Earth is a ball

SuzyCreamcheese

@SilverishGoldNova According to that, in 12 hours it will be dark the world over. And only one part of the earth will ever see daylight.

SilverishGoldNova

@SuzyCreamcheese Obvi that you're not catching on.

SuzyCreamcheese

@SilverishGoldNova I'm black so I'm slow. Tell me as though I were a child. Someone is actually saying the earth is flat, like a coin? Is every planet also flat, or just the earth?

Erfisflat

Why do people automatically assume this Photoshop image represents reality? Do any globetards think this is a picture?

SilverishGoldNova

SuzyCreamcheese said:

@SilverishGoldNova I'm black so I'm slow. Tell me as though I were a child. Someone is actually saying the earth is flat, like a coin? Is every planet also flat, or just the earth?

There are many different flat Earther communities, but most believe that the Earth is shaped like a disk.

Most flat Earthers also believe that there is a dome and firmament, rather than space, meaning the other planets are... part of it.

SilverishGoldNova

The Earth is flat.

Ampersand

Firstly, why are you running away from offering a response. For a third time you have been unable to offer an explanation for why basic observation of the sky fails to match realisty.

You have again failed to respond to actual experiments conducted by professionals whose results have been conducted to the highest standard.

Despite making claims in several threads including this one that every time water has been measured it's been found flat, you can't provide even 1 example of a time water has been measured with enough accuracy to detect the curvature we'd expect and then failed to do so.

Why do you run away from any evidence based argument and always fall back on posturing about how you're so totally right? Surely if you were right you can provide it.

Now it is not relevant because of reasons... at least you admit that the results match what we would see with normal physics. Objects refracted by atmospheric refraction appear lower, which supports the flat earth theory, not higher as the ball earth theory insists.

The normal understanding of physics is light can refract in any direction. Hence your claim is irrelevant. Light refracting downwards in some circumstances is consistant with the normal view of physics which understands light can refract down, up, right, left, etc, etc and does not provide evidence of a round earth. However the evidence shown of light refracting to the left is incompatible with your claim of light reflecting down which means we can disgard your claims.

As your view has been proven false and you have failed to respond to example of light refracting in ways that explicitly refute your theory (like a lense refracting like from all directions simultaneously) your "evidence" stands as further proof that the normal model of physics with a spherical earth, gravity, atmospheric refraction, etc is correct.

You may be attempting to discuss refraction in magical fairy universe land, but I'm talking about objective, natural science. Which is rightfully the core of all the sciences. Unlike pseudoscience and unevidenced claims. In the scientific field, we make the hypothesis, test that hypothesis, scale, repeat, attempt to falsify the hypothesis. In your world, you're seeing a hypothesis, tested and repeated, giving the same results, giving a stomp of the foot, googling up whatever professional appearing paper that appears to agree with you, posting the link without even the faintest idea of what the paper is about, or how the paper is even remotely related to your position, folded your arms and saying nah. 

Do you understand what these words mean? They aren't something you simply say, they refer to scientific processes which help ensure the validity of the experiment. For instance you can't change your hypothesis after the fact when you realise it was wrong (You say light refracted through a glass represents light everywhere, then you don't). You can't fake results and say an image does one thing when it actually does another (You claim your first image shows light refracting down when it actually is refracting to the sides). You are meant to draw conclusions based on evidence and already proven sources, not just make a load of claims about how this supports everything because you say so. If you call what you do by a scientific name, it is still rubbish. You need to actually perform worthwhile scientific experiments.

I've offered verifiable, scalable, reproducible experimentation that supports my position. This is the scientific method that you ignore. If you can show that water, in any of it's states, causes the exact opposite effect, as required by the model you defend, then we might have a rebuttal. So far, we just have assertions, denial, and pseudoscience. Claims that have literally no scientific basis in fact.

I have specifically provided evidence of me testing your experiment and shown that your position and what you believe these experiments represent is wrong. Not a single piece of this evidence supports your position because your claims are not actually based in the evidence - with each one rely on the assumption "And therefore it supports me because I said so".

Also you have later in this post specifically admitted that your own experimental model is inaccurate and irrelevant to the topic under discussion, admitting

What a blatant quote mine. Can I start calling you Dr fallacious? My claim is that atmospheric refraction would cause objects to appear lower, not higher. Since this has been demonstrated what, 4 times now, and you are just denying and kicking stones, we have literally nothing to go by except yours or someone else's word. This is like me having proof that God doesn't exist, and you pointing to your Bible as enough proof. The words and unevidenced claims mean nothing. Experiments, objective reality.

Your claim was "Refraction has been shown repeatedly to cause objects to appear lower and larger than their actual position. "

I have provided numerous examples of refraction causing objects to not appear lower or larger - including testing one of your experiments and showing your false conclusions. You are wrong. I'm sorry if quoting your actual words back at you makes it hard for you to scurry and try and change what you've claimed once you realise your first half-dozen claims were wrong.

You have been unable to form a basic rationale for why your claim is right. Here is your claim:

1) Light in some circumstances refracts so images appear lower
2) ??????
3) ????
4) ?????
5) ??????????
6) Therefore atmospheric refraction always refracts so images appear lower

There is no basic logic behind your claims.

Except for a number of practical experiments and objective observations? Ok. Put up or .

Name one way your "experiments" contradict the scientific consensus of how light, atmospheric refraction and physics work. Just one. Don't throw a fit and just say "Oh I'm super right" and don't say "But I super duper already told you thins in some other post, I sweat, but for some reason I won't quote or link to this post in any way so it'll just have to be a mystery".

I think you are mistaking me with someone else. I was going to start bolding things I've never said and positions I've never held, but the whole paragraph is completely false. Leads me to believe you are deliberately being deceptive. That or ignorant of basic reading comprehension. 

You: "Refraction has been shown repeatedly to cause objects to appear lower and larger than their actual position. "

I've provided examples of the contrary which you have completely avoided. You are wrong, stop trying to rewrite your failed claims. If you want to admit you were wrong and make some new crazy claims, that's fine.

Yup, a completely irrelevant experiment and observation. This is another false analogy fallacy. 

You stated refraction moves images down, I shows you were misunderstanding the image and it was moving it to the side. If your claim was true the straw would appear vertically aligned with the image. Your experiment is disproven.

Place the glass at eye level and turn the straw horizontally to get the experiment replicated correctly. My position isn't that refraction "always" causes an object to appear lower. It is that when we best replicate the conditions of the atmosphere, which doesn't include curved glass, the results are, so far, unanimous. Thanks for reaffirming that.

If your claims were accurate, my results would be impossible. My results are not impossible, ergo your claims are wrong. QED.

You can't just pay attention to what you think supports your theories and ignore all the evidence against them. No further testing is necessary as we know you are wrong.

That would be difficult to do because the claims were made at the the beginning and the demonstrations needed no explanation. The video demonstrated that in conditions that would closely match that of atmospheric refraction, objects appear lower than their actual positions varying, depending on the distance between the observer and the observed. If you need me to explain how this contradicts your model this far into this conversation, I'd suggest that you read the last 5 or 6 posts of our chain at least 2-3 times, so that your seemingly feeble mind can grasp it.

I asked you:

"Back up your claim. Provide a single claim made in the video (along with the timestamp of when it is made) that both:

a) Contradicts the spherical earth model

b) Is not based on unsupported claims or assumptions.

I await your response so we can see what this supposed evidence actually is."

Your excuse is that there are two bits in the video - an issue which wouldn't have simply involved you providing two links at each timestamp - a trivial issue which should not have stopped you backing up your claims.

Stop making excuses. Can you actually back up your claims or not?

"And you continue to prove that you have no idea what this conversation is about, or what any of this means. Last 5-6 posts of our chain. 10 times, maybe more."

Then why can't you quote this example? Why are you making baseless claims with no evidence with  "Oh I already said that, but I won't tell you where" type excuses when if you are correct you could just copy and paste it? 

See my first response in this post. If you can't give a practical experiment or observation from the study, can't explain how it supports your position or how it isn't even remotely relevant, I've no reason to even look at it, and highly doubt that you have either. It's a waste of time. You've yet to prove your position, you've merely searched for a paper that appears to agree with you, and copied and pasted it. 

So after all your hypocritical bellyaching about science versus pseudoscience, you've been given comprehensive evidence or scientific studies and your response is to ask for it to be chipped down into tiny bitesize chunks without the context of the whole study which proves why the claims are right?

