Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Mongoose

False Flat Earth Arguments

150 posts in this topic

 

 

False Flat Earth Arguments That Should Be Avoided
 

1.  Water is self leveling therefore it cannot form a sphere but must remain flat. 

Water does indeed form spheres naturally when in free float such as in a zero g flight. The question is: will it form a sphere around a marble or rock or will it naturally come off of the marble or rock and form a sphere by itself apart from the marble or rock. Water is only self leveling when resting on a surface with a downforce holding it in place. On a globe a sphere of water would be level to the globe it is resting upon. Actually, if we want to get real about it, we should state that water when not being acted upon by the force of gravity (or whatever it is) seeks to form spheres. It is gravity (or whatever it is) that seeks to make water flat or level/parallel to the surface that it rests upon.

2.  When a rocket leaves the atmosphere (which is hypothetically moving with the rotation of the earth at a thousand miles per hour at the equator) and enters into the vacuum of space it should encounter some resistance or force during the transition and be destroyed or severely disturbed just like one would expect when throwing a paper airplane from the window of a moving car.

This is false because there is hypothetically nothing in the vacuum of space for the rocket to encounter which would cause any kind of drag or resistance and therefore the rocket would just carry on with its natural or propelled trajectory. It is the wind resistance that opposes and slows the paper plane after it has left the car. No air, no wind, no resistance, no affect.

3.  Rivers would have to be traveling up hill on a globe.

There is no up or down in space. North is not the same as up and south is not the same as down. Up, on the globe is simply the direction away from the center of mass of the earth.  And down is the direction towards the center of mass of the earth. We will never see a river flowing up a mountain or in any direction that is moving away from the center of mass but rather always flowing in whatever direction where the ground is closer to the center of mass of the earth than where the water is coming from.

4.  Day and night should be at opposite times every six months on the globe model.

This one is false because by adding a little extra time to each day this has been compensated for in the globe model. Instead of a day being the time it takes for the earth to rotate 360 degrees it is calculated to be 1/365 of the time it takes to orbit the sun.

5. Days and nights should be the same amount of time everywhere on earth.

This is false due to the supposed tilt of the earth. Because of this tilt the sun shines more on the northern or southern hemisphere depending on the respective season. Since the sun is covering more of one hemisphere then the other and because of the curvature of a sphere this just is not true.

6. Airplane would go faster in one direction than the other.

This is false due to the atmosphere mostly moving along with the earth due to the friction the earth and everything on it exerts on the atmosphere. Seemingly the higher up one goes the slower the air would be moving. Since the plane is propelling itself by pushing the air behind it, the planes speed will be in direct relation to the movement of lack of movement of the air it is flying through.

7. Doppler effect    

I just encountered this one and it is false for the same basic reason the airplane one is false. The sound is moving through the air so the supposed momentum of the air negates the idea that Mr. thriving off his controlled opposition shill paycheck’s video presents. It is the speed of the sound in relation to the air that matters, not in relation to the earth or supposed outer space.

8. The horizon always remains at eye level no matter how high you go.

Although the general idea is correct it, this statement is false. In reality the horizon is never at eye level unless you are laying flat on the ground looking out at it. Just look at some pics of the horizon if you can’t go to a beach or a large field to see for yourself, the top part above the horizon is always larger than the bottom part if the pic.
It seems that some of us are doing exactly what we accuse the globers of, just believing what we were told instead of using our own eyes and good sense.

Also, the horizon does slowly get lower and lower as one gets higher and higher, this is just a matter of simple physics, it just happens at an almost undetectable rate. You can’t really believe that if you kept traveling straight up for 10 years that the horizon would still be even in view let alone at eye level or anything close to it.

As soon as you say this to someone they can rightfully say, “no that’s not true” and you are discredited.
In order to correct this we should simply state that the horizon always rises with you as you gain altitude instead of shrinking downward as it should on a globe.

