Earth is a ball

Erfisflat

"No, because It's an illusion, not an actual southern celestial pole."

But how do you know for certain the south celestial pole is not an illusion, if it exists at all?

"Do I need to explain what a celestial pole is?"

Certainly not, just this statement:
"On a flat earth, the southern sky would be blocked by the plane of the earth, "

"NASA makes that claim as a testimony. "

Mmm. Sounds very religious and dogmatic. Why should I believe anything this government institution has to say?

"NASA makes that claim as a testimony. They aren't the originators of the heliocentric solar system or the spherical earth models. The scientific evidence for a spherical earth far predates NASA. Why would they reproduce it?"

I could think of a few good reasons. Maybe it's easier keeping us confined to a hypothetical ball than to let us run loose on an infinite plane? It is certainly more profitable  ($20,000,000,000,000 yearly). If you got high enough to see that the earth wasn't a sphere, would you tell anyone? 

"Also, I don't go to NASA with all, or really any of my scientific inquiries. Claiming that NASA lies and that they photoshopped their images is barking up the wrong tree. "

These are the main proponents of the ball earth theory. You don't think evidence of faking pictures of a ball earth is significant at all?

"You need to find the flaws in the original science which originally produced the models that every one nowadays takes for granted since it has withstood hundreds of years of scrutiny. "

This is why I am here. I've reexamined any and all evidence for a ball earth and i have found that everything so far, is misunderstandings and pseudoscience. If you disagree, I'll be glad to discuss any of the "original science" with you.

"And no, simply saying they are wrong or pseudoscience does not count as scrutiny."

I agree. This is why I not only make the claims, I demonstrate the claims.

" Neither does proposing alternate explanations via youtube for what we observe. That is not scientific scrutiny either."

Neither does dismissing evidence that contradicts a model either, but most here do.

"This thread is 15 pages of people showing you the evidence of a spherical earth,"

None conclusive,  and all positively and thoroughly refuted.

" which you have not shown to be incorrect. "

Example. Be specific.

"You simply keep restating that you don't buy it. I understand that this thread is organized for us to persuade you, but you keep stating there is empirical evidence of a flat earth without providing it."

Have you not been to a large body of water? What shape is the surface of that water? This is empirical objective evidence. That is so that ANYONE CAN TEST IT AND VERIFY IT. You are supporting a claim that has no evidence, that the body of water that i clearly can see is flat, is curved. This means it is not scientifically valid, and quite frankly, impossible and asanine. 

@Edril

I'm not taking other arguments from elsewhere tonight, out of time, sorry. 

Nope

Erfisflat When you say noe are you referring to the Norwegian word for something?

Nope

Nope said:

Erfisflat When you say noe are you referring to the Norwegian word for something?

WilliamSchulz

"Have you not been to a large body of water? What shape is the surface of that water? This is empirical objective evidence. That is so that ANYONE CAN TEST IT AND VERIFY IT. You are supporting a claim that has no evidence, that the body of water that i clearly can see is flat, is curved. This means it is not scientifically valid, and quite frankly, impossible and asanine. " @Erfisflat ;

I understand that you haven't read my argument yet so I'll keep this short. Our range of vision is relatively small, even if we can see 30 miles on a clear day. Empirically, sure, we can't see curvature, unless we are in space. Our range, even from a plane, can not see actual curvature in the Earth because that is the nature of physics here. Gravity keeps things in place, no matter how tilted they are, meaning that as a Pennsylvanian, I could be 35 degrees tilted right now, but the force of gravity keeps me landed. Therefore, empirical evidence can't be taken into account in all cases, some sure, but this instance no. Why? Because if our perception could see curvature, then it would be empirical evidence. However, our range of view is too small to make a coherent test from ground level. How about space? I could see curvature from there!

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

Btw, look up the difference between quoting and paraphrasing before you accuse people of misquoting you.

Nope

Erfisflat

"I understand that you haven't read my argument yet so I'll keep this short. Our range of vision is relatively small, even if we can see 30 miles on a clear day."

Yes, I'm aware of the atmosphere impairing our line of sight. But on a clear day, if we saw something mathematically impossible on a spheroid that is 25,000 miles in circumference, this is also empirical evidence against that model, correct?

"Empirically, sure, we can't see curvature, unless we are in space."

"Space" is an assumption. You nor I have been to space to see it as a ball, so we can't really use this as evidence as it is not objective or empirical.

"Our range, even from a plane, can not see actual curvature in the Earth because that is the nature of physics here."

So, the nature of physics is to make the curvature disappear?

"Gravity keeps things in place, no matter how tilted they are, meaning that as a Pennsylvanian, I could be 35 degrees tilted right now, but the force of gravity keeps me landed."

That's a nice story, but it can't really be proved to represent reality. 

"Therefore, empirical evidence can't be taken into account in all cases, some sure, but this instance no. Why? Because if our perception could see curvature, then it would be empirical evidence. However, our range of view is too small to make a coherent test from ground level."

False. Here's one.



"How about space? I could see curvature from there!"

You don't know that, you can't go for a good reason.

@WilliamSchulz

Nope

Erfisflat said: "Yes, I'm aware of the atmosphere impairing our line of sight. But on a clear day, if we saw something mathematically impossible on a spheroid that is 25,000 miles in circumference, this is also empirical evidence against that model, correct?"
If we were in a vacuum and we new that the mass of this spheroid was not so massive it really bends light then yea I guess..

Erfisflat

"Anyway, I am a spinning ball believer, "

Im sorry to hear that. How much have you researched this belief system? Would you be open to any and all criticism against it?

" in that the world is tilted on an axis. I will use this space to explain the nature of seasons on a round earth in comparison with a flat earth. On a round Earth, sunlight hits the Earth in different places."

Exactly half the "globe" at a time, yes, I know the claim.

" It is hotter near the equator because it gets more sunlight than the North or South Hemisphere. Because the sunlight has a more concentrated spot to hit on an imaginary line rather than the North Pole, it follows that it is hotter in Africa than America."




"Okay, so now that we have an image to work with, this explains how seasons work. When sunlight hits the America for an extended period of time, it warms up, but this occurs in intervals, more or less, depending on whether it is winter or spring. The rotation degree of the axis determines the length of the day or how much sunlight can hit the Northern Hemisphere compared to the South. In Australia, it is summer when North America is in winter is because the sunlight hits different areas more at different times. In a flat earth model, which I suppose looks something like this,


there is no real way to determine the seasons. If the sun was orbiting 360 every day, it would not just spend more time in the Pacific Ocean over December, the sun has to stay in one particular spot, the center of the solar system."

Ok, this is our disconnect. In the flat earth model, the earth is geocentric. The heliocentric model is entirely fictional and should not be assumed. 

