New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Is the Earth Flat? Conversation with DITRH (Interesting, civil convo between Skeptic and Flat Earther)
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L0eoCMm9Ds
Published: Apr 24, 2019
Author: Owen Benjamin
Post Date: 2019-04-26 06:57:18 by Liberator
Keywords: Flat-Earth, Globe-Earth, Questions
Views: 5230
Comments: 41
Poster Comment: You'll find Owen Benjamin viewpoints and style refreshing and entertaining on this subject or others no matter what. He's very outspoken, but well-grounded. Some background on Owen Benjamin: A comedian and musician who hob-nobbed in the Hollywood scene and inner-sanctum for a while before getting kicked out and ostracized for being a Closet-Conservative and not accepting their "trans"-world and Bizarro-World. He now operates far from Hollywood, tending to his "farm" out West. He's gone on to participate with Steven Crowder and has guested on several podcasts like Alex Jones and Joe Rogan (about whom he also has plenty to say.) Once he began to gain popularity, Twitter banned him, as have other social media outlets. This particular video and exchange was a podcast, a tone that was respectful, rational, and engaging. Who knew the subject of Flat Earth was so compelling and explosive on both sides of the ledger; 7,000 guests tuned in...(real-time Comments were also interesting.)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
#1. To: Pinguinite, Deckard, Hank Rearden, A K A Stone, All (#0)
You might find this convo compelling.
If the earth was flat, the sun would rise and set for the whole earth at the same time every day. And the flat model showing the sun spinning in a circle above a flat earth would mean the sun would never be seen touching the horizon. Can the flat earth theory be debunked in a simpler way than that?
And the flat model showing the sun spinning in a circle above a flat earth would mean the sun would never be seen touching the horizon. Not on the models I've been seeing, nor of the complimentary explanation of the dynamic. Can the flat earth theory be debunked in a simpler way than that? Sure. IF that was actually the case. But it's not been nor being debunked. What *is* being debunked is a whole lotta "Globe Earthism." Like this simple rhetorical question: How is the earth spinning at 1000 MPH at the equator? But...planes don't have to compensate either way? (Is the atmosphere glued to the earth?) OR...Why is exploration, travel TO or OVER Antarctica via plane strictly verboten? But most people need desperately to accept the reality of the world with which they are presented. OR...they have neither have the patience or interest to listen in or watch demonstrations like below...OR above. I keep saying this -- I FULLY UNDERSTAND. Below is a link to '200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball'. It is extremely chock full of demonstrations and explanations by Eric Dubay who happened to have jump-started this whole curiosity movement, which exploded back in 2014. Anyway, besides addressing world travel quirks in the Southern Hemisphere (which I believe you'd mentioned regarding a Santiago to NZ trip.) At about the 21:38 mark, the discussion is about distortions of mapping, distance, and travel time. At about the 3:44 mark, Dubay upon explaining the phenomena of perspective, which I've touched on and riffing on the non-curvature of canals, bridges, etc, there's a straight railroad track. It disappears eventually...NOT because of any supposed curvature; It disappears because of "perspective" -- our ability to view an object shrinks the focal point down to nothing, well beyond our vision. At dusk the sun also eventually drifts well beyond our sight-line during its 24 hour revolution of the earth, accounting for it's approximate 12-hour disappearance. Below is Antarctica. Looks flat as a pancake to me. I see no curvature. (yes, those are people you see.)
It's certainly on the models shown on youtubes you posted, and more than one. One supposedly showed how the moon phases work on a flat earth and showed the sun and moon going in circles above a flat earth, never moving below the plane of the flat earth surface. Basically, yes, the atmosphere is "glued" to the earth. That's generally correct. Take a golf ball, attach it to a drill and spin it in a glass of water at a reasonable speed and you'll see the water start to spin with the ball. It's friction of the air against the surface of the earth. The air is a fluid and moves with the spinning globe for the same reason the ocean water does: friction. Keep in mind how extremely thin the atmosphere is (50-100 miles) compared to the global earth diameter of 8000 miles, and it should be apparent that there is a rather high ratio of friction to atmospheric content. I've never heard of it being forbidden, but there are only 3 inhabited continents at that southern latitude and I suspect Africa is relatively undeveloped and the other two few economic ties, given the distance between them so there's about no reason for many commercial flights to go over the South pole. In regards to the sun setting at night, my challenge is NOT that the sun disappears for 12 hours every day because it moves too far away. I point out that the sun can be clearly seen >>>dropping below the horizon<<< in the evening and rising above it in the morning, and the apparent trajectory of the sun in both cases shows it's not just skimming below the horizon but going completely under it.