Completely pointless and unscientific. I have provided evidence that contradicts you - you are refusing to look at it and trying to explain why it should be delivered in a way which allows you to ignore most of the studies. If you believe my evidence doesn't match my claims, the onus is on you to prove it.

You haven't even begun to explain what this paper states, how it supports your position, contradicts mine, or how it is relevant. Very telling. 

That's because everything you need is already contained within the papers. It's like saying "Oh sure you've provided me a graph of data that backs your argument up, but it's too complicated for me. Please draw me a nice simple graph with fewer categories". That's not an adequate reason to fail to rebut arguments.

I've since corrected and clarified my view of your position, I'm currently debating 4 globetards from various other sites, not including poor @nope here. I did originally misconstrue your position, but IN THE STATEMENT YOU QUOTED (which you conveniently edited out this session) I never mention gravity specifically. Therefore, you have constructed a strawman, as this is not my current position, as my statement clearly implies.

You specifically mentioned gravity in the quote as shown. Feel free to ctrl+f and find it.

It doesn't really matter who you confused me with - regardless fo who you were talking to you thought the scientific rationale behind atmospheric refraction was gravity. it is not. You are arguing about something you don't even understand.

"Get back on topic. Gravity is irrelevant. Gravity has been discussed as irrelevant and dropped by both parties. Your bringing it back up is a weak attempt at a strawman."

You're misquoting yourself to avoid the humiliation of showing you don't know anything about atmospheric refraction. When i quoted I specifically included the text of the back and forth across the posts, making it clear you are talking about gravity by providing the whole context of what you had mentioned earlier.

Your lack of knowledge is relevant to the discussion.

You can play dumb all you want. I don't have to entertain you.

What would I rebut? Honestly. There isn't a single part of your claims that isn't either baseless opinion or completely in line with what normal phsyics (which allows for refraction in all directions and allows refraction downwards, causing images to appear higher.

Disagree? Provide even a single example.

There's where your disconnect is. We can all play with various curved glass and bend lines, and for this reason, I agree. My position is that whenever the conditions of the atmosphere are most accurately replicated, as in NOT THROUGH A VERY THICK BEER GLASS, we get results that support my model, and contradict yours. That is specifically that objects appear lower, not higher. This position is based in scientifically demonstrated fact and objectively observable reality, and has not been disproved so far. 

You state that glasses are not adequate reflections of the atmosphere. Your 'experiments' are therefore invalid.

I mean that was incredibly obvious to even the most basic observer seeing as you had just about everything backwards. The atmosphere is a gentle and and inconsistent change of gradient  with the change happening horizontally. You used an example of a sudden sharp change with the change happening vertically. I mean you literally made no attempt to relate it to reality and jsut went "Welp, i'm right because I say I am" and assumed no-one would call you out on it.

"ver·i·fi·a·ble

ˈverəfīəbl/

adjective

1. able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified.

It sure as he77 doesn't say "ask Google" or "assume that an acclaimed expert is correct on the matter" (even if you can prove that he has claimed anything at all) if this is your definition of verifiable, it's no wonder you still think you live on a spinning testicle shaped spaceship."

Your claim was that people had to all personally verify evidence for it to be verifiable. That is not mentioned. If an expert checks or domonstrates something to be true, accurate or justified then that meets your own criteria of verified. Hence you are wrong.

The definitions are in my signature. You can play dumb if you like.

And the definition makes no mention of your claims. Thanks for your assistance in proving you wrong.


Who's wasting time now? If you can't practically demonstrate a fact, it likely isn't one. Understand yet? Testable, scalable, repeatable, demonstrable, this type of evidence is scientific in nature. Not some random paper with unfalsifiable assertions that you can't even bother yourself to read or understand.

I asked you to practically demonstrate a fact; I asked you to provide a definition of a word which matches your claim. Instead you just rant. You cannot back up your claim.

This proves absolutely nothing. They have also been caught lying and faking the conclusion here. 

You made the assertions which I just proved wrong. if it proves nothing, why did you even bring it up?

Occams razor actually states that the case with the least assumptions is usually the truth. We have to assume that all of these people are telling us the truth.

False, the scientific method is specifically designed so you don't reply on assumptions - the data is provided to cross reference and check. Instead for you to be right we must assume that all these people are lying to us AND somehow faking all the evidence.


Which are those? Didn't think so. The only time you even attempted to perform an experiment, you totally screwed that one up.

The ones you've run away from several times now:

Saastamoinen, J. "Contributions to the theory of atmospheric refraction." Bulletin Géodésique

Marini, John W., and C. W. Murray Jr. "Correction of laser range tracking data for atmospheric refraction at elevations above 10 degrees."

Mendes, V. B., et al. "Improved mapping functions for atmospheric refraction correction in SLR." Geophysical Research Letters 
Beutler, G., et al. "Atmospheric refraction and other important biases in GPS carrier phase observations." Atmospheric effects on geodetic space measurements, Monograph
Stone, Ronald C. "An accurate method for computing atmospheric refraction." Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Westwater, W. E. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CORRECTION OF RANGE ERRORS DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION BY MICROWAVE RADIOMETRIC TECHNIQUES. No. ITSA-30. INSTITUTES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH BOULDER COLO
Arribas, S., et al. "Differential atmospheric refraction in integral-field spectroscopy: Effects and correction-Atmospheric refraction in IFS." Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series 

Also lets look at your critique of why I "screwed up". "Yup, a completely irrelevant experiment and observation. This is another false analogy fallacy." If my experiment is wrong, you should be able to offer an evidence or logic based reason why.

I sure do, it's a comparison. You are ignorantly comparing a drop of water to a body of water. That makes it a false analogy, whether you have sense enough to realize it or not.

It's not a comparison.

Here is your statement: "Water, in every measurable circumstance is found with a flat and level surface. You can claim it is "empty and baseless", but I see: "that is a point that I wish to ignore that directly refutes my position."

Why fake your claims after the fact to hide being wrong?


Care for a demonstration? Better still, find the curvate, take a selfie of you holding a sign that says ampersand, and post it here. No? Didn't think so.

Are you asking me to try and prove your claims for you? You have made a claim that " Water, in every measurable circumstance is found with a flat and level surface."

Now of course as shown that's wrong. But let's say you equivocate a load and eventually end up at something that isn't totally wrong while managing to salvage your pride. For your claim to be true and relevant, at least one time in human history someone must have measured a body of water with enough accuracy for us to expect them to detect the curvature and they must have failed. Can you provide even one example or was it just empty posturing on your part?

You don't have a clue how much convexity there should necessarily be on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference do you? How much curvature should there be on a 3 mile lake?

Are you trying to get me to do your work for you again? If you don't know the answer - why are you throwing out claims you aren't clever enough to understand?

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

https://aplanetruth.info/2016/03/02/the-tesla-shield-and-our-electromagnetic-dome/

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

A person spouting a load of crazy theories whose only evidence is youtube videos of other people spouting crazy theories with no evidence. As many as six people with no evidence believe a theory and have access to youtube, wowza! Get the Nobel prize committee on the phone because I'm sure these guys are going to win big.

I can see why he's a kindred spirit.

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

SuzyCreamcheese said:

If the Earth was flat, it would be nighttime everywhere or daytime everywhere at the same time.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7dfd7d3895cbe9fc64d88102192e747-c

Obviously incorrect.

Moon and sun both don't match up with basic everyday observation. The light side of the moon is lit up by the sun. In your diagram people all over the world would have different views of the moon at the same time instead of everyone having the same view of the moon at the same time. Also full moons would be impossible as at any instance you'd be closer to the moon than the sun. Also no way for solar or lunar eclipses to occur.

Likewise light doesn't magically stop after a certain distance as it does in your diagram, it fades slowly and there is no way for the sun to set every night and rise every day.

You've also got the issue of how the southern celestial pole would magically exist in multiple places at once without moving. 

Also if the sun and moon are really this simplistic, how come you flat earthers are still incapable of actually predicting its path and speed and such like and have to rely on this vague images with no details? If we're flat and the sun's just going round us, it should be easy to reckon the position of the sun in the sky via triangulation. After several thousand years not one of you guys can do basic trigonometry?

I mean I could go on (flat earth not matching our maps geographically, the distance of the sun causing massive fluctuations in heat if it is so near and weak, etc) but it's not like the above will ever be explained rationally so why carry on?