 

9. Density replaces gravity.

This is false because gravity is a theoretical force and density is a physical attribute of a given substance. This really is a case of apples and oranges. Gravity is the force (on the globe model) that causes more dense materials to settle below less dense materials such as a stone settling to the bottom of the sea whereas density is really just a measurement of how much pull gravity has on an object based on how tightly packed the molecules or atoms are. If there were no force acting upon the material to pull It downward or in a given direction then there would be no up or down.

The only thing that can replace gravity as the force that pulls all things downward is another force. I don’t know what that force may be (possibly some type of molecular magnetism?) but I do know that density is not a force and therefore this argument is bunk.

 

10. If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph then North/South facing cannons should establish a control while East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others while West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer. In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction cannons are fired, the distance covered is always the same.

This is the same basic argument as with the airplanes and Doppler effect and is false for the same basic reasons.

 

 

Edited by Mongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Water only forming spheres in freefall does not explain how it sticks to the surface of a sphere under gravity; these two situations are unrelated. Likewise, centrifugal force has nothing at all to do with gravity, as the formula for calculating gravitational force only concerns mass and distance, not motion. If indeed the earth were a spinning ball and then suddenly stopped, there would be no effect whatsoever on gravitational pull.

2. If there is no resistance in the alleged vacuum of space, then there should be no resistance upon a rocket's reentry from the vacuum to the atmosphere. Yet mainstream science insists that there is indeed much resistance at reentry, necessitating heat-resistant shielding on the atmosphere-facing surface of the craft.

3. I've never seen any FEer make this claim, so listing it as a "false and potentially false FE argument" is choosing a fringe claim.

4. This has been discussed here, have you looked at the FE threads yet?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, Mongoose

Hard facts don't go well with most flat earthers.  That is because it is a belief system and not based on any rational form of science or logic.  I simply don't waste my time with them, because it seems that is what they are programmed to do (waste everyone's time.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote

1. Water only forming spheres in freefall does not explain how it sticks to the surface of a sphere under gravity; these two situations are unrelated. Likewise, centrifugal force has nothing at all to do with gravity, as the formula for calculating gravitational force only concerns mass and distance, not motion. If indeed the earth were a spinning ball and then suddenly stopped, there would be no effect whatsoever on gravitational pull.

 

I said free fall or free float so by saying "only in freefall" you are misrepresenting what I said. The globe model is essentially free floating in space so I don't know what you mean by "under gravity". The gravity holding the water comes from the earth itself supposedly pulling down towards the center of mass everything and anything within range.

gravity and centrifugal force would be directly opposing one another on the globe model so they are directly related on the globe model. Also, on the globe model, it never stops spinning so we don't have to worry about that. lol

 

Quote

2. If there is no resistance in the alleged vacuum of space, then there should be no resistance upon a rocket's reentry from the vacuum to the atmosphere. Yet mainstream science insists that there is indeed much resistance at reentry, necessitating heat-resistant shielding on the atmosphere-facing surface of the craft.

 

The resistance you refer to is simply from the speed of the supposed reentry and is generated by friction. You see you are presenting a false and easily defeatable argument. This is exactly why I made this thread. Have you ever seen a meteorite? It is the heat generated by friction due to speeding through the atmosphere that makes them light up ever so spectacularly. This is not really up for debate. Friction is real. It is the lack of friction in supposed space that I am talking about.

 

Quote

I've never seen any FEer make this claim, so listing it as a "false and potentially false FE argument" is choosing a fringe claim.

I apologize, I was not aware that this whole FE thing revolved around what arguments you have personally encountered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mongoose said:

I said free fall or free float so by saying "only in freefall" you are misrepresenting what I said. The globe model is essentially free floating in space so I don't know what you mean by "under gravity". The gravity holding the water comes from the earth itself supposedly pulling down towards the center of mass everything and anything within range.

Misrepresenting? You're judging my intent with your first post here? How about considering that maybe you didn't explain whatever you mean very well, or I misunderstood? The globe free floating in space has ZERO to do with the situation you described as pertaining to what water does.

