The 'light effect' of the star flashing colours is just because he had a crappy camera zoomed in way too much, not focused well, and disrupted by the turbulence of the atmosphere.
@@dogwalker666 Exactly. Flerfs are lazy creatures, so they set their camera to autofocus and call it a day. The fact that the resulting muddled image can be used to bolster their bullshit narrative is icing on the cake. The same crowd mindlessly bleeting their "do your own research" mantra, seems incapable of doing the 30 seconds of research to learn how to properly focus and set the exposure to get images that reflect the reality of what's in the night sky. 1) TURN OFF AUTOFOCUS!!! 2) enable manual focus and turn the focusing ring till you get the smallest possible image of your target (star or planet) on your viewfinder. 3) adjust the exposure. When recording, there is no auto exposure, so you trick the camera by aiming at a bright light source and engaging the AE Lock. If the image is still overexposed, repeat with a brighter light source. 4) enjoy the results of properly focusing and exposing for your chosen target. Note:The above instructions were repeated from memory, after watching a 2 minute video that took less than 30 seconds to find, so what's their excuse?
"Haven't _you_ ever used something to debunk itself?" To be fair, it's pretty easy to use the Bible to debunk itself. "God doesn't lie." "And God sent a lying spirit." God doesn't interfere with free will "God hardened the Pharaoh's heart."
Also from the bible: God is all loving and but created hell for the people he does not love. There are sins punishable by death, but we are not allowed to kill each other. God is all powerfull and all knowing, yet a christian will try to hide the sins they commit anyway. If you look up the phrase "contradictio in terminis" in any encyclopedia it should refer to most parts of the bible, but that would be a form of blasphemy.
@@erikblaas5826 Yeah. God is all knowing and powerful, yet he allowed Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, despite knowing what will happen today and having the power to stop it. God is all knowing, yet he constantly asks us questions, despite knowing what we will do. So does free will even exist then? If God is all knowing, he knows every possible action and decision we would ever make. Right?
@@erikblaas5826 Growing up, I always went to Church and blindly accepted all of that as a kid. However, Growing up, I've really started to question it. It made sense to me as a kid because it was forced down my throat. But now, it just makes less and less sense the more I think about it. I was always taught that the Bible is always right and always meant to be taken seriously. But looking at it now, it has a load of contradictions to deal with, like exactly what you pointed out.
Well in fairness to the second one, the bible doesn't actually say or even imply anywhere that God gives a shit about free will, that's just something preachers pulled out of their arses to try and defend the concept of Hell and answer the problem of evil. Other than that, though, I don't think I've ever read anything as self-contradictory as the bible. I've read bad fanfics with more consistency in their narratives and characterisation.
Yes, the only consistancy of this poor fellow is his bias that "The bible is true and can no lie". If he opens his eyes to see into the world, the bible is always "in the way" to see the world as it realy is.
Logiked did a whole thing explaining how bad astrophotography leads to the watery lens distortions that the Flat Earthers view as "Da Troof". Learning new skills and actually observing how the universe works with their own hands is a good way to break the flat earth spell.
Amusingly, the 'watery lens distortion' is because water droplets change the focal point, so flat Earthers think wearing glasses in the rain proves that the universe is full of water. At least there's SOME kind of logic there, no matter how diseased and tortured it is. "This looks like when I look through a rain-covered window, therefore space is water" is idiotic but you can at least see the finish line from the starting point.
To me, it's kind of funny that he just cherry picks out of focus videos and tells his audience "LOOK, THESE OTHER PLANETS DON'T EXIST. THIS IS WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. SO I'M RIGHT AND ALL MILLIONS OF SCIENTISTS AND SPACE AGENCIES ARE WRONG! DON'T QUESTION IT". It's quite old and pathetic if you ask me.
3:30 These are usually the result of out-of-focus cameras. They generally let the Nicon P900 (chosen for its high magnification number... a feature which no photographer has ever bought a camera for) do its "autofocus" and since there isn't enough light for the sensors to grasp onto, the image ends up unfocused, rendering images like those.
That "Water Finds it's own level" is easily the most over used and out dated argument. The argument has been debunked repeatedly. Flat earthers never learn.
Those stars look that way because they're out of focus. It's _that_ simple. And at 9:26 I think with "downwards" you mean " to the south." Gravity _is_ always pointing downward,; it's just that "downwards" means "toward the center of the earth." Yeah yeah, I'm nitpicky, but flat-earthers have a habit of latching onto little things like that.
This is also a prime example of a Flatard (which Dubey is of the highest order) being SO close to the truth, but deliberately misleading the narrative so that it matches their views. He goes on to say "the stars each flash different colors" and shows examples. Then "that proves..." Totally ignoring the science about different classes of Stars. Each "class" outputs different waveforms of light, depending partly on the elements inside them (and their size etc). We colloquially call these "Yellow" "Red" "White" etc The atmosphere can then scatter those wavelenghts at different degrees, creating an "out of focus, flickering, colour changing image" on a camera (which isn't setup correctly to capture these images anyway). - There's also imperfections on the camera lenses that help create these artefacts, which we see regularly in photography
Not necessarily. Down is an arbitrary direction relative to some reference frame. If you were on a rock out in space that always had a consistent frame fro observing the earth then you could say that the Earth's south is down and north is up. Down is a non-academic term in this context. Even in casual speech we may not be all that concerned with gravity as we are with reference points even implicitly. Paper may be lying flat on a table surface and we say that one side of it (probably nearest to us as observers) is the bottom and the opposite side is the top of the sheet. I suspect even when we're talking about bottom with regard to the earth we are talking about ground-level not necessarily gravity, since under certain circumstances, such as optical illusions, the ground takes precedence over gravity for being the guide to find the bottom of something. There's no reason to conflate a non-scientific term like bottom with a scientific one like the apparent gravity vector.
