Rebuke: 10 Arguments For The Flat Earth And What It Has To Do With Spirituality

I just came back from the grand nation of England. Here, we encountered scary things such as hills and well-mannered rain. Also, there was some scary blue stuff in the sky following us around.

As I came back, I saw a rather annoying post on Krauss his page. Now, I was also in the mood to make a blog post.  Let's do this.

Update: I've put a few updates throughout the article. Quite a few of the arguments are somewhat harder to rebuke, which is common for gish gallop. Somewhere in the end of 2015, a long blog post of mine should rebuke basically everything they have come up with.

Update: The long blog post I announced in the previous update is here

Rebuke: 10 Arguments For The Flat Earth And What It Has To Do With Spirituality

A short look of the title tells us it's more of the click bait that pages with 'truth', 'spirit' and 'collective' usually bring us. Surprise.

We have been told, since we were toddlers, that Earth is like a round blue marble moving through space at a very high speed (18.5 miles per second around the Sun and spinning at just over 1000 miles per hour). This is known because we were taught it and we have seen pictures from space. But what if it is not true? What if the Earth is flat?
Is this how it was taught to you? You never heard of Galileo? Copernicus? Ptolemy?  You never heard of sails disappearing over the horizon? You didn't stand on a hill, or if you are from the Netherlands as I am, stood on the top of a tower, and saw the small curvature of the horizon?
A'tuin, the world turtle. On his back stand four elephants
that carry the discworld.[source]

That said, the concept of a world shaped like a disc, carried on the back of four astronomical elephants that stand on the back of the great A'tuin, the world turtle? This appeals to me, a great deal.

One of the biggest crusader for the flat Earth theory is Eric Dubay. On his blog, The Atlantean Conspiracy, he describes himself as a 32-year-old American living in Thailand where he teaches Yoga and Wing Chun part-time while exposing the New World Order full-time.
The New World Order sounds like a real thing. Really. No, I'm serious. Hail Hydra, and all that.

He also lays out a daunting list of proofs that our Earth is indeed flat. He wrote a book about it. And he ties it all into spirituality.
Before getting too far ahead of ourselves, let’s look some points made by flat earthers. Keep an open mind. Don’t get angry at us for reporting this. Life is short….ok let’s have some fun.
Yes, you just want add revenue. I get that.

As you can see, Earth is flat and the Sun and Moon are placed opposite each other on each side of the Earth. They rotate along the surface of Earth in a clockwise motion. These are the basics you need to know about the layout of flat Earth.
Now it is time for the proof that our Earth is actually flat.
 Warning; extreme amounts of nonsense are to follow.

1. The horizon is always flat.

The only pictures we have of a rounded Earth are from NASA and other government space agencies. All private pictures from 20 + miles up show a flat horizon.
Go Pro and other specialized cameras add an unnatural curvature to the horizon as seen in the above pictures. The regular camera inside the pod Felix Baumgartner jumped from shows a perfectly flat horizon even though it is 128,000 feet above Earth. It is also important that the horizon is still at eye level which can only happen with a flat plane.
Oh no, it is a conspiracy! What usually happens is that the cameras have to choose between a wide-angle and a high resolution. As a result, the curvature isn't very clear.

That said, you can see the curvature when you're up in a plane. I saw it when I was flying from Gatwick Airport to Schiphol.

Update: It is possible to measure the curvature from heights of about 14000 feet, but due to the eye not being a very good measurement instrument it is only visible from heights of about 30000 feet onwards.

Also, no amateur pictures? What's this? And this? This one's nice. The last ones even made a video of it. Near the end, you can see the curvature. It's slight, mind you - but visible.

2. Viewing of Landmarks from Great Distances

If the Earth were round, many landmarks that we can see from quite a distance would be blocked by land or water. It is important to remember that the Earth supposedly has a circumference of 25,000 miles.
A list of examples follows; the longest distance between two objects is 120 miles (193 km). Now, how much of an angle would that be? Can you guess? We can estimate it asφ r, where r is the average radius of the earth (6371 km). The angular difference is 0.03 radians. I'm going to guess the height difference is minimal.

