Open thread for episode 22.08: Tracie and Special Guest Callie Wright

The Atheist Experience is a production of the Atheist Community of Austin, a Texas nonprofit educational organization dedicated to the separation of church and state and promoting positive atheist culture.

Today, Tracie is joined by special guest, Callie Wright, Trans Community activist and host of the Gaytheist Manifesto and The Queer Side podcasts.

Links for Gaytheist Manifesto:

Links for The Queer Side:

Special GoFundMe for ACA outreach at the American Atheist Convention

General TAE Links

General useful resources


  1. Farrell O Rogers says

    Tracie, you are so nice when you debunk someone’s argument. You are beautiful on the inside and out.

  2. Steven Shuster says

    So the water was sucked out of the Mariana Trench and held from refilling it for a year (the time it took according to the bible before Noah found dry ground to land on)? Because otherwise it couldn’t be used to flood the Earth, gravity would always pull it back into the lowest point.

  3. says

    Callie seemed like she had been doing AXP shows for years.^^ I really enjoyed seeing Tracie and Callie! 🙂

    The callers were a bit … on the strange side. The flat-earther with his little gotcha-moment about airplanes o_0 – I think his whole shtick with “I only believe what I can perceive with my senses” perhaps needs to be addressed by itself, because there seems to be some weird thinking going on there, like senses can never be deceived or something. Isn’t flat-earth a conspiracy theory? They have to believe that the NASA is forging images, and that no one is in the position to proof that, which is already ridiculous.
    Also, the (or some) ancient Greeks and Egyptians already knew that the earth is a sphere, so let’s not let him pretend it started with Galileo. 😉 But the way you handled it was very good as well, just referring to actual scientists.

  4. Mobius says


    At one point in the show you talked about the center of the universe. It is somewhat counter-intuitive, but there is no such thing as the center of the universe. From every point in the universe you see space around you, stretching to the cosmic microwave background, that has been expanding for nearly 14 billion years. Every point has this same perspective, giving it the appearance that it is the center. It is a bit much to explain in a single forum post, but this site gives a decent explanation…

    At the start of the universe, every point in it now was at that infinitesimally small singularity.

  5. danhel says

    In regard to Andrew from Twinsberg.
    You where amazed how the Bible could foresee how nobody would be over 120 years after the flood.
    And even if we disregard Jeanne Calment, who died at the ripe old are of 122, because she was a woman, as a Bible reader you probably know that Abraham is claimed to have died when he was 175 years old. And this is still only Genesis we talk about!
    So either the stories of the Bible can’t be trusted, or the promises of god can’t be trusted.

    I don’t really care which one you prefer, but you can’t have it both ways!
    I don’t know if you are going to read this, but still, there is always someone who is going to react to this fact, I guess.

  6. says

    The guy talking about “where did the water go?” explanation is terrible. You need EXTRA water for it to cover the current land peaks – ie the lands that we live on, these parts of the earth are higher, therefore you need all of the water in the oceans, which is currently what we have PLUS a whole load more to cover the lands we`re living on, its a pretty simple concept.

    As others have stated, the flat earthers have to go down the road that moon landings space race etc is all a conspiracy… the explanation doesnt quite make sense as US and USSR could track each others rockets, yet neither denied the accomplishments of the other. Also, many different countries today use the ISS, so if its a conspiracy that both countries were trying to one up each other it really doesnt make sense as an explanation today when theyre in joint agreement that they use the ISS – and thats just ONE example.

  7. Wiggle Puppy says

    I’m sad they didn’t let Stephen from Tokyo talk about the moral argument – guy has called in twice now and seems to be trying to get the hosts to say that governments do bad things in a more frequent and/or more intense manner than religions and that atheists should therefore go after governments and leave religion alone, but the way he approaches the topic is so ham-fisted that any attempt by him to touch the subject of morality would be highly entertaining in its awfulness

  8. says

    Be interesting to see a psychologist’s take on the flat earther guy.

    By this I mean his previous atheism was anti theistic, which could be considered at the extreme end of atheism.

    From this he shifts to a fringe position – flat eartherism. What is it with some people and their need to adopt extreme and fringe views no matter what issue?

    By the way, at least he kept it relevant to why his flat eartherism meant he believed in god now.

    And by the way Victor, if you’re reading this. No, this is not open to debate. The earth is round. End of story. Won’t even entertain the idea of debate on that issue.

  9. says

    @6 yes, well maybe he should get there quicker…. As ive seen explained on the show very recently, because you have a show that talks about Atheism and something else *may* be a greater problem, it doesnt take away that Theism can be a problem too so needs to be addressed. Maybe he should make his own anti-governments show ?

    @7 oh yes, people love to be in a fringe position even when its counter all the evidence theyll maintain it, which is interesting in itself i think.

  10. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Andrew (1:07:03):

    It has basically a bunch of Sumerian kings […] After the flood, all their ages dropped dramatically.

    Article: Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative Wiki – The Weld-Blundell Prism / The Sumerian King List

    The list starts with the remote mythical past when kingship had descended from heaven. The rulers in the earliest dynasties are represented as reigning fantastically long periods. Some of these rulers such as Etana, Lugal-banda and Gilgamesh are mythical or legendary figures known also from Sumerian and Babylonian literary compositions.
    As the King List reaches historical rulers whose reigns are attested by their royal inscriptions, the length of each reign becomes more realistic. The King List ends with the reign of a Mesopotamian ruler presumably contemporaneous with the author or redactor of the List.

    Article: Wikipedia – Sumerian King List

    Although the primal kings are historically unattested, that does not preclude their possible correspondence with historical rulers who were later mythicized. Some Assyriologists view the predynastic kings as a later fictional addition.
    The earliest listed ruler whose historicity has been archaeologically verified is Enmebaragesi of Kish, c. 2600 BC.
    [The Weld-Blundell Prism] is a unique inscribed vertical prism, dated c. 1817 BC, although some scholars prefer c. 1827 BC.

  11. says


    The reason people maintain beliefs in spite of all evidence to the contrary is that they allow their belief to become part of their identity. To question a belief they hold is to question their worth as a person because the are emotionally attached to that belief.

    I think that one of the things that the AXP highlights is the complete disconnect between people who are emotional thinkers and people who are rational thinkers.

    I personally find it hard to comprehend because if you can show me evidence that a cherished belief I have held for 20 years is wrong I will change my view in 2 seconds flat.

  12. StonedRanger says

    Victor, Victor, Victor. You should be ashamed for your bald faced lie that you are unable to post on the blog. You posted on last weeks blog and said you wouldn’t discuss flat earth, gravity being false, etc there, you wanted to be debated. I, among others, responded to your post and you never came back. You were given about 14 minutes this week which is about 13 more minutes than this call should have gone. I will say it again, if you think gravity is not a real thing, then I challenge you to jump off any structure, man made or natural that is at least one hundred feet tall. If you can jump off that height and have no injuries whatever from the fall you will have proven gravity does not exist because you will just float in the air. But you and I both know that you will fall and you will die from the injuries you will suffer in that fall. So shut up about gravity. Go argue with some people who actually do science. If you can convince scientists who have actually done the work, then maybe you will have a bit of traction. Why you call an atheist show with this drivel is just stupidity on your part.

  13. viliam says

    Flat earth caller: take a picture of polaris from the southern hemisphere. You can use your sense to do that right?

    Still no flat earth pictures of polaris from the southern hemisphere though…

  14. says

    when it comes to the argumentum ad scriptura, is there really a more efficient rebuttal than through analogy …?

    theist: i believe x is true because it says so in genesis.
    atheist: do you believe that spider-man is real?
    theist: of course not.
    atheist: well, it says he lives in forest hills, ny, in issue #7.

    the point that must always be driven home is that the bible (or koran or torah, etc etc) is only a collection of claims. it cannot be used to prove itself.

  15. says


    No point Victor coming on here anyway. Like creationists, flat eathers don’t have any, you know, like, actual evidence.

    They point to perceived flaws in the evidence for scientifically accepted ideas.. and say.. see?

    It’s a variation in the god of the gaps argument – in this case I suppose it could be called a god of the flaws argument.

  16. gravityisajoke says

    @stoneranger Apologies I had no idea my comment was approved I never bothered to check it because I thought I had the notifications on which I didn’t, whatever doesn’t matter much. I do obviously believe objects fall, this is a ridiculous misconception about people who cast doubt in the theory of gravity. We believe things fall but we doubt the “established” reason as to why they fall. They do not fall because the Earth is pulling it down, they fall because they are more dense than the medium they are in ie: a ball filled with air falls to the ground, but floats in water. By you claiming this magical force called gravity is what is pulling it down you are invoking another unnecessary force which doesn’t explain anything any better than what density and buoyancy already do.

    Cavendish experiment has never been accurately replicated, every single video I had ever seen of it shows the two weights moving towards it and then they move AWAY from it lol please. If gravity is pulling it towards each other you can’t explain why they are moving away without them even hitting each other. This is a circus trick by making a slight imbalance and/or having weights which are not the same exact weight giving the illusion that they are moving towards each other.

  17. gravityisajoke says

    Also I’d like to point out how ridiculously sensitive the Cavendish experiment is. Cavendish himself would stand outside of the barn that he had the apparatus in and would take measurements looking through a telescope over 100 feet away because he didn’t want his own gravity to give an erroneous result to the test. If there is any heat source in the room that the test is being done in it will also give an erroneous result because the heat flow will cause air disturbances. If the person performing the test is anywhere near the test or god forbid if he or she walks near it the air disturbance created by them walking near it will cause the fixture to move (which I have personally seen a video of online where the guy walked near the apparatus and it started to move because of the slight air current that was created and he was absolutely furious because now he had to rebalance and readjust the entire thing which took him god knows how long to setup again LOL). Also the apparatus has to be absolutely perfectly in the center of the room with no other objects anywhere even close to it because the gravity of the walls and the objects will also give an erroneous result if these measures are not taken into account. One final thing is that this test needs to be done in a VACUUM CHAMBER to eliminate all the variables having to do with air disturbances.

    That will never happen, you will never in a million years see a Cavendish experiment being done in a vacuum chamber with every single protocol and every single minute variable being taken into account. And if you think that this test is not that sensitive and that all of these protocols don’t need to be taken into account why don’t you go ask Cavendish himself who would stand 100 feet away and look through a TELESCOPE to take the measurements down. Absolutely absurd! This also debunks itself because obviously there is absolutely no way that over 300 years ago this guy Cavendish was able to manufacture weights which were EXACTLY the same weight down to the microgram without highly advanced machining technology. What did he do use a hammer and chizel with some stone blocks? Where there any other objects in the barn that he did the test in? If there were the test results are worthless. Is a barn an air tight room that no air flow will go into to disturb the apparatus? LOL.

    You people have a religion, your god is gravity. Gravity of the gaps! What causes planets to be round? Gravity. What causes stars to form? Gravity. What causes galaxies to form? Gravity. What causes stars to revolve around the galaxy? Gravity. What causes meteor and asteroid and comet formation? Gravity. What causes black holes? Gravity. What causes the tides of the oceans? Gravity. What causes the water to stick to the side of a spinning flying soaring ball earth? Gravity. What causes airplanes to not fly off into outer space which is what would happen on a ball earth? Gravity. Has gravity ever been proven? No. RELIGION.

  18. sayamything says

    The minute I heard the word “queer,” I had an hour and forty minutes more free time this week. Kind of a shame. Trans activism should be right up my alley, but I’m immediately excluded. Not cool.

  19. Erwin Müller says

    Weight is a health issue. I don’t understand why Tracy put disinformation about the health issues of people with more weight than would be healthy. Of course we give health risks as a statistical percent for a demographic and not for individuals, because that is simple how evaluating health risks work. Doctors are not able to see into the future and determine if the particular patient is going to develop the specific health issues because of his or her weight. But that doesn’t mean that being overweight is not a health issue. You can’t tell for a specific individual, so we can’t do health risk assessments? So, we are going to throw out cancer risk assessments? So, smoking is not a health issue just because some people will never get cancer or will never have any health issues?

    We have a scientific way to measure if you are normal weight, overweight or obese: the BMI.

    People who are above normal weight have increased health risks. Just like if people drink or smoke have increased health risks. Any good doctor should tell an overweight or obese person to reduce their weight, just because it will reduce their health risks. Just like any good doctor should tell a smoker to stop smoking, or a drinker to stop drinking.

    Those are the health risks linked with being overweight:

    Maybe the increased discrimination against overweight people is a problem, but that is separate from whether or not being overweight is a health issue. Maybe the people are more critical because we are getting fatter and fatter, and especially in the US being obese is already an epidemic. So it’s only natural for people to become more critical of weight. Also, the link between overweight and those health risks given above were discovered only recently and so in my opinion people became even more critical of weight.

    In conclusion, please don’t put disinformation out there just because your quest experienced some discrimination because she was overweight. Nobody approves discrimination, but I can’t stand to hear what is basically apologetics for overweight people, and also misinformation about health risks of being overweight.

  20. DanDare says

    Get 10 people spread out on the surface of the Earth, say 500km apart each, and get them to simultaneously record the angle to the sun from their horizon.
    Plot each person on a globe surface and their angles will all triangulate to the same position in space about 98 million miles away..
    Plot each person on a flat surface and their angles will not come together at one point, so that would require the sun to have been in different places at once.
    Flat Earth is just outright demented rubbish.

  21. Sjjk says

    Excellent shows this week, both TAE and Talk Heathen!
    Two awsome guest hosts, hope to see them again sometime.

  22. RationalismRules says


    They do not fall because the Earth is pulling it down, they fall because they are more dense than the medium they are in ie: a ball filled with air falls to the ground, but floats in water.

    This is one of the most incompetent arguments I have ever seen, for any position, ever. Saying “they fall because they are more dense than the medium they are in” fails to account for the fundamental characteristic that renders it a ‘fall’ ie. the direction of the movement. Density in no way explains the direction of travel being towards the earth.

    Not to mention that beyond a certain distance from the earth, things no longer ‘fall’ at all – which, considering they are in a vacuum, is contrary to your density ‘explanation’.
    Congratulations, it’s quite an achievement to surpass theistic arguments for obtuseness.

  23. says


    On that matter, nor does the density argument account for the rate of acceleration of a falling object,

  24. dpooly79 says

    If a global flood occurred (which as current evidence attests to, it did not), where would such a vast amount of water have even receded too?. a GLOBAL flood, ergo the entire earth was water, leaving no where for the water TOO recede to. Also, this ridiculous and endless theistic trend of using the bible to prove the bible is a non starter and utterly flawed, you cannot use the ‘thing’ to prove the ‘thing’, the vast majority (but not all) theists also always assume that because they accept the bible as true and immaculate, that atheists do too, therefore we (atheists) have to listen to endless bible quoting as if we see it as a point of accepted authority and evidence. I do always find it quite bewildering how religion presents itself as freedom for all men and women, as a way to live as righteous as one can and should, and as a way to respect our fellow human, when all it does in it’s entirety is spend every preaching moment beating down the minorities, and those who ACTUALLY promote free thinking and equality, such as the LGBT community, women, other religions, the scientific community (ie stem cell research, abortion rights), the use of condoms in the third world as a source of aids prevention, the list goes on.

    The caller who was asserting (yet again with utterly no evidence nor coherent argument for the assertion) that the earth is flat and that all other planetary bodies revolve around us (which are both incorrect, as we know we revolve around the sun) is a prime example of theistic ignorance and denial, it’s MIND BOGGLING how they can refute and deny with such passion and assertion ACTUAL FACTS ABOUT REALITY, and yet accept religion and it’s NONSENSICLE (Totally made that word up, sue me), claims with no evidence at all, in any shape or form. We always, always hear at the end of most debates or arguments the theist spout “So who did create it then?”….who?. WHO?,….. why assume it even IS a who?, why not a what?, better yet, a how?, “How did the world come to be?”, what was the NATURAL processes that we CAN evaluate, test and explore?, why assert an extra piece of supernatural nonsense to explain something that has a natural process?, it’s absurd and completely irrelevant.

    …..And finally, please assume that I hung up after this post……

  25. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To gravityisajoke
    As I said in the previous thread, the air travel times and boat travel times are consistent with a round earth and not with a flat earth. Explain to me how this is possible without invoking a conspiracy that involves literally every air pilot and boat captain on the planet.

    Given your arguments about density and buoyancy, I’m pretty sure that you’re a troll. I plan on minimizing my future engagement with you.

  26. Callie Wright says

    @sayamything I’m curious why you felt excluded? Many folks who are some flavor of non heterosexual identify themselves that way, myself included.

  27. says


    I think you’re not understanding my point.

    I used moderate drinking as the example. There are studies showing that moderate alcohol intake increases breast cancer risk. I thought the percentage was about 30%, but it’s not relevant. The point is that 30% more of the population of women are diagnosed with breast cancer that appears to be linked to moderate drinking. The rest will not develop breast cancer from moderate drinking. This means there are some other factors in play with the 30% who did develop the cancer that the rest don’t share, and don’t seem to be subject to an increased risk of cancer due to moderate drinking.

    Some people misunderstand this statistic to be saying each person is 30% more likely to get cancer, which is a misconception people have. 30% more women are going to be impacted by drinking and develop breast cancer from that, the rest don’t seem to be impacted by it, and it doesn’t have that same detrimental effect.

    Simply telling a woman *she* is more likely to develop breast cancer if she drinks moderately means I don’t grasp that there really is no way to know if she’s in that group that is susceptible to this increase in risk. She may be at 0% increased risk of breast cancer from moderate drinking if she doesn’t have the same factors that contribute to those 30% who are going to develop it from the drinking. Knowing 30% of women will develop it, tells me nothing about whether a single subject will be one of those 30%.

    Let’s say that we find the 30% who end up getting cancer from moderate drinking have a genetic component we find we can test for, that allows us to differentiate which 30% will develop cancer, and which won’t, from moderate drinking. In such a case, it will still be the case that the drinking is associated with a 30% risk increase, but we’d be able to tell which women absolutely won’t develop breast cancer from moderate drinking. THOSE women are at no increased risk of developing breast cancer from moderate drinking, even though breast cancer increase would STILL be 30% from moderate drinking. Literally 30% are at 100% risk of developing breast cancer from the moderate drinking, the rest have 0% risk from it.

    The fact we can’t tell which women are subject to the risk changes nothing about the fact that only 30% of women are going to have a problem from the moderate drinking.

    Any increase in a health risk works similarly–including body fat.

  28. tommyr says

    Tracy spent too much time with the flat Earth moron. It has nothing to do with religion.

    Andrew claims that the Bible is factual. Apparently he’s never read the very beginning of the Bible or many other parts of it.

  29. Flat_terra_fatuis says

    Flat Earthers are dishonest. They have 0 evidence for their claims and they deep down know they are full of it. I have seen them post edited portions of videos where a camera has been sent up using a weather balloon but crop the video to only see a “flat” horizon. However, since they forget you can actually find the original on the internet when you see the original version you can clearly see the curvature of the earth.

    Anyone can buy a telescope and see planets on our own solar system or the moon and see the curvature as well as see it is a sphere. But the earth is different? You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that. You would also have to believe that EVERYONE that has been ever been to space are frauds, the space station is fake (which you can see from earth with a telescope and a tracking app to determine where it is) every government on earth that has a satellite are part of some conspiracy. For what purpose?

    You can sit on a beach and look at ship way into the distance coming over the horizon. But you won’t see it all at once due to the curvature of the earth.

    I used to think Elon musk should pay for the moron in chief of the flat earth society a ticket to the ISS so he can see the oblate spheroid we call Earth but then they will just claim he was paid off and part of the conspiracy. They are nothing but trolls.

  30. Marcel says

    Victor continues to demonstrate that he knows absolutely nothing about the Cavendish experiment. As was recommended by the hosts, he should go to a university and talk to some physics profs and ask to see the Cavendish experiment first-hand. We all know that he is not going to do that though.

    However, if he does actually go to talk to some profs, he needs to be much more polite. Quite frankly, he has been extremely rude on both shows. If he behaves like that to a prof, they will call security and have him removed from the grounds.

  31. neilmatrix says

    It is obvious where all the water went after the flood. It fell of the edge of the flat earth!

  32. Monocle Smile says

    BMI is a terrible way to gauge health without a hefty amount of additional information. I’m on the “overweight” boundary at just under 20% body fat. I have “obese” friends with little to no visceral fat. Yes, obesity is a huge problem in this country, but I think Tracie was just saying it’s not as simple as some make it seem.

  33. Cimmerius says

    The oldest person in recorded history was Jeanne Calment who died at the age of 122.

  34. says

    Flat-earth conspiracy theorists are fascinating to observe. The epistemological failure is dramatic yet strangely self-consistent:
    1. Discredit conflicting authorities (e.g. NASA Lies, they’re just in it for money. Copernicus was a Free Mason, etc.)
    2. Scour the available media content for things which can be misconstrued as intentional attempts at deception. (ISS video feed anomalies, Stitching artifacts on clouds in composite imagery, JPEG or MPEG encoding artifacts, etc.).
    3. NEVER dig into the original sources to understand why the anomalies occur. Insist they’re proof of deception.
    4. With all available external authorities removed, all that is left is your own perception. For almost all practical purposes, the earth appears to be approximately flat. The curvature of a pancake is many thousands of times more pronounced than the curvature of the earth.

    I’ve blogged about this self-delusion for a while. Some of the victims are pretty intelligent.

  35. Oppenheim says

    Callie, why did you decide to transition to a woman? I haven’t really gotten to ask any trans people and I just want to understand it better.

  36. StonedRanger says

    Really Victor? Density? Okay, lets address your idea. How about we perform an experiment in a total vacuum, where the density of the medium the objects are falling through is zero and therefore will have no effect on the falling object. Lets try a 2lb lead ball and a feather. What do you think will happen? Will the lead ball fall ‘faster’ because it is denser than the feather? This experiment has been done. They both fall at the same rate and hit at the same time. You can even see you tube videos of this experiment if you had bothered to look. Your ideas are as silly as you are. Im not even a scientist, and that is who you should be arguing with or presenting your ‘ideas’ to, not a group of atheists. Be well sir.

  37. t90bb says

    29….Callie…first off. I think you are great. I hope to see more of you on TH and even AE show!! You were the highlight of the week for me. Really bright, pleasant, and attractive. You have a great way about you! I would love if like once a month they do a SCIENCE theme show and they could take calls with heavy science implications and they could have you, and others join the call. It was a joy to watch you talk riddles around Victor!

    That said…I cringed when you used the word queer on TH….and I am a completely out and comfortable gay male with a great life. I will have to play the tape back and see exactly in what context you used it. I guess its well within your right to use whatever term you want to describe yourself or others. Maybe its me. I dunno..but “queer” seems to fall into the category of “faggot”..dyke…etc. Its not a term i would use to positively identify myself or you. But again…its your right to use whatever words you want. I know some gay males that will self identify as “faggot”. Again its their right…but it does make me feel uncomfortable. No right or wrong here. Jus sayin!

    Do not let that issue overshadow how great I think you are!!!! It probably bothers me more because of how exceptional you seem. It would be the same as if I had a buddy that i really liked, admired, and cared for self identifying as a “faggot”. I guess I feel it denotes some level of self loathing…..but again…not everyone attached the same baggage to terms. Anyways…you and your smile rocks. Much respect!

    I realize this is a board for I wont make a habit of this. Although we have so much overlap with callers (Victor, Hamish) sometimes its hard for me to keep it straight (no pun intended).

  38. Joe says

    Scientific American: “Alcohol Consumption Increases Risk of Breast and Other Cancers, Doctors Say”
    By Cheryl Platzman Weinstock, Reuters on November 8, 2017


    …. “Among women, light drinkers have a four percent increased risk of breast cancer, while moderate drinkers have a 23 percent increased risk of the disease. Heavy drinkers who consume more than eight drinks a day have a 63 percent increased risk of female breast cancer because alcohol increases levels of the female sex hormone estrogen.” …. “Heavy drinkers of both genders increase their risk of head and neck and oral cancers by more than 500 percent because tissues come into direct contact with alcohol carcinogens.” …. “All forms of alcohol, whether beer, wine, champagne or shots, cause the same cancer risk.” ….

    See also:
    …”§§ Results also showed that compared to non-drinkers, women who drank 10 or more grams of alcohol per day had an increased risk of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers…”

    Tracie, I’m not sure I can 100% square your statements. If a statistical analysis is done properly (i.e. with control groups, etc…) then in fact it is reasonable tell a person that they have an “increased risk” as indicated by the study. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what your are saying.

    Whatever the case I’ve included the link to a summary article on the subject.

  39. gravityisajoke says

    @AtheistEngineer I discredit NASA because the moon landings are fake, every photo of earth is admittedly fake by NASA they admit they are CGI or composite themselves. I would love to hear your answer as to how we can get crystal clear HD 1080p images of pluto the furthest planet (well not a planet anymore you guys can’t even decide what the definition of a planet is LOL) in the entire solar system but we can’t get a full HD image of earth in one shot? Would love to hear your explanation for that. Also kind of funny how NASA trolls us by putting an image of pluto’s head on the planet pluto!! LOL Let me guess just a coincidence, right?!

    The entire state of Kansas is literally flatter than a pancake. The salt flats in Bolivia are FLAT. Water does not curve around the exterior of a shape. Water covers nearly 80% of the Earth. Prove it in an experiment that water can conform around an object, oh wait you can’t because its impossible. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!!

    “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” ~Nikola Tesla

  40. t90bb says

    VICTOR VICTOR VICTOR… really help the atheist movement more and more with every call. Such a lack of depth of knowledge…..and such limitless confidence. Like a great many of theists I know.

    I laughed when you said “you love to be wrong”!!!! If you play back your calls you talk a mile a minute. You claim to want to have a dialogue but unless you are stopped you will do 90 percent of the talking. You obviously see yourself as the smartest person in the room at all times…which is just fuckin hilarious.

    If I could leave you with a tip it would be to take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth.

    P.S. my brother works on/with satellites….they are real. I SINCERELY hope you continue to call regularly…you epitomize the mentality of so many that need exposing!!! Laughing at you is good for the soul (wink)!