"It is the movement of the Earth which causes different areas of sunlight to be hit, not the erratic movement of the sun at different times. I also have seen this image commonly explained to determine seasons, "



"However, this again shows the erratic nature of the sun. The sun can't follow Mar / Sept and then become magically circular in the month of June alone. This doesn't explain also how it is summer in Australia when it is winter in North America. In all three images, Australia is away from the sun and deprived of light, whereas North America always seems to be covered one way or another."

Again, the disconnect is that the sun is small, locally lighting the flat earth in a tight circuit around the north pole (the magnetic center of the flat earth) gradually expanding this circuit until it is over the southern hemisphere, on a wider circuit around the north pole. The evidence that proves my model over yours is the sun analemma. If you were to go outside and take a picture of the sun for a year, if you lived on a fairly symmetrical spheroid, the sun would make a symmetrical figure 8. In reality, because the sun is on a wider circuit and takes a bit longer to get to the same spot in the sky, it makes this.


Edit: Coincidentally, they put this proof against their model on every globe on the plane.

"Therefore, by nature of the seasons, the Earth has to be a Globe, not a flat surface. If you think I'm leaving the tilt out of the equator, here it is."

Therefore, by nature of the seasons and the sun analemma, the earth has to be flat, not a spinning, wobbling, orbiting globe.


"Also, curvature has to be taken out of the factor here, there is a reason why you can't see curvature unless you are in space."

Same argument I've adressed. You can't ignore evidence.

" I'm going to ask you to imagine a globe, now imagine a plane outside of the globe flying across the globe. Our perception has to be that of a rectangle, but flying over the globe, the rectangle moves with our perception, so as we move across the globe, it moves downward. Image the rectangle at 45 degrees when we start, as we move across, it goes down as we travel across in order to see everything coming up in front of us, like an arc. Although a flat earth pattern might seem to make sense, think of it from a globe perspective. A flight path moves up and down the globe toward the poles because it saves time rather than flying straight across, which would increase time, which matches that of a globe model. Here is an image to help reinforce this. 

Here is another one, this time on a flat earth that expanded as a globe, can be shown to move toward the poles.

What I want to focus on is the top one, where as our rectangular plane of view moves, it changes angles with the angle change in the globe, this matching my statements. "

The lines on the cartoon ball in the upper image match pretty well with the azimuthal equidistant map, but I'm not a cartographer, so I can't assume either are valid representations of reality.

"With that, I'll pass on the argument, I am looking forward to hearing your side."

Back to you.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat said: "Yes, I'm aware of the atmosphere impairing our line of sight. But on a clear day, if we saw something mathematically impossible on a spheroid that is 25,000 miles in circumference, this is also empirical evidence against that model, correct?"
If we were in a vacuum and we new that the mass of this spheroid was not so massive it really bends light then yea I guess..

It seems I may have misunderstood yet another of your posts. Are we in a vacuum? What does this have to do with anything?

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

Btw, look up the difference between quoting and paraphrasing before you accuse people of misquoting you.

I know the difference between them. If I paraphrase something you say, I'm basically rephrasing what you said for clarity, not misconstruing your position completely. This is just dishonest.

WilliamSchulz

@Erfisflat

"Yes, I'm aware of the atmosphere impairing our line of sight. But on a clear day, if we saw something mathematically impossible on a spheroid that is 25,000 miles in circumference, this is also empirical evidence against that model, correct?"

Perhaps, but I think you are confusing terms here.25,000 represents a circle's circumference and not that of a globe or a sphere. The distance around the equator is much different than 25,000 miles, so that should be used rather than a circle's circumference around the north pole. This is because a circle is 2 dimensional whereas a sphere is 3-D. Therefore, in order to accept your terms, I need units that match the same page as those of a sphere.

"Space" is an assumption. You nor I have been to space to see it as a ball, so we can't really use this as evidence as it is not objective or empirical."

Sure, but NASA has. There are conclusive photos and live videos from the ISS to prove this.

Here:  Skip to 53 seconds because NASA has also been taking pictures of the universe in the video. 

Looks like a ball to me.

"So, the nature of physics is to make the curvature disappear?"

Not through human eyes. Remember that we can only see maximum up to 30 miles. We see objects through a rectangle of perception that shifts up and down wherever we go that won't change via help of a telescope. 

"That's a nice story, but it can't really be proved to represent reality. "

Are you trying to say that gravity is non-existent? If so, we need to discuss that first . If not, it is perfectly reality, on a tilt, we live on different angles, even if they are not visible at first.

"False. Here's one."

Saw the video, here are 2 mistakes. First and most importantly, they were using their mathematical formulas for a circle, not a sphere or a globe. They were trying to show objects over the center of the north pole by going over the top of the curve, which is inaccurate considered how the Earth's tilt naturally adds a diagonal edge, as shown in the flight patterns. Therefore, the Pythagorean Theorem can not be used, because there must be curvature in the triangle, making a right angle impossible. Second, they only went from 12 miles. That is nowhere near my 30 miles as a brief precursor. To persuade me, use a formula geared to that of my mathematical terms, which are 3-D, not a 2-D counterpart.

"You don't know that, you can't go for a good reason."

Luckily, NASA and the world can, especially during the space race of the 1960's.

I'll respond to the longer one later, it is 11:00 here and I need to rest for finals coming up.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

Btw, look up the difference between quoting and paraphrasing before you accuse people of misquoting you.

I know the difference between them. If I paraphrase something you say, I'm basically rephrasing what you said for clarity, not misconstruing your position completely. This is just dishonest.

Is this finally going to be the time you back up your accusations or is this just another case of you hurling out false claims without anything to back them up to try and distract from the flaws in your argument?

Erfisflat

@WilliamSchulz
"Perhaps, but I think you are confusing terms here.25,000 represents a circle's circumference and not that of a globe or a sphere. The distance around the equator is much different than 25,000 miles, so that should be used rather than a circle's circumference around the north pole. This is because a circle is 2 dimensional whereas a sphere is 3-D. Therefore, in order to accept your terms, I need units that match the same page as those of a sphere."

These aren't my terms, NASA claims that the earth is a sphere that is 25,000 miles in circumference. I say poppycock to that, and I'm proving NASA wrong. If you disagree with THEY'RE numbers, then we've got nothing to disagree on, the earth simply cannot be a ball that is roughly  25,000 miles in circumference. 

"Sure, but NASA has. There are conclusive photos and live videos from the ISS to prove this."

Sure, they say they have, but since I have empirical and common sense evidence that we could not possibly be living on a spinning ball, the "pictures" and video cannot be used as scientific evidence. This is the equivalent of me claiming that a 200 foot gorilla kidnapped a white chick and climbed the empire state building. 



It goes against common sense, and cannot be otherwise verified, so it is pseudoscience. Looks like a 200 foot gorilla to me...

"Not through human eyes. Remember that we can only see maximum up to 30 miles. We see objects through a rectangle of perception that shifts up and down wherever we go that won't change via help of a telescope."

I'm not exactly sure what this means except "remember that we can only see maximum up to 30 miles" which is false. Chicago can be seen across lake Michigan, some 57 miles away, for the first example.



