aPK-MtWQ
And then after more uneducated and rambling nonsense from you, you arrive as the conclusion that "It all ties to Satan.".
Lol, really? So given that over 2 billion Christians today say the Earth is a globe and Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have said the Earth is a globe, then in what way do you think this has anything to do with Satan? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anyway, getting back to Neil...
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SiK2712 - Believers of every conspiracy theory think they are right because of so-called anomalies my friend, but that doesn't make their conspiracy beliefs correct :-)
As for questioning things, I prefer researching answers over making assumptions, hence I own and have read all the following flat Earth books (which is why I wanted to know which version you believe);
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
In other words, I'm not dismissing something that I haven't researched, I've done my homework.
So you take care too and remember, questioning things is fine (that's how science works), everyone should do it, but making up your own answers to such questions is not fine (that's how conspiracy theories work), otherwise you will be walking blindly into the daylight while assuming it's night ;-)
1
-
@SiK2712 - Nope, since you still haven't explained what's so special about flat Earth.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
And which flat Earth theorists? The theorists who think there's a dome? The theorists who think there's no dome? The theorists who think there's an edge? The theorists who think there's no edge? And so on.
Until there's a definitive model of a flat Earth that is agreed among flat Earth theorists through debate and 'research', then there's no reason for ANY scientist to take flat Earth theorists seriously, hence no reason to debate those who don't engage in debate themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arizonarafa - If you look at my replies, you'll see that no matter how long they are, I make them readable with paragraphs. I never present a solid block of text. So could you at least TRY to make your replies more readable please? Thanks in advance.
So I'm not going to go through your whole reply (sorry, I do want to read it, but I can't accept solid blocks of text my friend), but I did skim it to see what sticks out, and the following caught my attention;
"There is an interview.. of Buzz Aldrin I think.. any way an astronaut of the Apollo missions...and he is asked... ". How did you manage going through the Van Allen belts... ". And his answer was. ". Huummm. I don't know , huuumm. We never saw that as an issue , I guess we just went through them. ". Honestly... Don't you find that answer unscientific ?? "
I believe you may be thinking of Alan Bean rather than Buzz Aldrin.
The point here is that Van Allen belts are harmless to pass through quickly, hence the astronauts would have only known about the belts during training, but they were irrelevant to the mission itself and so there was nothing for them to report. As I will explain in my next reply...
1
-
@arizonarafa -
To continue from my last reply...
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006);
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That's why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks and some for many months.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence it wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours.
Hence there's no inconsistency, just a lack of understanding.
You only thought the belts were a problem because conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves told you so... and that's the problem with many conspiracy theories :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not double talk John, you simply have to stop taking everything literally. For example, if I drew a square 300 cm by 300 cm, then you would have no problem recognizing it as a square. But if I made an error and it was 301 cm by 300 cm, then technically that's not a square, that's a rectangle, but to the naked eye the difference is so tiny that it would look like a square.
Likewise, make a model of the Earth that stands 300 cm high and the width would be 301 cm, which is not a perfect sphere, that's an oblate spheroid. But also the Earth bulges a fraction more in the south compared to the north, where on that model the difference is about 1 mm (hence the pear-shape) which again is too small to be seen with the naked eye. In other words, that model Earth would look like a perfect sphere to the naked eye.
And yes, men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972. To this day, not a single Apollo hoax claim holds up to close scrutiny. Fact :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see you posted that same claim as a new comment, so I'll post my reply here too (it would be interested to see if you post your video from that Electric Universe believer who says the Earth is a globe, as proof that gravity doesn't exist on your flat Earth :-D).
Here are just two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone.
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same.
So how does the flat Earth claims about density and buoyancy explain the attraction demonstrated? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
So how does the flat Earth claims about density and buoyancy explain the increase in weight demonstrated? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over and the same results observed for centuries.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of gravity :-)
The ONLY reason flat Earth theorists deny gravity is because it supports a globe earth, hence you deny it on principle rather than on the facts :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregoryrogalsky6937 - You said "Gwabbity :) . The force with no opposite or equal. What a joke. Uh huh.. you say, It's real, cause you say it is?"
No, I said Gravity is a FACT proven by experiments (which even YOU can carry out with a little effort).
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone.
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same.
So how does density and buoyancy explain the attraction demonstrated?
The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
So how does density and buoyancy explain the increase in weight demonstrated?
The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over and the same results observed for centuries.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of gravity :-)
I hope that information helps.
The ONLY reason flat Earth theorists deny gravity is because it supports a globe Earth, hence you deny it on principle rather than facts :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "mist of the crap was filmed in Area 51, Nevada"
Wrong my friend.
To this day no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (remember, no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to advanced CGI, which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s.
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way in terms of gravity, THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abrahamspies7611 - We don't feel speed, we only feel CHANGES in speed, a simple concept that flat Earth believers still don't understand for some reason :-)
For example;
If you woke up blindfolded in a passenger plane, or woke up blindfolded in an aircraft simulator, you wouldn't know what speed you were travelling at, and yet inside the passenger plane you may be cruising at 550 mph, whereas inside the simulator you are not travelling anywhere, your speed is effectively zero!
So you wouldn't know the difference until you took your blindfold off!
Hence we don't feel speed, we only feel changes in speed, i.e. acceleration and deceleration, and last time I checked the Earth is not accelerating or decelerating at a rate that the human body could detect :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 - You said "Eric has produced lots of new videos which debunk the 'debunkers'."