  41. gravityisajoke says

    @stonedranger I’ve seen that experiment it was with that weirdo Brian Cox. First of all that experiment actually DISPROVES gravity. That is actual proof, physical, empirical, demonstrable proof that it is NOT gravity that is making the objects fall. There is no medium the hold up the two objects so they still fall because anything will fall in those conditions, however, if gravity were true, the bowling ball should fall significantly faster than the feather seeing as how the bowling ball is 10’s of thousands of times more massive than the feather. But what happens? They fall at the same speed because it is not the gravitational force that is pulling them down it is simply the fact that they are both more dense than the air and they fall at the same exact speed seeing as how there isn’t any air pushing back on the objects which would keep them from falling at the same speed in normal conditions. I find it hilarious how Brian Cox laughs and giggles as if that proves gravity, when it actually debunks gravity. They lie right to your face and you don’t even realize it because you are too brainwashed to even notice.

    Gravity is a constant dependent solely on the mass of the object. Example (Just for arguments sake) if a 20lb weight attracts a 1 gram weight towards it at a rate of 1 inch for per hour, if you put a 40 lb weight next to the same exact 1 gram weight it will attract it at a rate of double that amount because the weight is doubled so the attractive force is also doubled. In that case the bowling ball should have fell at a rate proportional to the difference in weight of the 2lb bowling ball vs the feather. But that never happened because gravity is a lie with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

  42. says

    @gravityisajoke You dismiss NASA because you’ve been taught to dismiss NASA. It’s central to the flat earth delusion. What you fail to recognize is that you must also dismiss European Space Agency, Russian Space Agency, Chinese Space Agency, Iranian Space, Indian Space, Japanese Space, and the North Korean “Space Program.” It’s not just NASA you must dismiss. You actually have to believe that ALL of these competitive countries somehow secretly decided to collude.

    As for Pluto, my company designed and built that camera system over ten years ago. I know the scientists and engineers who are quite proud of the system performance.

    Yes. Kansas is flatter than a pancake. Flatness is measured by “radius of curvature.” Flatter things have a larger radius of curvature. For example, a pancake’s radius of curvature might be 10 meters or so. That’s tiny compared to Earth’s ~6371 km. So yes. Earth is flatter than a pancake, but it’s still an oblate spheroid.

    The funny thing is that you’ve access to plenty of evidence. There are millions of NASA photographs which, contrary to your false claim, are not composite or CGI. You can find it here:

    As for the “composite and CGI” accusations Flat Earthers like to throw around, that’s just a misunderstanding of how imaging systems work. As usual, the flat earth “thought leaders” spin their misunderstanding as conspiratorial. I’ve personally tested, developed calibration and exploitation algorithms, and used data from for NASA instruments like NPP/VIIRS. What your YouTube channels fail to understand is that these are not $100 cell phone cameras in space. They’re radiometers — instruments which carefully measure the brightness. They often do this by scanning a sensor across the scene, resulting in scan-lines and temporal effects when the whole scene is not imaged at once. The data from these scanning instruments must be reprojected in order to make it look like a picture. This university presentation describes this process pretty well.

    Again, the fundamental cognitive failure of flat earth conspiracy theorists is that neither you nor any of your YouTube conspiracy progenitors ever bother to research the well-known causes of the “issues” you think prove the conspiracy. You don’t bother to talk to an expert, and you revel in logical fallacies like the composition fallacy (the fact that SOME NASA images are composite or CGI does not mean they all are).

    But I know how this works. After a 15 year career in earth remote sensing, I can easily address and explain every aspect of your misunderstanding. But you’ve chosen to trust the misconceptions of “YouTube University.” Nothing I say will convince you. You’re likely to dismiss me as a “paid shill” or a delusional globe-head. Telling yourself that you’re too clever to fall for all the lies I’ve fallen for. I wonder which it will be.

  43. Nathan says


    You didn’t answer my question, how does it feel to be as stupid as you? I really want to know.

  44. Krillobit says

    Hi Tracie and Callie, thanks for a great show!

    I think the most interesting call today was from Ben in L.A. Ben, I think your description of one aspect of how the brain works (the conscious and non-conscious thinking) was well-phrased and to the point. It felt like you had prepared yourself before calling. I happen to think this is interesting stuff.

    This topic (amongst other things) is discussed to a large extent in the book ‘The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down To Size’ by Tor Nörretranders. I would really like to recommend this book to anyone interested in brain-stuff. This is the book in which I first read about some really strange and surprising properties of the brain. For instance, electrical measurements suggest that when we make a conscious decision by our will, this decision has already been made before we are aware of it, somewhere in the brain outside the consciousness. One possible interpretation of this is that we do not have a ‘free will’.
    Another property of the consciousness is that is has a very low bandwidth compared to the automatic style of working in the non-conscious parts of the brain. This low bandwidth is somewhat masked, because the consciousness can re-direct its focus very quickly.

    So, thank for raising an interesting topic.

  45. gravityisajoke says

    @AtheistEngineer I used to LOVE NASA and believe in the moon landings and the ball earth and space travel the whole 9. Like I said when I called I was an atheist just like all of you, matter of fact I was an anti-theist. Besides the point I don’t just go looking for things which prove my beliefs, I assume you are accusing me of confirmation bias which is most definitely not the case. Now that my eyes have opened and am awake to all the lies beings spewed from the venomous snake tongue of NASA (see their logo) I can see the deception much more clearly now. Yes, every single space organisation in the world is in on a giant conspiracy. Would love to know when the USA is going to go to war with any nation with a space administration anytime soon. North Korea is a puppet state used to spread fear to fuel the industrial war complex.

    Just because you work on a camera that supposedly went to Pluto does not mean that the camera you worked on went to Pluto. Everything is compartmentalized, you are not in a need to know basis. You just build a camera, thats all. I’m not delegitimizing your work or saying you are not an expert in what you do, all I am saying is just because you worked on a camera does not mean it went anywhere. You have this other guy in the thread saying his brother works on satellites. So what? Does that mean it goes up into orbit? No. Is he in a need to know basis of what happens to that satellite after he’s done working on it? No. There’s millions of people who have worked on systems that supposedly went into “space” but you will be surprised to find out only a handful of people really need to know that those systems are not going anywhere. Again, it’s all compartmentalized.

    You failed to address how laughably ridiculous the image of Pluto is with Pluto the dog’s head on the planet… LOL absolutely ridiculous!! Let me guess, just a coincidence!?! LOL! You failed to mention how we can get HD images of every single other planet in the entire solar system AND images of planets OUTSIDE of our solar system but yet we can’t get a full picture of Earth? We don’t have the technological capability to simply turn the stupid camera around and snap a pic? Your picture is not a FULL image of earth, first of all, secondly it can be very easily faked with either a gopro lens or in photoshop which is the software they admittedly use to compile their fake images of Earth!

    I see bullshit, I see lies, when I look at the moon landing footage it is OBVIOUSLY the fakest thing I have literally ever seen in my entire life. I can’t understand why atheists are such statist, government apologetics and can’t ever simply just be skeptical and say “hmmm you know what that doesn’t seem like it looks legit” or “hmm you know what if NASA destroyed ALL of the moon landing footage, ALL of the images, ALL of the telemetric data spanning tens of thousands of reels of information and if they DESTROYED the imaging equipment used to develop the images AND if the moon rocks that were brought back by Neil Armstrong HIMSELF to the Amsterdam museum which was later found out to be nothing more than a petrified piece of wood that seems weird to me and you know what I’m going to reserve my judgement on whether we went to the moon or not”. No, what you and every other atheist does is dogmatically believe every single thing NASA has ever told you in your life, you never question science (which is the absolute fundamental basis of science is to QUESTION EVERYTHING), you never question evolution or abiogenesis or gravity or the big bang or dark matter nope you just blindly just believe whatever they say as gospel because they are the authority and they know more than you. You know what thats called? Appeal to authority!! Logical Fallacy! Think for yourself! Question Everything! Stop believing everything you are told on TV. Wake up!

  46. Marcel says

    “In that case the bowling ball should have fell at a rate proportional to the difference in weight of the 2lb bowling ball vs the feather.”

    No wonder you think gravity is fake. That is not how gravity works.

    Forget going to a university to talk to a physics professor, you need to go back to grade school and take general science over again.

  47. RationalismRules says

    Lots of ranting about falling objects, but still no explanation as to why, without gravity, they ‘fall’ at all. As I previously pointed out, density does not explain why they move in a particular direction. I see you’re studiously ignoring this point.

  48. t90bb says

    Victor posted above….

    @stonedranger I’ve seen that experiment it was with that weirdo Brian Cox

    Victor called someone a “weirdo”….rolling on the floor laughing. Pure comedy GOLD

  49. daviddon says

    On the flat earth topic…
    If it is possible for a planet to be flat, and the rules of gravity are different throughout the universe, then we should be able to see many Disk or Semi-Disk shaped planets orbiting other stars,… but we don’t.(not one)
    If flat earthers try to claim that gravity is consistent throughout the universe, and all the planets flat sides face us, and we are the center of the universe… we already know that not to be true, and it would essentially debunk the the theory of how a planet Can be flat, in a gravitational anomaly.
    Until flat earthers can provide proof that a flat planet CAN form in this cosmos, and that this is possible at least ONCE, they don’t get to make the claim that ANY planet is flat. Especially the one that we are standing on.
    I would hope that flat earthers be pugatorized into the blogosphere in the future, so that they don’t get to waste the valuable time of our respected Hosts and Guests.
    Because we just can’t shoot them into space to see for themselves. 🙂

  50. Karel says

    I guess that when you argue with someone saying “let there be light = big bang” etc., it is a good idea to point out some of the implications from Sceptic Annotated bible, e.g.:
    – Earth was created before Sun
    – Plants were created before Sun
    and of course my favourite one:
    – God spends 3 days creating the Earth and Sun etc. and then, at the end of a hard day’s work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes 300 sextillion stars.

    And for the flat earther, if you are serious that you believe this, please get a “Heavens Above” app in your phone, which can accurately predict the passing of ISS (and other satellites) and Iridium flares. Quite fascinating actually. After you’ve seen the ISS, please come back and explain that.

  51. viliam says


    Take a picture of Polaris from the southern hemisphere. If the earth is flat, this should be easy. I’m waiting.

  52. indianajones says

    I wonder what the dis-confirming evidence of not gravity would be for Vic? I also consider it a shame that one delusion of Victor’s was removed (not being able to post here) but that it was the wrong one. Any chance of swapping those Vic?

  53. says

    The problem with a mindset such as Victor’s is that any evidence can be dismissed as being a conspiracy and a hoax. You point to the proof of atomic theory being Hiroshima for example.. oh that was a hoax.

    But despite that, here we go. Victor you need to get off the Internet. And here’s why. To paraphrase something I saw on talk origins – science is not a buffet.

    You can’t cherry pick and say “I accept this science, but not that one”. It’s all science and all based on the scientific method.

    You can’t write things up on the internet using a computer without science. You can’t even turn on a light switch. You can’t fly in planes. You can’t watch TV. You can’t call people on your cell phone.

    It is clear that you take all of these things for granted, But these are the fruits of science. And what all of these things show is one thing – science works, bitches.

    So get off the Internet’s not real. It’s just a hoax. (Well in your would it has to be).

  54. t90bb says

    OHHH it gets worse…on Talk Heathen Victor denied that satellites exist. I am not making it up. Hate to kick a man when he is down but hey VICTOR……KICK!

  55. Skye Eldrich says

    “Think for yourself! Question Everything! Stop believing everything you are told on TV. Wake up!”

    Victor, he who shouts “Wake up, Sheeple,” has automatically lost the argument. I need no further rebuttal of your inane claims.

    Also, of course, there’s that wonderful gem: “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” So… Present your peer-reviewed articles and experiments. Debunking scientific experiments or claiming “CONSPIRACEH” does not prove your position.

    There’s a reason we call people like you “flatTARDS.”

  56. John Chilton says

    What a bizarre Show!!
    Victor – insane idea – the shape of the Earth is completely demonstrable and physics beautifully explains it all. This must surely have been a crank call. Galileo did not think the Earth was flat – it is a myth that we have thought this for thousands of years – if you live by the sea and fish, you know is it not flat. Most of Victor’s comments where inane.
    I think he was trying to simply play the game of saying … “If you believe this, you must prove it”. And he does not know what he is talking about – as I said … a crank … in call or nature!
    “I don’t understand, it is a world view” – Phew! Gibberish!
    Tracie and Callie showed amazingly patience – well done girls, because Andrew was talking rubbish. Too much was accepted and there was nothing he had to justify … anything.

  57. says

    As to the first question. Which is more dangerous or worse; religion or government? While the question is certainly complex and both cause harm and good the answer seems to me to be associated with looking at the negative. What would the world be like with government and without religion?

    A world without government is largely in an anarchistic state. While anarchy has certain appeals, as long as there is scarcity it leads almost directly to the strong dominating the weak violently and horrifically. Meanwhile we have certain states that have existed without religion and they seem to exist pretty much equally as states with religion, much bad, some good.

    Therefore, it seems fairly evident to me that religion is more dangerous than government. Not that government isn’t darned dangerous or religion is incapable of doing good things. Just in comparison into one another.


  58. StonedRanger says

    Villiam: Victor and his ilk do not believe in the earth being spherical so the don’t understand what a hemisphere is, much less a southern hemisphere. Give him a specific location from which you would like him to photograph Polaris. But be prepared for him to say his own photos would not be proof because they are obviously fake. Or some other really stupid response. And victor, if satellites are fake, why can we see them as they orbit the earth? And please cite me where exactly is it that I can find NASA making the statement that the moon landings were faked. If it comes from a flat earther site that just says NASA said it, that is not proof of NASA saying anything. That’s proof of some flat earth site saying it.

  59. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To gravityisajoke

    however, if gravity were true, the bowling ball should fall significantly faster than the feather seeing as how the bowling ball is 10’s of thousands of times more massive than the feather.

    This is not what Newtonian gravity predicts, nor Einsteinian gravity. Both predict that the bowling ball and feather should fall at the same rate. I already assumed that you’re a troll, but if not, you should go use some resource for high school students to teach yourself about the thing that you’re attacking. It’s bad form to say something is false when you have zero understanding of it.

  60. gravityisajoke says

    All I see is a bunch of crap talk posts that don’t address a single thing I said, which is obvious. and to t90bb find me an image of a satellite, I’ll be waiting. @Skye Eldrich globe earth has not fulfilled its burden of proof, the null position is that the Earth is flat and motionless as every single human being observes it to be with their senses, therefore the null hypothesis stays until you prove that we are on a magic giant spinning ball flying through the universe at incomprehensible speeds. Sucks to have your own arguments used against you, doesn’t it?

    @shaun I accept REAL science, I do not reject all science, nice strawman. I love actual, real, demonstrable, empirical, physical science, not your theoretical particle physics absolute nonsense that not even the people who are in the field themselves understand. Quote ” It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” ~Richard Feynman. Quote “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” ~Nikola Tesla. Two of the greatest scientific minds the earth will ever see, one of them admitting to the fact they have no idea what they are studying and the other claiming science has been overthrown by mathematical equations which have no bearing to reality whatsoever.

    I’m still waiting on you atheists to provide an experiment showing water conforming to the exterior of a shape by its gravity alone WHILE its spinning, LOL. QUOTE “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” ~Richard Feynman.

  61. gravityisajoke says

    @StonedRanger I never once said NASA admits the moon landings are fake, you must have misread what I said. I said NASA admits they destroyed the evidence which would have undoubtedly proved whether or not we went to the moon. OH WELL TOO BAD we just destroyed all of the evidence for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER literally humanities most valuable information that you can possibly ever have and they just destroy it…. LOL. Do you have any conceivable clue as to how valuable the telemetric data for the moon missions alone is? Literally priceless. But OH WELL they lost ALL of it OOPS SORRY 10’s of thousands of reels of telemetric data OOPS SORRY lost it must have slipped and fell somewhere… LOL. Would love to know how you “lose” 10’s of thousands of reels of data. What is more in accordance with occam’s razor, that they lost 10’s of thousands of reels of telemetric data or they simply never had the data to begin with?

    And yes sorry I will not accept any photograph as a proof of anything seeing as how I am currently doing video editing and seeing how easy it is to put artifacts in and out of images and how real you can make it look, sorry that will not be proof for me any longer. I need to see it with my own eyes, I am a skeptic, a real skeptic, I question everything, unlike you pseudoskeptics.

  62. says


    There, corrected your name for you.

    No, no. You are still cherry picking. This time from the Ken Ham school of “observational, experimental science” vs historical science.

    It’s all science. You are too stupid to debate. You are not a true skeptic. You are an idiot with a pet hypothesis that is rejected by the entire body of scientific knowledge.

    Now take the tin foil hat off your head and get out of your parents basement.

  63. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Troll (gravityisajoke)
    I’m waiting for you to respond to my posts #28 and #56.

  64. gravityisajoke says

    @enlightenmentliberal I have no idea what flight times would be on a flat earth since there is no flat earth model I subscribe to. All I know is the Earth is flat and motionless. And your gravity rebuttal is a load of crap, gravity is a CONSTANT dependent on the mass of the object alone. The bowling ball according to that fundamental fact of gravity dictates that the bowling ball should fall faster than a near weightless feather, but it doesn’t because gravity is a load of garbage and has never proven empirically, I don’t care what your mathematical nonsense jargon says, prove to me with an experiment in a vacuum chamber of two objects being attracted towards each other by virtue of their mass lone. Until then your gravity has no evidence supporting it, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  65. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    One thing I’ve often wondered about. So flat-earthers think that the Round Earth is some kind of grand conspiracy, but to what end? What could be the ultimate goal of such a dizzying plot?

  66. indianajones says

    O, I can perform an experiment, and have, that can convince a person with nil training in physics that heavier things do not fall faster than light things, aka your feather vs bowling ball thing. It’s not spectacularly rigorous but enough to get the point across convincingly. I am not after all trying to win a Nobel prize here. Here it is:

    Go outside and find a reasonably uniform stick. Or a length of garden hose. Something cheap, breakable and uniform anyway, up to you. Take a 50cm length and a 1m length or whatever lengths/weights you consider to be sufficiently different. Drop them from above your head or whatever height you consider reasonable. If you happen to live in a 2 or more story house? Even better but safety first of course! See which one lands first.

    Let us know what happens, whether it conforms to the predictions of Newtonian physics (that would be reasonably simultaneously, noting the not Nobel prize standards we are using) or whether it conforms to whatever you are using.

    Actually, you know what? I just did this while writing this post. With a stick.

  67. indianajones says

    Oh, it/they have to be sufficiently heavy/dense so they don’t blow away in the wind or whatever. Dirt and plastic bags would do it.

  68. gravityisajoke says

    Well as I said when I called, the flat earth is the #1 proof we are in an intelligently designed system. That is exactly why Tracey appeals to authority and tries to be as evasive as possible and tries to end the call as soon as she can when she was speaking with me because she and everyone in that room know damn well it’s over for atheism and their show if the Earth is flat and motionless and the sun and moon and stars are all revolving over our heads. Heliocentrists have a hard time explaining their own model because of how much it appears to be designed like a giant timepiece, now imagine them trying to explain the cosmic bodies all orbiting over our heads and the Earth being flat and the center of the universe?!

    You can tell how angry Tracey was becoming because she knows this is the proof that The Atheist Experience has been seeking all along and guess what, here it is! Be careful for what you wish for, you might just get it! It’s over for atheism, they had their run, intelligent design is obvious and apparent. Who or what created the universe no one knows, I am not religious whatsoever, all I know it is obviously intelligently designed. Anyone who can say that the sun and stars and moon and the other planets all revolving over our heads is an “accident” is absolutely the most deluded human being on the face of the earth and brainwashed beyond comprehension. You can not possibly explain how that can be with a natural/random cause from a big bang explosion, completely impossible, intelligent design wins, atheism loses.

  69. davidk says

    It is dumbfounding this flat earth nonsense has gone on as long as it has. The phone call should have been ended after about 10 seconds. The posters comments here should draw derision – not debate or engagement.

  70. indianajones says

    Oh you’re here as I post! Wonderful! See you in 15 minutes after you have performed my proposed experiment a time or 2?

  71. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    And your gravity rebuttal is a load of crap, gravity is a CONSTANT dependent on the mass of the object alone. The bowling ball according to that fundamental fact of gravity dictates that the bowling ball should fall faster than a near weightless feather, but it doesn’t because gravity is a load of garbage and has never proven empirically, I don’t care what your mathematical nonsense jargon says,

    To say “I don’t care what your mathematical jargon says” is basically equivalent to saying “I don’t care what your theory says”. To know what the theory of gravity actually predicts, one needs to do a little bit of high school math. It’s dishonest to say “I don’t care what the theory of gravity actually predicts” while also saying “the theory of gravity is wrong”

    In Newtonian mechanics, the force of gravity on two point masses from their mutual gravity, F, is given by this equation:
    F = (m_1) (m_2) G / d^2
    where “G” is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and “d” is the distance between the two point masses.

    The acceleration that point mass #1 undergoes is given by the Newtonian force mass acceleration equation:
    f = m_1 a_1
    a_1 = f / m_1 = ((m_1) (m_2) G / d^2) / m_1 = (m_1 / m_1) (m_2) G / d^2 = (1) (m_2) G / d^2 = (m_2) G / d^2
    The acceleration of point mass #1, a_1, due to the gravity of point mass #2 does not depend on the mass of point mass #1, m_1. It only depends on the mass of point mass #2, m_2. This is true for all point masses – the acceleration due to gravity of an object does not depend on the mass of the object. The acceleration due to gravity on an object depends on mass of the other object, but never on the object itself.

    In simple English, a heavier object takes more force to accelerate, but it also receives more gravitational force by virtue of being heavier. The two exactly cancel out, and any two objects in a gravitational field will fall with the same acceleration (ignoring air resistance).

    Now, as I said, please gain some intellectual integrity, and address what the conventional theory of gravity actually says. Ideally, you would also stop trolling altogether.

  72. Theisntist says

    Gravityisajoke is a joke, and one that has gone on too long. I’ve learned enough about how deep a delusion can go, and the answer is “turtles all the way down!”

  73. gravityisajoke says

    @EL “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” ~Richard Feynman.

  74. RationalismRules says


    All I see is a bunch of crap talk posts that don’t address a single thing I said

    If all you see is posts that don’t address a single thing you said, then you need to get your eyes tested.
    I responded directly to a specific thing you said:
    “They do not fall because the Earth is pulling it down, they fall because they are more dense than the medium they are in ie: a ball filled with air falls to the ground, but floats in water”
    – by pointing out that density does not account for direction. I’m still waiting for you to explain why things with higher density than the medium they are in move towards earth, rather than away from it, if there is no force acting in that direction.

  75. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @EL “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” ~Richard Feynman.

    Sure. What’s wrong with gravity? It’s passed every test that we’ve ever thrown at it.

  76. gravityisajoke says

    @EL Prove one object can be attracted towards another object by virtue of its mass alone in a vacuum chamber. Until then I don’t care how smart you think you are you are simply yelling in an echo chamber. Prove to me with AN EXPERIMENT, take your mathematical jargon elsewhere.

  77. gravityisajoke says

    @RR It’s the immutable law of the universe that objects fall towards the Earth, that’s the way the designer made it, otherwise life would not be possible.

  78. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @EL Prove one object can be attracted towards another object by virtue of its mass alone in a vacuum chamber. Until then I don’t care how smart you think you are you are simply yelling in an echo chamber. Prove to me with AN EXPERIMENT, take your mathematical jargon elsewhere.

    Simple. Voyager 2, or any interplanetary space probe really. For Einsteinian relativity, the best proof is that GPS systems must take into account General Relativity in order to give accurate predictions. Of course, it seems that you think that every space program in the world, run by a multitude of competing and hostile national governments, are actually part of an international conspiracy on the topic. That’s an absurd proposition.

    Did you know that you can buy your own telescope, relatively inexpensive, and see man-made satellites in areas without high light pollution?

  79. viliam says


    Go take the photographs yourself! That way you’ll know they’re not edited. Buy a plane ticket to anywhere in the southern hemisphere, and wait for a clear night once you get there. If you live in the southern hemisphere now, then fly to the northern one. The stars alone are sufficient evidence of a round Earth.

  80. gravityisajoke says

    @EL Send me a picture of a satellite in space. Oh wait they are all fake obvious CGI. Too bad. Google “satellites in space” “Earth from space” Let me know which one you think is real.

  81. RationalismRules says


    It’s the immutable law of the universe that objects fall towards the Earth, that’s the way the designer made it, otherwise life would not be possible.

    That particular immutable law is what we term ‘gravity’. Why are you now appealing to the same law that you have been attempting to deny?

  82. viliam says


    Come on dude, don’t be a coward. How do you explain the stars if we’re on a flat Earth?

  83. gravityisajoke says

    @Viliam How the hell am I a coward? I’m literally answering every question I can. Stars revolve over us, as we observe them.

  84. indianajones says

    GIAJ, I gave you an experiment that upon further thought I can perform without getting up from my couch! I have 2 sizes of cushion on it! I look about and see both small plastic toys and large ones within 2m of where I sit. What gives?

  85. RationalismRules says

    Why would I need to? You’ve acknowledged that there is an immutable law that causes objects to fall towards Earth. We humans have assigned a name to this phenomenon, it’s known by the name ‘gravity’. Why are you demanding I prove to you the existence of something that you already accept exists?

  86. viliam says


    You’re a coward because you won’t address the geometry problem. Polaris cannot be observed from the southern hemisphere. But if we were on a flat earth, polaris would be visible from all locations on the earth. This is direct contradictory evidence to your model of the earth.

  87. Cimmerius says

    Here is the international space station visible from Earth during the recent solar eclipse. Must be part of the conspiracy.

  88. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says


    I’m literally answering every question I can.

    Ye haven’t gotten to mine yet. To what end does this conspiracy to trick people into thinking that the Earth is round, Heliocentrism and the vastness of space exist? Seems an awful lot of effort for not alot of return.

  89. t90bb says



    It’s the immutable law of the universe that objects fall towards the Earth, that’s the way the designer made it, otherwise life would not be possible.

    That particular immutable law is what we term ‘gravity’. Why are you now appealing to the same law that you have been attempting to deny?

  90. says


    I told you already I’m not presenting evidence to a moron. I’m not debating the science with you. I’m not interested in trying to prove to you that the earth is round; to claim it is not is nonsensical.

    Write your peer reviewed paper with evidence and submit it. Oh yeah, that’s right. You can’t do that because of the global conspiracy of all scientists in every country in the world to had the fact that the earth is really flat. And they do this because… reasons.

