The best way to refute the Flat Earth

[exchemist]

Like I said, feel free to check out posts #36, #38, and #43 to get an idea of what a "rational" explanation regarding the illustration that I posted actually looks like. It's funny how you say you aren't interested in comparing what you said to what other posters in this thread have said about the illustration, but for some reason you seem to have no problem returning over and over again to try convincing me that something is wrong with me or that I'm not being rational. There's a word for what you're doing and it's called "gaslighting".

There are also several words for what you are doing here, none of them very complimentary.

One is that you are most likely trolling. I do not believe you are quite as stupid or naive as a lot of material you have posted suggests.

Another is that you are trying to Gish-gallop, by posting so many utterly wrong things at once that people are overwhelmed with the tsunami of balderdash. This gives you the opportunity, which I notice you have not been slow to take, of pretending that people's inability to react to all of them at once means you have in some sense won an argument.

I have pointed out the gross error in one of your silly claims. I can do the same for the others, one by one, if you are really interested, which I rather doubt. They are all well known and have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere. But I am not going to deal with everything at once, because that would obscure the clarity of my replies and give you an opportunity to obfuscate by jumping between them.

 

[exchemist]

Why did you ignore the first two images? I find it interesting how when attempting to validate the globe earth, people who advocate for it usually avoid dealing with actual numbers and measurements which cannot be explained away or mistaken as accidentally being interpreted to mean something else.

For the record, I'm not saying that I support the flat earth model or the globe earth model. I'm just sharing things that I found while researching.

You asked if people could explain any of your examples, not all of them. And that is exactly what @It Aint Necessarily So has done. So don't complain that not all of them have been addressed at once.

Mr Gish Gallop.

 

[exchemist]

How do you feel about this one?

For any interested readers, this is a well known mirage effect, due to an atmospheric "inversion", in which you have colder, denser air close to the lake surface and warmer air above. This can happen if the water in the lake is colder than the air and there is not enough wind for turbulent mixing of the air layers.

The speed of light is reduced a bit in denser air. So it will be slightly lower closer to the water than higher up. So the top of a light beam pointed across the lake will travel a bit further, in a given time, than the bottom. Result? The light beam bends, downward, slightly.

Thus the light from Chicago is bent sufficiently that you can see "over" the normal horizon, while this atmospheric condition persists. What our poster is careful not to tell you is that the effect comes and goes, varies, causes changing distortions in the image - and is usually not visible at all.

The other, more familiar, "desert" type of mirage is when you see a reflection of the sky on the ground. This happens when the air near the ground is hotter and less dense than the air higher up. The effect in that case is to bend light rays the opposite way from the Chicago example, so that you get an image at ground level of something high up.

The desert type of mirage is called an "inferior" mirage, as the image appears below the object, whereas the Chicago lake example is a "superior" mirage as the image appears above the object.

There is an explanation of it all here: Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

Please note this explanation is four years old and I found it after a 2 minute internet search, which rather raises the question of how stupid @Tazarah thinks we all are here.

 

[Tazarah]

You asked if people could explain any of your examples, not all of them. And that is exactly what @It Aint Necessarily So has done. So don't complain that not all of them have been addressed at once.

Mr Gish Gallop.

There are also several words for what you are doing here, none of them very complimentary.

One is that you are most likely trolling. I do not believe you are quite as stupid or naive as a lot of material you have posted suggests.

Another is that you are trying to Gish-gallop, by posting so many utterly wrong things at once that people are overwhelmed with the tsunami of balderdash. This gives you the opportunity, which I notice you have not been slow to take, of pretending that people's inability to react to all of them at once means you have in some sense won an argument.

I have pointed out the gross error in one of your silly claims. I can do the same for the others, one by one, if you are really interested, which I rather doubt. They are all well known and have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere. But I am not going to deal with everything at once, because that would obscure the clarity of my replies and give you an opportunity to obfuscate by jumping between them.

How am I gish galloping? Like you said, I asked for anybody to explain any of the photos that they felt like. I'm not demanding that they all be explained, I merely pointed out the fact that it's strange how the user chose to only deal with the photos that did not include exact measurements and numbers. On top of that, I've made it clear that I do not support nor reject the flat earth theory.

 

[Tazarah]

Please note this explanation is four years old and I found it after a 2 minute internet search, which rather raises the question of how stupid @Tazarah thinks we all are here.

If I thought you were stupid then I wouldn't have repeatedly given you credit for providing an explanation that clearly debunks an argument made in one of the photos that I've shared.