Except he hasn't, since his so-called debunks are as ignorant as his original claims :-)
For example, from his free eBook "200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball";
In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up.
So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time!
Here's Eric's photo from his eBook;
(As you know, change DOT to . and SLASH to /)
tinyDOTccSLASHvntwtz
Be honest now, does that photo tell you the sun is 3000 miles up?
Any meteorologist looking at that photo will tell you the base of the cloud types seen are about 1-2 miles up (the type of clouds we see airplanes flying in to and out of when leaving or arriving at an airport), so how can the sun be just above the clouds as Eric says?
Seriously, can you not see the major flaw in his argument? :-)
Just look at these examples of sun rays (crepuscular rays, or God rays) through trees;
tinyDOTccSLASH8yzpuz
See how many photos of trees you can find there showing the sun's rays passing through the trees in EXACTLY the same way we see the sun's ray's passing through clouds in Eric's photo.
If you apply the SAME logic as Eric, then those rays through the trees proves the sun is not 93 million miles away, nor is it 3000 miles away, but is in fact just above the trees! :-)
So come on, can you really not see the MAJOR flaw in Eric's proof number 125?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - WRONG. Gravity is a proven FACT.
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - You said "A fact is a fact. A theory is NOT a fact"
Which proves you don't understand the difference between "theory" in science and "theory" in common language use.
Again, gravity is a fact, proven by experiments. What exactly gravity is however is theory. Same with magnetism. Same with light.
Scientists don't know what magnetism is, but we know magnetism exists from the evidence, and therefore they created theories of magnetism to explain and PREDICT how magnetism interacts with matter.
Scientists don't know what light is, but we know light exists from the evidence, and therefore they created theories of light that explains and predicts how light interacts with matter.
Likewise, scientists don't know what gravity is, but we know gravity exists from the evidence, and therefore they created theories of gravity that explains and predicts how gravity interacts with matter.
I provided you with two experiments that proves the existence of gravity, address them please :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - You said "It could have been suicide, thank you for proving my point, that a fact is a absolute truth."
Which is why I said and I quote " It would be fair to assume it was 'probably' murder. Right?"
Which part of the word probably' did you not understand?
Suicide would be one of many theories, hence again proving my point.
And don't copy and paste what you don't understand. please;
https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html
Quote: "A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them."
Which part of the above do you STILL not understand? :-)
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - You said "If Venus is in a goldie locks gravitational zone, why then does mercury exist? If the heliocentric model is correct and gravity is as you stated it to be. It should be pulled into to sun."
Firstly, the goldilocks zone is the distance from a star (in our case the sun) for which the conditions are considered to be ideal for life, or more specifically, the right temperature and conditions for liquid water to exist.
It has nothing to do with gravity, so why do you keep saying "goldie locks gravitational zone"?
Secondly, Venus and Mercury and all the other planets would be pulled into the sun due to gravity if they were not ORBITING the sun.
For example, if you were to attach an elastic string to an object and swing it around in circles over your head, why doesn't it just fly away? Because the tension of the string holds it in place (like gravity). Why isn't it pulled into your body? Because you put the object into motion and so it goes around you in circles. Stop that motion and it will rest against your body. But cut the string, or if the string breaks, then that object will fly away from you. FACT.
Therefore for you to claim that Mercury and Venus should be pulled into the sun despite being in ORBIT around the sun only proves you don't understand the science that you're talking about :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YouMustQuestionEverything - I presented my list of flat Earth books to show that I've done the research by aquiring them and reading them, something that most flat Eartth believers have not done, they only go by what flat Earth theorists have told them.
You said "Gleason’s patent in NO WAY mentions that his map is based on a globe model. He merely mentions the Meridian lines that the globe model depends on too."
Incorrect. The map, which is not his patent, is an Azimuthal Projection map, where just like EVERY MAP USED FOR NAVIGATION is created by projecting a 3D globe Earth onto a 2D surface, where each map uses it's own projection methodology that offers advantages and disadvantages.
Gleason's description regarding the map in his patent is EXACTLY the method used to create the Azimuthal Equidistant map, and therefore that is what he's saying, otherwise the map would be different to the AE map.
You said "Of course there are two poles; North and South, but NOT your fantasy Antarctica. Nothing more to it! Show me the quote if you disagree."
ALL fllat Earth theories says there's only one pole, therefore Gleason states the Azimuthal projection method resulting in the map, where the South Pole is stretched around the circumference.
Go ahead and present differences between the Azimuthal Equidistant map and the Gleason map please since you appear to be claiming they are not the same :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sikhwidit9758 - Actually Frankie is correct, Eric Dubay proudly says he a Holocaust denier on his Facebook page.
And in his book "The Atlantean Conspiracy" Eric Dubay writes and I quote;
"Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
So, do you agree with Eric, such as his claim that Hitler was a misunderstood man of peace?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most conspiracy believers are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in their preferred version of the 'truth' and hence will only listen to those who say what they want to hear while dismissing anything that contradicts their beliefs as a lie, claiming those spreading the 'lies' are part of the conspiracy, eg. shills, government agents, CIA, bots, sheep, indoctrinated...
Hence Flat Earth theory hasn't been suppressed, instead it is free speech and 'debate' online without fact checking that has encouraged it, where popularity and appeal counts for more than boring official facts for some people, and so that has allowed FE to grow over the years. Same with chemtrails, anti-vaccination, etc :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kateransom8500 - The other point you're missing is that Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With all due respect you're making incorrect assumptions my friend, hence all you're offering here are arguments from incredulity.