One of the images reads:

These buildings are 59 miles away. If the earth is a ball like we are indoctrinated to believe the ground at the base of the buildings would be 2320 (feet?) below the horizon. Worse yet, the illustration below is incorrect as the buildings would be leaning away from our view point. How is this possible?
The image, fixed as promised.
Because you're an idiot? Maybe?

Let's look at it. We've already calculated the angular difference. It's really, really tiny. That means that, when located on a sphere, the vectors/directions perpendicular to the sphere (pointing outwards) are also right next to teach other, and point in almost entirely the same distance. Almost, because they're not; but so close that our eyes can't even discern it. We're talking about something like a 200 m  building that is 1 cm off from being straight; you can't see that with your eyes.

I'm not sufficiently bothered to check the calculation of how far something dropped. I could, surely, but it's just not that interesting. Try this one; it even tells you how it works.

What's the problem with their pictures? Well, for some reason they think that you can't look downwards. This sounds silly, but if you look at the picture I quoted you see a green line, telling you that people are only able to look parallel to the ground. I'll fix the image for you.

Also, earth's radius is 6731000 m. The way they're depicting it, you'd think that it was a few kilometres at most.

Update: Refraction, on average, leads to a slight (8%) increase in what you can see. However, refraction depends on weather conditions and on a clear day usually tells you a day such that you can see it. It turns out this should be interpreted as a day on which the conditions are excellent for long-range viewing by refraction, also known as mirages.

3. Water

We now move on to one of the most silly, inconsistent arguments so far.
Water, by nature, finds the lowest point and remains level. If the Earth was a sphere moving through space, water levels would not be consistent. Water can never find a low point on a sphere.Also curvature would require the longest rivers on the planet to flow uphill. But, of course, you forgot gravity. If gravity is holding water to the Earth, it is unlikely sea animals would be able to move freely in it because the force of gravity would be so strong.
I test was developed to prove that a spinning globe could hold water on it. However, it appears it would only work on a mass the size of known planets. If you spin and move a tennis ball in the same way the Earth travels through space, all the water will fly off.
To learn more about water’s role in a flat Earth, check out this video:
On a perfect sphere, water would be at a consistent depth. Because it can't find a low point; everything is a low point. If one droplets settles somewhere, that somewhere is a high point, so another droplet settles somewhere else; after a while, a shell of droplets is formed and the next shell forms on top of it.

Sea animals are able to move in water because water is a liquid. As such, the movement of the water particles create a pressure that is able to uplift volumes of the density of water (or less). Eureka! As such, a sea animal that has, on average, a density similar to that of water won't feel much force.

This is exactly why a whale can't live on land - it's too big - and why deep sea animals look so horrid on the surface (pressure is higher as you get deeper).

4. Large Scale construction

None of the modern large scale construction projects have needed to calculate the curvature of the Earth into their designs.The Suez Canal (above) is 100 miles long. No curvature calculations needed.The London and Northwestern Railway is 180 miles long. No curvature calculations taken which would have resulted in the center point of the rail at Birmingham resting over a mile above London and Liverpool.
The claims here are, of course, not backed up by anything. But earlier, we found that 193 km leads to an extremely little difference due to the curvature. Again, the radius is really, really big.

Update: The data from surveyors does account for the curvature. They don't need to calculate the curvature, where they means construction workers, engineers, etc., because surveyors gave them proper data.

5.  Plane flight paths

Why do the above routes not exist for travel in the Southern Hemisphere? If the Earth were round, those paths would make the most sense. Although airlines state that passenger planes cannot withstand Antarctic temperatures, there may be another reason why we do not fly that way. The path just may not exist.A flight from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil is one of the best examples of this flat Earth theory. Look at how much straighter the flight path is when viewed on the flat Earth Map.
Amusing. They used a projection of the Antarctica-centred map, and then drew straight lines on it.  Of course, that doesn't work.

If you do the math (I have; it's part of a course on classical mechanics), you'll find that the shortest routes are known as great circles.

Update: Some of these flight routes now exist. Only a very small amount actually goes of antarctica. Finally, some flights aren't financially interested, and therefore, they don't make them.