    Brian Cox’s name has been spoken in this thread. it makes me think of a similar back and forth on Australian TV where Brian Cox confronted a lunatic fringe senator (now ex senator thank god) who is a climate change denier.

    It must get frustrating for Cox because in this case the senator was going show me the evidence, and he was producing graphs and charts and references to research papers, but no matter what he produced this senator would say “that’s not evidence”. RR would know of the debate I am talking about.

    Same thing happens when you debate a flat earther. Every single point that doesn’t fit with their world view is a conspiracy.

    @Iamajoke, no one is debating you in good faith here. Everybody is using your idiocy to make points. Just like they do with people like Sam the muslim or John from UK. I must admit having a thread with a protagonist is much more entertaining than when it’s all rational people in agreement.

  91. gravityisajoke says

    @Evilgod yes I answered you directly in a 2 paragraph post, scroll up.

    @RR I do not accept that the Earth or mass can attract each other, I simply belive objects fall towards the Earth because that is the way it was designed. But one object can not be attracted towards another object, that is the distinction I do not accept, and that has 0 proof.

    @viliam I do not subscrib to any particular flat earth model. All I know is that its flat and motionless. I would argue that you can not see it because it is too low on the horizon in the southern hemisphere, the stars are NOT trillions of miles away, absolutely absurd.

    @indiana I don’t understand your experiment at all. Your english isn’t good.

    @Cimmerius LOL HAHAHHAA no that definitely can not be faked man let me tell you its REAL! Why? Because I DUN SEEN IT ON MAH TV HURRR DURR. Fake nonsense the ISS looks like a toy. I’m working with video editing it is so easy to just insert that fake ISS looking shadow into each individual frame. Fake.

  92. t90bb says

    RR..Exceptionally done,,,,he admits to the law….but he refuses to call it gravity…..

    Why would I need to? You’ve acknowledged that there is an immutable law that causes objects to fall towards Earth. We humans have assigned a name to this phenomenon, it’s known by the name ‘gravity’. Why are you demanding I prove to you the existence of something that you already accept exists?

    Read more:

  93. indianajones says

    Drop 2 similar things that have different weights from the same height. See which one lands first.

  94. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @EL Send me a picture of a satellite in space. Oh wait they are all fake obvious CGI. Too bad. Google “satellites in space” “Earth from space” Let me know which one you think is real.

    Dude, right now, you can go to your backyard (which must be outside of a city e.g. away from light pollution), wait for night, look up, and see human-made satellites streak across the night sky as pinpoints of light. With just a few hundred dollars worth of equipment, you can buy a good telescope, and see detail of the satellites as they whizz by overhead with no aerodynamical shape, at extreme speeds that no aircraft can reach.

  95. viliam says


    Stars don’t work like that. For one thing, if they were closer, you would be able to measure the distance.

    It’s a very simple geometry problem. Only simple trig is necessary. Plug in how far away you think the stars are, and then travel to a different latitude and recompute what the angle to the star should be. Your results will always be off by a easily visible verifiable amount if you assume ANY flat earth model.

    One vacation should be enough to unambiguously demonstrate that the earth can’t be flat.

  96. Monocle Smile says

    You can fucking reflect a well-collimated and sufficiently strong laser off mirrors we set up on the moon. You can do this your fucking self.

    Of course, it’s pretty obvious to me that you’re butthurt about AXP’s existence or something one of the hosts said and this is how you deal with it. When you’re ready to be honest, basement-dweller, I’ll be standing by to ridicule you for that instead.

  97. viliam says


    Stars don’t work like that. For one thing, if they were closer, you would be able to measure the distance with a simple parallax measurement.

    Sorry didn’t finish the first part so I’ll repost

  98. says


    Er, you do realise that CGI itself is in fact a product of science. Everything is is fake.. everything is CGI.. for reasons.

  99. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Monocle Smile
    I like the moon mirror test, but I think that requires equipment well beyond a few hundred dollars. When I saw Mythbusters do it, they used a huge observatory.

    I think with a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, you can buy an actual telescope that let’s you see detail of low Earth orbit satellites. I’m not actually sure of the exact price, but some quick googling suggests it’s somewhere in there.

    (Am I wrong? Lol)

  100. gravityisajoke says

    @t90bb Gravity is EVERYTHING being attracted towards each other that has mass. My belief is that objects FALL to the Earth, NOT that the Earth is forcing them down towards it, they simply fall and thats it.

    @EL I would love to know how you can see something the size of a car 220 miles away when you can barely make out an airplane flying only 17 miles or so up.

    @monocle The russians were reflecting lazers off of the moon years before we ever landed on it, get rekt. Thats the oldest moon landing “proof” in the book, give me a break, lmao.

    @shaun Yeah the type of science I love, REAL science, the one you can prove and experiment with and test. Not your theoretical absolute crap of gravity, big bang, dark matter, evolution, abiogenesis unproveable untestable nondemonstrable nonempirical impossible to prove crap.

  101. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Victor – 92

    @Evilgod yes I answered you directly in a 2 paragraph post, scroll up.

    How in Odin’s Many Names does that pair of paragraphs answer my question? Are ye saying that Atheists have or had the apparatus of control to fabricate observable evidence, testable predictions and an entire field of mathematics to trick people? All to make people think that the World isn’t a manufactured disk? Aren’t there easier ways to deny the existence of a prime mover than to convince the entirety of the human race that red is blue and up is down? Again, what’s the point of convincing people that the Earth is round and the Universe is vast if it’s actually a disk with a dome over it?

    Just out of curiosity, do the Templars factor into this at all?

  102. indianajones says

    Is anyone else having problems with my english? Is my drop 2 things too hard to understand?

  103. t90bb says

    well fellas….rr exposed victor…..victor admits to a force that draws objects to the ground and makes life on earth possible…..he just wont call it gravity. he prefers magic from the intelligent designer.

    ill bet victor was as shitty an atheist as he is a theist…..

    he needs the earth to be flat in the same way young earthers need the earth to be less than 10k yrs old……

    trying to reason with a man like victor is akin to administering medicine to the dead. might be best to simply pat him on the head and tell him good job…lol. i honestly suspect possible mental illness and i shit you not. if hes serious he is a ptiful sort.

  104. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    In short, see:

    For a longer take:
    I’ve just read that amateur telescopes can get up to 200x or 300x before atmospheric effects screw the image entirely.

    As a practical matter, it is a rare night when the turbulence in the atmosphere (the “seeing”) allows good images at more than 200x to 300x even with larger amateur telescopes, and there are many nights when even 150x is iffy. But 150x is too high a power for many faint deep-sky objects, most of which are more easily seen at magnifications of 50x to 100x. And for the largest deep-sky denizens you’ll want the lowest power possible, all the way down to 15x or 20x if your scope can go that low. Those ads for inexpensive telescopes that claim 475x power (or more!) are patently fraudulent! All you would ever see at that power would be a dim, blurry smudge.

    Length of ISS is about 356 ft, which is much longer than a car. It orbits at about 254 miles above the surface of the Earth. The raw angular size is
    arctan(356 ft / 254 mi) = about 55 arc-seconds, aka about 0.0152 degrees.

    Magnify that by 100, and we’re up to at least 1 degree in your field of view. That’s obviously visible (assuming sufficient brightness). Are enough details of the ISS visible to determine that it’s not aerodynamically shaped? Maybe. Based on the first link above, you may need to get some more magnification, and find a prime spot for observing, and wait for very good weather. With all of that, you can start to see the shape of the ISS with amateur equipment.

    PS: There’s also the problem of tracking the ISS with amateur equipment. The first link goes into the difficulties and the various solutions that are available to an amateur.

  105. gravityisajoke says

    @evil What observable evidence is there that the Earth is round? Let me guess, a picture from the very people who lied to us about the moon landing? Oh wow cool thanks I’ll accept that as proof. Just because the mathematics works does not mean that that is the reality we are observing, because there is other mathematics proving that it is flat also. And it isn’t a giant floating disk in “space”, the Earth is everything that exists, everything in the cosmos are ethereal bodies that you can not land on. I don’t subscribe to the dome theory because it is unobservable, there are interesting arguments in the case for it existing, but I’ll reserve my judgement on that. And I answered your “why” question in my previous post.

  106. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Victor – 108
    I appreciate ye posting a block of text which doesn’t answer my question at all. I mean ye said in the previous thing that a flat earth is the #1 piece of evidence for Intelligent Design, but even if that’s true, that doesn’t speak to the motivations of whatever shadowy cabal is behind this nefarious plot.
    Ye don’t accept the evidence of the Round Earth and the vastness of space. Cool, whatever. None of what ye wrote speaks to the purpose of this alleged conspiracy.
    Is it to convince people that the world WASN’T intelligently designed? If so, why? What could be gained by that? I still don’t understand the point of fabricating evidence to convince people that the Earth’s not flat.
    Also again, are the Templars behind it or involved?

  107. Mac Dude says

    @gravityisajoke says, enough with the stupid “there is no gravity”.
    An object (in a vacuum) will accelerate towards the earth at 9.8 m/s/s. Acceleration requires an external force (see Newton’s first law of motion) we call that force “gravity”.

    Density is the ratio of an object’s mass to its volume. It is not a force.

    Buoyancy is a relative measurement between the density of two objects at least one of which is a gas or a liquid. It is not a force.

    If you say there is no such thing as gravity then you are saying there is no force that will accelerate an object the ground at 9.8 m/s/s. So I challenge you to meet me at the top of a tall building and I will prove to you that gravity exists.

  108. t90bb says

    108….does believing this make you feel better??? victor??……we know..evolution is a hoax, the earth is flat, there is no geological column, satellites dont exist…..i bet you cant wait to suck the intelligent designers cock, right?

  109. gravityisajoke says

    @shaun No I am not a young Earth creationist who believes the earth is 5,000 years old and that a 500 year old man built a boat large enough to store every animal on earth.

  110. t90bb says

    the magic genie is peddling the stationary bike to keep objects pulled to the ground….yup. very likely victor

  111. t90bb says

    victor..couldnt your magic genie have created the earth with apparent age??? ever thought of that?

  112. Mac Dude says

    @dpooly 79, it’s not a made up word you just spelled it incorrectly. It’s “nonsensical”.

  113. says


    ill bet victor was as shitty an atheist as he is a theist…..

    I bet that you’re spot on there.

    Like I said earlier, some people gravitate towards fringe views, and then the (for want of a better term) “polarity” of their views flips. For example, not unusual to see a person who was a marxist in their university days becoming a rabid right wing apologist at a later stage in life. It’s like they skirt the middle entirely and skate around the rim of belief.

    The simplest and most compelling evidence for the fact that the earth is round is the work of Eratosthenes in around 200 BC. He measured the shadow cast by a stick in the ground in Alexandria at midday on a summer solstice day and found that it cast a 7 degree shadow. This was contrasted with the shadow cast by a stick at the same time in Syene, which cast no shadow. Since Alexandria was 800 kms north of Alexandria, he managed to work out that the circimference of the earth was roughly 40,000 kms.

    Now that is pretty irrefutable, and not a CGI or a NASA in sight.

    Meanwhile 2200 years later, someone with all the advantages of a scientific age, chooses willful ignorance rather than science.

  114. gravityisajoke says

    @macdude “Big G is difficult to measure because gravity is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces and because it is impossible to shield experiments from the gravitational influences of their environment.” Case closed.

    @t90bb I don’t know how old the earth is, I never made a claim saying how old it is.

  115. RationalismRules says

    Thanks for the plaudits!

    I just watched @Cimmerius #88, and it reminded me how much more enjoyment there is to be had from science in action (even simply watching people geeking out over science in action) than there is in arguing with fools who reject science in favor of conspiracy theories and magic.

    I shall leave Victor (ironic name, for someone so poorly equipped for combat) to his absurd fantasy world, and go do something more productive.

  116. says

    haha oh shit! I just gave “observable evidence”.

    Oh dear. Way to fuck up a flat earther’s day.

    By the way Victor. This is observable and testable. You can actually do it yourself. Get a mate to put a stick in the ground on any given day, then move to a position several hundred kilometres away due north or south of your friend. Measure the difference in the length of the shadows.

    Then get back to me and explain how NASA faked that one too.

  117. Bunny Mellon says

    OK, assuming gravityisajoke is being sincere…
    He said “@stoneranger Apologies I had no idea my comment was approved I never bothered to check it because I thought I had the notifications on which I didn’t…” I think you apply this assumption to way too many areas of your life. “Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups.” You might try being more diligent and doing the research before you comment.

    Interesting links for gravityisajoke —

    RoundEarthSense says: “In general, most people think that heavier objects should fall faster than lighter objects. Really, what they mean is that heavier objects should fall with a greater acceleration than light objects, but they like to say “faster”.
    Wired Magazine: “Do Heavier Objects Really Fall Faster?”

    “More than 200 proofs that the Earth is not Flat”

    “Dropping Objects in World’s Largest Vacuum Chamber” Via Wired

  118. gravityisajoke says

    @Shaun HAHAHA YESSSS. Someone did it, I was waiting soooo long for someone to bring up Eratosthenes, and there you go, not only did you bring him up, you claim it is THE #1 PROOF OF GLOBE EARTH. Now lets debunk it. #1 Eratosthenes has never even been proven to exist. #2 It’s impossible to know if the test ever even happened to begin with because of how long ago it happened. I love when religious people call into the show and they make claims such as “oh well it says here in my 5,000 year old book that it’s true, therefore its true.” And then the atheist absolutely destroys that line of thinking by claiming you can never know anything in the bible actually happened because its literally just words on paper and it happened so long ago you can never verify it. But here you are and every single other globe tard making the EXACT same logical fallacy by claiming this guy named Eratosthenes who has never been proven to exist did a test well over 2,000 years ago which we can never verify actually even happening in the first place and you are using that AS A PROOF of what you believe…. Contradiction much? LOL.

    But let’s just play devil’s advocate and say that this guy actually existed and that he actually did this test and his results were correct. That’s too bad because even VSauce himself (probably youtubes biggest science channel) claims that even on a flat earth with a local sun you can come to the same exact conclusion, so the proof is inconclusive and does not definitively prove either model. Let’s summarize, a guy who is on your side pro ball earth/pro gravity concurs himself that it is a moot point because it works on both models. So your #1 proof is ruined!! LOL What else you got? Let me guess photo shopped images? Composites? CGI illustrations? Fake gravity tests done 300 years ago by a guy in a barn? In the words of Christopher Hitchens “It seems you are left with nothing but an empty SACK!” Get rekt.

  119. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To gravityisajoke
    Again, buy a telescope, and see the ISS in orbit every 1.5 hours or so. It’s pretty easy, actually, and relatively affordable.

  120. t90bb says

    122 RR,,,,NO SWEAT…you got dimwit to admit that there is a force that pulls us towards the ground….he just doesnt want it to have a scientific explanation…so its his genies magic pulling…..
    we are playing mostly a semantics game at this point, I am grateful to your for drawing this out of him. Apparently his intelligent designer is capable of magical pulling…but incapable of establishing what we call gravity for some reason….so magic pulling it is!.

  121. viliam says


    Keep ignoring my arguments. Simple geometry is too hard for flat earthers…

  122. gravityisajoke says

    @t90bb I already stated I do NOT believe that they are being pulled BY the Earth itself. They simply FALL. There isn’t a force pushing or pulling them down. They fall and that is that. Gravity is EVERYTHING that has mass being attracted towards each other by their mass alone, that I do not subscribe to. Stop strawmanning the shit out of me you coward I never once made that claim. That’s all you atheists have left is to strawman, red herring, and ad hominem. Logical fallacy much?

  123. t90bb says

    victor….i have only one request………………please call next week to school the hosts on intelligent design….. because a flat earth is much more intelligently designed than a round earth, right?

  124. says


    It doesn’t matter whether or not Eratosthenes existed. The experiment is reproducible.

    But oh yeah I forgot.. we’re dealing with a moron here.

    You’ve been given enough rope for now. Thank you for proving my point that you will have a capacity to ignore everything that is counter to your world view. Now if you don’t mind, can you leave the adults alone now?

  125. t90bb says

    ohh right..they simply…..because sky genie makes them fall…righttttttt…..the sky genie that you cant prove exists lol….gotcha. please call next week…

  126. t90bb says

    its been fun fellas….lights out. hope i dont fall out of bed. the magic sky genie designed me to

  127. gravityisajoke says

    @Shaun I guess you missed the entire second paragraph where I told you that it works on a flat earth with a local sun and that VSauce himself conceded to this fact and claimed himself that the Eratosthenes experiment is a moot point because it works on both models. Is Eratosthenes the atheist version of jesus? A guy who lived 2,000 years ago (coincidence?) who did an experiment which is foundational to your belief which theres no evidence of him existing in the first place? Eratosthenes = atheist jesus, confirmed.

  128. t90bb says

    so in conclusion..according to victor….

    the earth is flat which is proof if was “intelligently” designed (lol) which proves his magic genie!(LOLOLOLOL). (If it were round it could not be intelligently designed))… round..unintelligent….flat intelligent!

    GOOD STUFF..night…..pure comedy gold.

  129. says

    I don’t know who the fuck vsauce is and I don’t really give a flying fuck what a youtube science guy claims.

    I have no prior knowledge of Eratosthenes and had to look him and his experiment up to post about it.

    I have encountered delusional people in my personal life and know that they are impervious to reason. I’m not expecting you to be any different. Like everyone else posting, I just find it amusing to probe the depths of your delusion. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. You are beyond help.

  130. Monocle Smile says

    I don’t find this amusing at all.
    Cretins like this bastard vote. And gaslight unstable people for their own amusement. If this asshole wants to test his trolling bullshit like this other asshole, let him.

  131. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    gravityisajoke, I see you going after the easier arguments. You’re not engaging with mine. What about using an amateur telescope to see ISS?

  132. gravityisajoke says

    People like me vote? Are you absolutely delusional? Politics is completely fake, there is no president, its all a show. Donald Trump president? LOL HAHAHA. I highly doubt there is a single legitimate flat earther that believes anything a single politician ever says from their lying mouth. You can go on and keep voting like a sheep.

    @EL, Whatever you are seeing it sure as hell isn’t a flying capsule with astronauts inside flying around at 17,500 mph somehow miraculously dodging every single piece of space debris numbering in the hundreds of thousands. If a grain of sand hits the ISS at those speeds its game over.

  133. says

    hahahahaha it gets better and better every time.

    We’re all ruled by lizard people who are in cahoots with the illuminati.

    So I’ve got a question for everybody. Is this person the dumbest person of all time or a masterful troll? I ask this because it was only yesterday that friend of facebook who is a huuuge dope smoker posted some anti dope stuff on a post and created a massive shitstorm.

    The more unhinged this guy gets the more I wonder if it’s all an act.

    Kind of like Alex Jones. I can never work out whether it’s too much cocaine or it’s just an act he puts on for ratings.

  134. Monocle Smile says

    I think this is an act, and not a very good one, either. Look at the specific language when this person talks about AXP or the hosts. That’s not how real people communicate. Let’s just let the mods ban this waste of oxygen.

  135. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    “A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn’t know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic on the other hand, doesn’t concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars…There are lunatics who don’t bring up the Templars, but those who do are the most insidious. At first they seem normal, then all of a sudden…”

    ― Umberto Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum

  136. says


    It’s really hard to determine. I mean I know people for real who swallow every single conspiracy theory handed to them. They genuinely believe flat earth and Illuminati and bilderberg. Often these people are inclined towards the use of methamphetamine. It’s a great conspiracy theory drug.

    On the question of banning.. hmmmm. The blog needs a protagonist. Echo chambers are boring. One could argue now that it has gone beyond the point of providing anything of value to the discussion, since it gets that way when someone takes all evidence counter to their position and yells “fake news”, but on the whole, his comments simply illustrate the absurdity of his beliefs.

    If you could prove he’s trolling yeah sure. But just as a god that plays no part in the affairs of man is indistinguishable from a god who doesn’t exist, so too is a good troll indistinguishable from a completely delusional fool.

  137. markko says

    Flat earth research my … All they do is go out, look around, state that they don’t feel rotation and see curve and that is all. There is never been any more research.

  138. Mobius says

    Oh, Jeez. The thread has exploded today, and it is all flat earth nonsense.

    Some years ago I flew to Europe. The trans-Atlantic flight left from Chicago and landed in Copenhagen. The path was a great circle passing over the southern part of Greenland. We were over Greenland at midnight, at about 40,000 ft. You could look north, over the pole, and see the Sun. At midnight. And the ground below was in darkness. A flat earth could not explain that in any way I can see.

  139. John Chilton says

    Victor, you are a great example of a little information NOT going a long way, but giving people the feeling they can run with science … and unfortunately, you can’t.
    You are talking rubbish – buoyancy does not happen without a gravitation force. You are wrong to suggest that there is not a gravitational force downwards when the object is surrounded by a medium of greater density. It is best to stick to stuff that you are in a position to comment on. The problem with a lot of these comments is that they comment on science, but there are huge numbers of scientists listening, and then grinding their teeth.
    Gravity is an idea, that is all. No physicist states that it is true – it is just an idea … that in the main, works.
    A discussion of flat Earth is usually based on a lot of misinformation, is moronic and in honesty, a waste of time – there are far more other things worth thinking about.

  140. Mac Dude says

    Hey gravityisajoke says? You’re ignoring the Earth in your gravity calculations. It’s the mass of the Earth plus the bowling ball compared to the mass of the Earth plus the feather. The difference in their masses is as close to zero as to make no difference.

  141. John Chilton says

    PS Objects do not just fall, they accelerate – a force is therefore required, within the normal physics construct.

    This discussion should stop … surely it has run its course and Victor is doing a great job of annoying everyone. I assume ‘he’ is getting a kick from it.

  142. Liz says

    Gravityisajokeisajoke said “globe earth has not fulfilled its burden of proof, the null position is that the Earth is flat and motionless as every single human being observes it to be with their senses, therefore the null hypothesis stays until you prove that we are on a magic giant spinning ball flying through the universe at incomprehensible speeds.”

    I just want to comment on this statement by the current troll. Saying the earth is flat is itself a claim that need supporting. The null hypothesis is we don’t know what the shape of the earth is. What does the evidence say?

    You can’t just reject all the evidence presented as fake. You have to evaluate it and say why it is so. Just because we can make CGI and create fakes does not mean every image is a fake. This is a fallacy.

    To support flat earth, you actually have to come up with a model that has predictive capabilities (i.e. explain the movements of the sun in all places on the planet, not just where you are – sun rise and set, position in sky, amount of sunlight; the movement and phases of the moon; eclipses and why the earth’s shadow appears round on the moon; the movement of the planets including retrograde motion; the movement of the stars in the night sky including why the southern hemisphere has a different sky).
    You can’t just reject gravity. You have to come up with a model for why things fall to earth. How do planes fly? (spoiler alert: they use gravity)
    You have also have to explain how planes fly from Australia to South Africa and across the Pacific in the times stated on flight plans (maybe services like Orbitz, FlightAware and all the airlines are in on the conspiracy).

    All of this has to fit together. Of course, this person may be a troll, but there are plenty of real flatearthers out there, and it’s not a matter of rejecting everything the science says right now. You have to actually establish how reality works with a model that has some predictive capabilities.

  143. Viliam says

    @gravityisajoke seriously dude. Just get a piece of paper, draw some triangles and go look at the stars. Flat earth is irreconcilable with what you’ll see.

    Or just keep ignoring me because you have no response.

  144. Mobius says

    @159 Mac Dude

    It’s the mass of the Earth plus the bowling ball compared to the mass of the Earth plus the feather.

    It’s not “plus”, it is “times”.

    F = G*M*m/d*d (force of gravity = gravitational constant time mass 1 times mass 2 divided by distance between masses’ centers of gravity squared)

    Given that F = ma (force = mass * acceleration), that means the *acceleration* due to gravity (in a vacuum with no counter force of resistance) is constant.

    Curiously, Newton’s equation means that your gravitational field imposes the same force on the Earth as the Earth does on you. But the acceleration on the Earth is minute (extremely minute) in comparison because the mass of the Earth is so tremendously larger than yours.


    If the effect of falling is a product of density as you say, explain how the moons of Jupiter orbit that planet (or any moon orbits its planet). Shouldn’t the moons come crashing down?

    And why is Jupiter a sphere (or very nearly so)?

  145. says

    And now we’re at the point where Victor has to deny Newton’s First Law of Motion to maintain his model.

    That’s the one that says an object will maintain its current velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. Victor claims objects just fall towards the earth, without any force being responsible for it – a violation of the First Law. Now I suppose it’s possible that the First Law is wrong (and yes, I understand that for certain conditions it absolutely is), but for some reason we’ve been successfully using it to predict the behavior of objects under that model for centuries despite it being grossly in error. But it seems awful weird that treating this “falling-to-earthiness” as if it is a force, even though it isn’t, somehow produces very good predictions of how objects behave under its influence.

  146. ironchops says

    gravityisajoke is a joke! Silly! Are you like 9 years old or something? You are either terribly miss lead or terribly brainwashed or both. Totally unable to discern fact from fiction.

  147. Joe says

    I assume the poster “gravityisajoke” is a troll (mostly). His “theory” of things “falling-to-earhiness” due to density (“They do not fall because the Earth is pulling it down, they fall because they are more dense than the medium they are in”) which thus far he has not presented any equations relating density of falling objects to how they fall — like explicit formulas for accelerations, of course does not correspond experimental observations (i.e. the observable fact that objects appear to accelerate toward the center of the earth at rates independent of there density).
    You will notice that I said “object appear to accelerate toward the center of the earth”, i.e. I didn’t say there was a force of attraction between the object and earth — that is because the best available theory of Gravity (i.e. one that best fits the observable data) is Einstein’s General Theory which posits that in fact there is indeed no force. The object appears to earth bound observers to accelerate toward the center of the earth because space-time is warped and the object is merely following the natural path it would take in absence of any outside forces acting on it. If you were on the object you would feel as if you were in free fall (i.e. weightless).
    Newtons’ inverse square of the distance equation for the “Force” of Gravity is merely a very good approximation to the solution of the Einstein’s Field equation. You can in fact improve this approximation by including a very small term that goes as the inverse cubed power of the distance — but that is still an approximation (derived from Einstein’s theory).
    I took the course in Tensor calculus years ago where we studied the parallel transport, Reiman Curvature Tensor, the Affine connections etc…etc…etc.. Unfortunately my IQ was not high enough then (and certainly it is not now many decades later!) to actually understand this.
    So in a twisted convoluted sort of way “gravityisajoke” is correct — there is no “force” of gravity. John Wheeler said there is no force of gravity — if you want to a real mystery look to the force that that keeps your feet from passing though the Earth you are standing on [that is a paraphrase of something I heard him say years ago — I’m sure he said it more eloquently].
    As to “gravityisajoke” saying the Earth is flat (well locally, if you on the vast plains of middle America), but of course it is not flat globally — it is to first approximation a three dimensional sphere — in this “gravityisajoke” is a troll.