When looking into the past,science gathers all the evidence available and works backwards from there, reaching conclusions/theories for which further evidence can either strengthen the leading theories or it can weaken them.
It's like a crime scene, where the detective didn't witness the murder of some guy, but they gather as much evidence as they can, allowing them to identify the victim, to say how and when he was killed, to work out his last moments and the events in his life that led up to that moment (where he was, who he met, significant events, possible suspects etc).
Eventually they may have enough evidence to bring a suspect to court to face a jury, who will weigh up the evidence and decide if the suspect is innocence or guilty.
Again, none of them witnessed the crime (except the murderer) and so they go by the evidence, for which in most cases the right person is convicted.
Science of the past is like that, where just as the wrong person can be convicted of a crime, so can the latest scientific theory be wrong, but we only find that out after NEW evidence proves the theory wrong or better understanding of the current evidence comes to light (say through new technology or flaws found in the previous analysis etc).
As it stands, the big bang best explains the universe we see today, and evolution best explains the diversity of life on Earth we see today, all thanks to the evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@logankent2633 - 8 inches per mile squared is the equation for a parabola, which was created in the 19th century as a quick calculation for the curvature of the Earth at sea level because it's easy to do in our heads compared to the equation for a circle.
Anyway... the problem is, such a calculation is accurate enough if you go up to the sea on a beach and lie down so that your eyes are level with the sea!
If does NOT take into account the HEIGHT of the observer, i.e. the height of your eyes above sea level.
Here's a curvature calculator that DOES take height into account;
dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc
So lets take your Catalina Island example.
At sea level (i.e. a height of 0), that calculator says 1067 feet would be below the horizon at 40 miles away.
But the highest point on Catalina Island is Mount Orizaba at 2097 feet.
That means if your eyes are at sea level 40 miles away, then you can see the top (2097-1067) 1030 feet of Mount Orizaba!
If you're just say 100 feet above sea level, then 514 feet would be below the horizon 40 miles away, hence you can see the top (2097-514) 1583 feet of Mount Orizaba, and hence see any land/features on Catalina that is 514 feet above sea level!
THAT'S the important fact missed by so many flat Earth theorists and believers, where a) You don't take into account the altitude of the observer, and b) You don't take into account the height of the features of the remote location.
Hence as I've shown above, we CAN see features on Catalina Island even from 40 miles away at sea level, and even more of the island the higher we are.
I hope that information helps. If it does, then apply it to other flat Earth distance claims and notice the errors they made too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neilparry7116 - I'm pleased you asked, but first we need to establish a baseline that we can both agree on.
So before discussing the globe itself, consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city.
ALL of us can find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the bar scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the flat map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
1
-
@neilparry7116 - Hi, sorry I meant to get back to you sooner.
I'm pleased you agree because that's the heart of my proof that the Earth is a globe.
You see, if there was something wrong with a flat map of your city then people would spot it very quickly, noticing routes and distances that are wrong. If people using the map cannot find anything wrong then we know the flat map is accurate.
So here's the problem... a flat map is a 2D representation of a specific area, and so for the flat map to be accurate the size of the area mapped doesn't matter on a flat Earth.
Hence the area mapped could be just 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or a 1000 miles by 1000 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on. If it's flat, then we can represent that entire flat area accurately with a flat map because the shape is essentially the same, i.e. flat.
So the question is, where is the accurate flat map of a flat Earth where we can take any two locations on the map and measure it to work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct (just like our town/city map), proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of a flat Earth?
The answer? No such flat map of the whole Earth exists! :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "Was it when don petit said he'd go back to the moon in a heartbeat, but they 'lost' that 60 yr old technology, and cant get it back!?"
Oh come on, really? Are you really going to claim that you don't understand what Don meant by that? His words were really that difficult? :-)
You said "Or when the Italian astronaut's helmet filled up w water- in space?"
You do know that spacesuits are liquid cooled, right? What liquid do you think they use?
You said "Or was it the somersaults in the spacestation where fellow astronauts are pulling on their wires?"
Oh yes, the one where we can see the fellow astronaut catch the other's pocket with his finger, and where the claimed wires would by passing through the astronaut and through the microphone cable as if by magic. In other words, there are no wires!
Hence all you're proving here is that you blindly believe conspiracy claims without question.
So can you state your beliefs please? That is, do you think only certain space missions are a hoax, or all of them because you believe space is fake?
And if you believe space is fake, is that because you're a flat Earth believer? Or something else?
1
-
@blackhawklue - You said "Why dont you tell me what petit meant if its so obvious?"
It really isn't rocket science :-)
Don Pettit saying he would go back to the moon in a nanosecond but we've lost/destroyed that technology, means we no longer have a Saturn V rocket in SERVICE TODAY to get us there, because the Saturn V rocket is retired.
The USA were not able to send people up to the ISS from 2011 to late 2020 because they lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. they no longer had a Space Shuttle to get them there, the Space Shuttle is retired. Finally they have that technology back with Space X rockets.
The world hasn't been able to send 100 people across the Atlantic at supersonic speed since 2003 because we have lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. we no longer have a supersonic passenger plane, Concorde is retired.
