Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[Winston]

Some questions and issues about Flat Earth that I posted to Aewar, creator of the 8 hour Flat Earth series "What on Earth Happened" that I posted above. Since Eric Dubay refuses to answer hard questions and only likes answering easy basic questions, I thought I'd try someone else who has very good research skills and follows the data. @gsjackson do you have any answers to this?

Aewar, since you have good research skills, can you get to the bottom of a few important Flat Earth issues I have that Eric Dubay won't address? See below:

1) First, Eric Dubay and other FEers keep saying that if you fly with your own private plane to Antarctica or the North Pole that you will be shot down by the military. But not a single website says that. I looked on Google and no one says that. Aviation websites merely say that it's dangerous and inadvisable to fly to the North Pole or Antarctica, but not illegal, nor that you will be shot down by the military. So where do FEers get this? I asked Dubay but he refuses to answer because he only wants to answer easy questions, not hard ones. Yet he keeps repeating this in all his videos, that you will be shot down or arrested if you fly to Antarctica on your own in your own plane.

2) Has anyone ever crossed Antartica? Dubay says no. However, Wikipedia and Quora claim that several people have flown across Antarctica and one woman even skiied across it on the ground! Can you see if these stories are authenticated? If they are true and people have gone across Antartica, then does that invalidate the Flat Earth model? What do you think? This is an important issue, but Dubay again refuses to look into it. He just keeps repeating the same stuff in every video, almost like an NPC on a script. lol

3) My friend from New Zealand said that he flew from NZ to Santiago, Chile in a plane in 14 hours, which is impossible on a Flat Earth model because that's the same amount of time it takes to fly from California to Asia. If he's right, then does that invalidate the Flat Earth model? Can you look into it since you are a good researcher and follows the data wherever it leads, which very few people are willing to do? Everyone just wants to validate their beliefs, as you know. Thanks.

[Winston]

Even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry and navigation can tell you that the world is indeed a sphere. If it were not, the calculations used to chart distances on earth would be way off and the further you get from the "Center" (The poles) the more radically off things would bet. This would not be just some minor discrepancy- over long distances it would end up being off by thousands of miles. That "Great ice wall" called the Antarctic would be nearly 80,000 miles in perimeter....lol You know, they actually have sailboat races around Antarctica?

That's already been addressed. Pilots say they fly over a flat earth and do not have to pull the plane's nose down every few minutes and the Earth looks flat from the cockpit. Engineers and architects say that they do not factor in the earth's curvature when they design bridges, train tracks, and canals. They are quoted verbatim in the series I posted above "What on Earth Happened". See episodes 1, 2, and 3. Some pilots are interviewed too. Also US government documents say there is a firmament in the sky which accidentally slipped through the cracks and are from the 1950s when Operation Fishbowl was going on where the US military tried to use nuclear missiles to break through the dome in the sky.

Also, this is just one issue. There are now 200 arguments for Flat Earth, which is A LOT for sure. You have to consider all of them, not just hang on one issue like small minded biased people do. That's not good research. What about the other 199 logical arguments and proofs in the 8 hour documentary I posted above? They should all be considered too. Why can't you guys look at the big picture? Some of those proofs are VERY STRONG and AIRTIGHT and can't be refuted. Sorry. If you watch the 13 part series above, you would see what I mean. Just watch one episode a day if you don't have time to see the whole 8 hours all at once. I can't summarize an 8 hour documentary series for you. You gotta do the research and go through it all yourself. There's a lot of proofs and evidence and verifiable evidence that globe earthers can't explain away so they ignore them. That's a bad sign if you are a globe earther.

[galii]

Flat Earth has been described as "the place where uneducated minds go to feel better about their ignorance, and educated minds go to be entertained.


Sending a scientific illiterate to the internet to "find the truth" about the "Flat Earth" is giving a 16 year old girl $6,000 to buy a good used car. The first car lot that has a purple car will get her money, and she'll be riding the bus.