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Why do people automatically assume this Photoshop image represents reality? Do any globetards think this is a picture?

Because the evidence supports it.

Also it is a picture, it's just a computer generated picture representing a conclusion that has been drawn from evidence.

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

Thanks for trying.

Would you care to try and back up your claims?

Erfisflat

@SilverishGoldNova what is with this globetard? He may rival coveny for biggest globetard winner.

SilverishGoldNova

Mhm, Also a bunch of globetards on DDO think they have succesfully persuaded you to leave with their ad hom spam.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

@SilverishGoldNova what is with this globetard? He may rival coveny for biggest globetard winner.

SilverishGoldNova said:

Mhm, Also a bunch of globetards on DDO think they have succesfully persuaded you to leave with their ad hom spam.

Are you two able to identify the irony and hypocrisy here or should I spell it out?

Nope

@SilverishGoldNova what is with this globetard? He may rival coveny for biggest globetard winner.

SilverishGoldNova said:

Mhm, Also a bunch of globetards on DDO think they have succesfully persuaded you to leave with their ad hom spam.

What do thies arguments have to do with the debate?

Erfisflat

"Firstly, why are you running away from offering a response. For a third time you have been unable to offer an explanation for why basic observation of the sky fails to match realisty."

Seriously? I figured you had common sense enough to follow an ongoing conversation and remember what you were talking about. Bendy light. What we can demonstrate with practical experimentation does not match what you would expect to see if we lived on a spinning ball, yet perfectly match what we see on a flat plane. 

"You have again failed to respond to actual experiments conducted by professionals whose results have been conducted to the highest standard."

You have yet to offer the first one. You saw and can, but so far refuse to, empirically verify the experiments I offered that say the opposite. I know I've explained the whole thing to you multiple times. The fact that you haven't offered one is obvious and you're dodging this immensely. 

"Despite making claims in several threads including this one that every time water has been measured it's been found flat, you can't provide even 1 example of a time water has been measured with enough accuracy to detect the curvature we'd expect and then failed to do so."

That is a blatant lie, but since you seem to have forgotten now, I'll give us something to go by. 

If the earth is a ball that is 25,000 statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity–every part must be an arc of a circle.


From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the diagram above. Spherical trigonometry dictates that a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference would curvate 8 inches per mile varying inversely with the square of the mile, so after six miles there would be an easily detectable and measurable 16 feet, 8 inches of downward curvature.

To determine how much the Earth falls away on the curve you take miles squared X eight inches. This is an inverse relationship so the farther one travels the greater the distance of feet or miles the Earth will fall away.

Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 

Miles squared X 8 inches
one foot = .000189394 miles

Curvature of Earth
1 mile 5.33 ft.  or .12626 mile

10 miles 66.666 ft. or 1.2626 miles

100 miles 6,666.66 ft. or 12.626 miles

So the farther one travels the greater the drop (or rise) in distance.

This amount of curvature has never been found. Case in point.

Salar de Uyuni (or Salar de Tunupa). It is located in southwest Bolivia, near the crest of the Andes and is at an elevation of 3,656 meters (11,995 ft) above mean sea level. Salar de Uyuni spreads over 10,582 square kilometers (4,086 sq mi), which is roughly 100 times the size of the Bonneville Salt Flats in the United States.

The Salar was formed as a result of transformations between several prehistoric lakes. It is covered by a few meters of salt crust, which has an extraordinary flatness with the average altitude variations within one meter (3 1/4 ft.) over the entire area of the Salar. With the use of modern GPS technology, it can now be proved that the Salar de Uyuni is not perfectly flat. New measurements revealed previously missed features resembling ridges, hills, and valleys only millimeters in height.

The salt flats are 100 miles long by 84 miles wide yet is near perfectly flat when it should have a drop of some 12 miles in length if the Earth was a sphere.

Which it doesn’t, so it cannot be a sphere.

"Why do you run away from any evidence based argument and always fall back on posturing about how you'reso totally right? Surely if you were right you can provide it."

Like with experimentation and actual evidence, as I have done? You say you are arguing from evidence, but the evidence is clearly lacking, so far you've totally warped my point into your own strawman, and given us an appeal to authority fallacy. I understand perfectly that refraction, from the right amount and shape curved glass will bend light in different directions depending on the angle and thickness of the glass. You've confused water, in either form, gas or liquid, with glass. If you've another experiment that may better match the conditions of our atmosphere that shows contradictory results, by all means, share with the class, but don't misconstrue my position so it can be more easily refuted.



I'm actually going to agree to disagree, I can't continue beating a dead horse. The first statement explains everything. You're not even paying attention. 

Nope

Erfisflat
"Seriously? I figured you had common sense enough to follow an ongoing conversation and remember what you were talking about. Bendy light. What we can demonstrate with practical experimentation does not match what you would expect to see if we lived on a spinning ball, yet perfectly match what we see on a flat plane."
What practice experiment?


"If the earth is a ball that is 25,000 statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity–every part must be an arc of a circle.


From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the diagram above. Spherical trigonometry dictates that a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference would curvate 8 inches per mile varying inversely with the square of the mile, so after six miles there would be an easily detectable and measurable 16 feet, 8 inches of downward curvature.

To determine how much the Earth falls away on the curve you take miles squared X eight inches. This is an inverse relationship so the farther one travels the greater the distance of feet or miles the Earth will fall away.

Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 

Miles squared X 8 inches
one foot = .000189394 miles

Curvature of Earth
1 mile 5.33 ft.  or .12626 mile

10 miles 66.666 ft. or 1.2626 miles

100 miles 6,666.66 ft. or 12.626 miles

So the farther one travels the greater the drop (or rise) in distance.

This amount of curvature has never been found. Case in point.

Salar de Uyuni (or Salar de Tunupa). It is located in southwest Bolivia, near the crest of the Andes and is at an elevation of 3,656 meters (11,995 ft) above mean sea level. Salar de Uyuni spreads over 10,582 square kilometers (4,086 sq mi), which is roughly 100 times the size of the Bonneville Salt Flats in the United States.

The Salar was formed as a result of transformations between several prehistoric lakes. It is covered by a few meters of salt crust, which has an extraordinary flatness with the average altitude variations within one meter (3 1/4 ft.) over the entire area of the Salar. With the use of modern GPS technology, it can now be proved that the Salar de Uyuni is not perfectly flat. New measurements revealed previously missed features resembling ridges, hills, and valleys only millimeters in height.

The salt flats are 100 miles long by 84 miles wide yet is near perfectly flat when it should have a drop of some 12 miles in length if the Earth was a sphere.

Which it doesn’t, so it cannot be a sphere."
THE EARTH IS NOT A PERFECT SPHERE! What do you mean when you say flat? From what source did you get this information?

"Like with experimentation and actual evidence, as I have done? You say you are arguing from evidence, but the evidence is clearly lacking, so far you've totally warped my point into your own strawman, and given us an appeal to authority fallacy. I understand perfectly that refraction, from the right amount and shape curved glass will bend light in different directions depending on the angle and thickness of the glass. You've confused water, in either form, gas or liquid, with glass. If you've another experiment that may better match the conditions of our atmosphere that shows contradictory results, by all means, share with the class, but don't misconstrue my position so it can be more easily refuted.



I'm actually going to agree to disagree, I can't continue beating a dead horse. The first statement explains everything. You're not even paying attention."
The common model of light refraction shows refraction has nothing to do with the thickness of the medium. Only with the angle where two mediums of different density meet and the density of the meeting mediums. Water is not the atmosphere. If you wish to replicate the atmosphere with water may I suggest you first go in the water not look at the water from the atmosphere. You should make sure the density of the water decreases as you get higher up. Looking at water from the atmosphere through curved glass is in no way a reliable model of the atmosphere.

Erfisflat

"What practice experiment?"

The practical experiment(s) I provided a couple of posts ago. The act of filling a clear container with water and placing an object on the other side of it.

 Reproducing the atmosphere and it's refractive properties proves in every way the the object (skyline, sun, etc.) being refracted, unless inverted, appears lower than it's actual position, not higher. 

This means that we should not ASSUME that refraction could possibly account for seeing Chicago  (and the very many other instances) across lake Michigan, or seeing further than we should be able to on a 25,000 mile circumference ball, and have good reason to say that this refraction causes the city to appear lower than it actually is.