@@g33xzi11a in space there is no up, down, left or right.... Only towards, away from and orbital directions... Like you say it already, but you are using more words.
Or that you can take a simple spirit level up on a hill and notice that sighting along, it points out ABOVE the horizon. Hmm... Now I WONDER what that could mean.... lol
Hmm... Rotating and inhabited... Umm, here, the closest one to me, LaRonde Restaurant at Chateau LaCombe in Edmonton. 24th floor, rotates once every 88 minutes, or just over 16x faster than Earth. People seem to be able to work and certainly even eat there fairly easily...
"Debunk the globe earth with science" Meanwhile in the same breath; "why? because the bible told me so!" For fu-...at least TRY! Come on! Conservation of momentum!
@@dogwalker666 At least Rowbotham had charisma and a good debate strategy. Douchebay has nothing like that. In fact, I’ve used his videos to help me get to sleep.
@@simond.455 he did forget the evidence but he also forgot that other people would fact check him. Some of the stuff he came up with in his ‘200 proofs’ video was complete fabrication. Some of the publications he mentioned have never existed. He just parroted them from other globe deniers that also hadn’t fact checked the data. Blatant plagiarism and lazy content creation.
@@SINTD_666 agreed from what I have read Rowbotham had the gift for public speaking, And yes Eric Dubious is good for curing insomnia. Perhaps he should have stuck to yoga.
The "life can't exist on anything rotating" is a particularly odd one. Like, put a moldy piece of bread on something that spins slowly. It's gonna keep growing.
@@Beacon80 What they don't understand is that relative motion is a thing. You're measure the speed of a massive object like the earth in MPH, so of course you're going to get a pretty big number.
The whole water argument makes me laugh and want to pull out a round fish bowl full of water and ask them 'so since the water is level does that mean this fish bowl is flat?'
I always like this point: the earth is not floating in space. and they never explain where the earth is and what's outside the boundaries of their flat earth. if there is no limit of their flat earth... why is only a small flat disk visible? and why is this infinite world not on top of us too? (so everywhere in all the directions) how do they know there is something or nothing below their flat earth? and what's the shape of the other side of the world? (flat = 2d but the world is a 3d world...) well... so many questions they never want to try to answer 🙂
That, and the caption at 7:00 - that’s a terribly flawed statement. Constellations *have* changed over the millennia, we have star charts drawn by ancient people to prove it. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but our polar star has changed as well.
@@ScientistCat Polaris became the north star around 500 AD, from some google searching. I mean if you believe that all of space is faked controlled by them, it's a much smaller step to think that the information about the north star is also fake.
@@stevefox3763 That reminds me of a guy with a channel called Our Skies Today. Several years ago, he went outside, pointed his camera at the sun and called it a "fast moving moon of Planet X". You could plainly see that it was stationary relative to the tree branches at the bottom of the screen and that it was just the clouds moving past. Then, another day, he shot video of the sun on a mostly cloudy day and, from time to time, the sun would brighten and the picture would start blinking which he claimed was the sun "flashing". No, it was his camera struggling to adjust to the brightness of light each time a break in the clouds would pass in front of the sun. And if the sun were really flashing, don't you think everybody in the world would have noticed? Why was he apparently the only one who saw it? Oh. That's right.🤪
You didn't actually manage to watch an entire Eric Dubay video did you? 😲 I hope you're all rested now 🤣 On a serious note, I still can't believe that anyone still takes ED seriously in any way whatsoever. Thank you again for another cool video.
For people like you, I did. Just to inform you, you didn't miss much. I have seen about 2 or 3 vids from him, I downloaded the PDF of his alleged 50 facts and read it...... Well, there are about 5 to 10 "original thoughts" in it, but those are just assumptions, the rest of the "facts" are only extrapolations of the originals. Everything is as biased as expected, any "data" given are just rough numbers with no quotation or citation where they come from or unbelievable big numbers just to impress the viewer/listener. Like I said, you don't miss much, if you have heard or seen 2 or 3... you can count the rest as been seen too.
You should definitely take ED seriously! Erectile Disfunction affects around 18% of men. Seek your doctor, they can help Dumbay on the other hand isn't fixable, he's a lost cause 😏
@@MrVelociraptor75, Thank you! If you hadn't made that "erectile disfunction", I would have had to -- with relish! Although how relish would help with erectile disfunction is beyond me . . . .
@@MrVelociraptor75 I assume that's also a problem amongst flearthers. But I think when talking about flearthers, ED is more like electroencephalographic disorder/disfunction 😁
I can't finish the video, if someone is going to quote the bible and then say that it proves the Earth is ANYTHING other than what it actually is, I can only handle so much of that level of ignorance.
I always thought the bible to be only "educational" for social behavior.. But these morons also use that part wrong. Yep, using the bible as a "science book" or as a "history book" turns down most of the people with average and higher IQ ratings. Only thing "they" ( flat earthers and young earth creationists ) prove with this is their lack of understanding science, their lack of understanding anything in the world and their lack of understanding the bible.
Yes, to name 2 things; His believe in the bible being true and his bias towards the earth being flat. Any other thing that comes from him mouth or his "thoughts" are just extrapolations of these 2 things.
The way I see it, gravity always does pull things "down". Down means the direction that gravity pulls things. The problem is that people confuse the direction "down", with the direction "south". Yes, it's semantics, but I have found that people that just don't understand it suddenly do, once they realize that down and south are two different things. On Earth, south is towards the South Pole, and down os toward the center of the Earth.
@@BroncoJosh sometimes, people get a fallacy in their head, and until they can identify it for what it is, they just can't continue to learn the subject. Some people are willfully ignorant, but others are open minded, and need someone to explain it in a way that they can understand.