  148. Physics Police says

    I have a problem with the “we’re the wrong people to convince” response to science-heavy questions. I understand that it’s both true and relevant to the discussion. It’s a totally *valid* appeal to authority. But I don’t think it the discussion should end there. By refusing to have a discussion about the science, we all miss a chance to learn about the hardcore science. I do think the science required to debunk flat-Earthers is relevant to an atheist program because the flat-Earth ideas are biblical in nature. If it is found in a 6th-grade schoolbook, then surely its beyond the ability of the show hosts to tackle. I wanted to hear which “senses” Victor was using to conclude the Earth was flat. I wanted to hear what he’d say in reply to the consensus scientific explanation for why his sensory perception is that way.

    You guys probably know better than me and this plea may be foolish. I recognize my personal bias is to learn all the science so I can debunk all the BS. I realize that doesn’t work for everybody. But I thank you for listening anyhow. 🙂

  149. Thomas Higgerson says

    I enjoy The Atheist Experience on YouTube, and I listen to it whenever I can. Your show on March 4, 2018 included a discussion of transgender, including a call from someone who was instructed to lose weight before proceeding, and your co-host had a similar experience. This may be interesting to a very small percentage of the viewing population, but I don’t know why that topic was being discussed. The title of the show leads me to expect discussions about atheism, and it often seems that various other topics and agendas are addressed, especially in the opening minutes of the show. I wish you would just stick to the topic of atheism, regardless of how strongly the hosts might feel about other matters. Thank you for listening.

  150. says

    @167 – Unfortunately, we’ve heard his response to those questions in this thread: all of planetary science is a vast conspiracy. It literally does not matter what is in the 6th-grade schoolbook, it does not matter what the scientific consensus is as to why he perceives the world as flat, because he has concluded that it’s all lies.

  151. Skye Eldrich says

    PLEASE ban Victor and DO not take his calls any more. And that goes for his calls into TalkHeathen too. If you can’t even agree on the SHAPE OF THE EFFING PLANET, then we have nothing even RESEMBLING a shared reality that we can discuss anything else. He’s sidelining ACTUAL topics of interest for something that was settled WELL over a thousand years ago/

  152. gravityisajoke says

    Summarization of this thread.

    #1 No proof of the attraction between two objects has ever been replicated. Cavendish experiment is “Impossibly too sensitive” to get accurate fool proof measurements as stated in the article someone presented as a proof for the Cavendish experiment.

    #2 The statement in post #163 “But the acceleration on the Earth is minute (extremely minute) in comparison because the mass of the Earth is so tremendously larger than yours.” Thank you for debunking the Cavendish experiment!!! Now we have someone from the glober side debunking the experiment! If the difference in gravitational force of the earth pulling the bowling ball and the feather is so minute that you will never notice it… Then I would LOVE to know why when Cavendish did this experiment 300 years ago in a barn he was so absolutely sure his OWN gravitational force would effect the test that he would stand far away from the apparatus and look through a telescope to take down the measurements!! I mean the difference in weight between a scientist (150lbs for arguments sake) and the weights he was using is near infinitely minute in comparison to the difference in weight of the ENTIRE Earth and the bowling ball feather experiment. Cavendish debunked! Gravity debunked! No Proof! Religion! 😀

    To briefly summarize what I just said, if the mass of the Earth is so much more massive than the bowling ball and feather experiment that they would appear to fall at the same speed anyway, then why on Earth would Cavendish need to stand so far away from the test when he took the measurements? Not only this, the article someone presented also conceded to this fact and basically said you can never really get an accurate measurement for the G constant because the gravity of everything around it will effect the test, LOL. Debunked.

    #3 Eratosthenes experiment works both on a FLAT Earth with a local sun and a fake impossible spinning flying soaring ball Earth with a distant sun, thus this is an inconclusive point. Let alone the fact you can never know this guy ever even existed to BEGIN WITH and the test was done 2,000 years ago… Eratosthenes = Glober Jesus.

    #4 All you have to prove your fake globe Earth is the fake pictures which are ALL photoshopped the only “real” full image of Earth is from the FAKE moon landings which never happened. It is absolutely impossible to believe that nearly 50 years ago was the last time we ever went to the moon with SIXTIES technology and we NEVER went back???? Not only did we never go back its going to take China (the most industrialized nation on Earth) another 20 YEARS to put a man on the moon because “they don’t have the technological capability yet” LOLOLOL But we did it SIXTY YEARS AGO didnt we? China needs a total of SEVENTY YEARS TO GO TO THE MOON???? Not only did we go, we went SIX TIMES IN FOUR YEARS!!!!!! That’s a grand total of TWELVE TIMES back and forth. LOLOLOL FAKE. IMPOSSIBLE. NEVER HAPPENED. Space travel is the only field of science and technology that has GONE BACKWARDS.

    #5 Still waiting on an experiment proving gravity AND proving water can conform to the exterior of a shape by virtue of its mass alone WHILE ITS SPINNING. I’ll be waiting on that.

    #6 Get rekt.

  153. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    > #6 Get rekt.

    Definitely a troll. What a sad way to spend one’s time. I also politely request a banning.

  154. t90bb says

    Like i have said before…Vict(or)im….has convinced himself that if the earth is flat that it is therefor (somehow) “intelligently designed” and therefore PROVES his magic genie exists. Why a flat earth is more likely to be intelligently designed than a round one is a mystery to me……thoughts?

    However even if the earth was flat it STILL would not establish it was intelligently designed….so I am not really following his angle completely.

    Unless his flat earth, no gravity, no satellites, no moon walk…can be linked to a position that GAWD exists….then it is possible that the moderators should consider banning him I guess. This is not the conspiracy experience web thread is it???

    I do admit I am torn over weather Victim should be banned…because I find his approach, although more extreme than we are used to, similar to the mentality of many theists that posture for such things as a young earth. As such I think he is the poster boy for delusional thinking and every time he calls or posts he exposes many theist thought patterns. Victim is to his flat earth, what other theists are to a 6 to 10K year old earth.

    I am sure Victim has allowed this to become part of his identity. His boasts and false confidence have left him in a position that for him to soften or revise his views….would only provide what he would perceive as HUMILIATION. So hes pretty locked up now. It would take a “miracle” (lol) for him to give all the evidence a fresh view. And we all know how often miracles happen.

    If he wasn’t suck a cock, I could almost start to feel sorry for him. Like they say at the end of Talk Heathen….we dont hate you Victim…we just think you are wrong.

  155. gravityisajoke says

    @t90bb I don’t understand how you can’t grasp that the ball Earth requires no intelligent designer because it is a product of a random explosion that happened for absolutely no reason in a non material void of nothing. If the Earth is flat, the big bang cosmology is completely destroyed because gravity doesn’t exist. If the stars and sun and moon hover over us and only us it’s pretty hard to argue that such absolute perfection can happen from a random explosion. And yes explosions are RANDOM. Therefore it must be a product of intelligence. Therefore atheism is completely destroyed and anyone who calls themselves an atheist after seeing the evidence is a fool.

    So far you called me cock twice I guess I should message a moderator and ask them to ban you as well for being such a degenerate who hasn’t brought up a single point about either side you just sit here like a real TROLL and call names and use ad hominems and strawmans in every post you placed so far?

  156. t90bb says

    Ahhh well i better understand your motivation and desire for the flat earth. I am glad you are willing to admit that the round earth does not need a designer, since thats what we got. Can you take a picture of the edge of your flat earth for us…I would like to see the edge. In all of human picture of the edge. Interesting. its not possible to photo the edge??? What is the the approximate mileage of the total round edge of this flat disk??? Should not be hard to take a picture of an edge right??? And I only called you a cock once…so far.

    so if gravity existed…..its not possible that it was designed by your magic cock? Gravity could not have been engineered by your magic fairy to make the earth form round???? your flat earth is the only path to your magic genie as you see it?? Interesting…..Gravity in know way eliminates the possibility of your magical genie….

  157. t90bb says

    174….another whopper….by Victim

    ” If the stars and sun and moon hover over us and only us it’s pretty hard to argue that such absolute perfection can happen from a random explosion. And yes explosions are RANDOM.”


  158. t90bb says

    Since explosions are random I have another assignment for you Victim…..

    Go home tonight and turn all your gas burners on high without igniting them… about and hour strike a match in the house. You will see how random explosions are.

  159. t90bb says

    If explosions are “random”…..have you not defeated your own argument. I thought your magic genie exists and is in control….are you a deist???

  160. t90bb says

    explosions are random
    there are no satellites
    the earth is flat
    gravity does not exist

    you Victim…..are a legend

  161. gravityisajoke says

    #120 “i bet you cant wait to suck the intelligent designers cock, right?”
    #173 “If he wasn’t suck a cock, I could almost start to feel sorry for him.”
    #175 “its not possible that it was designed by your magic cock?”

    Are you assuming my gender?? How dare you assume my gender. I take offense to people like you assuming my gender and making derogatory comments against me. I will be messaging a moderator for your behavior against me and assuming I am a gay male and telling me to perform sexual acts which I find blatantly offensive. How dare you, I will be reporting you for your offenses to the chat rules.

  162. gravityisajoke says

    That’s three times you used the word “cock” in a derogatory manner against me, I was wrong, not two, but three. Hopefully a moderator sees this because I do not tolerate this behavior at all and I find it deeply offensive.

  163. gravityisajoke says

    Rule #3 “Uninvited sexual comments about the hosts, other commenters, or public figures, are not cool. ”

    If this guy “t90bb” hasn’t violated that rule then I’m sorry but there is an obvious bias against me for not banning him. He broke that rule 3 times in one thread.

  164. says

    That’s three times you used the word “cock” in a derogatory manner against me, I was wrong, not two, but three. Hopefully a moderator sees this because I do not tolerate this behavior at all and I find it deeply offensive.

    That’s tipped it for me. Troll for sure.

  165. viliam says

    170, 180, etc. @gravityisajoke stop making more inane claims until you address the stars at night. You have no answer to this because it doesn’t work with flat earth. You’re deliberately ignoring this.

  166. says

    Can I ask you Victor – what do you get out of trolling?

    Do you get excited when you stir up a hornet’s nest of people going, “are you shitting me?”. Do you have a group of friends who you get with who listen to your calls to the AXP and talk heathen and say how clever you are for tricking them?

    What is it? I really want to know, because I’ve never understood the motivation behind trolling. Seems kind of dumb and really low IQ to me.

  167. t90bb says

    i dont think hes a troll…,,he just never met a conspiracy theory he didnt like. makes him feel special, smarter. claims to want a discussion…but does not want to interrupt his.talking with listening.

    still waiting for pics of the edge….

  168. says

    What does more harm, religion or government?
    The simple answer is what dogma do each have? Individuals or groups can cause harm but the ‘why’ must be asked.
    In this regard I’d say religion does the most harm because religion tells it’s members what to do whilst government is individuals making decisions based on individual beliefs which change constantly.

  169. says

    “Once you know flat you can’t go back!”
    From there the discussion should have ended as he clearly showed he wasn’t open to ideas or evidence which opposed to his held beliefs.

  170. says


    It’s a great game isn’t it? flat eatherism, creationism, climate science denial. Whatever you want in there as the lunatic fringe.

    There is no evidence for X:

    Well there’s this.. fake

    and this.. fake

    and this .. fake

    and this .. fake

    you get the picture.

    There is not a single thing you can say that will not be dismissed as fake. A global conspiracy of.. well.. everyone. For.. reasons.

  171. chriswaters says

    There is a great image on line that shows how much water earth has compared to the earth itself. Sorry there just is not enough . Would not the existing oceans have to support any extra. The story does say it covered even the highest mountain. So the ark was bobbing around for months at over 29000 feet, really?

  172. says

    Interesting that Victor has become quiet all of a sudden. Can’t keep up the act?

    Here’s one for you Victor. You are most likely this way because you have a small dick. Now.. complain to the mods about me.

  173. t90bb says

    Victor Otero Day ago +2

    It’s obvious that GOD made our Flat World, and its observable universe. All of the stars and planets are lights in the space, they are not solid. Enjoy our flat planet and what it gives us. We are sealed in our planet, and can’t leave.

  174. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @t90bb #167:

    i dont think hes a troll

    Regarding #180…
    Article: KnowYourMeme – Did You Just Assume My Gender?

    a punchline used to mock the sensitivity of feminists, Social Justice Warriors, and the discussions going on in the LGBTQ community, particularly the Trans and Queer communities, involving gender identification

  175. says


    Good link on steemit there. The flight times between southern hemisphere destinations is an absolute knockout punch to the flat earth lunacy. (of course there would be some contortion to explain it though).

  176. markko says

    @gravityisajoke, why is there need to start long thread to prove anything to you when its clear that you don’t understand simple physics and math? You claim that earth is flat without any research and evidence. Only thing you have done is – looked around outside and stated – I don’t feel rotation and I don’t see curve.
    That does not show anything. You are not supposed to feel rotation and you are not supposed to see curvature from ground when you just look at the horizon with naked eye. If you claim that earth is flat then bring out some evidence and show what research, experiments, measurements have you done which show earth flatness. And instead always asking others to explain things explain yourself how things can happen on flat earth. Somehow you can’t explain anything.

  177. Karel says

    The question regarding harm caused by religion and government is pretty straight-forward in my opinion.
    First imagine the world without government – perhaps an anarchy or a blind theocracy with zero progress and terrible healthcare and education.
    Then imagine the world without religion. Isn’t that a nice thought?

    And for the joke of a person, who is probably a troll: When you’re in a train or plain, close your eyes and after a while start trusting your senses only. What do you feel? You stand still and the whole thing is shaking! Perhaps a giant, who wants to kill you, shakes the train, because he wants to get in. RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!
    And trust your senses, because they can never deceive you.

  178. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Here’s one for you Victor. You are most likely this way because you have a small dick. Now.. complain to the mods about me.

    Shaun, you should probably knock it off.

  179. Salalamander says

    Callie’s comments about obesity were a little too close to the pseudoscience of the “health at every size” movement for my liking. Obesity is not healthy, by definition. There’s no grey area or “nuance” there. I’m sure you “felt” fine when you were over 400lbs, but you were not “healthy”, and you shouldn’t be telling a teenage girl (or anyone really) that kind of misinformation. The damage that obesity causes to one’s organs and joints is well documented and cannot be brushed aside just by saying “well I weigh 400lbs and I never feel ill or sore so obviously doctors and scientists are wrong because I’m perfectly healthy”. This is a dangerous, misinformed attitude to be spreading.

    And before you accuse me of “fatphobia” I used to be obese, too. I just don’t like the spreading of misinformation.

  180. Ian Anity says

    I love the idea that the moon landings were Photoshopped.
    So in 1969, NASA got a time machine, went forward to 1988 (the year Photoshop was released), went back to 1969, returned to 1988 to buy a computer to run the software on, went back to 1969 and faked all of the moon landing photographs.
    Effectively flat earthers are saying that NASA invented time travel to prevent everyone finding out that the earth was flat.
    This really is the opposite of Occam’s Razor. Occam’s House Brick maybe? A heavy, blunt object that, after repeatedly beating your head against, would make something as ridiculous as a flat earth sound feasible.

  181. David Doggett says

    The statement, Genesis 6:3- “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” was made BEFORE the flood. In fact, it was made before God instructed Noah to build an Ark. If that statement was meant to predict that those born after the flood would not live past 120 years old – then there is a problem…

    Consider:Genesis 11:10-13- “These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.”

    The caller Andrew, from Twinsberg, OH, was fed misleading information. This is typical of Christian apologists…

  182. sayamything says

    @Callie Wright Hi, I don’t know if you’re going to see this after multiple days, but I didn’t really plan on coming back to the thread. When my browser crashed it just restored this tab for some reason, and I saw your question. Maybe you’ll see this and find the answer useful.

    So first off, I’m both bisexual and transgender (so I fall into the category of “non-heterosexual”) and have been the victim of “gay” bashing since before I was old enough to know what “gay” was. I think possibly my only real experience with “gay” people was the rather tone deaf way Klinger was called homoseual and gay on MASH to try and back him down. I’ve been the victim of physical violence, up to and including sexual violence, for being “queer.” The irony is I’m not sure it’s acceptable to even say the other word I have a negative association with, but a certain slur for gay men and “queer” were the dominant terms used when people tried to “correct” me through violence. Be kind of ironic to be moderated for simply illustrating the language used to deride me as I was nearly being murdered, but it’s not without precedent on the web. And since I’m making this post anyway, I’d appreciate it if people could read it so that maybe someone, somewhere would get the point.

    It was so bad I was afraid to even talk about it, lest I be labeled a “queer” and subject to further violence. This is a panic reaction, but somewhat grounded in reality: the cops around here are still pretty homophobic and transphobic even in what is an ostensibly LGBT-accepting town in an ostensibly LGBT-accepting state. And I could say that this was an anomaly, but I’ve been the victim of LGBT violence across the state of Massachusetts as well. And the cops…were not friendly. I’ve been harassed for even being read as “queer.” and with the level of violence I’ve experienced, that evokes a sense of sheer terror.

    I don’t want to assume anything about your life, so maybe this isn’t news to you. but when you experience traumatic events, and especially repeated trauma with the same circumstances, you develop negative reactions to things that associate in your mind with those events. You know, what used to be called “triggers” before jerks o the internet started belittling it. My therapist currently refers to it as “being activated” and I don’t know if she’s using common terminology or she’s trying to avoid using a word that also evokes a reaction (albeit a different one) from me. And yes, I am seeing a therapist. I’ve been dealing with this for years, after basically letting it fester for ages.

    Again, I don’t know if you know what that’s like.

    Things were compounded by meeting the “queer” community of the internet. Specifically Tumblr, where not wanting to be called “queer” can get you death threats, accusations denying your sexuality and gender identity, and being told to kill yourself. So, you know, really nice people. My ex was really big on Tumblr, and despite knowing that the word bothered me, kept linking me to this crap because they are apparently so fucking clueless that they can’t read my panic.

    Because that’s what it is. Gut-knotting, ass-clenching, fight-or-flight terror. Something that has been exacerbated by the people who should probably be the most understanding–people who will lose their heads if you dare post something even mildly transphobic, homophobic, or biphobic, but holy crap if you don’t want to be called “queer?” If you are “triggered” by that, you are hurting the community and should kill yourself or die horribly. Also, the fun of getting called a cishet male. Because misgendering people is okay if you don’t like them.

    Being attacked by people who are supposedly your own makes you feel alone, isolated and powerless. And when you already feel powerless, that’s not particularly helpful. When you come to expect a negative reaction from LGBT individuals because they’re upset by you not wanting the word applied to you, or even just the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that it can have this effect on some of us (a good number)? You might start to feel a little excluded, even if you weren’t before, when hearing it only brought back flashbacks of some of the most terrifying and potentially lethal moments of your life.

    Yes, many “non-heterosexuals” identify that way, yourself included. And you should understand that in choosing to identify that way, you are excluding people like me. People who have a traumatic history with the word either because we’re older or because we live in rural and isolated areas. That’s usually the biggest breakdown between the groups. Like, if you were to say “queer” around where I live, everyone who grew up here would be mortified. The people who have moved here from more populous regions, on the other hand–ironically, including my therapist–tend to use it a lot. Most of them can’t understand why it might be different for us. I understand that your identity is more important to you than the trauma that kept me in the closet and nearly cost me my life, but that’s why I’m not going to feel welcome by someone who chooses to identify that way.

    I don’t know if you’ve ever experienced any of this. I know there are trans people who have never ever been the victim of any form of major violence, and since I didn’t watch the episode (nor will I) I don’t know your story. Could be you’ve never experienced any of this. Or could be you have and simply have a different reaction. But for myself? It’s been hard to even talk about things. I still sometimes throw up when talking to my therapist. Writing this, which is generally easier for me than speaking about it for whatever reason, still leaves me with a clenched jaw and a pounding pulse. I don’t know for sure what my blood pressure is, but it’s almost certainly through the room right now.

    The “queer” identity literally hurts people like me. Makes it harder for us to find acceptance or seek help or even function in society because we are cut off from the people most prone to understand our environments. My experience of “queer culture” is that “queer culture” hates me because being intellectually consistent and considerate of me means they will have to rethink or even limit their use of a word they really, really want to use. My response is to want t get the hell away from people who identify as “queer.” If this was your life, you might shy away from these things, too.

    Think of it this way. Ever seen two black people argue over the use of the N-word? There are black people who believe anyone can use it, black people who think it should be used but only by other black people, and black people who think it shouldn’t be used. I’m not comfortable sounding off on

  183. t90bb says


    Thanks for sharing your deeply personal experience. I, too, am not a fan of the word for reasons (other than yours) which I explained much higher in the thread.

    That said, when used by Callie and many others…I know they find it freeing and I understand that too. I am quite sure there is no ill intent when used by most LGBT. It cannot be denied that words carry baggage. And it can be different baggage.

    I equate queer with faggot/dyke. Some LGBT comfortably self identify as faggot as well. I suppose i find it self deprecating and worry that others may feel that i do not feel well about myself. So, in my case its probably reflective of insecurity.

    You, rather, may well suffer from some level of PTSD. It would seem likely based on your experience. I think its great that people like you and I can be so open about our experiences. Its rather amazing that we can all be so similar, yet different at the same time. You seem like a good person. THANKS for posting…

    OHH..btw… case you dont know I have a secret….I lack belief in a God or Gods..hehe

  184. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Shaun #204:

    Nah, If a troll wants to play those games, I’ll take it to the wire.

    “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
    -George Bernard Shaw

  185. gravityisajoke says

    So to all moderators out there who decided to restrict my account when I never made one derogatory comment about anyone in this thread I question your sincerity as a moderator.

    #120 “i bet you cant wait to suck the intelligent designers cock, right?”
    #173 “If he wasn’t suck a cock, I could almost start to feel sorry for him.”
    #175 “its not possible that it was designed by your magic cock?”

    #194 “Here’s one for you Victor. You are most likely this way because you have a small dick. Now.. complain to the mods about me.”

    Are these comments not in clear violation of rule #3? Looks like bias to me.

  186. gravityisajoke says

    @Ian Anity I never once said NASA photo shopped the moon landing photo’s. Moon landings being faked is definitely contextual to proving the globe earth model since that photo “the blue marble” is the most widely used image of all time and used constantly to prove that the earth is round. Also the Earth in that image should be 4 times the size of the moon since the Earth is 4x larger. Yet it appears to be the same size as the moon.

    You will soon realize there is little to no evidence supporting the spinning flying soaring ball earth model. Everything points to us being on a flat motionless plane and the cosmic bodies orbiting over our heads = intelligent design = atheism destroyed.

  187. gravityisajoke says

    Oh sorry I thought my account was restricted but apparently if I post to many links the message gets flagged for approval. Nevermind. But my point still stands theres no reason why t90bb should not be instantly banned.

  188. Skye Eldrich says

    “But my point still stands theres no reason why t90bb should not be instantly banned.”

    The fact that he’s not a troll and you are? The fact that he’s not a drooling moron who believes THE PLANET IS FLAT and you are?

    Seriously, proof of your claims, or GTFO. Show me the ice wall, or the edge of the planet.

  189. gravityisajoke says

    I don’t subscribe to any particular model of the flat earth. If its infinite or not, if there’s an ice wall or not. All I know it’s flat. Flat Earth is the null position. You need to prove to me we are on a spinning soaring flying magic ball. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  190. Skye Eldrich says

    Hence why your claims can be dismissed. You are ASSERTING the world is flat. You have to supply proof. WE are denying it. It’s YOUR job to convince US.

    Disproving an experiment (which you haven’t done) isn’t enough. You have to SHOW us that you’re right. And you can’t do that, can you?

    This is why we’re ridiculing you. Because you have chosen THE single worst position in the history of mankind, debating against one of the most firmly established facts with the most evidence EVER confirmed… And you think you’re right?

    When I call you a complete, drooling, mentally-handicapped MORON, that is a statement of fact, not an insult.

  191. Skye Eldrich says

    Also, NO, the null position is “I don’t know WHAT the Earth is, until the evidence proves it.” Except the evidence has proven that the Earth is ROUND, you unbelievable brainless DINGUS.

  192. says

    That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    …is not the same as dismissing all the evidence. And herein lies the problem for this muppet. There is ample evidence – and – the science works.

    This guy is a troll for sure. I was uncertain of this until he stated playing his “ban people” games, and his little gender dig. But now I have now doubt thanks to that. If he’s still welcome on here, time to not respond any longer.

    Wonder now even he even holds flat earth beliefs or if he’s another Mark of Stone Church Austin type of guy.

    Interestingly he goes.. no I’m not a young earth creationist.. well why the hell not? Doesn’t make any sense to say the world is flat AND 4.7 billion years old. May as well believe all the bullshit.

    But then nor does the assertion that a flat earth proves intelligent design make any sense. This is some really fucked up shit.

  193. Skye Eldrich says

    Yeah, I have better things to do than try to educate a complete dimwit on things he should have learned in Kindergarten. Ban this dickhead, please, mods?

  194. gravityisajoke says

    “Null hypothesis, H0: The world is flat.
    Alternate hypothesis: The world is round.
    Several scientists, including Copernicus, set out to disprove the null hypothesis. This eventually led to the rejection of the null and the acceptance of the alternate. ” Source

    Excuse me?! LOL Even your globetard buddies agree that the null hypothesis is that the EARTH IS FLAT. You go outside you do not feel anything spinning, therefore the simplest conclusion in accordance with Occam’s Razor is that it is NOT spinning until proven otherwise. You go on a high mountain and do not see any curve from any altitude, therefore the simplest conclusion based on the simplest most fundamental observation USING YOUR EYES is that the Earth has NO CURVE until proven otherwise.

    “When I call you a complete, drooling, mentally-handicapped MORON, that is a statement of fact, not an insult.” Look in the mirror and yell that sentence.

  195. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Skye Eldrich:

    #60 flatTARDS
    #211 drooling moron
    #213 drooling, mentally-handicapped MORON
    #216 dimwit

    Please reflect on your word choice for insults and what that says about how you regard disability.