I'm stopping there with your 'lols' and snotty attitude. You must be from LOP or someplace like that.

9 minutes ago, Mongoose said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sky Cat said:

Welcome to the forum, Mongoose

Hard facts don't go well with most flat earthers.  That is because it is a belief system and not based on any rational form of science or logic.  I simply don't waste my time with them, because it seems that is what they are programmed to do (waste everyone's time.)

Nice. Thanks for dissing a lot of members here and siding with this snarky noob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sky Cat said:

Welcome to the forum, Mongoose

Hard facts don't go well with most flat earthers.  That is because it is a belief system and not based on any rational form of science or logic.  I simply don't waste my time with them, because it seems that is what they are programmed to do (waste everyone's time.)

The earth is most likely flat. I made this thread in order to help the flat earth supporters not fall for and repeat the bogus arguments that I have heard over and over. It is a big revelation and not everyone will be able to accept it no matter what the evidence. This is because what we now call mainstream science is a religious cult and it is very diffiCULT for the religiously indoctrinated to overcome the mental barriers that decades of indoctrination have helped to build. Just try telling a muslim or a christian that they have been mislead. Even though their own books, good sense and in some cases physical observation disprove the beliefs that supposedly came from those very books to begin with. I am not saying that those books are entirely wrong, just that they are definitely not even close to being entirely true.

This is quite a crazy reality we have found ourselves in.

It is really pretty easy to disprove the globe. Proving the flat earth model however is more difficult than disproving the globe. This is true with many things. It is often easier to disprove a lie than it is to prove a truth.

It is all of these false and sometimes stupid arguments being presented that make relatively intelligent people roll their eyes and think that the whole thing must be a crazy joke that only idiots fall for.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Challenger said:

Nice. Thanks for dissing a lot of members here and siding with this snarky noob.

I rail against ignorance.  Choose to be a part of ignorance and you shall more than likely feel butt hurt, but you needn't; it is done out of love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sky Cat said:

I rail against ignorance.  Choose to be a part of ignorance and you shall more than likely feel butt hurt, but you needn't; it is done out of love.

I fight ignorance... and the perpetuation of lies. Be butt hurt over people waking up if you prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Challenger said:

Misrepresenting? You're judging my intent with your first post here? How about considering that maybe you didn't explain whatever you mean very well, or I misunderstood? The globe free floating in space has ZERO to do with the situation you described as pertaining to what water does.

I'm stopping there with your 'lols' and snotty attitude. You must be from LOP or someplace like that.

 

I don't know your intent, I only know your action. I did not say that water only forms spheres in freefall. You implied that I did. That is a misrepresentation of my statement. I am simply making an observation. I did not mean to offend. Sorry if my lol seemed snide, perhaps I should not make light of a misunderstanding or miscommunication or whatever it was.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mongoose said:

I don't know your intent, I only know your action. I did not say that water only forms spheres in freefall. You implied that I did. That is a misrepresentation of my statement. I am simply making an observation. I did not mean to offend. Sorry if my lol seemed snide, perhaps I should not make light of a misunderstanding or miscommunication or whatever it was.

 

Misrepresentation includes the meaning that a person deliberately twisted something, which I did not; your inference was not accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Challenger said:

Misrepresentation includes the meaning that a person deliberately twisted something, which I did not; your inference was not accurate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misrepresent

Quote

Full Definition of misrepresent

  1. transitive verb
  2. 1 :  to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>

  3. 2 :  to serve badly or improperly as a representative of

mis·rep·re·sen·ta·tion play \(ˌ)mis-ˌre-pri-ˌzen-ˈtā-shən, -zən-\ noun
mis·rep·re·sen·ta·tive play \-ˈzen-tə-tiv\ adjective
 
The operative word for us in this case is usually, I used the word appropriately. Sorry if you misunderstood my intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor


Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.