Actually, the earth is pushing you up. You follow the trajectory of the curved space-time to the center of the earth but the electrostatic force between your feet and the ground is pushing you up, preventing you from reaching the center. What you feel is Newton's third law. Your body wants to simple fall to the center of the earth, but the electrostatic forces of the electrons of your feet and ground pushes you up that equals your free fall.
@@holz_name Aha, yes thanks ... that's what the "weak" in "gravity is a weak force" means, I was always wondering about that part of the definition. You made it very clear.
That is what the word "planet" meant in the ancient language ( Greek or Mesopotamian or any other, I did not remember which one)... as they had not invented any means of enlarging the picture and "zoom in" , they saw every planet and every star only as a bright spot. The only difference there was between all the stars and planets was the colour, the brightness and the relative positions. Now we know beter, we simply have been using the (wrong chosen) old name for the objects. Our definition of the term planet has changed from the original meaning, and for lack of a better name we still use it.
3:14 The images of the stars are taken by a telescope or (usually) a camera that is *way out of focus.* Flerfs that do this don't understand what focus is and believe that when observing celestial objects so out of focus makes them see the "true" image of the object. Whereas what they are actually seeing is all the refraction in the atmosphere and how the different densities of the air currents at different altitudes and that are blowing past the camera affect the light entering the camera. These flerfs really have no clue what they are doing and how to properly use their equipment.
As far as 'rotating places you could live in' doesn't the Seattle Sky Needle restaurant thing rotate? And I don't see anything that would stop someone that owned if from living there.
Fun fact, there are actual houses build on a flat surface with an axle in the middle and a mechanisme that make them rotate... Most of these for exacly 1 rotation per 24 hours, to have the sun on same relative angle during the whole day.
Yes, they love using a camera with an autofocus system... The part they also love ( to forget ) is that the autofocus system sees the distortion/refraction as the object and focusses on that distance ( way too short ), should they ever figure out the way the picture is suppose to be ( disable autofocus, fosus by hand to infinity setting ), they will see only a 1 by 1 pixel per star or planet no matter how far the zoom goes. That would not make a pretty picture to look upon, so they prefer ( or do not know better ) to use it this way.
Imagine for a second that you're a time traveller from 1000BC You find yourself in the future. In the year 2022. And on this magical glass and metal device you witness a video of a modern human talking about the Earth's pillars ...and solid foundations
"For the flatearther shall bear a 50-bladed sword. 50-bladed! Not two or five or seven but 50, witch he will wield on all wretched globies, globies just like you, sir, there, and the horns shall be on the head, with witch he will..."
50 evidence that Dubay can't think. If he were more active he might be in the competition 'top left award' by McToon and FTFE, meaning top left peak of the Dunning-Kruger chart.
Hmm, slight correction needed here ... either "He in not a reliable source"... or "He is a reliable source of misinformation"... Yes, I know... sprinkled with a lot of scepticism, your comment makes sense.
If the earth is spinning at 1000 mph that's only because you're looking at rotational velocity. If you actually use your head you'd realize that the earth is actually spinning quite slowly. So slowly that it completes a full revolution once every 24 hours. Now take a clock and watch the hour hand. Even though it's completing 2 full rotations every 24 hours it looks still. Now if the earth is doing half that speed of rotation then that's pretty damn slow. Heck, it only moves 15° per hour as shown by a laser gyroscope which has "a 15° per hour drift".
"I pointed an out of focus camera at the Windows media player song visualization animation, therefore the Earth is flat" -Eric Dubay. Incredibly, that's _smarter_ than anything he usually says.
Thank god you are doing them 10 at a time. GreaterSapien tried doing these one at a time... I think it broke him. Man... I miss that guy, I hope he makes more content again sometime.
The flashy orbs are a combination of problems... Foremost of them would be the focus. My telescope makes stars look like this almost every time I break it out.... Then I adjust the focus & things get so clear
The stars flashing like that are due to refraction, yes, but also they aren't in focus at all so the light is scattered MORE in the lens of the camera or eye piece in the telescope.
@Professor Stick what he means with "see the sun in a straight line in front of you" is basically what you would get on the north and south pole at equinox, where the sun is on the horizon. He is basically saying that if you are standing normally, looking straight ahead, then that is where the sun should be on the equator.
If you liked this one, yes you gonna like a continuation... If you think it would be "more of the same"... believe me, it will. I have seen those vids from Dubay and even download his 50 proofs PDF and read it... There are only about 5 to 10 "original thoughts" in this, the rest is all extrapolating from those, most references are from and back to the bible ( as if it's the best science book ever made and the most historical acurate book ever made ). Any experiments mentioned are as biased as can be expected, any "data" given is in vague numbers or at least need citation.
How to convince yourself of flat earth ideology in 3 easy steps: Step 1. Assume that what you're saying is correct. Step 2. Say, "Since it's true that what I'm saying is correct, it logically follows that I am correct." Step 3. Pat yourself on the back, assured that you are indeed correct.
It's Eric Dubious, there won't be 50 points. There'll maybe be 2 or 3 main themes and everything else will be based on the same theme and essentially exactly the same point just reworded slightly. Remember how his so called "200 proofs went".
1:54 it also has to have a gravitational field strong enough, that it cleared its surrounding, unlike a dwarf planet, witch doesn't have this reuquirement. But still both to have a gravitational field strong enough, that it is close to round, not some crazy geomentry, asteroides have.
3:40 This phenomenon is called astronomical seeing. The cause is basically turbulent airflows in the atmosphere that distort the imagine. It's a well studied effect astronomy. Edit: and a camera that is way out of focus.
*Eric Dubay, the yoga teacher responsible for bringing Flat Earth to UA-cam,* has largely fallen to obscurity among most current members of the cult. Nonetheless, last year he released _LEVEL_ a FE -documentary- comedy. Its FE experts included a pee drinker and several artists, namely, a tattoo artist, a rap artist, and Dubay himsel, a con artist. To its credit, Level only lasted a hour where Eric's previous docu-comedy went on for 6 hours.
Since the flat-earther is going to be super-correct with the meaning of words, I then expect him to ride in a two-wheeled wagon whenever he travels in a "car" (first meaning of the word car).
It's focused. The problem is atmospheric distortion. Flerfs love to look at these and say "Look, all other planets don't exist. They're just lights in the sky. I'm right and science is wrong. And I will not accept any other explanation". Cherry Picking at it's finest
Agree. One time wolfie6020 called out a flerfer for that. Flerfer had deliberately zoomed in on an out-of-focus star to 'show that it is a disc'. Of course, wolfie is a much better photographer than just about any flerfer.
@@mikefochtman7164 Exactly. I have a telescope myself and anyone who ever used one can recognize that's the "out-of-focus" effect. But of course flerfs can only trick other flerfs or people as ignorant as they are.
The 'light effect' of the star flashing colours is just because he had a crappy camera zoomed in way too much, not focused well, and disrupted by the turbulence of the atmosphere.
He has a P900 and don't know how to use it, That's a song BTW.
it's funny how they act like you NEED a p900 to prove this shit when we've been proving them wrong long before the digital age.
Ya they're oddly obsessed with the P900, scared to learn how to use a telescope with a DSLR
"Trust your senses" now watch me treat a Nikon camera like reality detector.
@@dogwalker666 Exactly. Flerfs are lazy creatures, so they set their camera to autofocus and call it a day. The fact that the resulting muddled image can be used to bolster their bullshit narrative is icing on the cake.
The same crowd mindlessly bleeting their "do your own research" mantra, seems incapable of doing the 30 seconds of research to learn how to properly focus and set the exposure to get images that reflect the reality of what's in the night sky.
1) TURN OFF AUTOFOCUS!!!
2) enable manual focus and turn the focusing ring till you get the smallest possible image of your target (star or planet) on your viewfinder.
3) adjust the exposure. When recording, there is no auto exposure, so you trick the camera by aiming at a bright light source and engaging the AE Lock. If the image is still overexposed, repeat with a brighter light source.
4) enjoy the results of properly focusing and exposing for your chosen target.
Note:The above instructions were repeated from memory, after watching a 2 minute video that took less than 30 seconds to find, so what's their excuse?
he's zooming in on unfocused stars and is like "LOOK ITS BLURRY THAT MEANS ITS NOT REAL"
It would seem that if I took a 1 megapixel photo of a person 100m away and zoomed in it would prove that the person had no defined facial features.
Funny thing is is that its moreso the opposite lol
I always think that when someone’s opening gambit is essentially; “the dictionary definition of x is…” they haven’t done their homework properly.
Yep. It's called the genetic fallacy.
You used the incorrect word there. It is honestly not properly.
@@smaakjeks nope it's called the dictionary fallacy. The genetic fallacy is when you say a claim is true or false just because of its origin.
@@nagranoth_ Yeh. But in the video it was the genetic fallacy at play.
The *_only_* applicable Def for any word, is whatever the discussing parties mutually agreed upon.
"Haven't _you_ ever used something to debunk itself?"
To be fair, it's pretty easy to use the Bible to debunk itself.
"God doesn't lie."
"And God sent a lying spirit."
God doesn't interfere with free will
"God hardened the Pharaoh's heart."
Also from the bible:
God is all loving and but created hell for the people he does not love.
There are sins punishable by death, but we are not allowed to kill each other.
God is all powerfull and all knowing, yet a christian will try to hide the sins they commit anyway.
If you look up the phrase "contradictio in terminis" in any encyclopedia it should refer to most parts of the bible, but that would be a form of blasphemy.
@@erikblaas5826 Yeah. God is all knowing and powerful, yet he allowed Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, despite knowing what will happen today and having the power to stop it.
God is all knowing, yet he constantly asks us questions, despite knowing what we will do. So does free will even exist then? If God is all knowing, he knows every possible action and decision we would ever make. Right?
@@erikblaas5826 Growing up, I always went to Church and blindly accepted all of that as a kid. However, Growing up, I've really started to question it. It made sense to me as a kid because it was forced down my throat. But now, it just makes less and less sense the more I think about it. I was always taught that the Bible is always right and always meant to be taken seriously. But looking at it now, it has a load of contradictions to deal with, like exactly what you pointed out.
Well in fairness to the second one, the bible doesn't actually say or even imply anywhere that God gives a shit about free will, that's just something preachers pulled out of their arses to try and defend the concept of Hell and answer the problem of evil.
Other than that, though, I don't think I've ever read anything as self-contradictory as the bible. I've read bad fanfics with more consistency in their narratives and characterisation.
@@AzureDragon158 True. Heck. Even the story I made during 2020 and onward involving Kurama from Naruto makes more sense than the Bible.
On the bright side, he consistently gets everything wrong.
He has an unbroken record.
Nothing new there.
Yes, the only consistancy of this poor fellow is his bias that "The bible is true and can no lie".
If he opens his eyes to see into the world, the bible is always "in the way" to see the world as it realy is.
Logiked did a whole thing explaining how bad astrophotography leads to the watery lens distortions that the Flat Earthers view as "Da Troof". Learning new skills and actually observing how the universe works with their own hands is a good way to break the flat earth spell.
Amusingly, the 'watery lens distortion' is because water droplets change the focal point, so flat Earthers think wearing glasses in the rain proves that the universe is full of water. At least there's SOME kind of logic there, no matter how diseased and tortured it is. "This looks like when I look through a rain-covered window, therefore space is water" is idiotic but you can at least see the finish line from the starting point.
Oh, mate, no warning it was Dubay? I didn't have any facepalm protection and I almost broke my glasses.
I just lost some more brain cells because of Eric's derp...
No Eric, they don't show you that in school because they know how to focus.
It's in focus, just distorted by refraction.
To me, it's kind of funny that he just cherry picks out of focus videos and tells his audience "LOOK, THESE OTHER PLANETS DON'T EXIST. THIS IS WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. SO I'M RIGHT AND ALL MILLIONS OF SCIENTISTS AND SPACE AGENCIES ARE WRONG! DON'T QUESTION IT". It's quite old and pathetic if you ask me.
@@smaakjeks nope flatards use their P900 in auto focus, the atmospheric scintillation is accentuated by the camera being out of focus.
@@smaakjeks it is totally out of focus
@@naruarthur k
3:30 These are usually the result of out-of-focus cameras.
They generally let the Nicon P900 (chosen for its high magnification number... a feature which no photographer has ever bought a camera for) do its "autofocus" and since there isn't enough light for the sensors to grasp onto, the image ends up unfocused, rendering images like those.
Yes it's a Nikon P900 the only camera flatards use, And yes it's a crap camera.
@@dogwalker666 Yeah, it's the camera that gives them what they want; blurry, distorted images for them to claim are what stars "really" look like.
@@Red-rl1xx exactly.
@@dogwalker666
Huh, I thought the flerfs upgraded to the P1000?
Is there a P1100?
@@stylesrj the ones with more money did, I Know there is also a p950 if that helps lol.
Usually when someone starts arguing semantics, that's when you know they ran out of arguments. When semantics is the opening argument...
Dubay is at it again? This is the most concise rebuttal of “water finds its level”, thank you Prof!
Much of what Dubay has put out is plagiarized from 19th century flat earthers ("zetetic" movement). He's a metafraud.
@@bsadewitz I can’t listen to his sleepy droning voice.
Dubay knows Dubay is a fraud.
That "Water Finds it's own level" is easily the most over used and out dated argument. The argument has been debunked repeatedly. Flat earthers never learn.
@@bsadewitz He even stole the drawings from Rowbothams' book.
A star is a burning lamp xD 🤣
Why am I still surprised by the stupidity
Those stars look that way because they're out of focus. It's _that_ simple.
And at 9:26 I think with "downwards" you mean " to the south." Gravity _is_ always pointing downward,; it's just that "downwards" means "toward the center of the earth." Yeah yeah, I'm nitpicky, but flat-earthers have a habit of latching onto little things like that.
Down/downward is the direction of the gravity vector, then.
This is also a prime example of a Flatard (which Dubey is of the highest order) being SO close to the truth, but deliberately misleading the narrative so that it matches their views.
He goes on to say "the stars each flash different colors" and shows examples. Then "that proves..."
Totally ignoring the science about different classes of Stars. Each "class" outputs different waveforms of light, depending partly on the elements inside them (and their size etc). We colloquially call these "Yellow" "Red" "White" etc
The atmosphere can then scatter those wavelenghts at different degrees, creating an "out of focus, flickering, colour changing image" on a camera (which isn't setup correctly to capture these images anyway). - There's also imperfections on the camera lenses that help create these artefacts, which we see regularly in photography
Not necessarily. Down is an arbitrary direction relative to some reference frame. If you were on a rock out in space that always had a consistent frame fro observing the earth then you could say that the Earth's south is down and north is up. Down is a non-academic term in this context. Even in casual speech we may not be all that concerned with gravity as we are with reference points even implicitly. Paper may be lying flat on a table surface and we say that one side of it (probably nearest to us as observers) is the bottom and the opposite side is the top of the sheet. I suspect even when we're talking about bottom with regard to the earth we are talking about ground-level not necessarily gravity, since under certain circumstances, such as optical illusions, the ground takes precedence over gravity for being the guide to find the bottom of something. There's no reason to conflate a non-scientific term like bottom with a scientific one like the apparent gravity vector.
@@g33xzi11a in space there is no up, down, left or right.... Only towards, away from and orbital directions... Like you say it already, but you are using more words.
I love how they claim water must always be level
but then somehow completely ignore tides
Or that you can take a simple spirit level up on a hill and notice that sighting along, it points out ABOVE the horizon. Hmm... Now I WONDER what that could mean.... lol
Hmm... Rotating and inhabited... Umm, here, the closest one to me, LaRonde Restaurant at Chateau LaCombe in Edmonton. 24th floor, rotates once every 88 minutes, or just over 16x faster than Earth. People seem to be able to work and certainly even eat there fairly easily...
My eyes rolled so far back they slipped out through my eyelids like coins and landed with their flat surfaces on the floor
“I found a flat earther who has gracefully given us content.”
Only grace those idiots have.
"When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions." - Calvin/Bill Watterson
Regarding the image at 6:10....
Merry-go-round approx 20-25rpm
"Roundup" ride approx 16-18rpm
Earth approx 0.000696rpm
"things that spin are not made to be inhabitated! You can't name one!"
ISS.
Dive to the bottom of a pool. Then from the bottom film an object above the surface... ta daa.
"Debunk the globe earth with science"
Meanwhile in the same breath;
"why? because the bible told me so!"
For fu-...at least TRY! Come on! Conservation of momentum!
Eric Douchebay mostly parrots Samual Rowbotham. He has never had an idea of his own in his entire UA-cam career.
Yup its plagiarised Rowbotham rubbish.
He bloated the "100 proofs" to "200 proofs te erf not pinning bal" but still forgot to include a single piece of evidence that supports "it's flat". 😉
@@dogwalker666 At least Rowbotham had charisma and a good debate strategy. Douchebay has nothing like that. In fact, I’ve used his videos to help me get to sleep.