  196. Mobius says

    The Greeks, a few hundred years BCE, had figured out the world was a sphere (which it very nearly is). Yet gravityisajoke hasn’t been able to grasp what the Greeks knew over 2000 years ago.


    If the world is flat, why are we in the northern hemisphere unable to see Alpha Centauri? Why are people in the southern hemisphere unable to see Polaris? Why is it winter in the northern hemisphere and summer in the southern hemisphere.

    So many questions you can’t answer.

  197. Chuck Stoddard says

    I’m sure it’s been said, I didn’t read the all of the comments – If the earth is flat, go to the edge and take a picture. Others can go to the same point and take the same picture and all doubt will be removed.

  198. t90bb says

    well Victor….I am gonna wind this back a tad.

    The round earth has been “proven” and is accepted by nearly all of the most highly educated scientists and scholars the world over. It holds through peer review to this day. The fact that this troubles you is not our problem.

    Now if you have an actual model, with research and evidences you want the scientific community to consider. get it written up and submitted to a reputable journal. Lets watch it get peer reviewed. If you cannot or will not then don’t expect to be taken seriously. If the earth is truly flat…it should not be hard to map and model it with relative precision.

    WHEN you make claims such as the earth is flat or that satellites do not exist, you not only claim others are are also asserting that tens of thousands have intentionally deceived others. You are claiming space professionals the world over are lying about their experiences. You are calling people I personally know who work on building and deploying satellites fraudsters and liars.

    I ask whats more likely????

    …that tens of thousands otherwise decent people are willing to sacrifice their integrity and honesty to promote a grand conspiracy OR
    …that Victor (who has no formal education on anything related to the issue..and demonstrates that almost every time you open your mouth), got this wrong,

    SO yes, when you make your wild claims you are also calling a huge population liars and fraudsters. In that population are people I know….SO FUCK YOU for that.

    Unless you have a model to present to the scientific community to examine, I am going to consider the trouble you are having with accepting the overwhelming evidence, ENTIRELY your problem. And BTW. before you want us to produce said evidence as a stall technique, we are not here to teach you science. If you have trouble with any particular line of evidence, bring it before the thread and we will help you out.

    IIf you think we laugh at you wait until you present to actual academics. The young co-host on Talk Heathen made you look like an utter fool last week. She left you so beat you had to come up with replies like…”you can believe that if you want!” and “that’s just ridiculous” Most things we do not understand seem ridiculous,, Victor! Perhaps that is why so many things seem ridiculous to you my man.

    Sooooo….you got a model or shall you fold? With no model…I think I will let you stew in your imaginary conspiracy…..

    One last thing…since your flat earth is intelligently designed…which you conclude means atheism is false, Why not ask your Magic Genie to put this issue to rest by giving you the right model!!! If not, perhaps He is part of the conspiracy?? Or does He just enjoy all the confusion??

  199. Monocle Smile says

    I may be alone in this regard, but I find that Buzz Aldrin was fully justified in punching that moon hoaxer in the face.

  200. says


    As the internet and the rise of trolling shows, people act differently when they feel they can get away with things.

    While I am generally opposed to violence, a bloody nose is handy for dickheads to reflect that they had better perhaps not be such dickheads in future.

    It was once the way in Australia that idiots would be pulled into line by such methods, but the culture shifted. “Dobbers” – the English equivalent “grasses” (don’t know the American equivalent – ratting someone out perhaps) used to be frowned up across society as a whole, when the whole of Australia had much more of a larrikin spirit but times changed and we became a latte sipping metrosexual culture.

    Apologies for Australian English terms, but the are actually quite hard to translate to American English. You ask me what a larrikin is and I say, well it’s a larrikin.

  201. gravityisajoke says

    “Orbital mechanics tho” is not an argument until you apply your “orbital mechanics” to reality and get repeatable results, otherwise your fantasy mathematics exists only on paper and not in reality.

    “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” ~Nikola Tesla

    I never called anyone who works on satellites liars, you need to learn to stop strawmanning, I know it’s hard to not strawman when you are a fool who has nothing else better to do, but at least try to keep your logical fallacies in check before you open your mouth. Just because you work on a satellite that does not mean that it’s going anywhere and also does not mean you are in a need to know of where its going or what will happen to it.

    For instance I used to weld impellers in a marine part shop, after I welded them I would assume they would be used on a ship, but the majority of the time they went NOWHERE they just wanted me to weld them just to be either stored for stock and possibly sit on a shelf for 15 years or for samples to make other impellers. So just because you work on something doesn’t mean anything. There’s very few people in a need to know basis of where and what happens to satellites after they are built. It doesn’t take hundreds of millions of people to be in on a conspiracy. Even in NASA not everyone who works there knows the deception, the telemetric guys must absolutely know because you can’t fake that, but the people making the rockets, the satellites, the welders, the technicians all don’t have a clue because they do not need to know anything other than their job.

    The null position is that the Earth is FLAT and MOTIONLESS. Prove to me that water can conform to the exterior of a shape AND prove the attraction between two objects, no a guy in a barn 300 years ago doesn’t count and neither does the experiments in all the college’s’ who perform this test count because they don’t even take into account for all the variables that need to be taken into account. You will never see in real time one object being attracted to another object in a vacuum chamber by their mass alone, EVER. Why? Because it is not possible, it is a fairytale, you and every other atheist are much more religious than you think.

  202. Guy from Arkansas says

    It should be noted that general relativity usurped Newtonian gravity years ago, and I almost never see flat-earthers tackle that, usually because the whole idea of gravity being an emergent property of curved spacetime is too much to wrap their heads around.

    Nevermind that we’ve even observed gravitational waves, something predicted by Einstein, like five times now?

  203. says

    Oh dear.. did I mention two can play at any game..

    But ask Sky Captain reminded me. It’s rather foolish to wrestle with a pig.

  204. Bunny Mellon says

    OMG, I’m just going to post this here.

    NCBI- Published in Frontiers In Psychology on Feb 22, 2011 “Moving Beyond Traditional Null Hypothesis Testing: Evaluating Expectations Directly” The Abstract states:

    “This mini-review illustrates that testing the traditional null hypothesis is not always the appropriate strategy. Half in jest, we discuss Aristotle’s scientific investigations into the shape of the earth in the context of evaluating the traditional null hypothesis. We conclude that Aristotle was actually interested in evaluating informative hypotheses. In contemporary science the situation is not much different. That is, many researchers have no particular interest in the traditional null hypothesis. More can be learned from data by evaluating specific expectations, or so-called informative hypotheses, than by testing the traditional null hypothesis. These informative hypotheses will be introduced while providing an overview of the literature on evaluating informative hypothesis.” More here–>

  205. says

    As an aside, I’ve just looked up the Cavendish experiment. Is anyone able to enlighten me on why flat earthers would think it disproves gravity?

    My brief skimming of it points in the exact opposite direction – that the experiment is responsible for measuring and defining gravitational constants.

    Is this just the troll being extra funny by saying an experiment which played a key early role in the development of gravitational theory proves the opposite?

  206. Monocle Smile says

    You do understand what a troll is, right?
    It is not meant to be understood. It is meant to be ignored and stuffed back under its bridge.

  207. jswigart says

    So, under a flat Earth concept, how does it make sense that the sun disappears below the horizon plane for different locations at different times?

    And then rises again on the opposite horizon.

    That seems to be one of the most basic observable phenomenon that doesn’t jive with a flat Earth, not even under the ridiculous spot light sun model that flat Earthers have made up.

  208. says

    RE: Victor the gravity joker

    It is a complete waste of time arguing with Victor. His problem isn’t his lack of knowledge, and, no amount of explaining will help.

    His problem is a mental one, meaning, he, most likely, is mentally ill. And I am not saying it to offend him in any way, just pointing out the futility of any attempts to enlighten him.

  209. gravityisajoke says

    @Shaun The test was done in a barn. Is a barn an appropriate place to do possibly one of the world’s most sensitive scientific experiments in? Any air current going into the barn will throw the test off and make the weights move. Cavendish took measurements down looking through a telescope. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Do you actually read anything I post? The only way to do this test is in a temperature controlled vacuum chamber eliminating any chance of air currents disturbing the test. Also the apparatus has to be perfectly centered inside the container, the walls of the container all have to be the exact same density and mass and size and thickness. The weights have to be perfectly balanced to within thousandths of an inch. The weights have to be the exact same weight to within micrograms. I would love to know how this guy Cavendish had access to weights which were the EXACT same weight down to the microgram and had them perfectly balanced on the apparatus without any aid from advanced machining technology to make the weights and precise equipment to balance the weights?? Hammer and chisel???

    A barn is absolutely the WORST place to do this test. If there’s a shovel near the experiment or a rake or a pile of hay it will throw the test results off. And don’t tell me it won’t because Cavendish stood far away from it because he knew his own gravitational field would interfere with the test. The article presented earlier even stated that the test is QUOTE “The Cavendish experiment is impossibly too sensitive to get an accurate reading because the gravity of everything around it will effect the test” Also they say in the article themselves that the G constant is always changing every time they test it (not much of a constant now is it?). Not always is it always changing but they say the last time they did the test the G constant was off by a FACTOR OF ONE HUNDRED TIMES!!!! LOL Please… give me break, you have a religion, your god is gravity, nothing in your universe works without gravity, and there is 0 empirical evidence for its existence = religion

  210. markko says

    @gravityisajoke, null position is “You don’t know what the shape of the earth is”. You can’t assert without evidence that its flat. And there is no evidence for the flatness of the earth. You not feeling motion is not evidence and it can be demonstrated that person does not feel motion if speed is constant and does not change. You not seeing curve is not evidence for flatness because it can be demonstrated that you should not see curve at the ground. demonstrates it quite well. And these were your only points for flat earth and as these don’t count then there is zero evidence for flatness.
    But there there is evidence for earth roundness. One from the many is sunrise/sunset which is physically impossible on flat plane. And don’t start with some BS about perspective, things not being as they are, atmospheric lensing, angles or whatever made up things. Make it simple. Do a demonstration that light source can seem to go below solid surface when its always couple of meters above ground for example. And no playing with camera angles and putting objects between camera and light source or any these kind of tricks. Document your setup so that others can verify it and do similar experiment. If you can’t do it then too bad, Earth is not flat. Whatever shape it really is does not matter. Its just not flat.

  211. says

    SAMANTHA FROM ASHEVILLE NC on March 4 : There are a lot of You Tubers on atheism. This one tackles the dating of dinosaurs / It debunks the young earth dinosaur dating. There are a lot of good You Tubers who debunk religious videos. Look for Rachel Oates, Godless Cranium, Bionic Dance, and Godless Engineer.

  212. Alona Maloh says

    “Tell me,” Wittgenstein’s asked a friend, “why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the Sun went round the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?” His friend replied, “Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth.” Wittgenstein replied, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”

    Also, would the flat Earther please explain how he thinks GPS works? The only explanation I know of most definitely depends on the Earth being round and having artificial satellites going around it.

    Sorry for feeding the troll…

  213. Ian Anity says

    @gravityisajoke There’s a difference between scepticism and wilful ignorance. Sceptics may doubt propositions, but they are always looking for answers. To not look for answers is to luxuriate in ignorance.
    You may be sceptical about the existence of Australia if you have never been there and seen it for yourself, though this is pushing scepticism a bit. If you refuse to go to Australia to prove its existence, then you’re actually choosing to remain ignorant. It’s quite amazing what you don’t find if you don’t go looking for it.
    To add religion into this, Pope John-Paul II made the comment to Stephen Hawking – “It’s OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God.”
    P.S. You may find this entirely anecdotal but I can confirm the existence of Australia because I’ve been there.

  214. Rosie says

    Flat Earther: The earth is flat – and has an edge somewhere.

    AXP Host: Tell me. Why isn’t the edge a huge tourist destination w/billionaire penthouses built to enjoy the view?

  215. nmkloster says

    I can’t say that I’ve heard the Cavendish experiment sited as “disproving” gravity. I must say that most “arguments” for a flat earth has me thinking “That must be a joke”. The fact that mass creates attraction was established long before Cavendish but flat earthers tend to gloss over the fact that Cavendish built his massive setup to figure out exactly how much mass attracts.

  216. nmkloster says

    (I can’t see my post but the browser says it’s a duplicate…)
    I have numerous times offered to explain to flat earthers why the Earth is in fact not flat. Only one person have taken me up on that and that person no longer thinks that the Earth is flat. I have even put up a $1,000 reward (just search youtube) to encourage flat earthers to take an interest in what they claim.
    One thing that Callie mentioned is that the view of the horizon from a plane is curved and Victor immediately said that it’s flat and that it shouldn’t even be visible at that altitude. What bugs me most about flat earthers is that they are completely stumped by the question of what they expect to see on a globe and they don’t seem to care. I enjoy math so I’ll take this opportunity to check whether Callie might have imagined a curve or if that is something that in fact can be checked on a plane ride.

    I’m assuming a 3959 miles radius for the Earth and an altitude of 6.6 miles. Simple math says that the horizon is sqrt((3959+6.6)^2-3959^2) = 228.7 miles away and arctan(228.7/3959) = 3.3 degrees below eye-level.
    The plane window is about 9″ wide so lets assume you brought a A4 paper to use the short edge as a straight reference at 8″. You need a bit of distance from the paper edge to compare it to the horizon, let’s say 16″. That leaves 2*arctan(4/16) = 28 degrees of horizon to examine.
    If you are aiming a straight line at a level that is 3.3 degrees below eye-level then the line deviates from the level by (1-cos(angle from center point)) * (level offset). It might not be perfectly apparent that this is the case but you can by examples satisfy this is a match. I can also prove it but I’m trying to limit the post.
    From the center point the straight line from the paper will deviate at each side by (1-cos(14 degrees)) * 3.3 degrees = 0.1 degree. At a 16″ distance to the paper from your eye that amounts to 16″ * tan(0.1 degrees) = 0.028″ or about 0.7 millimeters. I’d say we are just about able to see it with the help of a piece of paper.
    If we repeat the exercise but assume that we can but our face just 8″ from the paper then the result increases to 1.2 millimeters. It’s right at that amount here it is understandable that some will say they can’t see it. It’s easier to check that the horizon is not at eye-level. There are simple apps for that. And there are many other ways to check the shape of the Earth.

  217. Raoul of Bayonne says

    Null hypothesis, H0: Human disease is caused by an imbalance in bodily humours.

    The alternative hypotheses have never been supported by actual evidence. It’s a conspiracy with faked data and flawed experiments by the germists.

    Wake up! Germ theory is a lie! CDC workers just dress up in biosuits for show.

  218. says

    @gravityisajoke: Nikola Tesla has been dead for 75 years. And, while undeniably brilliant, was also known for being arrogant, dishonest, and unhinged. The fact that he held many of his scientific contemporaries in contempt says little about the actual state of science in his day, much less the state of it today. Endlessly repeating the same Tesla quote is meaningless. And, given the vast advancement in practical applications of science in the intervening years, the evidence suggests the quote to be utterly wrong. It’s a reflection of Tesla’s own biases, just as the endless repetition of it is a reflection of your own.

    Also, by your own admission, you have no model of flat earth that you subscribe to. So how can you possibly claim to understand it fully enough to think it couldn’t possibly have arisen naturally even if it were true? Again, you have only your biases to support that claim.

    @Shaun, Victor’s claim is not that the Cavendish experiment disproves gravity. His claim is that the Cavendish experiment was faked, and cannot be repeated.

  219. t90bb says

    Victor…it seems like I see a pattern here. On the AE show I heard you claim that you were being prohibited from posting. Earlier on the thread you stated that you had been banned on this thread.

    Do you see a pattern of frawing conclusions that end up being false?? Jus saying

    OK OK OK….so you are not calling people that work on satellites or have been to space (moon) liars??? So when people I know who have been involved in building out, deploying, and maintaining satellites tell others about them….they are not lying???? Your “story” is unraveling before our eyes.

    Like most deluded conspiracy fools you have a knack of responding to questions you want to respond to…and ignoring the ones you don’t.

    So yes….you are calling true American heroes and thousands and thousands of others liars when you claim the moon landing was a hoax and that satellites do not exist. How dare you. I know some of those people. SO FUCK YOU..

    Andi see that you have no flat earth model….even after a direct challenge. As stated…good luck with the model….once you actually create one.

    As for me being religious….I am about as religious as you are intellectually honest. You will continue to dodge all the tough questions. You have already admitted that your magic genie makes things “fall”….you just call it magic. At the end of the day, that’s all your claims amount to…”magic”. You desperately emotionally want the earth to be flat because you think it somehow makes your sky fairy more likely. That requires you to come up with the most absurd add ons claims to make this seem possible (like satellites do not exist! and people that work with satellites and been to the moon liars). I am going to hold true to my word from here out….with no model you are farting our your mouth, and there really is nothing to discuss. If you really had anything that you REALLY thought was of value, or that you had actual research and information that proved the current model/theory incorrect you would be addressing the scientific community..

    I do find your brand of a mental circus freak show quite amusing. Most of those on this thread think you have been trolling. Perhaps you are and in that case “ya got me”. If not, and I am correct, I sympathize with those that know you. I see that on almost every forum regarding flat earth you are very active. Understandable, since people like you are quickly ostracized and have few friends…hence all the free time to peddle your foolishness and bathe yourself in bullshit.

    If I lost my temper and was unnecessarily crass with you I sincerely apologize. Just know.I am not a fan of delusion, dishonesty, and stupidity. (and you are the poster boy for them all).

    That said I am sure we will hear more from you…you wont be able to help yourself. Have a terrific day!

  220. Walter says

    @Heicart (30) — “Lies, damn lies, and statistics”. Your statistical example is an example of applying Bayes’ rule. In your example, what you know about the individual changes from ‘general woman’ to ‘woman who drinks moderately’ to ‘woman who drinks moderately’ to ‘woman, moderate drinker, has (hypothetical) gene for cancer which is always triggered by alcohol consumption’.

    That is why the statistics go from ‘base’ to ‘30% higher than base’ to ‘100%’.

    But if you consider each person as a ‘trial’ (eg like a coin toss or die roll) those percentages apply to each person before the trial. As you know more about the subject, the percentages change. That is Bayes’ rule (simplified).

    Because we do not have perfect knowledge about any individual, we can only use these percentages based on what we know.

    However, in your example, if you start drinking, you now know you are in the 30% higher population. Until we develop a test for your hypothetical gene, staying out of the drinking population is the only thing you can control. Thus it is the prudent thing to do.

    Urging people to think that ‘statistics to not apply to me’ is not something I would do.

  221. Monocle Smile says

    That’s only true if drinking does in fact have a direct link to breast cancer. There could very well be a confounding factor that merely happens to be correlated with moderate drinking (I’d like to know what “moderate” means and see the study for myself, but that’s another topic).

    “I can’t have a drink because it increases my cancer risk by 30%” is an uninformed statement.

  222. t90bb says

    I see the AE just posted Victors call he made on 3/4/17……I just listened to it again and I must say…Tracey was actually brilliant (as usual)….Victor sounded so ridiculous..he was tongue tied time and again. When hes backed into a corner he nervously giggles or says something like “you can believe that if you want”////…lol

    Time and time again he sounded the fool. Like when Tracey asked him if he had brought any of his claims before scientists and scientific academia…..Victor replied..”well I just called the other Atheist show”. LOL…..

    Yes in fact he did call the other “atheist show” (Talk Heathen). And a twenty something science student shit on his head there too!! LOL.

    MY MY MY.

  223. gravityisajoke says

    Don’t need a working model to disprove your model which does not work. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The Earth is flat and motionless as we all observe it, therefore that is automatically the null hypothesis. If we seen curvature all around us at certain heights I’m absolutely certain you globers wouldn’t argue that in that instance a round Earth wouldn’t be the null hypothesis, right? Contradiction much? So if it’s flat at all altitudes and no one feels anything spinning then why isn’t that the null hypothesis? Because you have a religion and don’t want to admit it.

    @Markko Thank you for disproving the globe. There is no altitude where you see curvature except for the obviously fake cgi composite photoshopped images of the earth. Let me know which one is real… Is it the one where america is literally half the size of the Earth? LOL

  224. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I encourage everyone to not respond to the obvious troll. He gave it away when he pulled out the meme “did you just assume my gender?” bit. No one should be harboring any real doubts.

  225. t90bb says

    There is no evidence for a sphere shaped earth like there is no evidence for evolution……saying there is no evidence is not evidence……The fact is that the most educated and learned professionals in the fields related to the issue believe there are tons of evidences. These people devote their lives to their study. The fact that Victor, who often sounds like he struggled to graduate high school disagrees with them is entirely HIS problem, And to make matters worse, Victor calls those that make and deploy and maintain satellites, LIARS and FRAUDSTERS. A lot of nerve coming from a guy that i would not trust giving me change for a quarter. Notice how he totally ignores direct questions and evidences that expose his his flat earth fantasy. Pilots that can circumnavigate the globe are liars too…all con men!!! FUCK YOU VICTOR.

    .Did anyone else see Tracy and the young student on Talk Heathen shit on Victors head time and again????

    And once again…Victor confirms…..HE HAS NO MODEL OF A FLAT EARTH.

    And even if the earth was flat (its not)….it would not be evidence for an intelligence or a magic genie. After discovering it was actually flat…the next question would be…..HOW did a flat earth come to be??? Jumping to a magic sky fairy dunnit would simply be an argument for ignorance….

    Before you use GOD or any intelligent “designer” as an explanation for anything you have to establish it actually exists or is even possible to exist.

    Victor loses any way he plays this game. Never seen a guy get so shit on (on live TV) no less, and come back for more.

  226. t90bb says

    At the recent urging of the other members of the thread… done. Thanks fellas. See you on next shows threads!

  227. says

    Yeah I’m out too. This repeated claiming no evidence exists when presented with mountains of evidence is sheer lunacy.

  228. StonedRanger says

    anyone know if there is a blog associated with talk heathens? While I like most of what I see on their show, they give way too much time to people like Hamish and john and victor. That’s why they keep coming back here too. It doesn’t make the show more interesting to have these people on more than their initial showing.

  229. ScottM1973 says


    Ummm yeah the Cavendish and all these experiments has been replicated countless times. Saying we have to rely on a 2300 year old experiment is making you look like a complete joke (get it? Like you claim gravity is… nvm my humour is probably too sophisticated for you). They do the Cavendish experiment all the time at Harvard (they do lectures on it and maintain equipment).

    The effect of the Earth’s gravity is a constant in the experiment. The device measures the change in twist (factoring in the oscillation of the weights) of the supporting cable which is perpendicular to that of the Earth’s gravity so Earth’s gravity has minute effects on the experiment. Cavendish (very good potatoes btw) measured from so far away because his mass and hence his gravitational force would not be perpendicular and could throw off his measurements.

    He didn’t have to measure from so far away in order to prove there was a measurable gravitational effect. All he had to do is take every measurement from the same spot, and hence be a constant. He most likely measured from so far away in order to get a precise measurement without having to worry so much about the position of his arms or what he ate before and after each measurement. His farm equipment, not moving during the experiment, would all be constants and irrelevant. He was trying to determine G as accurately as he could but NOTE however ANY measurable change PROVES G EXISTS even without accurately determining the value of G. Once again his results might be affected by wind etc but others have done this experiment in controlled conditions.

    Furthermore while his position during the experiment may matter during an single run science doesn’t just run an experiment once and say how awesome they are. We run it over and over and over again in order to get many data points (aka aggregate) and then make observations based on that evidence.

    Now that I’ve explained how any detectable change during the Cavendish experiment proves a G please explain to me how Foucault Pendulums work on the Flat Earth model. These pendulums (and I hope I’m explaining it correctly) have specially designed fulcrums which eliminate friction etc. Now since the oscillation of a pendulum is in a fixed plain (similar to why it’s hard to turn a spinning wheel) the pendulum will stay on that plain while the Earth rotates under it. On the northern hemisphere it rotates consistently clockwise and on the southern consistently counter clockwise and with consistently no rotation on the equator. Like the Cavendish experiment in essence any rotation of this pendulum proves the Earth is rotating and the Flat Earth model offers zero explanation and remember failing to prove something, like you claim the Cavendish experiment fails to prove G, debunks the model (It’s your rule not mine!).

    Please don’t refer to the so-called Allais effect (from what I’ve read) has to do with pendulums during an eclipse and doesn’t change the overall daily motion of a pendulum. Please remember that there are many such pendulums in various places, many in enclosed, light and heat controlled environments and the pendulums have more than enough inertia to keep swinging to see a noticeable rotation.

    Then after you explain that put a camcorder on a weather balloon (with something flat in front of the camera to prove there isn’t any fish eye lens or other conspiracy crap going on) and you’ll easily see how the earth curves.

  230. markko says

    @gravityisajoke , I didn’t disprove globe. I showed you that big globe seems flat when you are on the ground. The video I referred to was quite clear demonstration for that. What you failed to show again is that earth is flat and motionless. Also there are many videos and images where earth curvature is seen. Even from this little piggy balloon to which flat earthers like to refer sometimes and cherrypick only certain clips and images from there. And curvature is even seen on Rob Skiba balloon video. So, until you have not demonstrated that earth is flat and motionless the null theorem is still “you don’t know earth shape” and for all others who are not conspiracy theorists and don’t hide their head under blanket every time they see actual curvature and evidence for round earth the earth is round.

  231. RationalismRules says

    @StonedRanger #244
    From what I’ve heard the hosts say, that’s kind of the point of Talk Heathen – to give more time to those who are (rightly, IMO) getting short shrift on AXP. They’ve also said that they encourage repeat engagement – ie. callers calling in over several weeks. It’s not intended to simply be a clone of AXP with different hosts.

  232. Demonstrable Pixie says

    As an electronic engineer, this flat earth stuff is highly amusing.

    Accelerometers use gravity – it’s how they work. I guarantee this guy has a couple of devices using them.

    There’s absolutely no reason why this guy cannot buy an Arduino off of eBay, and an accelerometer breakout board. You can literally demonstrate gravity at your desk. When the device is static, you will get a measurement of 9.81 m/s on which ever axis is pointing down, where gravity is pulling on it.

    I’m pretty sure he’s just a Poe. This flat earth nonsense could never account for industry.

  233. markko says

    @gravityisajoke , why are you putting your pointless google search url’s here? They al lshow that earth has curvature. So what is your point? And don’t say cgi or fake because this is just something you made up and you can’t prove it.