Maybe you're not taking into account the thousands of miles both the sun and moon travel while rotating around the earth. Or unable to conceptualize. Again -- the "plane" of the Flat Earth disappears due to limitation of our sightline and perspective. At 26:34 of Dubay's demonstration (Truth #49) perhaps he addresses your questions better than I. yes, the atmosphere is "glued" to the earth. That's generally correct. Take a golf ball, attach it to a drill and spin it in a glass of water at a reasonable speed and you'll see the water start to spin with the ball. It's friction of the air against the surface of the earth. The air is a fluid and moves with the spinning globe for the same reason the ocean water does: friction. Keep in mind how extremely thin the atmosphere is (50-100 miles) compared to the global earth diameter of 8000 miles, and it should be apparent that there is a rather high ratio of friction to atmospheric content. Interesting theory. Doesn't the spinning golf ball also produce artificial mass? If we do assume this theory is true, what of the drill removed from the density of the water medium and pulled from the glass; As the water left on the spinning golfball is flung off the ball, should all objects from planet earth spinning at 1000 MPH? (If "gravity" is cited," how are birds, flying creatures and particulates floating and soaring despite the strong gravitation pull? I've never heard of it being forbidden, but there are only 3 inhabited continents at that southern latitude and I suspect Africa is relatively undeveloped and the other two few economic ties, given the distance between them so there's about no reason for many commercial flights to go over the South pole. Yes, strictly verboten and fully restricted from Antarctica without expressed authority by (odd, isn't it?) a consortium of nations who ALL concur on absolute restrictions. Isn't there a huge difference between continental areas like Africa and Australia that are merely isolated, but still allowed access, and the likes of Antarctica-- which as a matter of fact restricts *any* movement to, upon, or over via air -- whether commercial or private. Yes, most travel is obviously within the Northern Hemisphere, but it is claimed that flight time can be saved by flying over the alleged continent of Antarctica in certain cases. That said, shouldn't the greater puzzle be about the actual reasons for such internationally enforced restrictions? In regards to the sun setting at night, my challenge is NOT that the sun disappears for 12 hours every day because it moves too far away. I point out that the sun can be clearly seen >>>dropping below the horizon<<< in the evening and rising above it in the morning, and the apparent trajectory of the sun in both cases shows it's not just skimming below the horizon but going completely under it. Any given "horizon" is just a finite, limited sigh-line, isn't it? The Sun may appear to be to be traveling "beneath" the earth. Attributed to perspective. And well beyond our sight-line as both the Sun and Moon loop back around. Obviously not all models you've seen convince you. All that said, we're still left with a staggering amount of info that disproves global earth IF we discount our own blind-trust what I'd characterize as Programmed Scientific Dogma. Rhetorically speaking -- why don't we trust our own eyes (Plane Earth) and sense of (no) motion and Still Earth? We know what we've been told, how the "Science" of gravity, friction, and centrifugal force is explained...BUT.
I went to listen to the one you pointed out and another caught my attention so I tore into it a little bit. #40. He claims the distance between Melbourne Australia and Cape Horn Chile to be 10,500 miles. So I did some fact checking and found this page: www.easysurf.cc/circle.htm#dla1lo1tola2lo2 It purports to give distances on a global earth, including between two points given their longitude and latitude coordinates. It also gives the circumference of the global earth at various latitudes. But first, various other sites give the distance as being 5600 miles to 7000 miles. Both are substantially less than claimed by Dubay. So I put in the long & lat coordinates on the global earth calculator. Melbourne is at 37 degrees south and 144 degrees E, and a separate site gave Cape Horn at -55 lat and -67 long. So I put in 37/144 for Melbourne and -55/-67 for Cape Horn. And what do you know? The global earth calc came out with a 10,500 mile figure, consistent with the claim by Dubay in #40. Did I do something wrong? Oh, but of course I did. Both Melbourne and Cape Horn are in the S hemisphere, I realized, which means that both lat coordinates should be negative. Melbourne should not have a positive lat coordinatate. Correcting that and putting in -37 for melbourne, it gives a distance of 5752 miles. By putting in a positive value for Melbourne, the calculator was giving me the distance to Cape Horn from a point somewhere off the coast of northern Japan. Double checking the circumference of the earth at the Melborne latitude, this calculator says it's about 19,600 miles. I didn't check further than that but it seems to be to reasonable scale. And so, why is Dubay saying the 2 points are 10,500 miles apart? Could it be he made the same mistake I did? Did he do it on purpose? Apparently it's not been corrected, as this page came up in my search results as well: flatearthofficial.com/201...port-philip-in-melbourne/ Here's a map of the south pole which should illustrate better how the shortest distance between Melbourne and Cape Horn would take it close to Antarctica. www.etsy.com/listing/6929...f47bb7a%3A692929779&cns=1 It's really hard for me to spend much time on arguments for theories like this when the supposed experts don't even have their basic facts correct, especially when it seems they are, at best, being negligent, if not intentionally deceiving.
