Ask Questions to Make Debunkers Think (If That is Possible)
We all know the mass of people who are addicted to the religion of scientism is overwhelming. Those people usually subscribe to all those “science channels” on youtube and worship people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye (which I think is the absolute worst of them all), Michio Kaku, Richard Dawkins and so on.
People like that (and probably most people anyway) will not listen to any legitimate flat earth scientific proofs. So before you can actually engage them in any kind of debate they are long gone (and probably think you are some kind of a prankster who was attempting to steal their time). This means that even mentioning flat earth will turn them away immediately and they will never question their whole “scientific”world view.
So why not disrupt their science religion and give them a headache by asking simple questions that they have never really thought of and make them at least go….hmm? The key here is to come off really interested in their opinion and make them believe that they might be able to really help you understand their ludicrous ball-earth “science.”
Just hit them with one question at a time and make sure you don’t show your support for the flat earth (because if you do that in any way – conversation probably is over).
Here are some examples:
Begin like this: “Hey ______, I really like your ___work/YouTube science channel/blabla/whatever_____. I have question that I hope you could answer me: ……”
1) ….How is it that there are no tides in lakes, ponds, rivers, etc. (not even in a glass of water) and why is it that the moon’s gravity doesn’t seem to have any effect on the gases in our atmosphere?
Are there some kind of winds that follow the moon’s path over the earth?
2) …Can you please explain me how it is possible to see a blood moon (lunar eclipse) at daytime?
also: lunar eclipse at sunrise
3) …I would like to know how is it that the duration of twilight is shorter in the southern hemisphere and longer in the northern hemisphere?
For example look at the duration of civil twilight:
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/australia/sydney (southern hemisphere)
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/sweden/stockholm (northern hemisphere)
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/ecuador/quito (near the equator)
Never could get my head around that. Please someone explain in a simple way so that I understand. Maybe I’m too dumb, but simply turning my toy globe doesn’t help me find the solution. So, please help 😉
4) ….Why does the atmosphere rotate with the earth? I mean the mass below it stays the same no matter of the location, so therefore I just don’t get the “Because of gravity”-answer. In other words, why does the cloud care whether Africa, New Zealand or Antarctica is below it, when there is always the mass of the whole world below it? So why is the atmosphere so “glued to the ground”? How does this work? Could you please explain?
5) ….I noticed that the continents on the globe of google earth (which claims to have a mathematically correct model of the earth) do not match up with the NASA photos of earth from space.
Just one example…
How can Google be so wrong? What kind of mistakes are those guys making? I mean, I know that there are all kind of different projections of earth for 2D-maps where the sizes of the continents are all wrong and so on, but with the globe itself this cannot happen, right? *confused*
6) ….Shining light on a spherical object always creates a hot spot, right? So why do we not see such a hot spot on the moon or on any NASA picture from the earth or the other planets?
7) ….When airplanes fly straight, the earth underneath them curves, right? So to keep a constant altitude, do they actually have to descent all the time? I mean, otherwise they would end up higher and higher and eventually leave the atmosphere just by flying straight, right? How much do they have to descent?
8) ….Where exactly is the barrier between the atmosphere and the vacuum of space? How does it work and why is the vacuum of space not powerful enough to suck the atmosphere from the earth?
Has somebody ever tried to build for example a high cylinder where the inside is under vacuum and there is a valve (as an air-inlet) at the bottom? The goal of course would be to measure the pressure on top vs. on the bottom of the cylinder with different amounts of air put into the cylinder via the inlet at the bottom.
Hopefully this will at least get them to try to think for themselves a little bit.
As I don’t have a YouTube account (and I do not want to have one), I will not contact those YT channels. But I will try to do it via e-mail to some science websites.
So if you like this idea, please join me.
Some more questions:
To continue my approach of hitting all those science experts with questions that will lead them to at least think a little bit for themselves, here are some more questions. I hope you guys will come up with new ones as well.
Here we go….
9) …in my everyday experience I feel that there is a big difference between sunrise and sunset. Sunrise to me looks more bright, golden and energetic, whereas sunset feels more quiet and reddish. So they look and feel completely different, although they should be the same right? (Like a film that you play backwards looks the same.)
So what are the factors that play into this perception? Has it to do with temperature? Is it more a psychological thing (hard to imagine, because if you just look at google images you will see the difference there as well)? What’s the reason exactly?
10) ….as we all know, we cannot see a new moon from the earth. At night that’s totally logical of course, but what about daytime? The moon is between the sun and the earth. You can only see it when it’s directly aligned with the sun during a solar eclipse. However you can often see the complete moon at daytime when it is crescent. You mostly see the illuminated part, but you can also see the rest (faint but still visible). Any picture that tells you it is a depiction of a new moon at daylight always has one side brighter than the other – therefore it can only be a crescent moon not a (full) new moon.
Why isn’t it possible to see a faint (full) new moon at daytime (like holding any object between my eyes and any bright enough light source, I can always make out its shape)?
In other words, shouldn’t the light-scattering of the atmosphere not obscure the (bigger) faint part of a crescent moon like it does with a new moon? By the way, you can also see the faint part of a crescent moon at night time. Can someone please explain?
More questions regarding the global warming hoax:
11) ….as we all know the density of CO2 is higher than that of the normal atmosphere (air). Otherwise CO2 fire extinguishers won’t work and if you throw dry ice into water the “steam” would just rise and not fall over the edge of the glass, right?.
So if the concentration of CO2 in the surface area is about 400 ppm of the atmosphere, then how much is it let’s say in 20 km height?
And if this height is the place where most of the heating up of the atmosphere is happening (global warming – reflection of heat back to earth) and the little amount of CO2 up there (should be way way less than 400 ppm) is so potent to heat up the entire planet as it does, then why don’t we just use CO2 to isolate our homes? For example make double glass windows and fill them with pure 100% CO2. Shouldn’t that have a super strong effect in reflecting the heat back into your home? Am I missing something or shouldn’t this work just like it does in the upper atmosphere? ?????
12)…I have learned that heat always flows from hot to cold, never the opposite way. Can somebody please explain why this seems to be different in all those explanations for global warming? How can the heat be reflected at 20 km height where the temperature is much colder than on the relatively hot surface of earth? If it is just because of the reflection of infra-red radiation, then why is the layer of CO2 in the atmosphere not reflecting all the incoming infra-red radiation from the sun back to into space, so it doesn’t get to earth in the first place? In other words, shouldn’t CO2 have a cooling effect instead of heating? Or at least shouldn’t the reflected IR rays from the earth and the sun just cancel each other out?