  234. says

    Gays and the whole LGBT community are the most obvious victims of religion and especially Islam and Christianity. Some people ask why not tolerate someones personal beliefs and I can point to that. As Callie’s say, people lose friends and family, FAMILY who of all people should stick by you, because of the harm and discrimination of religion.

    Flat Earther’s are far less harmful…

  235. says

    The government vs religion is a leading question by someone I assume is a cynic of the US government, which is fine. He tried at first to not even say the US government. Government at different levels can be good and very bad. The larger the government the worse the potential is. A municipal government is not nearly as invasive as a federal government. Religion does far worse, historically, than government. The problem is when government is controlled by religion, which US is mostly the case. The US is far better than most other governments, historically. That’s not even to say we are better than most now which I believe we are. It was a bad question that tried to elicit a condemnation of the US government.

  236. ScottM1973 says

    Distances on a flat Earth are all screwed up. For instance the width of Australia is about 4000km however if you look at the common flat Earth map you can fit all of North America (4300km coast to coast) inside it with plenty to spare!

    Now look at the path of the flat Earth sun at Equinox. Now on the Northern hemisphere the distance the sun is from you at sunrise and sunset is a lot smaller than it is at the Equator and in the Southern Hemisphere. If the sun going down is a product of distance how is this possible? Now the flat Earthers say that the reason why the sun doesn’t shrink at sunset (due to distance) is because of atmolayer (yes this is their term) lensing. At the Equator the flat Earth sun would be about 10000km away however at the bottom tip of Australia it would be over 11000km (longer actually with flat Earth distances). In the Northern hemisphere the distance to the sun is less than 10000km (shorter with flat Earth distances) yet the days are the same length! So this magical lensing gets stronger the farther south you go?!

    The Sphere Earth with distant sun model accounts for this yet the flat earth model has to resort to magical lensing of an atmolayer they can’t even prove exists.

    Anywhere on a globe earth the sun moves 15°/hr. However on a flat earth because the sun moves up and down the map (not to get confused with North and South!) the angle must change because instead of a pure east-west vector the flat earth’s sun’s vector is constantly changing (in order to travel in a circle).

    Here’s Greater Sapien’s video on it:

    It gets even worse when you consider the south pole (or as close to it you can supposedly get on the flat earth) where they can have 24 hour days. Unlike the North Pole, which the flat earth sun circles, at the South Pole not only wouldn’t the sun travel 15°/hr it would travel east-west then west-east on only 1 side of the sky. Yes, that’s right it must stop in the sky and travel back the way it came.

    Here’s a video of the 24 hour day from the South Pole via time lapse. Notice how the sun doesn’t stop in the sky and turn around and how it smoothly travels in the same direction all day.

    Don’t believe the South Pole has 24hr days then put your money where your mouth is and travel there. (google south pole tourism)

  237. Luc says

    Because he thinks not-to-scale images of how many satellites we have prove they aren’t real, I guess? There is one aspect of one of his claims that has a pretty cool explanation: why the continents appear so large in some images. There are web pages explaining this far better than I could, but the basic idea is that how much of the earth you can see depends upon your distance away from it. Up close, much of the (roughly spherical) globe is hidden from your view simply by geometry. In order to see anywhere near half of it (in which case North America would appear to be the size you might expect), you have to be much farther away. Mathematically, to see exactly half of a sphere, you have to be infinitely far away.

    You can test this pretty easily yourself. I happen to have a couple globes handy, which makes it easier, but any ball with a pattern or some markings will do. First, close one eye and move the other close enough that the globe covers your entire field of view. I can get my small globe close enough that North America is the only continent I can see. Now move it (or yourself) away. The amount of the globe you can see — your horizon — will expand quickly at first, then more slowly as your “altitude” above the surface increases.

  238. jb74 says

    I’m a little late to commenting on this past Sunday’s show, but I saw someone commented toward the beginning of the thread about both shows being great this week. (AXP and TH) I completely agree! I really enjoyed both guest hosts. I hope they are both invited back. I can now proudly say I’ve listened to every single episode (that’s available) of AXP, Talk Heathen, and the Non-Prophets. It took me 4 years (I first discovered AXP is 2014), but I finally did it! I’m now working through Godless Bitches. I LOVE it when you post “lost episodes.” I can honestly say there is not one host I do not like. I think every one of you bring something unique to the table. Keep up the great work, and thank you for volunteering your time to these great efforts! 🙂

  239. Craig Corson says

    Tracie, you said that some place must be the center of the universe. That’s actually incorrect. A cosmologist will tell you that no place and EVERY place is the center. How those two things can simultaneously be true, I don’t quite understand, but like you, I take the experts at their word, and that’s what they say.
    Someone said that the ISS can be seen with a telescope, and while that is true, it can easily be seen with the unaided eye as well. I have seen it many times, and once even while one of the shuttles was trailing behind it, prior to de-orbiting. The shuttle was just as easy to see. Dozens of satellites can be seen with the naked eye, if you know where and when to look. Go to www., enter your viewing location, and anyone can see the ISS, many of the Iridium satellites, and lots of others orbiting the SPHERICAL Earth. If more people knew about this and similar services, there’d be a whole lot less of this flat-Earth nonsense.

  240. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Shaun #145:

    I don’t know who the fuck vsauce is

    Video: Vsauce – Is Earth Actually Flat? (10:30)

    (3:10): It might seem flat over short distances, but over longer ones… Well, the Earth is pretty darn curvy. The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, had to be designed with Earth’s roundness in mind. Its two towers, separated by 1300 meters and perfectly vertical, are nonetheless 41 millimeters farther apart at the top than at the bottom, because of Earth’s curvature.
    (6:40): Although clever, flat Earth ‘theories’ are predominantly ad hoc explanations, excuses made up on the spot that only address one issue and don’t fit all the evidence.

  241. Murat says

    Some assistance needed from people with knowledge / practice of law in Australia:

    I have a friend who’s been working / living in Australia for the past 17 years, most of which as a citizen. He was an IT engineer, then got kind of unlucky or something, and after having been sacked from an IT business early last year, he now works as a taxi driver.

    The way he tells it, that latest experience had ended abruptly during the trial phase not because of a lack in his skills, knowledge or adaptation to the work, but because of some kind of discrimination he faced there.

    His superior was a muslim, and after discoverint my friend to be an atheist, that supervisor and an aide of his have taken sides against him.

    Though much later than losing the job, he recently did file a lawsuit with this claim, hoping to get compensation.

    There’s something like a commision to carry the file to the court, and they have stated to his lawyer that they couldn’t use “religious discrimination” as the basis for the file, because atheism was not a religion.

    I told him that there had to be a “broader” category for his claim to be processed through, and that he should find a more experienced lawyer for that particular kind of case.

    There is this crucial detail: In that same office, there probably are many other atheists along with Christians, Buddhists, etc. The solid reason (based on exchanges of dialogue between the supervisor) my friend says he was sacked is that, at first, the suprvisor had approached him as a muslim, thinking he kind of had to be, for he was from a muslim country. What had particularly bothered the supervisor was my friend, in his eyes, being an “apostate”.

    So, this is quite different (and probably more difficult) than proving that the kind of faith-based discrimination that costed him the job was because he was an atheist.

    The details in his story, and other staff not having been sacked for religious reasons, suggest that the supervisor would not mind having a Christian or a Christian-turned-atheist or Buddhist work there, but a person with a muslim background not showing interest in the religion any longer was unacceptable for him.

    In my advice, I had suggested him to lean on the term “apostasy” when filing the claim. For he is quite stubborn, he went on with what the lawyer suggested categorically, but now sees that the current lawyer may not be handling this in the most clever of ways.

    Thinking there may be people working in the field of law on this platform, preferably from Austalia, I asked my friend if it would be okay for me to share his story with the expectation of helping him find more proper assistance.

    So, if anyone has any solid ideas, knowledge of groups for him to contact, or points of reference, they can directly write to him at

    Regardless of the outcome, he would appreciate support about this!

  242. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Murat #253:
    Article: Australian Human Rights Commission – Religion

    Discrimination on the basis of religion alone is not unlawful under federal anti-discrimination law.
    the Commission may investigate complaints of religious discrimination in employment and, where appropriate, try to resolve them by conciliation.
    Discrimination related to […] religious belief or religious activity can be unlawful under the laws of the ACT, Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

    Related US stuff…
    Article: NPR – Can Bosses Do That? As It Turns Out, Yes They Can

    “Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment – but only where the government is concerned.
    What most Americans generally don’t know is that the Constitution doesn’t apply to private corporations at all.”
    And workers have very little legal protection against being fired, said Maltby, who is also the president and founder of the National Workrights Institute.
    “I’ve been getting calls from people for 20 years who’ve been abused in all sorts of ways,” Maltby said. “When I tell them, ‘Sorry, you don’t have any legal rights,’ they literally don’t believe me,” Maltby said.

    Video: Amanda Knief at Skepticon – Atheists at Work, How to Avoid Employment Discrimination (39:53)

  243. Murat says

    @Sky Captain

    Thanks! Though not encouraging, it might help to see what the actual situation is like.

    The thing that makes him think he does have a case is that, the committee (of whatever) seems to give his file a green light by pointing out to the fact that “it would not be under religious discrimination”, which may read as “had it been worked into religious discrimination, here in NSW, yes, that would be a valid case”.

    For his new work conditions don’t allow him much time online, my friend is even less likely to be able to check here (or anywhere else I could direct him to) so, in case anyone has a particular point of reference or contact info of “Inherit The Wind’s Spencer Tracy” kind of lawyer keen on picking up such rare claims with low chances of success, best is to email him.

  244. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Murat #253:

    There’s something like a commision to carry the file to the court, and they have stated to his lawyer that they couldn’t use “religious discrimination” as the basis for the file, because atheism was not a religion.

    Article: Australian Human Rights Commission – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief

    Article 18 [of the of the ICCPR] protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.
    The terms “belief” and “religion” are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community.

    * The ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) was a treaty Australia agreed to be bound by via the Australian Human Rights Commission Act (AHRC Act), and that commission is responsible for monitoring compliance.

  245. RationalismRules says

    I’m Australian, but not a lawyer. From what you’ve described it sounds like he is probably pursuing it as an ‘unfair dismissal’, which goes to the Fair Work Commission.

    There’s more info here if you’re interested.

  246. RationalismRules says

    Completely OT for this thread, but relating to a brief conversation on ‘belief in belief’ we had back in January. You cited Adèle Mercier, who I rejected.

    Out of interest, I thought I’d point you to a different source which enabled me to get my head around the concept: LessWrongWiki. I still reject Mercier – I stand by the reasons I previously gave for why I feel her examples fail – but I do now have a concept of how one can incorrectly believe one believes something.

  247. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Comment: AXP 21.49 – RationalismRules #353:

    I can see the sense of second-order beliefs in terms of other people (“I believe you believe..”) but not on oneself. I just don’t see any way that “I believe I believe…” is not redundant.

    Not a topic I’m confident engaging in myself. But I did have a follow-up that occurred to me after the window of relevance had passed.
    I wasn’t clear on your framing of the issue. Did you have an immediate qualia-like interpretation of belief?
    I was thinking of faulty self-assessment/self-reporting, akin to confabulation – as in there are statements of fact you take for granted (sometimes even inconsistent with each other) that you attempt to capture while story-crafting about yourself, when prompted to reflect, and biases/fallacies/illusions add further inaccuracy.
    These links are only loosely related…
    Article: Wikipedia – Introspection Illusion

    a cognitive bias in which people wrongly think they have direct insight into the origins of their mental states, while treating others’ introspections as unreliable. In certain situations, this illusion leads people to make confident but false explanations of their own behavior (called “causal theories”) or inaccurate predictions of their future mental states.

    Article: Affective Forecasting

  248. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    * The memory of past self-reports would influence as well (inertia of a bootstrapping shortcut, desire for consistency of self across time). Like having developed a skill long ago, and thinking you’re still good at it today, but not realizing until actually attempting it that the skill had atrophied.

  249. Cailean says

    Dear Callie!

    please do not give in to the anti-queer activists. Do not give in to the respectability advocates.
    And to those who claim that queer is sooooo awful and a slur, I can say that gay and lesbian was and IS still used as a slur _everywhere_ and yet not one peep about that from you hypocrites!

    If you are not queer, fine. If you are not queer, then people are not talking about you when they talk about queer people! We, the QUEER community used queer _way_ before the words gay and lesbian were even a thing, we re-claimed queer after it was used against us and I’m not going to let some morons give away MY IDENTITY as a slur. If you don’t like queer used as a slur, then YOU shouldn’t use it as one. Period! Same goes for dyke. If you are gay, you don’t get a say in the way others in the alphabetsoup (aka LGBTQIA+ ) identify! If you are not a queer person someone talking about the Queer community is not talking about you.

    Queer is a slur when YOU use it as a slur. Gay is a slur when YOU use it as a slur . Dyke is a slur when YOU use it as a slur. Bi is a slur when YOU use it as a slur. Trans is slur when YOU use it as a slur. Lesbian is a slur when YOU use it as a slur. Asexual is a slur when YOU use it as a slur. Homo is a slur when YOU use it as a slur. Feminist is a slur when YOU use it as a slur.

    In conclusion when YOU don’t use my identity as a slur then MY IDENTITY IS NOT A SLUR. Because BEING queer is not a slur!

    Let me point out again that the people who say “queer is a slur” don’t have a problem with slurs. They have a problem with openly QUEER people existing.

    Stop using queer as a slur. Problem solved.

    this queer lesbian dyke. Queer as in fuck you, I fought for this. Not gay as in thanks for barely tolerating me.

  250. Pobert says

    Off Topic —

    According to the bible story, was the death of Jesus to “wash away the sins of the world” a noble act, like a soldier falling on a grenade to save his buddies, or was he forced into it unknowingly by a vicious god who needed a blood sacrifice? The latter would make this quite an immoral act, with Yahweh punishing an innocent person for a misdeed he did not commit.

  251. RationalismRules says


    Did you have an immediate qualia-like interpretation of belief?

    I’m sorry, I don’t really know what that means – I struggle to deal with this one in abstract language. My approach has been to think of whatever different types of ‘belief’ I can, and to try to imagine how one might think one holds that belief without actually holding it.

    The issue I’ve always had is this: if one directs conscious thought at a question, how is possible to remain unaware of one’s true belief on that question? Or to put into the negative case, which may be a little clearer – how could I be wrong that I believe something?

    The phrase from LessWrongWiki that hit the light-switch for me was “explains your actions and drives your anticipation of experience”. I now see that we can hold a belief at the conscious level (ie. having consciously interrogated the question), but if our actions and anticipations do not accord with that belief that would indicate that our actual belief is different from what we consciously think it is.

    – “I’m not racist, but…” This person consciously thinks they believe that humans are equal regardless of race. However, the “but…” indicates they have an underlying racial prejudice.
    – “Jesus heals you if you pray”, but this person still goes to the doctor, and takes their medicine. At a conscious level they genuinely think they believe in the healing power of prayer, but their actions and anticipations indicate otherwise.

    I still don’t have an answer to how it’s possible, but I can now see that it is so. I suspect it may have something to do with your point about story-crafting about oneself, as in “I believe that I am the kind of person who believes in X”. (This also appears to relate to Dennet’s “it is often much easier to believe that you ought to believe it.”). However, it could be argued that in that situation the belief you consciously hold is a belief about yourself, and that the beliefs that flow from that have not actually been consciously interrogated… (?)

  252. says

    Having grown up experience bullying for my weight I understand the urge to say there are no negative consequences of being overweight however I do not think that many physicians would agree. I also dont think that it is worth taking a gamble on having health consequences from being overweight just to defy people who would tease you. If you regurlaly intake more nutrition than your body requires you should feel some shame for that. There are health risks associated with obesity and no benefit to being obese so we should encourage everyone to live a healthy lifestyle and not be wasteful. Also a lot of the foods that are contributing to the obesity crisis are also harmful in other ways. Something is going wrong if we are going stop giving sound medical advice for fear of hurting feelings. Perhaps the host should defer to the medical community on this issue the same way that they deffered on the flat earth because there seems to be consensus that being overweight adds unnecessary risk of various medical conditions. If you are going to keep eating because you refuse to be shamed into treating your body better then fine just dont expect help if complications do arise. Fat shaming and bullying is horrible but ignoring medical science is not the way to help victims, if you really care about someone who is overweight and want them to live the fullest, longest, most independent life they can you wouldn’t say “well statistically you MAY not suffer any negagive consequences of your lack of discipline and self control so have that extra cake” If your children a obese you should be prosecuted for neglect in th same way that a parent with starving malnourished children are.

  253. Raucous Indignation says

    Hi there! We were briefly in the studio for this taping, but then my youngest spilled soda all over the kitchen. Sorry about that. I was hoping to get through the whole thing and then go to dinner, but an hour and a half is a lot for a fiver year old.

  254. sayamything says

    @t90bb “I don’t mean to hurt or alienate people” not only doesn’t make it not hurt, but it kind of defeats the purpose of the “queer” umbrella.

  255. Yabuki says


    if you believe the earth to be flat. When we fly over to countries by airplanes, what happens when we cross the edge? do we teleport to the other side? or can we actually escape to “the universe” using an airplane?

    if we DO teleport to the other side… which country is actually on the edge of the flat earth? As someone who has traveled the world often, I’d like to take a visit and see the edge of the Earth for myself.

  256. crocdoc says

    Although it doesn’t have a huge amount to do with atheism and therefore isn’t ideal material for TAE, I have to admit I had a quiet chuckle to myself when Victor the flat Earther rang the show. One of my guilty pleasures is an unhealthy fascination with the mindsets of people who go down the anti-science rabbit holes of creationism and/or flerferism. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The two groups share many things in common, from how they argue (constantly shifting the goalposts to distract the conversation from evidence that might ruin their world view) to the alarming level of Dunning-Kruger (all of them positive they have “gotcha!” observations of flaws in major scientific theories that somehow no one in the sciences has noticed). Both groups also seem to get their material from limited playbooks such that an argument with any individual flerfer/creationist will set one up for material for every argument one will ever have with any flerfer/creationist moving forward, for they all use the very same arguments. The creationists seem to get their material from Ken Ham’s website and the flerfers from YouTube content producers like Eric Dubay and his ilk. Not that it’s worthwhile arguing with them, anyway, as that just gives their whacky ideas oxygen and does the people a disservice by giving them the false impression that there is a credible argument to be had.

    I don’t know if it’s fortunate or unfortunate that I never meet either group in person so all my encounters are on the interwebz, as I live in Australia and both groups seem to be fairly thin on the ground here (notable exports like Ken Ham notwithstanding. Sorry about that. It’s like Foster’s Beer – export only). It’s particularly hard to be a flerfer in Australia as everything in the southern hemisphere, from our night sky to flight times and distances, kills the flat Earth hypothesis.

    Oh well, I guess it makes them feel special so that’s something.

  257. gravityisajoke says

    @crocdoc And you get all of your information from Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Its not a valid argument to simply say “oh well you got your info from x therefore you are wrong”. All that matters is whether its true or not. Tracie blatantly appealed to authority and appealed to consensus multiple times, which is obviously fallacious just because a large group of people believe in something doesn’t make it real and just because authority figures believe in something doesn’t mean crap either. Eric Dubay definitely opened my eyes but I certainly do not agree with everything that he says nor anyone. The burden of proof is on the globe, prove we are on a shooting spinning flying soaring ball Earth, my senses and observations tell me we are on a flat motionless plane, prove me wrong.

  258. crocdoc says

    Classic flerfer response.

    Sorry, no mention of NDGT (or any other authority) in my post whatsoever, but hey, what’s a little straw man argument among friends, right? I did mention that I live in the southern hemisphere and that things down here screw your hypothesis. Things I’ve seen and experienced myself. I don’t need NASA or NDGT to know your hypothesis is a non-starter. It doesn’t fit with reality. You don’t seem particularly curious about any of that, though. Funny that.

    I haven’t said anything about your arguments being flawed because you all get them from the same source. Your arguments are flawed because they defy reality. I mentioned the common source because it makes your arguments predictable (and I even said as much).

    BTW, I also mentioned that I find arguing with flerfers pointless so I honestly don’t feel like engaging. You’ll just try to move the goalposts and will not address any of the points I bring up, anyway, so why bother?

    Want to rock the world with your flat Earth views? Come up with a working model of the flat Earth which matches reality better than the flat Earth. And no, I don’t mean your arguments-from-ignorance about your senses*, but the ability to predict distances between places, movement of the stars, flight times etc. And that’s just the easy stuff. We’ve been using the spherical Earth model for a couple of thousand years and it matches reality perfectly. The flat Earth fails on the get-go, especially down here in the southern hemisphere. If you can present a working model you’ll spark my interest and engage. If all you can do is come up with arguments from ignorance about the spherical Earth model, you’re doing nothing more than using the very same tactic as creationists. They can’t ever come up with a working model to support their world view, just ignorance about evolution. Same same. It all comes down to “I don’t understand X, therefore god”.

    *regarding your senses, Google ‘inertial frame of reference’ and you’ll understand that you not being able to feel the Earth spin or move through space isn’t the issue, but your expectation that you should is.

  259. crocdoc says

    That should have read “Come up with a working model of the flat Earth which matches reality better than the spherical Earth.”

  260. gravityisajoke says

    Apparently you don’t even know what a strawman is, and don’t even try to act like you don’t agree with Neil D when he says the Earth is PEAR SHAPED… LOL. The problem with you morons is that you don’t even know what shape it is, if its a sphere, an oblate spheroid, or a pear. I don’t need a model, flat Earth is the null hypothesis as I’ve stated in earlier posts. The burden of proof is on you. Your flight time argument is irrelevant because I can show you 100x more flights that make absolutely no sense on a round Earth for every one you can give me that don’t work on a flat Earth. I would love to know when there will be a flight that goes over the entire continent of Antarctica and comes up over the other side and lands in Australia. Let me know when that happens.

    My arguments are not from ignorance, they are from physical impossibility. There’s a thousand and one death blows to the globe that can never be possible. You should never see a full moon in the daytime on a globe, you should never see a crescent moon in the nighttime on a globe, you should NEVER be able to see mercury or venus in the nighttime on a globe, you can NEVER replicate water conforming to the exterior of a shape, you can NEVER replicate a pressurized system co-existing adjacent to a PERFECT VACUUM without a solid barrier in between.

    Let me guess GRAVITYYYYYY LOL. Gravity does this, gravity does that, gravity does ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. You kneel before the high priests of science who tell you fairytales with absolutely not a shred of experiments or demonstrable proof whatsoever, the globe is your religious symbol, the museums and planetariums are your church and gravity is your god. You believe things which require no empirical evidence and dogmatically preach them as FACT, therefore you are RELIGIOUS. You and every other atheist are far more religious than you like to think. No evidence for evolution, no evidence for the globe, no evidence for abiogenesis, no evidence for dark matter, no evidence for gravity, the list goes on and on and on. “you’re doing nothing more than using the very same tactic as creationists” Eat your own words, LOL. Go preach your religion somewhere else.

  261. crocdoc says

    I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not, because things are getting pretty silly.
    I’ll explain what a straw man argument is to you: It’s when you create an imaginary argument and fight against that rather than address the real argument. Usually the straw man is an overly simplified version of the other person’s argument, but sometimes it’s completely out of left field. In your instance it was completely out of left field. Here, look:

    What I said: “It’s particularly hard to be a flerfer in Australia as everything in the southern hemisphere, from our night sky to flight times and distances, kills the flat Earth hypothesis.”

    What you said: “And you get all of your information from Neil DeGrasse Tyson?”

    Did I mention NDGT? No, clearly I didn’t.

    Yes, you do need a model. That’s how the scientific method works. Without a model your hypothesis is untestable and if it is untestable it is unscientific and can be discarded.

    You have a nice day.

    (BTW, love how you said that your arguments aren’t arguments from ignorance and then filled out the very same paragraph with arguments from ignorance. Nice touch. You’re trolling, right?)

  262. crocdoc says

    “You and every other atheist are far more religious than you like to think. No evidence for evolution, no evidence for the globe, no evidence for abiogenesis, no evidence for dark matter, no evidence for gravity, the list goes on and on and on.”

    Well, for starters theism/atheism has nothing to do with evolution, abiogenesis, dark matter or the shape of the Earth. One is a belief/non-belief and the others are science.

    I’m not going to enter into a discussion with you on the evidence for any of those things because that would give you the false impression that your position is worth discussing, but I will say this: You can’t be overly concerned about evidence or you wouldn’t be a theist, because the evidence for your magic skyfaery is, dare I say, a bit thin on the ground.

  263. gravityisajoke says

    “You can’t be overly concerned about evidence or you wouldn’t be a theist, because the evidence for your magic skyfaery is, dare I say, a bit thin on the ground.” ohhhh look whos strawmanning now!! When did I ever mention I’m a theist?!?! Stop strawmanning!! Look at you Mr. hypocrite. 😀

    “I’m not going to enter into a discussion with you on the evidence for any of those things because that would give you the false impression that your position is worth discussing” Well that’s how you know your beliefs have no basis and are full of shit because if you were going to discuss something which we know for a fact (like what are the molecules that make up water) you would never ever make that statement to begin with.

    And again, apparently you don’t know what a null hypothesis is. I do not need to make a model of a null hypothesis.

    “In inferential statistics, the term “null hypothesis” is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics gives precise criteria for rejecting a null hypothesis[citation needed].

    The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.” Source Wiki.

    Absolutely absurd to claim I need to make a model of the null hypothesis when the null is automatically assumed to be true until proven otherwise. You go outside you do not feel spin, the simplest explanation for this in PERFECT ACCORDANCE with Occam’s Razor is that the Earth is simply NOT SPINNING. You go outside you do not see curvature from any altitude, therefore the simplest explanation in PERFECT ACCORDANCE with Occam’s Razor is that there is NO CURVE therefore it is FLAT until proven otherwise.

    AGAIN, the burden of proof is on you. I know you don’t have any proof of the globe which is why you are desperately trying to put the burden of proof on the flat Earth. Flat Earth is the null hypothesis, try again.

  264. RationalismRules says


    When did I ever mention I’m a theist?!?! Stop strawmanning!!


    It’s the immutable law of the universe that objects fall towards the Earth, that’s the way the designer made it

    I’ve always suspected you were not engaging in good faith – and you’ve now proved it. So all you are is a troll, which is kind of pitiful, really.