6. Stars

If there are an infinite amount of stars in the universe, why do we not see more in the night sky? The night should be almost as bright as the day.Also, if the Earth is spinning on its axis and spinning around the sun while the sun is moving around the Milky Way Galaxy, why do the stars we see in the sky stay in the same place? The picture above should not be possible with the Earth we are taught.
Because some stars are simply too dim; their light is distributed over a spherical surface, so the intensity of radiation goes $ \propto r^{-2} $.  They stay in the same place, because the longest-axis of the elliptical orbit of the earth is far, far smaller than the distance to that star.

Really, guys - these are points addressed since the philosophers of antiquity first figured out the earth wasn't flat.

Update: Astronomers regularly measure the movement of stars, the apparent movement of stars (parallax) and other such things.

7. The earth moves but we don't feel it.

This is probably the simplest proof that the Earth is flat and does not move through space.If the Earth were spinning Eastwards at over 1,000 miles per hours, we should be able to feel it. We feel the slightest breezes and many people get motion sickness. Why do we not feel the Earth move?
Because the velocity of rotation is constant over the lifespan of a human. The force of acceleration in the direction of that semi-spherical path is gravity, and we do feel gravity.

Update: Evolution would be quite rough on an animal that'd be sick all day because the earth rotates around its axis.

8. Antarctica

There are many issues that arise when we look at Antarctica as it should be on a globe.Map circumference and actual circumference do not match. Estimated circumference = ~12,000 miles. Actual circumference = ~69,000 miles.The Arctic and Antarctic are two different when it comes to flora and fauna. Iceland (65 degrees N) has 870 species of native plants and abundant animal life. Georgia (54 degrees S) has 18 species of native plants and animal life is non-existent.
Yes, they don't - because of the projection made. Is that hard?

Update: Two issues here. First, the 'actual circumference' is a really, really crappy boat ride taken by some explorers. Second, the flora/fauna difference is mainly attributable to the Gulf stream, but also partially due to the very different geographic conditions of the poles. (Ice versus land, sea surroundings versus land surroundings).

9. Our sun

The Sun and Moon may actually be about the same size. That would mean that the sun is much closer to Earth than we think.While the distance of the Sun has changed drastically over time, it has not been the same for believers of a flat Earth. Flat-Earthers throughout the ages, conversely, have used sextants and plane trigonometry to make such calculations and found the Sun and Moon both to be only about 32 miles in diameter and less than a few thousand miles from Earth.
 Amusing, please show us these calculations. Then tell us how this agrees with solar and lunar tides.

Update: They realise we've been to the moon, right?

10. NASA earth images

Why are the land sizes and shapes so different?Also, it seems some sections of the images are photoshopped.
The pictures are from different years, and some (e.g. 2007 vs 1997) are close in the time of day/angle the picture is taken; they agree quite well.

Mostly, the shapes and sizes are different because of the projection and the location/angle of the satellite placing the centre of the map.

Spiritual ramblings

Ok, that is a solid list of 10. At the start of the article I linked to 190 other ‘proofs’. Feel free to check it out and let us know if you are convinced, or not, that the earth is flat.
So what does it have to do with spirituality? Here is Eric Dubai explaining that. I transcribed the rant below the video.
 About as solid as the evidence for spirits, yes.

“Our eyes and experience tell us that the earth is flat and motionless. Everything in the sky revolves around us. But when we cease to believe our own eyes and experience we have to prostrate ourselves at the feet of these psuedoscientists who are blinding us; treat them as experts. astronomical priests who have special imaging, only they can access, such as the hubble telescope. So by brainwashing us with something so gigantic and fundamental it actually makes every lesser kind of indoctrination a piece of cake.
Do they? Because I see the sun turning, the moon turning; I see the difference in star positions over the year. I see the tides, I note the passing of the seasons. Etcetera.

The modern picture of the earth, solar system and universe is simply the simplest explanation that agrees with the known facts (measurements). Whereas the flat earth picture doesn't agree with the measurements, unless new physics is made up. Which, of course, they do.

Earth being a flat, fixed center of the universe which everything revolves gives it a special significance. Not only to earth but to us humans, the most intelligent of the designers designs.By turning earth into a spinning ball around the sun, shot through space by a godless big bang, they turn humanity into a meaningless, purposeless accident of blind dumb universe.So it’s like trauma based mind control, beating the divinity of us with their mental manipulation.”