Understand it now? Destroyed or lost doesn't mean EVERYTHING is destroyed/lost, it means we don't have it in SERVICE TODAY, i.e. it's gone, lost, destroyed, never to come back.
The Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle and Concorde will never go into service again, that technology is lost/destroyed (i.e. the infrastructure and services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone).
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence we will soon have the SLS rocket, due to launch this year, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth for its second test in space. And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost/destroyed, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackhawklue - We're talking about the wires claim right now. Where it goes after that is open for discussion, it's not for you to present a list of demands, especially when you haven't responded to my last replies about lost technology :-)
Anyway...
Lets take one of the moments you speak of, where this hoax video covers it;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA
So here's the problem with that claim - When stunt people do similar somersaults, they have a wire attached to each side of their waists to allow them to rotate.
However, because of the wires, they need to make sure they pull their legs and arms inwards to avoid hitting/catching the wires as they rotate.
You can see this in action on the following link;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlebgX5Uj8g&t=54
As you saw, if their legs or arms aren't kept out of the way of the wires, then they would catch the wires and stop rotating, so they need to bring their limbs inside the wires as they rotate.
Now watch the hoax claim again (but mute the sound to avoid distraction) and imagine there's a wire on either side of that astronaut's waist (the one in the blue t-shirt rotating);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA&t=14
Notice how during his somersault he doesn't move his arms in to avoid any so-called wires, instead his arms would have to pass through the claimed wires like magic, possibly twice!
And not only that, notice that the microphone he's holding has a long black cable attached, so if he is suspended by wires, how did the microphone cable pass straight through that wire as he rotated?
:-)
Finally, look again at the astronaut in the USMC t-shirt. Notice that he reaches out to grab the astronaut to steady him, but because he's not looking at him directly he almost misses, where he catches the pocket of the astronaut with his little finger and pulls (look carefully).
Hence the video maker, like many conspiracy believers, completely misinterprets what we're seeing in that footage, where he sees what he wants to see and therefore makes things up without checking if what he's saying is true, knowing that certain others would just accept the claims he's making :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sweetness71775 - Thanks for the update on your beliefs.
However, here's one example that debunks the idea of the Earth being hollow... the measured distance to the moon.
We can measure the moon's distance DIRECTLY using radio waves without any reference to the structure of the solar system, hence it doesn't require complex mathematics based upon an assumed model of the Earth and solar system.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you think the Earth is a globe, or the Earth is flat, or the Earth is hollow/concave or whatever, the measurement of the moon's distance using radio waves will always produce the same result, a result which is independent of any person's beliefs.
Radio enthusiasts since the 1950s have sent signals to the moon and timed how long it takes to echo back. The time measured for the return signal is always consistent with the moon being around 240,000 miles away.
For example:
rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/
searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/moonbounce
www.discoverthebluedot.com/news/moonbounce:-record-your-message-to-be-bounced-off-the-moon
We know the measurements are accurate because the timing of the echo of radio signals is how RADAR works, where they use that time to accurately determine the distance of the object(s) being tracked.
If the moon was inside a hollow Earth, then the echo would take a fraction of the time to return compared to bouncing radio signals off an object a confirmed 240,000 miles away.
This is an important observation which has yet to be explained by any flat Earth theorist of hollow Earth theorist, but it is explained by the moon being 240,000 miles away from the globe Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sweetness71775 - Hi, here's something you can do to prove the Earth is a globe and of the size specified.
Get yourself a decent globe of the Earth, then find two locations on that globe, for example Tokyo in Japan and New York in the USA, and measure the distance between them in millimetres (i.e. as a direct line across the globe of the Earth).
Now measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres.
The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles to the millimetre by dividing 24900 by the circumference of your globe in millimetres. Lets call the answer to that calculation X, and therefore X is the scale of your globe.
So now you can check the distance between New York and Tokyo by taking the distance you measured on your globe in millimetres and then multiply that number by X to get the distance in miles. It will match the real world distance (well, give or take natural errors in your measurement).
You can now check ANY two locations on Earth using that same method, i.e. measure it in millimetres on your globe and multiply that number by X, and again it will match the real world distance.
The larger and the better your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good).
That alone proves the Earth is a globe and it proves the distance of 24,900 miles around the equator (7926 miles diameter) is correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sweetness71775 - You said "Distance between land masses is a whole different story, however."
No my friend, because as I stated, you can take ANY two locations on Earth and confirm the distance by land, sea and air, where to this day no-one has ever found an incorrect distance.
You can't pretend that a direct flight from one city to another city, including city to city on different continents, isn't proof that the distances are correct, especially when (albeit outside of a pandemic) there are around 100,000 flights that take off and land around the world every day!
That's 100,000 flights confirming the distances every day with no errors found.
The South Pole is in Antarctica, therefore go can't go South of the South Pole in Antarctica. The idea of more land south of Antarctica comes DIRECTLY from flat Earth theory, which claims Antarctica is not a continent but is instead a wall of ice that surrounds the Earth, and therefore some claim there's more land beyond the wall of ice.
There's no place for such extra land if you accept the Earth is a globe and the South Pole is in Antarctica, regardless of its size.
The important point here is: When the facts fit, then you should accept the facts.