"Are you trying to say that gravity is non-existent? If so, we need to discuss that first . If not, it is perfectly reality, on a tilt, we live on different angles, even if they are not visible at first."

Gravity is a hoax. Let's discuss. 

"Saw the video, here are 2 mistakes. First and most importantly, they were using their mathematical formulas for a circle, not a sphere or a globe. They were trying to show objects over the center of the north pole by going over the top of the curve, which is inaccurate considered how the Earth's tilt naturally adds a diagonal edge, as shown in the flight patterns. Therefore, the Pythagorean Theorem can not be used, because there must be curvature in the triangle, making a right angle impossible. Second, they only went from 12 miles. That is nowhere near my 30 miles as a brief precursor. To persuade me, use a formula geared to that of my mathematical terms, which are 3-D, not a 2-D counterpart."

Again, these are not your mathematical terms. These are the geometrical properties of a sphere, which consist of circles. The 12 miles (in a straight line) in that video should have produced a drop in curvature, making the boat disappear from view over the curve. You can't just say the math is wrong without a valid explanation.

"Luckily, NASA and the world can, especially during the space race of the 1960's."

No they didn't.

Nope

Erfisflat  "Again, these are not your mathematical terms. These are the geometrical properties of a sphere, which consist of circles. The 12 miles (in a straight line) in that video should have produced a drop in curvature, making the boat disappear from view over the curve. You can't just say the math is wrong without a valid explanation."
The math does not lie. It is most defiantly possible. You must have just done the wrong math or left out important parts of the equation such as factors other then just curvature of the earth. Gravity bends light, the atmosphere bends light, the earth is not a perfect sphere. 

"These aren't my terms, NASA claims that the earth is a sphere that is 25,000 miles in circumference. I say poppycock to that, and I'm proving NASA wrong. If you disagree with THEY'RE numbers, then we've got nothing to disagree on, the earth simply cannot be a ball that is roughly  25,000 miles in circumference. "
They claim earth is almost a sphere with the planet bulging out at the equator due to its rotation. That is just what is often said to simplify things. But when it comes to math that is not the calculations in which should be used. https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-earth-58.html

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

Why are you repeating claims that have been refuted in the past. You know the answer is:

a) You are not accounting for atmospheric refraction

b) All pictures aren't all automatically false or true, it depends on context and the context of NASA images is that they are photos of things which match our known physical laws and are backed up by peer reviewed research and hundreds of independent organisations.

I'm also interested in your answer to the southern celestial pole question you dodged. How do you explain South America, New Zealand, the Southern tip of Chile all seeing pretty much the same set of stars (and very different stars to those in areas much close) despite them being on radically different parts of the world on a flat earth map? That's at least a new point I haven't previously seen you make stuff up for and then run away from when you're proven wrong.

WilliamSchulz

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

Why are you repeating claims that have been refuted in the past. You know the answer is:

a) You are not accounting for atmospheric refraction

b) All pictures aren't all automatically false or true, it depends on context and the context of NASA images is that they are photos of things which match our known physical laws and are backed up by peer reviewed research and hundreds of independent organisations.

I'm also interested in your answer to the southern celestial pole question you dodged. How do you explain South America, New Zealand, the Southern tip of Chile all seeing pretty much the same set of stars (and very different stars to those in areas much close) despite them being on radically different parts of the world on a flat earth map? That's at least a new point I haven't previously seen you make stuff up for and then run away from when you're proven wrong.

I mean, while this information might be true, just because it is refuted does not mean that it is incorrect. For instance, I have finals on Wednesday and am studying, I might make a ball earth comment to Erfisflat, however, just because I refute his points once over does not make it correct. As you can see, I still need to respond to his recent rebuttal, which I will do after school sometime today. Not to pick sides over this, but it is fine to call back previously rebutted points into question so long as there is a question or an area left unanswered about the claim. 

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

Why are you repeating claims that have been refuted in the past. You know the answer is:

a) You are not accounting for atmospheric refraction

b) All pictures aren't all automatically false or true, it depends on context and the context of NASA images is that they are photos of things which match our known physical laws and are backed up by peer reviewed research and hundreds of independent organisations.

I'm also interested in your answer to the southern celestial pole question you dodged. How do you explain South America, New Zealand, the Southern tip of Chile all seeing pretty much the same set of stars (and very different stars to those in areas much close) despite them being on radically different parts of the world on a flat earth map? That's at least a new point I haven't previously seen you make stuff up for and then run away from when you're proven wrong.

Refraction has been well accounted for. If "gravity" bends light, as you openly claim, how can the light from the city of Chicago be bent up away from the mass of the earth?

Erfisflat

"All pictures aren't all automatically false or true, it depends on context and the context of NASA images is that they are photos of things which match our known physical laws and are backed up by peer reviewed research and hundreds of independent organisations."

They are images of unverifiable claims. They don't match our physical reality nor do they match known physical properties of water. 

Erfisflat

@Ampersand

What was that about making stuff up and then running away when you're proved wrong?

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

Refraction has been well accounted for

Not so far. Care to give it a shot or link to/requote where you've supposedly 'accounted' for it?

If "gravity" bends light, as you openly claim, how can the light from the city of Chicago be bent up away from the mass of the earth?

I haven't made that claim, please don't make stuff up. As it happens gravity does bend light, although the effect won't be especially significant in the case of Earth. Gravity also bends light towards the source of gravity (in this case the Earth). Why would you think it bends it away?

They are images of unverifiable claims.

Lie. Te veracity of images from space is attested to by countless scientific organisations and experts.

They don't match our physical reality nor do they match known physical properties of water. 

Empty and baseless claim.

What was that about making stuff up and then running away when you're proved wrong?

So desperate to pretend you're the winner of the argument you'll try and insinuate someone is running because they haven't replied in 3 hours - when it took you longer to respond to me just now and you have literally had to stop debating me previously after I refuted your arguments?

Lastly, you failed to answer my question:

"I'm also interested in your answer to the southern celestial pole question you dodged. How do you explain South America, New Zealand, the Southern tip of Chile all seeing pretty much the same set of stars (and very different stars to those in areas much close) despite them being on radically different parts of the world on a flat earth map? That's at least a new point I haven't previously seen you make stuff up for and then run away from when you're proven wrong."

Ampersand

@WilliamSchulz

No, that's pretty much exactly what refuting someone means: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=refuted

ErfisFlat is just repeating the same points that have been disproven before with nothing new.

Nope

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

Why are you repeating claims that have been refuted in the past. You know the answer is:

a) You are not accounting for atmospheric refraction

b) All pictures aren't all automatically false or true, it depends on context and the context of NASA images is that they are photos of things which match our known physical laws and are backed up by peer reviewed research and hundreds of independent organisations.