  265. crocdoc says

    He’s not a particularly skilled troll, either.

    294. gravityisajoke: “You and every other atheist are far more religious than you like to think”
    297. (His very next post): “When did I ever mention I’m a theist?!?! Stop strawmanning!!”

    @gravityisajoke: The rest of your post is too silly to address.
    1. The flat Earth isn’t the null hypothesis. You don’t seem to understand what that means even after you’ve copied and pasted the Wikipedia entry for it.
    2. You need to provide a model for your flat Earth hypothesis. You can’t, or you would have, which means it’s a non-starter. Fails from the get-go. You and I both know that you do have a model inside your head or you wouldn’t have mentioned the flight paths earlier, but like most flerfers you’ve cottoned onto the idea that it takes less than five minutes to shoot that model down in flames so you no longer admit to having a model (which is a failure in and of itself).
    3. The problem isn’t that you can’t feel the Earth spinning but that you expect to. Once again, Google inertial frame of reference. I think someone in an earlier post even put up a video for you to watch. You’re either trolling or just not interested in learning how things work, but neither is conducive to a meaningful conversation.
    4. I can destroy any and all flat Earth models on any clear night in Sydney by just looking up at the sky a couple of times. It really is that easy. I’ve mentioned this already but it hasn’t even triggered the tiniest bit of curiosity in you, which suggests (yet again) that you’re either trolling or just not interested in learning how things work, neither of which is conducive to a meaningful conversation.
    You have a nice day. Thank you for playing and better luck next time.

  266. gravityisajoke says

    @”RationalismRules” (lol) Theism =/= Intelligent Design.

    @Crocdoc So you acknowledge that if that flat Earth were the null hypothesis there wouldn’t need to be a model for it because it is automatically presumed to be true until proven otherwise. You can literally google “what is a null hypothesis” and the second link on the very first page will take you here.

    “Null hypothesis, H0: The world is flat.
    Alternate hypothesis: The world is round.
    Several scientists, including Copernicus, set out to disprove the null hypothesis. ” Source “”

    “The problem isn’t that you can’t feel the Earth spinning but that you expect to.” YES I expect my senses to tell me that if you claim we are on a giant ball spinning at 1,000+mph I SHOULD be able to feel it. I don’t care what “inertial frame of reference” is that is your explanation as to why my senses are failing me based on your THEORY that the Earth is a giant ball flying through space. How can you people honestly sit here and call your self skeptics and scientifically minded? HAH! You should be ashamed of yourselves.

    The slogan of “The SCIENCE channel” is “QUESTION EVERYTHING”. There’s no little asterisk on the top right corner of the slogan and fine print on the bottom of the screen that says “Just don’t question the big bang, heliocentrism, the round Earth, evolution, abiogenesis, dark matter, black holes, and gravity.” The slogan of science itself is to QUESTION EVERYTHING. Skepticism is the fundamental basis of science. You’re all pseudo-skeptics.

    Occam’s Razor mandates that the Earth is flat and motionless until proven otherwise. None of you have brought forth evidence that the Earth is round, which I find hilarious. I love how you tell me to google “inertial frame of reference” well why don’t you go ahead and google “Earth in space” Satellites in space” LOL Come back when you find a single real image that isn’t blatant photoshop or CGI, I’ll be waiting!

    300 posts into this thread and not ONE single proof of the round Earth or gravity!! LOL. Also I would like to celebrate the fact that I created the single longest thread in the history of AXP! Cheers!

  267. crocdoc says

    “So you acknowledge that if that flat Earth were the null hypothesis there wouldn’t need to be a model for it”

    Straw man argument. I’ve said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that you fail to understand what a null hypothesis is or how it is applied and you continue to do so.

    “Also I would like to celebrate the fact that I created the single longest thread in the history of AXP! Cheers!”
    Yep. Troll.

    But let’s pretend for a moment that you’re not trolling and are actually serious, or that some other, serious, flat Earther is reading this:

    “I don’t care what “inertial frame of reference” is”
    And therein lies your problem. You should care what it is as it explains why you don’t feel the Earth spin.

    “YES I expect my senses to tell me that if you claim we are on a giant ball spinning at 1,000+mph I SHOULD be able to feel it.”

    1. For starters, we don’t measure spin in miles per hour so your repetition of the standard flat Earth argument from personal incredulity “1000 mph!” is useless. Spin is measured in revolutions per minute (rpm). The Earth does one full rotation every 24 hours, which gives it the paltry spin rate of .00069rpm. Look at the hour hand of an analogue watch. Can you see it move? Well, the Earth spins at half that speed. My old clothes washing machine has a spin cycle of 1,200 rpm, which is millions of times faster than the spin of the Earth and yet my clothes are still damp to the touch when they come out. So no, the spin rate of the Earth isn’t break-neck. It’s slooooooow.

    2. Not only is the Earth’s rate of spin slow, but it’s constant. It’s not accelerating. This is where the inertial frame of reference comes in. Suppose you were on a plane flying at 1,000km/hr. Once the plane has reached cruising altitude and is no longer accelerating they take the seat belt signs off. Why? Because you can get up out of your seat and walk around the plane without being flung to the back of the plane at 1,000km/hr. If you were to take a ball and throw it up, it wouldn’t get flung to the back of the plane at 1,000km/hr but would land back in your hand, just as it would down on the ground. That’s because the ball is moving relative to the plane not relative to the ground. Inertial frame of reference. Google it. And before you make your next predictable flat Earther comment about wind, down on the surface of the Earth the atmosphere moves along with the Earth (at that paltry spin rate of .000096rpm) so no, you’re not going to feel the Earth move because of air movement, either.

    Are you familiar with the term ‘the scientific method’? Here’s how it works: Suppose we had no idea what shape the Earth was. The best way to move forward would be to develop hypotheses about the shape of the Earth, develop testable predictions based on those models and then test the predictions against reality. The instant one of the models doesn’t match reality it has to be discarded or changed. As I have mentioned several times (and you’ve shown an alarming lack of curiosity about it), I can look at the sky on any clear night and see something that destroys any flat Earth model you can come up with. So what I am going to do now is two things:

    1. Destroy the flat Earth hypothesis.
    2. Demonstrate my earlier statement that flat Earthers, like creationists, can never address a point but will try to move the goalposts to talk about something else.

    Here goes.

    Whether you think the Earth is flat or spherical, everyone acknowledges that the stars in the northern hemisphere appear to rotate counter-clockwise around a fixed point. That point is referred to as a celestial pole. The north celestial pole is easy to find because there’s a star, Polaris (aka the North Star) whose position is roughly where the north celestial pole lies, perhaps off by a fraction. Those whose Earth shape model is flat assume this is the axis of rotation for the night sky. Those whose Earth shape model is spherical think this point represents the axis of rotation for the Earth and it is the Earth rotating that gives the impression of the stars moving rather than the stars actually rotating. So far, both models work.

    Using the scientific method, a testable prediction would be the presence of a second celestial pole at the opposite end of the Earth. The spherical model predicts there should be two celestial poles as the axis of the Earth’s rotation runs through its centre (imagine a ball with a stick running through the centre, spinning around the stick, except the stick is imaginary – it’s just the axis of rotation).

    The presence of two celestial poles can’t work on any flat Earth model, though. It’s a flat Earth killer.

    As it turns out, ‘down’ here in the southern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate clockwise around a south celestial pole. There’s a really prominent constellation in our night sky called the Southern Cross, or Crux, and it does a rotation around that point, so stepping outside twice in the same night will show it moving in an arc around that central point, like an hour hand moving around a clock face (except at half that speed). One can use the Southern Cross, in combination with a pair of stars called ‘pointer stars’ (Alpha and Beta Centauri) to find the south celestial pole for navigation at night. I used to do this while camping in the days pre-GPS.

    No flat Earther has ever been able to address the problem of the south celestial pole. There are some really hopeless videos on YouTube in which they’ve attempted to do so, badly, but invariably they’ve either failed to understand what the night sky looks like in the southern hemisphere (no, it isn’t the northern sky reflected) or have just gone off on whacky tangents.

    So here’s your challenge, Victor. In your own words, without linking to someone else’s poor explanation (whether it’s a YouTube video or some other website), explain how two celestial poles work on a flat Earth. Use figures if you need to.

    My prediction: You’ll fail to address this but will try to move the goal posts to talk about gravity, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, moon landings, the Earth’s spin and other arguments from ignorance/arguments from personal incredulity.

    Good luck!

  268. gravityisajoke says

    It doesn’t matter how you quantify the spin of the Earth. It is spinning at a constant rate, this should be able to be measured, and not once in history has it ever been measured. Even Einstein himself is quoted saying that no experiment on Earth can ever detect the spin of the Earth. The circumference of the Earth is what matters, obviously if you look at something as small as a pocket watch and the hand was making one revolution every 24 hours you would never see it, now imagine looking at something the size of the Earth in the air spinning at that same rate, you would see it moving at 1,000 mph, or 15 degrees an hour, it doesn’t matter, it will be moving extremely fast, and if you were on that object you would feel it. The same exact way you feel yourself spinning on the aptly named “Gravitron” ride at carnivals, when you are inside of it you are moving at a constant speed, but yet you obviously feel it. The reason why I said I don’t care about your “inertial frame of reference” isn’t because I’m against physics, it is because you need to prove that the Earth is round FIRST, and then maybe I will look into your “inertial frame of reference” as a hypothesis as to why we don’t feel any spin.

    “The instant one of the models doesn’t match reality it has to be discarded or changed.”

    Well well well LOL I can name 1,000 observations that are literally impossible on a globe and all you have is ONE that raises a question to the flat earth AND it’s only a question to the Equidistant Azimuthal flat Earth model, which I myself do not subscribe to, all I know is that it’s flat. So you have a question about a model which I don’t subscribe to, that’s your proof. Wonderful. Let’s go over some things that are IMPOSSIBLE on a globe, they are not arguments from incredulity, they are arguments from physical and geometrical impossibility. Please understand the difference since that’s the only thing you are desperately grasping to is that you think flat Earthers argue from incredulity when it is actually from physical impossibility of YOUR MODEL which you and every other globe Earther vehemently and adamantly and blindly subscribe to.

    ~Things which are impossible on globe.

    How do you see Venus in the night time on a globe??? How do you see Mercury in the night time on a globe??? How can you see a full moon in the day time on a globe??? How can you see a crescent moon in the night time on a globe??? Why do we never observe any curvature ON A GLOBE??? Why is there no parallax if we are spinning and flying and soaring through the universe in all of these different directions on a globe??? How does the atmosphere of the Earth co -exist adjacent to a PERFECT VACUUM without a solid barrier in between on a globe??? How does water conform to the exterior of a shape shape on a globe??? How can you see entire mountains hundreds of miles away on a globe??? How are bullets fired at ground level affected by coriolis effect but airplanes, helicopters, blimps, hot air balloons, jets, and anything flying in the air not affected by coriolis on a globe???

    Any experiments proving water can conform to the exterior of a shape? No. Any experiments proving one object can be attracted towards another object by virtue of its mass alone? No. Any experiment proving an atmosphere can exist adjacent to a vacuum without a solid barrier in between? No. Any experiments proving atmosphere can be held in place by gravity which has never been proven? No. So there are LITERALLY NO EXPERIMENTS proving what you believe, 0.

    As for your stars question, I honestly do not know, flat Earth has picked up steam again after being discarded by the pseudo-science of the impossiBALL Earth. So there’s definitely a lot to understand about our world in regards to scientific discoveries about astronomy when it comes to flat Earth. Again, I do not subscribe to any particular model, so even if the equidistant azimuthal is debunked, you are only debunking that model of the flat motionless Earth, and not debunking the Earth being flat and motionless objectively speaking. On the other hand if you are on a ball, which is a geometric shape that you claim to be living on, and I present to you 20+ irrefutable impossible observations and points going against your model, than you can not possibly be living on a ball. What’s next Earth is going to go from being a pear to a mango? Mango Earth Theory!

  269. RationalismRules says


    (lol) Theism =/= Intelligent Design.

    A designer who sets in place the immutable laws of the universe, yet not a deity? (lol) Wriggle, wriggle, little troll, caught out in your dishonesty.

  270. gravityisajoke says

    @RR That would be more of a Deist. But I do not claim that it is one single entity that created the universe because I can’t possibly know that. Theist means you believe in a religious type of god, Deist means you believe in god but no religion, Intelligent Design means you believe the universe and life are intelligently designed but by whom or what no one knows, that’s what I believe.

    All you atheists have left is to simply call me a troll and provide not a shred of evidence whatsoever of YOUR god which is gravity and the ball Earth. I am very proud to not consider myself an atheist any longer, you people can be more dogmatic and vehement in your beliefs than just about any religious cook out there.

  271. crocdoc says

    As predicted, you were incapable of addressing the issue with the presence of two celestial poles. As it doesn’t work on any model of the flat Earth but works perfectly well with the spherical Earth model, in accordance with the scientific method your hypothesis is null and void. Until you can address this it’s pointless moving forward with your flat Earth belief as it’s a non-starter.

    Your other arguments are not only arguments from ignorance and standard flerfer fare, but deliberate attempts to move the goal posts (also predicted).

    Have a nice day.

  272. RationalismRules says

    Religious belief is a subset of theism, as is deism. An intelligent entity who sets in place the immutable laws of the universe is a deity, by definition. Wriggle, wriggle little troll.

  273. gravityisajoke says

    @crocdoc Yeah sorry I didn’t build this place so I don’t have every single answer in the universe that explains everything. I don’t claim to be omniscient and know everything, unlike you bigoted atheists. I rather believe in a model that has one flaw verses a model that has 1,000 flaws which are impossible.

    @RR Deism has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

    belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).”

  274. RationalismRules says

    Either you are unable to comprehend a reasonably simple sentence, or you’re deliberately pretending to misunderstand because you’re a troll.

    “Religious belief is a subset of theism, as is deism” means “religious belief is a subset of theism, and deism is also a subset of theism”.

    Wriggle, wriggle little troll.

  275. crocdoc says

    This is why I chuckled when I realised a flat Earther had called in to TAE and why I am so fascinated with the anti-science mindset of flat Earthers and creationists. You’ve just been presented with something that doesn’t work on any version of the flat Earth model but it hasn’t changed your adherence to your view even the tiniest. Your imagined ‘flaws’ to the spherical model, on the other hand, all amount to arguments from ignorance. Not being able to feel the Earth spinning, for example, has been explained to you by myself and several other people but you’ve chosen to ignore the explanations and carry on repeating the same argument from ignorance. As I’ve said before, the problem isn’t that you can’t feel the Earth spinning but that you expect to be able to. It isn’t accelerating and it spins at an alarmingly slow .00069rpm
    Inertial frame of reference. Google is your friend.

    This applies to all of your other ‘arguments’ (all of which I’ve seen before, because every single flat Earther follows the same playbook). If you could be bothered reading the scientific explanations for them with an open mind you’d quickly discover that they, too, make perfect sense. Unlike the presence of two celestial poles on a flat Earth.

    You have a nice day.

  276. crocdoc says

    By the way, you don’t need an answer to explain everything in the universe. That’s the beauty of the scientific method – it can be done by anyone using the simplest tools. You don’t need NASA or Neil DeGrasse Tyson to figure out the shape of the Earth for there are things we can do ourselves (like watch the night sky). It literally isn’t rocket science.

    Here’s another, related bit of trivia for you. I’ll break it down into a few parts so you can look these up for yourself rather than take my word for any of them:

    1. For places 34 degrees south and further, the Southern Cross constellation is visible in the southern part of the sky all night, every clear night, all year, never dipping below the horizon.

    2. Sydney (Australia), Cape Town (South Africa) and Santiago (Chile) are all roughly at 34 degrees south.

    3. For part of the night (especially in winter, when nights are longer) it is dark at the same time in Sydney and Santiago and then, later in the night, dark in both Sydney and Cape Town.

    4. If you combine the three facts above, this means that for part of the night people in both Sydney and Cape Town (or Cape Town and Santago, or Sydney and Santiago), i.e. people on entirely different continents, can be looking south at the very same time and see the very same constellation.

    Try to draw that out on any flat Earth map. You can’t.

    Have a nice day.

  277. gravityisajoke says

    @crocdoc How can you see venus in the night time on a globe? Have a nice day. How does water stick to a ball Earth? Have a nice day. How does the horizon always rise to eye level? Have a nice day. How do we have full HD pictures of every single planet in their entirety except Earth? Have a nice day. Why has no flight in the history of aviation ever gone over the entire continent of Antarctica which would save millions of $ on jet fuel? Have a nice day. Has gravity ever been proven? Have a nice day.

  278. crocdoc says

    …and there they are, the predicted attempts to move the goalposts because you can’t address the issue raised. Thank you for playing.


  279. crocdoc says

    BTW, the answers to your questions:

    1. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to see Venus at night. Being closer to the sun than we are, though, we can only see it for a short while after sunset and before sunrise.

    2. You explain to me why you don’t think water should stick to a ‘ball Earth’ and I’ll explain how.

    3. The horizon doesn’t rise, you tilt your head down. Next time you fly somewhere, get a window above a wing and visually line up the tip of the wing to see where it sits relative to the horizon. Take a photo if you have to. When the plane is flying at cruising altitude, repeat the above. The wing tip will be higher relative to the horizon. That’s the horizon dropping.

    4. We have full HD photographs of the Earth. There are satellites all over the place photographing it all of the time. Google Himawari 8, for example.

    5. Name a single existing direct flight that would be made shorter by flying over the centre of Antarctica. For all existing routes it would only make for longer flights as all of the great circle routes that connect cities in Australia, South Africa and South America can fly a direct line by flying near, not over, Antarctica.

    6. Science isn’t about proof, that’s mathematics. Science is about evidence and about using the scientific method to test explanations. Gravitational theory has passed all of the testable predictions. Take a long walk off a short roof and that bump you feel at the end is gravity winning.

    Me responding to these nonsensical questions doesn’t negate the fact that the flat Earth hypothesis has failed to explain the presence of two celestial poles and your attempts to divert the conversation elsewhere haven’t gone unnoticed. What is amusing is you continuing to entertain the notion of a flat Earth after it has failed the scientific method.

    Have a nice day.

  280. nmkloster says

    “Even Einstein himself is quoted saying that no experiment on Earth can ever detect the spin of the Earth.”
    That’s being extremely liberal with the truth. I haven’t even looked for it but I’m willing to bet $100 right off the bat that he never said that. Why do you care so little about truth?
    As I already said, I have offered $1,000 for any evidence that points to a flat Earth just to encourage people like you to take an interest in the things you are willing to claim without evidence. I have explained in detail what you should see from a plane window so feel free to check and send me the evidence that oppose the calculation. Or if you can show a horizon at eye-level from any significant elevation relative to the accuracy of your setup then that is worth $1,000 as well. Show a Foucault pendulum that doesn’t move while being sensitive enough to detect the rotation of the platform and the $1,000 is yours. Show the Sun changing size during the day and the money is yours as well. I want to know if I’m wrong about something and if I’m wrong about something this fundamental than I’ll gladly pay that amount to be corrected. Why do you care so little?

  281. meskibob says


    Also I would like to celebrate the fact that I created the single longest thread in the history of AXP! Cheers!

    FYI, even this minor (but very bold) claim of yours is bullshit.
    At least the following thread is longer (478 comments), and that was found in less than a minute using Google.
    I am shocked, SHOCKED, that a flat earth proponent would make a claim without bothering to check whether it conforms with reality.
    P.S.: please note that I’m not saying the flat earth hypothesis is garbage because you made a bullshit claim about something else. I’m just pointing out that making bullshit claims seems to be an integral part of being a flat earth proponent.

  282. gravityisajoke says

    Yeah a comment thread from 3 years ago lmao. This thread has only been going for a month and its already breaking 320 comments. It’s not important just amusing as to how in 320 comments not one single definitive proof of a spinning ball Earth has been presented.

    The fundamental nature of water is that it finds and remains level, you can never make an experiment showing how water can conform to the exterior of a shape, therefore the Earth is flat until you can prove otherwise, FACT. An atmosphere can not exist adjacent to a PERFECT VACUUM, therefore that rules out gravity holding down the atmosphere. If the gravity of the Earth is so strong it can hold the atmosphere of the Earth without it being sucked away from a PERFECT VACUUM how the fuck can I breathe?! lmaoo FACT. Where is my 1,000$??? Those are two absolute proofs against gravity, if gravity is disproven than the Earth can not be round because gravity is the reason why the Earth is round to begin with. Where is my 1,000$???

    Focault pendulum has been debunked. Thats from the manufacturers themselves, it is an electrically operated device with magnets, LOL. Complete nonsense.

  283. gravityisajoke says


    #1 No, the fact you can see Venus AT ALL disproves that Venus and the Earth is where they’re located in your model. You should NEVER be able to see Venus during the night if the night time side of the Earth is always facing away from the orbit of Venus, it is literally geometrically impossible.

    #2 Let me guess….. GRAAAABADEEEE LOL Have a test that you can prove it? Let me guess….. (jeopardy music) Still waiting!

    #3 Oh so that means you can see curvature at cruising altitude? So why does Neil DeGrasee (the worlds leading authority on astrophysics and astronomy) say that you can not see curvature at that altitude? Can’t have it both ways sorry

    #4 Himawari LOLL Noo thats not complete CGI at all man, its totally real!! LOL hahahaha its literally the fakest thing you can possibly look at, how on Earth can you look at that footage and think it’s real. It is so blatant, jesus christ you people are brainwashed.

    #5 From South America to Australia you can literally fly right over it instead of going allllll the way around it. Let me guess, its too cold to go over Antarctica? LOL

    #6 Science isn’t about proof. LOLOLOLOL Mathemagic is proof!? LOLLL I can make a mathematical equation right now predicting where a satellite will be on a CUBE earth and how that satellite will behave on a cube Earth, does that mean the Earth is a cube?! NO, you need to apply your mathematics to reality WITH SCIENCE and then you will understand if it is true or not, not the other way around.

    “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” ~Nikola Tesla

    “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” ~Nikola Tesla

    “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” ~Nikola Tesla

    “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” ~Nikola Tesla

    Have a nice day.

  284. crocdoc says

    Nice dodge of all of my points. This is exactly the sort of flerfer avoidance I was referring to earlier.

    1. You haven’t provided any evidence that Venus shouldn’t be visible. Sketch it out and you’ll see that it should be (and is) possible to see it shortly after sunset and right before sunrise.

    2. You haven’t explained why you don’t think water should be able to stick to a ball. Explain that and I’ll explain to you how the Earth holds water.

    3. The discussion wasn’t about whether or not one can see curvature at cruising altitude. You asked why the horizone rises to eye level and I explained how you can observe that it doesn’t.

    4. You claiming something is fake doesn’t mean it is fake. That’s a non-argument.

    5. I didn’t ask whether or not it is possible to fly over the centre of Antarctica, I asked why an airline would want to waste fuel doing so when the most direct routes skim the edge of the continent. Pay attention.

    6. Repeating what I have said and adding ‘lololol’ at the end just makes you look like a child. You don’t seem to have understood what I had said, so your ‘lolol’ is Dunning-Kruger induced. Science doesn’t deal in proofs. Mathematics deals in proofs. Science deals in evidence and likelihoods.

    It’s ironic that you’re trying to tell me about hypotheses having to match up with reality after I explained how the scientific method works and then gave an example of evidence which kills the flat Earth hypothesis (the presence of two celestial poles). You choosing not to address that evidence and continuing to adhere to your flat Earth beliefs despite that evidence indicates that your attachment to the flat Earth nonsense is emotional, not rational.

    Have a nice day.

  285. crocdoc says

    “just amusing as to how in 320 comments not one single definitive proof of a spinning ball Earth has been presented.”

    For starters, science isn’t about definitive proofs. That’s mathematics. Science is about evidence and applying the scientific method. I tried to explain this to you earlier but got a child-level ‘lololol’ response. Not surprised, but it doesn’t paint a particularly flattering picture of you.

    With the above in mind, your claim that no one has provided evidence of the Earth being spherical and spinning is a bald-faced lie for I provided evidence that only works on a spherical, spinning Earth (the presence of two celestial poles) and which kills the flat Earth hypothesis. You refused to address it and are now pretending it doesn’t exist.

    That’s not going to work out well for you, because until you can deal with that damning bit of evidence the flat Earth hypothesis is dead in the water. That’s how the scientific method works. It takes only one bit of evidence to kill a hypothesis so until you can provide a flat Earth model on which it is possible to have two celestial poles you shouldn’t be supporting your dead hypothesis. I can provide a model which explains the presence of two celestial poles perfectly, but you have an emotional attachment to rejecting it.

    As for you choosing to mimic my “have a nice day” sign-off, thanks!

    “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…”

    ― Oscar Wilde”

  286. crocdoc says

    The visibility of Venus explained, just for you.

    A person standing on the surface of the Earth has a roughly 180 degree view of the sky (mountains and buildings notwithstanding). For a short while before sunrise and a short while after sunset, while standing on a dark part of Earth, that 180 degree view can include Venus (depending on where in its orbit it is). Here’s a diagram (OMG, CGI!) explaining it visually:

    All of your other arguments-from-ignorance are equally easy to explain away, although I personally can’t be bothered as explaining these things to flat Earthers is like explaining evolution to creationists: Fruitless, as you’ll just ignore it and come back with a Gish gallop of new arguments from ignorance.

    On the other hand the evidence against the flat Earth, like the presence of two celestial poles, can’t be explained away without dropping the flat Earth hypothesis in favour of one that matches reality.

    This is where you return with another ‘lololol’ and a comment about Neil DeGrasse Tyson/NASA/gravity as you pretend this conversation never happened. Because that’s how you roll.

    Have a nice day.

  287. gravityisajoke says

    You do realize in your cartoon depiction of the fake non existent orbit of the Earth that they got the orbital path of the Earth wrong… right? Earth’s orbit is elliptical, like an egg, show me another cartoon of your fake orbit of your fake ball spinning around that can see Venus during the nighttime. And again, I’ll subscribe to a model that has one flaw verses a model that has 1,000 flaws. Hilarious how you vehemently stick to your ball which has infinitely more flaws than the flat Earth and then you use a frame of logic claiming “if there is a flaw in the model it must be thrown away”, ok well then why the fuck do you believe the Earth is a round spinning ball if there are countless flaws with that model?? Dunning Krueger.