"THE EARTH IS NOT A PERFECT SPHERE! "

If there is over 12 miles of missing curvature here, it must be accounted for elsewhere. Since NO curvature has ever been found, it follows that the earth couldn't possibly be a ball.

" What do you mean when you say flat?"



Not curved.

 "From what source did you get this information?"

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071130/full/news.2007.315.html

"The common model of light refraction shows refraction has nothing to do with the thickness of the medium. Only with the angle where two mediums of different density meet and the density of the meeting mediums. Water is not the atmosphere. If you wish to replicate the atmosphere with water may I suggest you first go in the water not look at the water from the atmosphere. You should make sure the density of the water decreases as you get higher up. Looking at water from the atmosphere through curved glass is in no way a reliable model of the atmosphere."

If you have evidence that water in it's gaseous state would cause the opposite effect, I'd be more than happier to have a look at it. Likewise, if you feel that a flat sided container would for some reason produce the opposite effects, I'd have a look.

Since most people here feel that science experiments are best left to the experts, I'll begin looking for straight sided glass containers to reproduce that experiment. Until then I feel it is safe to stop assuming that it does cause objects to appear higher, at the very least. 

As far as changing the density of water, I feel it isn't practical in any way, and is reasonably irrelevant. Feel free to give us an idea as to how we can factor this in, and give us a reason as to why this is critical.


@nope

Ampersand

Seriously? I figured you had common sense enough to follow an ongoing conversation and remember what you were talking about. Bendy light. What we can demonstrate with practical experimentation does not match what you would expect to see if we lived on a spinning ball, yet perfectly match what we see on a flat plane. 

Wow, the irony is palpable. The point you have avoided three times is about the southern celestial pole so it seems you're the one who can't follow an ongoing conversation. 



Despite pointing in completely opposite directions (according to your flat earth beliefs), people in South America, Australia and Africa all see the same stars when they look "outwards" towards the ice even though they're looking in a completely different direction. The stars around the pole don't travel around the world and you state the earth doesn't move. How can the same object be in completely different places? They can't, therefore the earth is not flat.


You have yet to offer the first one. You saw and can, but so far refuse to, empirically verify the experiments I offered that say the opposite. I know I've explained the whole thing to you multiple times. The fact that you haven't offered one is obvious and you're dodging this immensely. 

I've already refuted your experiments - but please don't try and shift the goalposts.

Saastamoinen, J. "Contributions to the theory of atmospheric refraction." Bulletin Géodésique

Marini, John W., and C. W. Murray Jr. "Correction of laser range tracking data for atmospheric refraction at elevations above 10 degrees."

Mendes, V. B., et al. "Improved mapping functions for atmospheric refraction correction in SLR." Geophysical Research Letters 
Beutler, G., et al. "Atmospheric refraction and other important biases in GPS carrier phase observations." Atmospheric effects on geodetic space measurements, Monograph
Stone, Ronald C. "An accurate method for computing atmospheric refraction." Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Westwater, W. E. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CORRECTION OF RANGE ERRORS DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION BY MICROWAVE RADIOMETRIC TECHNIQUES. No. ITSA-30. INSTITUTES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH BOULDER COLO
Arribas, S., et al. "Differential atmospheric refraction in integral-field spectroscopy: Effects and correction-Atmospheric refraction in IFS." Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series 

You have been offered these examples as evidence multiple times and failed to offer any kind fo rebuttal multiple times. Why are you unable to respond to them?

If the earth is a ball that is 25,000 statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity–every part must be an arc of a circle.From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the diagram above. Spherical trigonometry dictates that a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference would curvate 8 inches per mile varying inversely with the square of the mile, so after six miles there would be an easily detectable and measurable 16 feet, 8 inches of downward curvature.

To determine how much the Earth falls away on the curve you take miles squared X eight inches. This is an inverse relationship so the farther one travels the greater the distance of feet or miles the Earth will fall away.

Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 

Miles squared X 8 inches
one foot = .000189394 miles

Curvature of Earth
1 mile 5.33 ft.  or .12626 mile

10 miles 66.666 ft. or 1.2626 miles

100 miles 6,666.66 ft. or 12.626 miles

So the farther one travels the greater the drop (or rise) in distance.

This amount of curvature has never been found. Case in point.

Plagiarised from Zetetic Astronomy, a 150 year old debuked flat earther book.

Of course the only relevant bit is your claim that "This amount of curvature has never been found" which of course isn't supported by anything and we already know to be incorrect as you have been provided with multiple examples of the earths curvature which you ignore.

Salar de Uyuni (or Salar de Tunupa). It is located in southwest Bolivia, near the crest of the Andes and is at an elevation of 3,656 meters (11,995 ft) above mean sea level. Salar de Uyuni spreads over 10,582 square kilometers (4,086 sq mi), which is roughly 100 times the size of the Bonneville Salt Flats in the United States.

The Salar was formed as a result of transformations between several prehistoric lakes. It is covered by a few meters of salt crust, which has an extraordinary flatness with the average altitude variations within one meter (3 1/4 ft.) over the entire area of the Salar. With the use of modern GPS technology, it can now be proved that the Salar de Uyuni is not perfectly flat. New measurements revealed previously missed features resembling ridges, hills, and valleys only millimeters in height.

The salt flats are 100 miles long by 84 miles wide yet is near perfectly flat when it should have a drop of some 12 miles in length if the Earth was a sphere.

Which it doesn’t, so it cannot be a sphere.

This is the real piece de resistance though. Remember last time we argued when you kept on trying to prove atmospheric refraction isn't real and when you finally turned to sources other than youtubes of random people claiming things without evidence and turned to actual reliable sources, they all turned out to say the opposite of what you thought so you went away in a big sulk after looking ridiculous?

Well guess what, you've done it again!

When asked to provide evidence of water being flat, you have instead provided evidence of earth being curved.

Let's look at the actual experiment in question rather than going by your attempt to offer no actual evidence and just make up a story of what the experiment showed: https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/172/1/31/2081107

In fact as part of their work they specifically had to factor in the earths curvature and calculate against it as it made up the majority of the different in height they found.

Not only that but the experiment uses GPS, a system based around satellites orbiting the earth using momentum and gravity - which in and of itself counters your claims of a flat earth.

So thanks for providing evidence of the earth's curvature. Are you conceding?

Like with experimentation and actual evidence, as I have done? You say you are arguing from evidence, but the evidence is clearly lacking, so far you've totally warped my point into your own strawman, and given us an appeal to authority fallacy. I understand perfectly that refraction, from the right amount and shape curved glass will bend light in different directions depending on the angle and thickness of the glass. You've confused water, in either form, gas or liquid, with glass. If you've another experiment that may better match the conditions of our atmosphere that shows contradictory results, by all means, share with the class, but don't misconstrue my position so it can be more easily refuted.

The only connection your pictures have to your claims is "because I say so" "because I say so" is not evidence or logic.

If you'd like to provide evidence, please do so. All you're doing here is making more empty claims about how you're right, not actually providing any evidence or logic.

Also I have provided several experiments which you have ignored:

Saastamoinen, J. "Contributions to the theory of atmospheric refraction." Bulletin Géodésique

Marini, John W., and C. W. Murray Jr. "Correction of laser range tracking data for atmospheric refraction at elevations above 10 degrees."

Mendes, V. B., et al. "Improved mapping functions for atmospheric refraction correction in SLR." Geophysical Research Letters 
Beutler, G., et al. "Atmospheric refraction and other important biases in GPS carrier phase observations." Atmospheric effects on geodetic space measurements, Monograph
Stone, Ronald C. "An accurate method for computing atmospheric refraction." Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Westwater, W. E. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CORRECTION OF RANGE ERRORS DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION BY MICROWAVE RADIOMETRIC TECHNIQUES. No. ITSA-30. INSTITUTES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH BOULDER COLO
Arribas, S., et al. "Differential atmospheric refraction in integral-field spectroscopy: Effects and correction-Atmospheric refraction in IFS." Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series 

Will you finally respond? I responded to the one actual experiment you referenced, even though you didn't provide a link or source to it.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

You seems to imply that "we don't see" the curvature" that a spherical earth should have.

Every single person has observed the horizon: and objects, most commonly boats moving over the horizon. The horizon (when looking out to sea), looks specifically like a bulge of water obscuring observations of boats behind it; exactly the type of "curvature", we claims we can't see.

