Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Why do Round Earthers Get the Burden of Proof Wrong?

Why do Round Earthers Get the Burden of Proof Wrong?

After a lot of arguing with round earthers I discovered one common theme, they all assumed that the burden of proof lies with the flat earther. This is wrong. To start to address this issue Round earthers must understand what the burden of proof is. In philosophy the burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. As a human when I see the earth with my eyes it looks flat (because it is flat), I don't see a curve. It is up to the Round earthers to provide evidence for their theory not the other way round. Until I can find convincing evidence that the world is round I will continue to believe that the earth is flat. Many times I have seen "evidence" thrown around by round earthers that "prove round earth". All of the evidence they provide is problematic. Whenever a round farther provides a picture from NASA that the earth is round it is problematic because the round farther falsely assumes that NASA does not photoshop. Whenever a round earther uses his or her camera to capture the earths curve they fail to factor in the fish eye effect.


I am so confident of my views on the earth that if any Round Earther provides irrevocable evidence in the comment section below then I will shut down this blog.

31 comments:

  1. agree, fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but how can you prove the earth is rotating, that is only speculation

      Delete
    2. The Earth must be rotating, or you don't know how light works. If the Sun is constantly hovering above the flat Earth, then its light will propagate in every direction with the same intensity at equal radii. We know the sun is a gigantic sphere of plasma and that fusion is the mechanism that creates the energy. Scientists do experiments with fusion every day, though, unlike the sun, our experiments require more energy to input than they get out. Regardless, this light will propagate across flat earth, but with less intensity on the further you get away from the source. This is not to say that the light is not there, so nighttime would be impossible.

      I have yet to see any flat earthers argue that the sun works like a flashlight, where light is funneled to a specific location, leaving the outer edges in darkness, but be my guest: make up some excuse that defies physics and shows why the sun's light doesn't hit all parts of flat Earth simultaneously.

      Delete
    3. 1. light can work without the earth rotating
      2. you are assuming the sun is a sphere, if it is a disk it disproves your entire argument

      Delete
    4. Evidently you didn't read his explanation for #1, because your rebuttle is completely irrelevant.

      We can tell that the sun is a sphere because of the effects from other planets. We have seen the sun from Earth and Mars simultaneously, from different angles, and the sun looks the same every time...no other geometric shape can do that.

      You claim that people who believe in a spherical model of Earth have no evidence, yet there is not, and never has been a single piece of evidence to support a non-spherical model.

      Delete
    5. Earth has small ups and downs that can cause the differences in light refraction. Earth has many mountains and canyons.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. nice try but speculation does not equal evidence

      Delete
  4. Trying to use Foucault’s pendulum as proof for heliocentricity really backfired when Maurice Allais repeatedly observed pendulums slowing their motion during eclipses! This implies that either the “rotating Earth” decelerates during eclipses or the firmament does. NASA doesn’t want to concede the implications so they continue to remain silent on the issue:

    Foucault’s Pendulum Eclipsed by Allais Effect (http://mando2u2003.blogspot.com/2010/11/foucault-pendulum-eclipsed-by-allais.html)


    [Source - https://aplanetruth.info/24-is-the-earth-a-sphere-the-many-failed-heliocentric-experiments/]

    ReplyDelete
  5. How do you explain magnets? Just out of curiosity not looking to debate anything :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont see how that relates to the burden of proof or flat earth?

      Delete
    2. Well magnets are what make compasses work right? And the only way compasses work are through the earths magnetic field around the north and south pole, if the earth were flat compasses would not work and therefore there would also be no magnetic field and so by saying the earth is flat you are also saying magnets aren't a thing.

      Delete
  6. https://youtu.be/JgY8zNZ35uw

    ReplyDelete
  7. you're actually making the assertion "because it is flat" so you need to come up with evidence. We given you loads. You have come up with nothing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The assertion is that "The world is round" If I cannot see the curve of the earth I assume there is no curve until given sufficient evidence

      Delete
    2. Go on a cruise, as you move away from land the shoreline will fall below the horizon, that is a literal example of Earths curvature.

      Second of all, if you get on top of a building more than, I don't know, 600 feet tall, you can see the curvature of the Earth. Don't believe me? Take a picture on your phone, and place a ruler across the horizon in the image, they won't line up because the horizon is curved.

      Delete
  8. Nice post man. This to me is a great starting point for the flat earth. If someone cannot understand how burden of proof works then they are usually a lost cause.

    Definitely gonna bookmark this post for future reference :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do you guys think that only earth is flat or that every other planet IS also flat?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting post. I have been wondering about this issue, so thanks for posting.

    Flat earth forum

    ReplyDelete
  11. Earth's center of gravity is the most easily understood proof I can come up with. If the Earth were a flat plane, then dropped things would be pulled more or less to the center of it. And I'm pretty sure apples still fall as straight down in China as they do in the States, whereas if the Earth were flat, objects in different locations would fall at different angles to the ground (depending on where the middle of this "flat Earth" is located). But that's demonstrably not the case; objects are pulled to Earth's center of mass, down, from all points on the very slightly ovoid Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This website exposes that the flat earth is flat this site discusses Earth maps in earth measured

    ReplyDelete
  13. If the earth is flat, why can you not see Hawaii from the California coast line?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our eyesight is limited, we can only see so far.

      Delete
    2. Stand on the East coast of the United States with the most powerful telescope you could imagine and point it directly East. You aren't going to see Europe or Africa.

      Delete
    3. Stand on the East coast of the United States with the most powerful telescope you could imagine and point it directly East. You aren't going to see Europe or Africa.

      Delete
  14. You will contest any "evidence" provided with your own "evidence". What would you consider irrevocable evidence? What do you believe is your irrevocable evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Show me a picture of someone standing on the edge of this ice wall looking out into apace.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This shows how FEs are dense.

    The burden of proof does lie on the one going against common narrative. It’s commonly known that earth is round. It’s been known for 2000 years. FEs brought up a new idea. It’s their job to prove it. It’s not the job of the REs to provide evidence against their own claim, because that would be contradicting.

    ReplyDelete