 Surprise, religious mumbo-jumbo has to come in here.

Dear flat earther - wishful thinking cannot supplant measurements/facts.

This modern atheist big bang heliocentric globe earth chance paradigm spiritually control humanity by removing god or any sort of intelligent design and replaces purposeful divine creation with haphazard random cosmic coincidence.

And so by removing earth from the motionless center of the universe these masons have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nilistic indifference. If the earth is the center of the universe then the idea of god creation and purpose for human existence are resplendent.

But if the earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars and billions of galaxies,  then the idea of god creation and a specific purpose for earth and human existence become highly implausible.
Yes, quite.

So by serticiously indoctrinating us into their scientific materialist sun worship, not only do we lose faith in anything beyond the material, we gain absolute faith in materiality, superficiality, status, selfishness, hedonism and consumerism. If there is no god and everyone is just and accident then all that really matters is ‘me me me’.
Since when do we worship the sun? That's religion, lad. Lugh says `high'; as do Apollo, the Egyptian Ra and some others.

So they’ve turned Madonna the mother of god into the material girl living in a material world. Their rich powerful corporations and their slick sun cult logos sell us idols to worship. slowly taking over the world as we tacitly believe their science sold to politicians buy their products, listen to their music, watch their movies all sacrificing our souls at the alter of materialism.
I don't particularly like powerful corporations. Plus, living high up in the world of the rich doesn't tell you anybody is non-religious - say hi, republicans.

It’s a big deception. I’d say it’s the biggest cover-up and conspiracy in history.
What are your thoughts on this? Is it possible that we are being lied to?
Not really; the evidence is repeatable, consistent and so on and so forth.

Towards the end

The article is a rather badly written set of fluke arguments, ending in the non-surprising wishful thinking of the faithful.

On my website, I wrote a lengthy article that included a simple proof of the earth's curvature that uses differential geometry:
The important thing to note here is that it fit in perfectly with a new type of geometry being developed around the same time. Earlier, Gauss 2 had come to the conclusion that it's actually possible to determine if you're living on a flat surface, or on a flat one. I'm going to give you two examples. First, imagine you're drawing a line starting at the north-pole. You draw it straight down towards the equator. Then, you go to the right over the equator. After 14 of the equator, you go straight up again, back to the north-pole. Why am I letting you think of this? Well, you just made a triangle. With three right-angles.

But, triangles have three angles that sum to 180! Indeed. But not on a curved surface. So, you can definitely determine if you're living on a spherical-object using this method. The other method is slightly harder to imagine.You can visualise it. Take an apple; draw four dots on it. Say, draw a line around the apple and draw three dots on it. Then, in the middle of the circle you've drawn, put another dot. You now have three dots on the equator and one on the north pole. Now, cut through the apple and all four dots. You can't do it! You cut a section off, and that section necessarily contains one of the four dots.Next, suppose you take a few Capital cities. Start at, say, London. Do you know the shortest distance from London to Paris? From these two to Berlin? From these, to Rome? Well, grab a large sheet of paper. Set the largest distance in there to 10 cm. Put one of the cities in the centre. Draw the 10 cm circle, then pick an arbitrary point on that circle. That point will be the largest-distance city from your origin city. From both, draw a circle with the distance to one other city as its radius. If correct, there should be a intersection between these two circles where you can put the third city. However, if that doesn't happen, don't fear. It simply means that your three cities are far apart.Here's a page to find the distances. You can see there that the line from london to new york is drawn as a curved one; that's because a map is a flat projection.

I'll give you a hint; you can't draw that set of lines on a flat surface. A curved one, in particular, a spherical one for this specific problem, is required. Therefore, you can determine the shape, the curvature, of the surface you are on. Now, I was talking about geometry; shortly before Einstein, someone had come to the insight that one of the basic axioms - something taken for granted - in the known geometry was not necessary. Riemann was a student of Gauss, and he developed an entirely new geometry on this insight that an axiom wasn't necessary. It's called Riemann Geometry.