If you look at the most recent posts of this thread you will see that I have constantly referred another user to posts #36, #38, and #43 to see explanations put forth by other users explaining and debunking one of the photos I've posted. One of those posts (#36 I believe) was posted by you.

I don't know why you're so defensive, is it because I'm posting information that challenges your beliefs?

Like I've told somebody else, the Lake Michigan photo is only one out of many that include exact measurements and distances being shown on the earth where curvature should be seen, but isn't.

 

[HonestJoe]

The best way to refute the flat earth...

It isn't anyone's responsibility to refute any "flat earth theory", it is the responsibility of those promoting them to present a complete, consistent and detailed hypothesis which can then be tested. Key elements I've never seen consistently explained in any such hypothesis include seasons/day-lengths, gravity and magnetic compasses.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Don;t scoff. The renown Dr. Raymond Bernard, A.B., M.A., Ph. D. (pseudonym for Walter Isidor Siegmeister) wrote a book on just this subject, The Hollow Earth: The Greatest Geographical Discovery In History.

254 pages of mind blowing revelations with breathtaking illustrations.

....I even have a copy of my own---as should everyone. 1969 by University Books Inc. ($5.95, hard cover)​

.

So it obviously can't be flat, which was my point

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm not entirely sure, but that's just one of many images where there should be a visible curvature of the earth when there isn't. I will share three more.

According to Google earth the length of the stretch of islands on the horizon (from left to right or right to left) is about 105 miles.

In this first picture we can see Corsica all the way to Isola d'Elba. Again, the distance from one end of the island to the other is about 105 miles.

Next we have this one:

And then this one:

All these photos appear to be taken at a not insignificant elevation. Find us a photo taken at ground level showing such "missing curvature" an we'll talk.

 

[Tazarah]

All these photos appear to be taken at a not insignificant elevation. Find us a photo taken at ground level showing such "missing curvature" an we'll talk.

a "not insignificant elevation"? Sorry, but could you please rephrase that.

 

[exchemist]

How am I gish galloping? Like you said, I asked for anybody to explain any of the photos that they felt like. I'm not demanding that they all be explained, I merely pointed out the fact that it's strange how the user chose to only deal with the photos that did not include exact measurements and numbers. On top of that, I've made it clear that I do not support nor reject the flat earth theory.

Why is that "strange"?

It's plain that things involving calculation are more of a pain in the arse to deal with. Since it's all disingenuous codswallop anyway, what would motivate anyone to put in the time?

 

[exchemist]

If I thought you were stupid then I wouldn't have repeatedly given you credit for providing an explanation that clearly debunks an argument made in one of the photos that I've shared.

If you look at the most recent posts of this thread you will see that I have constantly referred another user to posts #36, #38, and #43 to see explanations put forth by other users explaining and debunking one of the photos I've posted. One of those posts (#36 I believe) was posted by you.

I don't know why you're so defensive, is it because I'm posting information that challenges your beliefs?

Like I've told somebody else, the Lake Michigan photo is only one out of many that include exact measurements and distances being shown on the earth where curvature should be seen, but isn't.

Oh I'm not being defensive. I have not tried to "defend" anything so far. I have simply provided scientific correction to some of the nonsense you have presented.

But I am being aggressive, I hope.

P.S. I imagine some of these other examples of curvature not being seen will be due to similar refractive effects. But if you can show me one that is NOT due to refraction, I will be willing to take a quick look at it for you. I do not, however, promise to enmesh myself in somebody else's ballocks mathematics.

 

[Tazarah]

Why is that "strange"?

It's plain that things involving calculation are more of a pain in the arse to deal with. Since it's all disingenuous codswallop anyway, what would motivate anyone to put in the time?

Because it is strange and suspicious. You have no problem explaining away the "disingenuous codswallop" that has no calculations or measurements, but when it comes to the "disingenuous codswallop" that contains precise calculations and measurements between actual locations, it's all of a sudden not worth your time...

 

[exchemist]

Because it is strange and suspicious. You have no problem explaining away the "disingenuous codswallop" that has no calculations or measurements, but when it comes to the "disingenuous codswallop" that contains precise calculations and measurements between actual locations, it's all of a sudden not worth your time...

Look, any idiot or troll with time on his hands can concoct a story with a load of numbers. It takes time and trouble to find out if the starting data are factual, invented or misunderstood. It takes further time and trouble to go through the supposed logic that enables the writer of this crap to reach his bogus conclusion, and to point out where it goes wrong.