I'm also interested in your answer to the southern celestial pole question you dodged. How do you explain South America, New Zealand, the Southern tip of Chile all seeing pretty much the same set of stars (and very different stars to those in areas much close) despite them being on radically different parts of the world on a flat earth map? That's at least a new point I haven't previously seen you make stuff up for and then run away from when you're proven wrong.

Refraction has been well accounted for. If "gravity" bends light, as you openly claim, how can the light from the city of Chicago be bent up away from the mass of the earth?

i may have been the one who claims gravity bends light. What do you mean light from the city of Chicago is bent away from the mass of the earth? 

Erfisflat

"Not so far. Care to give it a shot or link to/requote where you've supposedly 'accounted' for it?"

Refraction has been shown repeatedly to cause objects to appear lower and larger than their actual position. From simple observations like the straw in water:


To the simple experiment of filling a glass with water and placing an object on the other side of it, as I have done with a spatula in my own kitchen.


To even more advanced experiments that literally anyone can perform with little effort or money.



So, by accounted for I mean proved with repeated experimentation and verified on any scale, tested and tried. This is the scientific method in practice. Your claim "you haven't accounted for refraction" then becomes pseudoscientific, because in order for Chicago to be visible over the curvature of the earth, the skyline must appear higher than it's actual position, which has not been shown possible with the scientific method yet.

"I haven't made that claim, please don't make stuff up. As it happens gravity does bend light, although the effect won't be especially significant in the case of Earth. Gravity also bends light towards the source of gravity (in this case the Earth). Why would you think it bends it away?

This is what you meant by "you haven't accounted for refraction", right? You claim that the light from Chicago bends, due to refraction, allowing it to be visible over the curvature of the earth, so that it appears higher, and the curve has disappeared. 


I contend that, as the evidence shows, the bottom (and sometimes the entire skyline) of Chicago is hidden by refraction. This is what I mean by refraction has been well accounted for. I know you will either ignore this scientific evidence and invent some sort of conjecture or other fallacious rebuttal to this argument, but chances are it isn't tested and proved, aka pseudoscience. 

"Lie. Te veracity of images from space is attested to by countless scientific organisations and experts."

It is not a lie. By verifiable, i mean by anyone, as the evidence above is. You, i, nor anyone I know has not seen the earth as a ball. It isn't verifiable, as I said, no matter how much you want to make me a . This is likely why I stopped responding to our chain and this chain will likely end up the same way.

They don't match our physical reality nor do they match known physical properties of water. 

Empty and baseless claim.

Nice dodge. 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."

What was that about making stuff up and then running away when you're proved wrong?

So desperate to pretend you're the winner of the argument you'll try and insinuate someone is running because they haven't replied in 3 hours - when it took you longer to respond to me just now and you have literally had to stop debating me previously after I refuted your arguments?

Oh I didn't literally have to do anything. You denying observable reality led me to the conclusion that you aren't here for truth, you just like to quarrel, and the earth is a ball no matter what the evidence shows, and I knew you were a waste of time. A hopeless globetard.

"Lastly, you failed to answer my question:"

"I'm also interested in your answer to the southern celestial pole question you dodged. How do you explain South America, New Zealand, the Southern tip of Chile all seeing pretty much the same set of stars (and very different stars to those in areas much close) despite them being on radically different parts of the world on a flat earth map? That's at least a new point I haven't previously seen you make stuff up for and then run away from when you're proven wrong."

My answer is that you are examining the earth in completely the opposite direction. The earth is mostly water. Water is always flat. What happens in the sky is ultimately irrelevant.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

Why are you repeating claims that have been refuted in the past. You know the answer is:

a) You are not accounting for atmospheric refraction

b) All pictures aren't all automatically false or true, it depends on context and the context of NASA images is that they are photos of things which match our known physical laws and are backed up by peer reviewed research and hundreds of independent organisations.

I'm also interested in your answer to the southern celestial pole question you dodged. How do you explain South America, New Zealand, the Southern tip of Chile all seeing pretty much the same set of stars (and very different stars to those in areas much close) despite them being on radically different parts of the world on a flat earth map? That's at least a new point I haven't previously seen you make stuff up for and then run away from when you're proven wrong.

Refraction has been well accounted for. If "gravity" bends light, as you openly claim, how can the light from the city of Chicago be bent up away from the mass of the earth?

i may have been the one who claims gravity bends light. What do you mean light from the city of Chicago is bent away from the mass of the earth? 

Explained above.

Nope

Erfisflat said:
"Refraction has been shown repeatedly to cause objects to appear lower and larger than their actual position. From simple observations like the straw in water:


To the simple experiment of filling a glass with water and placing an object on the other side of it, as I have done with a spatula in my own kitchen.


To even more advanced experiments that literally anyone can perform with little effort or money.



So, by accounted for I mean proved with repeated experimentation and verified on any scale, tested and tried. This is the scientific method in practice. Your claim "you haven't accounted for refraction" then becomes pseudoscientific, because in order for Chicago to be visible over the curvature of the earth, the skyline must appear higher than it's actual position, which has not been shown possible with the scientific method yet."
Sorry but I could not watch the video. 
A cold mirage shows things appearing higher then they really are. I also don't know what your theory an refraction is other then things appear lower in water. Also what do you mean by higher or lower? Yes water makes things appear bigger as my model explains. What is the first picture supposed to prove? My model shows that is how light would bend so what is the point of the first picture. Are you viewing the second picture from a slightly upper angle because the object looks like it is not centered. I did mention that my theory can be supported by playing with lenses. : )

Erfisflat

"Sorry but I could not watch the video."

Sorry, but it demonstrates my point. It takes a large clear container of water and produces a sunset on a flat earth.

"A cold mirage shows things appearing higher then they really are."

A "cold" mirage? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Mirage are image inversions from thermal invsrsions. So I guess I should rephrase what I said. Refraction causes and object to appear larger and lower, unless the image is inverted.


" I also don't know what your theory an refraction is other then things appear lower in water."

That things are magnified...

" Also what do you mean by higher or lower? "

Not higher, lower. It's not rocket science. 

"Yes water makes things appear bigger as my model explains. "

This is what the scientific method proves. Your model ignores it. Example: as the sun goes across the sky, it gets more atmosphere and refraction (So the sun should get bigger) between it than where the sun would be at noon, yet the sun remains relatively the same size from sunrise to sunset. My model says that it actually shrinks from perspective, but the magnification properties of the atmosphere causes it to be the same size.

"What is the first picture supposed to prove? "

That refraction supports a flat earth cosmology rather than ball earth cosmology, conclusively.

"My model shows that is how light would bend so what is the point of the first picture."

No, your model claims that the atmosphere causes objects to appear higher on several instances like in the case of Chicago being visible across lake Michigan,

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html?m=1

And how sunsets are possible on a globe:



http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter19/sunrise_set.html

"Are you viewing the second picture from a slightly upper angle because the object looks like it is not centered."

Your welcome to reproduce the experiment if you think you can produce the opposite effect.