  288. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @gravityisajoke #321:

    your cartoon depiction of the […] orbital path of the Earth wrong […] Earth’s orbit is elliptical, like an egg

    Article: Phys.Org – Earth’s orbit around the sun

    In describing the nature of elliptical orbits, scientists use a factor known as “eccentricity”, which is expressed in the form of a number between zero and one. If a planet’s eccentricity is close to zero, then the ellipse is nearly a circle. If it is close to one, the ellipse is long and slender.
    Earth’s orbit has an eccentricity of less than 0.02, which means that it is very close to being circular. That is why the difference between the Earth’s distance from the Sun at perihelion [147,098,074 km] and aphelion [152,097,701 km] is very little – less than 5 million km.

    The image in #320 was representing Earth’s orbit 480 pixels across, a scale at which the difference is nonexistent.

  289. crocdoc says

    @CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain – thanks for that.

    As CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain has pointed out, the Earth’s orbit is close enough to circular that one wouldn’t notice the variance in a diagram, but even if it were strongly elliptical it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. In fact, if both the Earth’s orbit and Venus’ orbit were elliptical we’d see even more of Venus. I’m not going to draw it out for you this time as you’re clearly not particularly appreciative of having things explained to you and I can’t be bothered wasting my time.

    “I’ll subscribe to a model that has one flaw verses a model that has 1,000 flaws.”

    The difference is that your imagined 1,000 flaws are flaws in your understanding of science, not flaws in the model. All of your arguments from ignorance which are as easily dismissed as your insistence that Venus shouldn’t be visible at night, which is demonstrably not the case. There isn’t just one flaw in the flat Earth model – there are thousands – but the reality is that I only need to present one, as it’s fatal to the flat Earth hypothesis. Provide a flat Earth model in which the presence of two celestial poles is possible or reject your hypothesis. Those are your choices. All of these attempted diversions and (predicted in an earlier post) moving of the goalposts haven’t made me forget that you’ve failed to address the celestial pole issue. Don’t feel too badly about it as you’re in good company – no flat Earther has ever been able to address it.

    The irony of you thinking that it is me who is suffering from Dunning-Kruger will, unfortunately, be lost on you, but thanks for the giggle anyway.

    Have a nice day.

  290. crocdoc says

    Just for a giggle (and for the fact that it only took a few seconds), here’s the Earth and Venus on your imaginary elliptical orbits.

    We’d see even more of Venus at night, not less.

    Better luck next time. Thank you for playing.

    Oh, and have a nice day. 😀

  291. gravityisajoke says

    Venus’ orbit isn’t the same as Earth’s. I love how you have to make Venus’ orbit the exact same as Earth’s orbit in order for you to see a sliver of Venus’. Fact of the matter is you can see Venus in the MIDDLE OF THE SKY in the night time. Absolutely impossible! Death blow to the globe! Not argument from ignorance, literal geometric impossibility. Impossible for water to curve around an object. Death blow to the globe, not an argument from ignorance, literal physical impossibility. An atmosphere can NOT exist adjacent to a PERFECT VACUUM without a solid barrier in between, death blow to your fake space being a vacuum and gravity magically forcing all the world’s atmosphere down to Earth against the force of a PERFECT VACUUM desperately trying to suck it away. I wonder how the hell can I even breathe, or suck up water through a straw, LOL.

    I like how you only address the point of venus so you can draw your stupid little cartoons which are not even accurate to the orbits of the planets in your own model. You do not address the atmosphere and perfect vacuum of space problem, you do not address the water being magically forced down and conforming to the exterior of a shape. You absolutely CAN NOT replicate a single fucking thing that you believe with an experiment, literally nothing. Everything you believe is a theory, gravity = theory, heliocentrism = theory, big bang = theory, evolution = theory, abiogenesis = theory, dark matter = theory, let me guess “ohhhh wellllll… they are SCIENTIFIC theories!!” Yeah scientific theories which have no basis in science because they have not gone under the scrutiny of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Yet they are scientific theories?! LOL.

    Prove water can conform to the exterior of a shape please, if you can not you have a religious belief based on no evidence whatsoever. Prove a pressurized atmosphere can coexist near a vacuum without a solid barrier in between, if you can not you have a religious belief based on no evidence whatsoever. Prove objects can attract each other by virtue of their mass alone, if you can not you have a religious belief with no evidence whatsoever. Prove matter can spontaneously explode into existence from nothing in a void of non-space and non-matter, if you can not you have a religious belief based on no evidence whatsoever. Prove life can spontaneously arise from non living matter, if you can not you have a religious belief based on no evidence whatsoever. Cheers!

  292. crocdoc says

    You’re seriously still carrying on about Venus after you’ve been shown to be incorrect, twice? I could keep drawing that image all day long with all sorts of combinations and permutations of ellipses and demonstrate that it would still be possible to view Venus. The reality is that both Earth and Venus have near-circular orbits, as per my first illustration, and it is therefore possible to see Venus for part of the night despite your initial claim.

    As for the rest of your post: And there it is, the predicted Gish gallop of further attempts to move the goalposts, despite your first bit of ‘evidence’ turning out to be a complete failure.

    No, I’m not going to go through your other arguments-from-ignorance one at a time for three reasons:
    1. You’ll never acknowledge when your information was incorrect (see Venus, above).
    2. Apparently you don’t understand how the scientific method works and what evidence is, but I suspect (after my experience with your Venus failure) that you’re not going to absorb explanations of that, either.
    3. Last but not least, I don’t want you to get the false impression that anyone takes the flat Earth hypothesis seriously. I’ve just been mucking around with you because, as I said earlier, I have an unhealthy fascination with the mindset that goes down the anti-science creationist and/or flat Earth rabbit holes.

    Oh, and by the way, I did attempt to address your repeated comment about water conforming to the exterior of a shape by asking you what makes you think it can’t so I would know from where you were coming and cater my response accordingly, but you haven’t described the experiment with which you’ve determined this. Once you describe the experiment through which you’ve determined that water can’t conform to the exterior of a shape, I’ll explain to you how you have failed. Thanks.

    I could also point out that you should probably do some research on the definition of ‘theory’ in the sciences before you throw it around like it’s a bad thing, but I suspect that would be a waste of time, too.

    I see your Gish gallop is now wandering from the shape of the Earth to the Big Bang and abiogenesis. That’s not off topic at all, right? Do you ever feel like you’re grabbing at straws when one of your cherished ideas has been demonstrated to be incorrect? Well, that’s what it looks like right now. Just giving you a head’s up.

    Off topic, but did you know the Big Bang wasn’t really an explosion and that it got its name from someone who used it in a dismissive, pejorative sense? Also, we don’t know if it happened in a void of non-space and whether there was matter (or anti-matter) before the Big Bang, or if there even can be a ‘before’ as it appears time may have started with the singularity, so I am not sure from where you got your ideas. Regardless of what happened, I’m sure in your universe a magic skydaddy/intelligent designer appearing out of nothing makes a lot more sense (insert special pleading argument here).

    Have a nice day.

  293. gravityisajoke says

    I addressed your Venus cartoons, and asked how is it possible to see Venus in the middle of the sky during the night? Literally geometrically impossible.

    Make water float around a ball, there’s your experiment.

    And again you absolutely completely avoid the pressurized system coexisting next to a vacuum with no barrier in between. LOL you don’t even say a single word about it. Run away fool, run away.

  294. crocdoc says

    You’ve gone from saying that we shouldn’t be seeing Venus at all to now admitting we should be able to see it, but you’re moving the goalposts to where in the sky it is. Have you ever even tried to find out how this is explained by astronomy? Rhetorical question. Anyway, Google is your friend as it’s all as easily explainable. My diagrammatic explanation (which took all of five minutes to think up and lay out) killed your misconception that it shouldn’t be visible at all and there are websites all around the place explaining when and why it is occasionally visible high in the sky. Google is your friend.

    “Make water float around a ball, there’s your experiment.”

    Where have you carried out this experiment and exactly what happened? I want you to spell out the details before I respond so that I can’t be accused of straw manning your argument.

    “you don’t even say a single word about it.”

    Yes I did. You weren’t reading carefully enough. Here it is again:

    And there it is, the predicted Gish gallop of further attempts to move the goalposts, despite your first bit of ‘evidence’ turning out to be a complete failure.

    No, I’m not going to go through your other arguments-from-ignorance one at a time for three reasons:
    1. You’ll never acknowledge when your information was incorrect (see Venus, above).
    2. Apparently you don’t understand how the scientific method works and what evidence is, but I suspect (after my experience with your Venus failure) that you’re not going to absorb explanations of that, either.
    3. Last but not least, I don’t want you to get the false impression that anyone takes the flat Earth hypothesis seriously. I’ve just been mucking around with you because, as I said earlier, I have an unhealthy fascination with the mindset that goes down the anti-science creationist and/or flat Earth rabbit holes.

    I will respond to your water around a ball issue when you fill in the details of the experiment you’ve carried out to ‘prove’ water can’t conform to the shape of the object. You do that and I’ll tell you where you’ve failed.

  295. gravityisajoke says

    @crocdoc LOL You STILL fail to address how an atmosphere can coexist besides a vacuum. I am actually laughing out loud this is hilarious. To see how you feeble minded religious people vehemently stick to your beliefs and then just flat out ignore my statements. Parameters of the experiment, take a ball, take some water, and make the water float around the ball like it does with Earth. Stop playing fucking stupid, it’s simple. I feel like I’m talking to children when I deal with you atheists. Experiment #2, have a pressurized system exist adjacent to a vacuum with no barrier in between, simple. Experiment #3, Make one object go towards another object by virtue of their mass alone, simple. If you can not replicate these experiments or find anywhere on Earth where these experiments have been done successfully, you have a belief which requires no empirical evidence to support your belief aka RELIGIOUS BELIEF. I love using the standard atheist arguments against themselves, feels very nice to know I’m not a part of that religion any more since they are guilty of committing and believing in the same logically fallacious things as a religious person would, literally no difference whatsoever. Stop playing fucking dumb, do those experiments, and get back to me when you do. Until then, the null hypothesis stands that the Earth is observably FLAT and observably MOTIONLESS.

  296. crocdoc says

    Regarding the pressurised system next to a vacuum:
    1. The vacuum of space isn’t like your Hoover at home. It doesn’t suck.
    2. Atmospheric pressure isn’t the same at the atmosphere/space interface as it is at the surface of the Earth. It’s only atmospheric pressure at the surface (1 atmosphere being essentially the weight of the atmosphere) but decreases as one moves higher in altitude. That’s why your ears pop when a plane ascends and why planes need to be pressurised for passenger comfort at cruising atmosphere. By the time one hits the atmosphere/space interface the pressure is so low it’s pretty much a gradient to no pressure at all.
    3. I presume you’d have the same issue with a water/air interface (ie how can water meet air with no barrier holding the water in place?) and yet that’s exactly what you’re looking at every time you see the surface of any body of water, held in place with the very same thing holding the atmosphere in place.

    And if you ever respond to the question I have asked at least four times by now, regarding the experiment by which you determined that water can’t stick to a ball, I’ll demonstrate that the very thing you are trying to disprove is what makes your experiment fail.

    Your arguments from ignorance are embarrassingly easy to address but enough of me fielding your questions. It’s time for you to respond to a few of mine.

    1. Do you have HD photographs of your flat Earth taken from space? Why not?
    2. If gravity isn’t real, what stops everyone from floating off the surface of your flat Earth? Don’t say density, as that’s a property not a force.
    3. How can a flat Earth have two celestial poles?
    4. How can a flight from Sydney to Johannesburg have a similar flight time to a Sydney Santiago flight on a flat Earth? Demonstrate with a map, please.
    5. What makes the sun and moon float above a flat Earth?
    6. What makes the sun and moon move around above a flat Earth (ie how can we have time zones)?
    7. How can the sun set on a flat Earth without going over the edge? ie why can’t we see the sun at night if it never sets, according the flat Earth model? It’s always sunny somewhere, so we know it doesn’t go over the edge and if it’s above the surface it should always be visible, yet it gets dark pretty quickly after sunset when near the equator.
    8. If the sun moves around (rather than the Earth rotating), why doesn’t it appear bigger as it goes overhead, given that it is closer? Spare me the links to the tampered YouTube videos. Seen them all. I want you to explain it in your own words.
    9. Are the sun and moon also flat, or just the Earth? If your intelligent designer can make other planets, moons and sun spherical, what made he/she/it struggle with the Earth?
    10. What’s the imaginary dome holding the atmosphere in made of?
    11. Where are the stars? Are they sparkly lights on the surface of the dome? What holds them in place? How do you explain parallax?

    I can think of dozens more, but these are a good start. Your turn to receive a Gish gallop and I am just getting warmed up.

    Good luck. 🙂

  297. crocdoc says

    My apologies, you finally answered my water on a ball question.
    “Parameters of the experiment, take a ball, take some water, and make the water float around the ball like it does with Earth. Stop playing fucking stupid, it’s simple.”

    Yes, it is simple. The water falls off, right? And you’ll agree that the water falls downward, towards the ground. As you’re standing on the surface of the Earth while performing this experiment, the water is falling towards the surface of the Earth, right?

    So let’s be clear, here. You’re trying to prove to me that gravity doesn’t exist and can’t hold water to the surface of the Earth, but when you try an experiment to ‘disprove’ this (putting water on a small ball in your hand) while standing on the surface of the Earth, the water gets pulled towards the surface of the Earth.

    i.e. In your attempt to disprove gravity, you’ve provided evidence for gravity. Well done.

    I guess in your imagination the oceans should fall off the Earth like it does the ball in your hand during your experiment. To where does it fall? Why? Does it fall ‘down’? Is there an ‘up’ and a ‘down’ in space?

    Thank you for your response.

    I’ve asked a few questions of my own in my previous post. I look forward to reading your responses to those.

  298. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    gravityisajoke #42:

    Prove it in an experiment that water can conform around an object, oh wait you can’t because its impossible.

    crocdoc #313:

    explain to me why you don’t think water should stick to a ‘ball Earth’

    gravityisajoke #316:

    The fundamental nature of water is that it finds and remains level, you can never make an experiment showing how water can conform to the exterior of a shape

    crocdoc #318:

    You haven’t explained why you don’t think water should be able to stick to a ball.

    crocdoc #326:

    Once you describe the experiment through which you’ve determined that water can’t conform to the exterior of a shape, I’ll explain to you how you have failed.

    gravityisajoke #327:

    Make water float around a ball, there’s your experiment.

    crocdoc #328:

    Where have you carried out this experiment and exactly what happened?
    I want you to spell out the details

    gravityisajoke #329:

    take a ball, take some water, and make the water float around the ball like it does with Earth.

    crocdoc #330:

    if you ever respond to the question […] regarding the experiment by which you determined that water can’t stick to a ball, I’ll demonstrate that the very thing you are trying to disprove is what makes your experiment fail.

  299. crocdoc says

    (in my earlier post, that should have read ‘cruising altitude’ not ‘cruising atmosphere’. I really should preview comments before posting)

  300. crocdoc says

    Thanks for collating all of the times I had repeated the question and all of the times you didn’t really respond to the question directly. You’ve saved me having to point out how evasive you were being.

  301. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @crocdoc 334:

    Thanks for collating all of the times I had repeated the question

    I think I left out a couple redundant instances, actually.
    I was aiming to make clear what each of you had said.

  302. crocdoc says

    @CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain
    My sincerest apologies, I didn’t even check to see who posted that and assumed it was gravityisajoke trying to prove he’d answered the question when he hadn’t, so I didn’t mean to say ‘you’ when I meant him.

  303. RationalismRules says

    Since you’re definitely NOT a troll (wink, wink!), perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the shape of the earth or the existence of gravity has to do with atheism?

  304. gravityisajoke says

    @crocdoc #328 “No, I’m not going to go through your other arguments-from-ignorance one at a time” Ohh look whos pushing the goalpost now huh?! 😀 I’ll use your own arguments against you.

    “The vacuum of space isn’t like your Hoover at home. It doesn’t suck.” LOOOOOOOLLL Are you willing to go into outer space and open the hatch without a spacesuit to test your theory?!?!? Would the air inside the cabin of the ISS not immediately be sucked out instantaneously if you did that?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHHAHA this conversation is over, you are a moron of incomprehensible magnitude. The perfect vacuum of space doesn’t suck…. LLOLLLL!!!
    GG Have a nice day I’m officially done replying to you.

    Still waiting for an experiment proving water can conform to the exterior of a shape. Still waiting for an experiment proving one object can attract another object by virtue of its mass alone. Still waiting for an experiment proving an atmosphere can coexist adjacent to a vacuum with no solid barrier in between. Will not reply until this evidence has been brought forth. Goodbye.

    Quote of the millennium: “The vacuum of space isn’t like your Hoover at home. It doesn’t suck.” LOLOLLLLLLLLL

  305. crocdoc says

    I can answer that one as I’ve heard this before:

    If the Earth is spherical then we are just one tiny little lump of dirt in a huge universe filled with billions of planets and therefore not *special*.

    If the Earth is flat then it could only possibly have been created by a magical skyfaery (or intelligent designer) just for us, which makes us special as we’re essentially living in this creator’s very own snow globe. This means there are no other planets, space is not real and the stars are just sparkly lights put on the surface of the dome that covers the flat Earth for our viewing pleasure. Also, because science got this so wrong evolution, the Big Bang and every other scientific theory can immediately be chucked as science is clearly automatically wrong about everything.

    Oh, and the reason for the big conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth is so ‘they’ (aka ‘them’), the people seeking the New World Order (i.e. the Freemasons/Illuminati/Rothschilds/Jews) can keep us from feeling special so we’re easier to control.

    Sure, this is an over-simplified version with comical intent, but for most of the flat Earthers with which I have conversed online, this is pretty close to what they believe.

  306. RationalismRules says

    Before you go, are you going to answer my question? What is the connection between flat-earth gravity-denying and theism, and if there is none, why bring your arguments to an atheist forum?

  307. crocdoc says

    Let’s see: We have a 340+ post thread but you chose to leave the instant people ask you questions about your flat Earth. Shocked, I tell you, shocked. 😀

    Before you go, a few points:

    1. The vacuum of space vs your Hoover at home.

    You’re suffering from an equivocation fallacy because the same word (vacuum) is used to describe two entirely different things: The emptiness of space and your Hoover at home. Only the latter sucks. Space does not. Space is referred to as a vacuum because it is empty. Nothing to do with your Hoover.

    Which brings us to this:

    “Would the air inside the cabin of the ISS not immediately be sucked out instantaneously if you did that?”

    No, actually, it wouldn’t. For something to suck it has to have negative pressure. Space has 0 pressure. If you were to open the hatch of the ISS the pressurised air inside would expand, pushing air out until it reached an equilibrium with the surrounding space. That’s why your ears go funny when a plane is on ascent – the surrounding pressure reduces and the air behind your ear drums expands. It’s also why SCUBA divers can’t hold their breath while ascending – the surrounding water pressure reduces as they go shallower and the air in their lungs expands.

    So by now you’re wondering why the atmosphere doesn’t expand into space, right? I explained it earlier but you may have missed it. What we call atmospheric pressure is essentially the weight of the atmosphere at ground level (which is 1 atmosphere). Air is denser down at ground level so the higher we go, the less atmospheric pressure we experience (as mentioned in my airplane comments above). At the atmosphere/space interface, at the very top of our atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure has dropped to essentially 0. As there is no pressure difference between the atmosphere and space at that point, the atmosphere doesn’t expand into space.

    2. “Still waiting for an experiment proving water can conform to the exterior of a shape.”

    I’m still waiting for you to explain why you think it can’t. We’ll ignore the fact that water conforms to the exterior of a shape when you dip your finger in it and it is wet, because that’s cohesive tension and it is gravity with which you appear to have an issue.

    I’ve asked you several times what makes you think water can’t stick to the exterior of a shape by gravity but so far all I’ve got from you is an argument from personal incredulity. The only experimental protocol you have provided with which I might test whether or not water can stick to the outside of a ball (trying to put water on a ball, while standing on the surface of our planet) ended up providing evidence for the very thing you were trying to disprove – gravity pulling the water down to the surface of the Earth. So that wasn’t very good. You’ll have to come up with something better.

    Besides, if oceans are meant to fall off the Earth in the same way water falls down to the Earth off a small ball held in my hand, to where does it fall? Can it fall ‘down’ if there is no ‘up’ or ‘down’ in space? What makes it fall? Please explain. I’m curious.

    “you are a moron of incomprehensible magnitude”
    Glass houses, tiger. Only one of us thinks the Earth is flat.

    Shame you’re not going to respond to any of my questions about the flat Earth, but at least it’s been fun. You’ve satisfied my train wreck voyeurism habit for at least a week. Have a nice day and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

  308. crocdoc says

    I see. Rather than respond to questions about your flat Earth you’ve posted a link to a random YouTube video instead. That would be 21 minutes and 16 seconds of my life I’d never get back, so no, can’t be arsed watching it.

    You let me know when you’re ready to respond to those questions, mmmkay?

  309. K Tell says


    Sextants prove that the Earth is spherical. You can measure the amount of curvature per distance moved along a line of longitude with a sextant and it is always very close to 1 degree per 60 Nautical Miles. That is only possible on a cylinder or a sphere. Since time zones rule out a cylinder the Earth *must* be a sphere.

    Using telescopes allows us to go one better and show that the Earth is not a true sphere but is approximately 0.3% oblate. This was first demonstrated in the 1740s by the French Geodesic missions.

  310. fay says

    The thing that I don’t understand, is what are these volumes of evidence backing up a spherical model; things that fit this model that we don’t see in the real world?
    Like the Coriolis Effect – are any adjustments made when firing from an aircraft or a ship for the curvature of the earth?
    Don’t planes fly level once up to speed, with no correction for the curvature?
    Why are we looking at the stars and determining that is what we must be on, since everything looks round. Round is a coin. Circumnavigation is easy, you don’t need to be on a sphere for that.
    And doesn’t water find its own level? (Sea level. Sea flat.) Isn’t 70% of the surface of the earth covered in water, making it at least 70% level?
    We take it for granted that the model works, but wasn’t it Einstein who said that the movement we calculate could be the stars moving, not the earth?
    There is a great experiment you can do showing how gravity works, using a beaker, different liquids and different solids. Maybe they call it the density and buoyancy experiment.

    It’s funny you should mention the centre of the universe; even the cosmic microwave background points to an earth at its centre.

  311. TransientState says

    Fay, a coin is a circle. Round can be used to describe a ball or a disk. A globe is spherical or a sphere and yet has roundness. Circumnavigation means to navigate around something completely. If the Earth is flat you’re not navigating around it, you’re navigating across it. Circumnavigation does not apply to a flat object. There is a difference in the terminology you’re using and its important to use the right words.

    Aircraft and ships don’t adjust for Coriolis Effect? They do. It depends on how far they are firing, the size of payload, etc, but they absolutely do. Also F-22 Raptors can fire missiles on targets beyond the horizon line.

    Planes fly relative to the surface of the Earth, yes. Gravity is pulling it down, but the lift given by the wings via the engine thrust keeps them aloft. You have two forces exerted on the craft, gravity and lift via thrust. Flight requires air to work, and the higher you go into the atmosphere the less air there is. Gravity is also at work, and you need stronger engines, or rockets, to even get into low orbit because there isn’t enough air for lift and gravity is too strong.

    The other piece you’re missing is Relativity. Everything is relative to everything else. The earth is 24,901 miles in circumference at the equator and you stand 5-6 ft tall. You’re a single-cell organism standing on a wrecking ball, to give you some perspective. Humans just cannot perceive the vast size of the Earth simply at ground level. The horizon, at sea level, is 2.9 miles away from you in every direction. Stand on the shore and watch ship go out to sea, eventually it disappears down into the sea, but it doesn’t, it just goes beyond the horizon line following the curvature of the earth.

    Your water argument doesn’t make any sense either. What does the percentage of water on the planet have to do with the percentage of how level it is? If the Earth is flat, explain the tides. If the Earth is flat why do rivers in the northern hemisphere flow, mostly, to the south, and rivers in the southern hemisphere flow, mostly, north? Excusing geological gradients (sloping continents and mountainous regions), I’m talking on flat plains. The Mississippi flows from North to South across almost the entire United States through some of the flattest terrain. If Earth were flat, that water wouldn’t flow anywhere. Also, if the Earth were flat and motionless, our oceans would be seething, festering pools of dead krill and plankton. Ocean currents are possible do to the spinning of the Earth. The water is moving with the Earth. Get a bowl, fill it partially water, then try to spin the bowl around without splashing the water out, eventually the water will begin to swirl in the bowl in the direction you’re spinning. That’s what we have, more or less, in the oceans. If you leave the bowl of water still, like the Earth supposedly is, there are no forces acting on the water and it would be still. No currents to keep everything moving, thus the dead sea life would simply float to the top unimpeded by lack of moving water, and decompose, releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere.

    Cosmic background radiation shows everything moving away from us, but that doesn’t mean Earth is the center because its moving away from everywhere else too. Relatively speaking, the center of the universe could be near to us, but again, relativity at play, it could be several hundred or thousand light-years away. Relatively close, compared to how vast the known universe is, is still several hundreds of quadrillion miles away.

    The notion that Earth is the center of the universe, or at the very least, that everything locally revolves around us has been disproved by science. Simple observation can tell you that. Why else would constellations appear in different regions of the night sky in summer and winter? Why is the sun higher in the sky in summer, and lower in the winter? Does the cosmos spin on a irregular axis? Why? What causes that? What possible reason is there for why everything else in the universe is in motion except the Earth? It can’t do it for no reason. It’s critical to think about all these things and it’s good to. It fosters curiosity and exploration and knowledge.

  312. says

    I know I’m coming in WAAAY late to the discussion…but i just saw the episode.

    Victor has effectively, through ‘listener tolerance’, shifted the burden of proof on his flat earth idiocy. He MUST PROVE HIS GARBAGE IS TRUE, NOT JUST ASSERT IT. He has not done so. And I’m amused by his reference to Neil deGrasse Tyson to refute Callie — because NdT will CRUSHINGLY refute HIM!

    Personally, i don’t have the patience or tolerance for people who are this willfully stupid. They waste oxygen. Decades ago, it was acceptable to refer to ethnic or national groups as examples of stupidity. I won’t make such a reference as i use a joke about one such:

    “How do you get a (stupid person)’s attention? Hit them between the eyes with a 2×4.”

    Victor is lucky i don’t have a 2×4.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *