The flat brain theory (Flat earth)

First off, stating that "YouTube evidence sucks" is a subjective assertion and is far too broad a statement. If I linked a video on a very good argument on, say, cookies not being healthy in large amounts, if it's somehow from YouTube, it sucks. That is the core of your statement here.

Video research from other individuals allows you to further expand on your point, if done right, and the video itself isn't flawed in some way.

 

It's somehow tiring to consider another person's stance? How odd.

Ah, well, tis a shame. My next post, tomorrow, was going to be about the curvature of the Earth. I also plan to join the other Flat Earth thread happening very soon.

 

The problem is a lot of the times the videos are flawed, and somebody will see something that suits what they're talking about and use that as their evidence. I dunno, a lot of those videos are either debunked, fake or can be figured out. That's just why I honestly don't like them, but that's not to say there isn't anything good on there.

 

You say this just like if you did consider actually listening to someone else.

 

you literally copy and pasted my questions into your post dude

This live winds aloft chart greatly disagrees with you

the cyclonic flow of pressure systems is the practical example of coriolis and is a meteorological consistency that is completely unrequited by the flat earth model. you can't just throw out my example and demand a different one because you don't like it lmao

 

The majority of your post is a generalization.

What do you mean "listening to someone else"? You mean reading and considering another's post? That's all I've been doing. However, you do not know for sure whether I am or aren't.

 

Well, I take science over YouTube and at least there's more things that make sense and have supporting data. And we could argue all day it and it won't go anywhere, so it doesn't matter anymore.

 

He does not even watch a damn video from the opposing side or even considers our points (if you look closely he is always dismissing our arguments by things like "This is a generalization" "Brainwash" or "No Proof" or whatever nonsense) and you ask him to read scientific papers? Good luck for him.

 

That is what they do, they'll throw a bunch of stuff out and when you counter it or start trying to pick stuff apart with science or knowledge that's been around for years they get annoyed. I just find it funny really, like apparently all science and everything to do with the government is fake or controlled so if we have any actual evidence it doesn't count. lol

Its not bad to be curious about something, but there's so much proof and techniques you can do to test things and prove like say that the earth isn't flat. Doesn't matter though as they say it's all fake and we're close minded.

And obviously science can be wrong, but there's too much that would have to be wrong here including astronomy as well, and so I don't buy into the whole flat Earth as it literally makes no sense. I'll just stick with science and actual proof until somebody comes along proving otherwise.

 

If you find it funny go for it. Testing and improving your science knowledge (even that just some basic physics here) and understanding more on how to not argument are good things you will get from this.

But I was just procrastinating here so yeah, need to leave.

 

Okay, you need to understand something because clearly, what I'm trying to say is not getting to you.

You claim to be a pilot and seem to think you're qualified to argue for the Ball Earth. What you need to understand is that the cyclonic flow of pressure systems is NOT something most people will understand.

What you're saying is NOT going unconsidered, however, layman fundamentals will allow anyone reading this to determine who's in the right and wrong.

I asked for a practical, LAYMAN example of the Coriolis Effect, something EVERYBODY can understand and relate to. Assuming you understand what you're talking about because, to quote Einstein:

"If you cannot explain something to a child, you don't understand it."

So relating to your chart, first off, the average person won't understand what they're looking at. A chart filled with seemingly complicated-looking material cannot be reasonably used for evidence if you're looking to teach somebody something. I, for example, could present a chart showing the effects the Force from Star Wars has on a star. But it doesn't mean I or the chart are correct.

If the Coriolis Effect were actually a thing, there should be more practical examples of its existence outside of weather. All I desire is to know what are these examples?

I gave what I hope to be easily understandable examples of the Coriolis Effect NOT existing here:

If weather is the only thing that supposedly supports the Coriolis Effect, knowing the given examples above for it not existing, then you need to ask if we as men actually understand how weather works. If clouds spinning in the sky are evidence of the Coriolis Effect, why is it not the same for airborne projectiles and other objects like smoke, fireworks, etc?

I can give more examples of the Coriolis Effect failing in other mediums if you like/interested.

I hope that made my stance as clear as possible and I am very sorry if I failed to do that before.

As for @Sarah Walker and @Lizard man, I just need to ask...

What the hell is wrong with the two of you?

Alright, let's get into this, shall we?

First off, do either of you know what "generalization" means? Because if not, I'll gladly go into it.

I said this post was a generalization because she states that a lot of YouTube videos are "flawed, debunked, fake, or can be figured out".