" I did mention that my theory can be supported by playing with lenses. : )"

How vague. Not very convincing though.

Nope

Erfisflat said:

"Sorry but I could not watch the video."

Sorry, but it demonstrates my point. It takes a large clear container of water and produces a sunset on a flat earth.

"A cold mirage shows things appearing higher then they really are."

A "cold" mirage? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Mirage are image inversions from thermal invsrsions. So I guess I should rephrase what I said. Refraction causes and object to appear larger and lower, unless the image is inverted.


" I also don't know what your theory an refraction is other then things appear lower in water."

That things are magnified...

" Also what do you mean by higher or lower? "

Not higher, lower. It's not rocket science. 

"Yes water makes things appear bigger as my model explains. "

This is what the scientific method proves. Your model ignores it. Example: as the sun goes across the sky, it gets more atmosphere and refraction (So the sun should get bigger) between it than where the sun would be at noon, yet the sun remains relatively the same size from sunrise to sunset. My model says that it actually shrinks from perspective, but the magnification properties of the atmosphere causes it to be the same size.

"What is the first picture supposed to prove? "

That refraction supports a flat earth cosmology rather than ball earth cosmology, conclusively.

"My model shows that is how light would bend so what is the point of the first picture."

No, your model claims that the atmosphere causes objects to appear higher on several instances like in the case of Chicago being visible across lake Michigan,

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html?m=1

And how sunsets are possible on a globe:



http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter19/sunrise_set.html

"Are you viewing the second picture from a slightly upper angle because the object looks like it is not centered."

Your welcome to reproduce the experiment if you think you can produce the opposite effect.

" I did mention that my theory can be supported by playing with lenses. : )"

How vague. Not very convincing though.

My model shows light bending inward when interning a more dense medium. My model shows that light is only refacted when interning a medium with a different density. Just because the light goes through more of a medium such as the air does not mean it goes through more density change which in this case it does not.
You claim refraction causes objects to appear bigger and lower. This is shown not to be true in all cases.

"Your welcome to reproduce the experiment if you think you can produce the opposite effect."
Guess what.








































































 I produced the opposite effect. : )

"No, your model claims that the atmosphere causes objects to appear higher on several instances like in the case of Chicago being visible across lake Michigan,"
What?????? How does this relate?

You can prove what I say by playing with lenses. You take different lenses, observe their effects, see what they are made out of and their shape, look at my model and they will mach.

Erfisflat

"My model shows light bending inward when interning a more dense medium."

Correction, your model dictates that. It doesn't show anything but a mediocre diagram or two. I've actually shown something.

" My model shows that light is only refacted when interning a medium with a different density. Just because the light goes through more of a medium such as the air does not mean it goes through more density change which in this case it does not."

You haven't a clue what you're saying, do you?

"You claim refraction causes objects to appear bigger and lower. This is shown not to be true in all cases."

Please, by all means, demonstrate anything to the contrary. 

"Your welcome to reproduce the experiment if you think you can produce the opposite effect."
"Guess what.
 I produced the opposite effect. : )"

Care to share with the rest of the class?

"No, your model claims that the atmosphere causes objects to appear higher on several instances like in the case of Chicago being visible across lake Michigan,"
What?????? How does this relate?"

If you don't know, you're probably in the wrong debate. I'll consider this a point dropped.

"You can prove what I say by playing with lenses. You take different lenses, observe their effects, see what they are made out of and their shape, look at my model and they will mach."

Guess what. I played with the lenses of various sizes and shapes, and they don't "mach". I think you're done here.

Nope

Erfisflat said:

"My model shows light bending inward when interning a more dense medium."

Correction, your model dictates that. It doesn't show anything but a mediocre diagram or two. I've actually shown something.

" My model shows that light is only refacted when interning a medium with a different density. Just because the light goes through more of a medium such as the air does not mean it goes through more density change which in this case it does not."

You haven't a clue what you're saying, do you?

"You claim refraction causes objects to appear bigger and lower. This is shown not to be true in all cases."

Please, by all means, demonstrate anything to the contrary. 

"Your welcome to reproduce the experiment if you think you can produce the opposite effect."
"Guess what.
 I produced the opposite effect. : )"

Care to share with the rest of the class?

"No, your model claims that the atmosphere causes objects to appear higher on several instances like in the case of Chicago being visible across lake Michigan,"
What?????? How does this relate?"

If you don't know, you're probably in the wrong debate. I'll consider this a point dropped.

"You can prove what I say by playing with lenses. You take different lenses, observe their effects, see what they are made out of and their shape, look at my model and they will mach."

Guess what. I played with the lenses of various sizes and shapes, and they don't "mach". I think you're done here.

"Correction, your model dictates that. It doesn't show anything but a mediocre diagram or two. I've actually shown something."
How my model prodicits light to bend is how we see it bend in practice.

"You haven't a clue what you're saying, do you?"
I know exactly what I am saying. Light travels in a straight line (unless their is gravity) in one medium with the same density throughout. It is only when it in tures a miduem in which its over all apparent speed changes that light will be refacted in a different direction in the ways that I had previously explained in other debates. After it intures this new density the light will continue to travel in a straight line. While sun light goes through more atmosphere it for the most part goes through the same density change to get to the surface. This is why it does not appre to get smaller.

"Please, by all means, demonstrate anything to the contrary."
Ok take water for example. When standing in water objects in the water will appear closer to the surface then they really are. They appear higher as my model predicts it will.

"Care to share with the rest of the class?"
First we cannot you a glass which is slanted inward as you get to the bottom as the normal is in a downward direction. Second if we look at it from above the normal it will appear lower but if you look at it from below the normal the object will appear higher as my model predicts.

"If you don't know, you're probably in the wrong debate. I'll consider this a point dropped."
I thought I was taking about the the first picture with the glass. Then you start taking about the air my model and the air. That is not related to how my model predicts light will act in the first picture.

"Guess what. I played with the lenses of various sizes and shapes, and they don't "mach". I think you're done here."
How have they not matched? 

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

Refraction has been shown repeatedly to cause objects to appear lower and larger than their actual position. From simple observations like the straw in water:

To the simple experiment of filling a glass with water and placing an object on the other side of it, as I have done with a spatula in my own kitchen.

Wrong on every level. That straw is being refracted to the right (on the right side of the glass), not down. You are incapable of basic observation.

Also refraction has been shown to be able to refract in any direction depending on the medium and gradients involved. I mean how do you think reading glasses or refracting telescopes work or prisms or binoculars work?



Finally that you think two pictures of glasses with no understanding or explanation of the processes involved allows you to make claims about how light interacts with every single thing in the universe is absurd. It's not even pseudoscience because pseudo science at least offers the pretence of being scientific. It's like saying "When I put a match to gunpowder it explodes therefore when I put a match to everything it explodes". No-one is arguing against glasses of water refracting light in a certain way because that is fact that is entirely consistent with the normal scientific understandings of refraction - but you actually offer nothing to support your claim about light in general.