So saying "By a general rule-of-thumb, I do not trust any major corporation or government" is all good and well if you're taking about politics and politically motivated incidents, but the shape and structure of the Earth we all live on is not about governments, it's not about religion, it's not about belief, it's not about the media or corporations, it's about the facts as established by many centuries of traveling and exploring and navigating the Earth by countless ordinary people from all walks of life from all over the world :-)
1
-
1
-
@Sweetness71775 - You said " I can't because I haven't measured the entire globe. Ultimately, the argument on the size and shape of the Earth comes down to faith"
Nope, I provided you will a simple method to work out distances on a globe of the Earth and compare those distances with the same distances measured for real. Neither you nor anyone can show any errors between the globe of the Earth and reality, hence making your claims null and void.
When you board a plane that is going to travel a certain distance in a certain direction to land at your desired destination, that journey is NOT based upon faith, it's based upon FACT... as are 100,000 other flights that day!
So silly excuses and denial doesn't make your case my friend, it only supports mine.
As for your comment "provided you personally haven't hopped on a rocket, left the atmosphere, and did a full orbit of the planet where you saw literally everything..."
I haven't been to China, have you? Nor can I prove 100% that someone who says they've been to China has actually been there. But that shouldn't be a requirement for me to know that China exists as shown.
Have you been to the North Pole yourself? If not, then why would you personally need to go to the North Pole to know it exists as shown? Aren't you trusting the word of those who have gone there, including those who've gone to government maintained research stations around the North pole?
Have you been to the top of Mount Everest? Have you been to every town and city in your country?
The point is, the idea that you need to personally see or experience something yourself before you can accept it is a poor argument and a false one, since the vast majority of everything you know comes from OTHERS, hence comes from your trust in certain figures and agencies.
After all, go ahead and prove that the person you're talking to right now online (myself) is real, all while using the achievements of science that made this discussion possible in the first place :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mysticnomad3577 - Thank you for highlighting my point so perfectly, where like all flat Earth believers, you're not sure of the structure of the flat world that you believe in :-)
You see, if you were as educated as you claim, then you should know those answers already, especially given the fact that you've made up your mind already.
I'm an amateur astronomer for over 20 years, where (given my IT career) I have written programs to calculate the positions of the sun and moon and planets for any date, sunrise and sunset times for any location on Earth on any date, and calculate lunar and solar eclipses etc, ALL using the mathematics of the heliocentric model you mentioned (oh and, did I say I have a degree in mathematics?).
No such mathematics exists for a flat Earth, because there's no mathematical flat Earth model.
For the flat Earth, I did my research fully, and hence I own and have READ all the following flat Earth books;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
So if you own any of the book above, then I'd be happy to discuss the contents with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@universalchiro - Firstly, don't hide behind the rather cowardly "troll" accusation please. If you make a claim on a forum then you should have the balls to accept the fact that others will challenge your claim.
Secondly, once again you prove you don't understand what science means.
Point out one example of 'knowledge' in the Bible that was obtained from it being "observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable".
Explain exactly how that particularly piece of 'knowledge' found in the Bible is still observable, testable and repeatable today and hence experiments are STILL being carried out to confirm/reject it.
The point you fail to understand is that (unlike religion) science is not fixed, it is CONSTANTLY being updated as new information comes through (go ahead and name the religion that does that).
Hence people are ALWAYS looking to prove that the current scientific 'knowledge/facts' are wrong or inaccurate, where they set out to prove it through experiments that are observable, testable and repeatable and hence falsifiable (i.e. the scientific method).
If there results are confirmed by others, then the scientific knowledge/facts are updated. That's how science works! That is NOT how religion works!
If you still disagree, then give me an example of where that happens to 'knowledge' in the Bible. Demonstrate how the Bible (whichever version you prefer) is constantly being updated please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymond3803 - You said " I see no contradiction. I see no false statement."
And I see the contradiction from someone who feels the need to lie to make his case, which is typical of conspiracy believers (sadly) , hence the hypocrisy of conspiracy believers calling so many others liars while somehow believing your own lies are justified :-|
As you said and I quote "Judge didn't rule that earth was flat" which means flat Earth was not proven in court.
So here's the proof I spoke of, I expect you to address it given your claimed expertise and experience on the subject (so no excuses please);
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
For a 9 inch globe of the Earth the scale works out as 34.7 miles per millimetre, so 35 miles is a good enough approximation. And for a 15 inch globe of the Earth it's around 20.8 miles per millimetre, so 21 miles is a good enough approximation on that globe.
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first flat Earth believer in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymond3803 - You said "Screw you. I didn't stick my head in the sand. I didn't get any bell notification to your 2nd most recent comment to me."
Fair enough, but I read on to notice you haven't offered an explanation, only dismissal (but to be fair you said you will test it), so lets examine it further.
For example you said "I have NO CLUE what you expect from a self- scaled globe. Most maps provide a scale. Globes don't."
INCORRECT. Only maps of areas of land/sea of sufficiently small size for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect upon the accuracy of the map have a scale.
That is, we can ALL find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the bar scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the map alone!
You clearly agree with the above for flat maps, so lets look again at the globe.
1
-
1
-
@raymond3803 - You said "Globes don't. My globe is 15" dia. You want me to check if all distances are accurate? Using your scale?"
It is NOT my scale, it is THE scale for the globe, since the globe is effectively a scaled model of the Earth (I guess mathematics wasn't your strong point? ;-)).
So for your 15" globe, I told you that the scale is 20.8 miles per millimeter, and so 21 miles per millimeter is a good enough approximation.
