Pixel--Dude wrote: ↑November 19th, 2023, 12:50 am
@Winston
@gsjackson
@Yohan
@galii
I've watched some of Eric Dubay's Proofs that the earth is flat and I'm going to be brutally honest about my thoughts and criticism of his thoughts and theories. To be honest I find some of his points are just the same as other points, but just worded differently. So he doesn't really provide 200 Proofs as several of them are the same points but worded in a different way.
I think many points, particularly many of those I remember posted in the first 5 minutes are based on massive misunderstandings on how a globe model actually works. I'll go into more details when I have time.
Just a few points that I remember:
The horizon rising to meet eyelevel is because the globe we live on is so vast and huge that a tiny human being who takes up the tiniest percentage of the earth's surface could never perceive the curvature unless we lived on a golf ball world.
Rivers do not flow upside down. I don't understand why on earth he would make this assumption. It shows a complete lack of perspective and understanding on how perspective itself works. On a globe earth there is no fixed "up" or "down". These are concepts based on perspective in relation to where the sky is and where the floor is based on which part of the planet you are standing on. So rivers don't flow up the curvature upside down. They flow from the highest point to the lowest point of the land mass.
The reasoning above is applied to the ocean finding its level and building bridges which don't account for curvature etc, that's because the surface is so huge the above two points work in conjuction with each other. We are so tiny in comparison that wherever we are on the planet it is always flat and the curvature is not perceived but it is definitely there.
Pilots do not need to dip the nose of their plane or they will fly off the planet. That's not how it works. If a plane is flying 300ft above sea level and travels in a straight line around the planet then it will remain 300ft above sea level regardless of where it travels around the globe. Again: the glove is massive! Inconceivably big compared to a tiny plane which is the equivalent of a germ on a beach ball. So it's a mixture of massive globe/ tiny plane and again perspective. Wherever that plane is on the planet it is always 300ft above sea level with no variation required.
Notice this photo of Chicago taken from across Lake Michigan as well! This is often used by flat earthers as proof that earth is flat, but if that is th
e case then why can you only see the tops of the buildings and not the bases as well if there is no curvature to take into account? For me this is proof of the earth's curve and not proof of a flat earth.
I already posted some refutation about flat earth which as far as I'm aware hasn't been addressed by gsjackson or anyone else who espouses the flat earth model.
1. Difference of air pressure at lower and higher altitudes. If earth is flat then why does this difference of air pressure exist? How do things like lightning and even rain exist without air pressure? And how can air pressure exist under a firmament?
2. What the f**k is a lunar eclipse? How come no explanation or proof is offered by flat earthers of the existence of a spherical body passing between the sun and the moon that is not earth? There is no way to prove the existence of such a celestial sphere that is not earth, meaning that earth is the only viable explanation to account for such a phenomenon.
3. The Coriolis Effect. This is when circulating air is deflected in curved paths due to the fact the earth is globular and also rotating. The direction of this effect is opposite in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. How does this happen and why on flat earth? This is proof the earth is a globe and is rotating.
These are just a few points which raise valid questions about the theory. I don't like to mock flat earthers and I'm an open minded person. There's nothing wrong with questioning things and examining reality with critical thinking. But flat earth seems to be based more on guesswork and speculation and mainly misunderstanding of concepts like perception etc.
So you reject the conclusion of "scientists" that the earth's circumference is around 25,000 miles and therefore the curvature is eight inches per mile squared, even though you accept the rest of their ludicrous, jerry-built theory? if it is correctly calculated, you would certainly see some curvature from 35,000 feet flying in a commercial airliner. But you don't.
By now you should have read enough FE theory to know the answer to your point about the Chicago skyline. It's the same as boats disappearing over the horizon. Simply get out a telescope and you will see the bottoms of the building, so the earth's curvature is not blocking the view of the bottoms. And if it was the case, at 45 miles away from the skyline (boats start disappearing from the bottom up at about three miles out) then it sure as hell invalidates your point about the earth being so vast that the curvature can't be perceived from a few miles above. Please pick one of these mutually exclusive theories.
Re flying, maybe you'll have a go at the question Galii studiously avoids. If the earth is spinning west to east, 1,030 mph at the equator, how can the flight time be about the same flying west to east and east to west, after accounting for wind speed? How is that possible? And how do they fly north and south over this spinning ball? Constantly tack to the right or left to keep up with the spin? That's absurd, and I'm sure if you ask a pilot he will tell you that he does no such thing. And how do you hit the moving target runway?
So your point about the rivers not running up or down the curvature relies on your contention that the earth is so vast that any given point it will be perceived as flat? Not sure I understand. If you're saying that the Nile does not go up the earth's curvature and then down it, I'm sure cartographers who accept the globe theory would disagree strenuously.
Once again, a firmament is not essential to FE theory, and is not argued by Dubay or most FE proponents. You should refer all questions about air pressure to Youtuber Austin Witsit. You would learn a lot from his videos
Once again re eclipses, please account for the 56 occasions in which the globalist Royal Academy of Science observed both the sun and the moon in the sky during an eclipse. Clearly, something else causes them.
The "Coriolis effect" just seems like nonsense, and relies on observations that can't be verified, unless you have time and witlessness enough to flush a million toilets in both the north and south hemispheres. A little mini-argument, a pointlet.
I try to resist drawing conclusions on the basis of the lameness of globalist responses to FE evidence -- from yourself and Galii to His Eminence, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the very voice of "science" -- but it's not easy to do. Surely there's someone out there, some High Priest of the globalist religion, who will deign to come down from the mountaintop and make a strong, irrefutable case for the spinning ball. But he never arrives. It's always just cherry-picked, unpersuasive responses to a small handful of the FE arguments, almost all of which can be verified by observation.
