@DawnBringerRiven is completely unable to defend the globe Earth theory, so I assume that Dawn concedes completely to my argument. I will no longer reply to any comments that do not refute my current arguments. If no serious rebuttals are made toward my argument, then I will assume the globe Earthers have given up on this debate all together.Erfisflat said:"How exactly did they measure 150 miles of water and the elevation of that water with just a camera and their eyes? I was referencing how FEs are usually normal citizens without access to thousands of dollars to spend on advanced equipment."
You don't need very expensive equipment, just your eyes. If an object is supposed to be hidden by curvature, it should be impossible to see. Pretty simple. Of course it helps to learn the mathematics involved to figure out how much curvature there should be.
"As I have stated , you can not just take their word for it. It is the same as taking nasa's word for something."
Taking a government organization's word is far different from asking a random pilot or two. You also completely ignored the angle of attack argument, which is standard for all pilots and flights.
"This is not high enough. You will need to be able to observe the planet as a whole to definitively determine if the world is flat or not."
So your official position is that we can't see a curve... unless we see the whole ball? You do realize this is patently ridiculous right? How high do you have to be to see curvature?
" What if the Earth is not 25,000 miles in circumstance? Have you measured the earth yourself to come to this number? "
I'm just going by what NAsA and the scientific community claim. If you would like to proclaim that the earth is much, MUCH bigger than that, I might agree, IF you offered some inkling of real evidence.
"Firstly, water is not flat. It is not solid, it is a liquid. It doesn't have an actual shape. If you place water in a sphere container, the water will conform to that shape. It will not curve, it will simply just conform to its mold. Water without a container, like the water seen in oceans, is not in a closed container. Therefore it levels out. "
This is my whole point. Level means flat. Therefore, while the land will have hills, mountains, etc. the oceans are level.
"Only the surface of water in an open container is flat. "
Which means that the ocean's surface is flat, I'm glad were in agreement. Do you agree that most of the earth is ocean?
"But even then there are waves and what have you that affect the appearance of the surface of water.
It doesn't affect the overall dimensions of it's surface.
"Water changes form depending on its container. This does not mean "in all measurable circumstances."
It doesn't affect the overall dimensions of it's surface. So, to recap, water takes the from of it's container, and finds and maintains a flat, level surface in all measurable circumstances.
"Air balloons can only travel so high before you run out of oxygen."
??? Weather balloons don't need oxygen. This balloon reached 110,000 feet. The horizon stayed flat and eye level the whole ride. This contradicts the model you defend.
You can not measure the entirety of the earth with your eyes, cameras, and rulers.
Yes, yes you can. If the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, there should be a declination from any given point of 8" per mile squared. As we have agreed, water (the surface) is always relatively flat. Which means we shouldn't be able to see some things at some distances. There are several reported instances where can.
"Google "attitude indicator". Not altitude. Just because you have not heard of something does not mean it doesn't exist."
You saw I put attitude indicator plain as day. I did bring this point up, and I know full well what they are and how they work.
I'm going to assume due to your response that you don't.
we can not trust the word of others. The entire reason why flat Earth theory exists is because certain people do not trust current science and do not take their word as a fact. Do not take pilots word either. Apply the same skepticism you treat astronauts with to every other group of people.
I have no reason to distrust random pilots who gain nothing from telling me the way they fly. I do have several reasons to distrust NASA, aside from me measuring the earth itself, whose entire existence ($18,000,000,000 yearly) depends wholly on the earth being a spinning ball. Thousands of people fly in planes. What reason do I have to distrust them? Or my own senses, since I myself have been on both commercial and single engine flights?
"I don't quite understand why you bring up the angle of attack. It is simply an angle showing what direction the aircraft will be taking off. The plane isn't actually angled upwards it is just that specific part of the wing that is."
Just to be clear, you're suggesting that an airplane wing is angled slightly down during flight at cruising speed and altitude?
"Again, why do you trust this number. It is a number created by NASA. Treating this math as true is treating NASA's measured size of the Earth as true as well."
I don't, you do. That is presumably why you are here. Again, if you're suggesting the earth is bigger or smaller, some more evidence is needed, not just your say so.
"Just because you don't have the ability to perform an observation does not mean the results of that observation can't be true. I also don't understand why you believe governments need to fake the existence of a globe Earth. You do understand that USA is only one of many governments that support globe Earth. What benefit do governments receive from faking this?"
We do have a means of performing an observation that directly contradicts the globe earth theory. By measuring the water, and it is always found to be relatively flat. Why they hide it is irrelevant, and a very long story.
You simply dismissed my argument without providing evidence to support your own claim. In your previous statement you call me out for not providing evidence and then immediately make a huge claim with no evidence to back it. I did not provide evidence for this as I knew you would dismiss this argument regardless.
There is substantial evidence that supports the flat earth, especially in the debate the earth is flat. So far you've just denied all of it.
"Literally every single person on the planet has many things they don't know. I understand my point here may be irrelevant."
Very, but there is no reason to believe that the earth comes between the sun and the moon. Selenelions prove that.
Those planets are supposed to be much much farther apart. "A shred of evidence" is a huge exaggeration. With a good telescope you yourself can see these objects if you look at the right spot in the sky at night.
Just because you see lights in the sky doesn't mean they are physical terra firma.
Sorry It took so long to respond.
Of course you could, it's not about any of the thousands of gods actually existing or not, it's about what you do or don't believe. So if none of the gods do exist (extremely likely) you can still be;Evidence said:@George_Horse @Coveny @JoePineapples @DawnBringerRiven @SilverishGoldNova I have a few questions for you my fellow debaters, and by the way, I love you guys and love reading your debates. Thank you for allowing me to be a part of it. Oh, and I apologize for my grade-school vocabulary, and thank God (the Only One True Infinite Creator), .. and the person who invented the spelling-checkerer!
First, what Coveny said: It's a simply binary question. Do you believe in god(s), a creator, supreme spiritual being, etc?
if yes, you are an theist
If no, you are an atheist
Q. If there really, and truly was no God/gods to believe in, could you be an atheist?
Careful how you answer!