I'm glad you delved a bit into Dubay's vid. Respect. It's too much to digest at any one sitting, of course any kind of investigation of his claims and validation does take time as well. Unless they are simple observations. Yeah, I thought #40 may interest you; It interests me as well. This issue of travel in the Southern Hemisphere seems to arouse the most curiosity given those routes are the one most affected by a Flat Earth model/theory. (I'm still investigating others' theories.) So I did some fact checking and found this page: www.easysurf.cc/circle.htm#dla1lo1tola2lo2 It purports to give distances on a global earth, including between two points given their longitude and latitude coordinates. It also gives the circumference of the global earth at various latitudes. Interesting link. (The Home page is also helpful. I bookmarked it.) But first, various other sites give the distance as being 5600 miles to 7000 miles. Both are substantially less than claimed by Dubay. So I put in the long & lat coordinates on the global earth calculator....And what do you know? The global earth calc came out with a 10,500 mile figure, consistent with the claim by Dubay in #40. Did I do something wrong? Oh, but of course I did. Both Melbourne and Cape Horn are in the S hemisphere, I realized, which means that both lat coordinates should be negative. Melbourne should not have a positive lat coordinatate. Correcting that and putting in -37 for melbourne, it gives a distance of 5752 miles... And so, why is Dubay saying the 2 points are 10,500 miles apart? Could it be he made the same mistake I did? Did he do it on purpose? Apparently it's not been corrected, as this page came up in my search results as well: flatearthofficial.com/201...port-philip-in-melbourne/ Nice research. Great questions. Dubay either innocently made the same miscalculation as you...OR purposely fudged the calculation...OR knows he messed up the calculation. However, the owner of the 'Flat Earth' site you accessed which mapped out that Cape Horn to Melbourne route is not Eric Dubay's site. This guy is a Christian; Dubay is not. (I do like his guy's channel FWIW. Good stuff there.) Here's a map of the south pole which should illustrate better how the shortest distance between Melbourne and Cape Horn would take it close to Antarctica. www.etsy.com/listing/6929...f47bb7a%3A692929779&cns=1 Very cool. 1906 Map of Antarctic? I love maps, have always. That said, my problem with this is...credibility and validation. Before the year 1906, and given the obvious lack of technology and means (not to mention, impossible task for the time), how was anyone able to survey all 5,000,000 million square miles of Antarctica? I'd ask who the source of authority was that validated the Antarctica Map as its true and actual geography? Ping, no, not all the FE answers will be sufficiently explained. I don't have all the answers as I am still learning what is obviously a very broad subject. While learning Flat Earth Theory, one must necessarily simultaneous learn/un-learn much of the previous Global earth dogma we've been taught as a given. The latter seems to be easier than thought since Science teachers never really explained the dynamics to begin with other than tossing out "GRAVITY!" and the Global Earth assumption from the get-go. The rest of our Globe Earth "education" come from a lifetime of culture imagery and supposed feats and photos from NASA. As I'd mentioned, even if say #40 is dismissed...or another 50 "reasons" of a FE are as well, there are still another 150 that may hold water. IF that's the case, Globe Earth dogma is truly leaking scientific credibility. There are just TWO simple observations that seriously damage "Globe" Earth (the formula: 1) 1000 MPH "Spinning Ball" (that appears stationary from the surface and from the air -- as well as from the ISS.) 2) Observational Plane-Earth/Large bodies of water as having NO measurable curvature. Speaking of geometric calculations, this "Earth Curvature Calculator" ( http://earthcurvature.com/ ) may interest you -- especially in the context of the videos taken by a gentleman who often photographs and calculates measurements of unbelievable expanses of land through a high-powered telescopic lens and infrared camera (below.) Hmmm....
There are no replies to Comment # 27. End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: Liberator (#1)
#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)
If the earth was flat, the sun would rise and set for the whole earth at the same time every day.
#9. To: Liberator (#6)
If the earth was flat, the sun would rise and set for the whole earth at the same time every day.
And the flat model showing the sun spinning in a circle above a flat earth would mean the sun would never be seen touching the horizon.
Not on the models I've been seeing, nor of the complimentary explanation of the dynamic.
What *is* being debunked is a whole lotta "Globe Earthism." Like this simple rhetorical question: How is the earth spinning at 1000 MPH at the equator? But...planes don't have to compensate either way? (Is the atmosphere glued to the earth?)
OR...Why is exploration, travel TO or OVER Antarctica via plane strictly verboten?
At dusk the sun also eventually drifts well beyond our sight-line during its 24 hour revolution of the earth, accounting for it's approximate 12-hour disappearance.
#12. To: Pinguinite (#9)
It's certainly on the models shown on youtubes you posted, and more than one. One supposedly showed how the moon phases work on a flat earth and showed the sun and moon going in circles above a flat earth, never moving below the plane of the flat earth surface.
#25. To: Liberator (#12)
#27. To: Pinguinite (#25)
Replies to Comment # 27.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]