You said "Against mileage charts? Who's charts? Road Atlas? What Airlines provide? Internet mileage charts? Always using the "great ball" string method on my 15" dia. globe?"
I don't think I need to tell you HOW to measure distances across the surface of a globe :-/
Anyway, I ALWAYS ask flat Earth believers to select the locations themselves, where THEY are satisfied with the distance stated, whether it's over land or sea or both. That way you are measuring distances that you trust.
If I gave you locations to measure, then that opens it up to manipulation on my part, which defeats the purpose. Therefore you need to select the locations to measure.
I recommend to some as a starting point the locations specified in flat Earth distance claims, where it is claimed that some distant object shouldn't be seen over the curvature if the Earth was a globe.
ALL the years that I've debated such claims, the distance has ALWAYS been stated as FACT by flat Earth believers. Not once has any flat Earth believer suggested that the object can be seen because the distance may be wrong.
So in the same way all distances measured on a flat map of our town being correct proves the flat map is an accurate representation of our town, then all distances measured on a globe of the Earth being correct proves the globe is an accurate representation of our Earth :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ECHONWC - In other words son, you cannot provide the accurate map I asked you for :-) The map on a GLOBE of the Earth is accurate, where every country is the correct size and correct shape and all the distances are correct.
In contrast, no such map exists for a flat Earth, so simply put: No accurate flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth
As for Eric 'Charlatan' Dubay, that's the guy who claims the South Pole doesn't exist, and yet YOU, Me and EVERYONE HERE can book onto a South Pole tour and experience it for ourselves (where it's EASY to prove you really are at the South Pole). That's if you can afford it of course :-)
https://www.discover-the-world.com/destinations/south-pole-holidays/
Also look at Eric's laughable "200 Proofs Earth is not a Spinning Ball", and notice that in proof #123 he claims the sun is 3000 miles away (the official FE claim is 3000 miles up) and yet in proof #125 Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds!!! (hence according to the photo, the sun must be 1-2 miles up :-)).
So while Dubay can easily own incredibly ignorant, gullible and naive people like you, he would be torn apart by scientists like Neil, which is why we never see Dubay appear on any non-conspiracy science shows to have a straight debate, even though he must have been invited :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ECHONWC - The only person using ignorant strawman arguments is you son :-)
Explain why you think the speed of the Earth has anything to do with its shape. The fact is, it doesn't, therefore you referring to its speed is irrelevant to its shape (perhaps you should look up the meaning of strawman argument before making a fool of yourself again).
For almost 2000 years the Christian churches have all said the Earth is a globe, however they initially accepted Ptolemy's 140 AD model that placed a Globe STATIONARY Earth at the center of the Universe, and then in 1633 Galileo was charged with heresy for daring to suggest that the Globe Earth orbited the sun, i.,e. for suggesting the Earth was not at the center AND it moves.
Flat Earth theorists can offer no accurate map, they don't know if there's a firmament dome or not, they don't know if the land ends at the claimed ice wall, they don't know if the Earth rests upon pillars or not. In other words, the foundation of the claim is not observable, not measurable, not testable and not repeatable, which you helped to prove by your failure to answer those simple flat Earth questions.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
@ECHONWC - Actually, as a practicing amateur astronomer with a degree in Mathematics, I've been directly using the mathematical models of the solar system for years to carry out calculations/predictions of astronomical events, from sun and moon and planet positions, to sunrise/sunset times worldwide, to solar and lunar eclipses, to transits, and so on.
All thanks to various books and sources out there, with mathematics which proves the globe moon orbiting the globe Earth orbiting the globe Sun along with other globe planets is correct, because the models WORK, the mathematics WORK, and therefore the model is proven.
In contract, there's no mathematical model of a flat Earth, and hence the flat Earth predicts absolutely nothing, zero, zilch. Oh wait, a slight correction there, the flat Earth does make one prediction - It predicts that people like Eric Dubay will continue to grow richer thanks to gullible people like yourself ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So all you need to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewpohlman - You said "I posted a response over an hour ago but it was removed. Gee, I wonder why. Going to try again."
Because following recent changes on YT the AI algorithm is now to quick to shadow ban replies even when there's nothing wrong with them.
THAT'S the reason for my multiple replies, BECAUSE they were being shadow banned, so I had to keep deleting the original reply and trying again - changing the wording, reducing the text AND splitting them up to identify the part causing the shadow ban.
If the AI flags your reply as containing insults, links, too long, banned words etc, then it will be deleted or shadow banned.
You said "You continue to post several comments all at once."
As explained above.
You said "I would like to speak with you personally. Are you willing to speak over the phone?"
Come on, really? :-)
Lets just focus on my globe proof for now. Can you really not understand the significance that you can give me ANY two locations on Earth, no matter how far apart, were we can ALL work out the distance ourselves with just a globe and a measuring tape as I described?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richbrewer8121 - Thank you for proving your complete ignorance son :-)
Here's a simple question for you: If you held up a ball, can you see half of it? Yes or no?
If you can see half of the ball, then that means if you place a tiny camera in ANY location on the surface of the ball that you can see, then that camera can also see and film YOU.
Therefore a camera on the extreme LEFT of the ball and a camera on the extreme RIGHT of the ball are on OPPOSITE sides of the ball.
Here's a simple diagram to illustrate that simple point;
https://ibb.co/H4pkmhy
I'm sure even a child can understand that points A and B are on opposite sides of the ball, and points C and D are on opposite sides of the ball.
