Picking fights with a flat-earther — 10 Comments

  1. If you had done even a modicum of research you would know that anyone asking a flat earther those questions would tear your arguments apart so fast that you wouldn’t know what hit you. At least study a model if you’re planning to challenge it. All you shown in this article is that you neither understand flat earth nor the heliocentric, spinning ball model.

  2. Thank you for this. The statement that these individuals want to “know” something the rest of us do not rings true in my experience. It’s a way to feel unique without any extra effort to actually be unique.

  3. As a flat-earther, I’d like to respond in a civil way and challenge some of your evidence directly. The natural phenomenon of the day-night cycle is best explained by a static sun which has its light bent by density changes in the atmosphere. What we observe as the sun rising or setting is simply different atmospheric patterns curving the sun’s light and creating an image which moves across our field of vision. As night falls the light’s curvature becomes so great that there is no optical path between the surface and the sun, and instead we see the starry night sky in it’s place. This optical distortion differs depending on location, which explains the important observation that people in Australia are seeing the night sky when people in America are seeing the sun.

    • Thank you for commenting and offering your explanation. May I ask what causes these density changes, and how they avoid distorting our view of the Sun into anything other than a steady disc?

      • Style! … although Maddie is correct, forget haze. Flatearthers will just hit you with their law of perspective. And gravity doesn’t exist. What we experience is the disc pushing forward through the firmament at 9 m/S, not gravity pulling down.
        You can always try and ask why the orientation of the moon is different when seen from example, South Africa and Norway although you risk just being laughed at for being a brainwashed moron who doesn’t know the moon is a model, while at the same time being told that the moon looks the same wherever you are on the planet.
        You should have more luck though, asking them why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west at every spot on the planet (btw, your flat disk model where the sun goes under it has been revised. The sun now orbits in a convoluted path over the flat disk. It doesn’t apparently go under the disk anymore and oh yeh, the sun is also much smaller and much closer.
        This is good however because in such a model, a smaller, closer sun would cast a curved shadow across the flat disk – again, i can’t quite understand the orbit of this FE sun. It apparently orbits in such a way that one half of the planet is dark while the other half is light >!<
        Moving on … So, with this strange sun that has the ability to render one half of the disk dark and the other light, it wouldn't be able to cast a straight lined shadow. The shadow would be increasingly curved the closer the sun was to the disk………..which leads back to, why does the sun rise in the east and set in the west all over the planet. With a curved shadow, different locations would see the sun rising at different point of the compass. On a flat Earth, the north pole is the middle of the disk and the south pole is all around the edge of the disk… The sun would never be seen rising in the same celestial location from every terrestrial location.

        That should hold them for a while 😉

        Ps. As a side note you could also ask why no pilot had ever flown in a straight line from any point on earth….and reached the south pole. This would of course be the logic if the south pole traveled all around the edge of a disk. Any straight line from any point would end at the south pole.

  4. Intellectually, any theory is worth any other – until things get into usability.

    Not all explanations are equally useful. Anyone reasonably intelligent can pick an alternative explanation for ANY experiment or observation laying in the foundation of any scientific theory. The modern scientific theories had gone a long, long way to find the simplest, consistent, verifiable explanations. Consequently, they can be (and are) used to precisely forecast specific outcomes of specific conditions. But, when a bunch of alternative explanations are randomly picked up as part of an intellectual exercise – those are not sufficient for making USEFUL predictions.

    And the result is: Flat-Earthers Can’t Predict the Next Solar Eclipse (without using round-Earth model ;-)) !

  5. Pingback:Flat-Earthers Plan To Sail To The "Edge" Of The Planet To Prove Non-Believers Wrong

Like what you read? Hate it? Write a reply:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>