@@simond.455 he did forget the evidence but he also forgot that other people would fact check him. Some of the stuff he came up with in his ‘200 proofs’ video was complete fabrication. Some of the publications he mentioned have never existed. He just parroted them from other globe deniers that also hadn’t fact checked the data. Blatant plagiarism and lazy content creation.
@@SINTD_666 agreed from what I have read Rowbotham had the gift for public speaking, And yes Eric Dubious is good for curing insomnia. Perhaps he should have stuck to yoga.
I hate when flerfs show unfocused pictures of stars and planets and call it evidance.
The "life can't exist on anything rotating" is a particularly odd one. Like, put a moldy piece of bread on something that spins slowly. It's gonna keep growing.
That's an argument I don't think I've ever heard. How does Dubay not understand that the earth is not spinning very fast? Once a day is very slow.
@@BroncoJosh Because if you measure it by linear speed at the equator, it _sounds_ really fast, and they're easily distracted by big numbers.
@@Beacon80 What they don't understand is that relative motion is a thing. You're measure the speed of a massive object like the earth in MPH, so of course you're going to get a pretty big number.
There are rotating houses... like that's a thing. Theyvare expensive, but it's amazing what you can do when you have money
Que Abba , Money money money must be funny, in a rich mans world.
The video has that specific monotone to it that reeks of "I've been brainwashed to no longer have emotion and am trying to do the same to you."
"What? You've never used something to debunk itself before?"
Mathematicians: You know I'm something of a scientist myself
Those "stars" shown were shot out of focus with a P1000.
The whole water argument makes me laugh and want to pull out a round fish bowl full of water and ask them 'so since the water is level does that mean this fish bowl is flat?'
I always like this point: the earth is not floating in space.
and they never explain where the earth is and what's outside the boundaries of their flat earth.
if there is no limit of their flat earth... why is only a small flat disk visible? and why is this infinite world not on top of us too? (so everywhere in all the directions)
how do they know there is something or nothing below their flat earth?
and what's the shape of the other side of the world? (flat = 2d but the world is a 3d world...)
well... so many questions they never want to try to answer 🙂
I mean they can't come up with a map for the flat earth, so it's not surprising they can't make a map of what's larger than the flat earth.
That, and the caption at 7:00 - that’s a terribly flawed statement. Constellations *have* changed over the millennia, we have star charts drawn by ancient people to prove it.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but our polar star has changed as well.
@@ScientistCat Polaris became the north star around 500 AD, from some google searching. I mean if you believe that all of space is faked controlled by them, it's a much smaller step to think that the information about the north star is also fake.
The star flickering is nothing more than an out of focus image amplifying the distortion caused by the atmosphere.
Try telling them that. Good luck.
Exactly
@@Red-rl1xx they Dont need telling, they know it but choose to deliberately go out of focus, they are just childish lying freaks.
@@stevefox3763 That reminds me of a guy with a channel called Our Skies Today. Several years ago, he went outside, pointed his camera at the sun and called it a "fast moving moon of Planet X". You could plainly see that it was stationary relative to the tree branches at the bottom of the screen and that it was just the clouds moving past. Then, another day, he shot video of the sun on a mostly cloudy day and, from time to time, the sun would brighten and the picture would start blinking which he claimed was the sun "flashing". No, it was his camera struggling to adjust to the brightness of light each time a break in the clouds would pass in front of the sun. And if the sun were really flashing, don't you think everybody in the world would have noticed? Why was he apparently the only one who saw it? Oh. That's right.🤪
@@Red-rl1xx we did all see it, shhhh, the conspiracy will be discovered lol
You didn't actually manage to watch an entire Eric Dubay video did you? 😲 I hope you're all rested now 🤣 On a serious note, I still can't believe that anyone still takes ED seriously in any way whatsoever. Thank you again for another cool video.
For people like you, I did. Just to inform you, you didn't miss much. I have seen about 2 or 3 vids from him, I downloaded the PDF of his alleged 50 facts and read it......
Well, there are about 5 to 10 "original thoughts" in it, but those are just assumptions, the rest of the "facts" are only extrapolations of the originals. Everything is as biased as expected, any "data" given are just rough numbers with no quotation or citation where they come from or unbelievable big numbers just to impress the viewer/listener.
Like I said, you don't miss much, if you have heard or seen 2 or 3... you can count the rest as been seen too.
You should definitely take ED seriously!
Erectile Disfunction affects around 18% of men. Seek your doctor, they can help
Dumbay on the other hand isn't fixable, he's a lost cause 😏
@@MrVelociraptor75, Thank you! If you hadn't made that "erectile disfunction", I would have had to -- with relish!
Although how relish would help with erectile disfunction is beyond me . . . .
@@MrVelociraptor75 😂😂😂
@@MrVelociraptor75 I assume that's also a problem amongst flearthers. But I think when talking about flearthers, ED is more like electroencephalographic disorder/disfunction 😁
Got to love all the seeing in those star pictures. I wonder why they chose pictures with such dreadful resolution...
I can't finish the video, if someone is going to quote the bible and then say that it proves the Earth is ANYTHING other than what it actually is, I can only handle so much of that level of ignorance.
I always thought the bible to be only "educational" for social behavior.. But these morons also use that part wrong.
Yep, using the bible as a "science book" or as a "history book" turns down most of the people with average and higher IQ ratings.
Only thing "they" ( flat earthers and young earth creationists ) prove with this is their lack of understanding science, their lack of understanding anything in the world and their lack of understanding the bible.
In Asheville NC and it's glorious! Much love from the mountains.
Just when you think the stupidity can't get any deeper, it does.