Moreover, we see repeatedly see multiple images from a staggeringly diverse set of sources, from NASA to amateur rocketeers. These show small to large amounts of curvature depending on the height of the shot was taken. We've seen images from TV celebrities, spaceship one, spyplanes, and other for the last 70ish years that all clearly show the very curvature you claim we can't see.

So, given these examples; we most assuredly do see this curvature. 

Your position, appears not to be that these multiple repeated and demonstrable observations that show a spherical earth do not exist: it's that you reject the validity of every single one of these measurements.

So, given this, please refrain from claiming "we don't see curvature", or claiming that there is no observations consistent with a spherical earth, as you yourself continually refute this claim by referencing pictures and observations consistent with a spherical earth.

Erfisflat

Globetards be like

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

You've made numerous arguments here in this thread at how the images that show just the curvature we should see on a spherical earth can be explained by other mechanisms.

To argue that no photos show curvature, and then in the same thread to argue that photos show curvature (but don't count) is logically incoherent.

Erfisflat

"Wow, the irony is palpable. The point you have avoided three times is about the southern celestial pole so it seems you're the one who can't follow an ongoing conversation. "

Actually, the conversation that we have had going is about the refraction of light by the atmosphere, but way to drop that in favor of something irrelevant. Southern celestial poles hasn't been mentioned in several posts.



"Despite pointing in completely opposite directions (according to your flat earth beliefs), people in South America, Australia and Africa all see the same stars when they look "outwards" towards the ice even though they're looking in a completely different direction. The stars around the pole don't travel around the world and you state the earth doesn't move. How can the same object be in completely different places? They can't, therefore the earth is not flat."

Great. This is why you are likely to be ignored henceforth. You stating that something is impossible on a flat earth because you can't figure something out is just ignorance piled on top of more ignorance. The people in Australia, South America, and Africa aren't seeing the same stars at the same time. They aren't even close to each other as far as time zones go. When Africa experiences night time (can see stars), Australia will not be able to see stars, obviously, because it is daytime. As the sun moves around the earth, so do the stars, so, once again, your ignorance of how a model works is proof of nothing but that. Your ignorance.

"I've already refuted your experiments - but please don't try and shift the goalposts."

I mean, you can claim that you've refuted something, this isn't the same as actually doing so.

"You have been offered these examples as evidence multiple times and failed to offer any kind fo rebuttal multiple times. Why are you unable to respond to them?"

I told you, as soon as you can explain a few things ABOUT THE ACTUAL EXPERIMENT.

1. Is it practical?
2. Is it scalable?
3. Is it falsifiable?
4. It is repeatable?
5. What does it prove?
6. Is it relevant?
7. How many assumptions?

If you can't even explain what the experiments are about, chances are you haven't even read the references, and I won't do your research for you.

"Plagiarised from Zetetic Astronomy, a 150 year old debuked flat earther book."

Admittedly plaigorized, I usually give credit, but debunked, not so much. How old is the debunked theory of gravitation? 500 years old? What about the debunked (since the invention of telescopic lenses) hypothesis that boats go over a curve? 2,000 years? 

"Of course the only relevant bit is your claim that "This amount of curvature has never been found" which of course isn't supported by anything and we already know to be incorrect as you have been provided with multiple examples of the earths curvature which you ignore."

I've seen nothing at all conclusive. Unverifiable Photoshop images, barrel distortions, conjecture and assumptions heaped on top of other conjecture and assumptions.

"This is the real piece de resistance though. Remember last time we argued when you kept on trying to prove atmospheric refraction isn't real and when you finally turned to sources other than youtubes of random people claiming things without evidence and turned to actual reliable sources, they all turned out to say the opposite of what you thought so you went away in a big sulk after looking ridiculous?"

Maybe you have me confused with... nope, you're just confused. Again. I never held the position that atmospheric refraction wasn't real. I demonstrated why you are arguing from a false assumption, that refraction raises entire skylines backwards over the assumed curvature of the earth.

"Well guess what, you've done it again!

When asked to provide evidence of water being flat, you have instead provided evidence of earth being curved.

Let's look at the actual experiment in question rather than going by your attempt to offer no actual evidence and just make up a story of what the experiment showed: https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/172/1/31/2081107

In fact as part of their work they specifically had to factor in the earths curvature and calculate against it as it made up the majority of the different in height they found."

Please, quote to me where they ignored up to 12 miles of the earth's curvature to then state that the "flats" are 1 meter from perfectly flat. I read it, it's not in there.

"Not only that but the experiment uses GPS, a system based around satellites orbiting the earth using momentum and gravity - which in and of itself counters your claims of a flat earth."

I read ground based GPS that is crosschecked with satellite data. Which could very well be strapped to a drone.

"So thanks for providing evidence of the earth's curvature. Are you conceding?"

"The only connection your pictures have to your claims is "because I say so" "because I say so" is not evidence or logic.

If you'd like to provide evidence, please do so. All you're doing here is making more empty claims about how you're right, not actually providing any evidence or logic.

Also I have provided several experiments which you have ignored:"

Right. The claim has been:"sunsets are IMPOSSIBLE on a flat earth" when that was shown to be a false claim, the experiment goes largely ignored, and I am referred back to "because this guy says so" book. Likewise with ships, the city of Chicago, etc. Etc. Ignorance of how something could be possible in a model is not disproof. Please, explain the experiment in detail. So we can forward this point.

"Will you finally respond? I responded to the one actual experiment you referenced, even though you didn't provide a link or source to it."

As long as you don't continue building strawmen, as you did with the beerglass.

@ampersand

Erfisflat

"You seems to imply that "we don't see" the curvature" that a spherical earth should have."

Not imply, demonstrate. Repeatedly. Mathematically and scientifically. With practical evidence.

"Every single person has observed the horizon: and objects, most commonly boats moving over the horizon. The horizon (when looking out to sea), looks specifically like a bulge of water obscuring observations of boats behind it; exactly the type of "curvature", we claims we can't see."

And every single person that actually investigates the claim will see that the illusion is from refraction, obviously, and demonstrably. By observing the proven fact that atmospheric refraction causes objects to appear lower, we don't have to ignore another proven fact, that a body of water always finds and maintains a flat and level surface.

"Moreover, we see repeatedly see multiple images from a staggeringly diverse set of sources, from NASA..."

Who admittedly fake images of a spherical earth.

"... to amateur rocketeers."

Who use wide angle lenses that misrepresent the horizon with barrel distortion, in most instances.

" These show small to large amounts of curvature depending on the height of the shot was taken. We've seen images from TV celebrities, spaceship one, spyplanes, and other for the last 70ish years that all clearly show the very curvature you claim we can't see."

"So, given these examples; we most assuredly do see this curvature. "

On the tv...

"Your position, appears not to be that these multiple repeated and demonstrable observations that show a spherical earth do not exist: it's that you reject the validity of every single one of these measurements."

I don't simply reject it, I demonstrate how it is faulty.

"So, given this, please refrain from claiming "we don't see curvature", or claiming that there is no observations consistent with a spherical earth, as you yourself continually refute this claim by referencing pictures and observations consistent with a spherical earth."

Where's that?

@Gooberry

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Your reply made it sound like your disagreeing with me: but you basically confirmed everything I said.

The issue is NOT, that we cannot produce images and observations from multiple sources that show the curvature we should observe.

The issue is that you do not accept any of images and observations from multiple sources that show the curvature we should observe.

Given that you repeatedly confirm that your personal position is the latter, stating that no one can provide images or examples of curvature is an untrue misrepresentation: and gives the appearance that you're trying to deliberately mislead in order to make your argument sound stronger.

Erfisflat

"The issue is that you do not accept any of images and observations from multiple sources that show the curvature we should observe."

I do not accept the images because they are proved fakes. This is where your disconnect is, you refuse to believe that you have been duped with Photoshop. Everything I claim is objectively verifiable, including that images of a spherical earth are faked. You can believe in unverifiable imagery if you like. I only provide imagery to demonstrate points that can be done by literally anyone. Provide one of these images, I'll show you how the image is faked, not just write it off as faked.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

What visual artifacts do you look for in an image to determine whether it's fake or not?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

What visual artifacts do you look for in an image to determine whether it's fake or not?

Well, there's the fluctuating horizon, as we see in the Red bull stratosphere high jump, where the horizon goes from flat at 0:04 to convex to concave. This is a wide angle lens and causes great barrel distortion. You'll see this distortion associated with "gopro" cameras and are also known as fisheye lenses.



http://www.epaperpress.com/ptlens/example.html

Of course, most lenses have some degree of barrel distortion, since they involve curved glass.