I am prepared to spend a modest amount of time, on a public forum like this, to explain a scientific phenomenon that may be of interest to the casual reader of the thread. There is little or no explanatory value to other readers in futzing around with a load of arithmetic and geometry that some jerk has most likely put together as a wind-up.

In other words, explaining science interests me.

 

[Tazarah]

Look, any idiot or troll with time on his hands can concoct a story with a load of numbers. It takes time and trouble to find out if the starting data are factual, invented or misunderstood. It takes further time and trouble to go through the supposed logic that enables the writer of this crap to reach his bogus conclusion, and to point out where it goes wrong.

I am prepared to spend a modest amount of time, on a public forum like this, to explain a scientific phenomenon that may be of interest to the casual reader of the thread. There is little or no explanatory value to other readers in futzing around with a load of arithmetic and geometry that some jerk has most likely put together as a wind-up.

In other words, explaining science interests me. Jumping through hoops for the amusement of an internet troll does not.

Wow, what a long-winded excuse full of ad homs and insults.

 

[exchemist]

Wow, what a long-winded excuse full of ad homs and insults.

Maybe, but that's the deal, if you want anything more out me. Got it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The best way to refute the flat earth once and for all is to wander straight through the Antarctica. If the flat-Earthers see that there is no Invisible Wall ("firmament") at the end of the world, then it would be the end of this theory. It would be an irrefutable proof and they would see this proof with their own eyes.

How about letting flat-Earthers wander through the Antarctica while streaming this live to the whole world? Would you agree? But unfortunately it seems that it is not allowed. Maybe a petition would help?

It probably wouldn't help, actually.

I don't have a link right at hand, but the current thinking is that you need more than facts to get a flat-earther (or any other sort of conspiracy theorist or pseudoscience afficionado) to change their mind; you also need a new narrative.

No flat-earther ever became a flat-earther because of the evidence, so evidence isn't going to shake them from their belief. To change their mind, you'll need to understand what need their flat Earth beliefs are satisfying.

For instance, maybe a person turned to the flat Earth movement because of anxiety at what seems like a chaotic and unpredictable universe. To change his mind, you'll probably need to show him how science has the tools to predict a lot of what happens already and to learn about everything else.

Facts will definitely be part of the conversation, but it's still important to remember that humans think in terms of stories much more than facts. With a flat-earther (or with anyone, really), you're dealing with someone who uses a set of stories to help make sense of the world. Getting them to let go of one of those stories - edit: especially one they see as part of their core identity - is going to be very difficult unless you give them an alternate story to take its place.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

a "not insignificant elevation"? Sorry, but could you please rephrase that.

I thought it was pretty clear, but OK.

Show us a photo from a non elevated vantage point

 

[Cooky]

the romans had lots of social troubles too when they went through their phase of thinking that lead made a really good waterproof material so they lined their water containers and pipes etc with the stuff......look how that went with all the preventable degenerative brain dysfunctions.....probably made talking with those people real swell

Did that really happen?

 

[Twilight Hue]

In my opinion, this illustration alone is pretty damning evidence against the globe model.

Cape Town (South Africa) is only one hour behind London, UK. Everybody knows that the sun is directly overhead at noon, and at 1 PM the sun is still overhead for the most part. So when it's 12 noon in London, UK, it's only 1 PM In Cape Town, South Africa -- meaning that the sun can be seen directly overhead in both locations. How can this be when one location is at the "top" of the earth and the other location is at the "bottom" of the earth?

Because the time zones run vertically, not laterally.

The flat Earth idea would be more interesting if you could point out planets anywhere that were flat.

Besides what's underneath if the Earth is flat?

How would the magnetic poles work?

Lastly if the Earth was flat, you could take a photo of it from space with every single continent in view.

Try creating a solar system with a round Earth and a flat Earth and see if the sunlight would act the same.

There are so many examples and experiments you can do to disprove the flat Earth idea it is absolutely astounding that there are people who actually believe in that stuff.

 

[ecco]

From where was the "photo" of Chicago taken? Don't just say, from across the lake. Be specific.

I'm not entirely sure, but that's just one of many images where there should be a visible curvature of the earth when there isn't. I will share three more.

No. Not "I'm not entirely sure". What you really mean is that you don't have a clue. What you mean is that you have no idea whether or not the photo is a complete fake. From 40 miles across Lake Michigan, you do not see what your doctored photo purportedly shows.


Why should I look at three more when you can't explain your first one?