Therefore because YOU can see points A, B, C and D on that ball, then YOU can be filmed by a camera on points A, B, C and D.
So if that ball was the Earth and you were the moon, then people living at points A, B, C, D on the Earth, i.e. on opposite sides of the Earth, can see the moon at the same time.
For the parts of the ball that you can't see (i.e. the other side of the ball), any camera on that side will not be able to see you.
So again, if the ball was the Earth and you were the moon, then people living of the side of the Earth that can't by seen from the moon at that time, will not be able to see the moon.
Simple. Yes?
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@miramira4all - Great, so lets take it in a few steps.
Before discussing the globe itself, lets take an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as a town or a city.
EVERYONE can find an accurate map of their own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Therefore we can take any two locations on our map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
So do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
(In other words, if the scale of your map was 1 mile per cm and you measured a route from A to B across the streets of your town/city map that was 3 cm in total, then that would be 3 miles in the real world. And if the direct distance (eg. via a drone) from A to B was 1.5 cm on your map, then the direct distance would be 1.5 miles in the real world.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@labrawnjaimsrealityoverthe2494 - 3) "My mistake I did mean feet. So they only way to determine the curve is based on CGI riddled evidence from NASA."
I thought so :-)
Anyway, here's the problem. Videos at altitude claiming to show curvature or flatness are invalid tests unless people take into account the distortion caused by the field of view of the lens, and I've never seen anyone do that on either side of the argument.
For example, look carefully at videos making such claims and often you'll notice that the higher the horizon is above the center of the video, then the greater the curvature of the Earth. But the lower the horizon is below the center of the video, then the more the Earth appears concave!
And notice that there's a 'sweet spot' near the center of the video where the earth appears to be flat.
This change in the shape of the Earth depending on where the horizon is in relation to the center of the video is due to the distortion caused by the lens used. Not fish eye, often just a normal wide angle to capture a decent view of the Earth.
For example, look how the horizon goes from being a convex curve (round) to flat to concave in seconds here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWUZDOQm_HE&t=1226
Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and hence the horizon appears to show a globe or the horizon appears to be flat, and hence they say "Behold, proof that the Earth is flat/globe", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "Every flat earth video that brings the globe theory to its knees is gone from the internet"
Untrue my friend, and hence that explains why you're so easily taken in by conspiracy theorists :-|
None of the flat Earth videos have been deleted, unless by the user or through the channel being deleted (by the user or for breaking the rules).
Any deleted videos would appear as blanks in every playlist that it was added, and yet where's the outcry from FE believers who say all the FE videos have vanished from their playlists?
Here are the facts ...
Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if a few years ago I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings", then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos, which is unacceptable!
Following the changes however, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
That's how it should be!
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not difficult (you just need to be smarter in your search).
That's also how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view, but the videos and links are still there, you just have to work harder and smarter to find them :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@koba2322 - You said "no you’re arguing for ignorance. 34% of our generation believes it..."
Where Neil addresses that in numerous videos as he debunks flat Earth and other conspiracy claims, why isn't that enough? So how is that me arguing for ignorance?
Ever heard of "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink"? People like Neil can make the water available (as he does) but he cannot make the horses drink it!
As for your video (the one I expected), oh sure, because we really must trust the claims of Eric Dubay who has never EVER debated any flat Earth theorist or any scientist anywhere at any time over flat Earth, and yet you fell for his act :-)
Now if Eric had a history of debating flat Earth theorists instead of attacking them, or debating scientists instead of attacking them, THEN perhaps you could argue he really did want to do it, but Eric NEVER HAS, so why should we believe he is 'mad' this time to not debate for the FIRST time EVER with a scientist? Why hasn't Eric had that debate with any scientist SINCE to show he's still up for a debate with Neil?
And again, show me where Eric and Neil BOTH agreed to have that debate (i.e. it was all set and ready to go), because I'm missing it in the video you provided!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dog_doge - Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
Anyway at 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with a cheap vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept.
In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions with altitude, with no barrier in between and no closed container required.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Daggz90 - But that's the problem right there my friend, because nothing you've mentioned here is about dishonesty or deceit from NASA, it's about people not understanding the technology and hence jumping to conclusions and twisting it into something it's not :-|
To this day, all the digital sensors in all our phones and cameras and satellites and space probes etc only record in BLACK AND WHITE, and so color has to be reconstructed using various methods.
Your phone will use a filter with a grid of colors (eg Bayer filter) over the black and white digital sensor, where a mathematical algorithm will then convert the pattern of colors to work out the most likely color of each pixel. The resulting photos and videos are not 100% color perfect but to our eyes it looks perfect.
For science the images represents data and so it has to be 100% color perfect, so for photos that are pleasing to our eyes spacecraft will take multiple photos with different filters (eg, red then green then blue) and combine those photos to get the final image.
However, the levels of red and green and blue are open to interpretation, and so may be adjusted until they 'feel right' to those looking at the photos.
For science the black and white photo taken through the red filter contains important accurate information, same for the photos through the green filter and the blue filter, but for images close to what our eyes would have seen they combine the 3 photos to create a color photo.
So when they did that for the Mars photos the scientists thought it looked off, that it wasn't red enough because the sky looked more blue than red, so they assumed the color balance wasn't right and adjusted it so that the sky appeared more red as expected.