Then, there's the literal admission that ball earth images are produced in photoshop.

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/10/06/nasas-blue-marble-earth-is-a-fake/

I implore you, find one real image of earth as a ball. Let me show you. Better yet, a video of earth spinning at 1k mph.

@Gooberry

Gooberry

@erfisflat so given a non moving image, of unknown origin, how would you determine if was fake? Or the horizon curvature was a
result of barrel distortion?

Does this mean if I produce an image of the horizon that doesn't fluctuate and isn't from NASA, it isn't "fake".

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@erfisflat so given a non moving image, of unknown origin, how would you determine if was fake? Or the horizon curvature was a
result of barrel distortion?

Does this mean if I produce an image of the horizon that doesn't fluctuate and isn't from NASA, it isn't "fake".

There are other ways of telling, sure. Do you not agree that, since it is proved that these curved images of the horizon are most easily faked, and that NASA admits to faking images of a ball earth, this gives us reason to be skeptical any mainstream imagery that we can't objectively verify, especially since we can verify that water always seeks and maintains a flat and level surface?
@Gooberry

Erfisflat

I did also say that "most lenses have this barrel distortion, due to the curvature in the lens.
@Gooberry

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

All lenses have either barrel or pincushion distortion (to a degree). Given that humans have taken a trillion pictures that show straight lines, the idea that a regular camera lens will make a straight line curved or that the curved horizon in every image ever taken is not a coherent arguments.

I will absolutely agree that there are a lot of images taken with GoPro wide angle lenses they are hardy and
relagively cheap. That's fairly obvious. It's also something that could quite reasonably be expected on a spherical earth too, right? 

How is this evidence of fakery, rather than just evidence that people often use a wide angled lens? The "fake" part here seems to be assumed, rather than "objectively verified", especially given what we know of normal lenses.

Finally, NASA admitting faking an image is a subjective interpretation of what they seemed to actually say: which is that it is an assembled composite set of satellites images.

So given the "evidence" you've presented, there is reason to check images carefully to make sure they don't have obvious distortion, and are taken with every day cameras, but there doesn't seem to be much reason to be skeptical of the images.

And thus far, you've presented one obviously wrong claim, one assumption that you haven't supported, and one subjective opinion:

You said it was objectively verifiable that they are fake, and what you just said falls far short of that, so what other information or methods can you explain to me that would allow me to analyze images to objectively verify if they are fake?

Erfisflat

"All lenses have either barrel or pincushion distortion (to a degree). Given that humans have taken a trillion pictures that show straight lines, the idea that a regular camera lens will make a straight line curved or that the curved horizon in every image ever taken is not a coherent arguments."

This is something that I have demonstrated even here in this debate. Depending on where the straight line is in the image, straight lines can easily be curved. This is not just me saying so, it's fact.

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

"I will absolutely agree that there are a lot of images taken with GoPro wide angle lenses they are hardy and
relagively cheap. That's fairly obvious. It's also something that could quite reasonably be expected on a spherical earth too, right? "

If the horizon ever goes flat, it proves the original image of the horizon is flat. You can make a flat line curve, but you can't make a curved line flat with barrel distortion. 

"How is this evidence of fakery, rather than just evidence that people often use a wide angled lens? The "fake" part here seems to be assumed, rather than "objectively verified", especially given what we know of normal lenses."

Given that we can see the distortion, and other tell-tale signs, and we can objectively verify the physics of water, it no longer becomes an unreasonable assumption.

"Finally, NASA admitting faking an image is a subjective interpretation of what they seemed to actually say: which is that it is an assembled composite set of satellites images."

You can call it what you like. I see it as an image created in Photoshop. Hell, this is a composite image:

Where someone took just two images and combined them. A person can take high altitude photos of a flat earth and wrap them around a ball. It's also completely unverifiable, because we have never, nor ever will be able to see earth as a ball.

"So given the "evidence" you've presented, there is reason to check images carefully to make sure they don't have obvious distortion, and are taken with every day cameras, but there doesn't seem to be much reason to be skeptical of the images."

Since we empirically see a flat and eye level horizon, can empirically measure a body of water and find it flat, we have reason to be skeptical, especially when the source is governmental or institutional, and go against anything we can verify objectively. 

"And thus far, you've presented one obviously wrong claim, one assumption that you haven't supported, and one subjective opinion:"

"You said it was objectively verifiable that they are fake, and what you just said falls far short of that,"

This is your opinion, coming from cognitive dissonance.

"so what other information or methods can you explain to me that would allow me to analyze images to objectively verify if they are fake?"

Present an image, since this seems to be the only scientific "evidence" that you'll accept as proof. The CGI suspense is killing me.

@Gooberry

Erfisflat

@Gooberry

There are supposedly, what, tens of thousands of varying sizes of ir reflective pieces of space junk and satellites orbiting the earth? Why aren't any of them in any of the imagery? ISS footage?

https://www.popsci.com/now-you-can-see-all-space-junk-floating-around-earth-real-time

Erfisflat

It's all cartoons.

Ampersand

@Gooberry

You're not making any new arguments. He already knows these arguments are fallacious - he just repeats the same old stuff regardless.

For instance the obvious response to his photoshop argument is "composite images are not inherently good or bad. They can represent fantasy such as a shark-cat or they can give us a better view of reality like the composite photos of Google Street view. As per NASA's explanation, this fits in the latter category so your argument where you just assume composite automatically = bad and fake is fallacious".

His next response is usually along the lines of "Videos of King Kong are fake, are you enough to believe every picture you see?". Again, easy to point out his fallacious reasoning (argument from incredulity) and after that he typically just goes on to random empty and baseless claims.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Woah there, let's put on the handbrake a second...

You said a few posts that all photos of earth can be objectively verified as faked.

You just justified your claim that they are fake by saying other non-photographic evidence shows they can't be real.

That seems to be a completely different argument than you were trying to make a few posts ago.

You can either "objectively verify" that these photos are all fake or you cant. 

If your reasoning for discounting them as valid is not that you see genuine evidence of forgery or fakery in enough photographs to be convinced they're all fake, but that you have other evidence that you feel is strong enough to assume all photos must be fake, then why on earth are you making the claim that you can objectively verify them all, and why are you wasting everyone's time by demanding pictures when it appears you're argument strongly implies your going to reject them anyway?  

If you can objectively verify them separately, why bother throwing in all the extra stuff?

Can you please clarify what your argument actually is before I waste any more of my time?

Erfisflat

"You said a few posts that all photos of earth can be objectively verified as faked."

Nope. Never said that.

"You just justified your claim that they are fake by saying other non-photographic evidence shows they can't be real."

Such as... a body of water is found to be flat in all measurable circumstance. It's irrefutable. 

"That seems to be a completely different argument than you were trying to make a few posts ago."

"You can either "objectively verify" that these photos are all fake or you cant. "

You can, in one way or another.

"If your reasoning for discounting them as valid is not that you see genuine evidence of forgery or fakery in enough photographs to be convinced they're all fake, but that you have other evidence that you feel is strong enough to assume all photos must be fake, then why on earth are you making the claim that you can objectively verify them all, and why are you wasting everyone's time by demanding pictures when it appears you're argument strongly implies your going to reject them anyway?"

I'm wasting YOUR time now with "photographic" evidence? Have you posted even 1?

"If you can objectively verify them separately, why bother throwing in all the extra stuff?"

It's just common sense "extra stuff", to make you think.

"Can you please clarify what your argument actually is before I waste any more of my time?"

Nobody is making you stay here, and honestly, if you feel that an unverifiable image on a computer is infallible scientific evidence in any way, maybe the flat earth isn't for you and you shouldn't "waste any more of YOUR time".

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

"i do not accept the images because they are proved fakes. This is where your disconnect is, you refuse to believe that you have been duped with Photoshop. Everything I claim is objectively verifiable"

Why just earth would you say something you didn't say literally two posts ago?


So youre now saying you can't objectively demonstrate images are fake?

Erfisflat

"i do not accept the images because they are proved fakes. This is where your disconnect is, you refuse to believe that you have been duped with Photoshop. Everything I claim is objectively verifiable"

Why just earth would you say something you didn't say literally two posts ago?

