In this series, I aim to take a look at a number of the Flat Earth debunks going around the internet - most of them are painful reading, even for someone who believes in a globe. Bad science helps no one, so we should discard these bad arguments in the name of truth and science.
original article: https://www.indy100.com/article/prove-earth-is-round-flat-earth-theory-conspiracy-win-flatearther-argument-8196911
Look upwards
Yes, this is not a proof of the thing you are standing on at all. What the original article would like you to believe, is that you can tell what is below you by what is above you. This is patently ridiculous, and if I have to explain why then perhaps you're not cut out for this subject in the first place.
Allegedly, the fact you can see different constellations from different points on earth proves its a ball. This relies on too many assumptions to be classed as scientific, such as an assumed distance to the stars and not factoring in the other plausible arguments that a flat earth could give, such as local stars combining with atmospheric lensing and perspective. Both explanations are equally plausible within their cosmologies, so this is not a proof of one model or the other.
Look down
The article suggests that people standing at different distances from a light source can only have different shadows on a rounded surface. Try this yourself - have your friend stand underneath a bedroom light, and then stand to the side of the light. If you have different length shadows, the article asserts that you MUST be on a rounded surface - are you? No. This is not a proof.
Weigh yourself
The article suggests that flat earthers do not believe in gravity - this is a common semantic lie to get you to think they're anti-science. This is wrong. If the person who wrote the article understood the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory, they'd understand that no flat earther rejects the law of gravity. What is under contention is the theory, and weighing yourself is not a proof of the theory of gravity.
Take a trip to Antarctica
The author clearly isn't aware that 0 flights go "over" Antarctica at all. You can read more here:
https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/859486/planes-fly-antarctica-revealed
So even in the globe theory, we have 0 flights over Antarctica. Therefore, this is not a proof.
Check your watch
Apparently a flat earth couldn't possibly have timezones. This is incorrect, and is again ignorant of the perfectly logical and valid flat earth explanations of the same phenomena. Simply asserting that something just couldn't be true is not evidence that it couldn't be true. I will expand on this in another article.
Grab a compass
The author asserts that the planet has a giant magnetic core that causes the magnetism of the planet.
This causes a few problems for the ball earth model -
a. No one has ever been further than 8 miles into the earth. What is below this point is complete speculation, so asserting that it is there is meaningless.
b. the molten iron and nickel core that is theorised to be there, is also theorised to be 6 thousand degrees. How was this done?
"A team of scientists has measured the melting point of iron at high precision in a laboratory, and then drew from that result to calculate the temperature at the boundary of Earth's inner and outer core". How scientific.
c. The Curie Point of Nickel is 354 C, and Iron is 770. This makes a magnetic core of iron and nickel at 6 thousand degrees C completely impossible, and in need of an enormous electric current.
d. The reverse engineered, damage controlled explanation is that the earth's molten core feeds its own electric current, which to anyone with a brain is obvious desperation and far from scientific.
The earth's theoretical molten magnetic iron and nickel core is not a proof.
Grab a pendulum
Apparently Foucault's Pendulum is proof that the ball is spinning beneath your feet. What they don't tell you is that modern day Foucault's Pendula are manufactured with complex electronics to mimic the so-called motion of the earth beneath your feet. If the phenomenon was as described, such manipulation of this effect would not be necessary, and raises suspicions as to the intentions of the manufacturers. Therefore, this is not a proof.
I hope you enjoyed my article, please leave comments below.