Does Dubay ever get anything correct ?
Nope wht do you expect from a failed yoga instructor and neo NTZ.
Yes, to name 2 things; His believe in the bible being true and his bias towards the earth being flat.
Any other thing that comes from him mouth or his "thoughts" are just extrapolations of these 2 things.
The guy sounds like he's smoked one too many pipes.
There is a reason they call him Eric "Dupe" Dubay
The way I see it, gravity always does pull things "down". Down means the direction that gravity pulls things. The problem is that people confuse the direction "down", with the direction "south". Yes, it's semantics, but I have found that people that just don't understand it suddenly do, once they realize that down and south are two different things. On Earth, south is towards the South Pole, and down os toward the center of the Earth.
It just goes to show you how little they understand the heliocentric model and their lack of research.
@@BroncoJosh sometimes, people get a fallacy in their head, and until they can identify it for what it is, they just can't continue to learn the subject. Some people are willfully ignorant, but others are open minded, and need someone to explain it in a way that they can understand.
Actually, the earth is pushing you up. You follow the trajectory of the curved space-time to the center of the earth but the electrostatic force between your feet and the ground is pushing you up, preventing you from reaching the center. What you feel is Newton's third law. Your body wants to simple fall to the center of the earth, but the electrostatic forces of the electrons of your feet and ground pushes you up that equals your free fall.
@@holz_name Aha, yes thanks ... that's what the "weak" in "gravity is a weak force" means, I was always wondering about that part of the definition. You made it very clear.
I feel like it should have been a dead give away that the Earth was round.
Using a DSLR wrongly thinking he discovered something 🤦♂️
"Planets are wandering stars."
So why do they look precisely like planets when viewed through a telescope?
That is what the word "planet" meant in the ancient language ( Greek or Mesopotamian or any other, I did not remember which one)... as they had not invented any means of enlarging the picture and "zoom in" , they saw every planet and every star only as a bright spot. The only difference there was between all the stars and planets was the colour, the brightness and the relative positions. Now we know beter, we simply have been using the (wrong chosen) old name for the objects. Our definition of the term planet has changed from the original meaning, and for lack of a better name we still use it.
@@erikblaas5826 Yes, you are correct. A befitting description for those who lacked the technology to discern otherwise.
3:14 The images of the stars are taken by a telescope or (usually) a camera that is *way out of focus.* Flerfs that do this don't understand what focus is and believe that when observing celestial objects so out of focus makes them see the "true" image of the object. Whereas what they are actually seeing is all the refraction in the atmosphere and how the different densities of the air currents at different altitudes and that are blowing past the camera affect the light entering the camera. These flerfs really have no clue what they are doing and how to properly use their equipment.
No matter how many times I watch these flat earth debunk videos I can't get over how ridiculous these flerfs are.
As far as 'rotating places you could live in' doesn't the Seattle Sky Needle restaurant thing rotate? And I don't see anything that would stop someone that owned if from living there.
Well, it's probably a health code violation, so that...
Fun fact, there are actual houses build on a flat surface with an axle in the middle and a mechanisme that make them rotate... Most of these for exacly 1 rotation per 24 hours, to have the sun on same relative angle during the whole day.
It's mostly word salad, with a sprinkling falsehoods, and a dressing of gross stupidity.
the stars are flashing like that because the telescope or camera is slightly out of fucus and also atmospheric refraction.
Yes, they love using a camera with an autofocus system... The part they also love ( to forget ) is that the autofocus system sees the distortion/refraction as the object and focusses on that distance ( way too short ), should they ever figure out the way the picture is suppose to be ( disable autofocus, fosus by hand to infinity setting ), they will see only a 1 by 1 pixel per star or planet no matter how far the zoom goes. That would not make a pretty picture to look upon, so they prefer ( or do not know better ) to use it this way.
Imagine for a second that you're a time traveller from 1000BC
You find yourself in the future. In the year 2022.
And on this magical glass and metal device you witness a video of a modern human talking about the Earth's pillars
...and solid foundations
Thank you for mentioning a meniscus when they bring up water "finding its level". I've thought about that myself as a debunk of that statement.
"For the flatearther shall bear a 50-bladed sword. 50-bladed! Not two or five or seven but 50, witch he will wield on all wretched globies, globies just like you, sir, there, and the horns shall be on the head, with witch he will..."
I want MORE!
50 evidence that Dubay can't think. If he were more active he might be in the competition 'top left award' by McToon and FTFE, meaning top left peak of the Dunning-Kruger chart.
Thing is Eric Dubious is a fraud, A Poe, he plagiarised Rowbotham for his grift. Non of it is his ideas.
"The Master Builder"
If that isnt some extreme evidence of religious nonsense, i dont know what is
Nah, he just really likes The Lego Movie
“Precession” and “precision” are not interchangeable words Mr. Dubay…
This guy gets my blood boiling something fierce…
Funny how the graphics are just lifted from Facebook
He has no concept of how stars or planets work, but sure, he's a reliable source of information...
Hmm, slight correction needed here ...
either "He in not a reliable source"...
or "He is a reliable source of misinformation"...
Yes, I know... sprinkled with a lot of scepticism, your comment makes sense.
@@erikblaas5826 Or, possibly, I was being sarcastic
@@JennFaeAge Sarcasm, scepticism, same sprinkles, only other colours and taste. I like this kind of additive flavouring :)
Professor Stick, wow, pillars! LMAO Thankyou for showing a Supreme ditz! 👍🥰💞✌
Its fun being the nephew of an astronaut, and being yelled at that she didnt actually go to space. Right
If the earth is spinning at 1000 mph that's only because you're looking at rotational velocity. If you actually use your head you'd realize that the earth is actually spinning quite slowly. So slowly that it completes a full revolution once every 24 hours. Now take a clock and watch the hour hand. Even though it's completing 2 full rotations every 24 hours it looks still. Now if the earth is doing half that speed of rotation then that's pretty damn slow. Heck, it only moves 15° per hour as shown by a laser gyroscope which has "a 15° per hour drift".
