this blog is a direct response to Eric Dubay's video "200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Videobook"
I spent some time discussing this matter on youtube. What got me going to start this blog were two things.
1: Perpetual ignorance of evidence presented against a flat earth by many commenters,
2: A comment asking "Can you refute 200 proofs?"
Well, after quite a bit of research, I believe I can. There are already so many videos out there addressing and debunking different parts of this video. I will try to collect these responses and debunk every single claim from beginning to end. Also I will try and stay polite doing so, although I have to admit, regarding the quality of certain claims, I sometimes find that a bit hard... A few of these observations are actually quite interesting and can be a good motivation for everyone (as they were for me) to go out and do research on their own.
Anyway, I hope I can answer any of your questions and at some point get to the root of the issue which is the so-called "flat earth conspiracy".
Here are my first 7:
#1 False assumption + incomprehension of the model.
The shape of the horizon is in fact highly dependent on altitude/scale. This is easily proven by drawing a circle and measuring: -The angles of the apparent fields of view down on a proposed sphere -The radius of the visible horizon on that sphere from different altitudes of observation, withouth any topography. All heights are compared with a scaled basketball model ("BE"= Basketball-equivalent with 750mm circumference):
5km (0.009cm BE): 175.5° FOV, r≈250km
Mount Everest @ 8848m (0.017cm BE): 174°, r ≈335km (keep in mind, no Himalayas!)
10km (0.019cm BE): 173.6°, r≈356 km
20km (0.037cm BE) 171.0°, r≈500 km
45km (0.084cm BE): 166.4°, r≈750km
For comparison: ISS @ 425km (0.796cm BE): 139.3°, r≈2200km. This means that even ISS can overlook only a little more than 1/3 of earth's radius.
Moon @ min 363000 km (680 cm BE): 1.98°, r≈6370km
Here's how far you could see in perfect conditions from Mount Everest if you had no Himalayas around and you were instead looking at a sealevel horizon (points D and E mark the horizon):
For the following picture I made a 3D-model of earth with your view from an airplane at 10km altitude, again, in perfect conditions (no obstruction through atmosphere, 360° panoramic view, horizon at sealevel). Your field of view on earth is the green circle:
I also found a video that explains how to make these calculations a little more detailed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZbh3g16-8#t=25m39s
#2 False claim:
a) On a flat earth the horizon couldn't possibly be perfectly at eyelevel because sight line and surface should be parallel, therefore the apparent field of view down on earth must always be below 180°.
b) Check #1 as to why (geometrically) on a spherical earth the horizon always MUST appear to be at eyelevel. Even from Mount Everst (if you flattened the Himalayas completely) you'd have to look down less than 3° in each direction. However, there ARE the Himalayas.. The above (#1) mentioned video also explains why (geometrically) from an airplane at 12km above the ocean even the eagle-eyed observer must have quite a hard time seeing any kind of curve.
#3 False assumption.
On small scales, water doesn't maintain its level due to surface tension. That's why falling water drops form spheres. Over long distances, water never is consistently level on earth. Example: Tides. Also, if you overlooked a perfectly level lake from 50m elevation in perfect conditions, you could see ~50km far, with the horizon appearing 0.225° lower than eyelevel. There is no way for you eyes to perceive anything near a curve. This is perfectly consistent with water leveling perpendicular to the center of earth.
#4 Incomprehension of the model.
Yes, rivers run down towards sea level, but sea level is defined as a sphere around the center of earth. At no point on earth do rivers flow upwards according to that definition. Only high force, very fast (and short-scale) or extremely exceptional events like storm floods or tsunamis defy this principle over short periods.
#5 False claim.
Pants-on-fire-false actually. Again, there is no long stretch on earth where any river flows upwards under normal conditions. Here's a diagram showing the Nile's elevation:
The claim of a one-foot drop over 1000 miles is just false.
#6 Again, pants-on-fire false claim.
Any experiment done with proper controls (i.e. elimination of refraction as a source of error) shows a curved earth. Not one of these shows no curvature. Ask any certified surveyor or try it yourself. The most-cited experiment is the Bedford Level Experiment (#62). It has been repeated multiple times with proper controls and falsified every single time. Look here:
#7 Again, false claim + incomprehension of scale.
Architects and engineers do it for large-scale projects. Ask any architect/engineer or look up Humber Bridge or any other big-ass bridge:
They don't for any other project because there is no reason to: For any building or modular-designed structure curvature is just far too small to take into account. And please, I'd like to hear of ONE single certified surveyor who DOESN'T take curvature into account. They have successfully done so for hundreds of years and they continue to do so. Take it from the Swiss:
Or the British:
Or the Germans:
Godspeed, love and peace to all of you!