[Winston]

@galii

Btw from now on, PLEASE do not go into other threads and use flat earth to ridicule or insult people or call people "flat earth retards". That's very distracting and off topic and a cheap shot and irrelevant too. If you want to discuss flat earth, then discuss it in the flat earth threads, like this one. But don't go into other threads on other topics and bring it up to ridicule or insult others. Ok? That's very annoying and distracting and off topic and nothing good comes from that. Ok? Thanks.

[Winston]

Mark Sargent, one of the big flat earth popularizers, goes on a morning talk show to talk about the Flat Earth. This is pretty hilarious. The interviewers ask him skeptical questions of course.

[gsjackson]

Sargent's who you invite on if you want to discredit the movement.

[TruthSeeker]

Sargent's who you invite on if you want to discredit the movement.

What makes you say he discredits the movement? They all sound about the same to me.

[gsjackson]

Dubay thinks he's controlled opposition. He avoids the strongest arguments and puts forward the preposterous notion that the earth is always rising and that explains why things fall.

[NPCslammer]

Was scrolling down facebook and saw an interesting video about some guy claiming to be working in Antarctica. He was talking about “Sky Ice” blue ice that is not like regular ice, but incredibly cold that freezes anything that comes into contact with it and instead of melting it just eventually dissipates into a gas. He was also saying there is a massive wall of this, something like what the flat earthers talk about and that it takes incredibly resilient equipment to drill into the stuff, which he says eventually grows back. It sounded like some of this sky ice ice was falling from the sky. (the firmament)? It was interesting enough that even if it wasn’t true it sounded cool AF and would have been awesome in some kind of sci fi movie. But perhaps, what he was saying was true.

[gsjackson]

Dubay thinks he's controlled opposition. He avoids the strongest arguments and puts forward the preposterous notion that the earth is always rising and that explains why things fall.

Why is that notion preposterous? If we're discounting all mainstream science then isn't anything possible? Why do you think things fall? Can gravity exist on a flat earth?

Things fall because they are denser than the medium through which they are falling. There's no need for gravity as an explanation, unless you're trying to prop up a heliocentric system that has the earth as a spinning ball that sea water (curving over the ball) doesn't fly off of as it spins.

[Yohan]

Dubay thinks he's controlled opposition. He avoids the strongest arguments and puts forward the preposterous notion that the earth is always rising and that explains why things fall.

Why is that notion preposterous? If we're discounting all mainstream science then isn't anything possible? Why do you think things fall? Can gravity exist on a flat earth?

Things fall because they are denser than the medium through which they are falling. There's no need for gravity as an explanation, unless you're trying to prop up a heliocentric system that has the earth as a spinning ball that sea water (curving over the ball) doesn't fly off of as it spins.

https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/fa ... arth/flat/
https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/fa ... proof.html

Tides are perfectly correlated with the positions of the Sun and Moon. This is only possible with gravity but flat-earthers deny that gravity exists.

A summary why the earth is a globe and not flat can be found here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical ... e_of_Earth

[gsjackson]

Dubay thinks he's controlled opposition. He avoids the strongest arguments and puts forward the preposterous notion that the earth is always rising and that explains why things fall.

Why is that notion preposterous? If we're discounting all mainstream science then isn't anything possible? Why do you think things fall? Can gravity exist on a flat earth?

Things fall because they are denser than the medium through which they are falling. There's no need for gravity as an explanation, unless you're trying to prop up a heliocentric system that has the earth as a spinning ball that sea water (curving over the ball) doesn't fly off of as it spins.

Wouldn't the sea only fly off if the earth stopped spinning? Along with everything that isn't bedrock lol. Why do you think that water is incapable of curving?



What shape is this water droplet? Is it curved?

Liquid will always conform to the shape of its container. So if the earth is a globe then the water will conform to the shape of the earth, which would be curved in this example.

If the earth is flat then why doesn't water just sit still like a puddle? Why is it in constant motion? Why do we have tides and things like that? Or something like the Atlantic Current? How are all these things operating on flat earth? Has any explanation that conforms to what is observable been offered? If not something that just works as a model will suffice.