To even more advanced experiments that literally anyone can perform with little effort or money.

A random youtuber making unsupported claims and assumptions? Having the money to buy a camera and the ability to sign-up for a free youtube account does not magically make arguments valid. Evidence, logic and reason do.

So, by accounted for I mean proved with repeated experimentation and verified on any scale, tested and tried. This is the scientific method in practice. 

You have failed to offer a single scientific example to back up your claim is still false.

Your claim "you haven't accounted for refraction" then becomes pseudoscientific, because in order for Chicago to be visible over the curvature of the earth, the skyline must appear higher than it's actual position, which has not been shown possible with the scientific method yet.

Wrong. It has been shown innumerable times be experts using the actual scientific method rather than your method of assuming what random youtubers say is true and assuming that how light refracts through a circular glass is how light refracts in every single circumstance in the universe.

See for reference:

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 

If somehow you manage to raise cogent objections to those studies (Which lets face it, will never happen) then I have another 10 ready to go. You respond to them and I can put together another 100. The reason for this is that there is no argument over how refraction works from people who actually understand it.

You've even stated in your earlier posts that images can appear higher than their actual position with reference to superior mirages, completely contrary to your current claim that they can't, so it's obvious you're just saying whatever suits you at the time with no care about whether you actually understand it or whether it's true.

This is what you meant by "you haven't accounted for refraction", right? You claim that the light from Chicago bends, due to refraction, allowing it to be visible over the curvature of the earth, so that it appears higher, and the curve has disappeared. 

This is a real humdinger right here. This comes from Erfisflat saying that he thinks I must have been talking about gravity bending light when I was talking about atmospheric refraction.

Atmospheric refraction is not based on gravity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Ergo ErfisFlat has absolutely no understanding of what he's talking about! His arguments? Just the parroting of other people's empty claims that he doesn't even understand.

I contend that, as the evidence shows, the bottom (and sometimes the entire skyline) of Chicago is hidden by refraction. This is what I mean by refraction has been well accounted for. I know you will either ignore this scientific evidence and invent some sort of conjecture or other fallacious rebuttal to this argument, but chances are it isn't tested and proved, aka pseudoscience. 

You can feel free to content it all you like, but saying "I contend X" is not the same as actually providing proof. Until you do your contention is meaningless.

It is not a lie. By verifiable, i mean by anyone, as the evidence above is. You, i, nor anyone I know has not seen the earth as a ball. It isn't verifiable, as I said, no matter how much you want to make me a . This is likely why I stopped responding to our chain and this chain will likely end up the same way.

Ah, so when you said that it wasn't verifiable, you actually meant that it is verifiable but it isn't possible for everyone on earth to verify it. So the actual statement you said wasn't true. So you were lying and now you've been caught out you're backpedalling.

Also anyone can verify NASA's work if they get a job in an appropriate space agency or private organisation and take part in experiments or projects which verify the basis of a round earth or earn enough money to have their own experiments conducted. Not everyone will be able to, but seeing as everyone being able to is not a measure of whether something is scientifically correct that would be pseudoscience and we could disregard your argument if you tried to go down that route, couldn't we?

Nice dodge. 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."

ErfisFlat, man who thinks the earth is round and has never encountered raindrops.



I mean I don't even need to provide evidence as you are the one making claims and I'm just pointing out the lack of evidence for your baseless claims, but this one is just so incredibly obvious how can I not?

Oh I didn't literally have to do anything. You denying observable reality led me to the conclusion that you aren't here for truth, you just like to quarrel, and the earth is a ball no matter what the evidence shows, and I knew you were a waste of time. A hopeless globetard.

So you had an opinion, just like everyone else on earth? Wowza, colour me impressed. It's a shame you were unable to put together an actual argument to show your opinion was valid and then ran off.

My answer is that you are examining the earth in completely the opposite direction. The earth is mostly water. Water is always flat. What happens in the sky is ultimately irrelevant.

To be true a model has to be consistent with reality. You can't just close your eyes and ignore all the bits that are wrong with your theory. If your prediction of the earth's shape, size and movement (or lack thereof) is inconsistent with basic observation, you are basing your beliefs on a delusion. The beauty of the normal model of the universe is how everything matches up, you don't have to wave away questions about basic geometry that should be simple to answer if your ideas were based in reality.

Erfisflat

Geez, sorry I've very little time to read another novel. Maybe this weekend.

Erfisflat

How my model prodicits light to bend is how we see it bend in practice.

This is your assertion, what exactly is this "practice"? I've demonstrated contradictory results at least 3 ways now and as I look down I see some more diagrams. 

I know exactly what I am saying. Light travels in a straight line (unless their is gravity)

Of course you would throw that in there. But ive already pointed out that if lightbends according to gravity, it would apparently lower. You then backtracked and replied it is "negligible", now your using it as an exception.

, if in one medium with the same density throughout. It is only when it in tures a miduem in which its over all apparent speed changes that light will be refacted in a different direction in the ways that I had previously explained in other debates. After it intures this new density the light will continue to travel in a straight line. While sun light goes through more atmosphere it for the most part goes through the same density change to get to the surface. This is why it does not appre to get smaller.



I know what refraction is, and how it works.

"Please, by all means, demonstrate anything to the contrary."
Ok take water for example. When standing in water objects in the water will appear closer to the surface then they really are. They appear higher as my model predicts it will.


Another diagram, I am very impressed. Yes, when you are looking down into a body of water, the object will appear higher, but when we are looking up, or at eye level, as in my examples, which more accurately represents instances like seeing across lake Michigan or the sunrise/set, the object always appears lower.

"Care to share with the rest of the class?"

First we cannot you a glass which is slanted inward as you get to the bottom as the normal is in a downward direction. Second if we look at it from above the normal it will appear lower but if you look at it from below the normal the object will appear higher as my model predicts.

But we aren't looking downward into a body of water when we see Chicago or the sun. This is a false analogy fallacy.

"If you don't know, you're probably in the wrong debate. I'll consider this a point dropped."

I thought I was taking about the the first picture with the glass. Then you start taking about the air my model and the air. That is not related to how my model predicts light will act in the first picture.

.... anyone can translate?

"Guess what. I played with the lenses of various sizes and shapes, and they don't "mach". I think you're done here."

How have they not matched? 

They were the opposite...

Nope

"This is your assertion, what exactly is this "practice"? I've demonstrated contradictory results at least 3 ways now and as I look down I see some more diagrams. "
Which tree ways. The first picture and second picture are explain by my model and unfortunately I cannot watch the video and I don't know the name of the video so I cannot watch it on my phone. : (

"Of course you would throw that in there. But ive already pointed out that if lightbends according to gravity, it would apparently lower. You then backtracked and replied it is "negligible", now your using it as an exception."
It is an exception to light traveling in a straight line and it is neglihible when considering light on earth. It can be both. What does "it would apparently lower" mean.