Can you understand how and why conspiracy theorists jumped to false conclusions and turned that into a claim that NASA were purposely |ying? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pureblood6607 - Bro are you for real ? Are you lazy ? Lmao
But seriously, it's not rocket science if you make the effort to understand what is being said :-)
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and videos your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your 'pear shape' oblate spheroid model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Hence Neil is making the point that the Earth is not a perfect sphere and describes how it differs from being a perfect sphere, even though it looks like a perfect sphere to our eyes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Ask yourself which conspiracy theorist who talks about the Van Allen belts has ever had spacecraft that he/she helped to design sent out into space into those same belts :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "If Gravity, then wouldn't the forces of gravity required to hold the oceans/depths in place crush any life form on the planet."
That's a typical misunderstanding of gravity, which is why so many flat Earth believers can't (or won't) understand it :-)
I don't have time right now but will come back later, but in the meantime, see if you can work it out from the fact that gravity is NOT just about the Earth attracting matter towards it, gravity is about ALL matter attracting other matter.
In other words, the gravity of the Earth attracts you, your gravity attracts the Earth, hence the Earth and you attract each other. The gravity of the Earth attracts the oceans, the gravity of the oceans attract the Earth, hence the Earth and oceans attract each other...
1
-
1
-
Hagogs - Neil doesn't debate them because it's the right thing to do!
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy and alternative reality claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulmorris1819 - You said " They use a flat Earth model because it is what works."
Wrong, they ASSUME a flat Earth to simplify the equations for those specific models, as Frankie explained.
For example and I quote "flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating earth"
Since when are ANY aircraft rigid? According to you, they are saying airplanes can never bend or flex but instead are completely rigid like solid blocks of rock!
Since when is our atmosphere stationary? According to you, they are saying there's no such thing as wind!
Not only that, but in most cases the flat Earth assumption in those models refers to a perfectly flat plane, i.e. no hills no valleys no height difference anywhere, just a perfectly flat surface, which is NOT the definition of your claimed flat Earth! :-)
THAT is the point of model simplifications through assumptions, where EVERY assumption is stating "Although this is not true in the real world, please ASSUME it is true for the sake of simplifying our model".
So again, NOTHING you have posted here says the Earth is flat or aircraft are rigid or our atmosphere is stationary or aircraft are a point masses (i.e. infinitely small) and so on.
Because if you're claiming they say the Earth is flat, then you are ALSO claiming they are saying ALL the other assumptions above are true too!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@commonsense7407 - The fact that you actually took Neil's point about the shape of the Earth so LITERALLY says it all.
So if your friend said he's so hungry he could eat a horse, would you then check your phone to see if they sell horse meat in your area? Your answer must be yes given your comment that shows you don't understand what an analogy is :-)
If you did understand that your friend didn't literally mean a horse, then why are you unable to understand that Neil didn't literally mean a pear?
From the video "Neil deGrasse Tyson explains how the earth became pear-shaped";
Neil; "...But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer; "A little chubbier"
Neil; "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
Some audience laughter
Neil; "... it turns out, the pear shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size
Neil; "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So despite the 'pear shape' analogy Neil clearly says the Earth is "practically a perfect sphere".
Therefore it's dishonest to claim he said the Earth literally looks pear shape, and yet so many flat Earth believers do. Why is that?
To summarise;
Neil was making the point that the Earth is not a perfect sphere, that it's flattened slightly at the poles and hence it's an oblate spheroid... but... even that oblate spheroid is distorted a little because the Earth bulges out a fraction more in the south compared to the north, like a pear, where he made the point that the distortion overall is so small that and I quote "cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere".
It really is that simple!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum. At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions.
After all, what's separating the crushing pressures of the ocean floor miles down from the low pressure of water at the surface of our oceans? The pressure is higher the lower we go down into the ocean, due to the weight of the sea above.
Likewise the pressure of our atmosphere is higher the lower we go towards the surface of the Earth, due to the weight of the air above.
So weight creates the pressure at lower levels, and that weight is caused by gravity.
The law of entropy that you mentioned only applies to a gas when no external force is applied to the molecules. Gravity is the external force acting upon the gas molecules of our atmosphere.
1
-
1
-
@FlatzoidsPerspective - A vacuum chamber is containment because it is inside pressurized air, hence the SAME as being underwater surrounded by pressurized liquid.
You said "Second problem when you add gas inside a vacuum chamber its no longer a vacuum! "
WRONG. There's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, therefore even the best vacuum chambers you can access will still have gas molecules floating around.
Because of that, vacuums are categorized as I pointed out (low vacuum, medium vacuum, high vacuum, etc), for example;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Measurement
Hence a vacuum cleaner is not called that because it creates a perfect vacuum, it has that name because it creates lower pressure inside (a low vacuum) which causes the higher pressure air surrounding it to rush in, taking dust with it.
Not sure what point you think you're making about gravity, since it's effect would be irrelevant to the amount of gas in a vacuum chamber.
Either way, you have proven here that you don't understand what a vacuum is :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Firstly it's Dubay not Dubai, and Eric Dubay has never made such a request, you are referring to Joe Rogan who tried to make that happen.
Secondly, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So there's no reason for Neil to make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate.
And Eric Dubay has never had an open debate with anyone who disagrees with his views. He doesn't even debate the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of working for the gvt to discredit flat Earth, such as Mark Sargent :-|
Eric doesn't even attend flat Earth conferences to put himself in a position to be questioned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1