Pour some onto a curved surface and see what happens. Or ladle it on if you'd rather. This is sort of amazing. You've advanced a theory that will be immediately slain by factual observation. if something is on the outside of an object that object does not "contain" it.

[gsjackson]

Why is that notion preposterous? If we're discounting all mainstream science then isn't anything possible? Why do you think things fall? Can gravity exist on a flat earth?

Things fall because they are denser than the medium through which they are falling. There's no need for gravity as an explanation, unless you're trying to prop up a heliocentric system that has the earth as a spinning ball that sea water (curving over the ball) doesn't fly off of as it spins.

Wouldn't the sea only fly off if the earth stopped spinning? Along with everything that isn't bedrock lol. Why do you think that water is incapable of curving?



What shape is this water droplet? Is it curved?

Liquid will always conform to the shape of its container. So if the earth is a globe then the water will conform to the shape of the earth, which would be curved in this example.

If the earth is flat then why doesn't water just sit still like a puddle? Why is it in constant motion? Why do we have tides and things like that? Or something like the Atlantic Current? How are all these things operating on flat earth? Has any explanation that conforms to what is observable been offered? If not something that just works as a model will suffice.

Pour some onto a curved surface and see what happens. Or ladle it on if you'd rather. This is sort of amazing. You've advanced a theory that will be immediately slain by factual observation. if something is on the outside of an object that object does not "contain" it.

But water isn't "outside" of the earth. It's inside the atmosphere of the earth and part of it.

If density is what is holding the water down and not gravity then what is causing the tides and currents? These are things that make sense when gravity is used as an explanation. What explanation can you offer for this other than repeating what you've already said about pouring water onto a tennis ball? The oceans conform to their oceanic containers, they aren't just resting on top of a ball.

If the Earth is flat, like you propose, then how come there are different air pressures at different altitudes? Again, this makes sense on a globe earth as gravity is explained to be holding the atmosphere close to the centre.

@Winston brought up some good counter arguments regarding flights as well. He argued that a flight from Australia to Southern America takes just as long as a flight from Northern America to Asia for example. The two points in the "Northern Hemisphere" should be much shorter to travel between than the two points in the "Southern Hemisphere". This is obviously something that doesn't make sense on a flat earth.

I have some further questions.

If the earth is flat and astronomy is a lie then how come we don't have other scientists or astronomers who aren't part of the conspiracy coming out and revealing their own findings to the contrary, as we did with the covid pandemic. Flat earth, to my knowledge only has fringe groups consisting of people with no scientific background, or youtube channels or people on forums on the Internet to argue a case for flat earth. Most of these don't seem to understand that "up" and "down" on a globe earth are omni-directional and dependent on various perspectives.

Why should we accept flat earth when there is no substantial research to counter the explanations offered in heliocentrism?

Why are some arguments for geocentrism not applicable to a globe earth? For example why can't density be holding the oceans in their oceanic containers over a globe surface? Even if we discount gravity, up and down could still be omni-directional with items and elements conforming to laws of density. So why couldn't the geocentric model apply but with a globe earth?

Go ahead and pour some water on your globe. It's contained by the earth's atmosphere.

I'm not sure you're up to date on what the current theory of gravity is. I think they gave up the old notion of large objects emitting this magnetic force because they were never able to see it demonstrated anywhere in nature or replicate it convincingly in experiments. I believe the latest is that gravity is some sort of Einstein hocus-pocus -- something like a warp in the space-time continuum.

[gsjackson]

"Yes I understand Einstein's theory."

You and maybe two or three other people. I think the idea is that it's not meant to be understood. Perhaps the current term gaslighting applies.

"I'm more inclined to believe the earth is a globe, based on some observational evidence ."

What observational evidence? I've satisfied myself observationally that no curvature can ever be seen.

[gsjackson]

What observational evidence? I've satisfied myself observationally that no curvature can ever be seen

The southern cross being visible from various locations in the southern hemisphere. This would be impossible on flat earth. This is strong evidence of the earth being a globe.

So the other constellations -- Big Dipper, etc. -- aren't visible from the Southern Hemisphere, since the upside-down people are looking at a completely different sky?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALWFJYF1jm4