"Another diagram, I am very impressed. Yes, when you are looking down into a body of water, the object will appear higher, but when we are looking up, or at eye level, as in my examples, which more accurately represents instances like seeing across lake Michigan or the sunrise/set, the object always appears lower."
You said refraction makes things appear bigger, lower or inverted. This example proves your statement false as you just said that that is what refraction does. You never gave a specific circumstance like looking through the atmosphere so I was to assume you meant that is how it works in all cases.

"But we aren't looking downward into a body of water when we see Chicago or the sun. This is a false analogy fallacy."
I was taking about water and making objects appear lower or higher. I am trying to prove my model correct because if my model is correct it will explain many flat earth arguments.

"They were the opposite..."
 What is they? What does this statement mean?

Erfisflat

@ampersand

"Wrong on every level. That straw is being refracted to the right (on the right side of the glass), not down. You are incapable of basic observation."

...and you completely ignored my own experiment, which shows (with basic observation) that the wooden handle of the spatula appears lower.

"Also refraction has been shown to be able to refract in any direction depending on the medium and gradients involved. I mean how do you think reading glasses or refracting telescopes work or prisms or binoculars work?"

Sure do. But were not exactly talking about glass and mirrors that are bent to cause refraction in certain directions. We're talking about basic water refraction. This was demonstrated. This is the scientific method. Get here.

"Finally that you think two pictures of glasses with no understanding or explanation of the processes involved allows you to make claims about how light interacts with every single thing in the universe is absurd. It's not even pseudoscience because pseudo science at least offers the pretence of being scientific. It's like saying "When I put a match to gunpowder it explodes therefore when I put a match to everything it explodes". No-one is arguing against glasses of water refracting light in a certain way because that is fact that is entirely consistent with the normal scientific understandings of refraction - but you actually offer nothing to support your claim about light in general."

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.

"A random youtuber making unsupported claims and assumptions? Having the money to buy a camera and the ability to sign-up for a free youtube account does not magically make arguments valid. Evidence, logic and reason do."

Actually, the claims were demonstrated. So far we have someone demonstrating, as the scientific method demands, and your (some random globetard on a debate sight) assertions. I'll take the scientific method. Thanks. The evidence is available to you. Be ignorant of facts if you want. I don't care really.

"You have failed to offer a single scientific example to back up your claim is still false."

Blatant lie. Deny deny deny. Anyone who has access to a glass of water can verify it. Fact is, you haven't offered anything outside of "nuh-uh, muh science book".

"Wrong. It has been shown innumerable times be experts using the actual scientific method rather than your method of assuming what random youtubers say is true and assuming that how light refracts through a circular glass is how light refracts in every single circumstance in the universe."

Then by all means, describe the "innumerable scientific experiments", so that we can test the claims. Because from my experience, I get the opposite effect. Put up or .

"If somehow you manage to raise cogent objections to those studies (Which lets face it, will never happen) then I have another 10 ready to go. You respond to them and I can put together another 100. The reason for this is that there is no argument over how refraction works from people who actually understand it."



"You've even stated in your earlier posts that images can appear higher than their actual position with reference to superior mirages, completely contrary to your current claim that they can't, so it's obvious you're just saying whatever suits you at the time with no care about whether you actually understand it or whether it's true."

Yes, a thermal inversion can cause an object to appear higher, but as is the case with ALL mirages, the image will be inverted.

"This is a real humdinger right here. This comes from Erfisflat saying that he thinks I must have been talking about gravity bending light when I was talking about atmospheric refraction."

Nowhere in my statement was I referring to "gravity". I specifically said:
"This is what you meant by "you haven't accounted for refraction", right? You claim that the light from Chicago bends, due to refraction, allowing it to be visible over the curvature of the earth, so that it appears higher, and the curve has disappeared."

So, humdinger it is, you've constructed another strawman, and dodged my point entirely.

"Ergo ErfisFlat has absolutely no understanding of what he's talking about! His arguments? Just the parroting of other people's empty claims that he doesn't even understand"

Isn't that calling the kettle black. I've tested the claim, linked to experiments that test the claim, this isn't parroting. Citing Wikipedia and or random pseudoscientific papers is parroting. Try again.

"You can feel free to content it all you like, but saying "I contend X" is not the same as actually providing proof. Until you do your contention is meaningless."

Do my contention as in test the results with practical experimentation? Done. Your turn. Prove it wrong. All your doing is asserting that I'm wrong, simply because it proves that the earth isn't a ball. Want another practical experiment?



"Ah, so when you said that it wasn't verifiable, you actually meant that it is verifiable but it isn't possible for everyone on earth to verify it. So the actual statement you said wasn't true. So you were lying and now you've been caught out you're backpedalling."

This is the definition of verifiable. You are taking someone's word for something. I am verifying the opposite so that I don't have to believe anyone else. See definitions for practical and verifiable if you get confused, as globetardz often do.

"Also anyone can verify NASA's work if they get a job in an appropriate space agency or private organisation and take part in experiments or projects which verify the basis of a round earth or earn enough money to have their own experiments conducted. Not everyonewill be able to, but seeing as everyone being able to is not a measure of whether something is scientifically correct that would be pseudoscience and we could disregard your argument if you tried to go down that route, couldn't we?"

They would also have to sign a government contract. Don't forget that. So, get a job with NASA, train in underwater ISS mockups and get put on a waiting list after you swear an oath of secrecy to get a chance to verify something versus performing an experiment to test yourself. Ever heard of Occams razor?

"ErfisFlat, man who thinks the earth is round and has never encountered raindrops."

Ampersand, pseudoscientist who compares a drop of water to trillions of gallons of water in a false, asinine analogy.

"I mean I don't even need to provide evidence as you are the one making claims and I'm just pointing out the lack of evidence for your baseless claims, but this one is just so incredibly obvious how can I not?"

Incredibly obvious that you are ignorant beyond repair? Go ahead, keep making a fool of yourself. I'm actually gonna stop here, your wasting my time with stupidity. 

Erfisflat

This road is (relatively) flat. Observe the reflection of the headlight on it. We see a straight line go all the way to the bottom of the picture. 

Same here. We know the water is flat in this picture because the reflection goes in a straight line, all the way to the water's edge.

This reflective surface is convex.


This is similar to what is expected on a ball earth, where ALL bodies of water MUST exhibit a degree of convexity. Instead, we see this on a calm body of water.


Perfectly flat, mirror image. Observable reality that no one can deny that contradicts the spherical earth model.

Erfisflat

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/48-reflection-of-light

It's just sad that I have to explain obvious, everyday observations and the differences between flat reflective surfaces and convex ones. Let the globetards commence the naysays in

3...
2...
1...