A generalization is taking one or a few facts and making a broader, more universal statement. She is attempting to use this statement in an attempt to support her stance, however, using a generalization, the following can also be stated:

"A lot of the times, the videos are correct, cannot be debunked, are not fake, and easy to understand."

However, in both generalizations, the one she provided and the one I just provided, the reverse would also be true. Therefore, it is not a good argument.

She's not necessarily wrong that there are a lot of videos that are flawed in someway, however, since the reverse would also be true, you can't use it reasonably in an argument.

So with that:

You are still generalizing and you're not being specific. You state broadly that there's more things that make sense and have supporting data without actually being specific on what these things are. If there are these supposed other "things", what are they?

To start, you state that I haven't watched any videos for Ball Earth? How would you know that? We're communicating via text on a screen. There's a lot of things about me you don't know. You don't know if I'm at my home or if I'm on vacation. You don't know if I'm wearing clothes or not. You don't know if I'm tall or short. You don't know if I'm eating a meal right now or not. These are things that would occur in the present that you don't know, so how could you know anything I've done in the past?

Your first statement is an assumption.

Secondly, I dismiss your arguments because they are simply bad arguments. I said her argument was a generalization because it is.

...Uh, where did I say "Brainwash"? Or "No proof?" Please tell me, I am sincerely curious.

Your comment ends with an ad-hominem which I will address in a bit.

This comment confuses me so much.

First off, you attempt to place me within a group ( people that adhere to the behavior you describe ) in an attempt to remove value from my statements. Yet your comments themselves are not true at all.

Neither you or Lizard man have actually made a single counter to anything I've said to support Flat Earth. I've argued on the second page on this thread that the Coriolis Effect does not exist, an effect that's supposed to support the spin of the Earth and not you or him have actually countered it. Lizard man even refused to read my arguments simply because it was "too long" which is a cop-out excuse.

Continuing, I never said the government is fake or controlled.

You then go on to state that there's so many things you can do to test and say that the Earth isn't flat, but this is an non-specific assertion. If you truly believe that, then what are these things? Come on, I sincerely want to know since you two seem to think I'm not open to considering other arguments for Ball Earth even though ever since I joined this discussion, you never made one directly at me.

Continuing with your second paragraph, I again never said something is fake nor did I say any of you were closeminded.

Finally ending with your third paragraph, you still continue to make non-specific assertions. You also believe that since so much has to be incorrect, you can't possibly be incorrect which is a logical fallacy.

A group of people can believe from multiple sources that they came from a fire-breathing ape with pencils for tentacles, but that doesn't mean such a thing is true.

You also seem to believe I'm annoyed, however, you cannot say, without a shadow of a doubt, anything on the content of my character because none of you know who I am nor what I am thinking.

I can say I'm a little turned on, but I can't actually prove that to any of you. I can say one of you is on drugs. But I wouldn't be right, now would I?

So since you two decided to revert to ad-hominem attacks, I'll just quote myself here:

Now can the both of you actually be civilized or will you instead choose to revert to a kindergartner mindset by questioning and assaulting my character rather than my arguments?

@RKO City is correct, Lizard man. You claim you want a civilized, open-minded discuission, but then you proceed to mock Flat Earthers by the following examples:

This is hypocrisy. You haven't demonstrated this "open-mindedness" of yourself at all. You didn't even want to read my first argument. Assuming neither of you understand the Flat Earth, you haven't asked for examples of the Flat Earth. All you've done is attempt to refute it. I haven't asked for examples of Ball Earth because I've already watched videos on it for 16 years. Even when some folks tried to provide examples of Flat Earth, it was dismissed on the grounds of it being a YouTube video which is completely absurd.

But you wouldn't know that I watched videos on Ball Earth for a long time, now would you?

With that, I'll be more than happy to continue tomorrow or when I can.

 

I'm not entirely sure whether you're trolling or not since your comment, especially with the way it ends, confuses me.

 

if you're going to argue for or against a flat earth, you should be prepared to understand advanced meteorological phenemonon that have huge pertinence to the discussion. I'm merely providing what I know, and I would hope that a truly "open minded" person would take that for what it's worth. either way, I'm not gonna dumb down my arguement and spoon feed to people who don't understand it. if that's what it would take to get my point across, then clearly I'm engaging with people who should not be having this discussion

 

wow a flight path that someone drew with Microsoft paint. is that really all it takes to convince you of something? honest question

by the way, the Sydney to Santiago flight comes up a lot. here is the actual flight path of that cross country



and in case that wasn't enough for you, here is a thorough overview of that exact flight as detailed by one of the 747 pilots performing it. they even cross checked their instrumentation with satellite images to demonstrate the route. neat!