That does not translate to: " all photos of earth can be objectively verified as faked." Which is what you claimed I said.

Since you're going to beat around the bush on this one, I'll start. 

Blue marble 2.0


On every iPhone in 2007 when they first came out. The factory background. Most people wouldn't think twice about it. A glance," so, that's where we live? Ok."



Admittedly fake. It's creator claims:

"The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17. "

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

In 2012, which means we can already cross most of them off the list.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat ;

You've made really expansive and bold claims, and we're pretty vehemently at how strongly you can back them up.

I pointed out that it's not that images aren't provided, it's that you don't accept those images.

You replied by saying all the images provided are fake, and none are real.

You then went on to say you can objectively verify everything you claim.

So, you're basically back-peddling.

Given that you refuse to give a straight answer on whether you can tell whether images are faked, I will presume that you cant tell whether images are faked.

I asked you to explain what your "objective" evidence that all images of the earth are faked.

I pointed out that your claim that every photo NASA or any other space agency put out is faked, based upon NASA explaining that they made a composite image from smaller satellite images is, to put it mildy, "a bit of a stretch.

So, you can either not answer the question and resort to incoherent mockery and straw men, or you can answer the question:

Why do you think explaining that they created a bigger picture from smaller ones an admission that they artificially made the earth look like something it is not? This claim is an assumption, and not by any means an objective validation of anything.

Secondly, I also asked how you made the leap from "people use wide angle lenses in high altitude pictures" to "everyone is using wide angle lenses to fake images". I didn't see you answer that, certainly not "objectively".

So given that; you also appear to be making the claim that all images of the horizon at height suffer from barrel distortion and so can't be trusted. Your link doesn't say this: it says that images showing curvature below 35,000 are almost all wide angle lens distortion (so is talking about fish eye lenses).

You have not yet given any reasons for how a regular non wide angle lens that can take straight lines with minimal curvature (like this, for example: http://www.capalino.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/NYC599100186_city.jpg)could produce the types of curvature we see in pictures that are not fish eye lenses. This seems to be yet another leap unsupported by anything objective.

Finally, I don't know what information your using to study fish eye lenses, but it's really, really wrong.

1.) Fish eye lenses bend straight lines that dont pass through the central region of the camera. If there is a straight line that isn't passing through the central region: that line cannot be straight. This means straight lines not passing through the central region must be curved lines that were straightened.

2.) Fish eye lenses can make curved lines straight:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ulUYRbeRxpY (check at around 2:35-2:45 - it shows a curved line turning straight)

So far, you've made a dubious assumption, two objectively false claims, and your argument has shifted from

"Images haven't been provided." To

"Images provided are all provably faked, and I have objective evidence." To 

"I assume all images that have been provided are faked, because I have better data", to 

"I assume all images that have been provided are faked, but I can't prove it, and don't have objective data, and because I think have better days".

So far you've literally backpeddled on almost every thing you've said; it's difficult to have a conversation because your argument literally changes from one post to the next.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Let's try this another way: you've said all the images you've seen are faked. Presumably given your signature, you've come to that conclusion via empirical and scientific methods, which means I'm sure you fully understand how to falsify your position:

So, if I presented an image of curvature, what qualities or properties would it have to have (or not have) for you to accept this image as a real genuine image (and not faked) of the earths curved horizon?

Erfisflat

"You've made really expansive and bold claims, and we're pretty vehemently at how strongly you can back them up."

This sentence is incomplete. You're vehemently what at how strongly...

"I pointed out that it's not that images aren't provided, it's that you don't accept those images."

For good reasons that anyone can verify.

"You replied by saying all the images provided are fake, and none are real."

Yes.

"You then went on to say you can objectively verify everything you claim."

And so far, this has been true.

"So, you're basically back-peddling."

Ok, now you're just making baseless claims. How am I back peddling? So far, you're bent on the idea that images on a computer should be taken as scientific evidence for something without providing even the first one despite several attempts of me asking that you provide one. So to me, it looks like you're backpedaling.

"Given that you refuse to give a straight answer on whether you can tell whether images are faked, I will presume that you cant tell whether images are faked."

I'm wondering how you're going to back up this claim because I've just, IN THE LAST POST, proved that most of them are just cartoons created in Photoshop. 

"I asked you to explain what your "objective" evidence that all images of the earth are faked."

The objective evidence is different for some than it is others. The fact that you can't produce one is telling.

"I pointed out that your claim that every photo NASA or any other space agency put out is faked, based upon NASA explaining that they made a composite image from smaller satellite images is, to put it mildy, "a bit of a stretch."

It's like you didn't even read the last few posts. Turning a blind eye?

"So, you can either not answer the question and resort to incoherent mockery and straw men, or you can answer the question:"

"Why do you think explaining that they created a bigger picture from smaller ones an admission that they artificially made the earth look like something it is not? This claim is an assumption, and not by any means an objective validation of anything."

Once again, as I said, anyone can take high altitude photos of a flat plane and wrap them around a ball. This is by their own admission. This means that there are a lot of fake images of the ball earth, which means that any image of a ball earth should be scrutinized, and that information is both unverifiable and inconclusive at best.

"Secondly, I also asked how you made the leap from "people use wide angle lenses in high altitude pictures" to "everyone is using wide angle lenses to fake images". I didn't see you answer that, certainly not "objectively"."

I provided imagery from NASA themselves of a severely warped horizon, showed the true, flat shape of it, and am still waiting on you to provide ANYTHING.

"So given that; you also appear to be making the claim that all images of the horizon at height suffer from barrel distortion and so can't be trusted. Your link doesn't say this: it says that images showing curvature below 35,000 are almost all wide angle lens distortion (so is talking about fish eye lenses)."

So, provide one above that that is curved, so we can objectively verify how it has been faked. All amateur balloon footage shows a flat and eye level horizon, if the lens is not warping it into a curve.

110,000 feet.

"You have not yet given any reasons for how a regular non wide angle lens that can take straight lines with minimal curvature (like this, for example: http://www.capalino.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/NYC599100186_city.jpg)could produce the types of curvature we see in pictures that are not fish eye lenses. This seems to be yet another leap unsupported by anything objective."

You see a curve there? You do realize this is only 2,000 feet altitude, at best, right? If you can make out a curve, it is most assuredly a curve produced by the lens. I put a straight edge on it. No curve there. I think all those images are affecting your eyesight. MKULtra is very powerful.

"Finally, I don't know what information your using to study fish eye lenses, but it's really, really wrong."

1.) "Fish eye lenses bend straight lines that dont pass through the central region of the camera. If there is a straight line that isn't passing through the central region: that line cannot be straight. This means straight lines not passing through the central region must be curved lines that were straightened."

How do you know the central regions weren't adjusted or cropped? You are aware that this bending effect is due to curves in the glass, and that glass can be manufactured to have certain degrees of bend in different ways, right?

"2.) Fish eye lenses can make curved lines straight:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ulUYRbeRxpY (check at around 2:35-2:45 - it shows a curved line turning straight)"

And you have the nerve to say I'M dubious. The demonstration in the video has not made a curved line straight with a lens. He has turned a cylinder on it's side, so that it becomes flat, before the lens effected it. Similar to turning a wheel on it's side to make it flat. This is impossible with a sphere, because from any angle, the curve will always be there. Make a straight line with the lens on a ball, then you have disproved my claim. Seriously, if you're going to act like a know it all, at least get your facts straight. Pun intended. It's simple geometry, really.

"So far, you've made a dubious assumption, two objectively false claims, and your argument has shifted from"

And you've misinterpreted and or constructed many a strawmen from my points, dodging most of them.

"Images haven't been provided."

You haven't given one yet.

"To

"Images provided are all provably faked, and I have objective evidence."

Still stands.

"To 

"I assume all images that have been provided are faked, because I have better data",

I've made that assumption based on empirically verified evidence.

" to 

"I assume all images that have been provided are faked, but I can't prove it, and don't have objective data, and because I think have better days"."

Never said that. Nice strawman though, I'd say that too, if I were intending to be deceptive.

"So far you've literally backpeddled on almost every thing you've said; it's difficult to have a conversation because your argument literally changes from one post to the next."

Or you don't have any competent faculty of thinking, and misinterpret everything I say.

@Gooberry

Nope

"The practical experiment(s) I provided a couple of posts ago. The act of filling a clear container with water and placing an object on the other side of it."
I meant evidence that contradicts my model.