"I pointed an out of focus camera at the Windows media player song visualization animation, therefore the Earth is flat" -Eric Dubay.
Incredibly, that's _smarter_ than anything he usually says.
Flat Earthers always uses nice round numbers.
6:40 also Birds use things like the Correliolis force to navigate, so they take advantage from living on a rotating object
Thank god you are doing them 10 at a time. GreaterSapien tried doing these one at a time... I think it broke him.
Man... I miss that guy, I hope he makes more content again sometime.
Walk softly, and carry a professor stick.
5:10 classical physics 2:
moving frames of reference...
It's like listening to a child
"heliocentric star pattern"
Absolutely not, lol...
The star is flashing in his video like that because the camera is severely out of focus
i'd actually like to see a 5 episode series of this
I'm down for a series.
You are a greater man than I, Professor Stick. As I would not be able to make as much sense from his video as you have done.
You can totally see the sun in a straight line ahead of you: twice a day at sunrise and sunset
Flat Earth AGAIN? With everything that is going on in the world today, it's flat Earth video 2,672?
The flashy orbs are a combination of problems... Foremost of them would be the focus. My telescope makes stars look like this almost every time I break it out.... Then I adjust the focus & things get so clear
9:23 Gravity does always point downward on Earth because down on Earth is toward lower gravitational potential.
Please make a series of these
Flattop is definitely an apt descriptor for this one.
oh no Dubay again i do hope i will not fall aspeap half-way through the video
The stars flashing like that are due to refraction, yes, but also they aren't in focus at all so the light is scattered MORE in the lens of the camera or eye piece in the telescope.
7:38 I love how the flerf debunked himself by showing the south celestial pole, something that is impossible on a flat earth
@Professor Stick what he means with "see the sun in a straight line in front of you" is basically what you would get on the north and south pole at equinox, where the sun is on the horizon.
He is basically saying that if you are standing normally, looking straight ahead, then that is where the sun should be on the equator.
What Dubai said would make sense if we would live on a flat plane. But we don´t so no cookies for him :-) He just debunked himself. Again.
Another interesting & educational presentation
"Bert tha Bibble sez!" Would really like to hear them address cultures and religions older than Christianity.
Doesn't exist, because science. Apparently science means something completely different though.
Ya we’re gonna need a pt. 2
If you liked this one, yes you gonna like a continuation...
If you think it would be "more of the same"... believe me, it will.
I have seen those vids from Dubay and even download his 50 proofs PDF and read it... There are only about 5 to 10 "original thoughts" in this, the rest is all extrapolating from those, most references are from and back to the bible ( as if it's the best science book ever made and the most historical acurate book ever made ).
Any experiments mentioned are as biased as can be expected, any "data" given is in vague numbers or at least need citation.
It's a round, round world! No, it's flat, flat as your head. Stan Freeberg Presents the United States of America. Capitol Records, 1960.
Thanks for the video :)
Flat earth has made me crazy. . . ignorance.
How to convince yourself of flat earth ideology in 3 easy steps:
Step 1. Assume that what you're saying is correct.
Step 2. Say, "Since it's true that what I'm saying is correct, it logically follows that I am correct."
Step 3. Pat yourself on the back, assured that you are indeed correct.
Humans can't live on a boat circumnavigating australia because reasons lol
It's Eric Dubious, there won't be 50 points. There'll maybe be 2 or 3 main themes and everything else will be based on the same theme and essentially exactly the same point just reworded slightly. Remember how his so called "200 proofs went".
At this point, I wonder if Flat Earth is more popular to watch/laugh at than regular religious fundamentalism/creationism?
1:54 it also has to have a gravitational field strong enough, that it cleared its surrounding, unlike a dwarf planet, witch doesn't have this reuquirement.
But still both to have a gravitational field strong enough, that it is close to round, not some crazy geomentry, asteroides have.
The third part, the round shape is also required to be a planet.
@@tarmairon431 witch I wrote^^
3:40 This phenomenon is called astronomical seeing. The cause is basically turbulent airflows in the atmosphere that distort the imagine. It's a well studied effect astronomy.
Edit: and a camera that is way out of focus.
*Eric Dubay, the yoga teacher responsible for bringing Flat Earth to UA-cam,* has largely fallen to obscurity among most current members of the cult. Nonetheless, last year he released _LEVEL_ a FE -documentary- comedy. Its FE experts included a pee drinker and several artists, namely, a tattoo artist, a rap artist, and Dubay himsel, a con artist. To its credit, Level only lasted a hour where Eric's previous docu-comedy went on for 6 hours.
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Dubey however is always wrong.
Since the flat-earther is going to be super-correct with the meaning of words, I then expect him to ride in a two-wheeled wagon whenever he travels in a "car" (first meaning of the word car).
3:45, I think that's simply an out of focus telescope. Simple as that.
It's focused. The problem is atmospheric distortion. Flerfs love to look at these and say "Look, all other planets don't exist. They're just lights in the sky. I'm right and science is wrong. And I will not accept any other explanation". Cherry Picking at it's finest
Agree. One time wolfie6020 called out a flerfer for that. Flerfer had deliberately zoomed in on an out-of-focus star to 'show that it is a disc'. Of course, wolfie is a much better photographer than just about any flerfer.
@@mikefochtman7164 Exactly. I have a telescope myself and anyone who ever used one can recognize that's the "out-of-focus" effect. But of course flerfs can only trick other flerfs or people as ignorant as they are.