"Reproducing the atmosphere and it's refractive properties proves in every way the the object (skyline, sun, etc.) being refracted, unless inverted, appears lower than it's actual position, not higher." 
You need evidence to support that claim.

"and have good reason to say that this refraction causes the city to appear lower than it actually is."
What good reason? We have no reason to believe refraction causes the city to appear lower.

"If you have evidence that water in it's gaseous state would cause the opposite effect, I'd be more than happier to have a look at it. Likewise, if you feel that a flat sided container would for some reason produce the opposite effects, I'd have a look. 

Since most people here feel that science experiments are best left to the experts, I'll begin looking for straight sided glass containers to reproduce that experiment. Until then I feel it is safe to stop assuming that it does cause objects to appear higher, at the very least. 

As far as changing the density of water, I feel it isn't practical in any way, and is reasonably irrelevant. Feel free to give us an idea as to how we can factor this in, and give us a reason as to why this is critical."
How does water int it's gaseous state relate? To mimic the atmosphere you cannot be looking through a medium. You need to be in the medium as we are not looking from one medium in to another. Light in my model bends away or tword the normal so the angle of the meeting of the two mediums is what matters.
When you are seeing the Chicago over the lake it is important to remember that the air over the water is cold as water cools and heats slower and less then air. For this reason the water remains cooler then the hot air around it and cools down the air directly over the water. Now you have a thin layer of cold air surrounded by warm air. It is no secret that hot air is less dense so once you are in the water you should have hotter water or less dense water over cold water or dense water. The atmosphere also gets less dense the higher you go as denser gasses fall closer to earth. If you truly wish to mimic thies situations these are things you must consider

Erfisflat

"I meant evidence that contradicts my model."

Me too. It is.

"You need evidence to support that claim."

You literally just quoted me doing just that. 

"What good reason? We have no reason to believe refraction causes the city to appear lower."

The empirical and practical experiments put forth so far.

... several points ignored later...
"How does water int it's gaseous state relate? "

This is what we are referring to by atmospheric refraction. Light being bent from water, in its gaseous state.

"To mimic the atmosphere you cannot be looking through a medium. You need to be in the medium as we are not looking from one medium in to another. Light in my model bends away or tword the normal so the angle of the meeting of the two mediums is what matters."

Theoretically, yes, and no. Technically we are in the same medium, but since the water is accumulated over a certain distance, and is very thin in the area directly around you, the experiment proves to be, logically a valid representation, or as close to a simulation as we can get at the moment. Again, at any time, if you have a valid experiment that better represents the conditions of the atmosphere, I'm willing to perform it, especially if it can reproduce the effects needed with the ball earth model.

"When you are seeing the Chicago over the lake it is important to remember that the air over the water is cold as water cools and heats slower and less then air. For this reason the water remains cooler then the hot air around it and cools down the air directly over the water. Now you have a thin layer of cold air surrounded by warm air. It is no secret that hot air is less dense so once you are in the water you should have hotter water or less dense water over cold water or dense water. "

Nonsense. Please explain how we can achieve this unmixing of different temperatures of water and how it could possibly have any effect on the results.

"The atmosphere also gets less dense the higher you go as denser gasses fall closer to earth. If you truly wish to mimic thies situations these are things you must consider"

I have, and have deduced, with logic, that it is irrelevant. If you have verifiable evidence that contradicts this, present it.

@Nope

Erfisflat

"Let's try this another way: you've said all the images you've seen are faked. Presumably given your signature, you've come to that conclusion via empirical and scientific methods, which means I'm sure you fully understand how to falsify your position:"

Actually if you read my sig, unverifiable imagery should not serve as proof for anything, especially when considering the abilities of current technology. 

"So, if I presented an image of curvature, what qualities or properties would it have to have (or not have) for you to accept this image as a real genuine image (and not faked) of the earths curved horizon?"

It's really different for each one. Even the slightest bit of scrutiny and investigation shows this. Since you've yet to produce the first curved horizon, it would be speculating.

@Goober

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Let's deal with one incorrect statement at a time.

In the video, It's a fan. It's circular. It's clearly an and objectively not a cylinder. Even worse, you cannot produce straight lines on the edges of a fish eye lens; it's not possible, and the basis of your other argument: that fish eye lenses make straight lines curved at the edges. You can't just simply state that they don't when it suits your purposes.

Your claims about fish eye lenses are incoherent, and frankly sound made up. They bend straight lines, but don't bend curved ones, except when they don't bend straight lines!

Erfisflat

I've provided more curved horizons than my opponent, and have shown how they are faked. I've also shown very, very flat horizons that could not possibly be faked, all ignored.

Erfisflat

Let's deal with one incorrect statement at a time.

In the video, It's a fan. It's circular. It's clearly an and objectively not a cylinder. Even worse, you cannot produce straight lines on the edges of a fish eye lens; it's not possible, and the basis of your other argument: that fish eye lenses make straight lines curved at the edges. You can't just simply state that they don't when it suits your purposes.

Your claims about fish eye lenses are incoherent, and frankly sound made up. They bend straight lines, but don't bend curved ones, except when they don't bend straight lines!

After some consideration, and further investigation, I stand corrected that the lens is able to straighten out a very slight curve, (the camera was most definitely capturing the fan at a side angle, eliminating the majority of the curve) if it is at the edge of the screen. So, given these rare circumstances and the numerous other points you've ignored, what is the point? Are we finally going to get to examine an image? Also, do you agree that the curve of the fan, under no circumstance, can bend the opposite direction, creating an upward curve, and this can only be created with a flat line?

Nope

Erfisflat
"Me too. It is."
Ignoring the fact that the water experiments are not relevant the normal  was pointing down on your first picture with the straw and glass and you viewed the second picture from above the normal in the fallowing picture. The match what my model predicts and there for accomplish nothing. View the second image blow the normal with a glass that does not slant and if it does appear higher my model will be shown to be false.

"You literally just quoted me doing just that."
I am looking for evidence that ether contradicts my model or mimics the atmosphere and all its property. The atmosphere does not have a change in mediums from side to side but rather up and down. The atmosphere is 96% not water vapor and water vapor is not liquid water. Their is no glass barrier between mediums in the atmosphere. The atmosphere curves. The atmosphere has varing temperatures and winds. While all these factors may not matter you must first prove the do not matter.

"The empirical and practical experiments put forth so far."
You have yet to put fourth practical and empirical experiments.

"This is what we are referring to by atmospheric refraction. Light being bent from water, in its gaseous state."
The atmosphere is only around 4% water vapor. Don't ignore the other 96%.

"Theoretically, yes, and no. Technically we are in the same medium, but since the water is accumulated over a certain distance, and is very thin in the area directly around you, the experiment proves to be, logically a valid representation, or as close to a simulation as we can get at the moment. Again, at any time, if you have a valid experiment that better represents the conditions of the atmosphere, I'm willing to perform it, especially if it can reproduce the effects needed with the ball earth model."
Ignoring the fact water is not the atmosphere you must consider light bends when inturing and exiting the medium of water. Whit light in the atmosphere the light does not inter a new medium in to the side of the medium like the water but rather from up in down. That is where the density change lies not front to back. The change in the medium is not as drastic ether.

"Nonsense. Please explain how we can achieve this unmixing of different temperatures of water and how it could possibly have any effect on the results."
The water is the same temperature. It is colder then the air because it takes more energy to heat water then air. The water cools the air around it. This means the layer of air above the water is cool but that normal air is hotter. This means their is a sheet of cold air over the lake with hotter air above and around the lake. This has been confirmed and you could confirm it if you wan't. Hotter air is less dense then cold air. So when light inters a medium with a different desty it refracts. This is where the refraction happens.

"I have, and have deduced, with logic, that it is irrelevant. If you have verifiable evidence that contradicts this, present it."
How did you come to this conclusion? Less dense air is a new medium. My model shows if light inters a medium with a different density it will refract. We know that the change in medium is what causes refraction not going through a single medium as we can make the mediums we preform experiments on as long as we like and are results don't change. This means that you water experiment is no longer valid. Of course it did not contradict my model to begin with as you used slanted grass and viewed it from above the normal. You will also notice when you experiment with lenses made with the same materials but with different density that light will bend differently. If the only change comes from denser air blow less dense air then are experiments should reflect that. You have offerd no experiments to show that the density of the air should be ignored.

A full moon still contradicts your model.