Erfisflat

Submarine periscopes. Virtually useless on the imaginary ball earth. As you can see from the earth curvature calculator here:

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=10&h0=1&unit=imperial

A periscope extended 1 foot from the water would have the horizon reduced to only 1.2 miles away. Seeing another ship at only 10 miles would be impossible on a spherical earth, unless that ship were over 50 feet above the water, where only anything above 51 feet would be visible.

Ampersand

...and you completely ignored my own experiment, which shows (with basic observation) that the wooden handle of the spatula appears lower.

Why would it be relevant? Both 'experiments' match what we would see with normal physics so there is no need to defend conventional physics and as per the other example your own random pet theory has already been disproven so no need to beat a dead horse - after all you've offered no defence of your claims being completely wrong and just brought up the other experiment here.

Sure do. But were not exactly talking about glass and mirrors that are bent to cause refraction in certain directions. We're talking about basic water refraction. This was demonstrated. This is the scientific method. Get here.

Actually we're talking about how light reacts as a constant throughout the universe. No-one cares how light refracts in a glass by itself - its only use is any relevance it has to how light reacts in general. As shown, your claim about how the light reacts is false as it doesn't carry over to other examples, we know you are wrong and your claim is false. On the other hand the scientific explanation is still 100% correct.

Also, just in case you didn't notice, the water is in a curved glass.

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.

Actually your claims have been shown to be false and you have offered no rebuttal - you said light refracts downwards and have offered no defense to show that it actually refracts in all directions.

The only support it has is you saying it works. You have offered no actual explanation to back this up or contradict the scientific consensus.

If you want to test your experiment, that is simple. You state images reflect downwards. I state that as per the scientific consensus there can be some reflection up or down depending on your viewpoint, but the primary refraction will be left and right and that is what causes the straw to move to the right.

If we take a picture of a vertical straw to the right and left of the glass my theory states the images of the straw refracted through the water and glass and air will be to the right and left of its position. your theory says it will just be lower.



I am correct you are wrong. Your theory is wrong and obviously wrong at that.


Actually, the claims were demonstrated. So far we have someone demonstrating, as the scientific method demands, and your (some random globetard on a debate sight) assertions. I'll take the scientific method. Thanks. The evidence is available to you. Be ignorant of facts if you want. I don't care really.

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.

Blatant lie. Deny deny deny. Anyone who has access to a glass of water can verify it. Fact is, you haven't offered anything outside of "nuh-uh, muh science book".

Verify what? Can you name a single way in which anything you have pictured contradicts science as it is commonly understood by pretty much everyone else on earth?

Then by all means, describe the "innumerable scientific experiments", so that we can test the claims. Because from my experience, I get the opposite effect. Put up or .

I literally provided references to scientific studies in the very post you quoted in the very portion next to the bit you quoted. Why are you pretending you haven't already been given the answer?

Once again, for the second time:


See for reference:

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



I provide peer reviewed scientific literature and you are unable to offer any rebuttal of the actual evidence so post an image macro. Very telling.

Yes, a thermal inversion can cause an object to appear higher, but as is the case with ALL mirages, the image will be inverted.

We went through this in the last thread. Your own sources that you quoted consistently agreed that:

a) The scientific basis for atmospheric refraction and mirages is the same and you can't have one without the other

b) superior mirages with only 1 image are possible in which case there is obviously no inversion.

I can go and grab them if you really want, but again the fact you are just making claims with no evidence to back yourself up says it all.

Nowhere in my statement was I referring to "gravity". I specifically said:

So, humdinger it is, you've constructed another strawman, and dodged my point entirely.

Lie.

Lets have a look at the entire thread of the conversation.

YOU: "If "gravity" bends light, as you openly claim, how can the light from the city of Chicago be bent up away from the mass of the earth?"

ME: "I haven't made that claim, please don't make stuff up. As it happens gravity does bend light, although the effect won't be especially significant in the case of Earth. Gravity also bends light towards the source of gravity (in this case the Earth). Why would you think it bends it away?

YOU: "This is what you meant by "you haven't accounted for refraction", right? You claim that the light from Chicago bends, due to refraction, allowing it to be visible over the curvature of the earth, so that it appears higher, and the curve has disappeared. "

So yes, when you say "This is what you mean" in the post I quoted, it refers to your claim about gravity refracting light, because apparently that is apparently how you think science says refraction works.

You don't even know what you're arguing against and then you make up a lie about what you were talking about when the record is clear.

Do my contention as in test the results with practical experimentation? Done. Your turn. Prove it wrong. All your doing is asserting that I'm wrong, simply because it proves that the earth isn't a ball. Want another practical experiment?

Prove what wrong? You've made up some stuff and shown a couple of pictures which back up the normal scientific method of how refraction works. What would I rebut.

You need to explain how you were able to make basic mistakes in an experiment' a five year old would conduct.

You say light refracts down yet in your own evidence it refracts to the side - completely contradicting you and backing up the scientific rationale that there is no single direction light always refracts but then it changes based upon the gradient of the medium it is passing across.

This is the definition of verifiable. You are taking someone's word for something. I am verifying the opposite so that I don't have to believe anyone else. See definitions for practical and verifiable if you get confused, as globetardz often do.

Care to include a link to a definition of the word verify which shows it means that it has to be verified by everyone on earth as per your claim you've just made?

Better yet, care to link to an explanation of the scientific method which explains how every single person on earth has to verify an experiment for it to count as verified?

Of course you can't. Don't waste time with pseudoscientific objections.

They would also have to sign a government contract. Don't forget that. So, get a job with NASA, train in underwater ISS mockups and get put on a waiting list after you swear an oath of secrecy to get a chance to verify something versus performing an experiment to test yourself. Ever heard of Occams razor?

People in NASA openly talk about the nature of how space and physics work, it isn't a secret. Also as mentioned their are private organisations which do the same - firing satellites into the atmosphere and suchlike.

Also Occams razor states the simplest reason is typically the case. Yours is a massive worldwide conspiracy of governments, pilots, sailors, independent scientists, astronomers, and manufacturers. Mine is that scientific experiments that have been backed up time and time again as accurate are in fact correct.

Ampersand, pseudoscientist who compares a drop of water to trillions of gallons of water in a false, asinine analogy.

You apparently don't know what an analogy is. that is a direct contradiction of your claim - no analogy necessary.

Also you talk about all these measurements that have been taken showing waters flatness. Care to link me to -oh - lets say half a dozen peer reviewed scientific studies where:

a) Water has been measured with a degree of accuracy where we would expect to see curvature based on he conventional understanding of physics and a spherical earth.

and

b) No curvature has been found.

Because lets face it, what you actually mean is "When I look at a lake or a glass of water I can't see curvature" which is preety pointless seeing as the change would be so small you wouldn't expect to see it.

Incredibly obvious that you are ignorant beyond repair? Go ahead, keep making a fool of yourself. I'm actually gonna stop here, your wasting my time with stupidity.

'You're' not 'your'. Feel free to back up your claims with actual evidence at some point.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

This road is (relatively) flat. Observe the reflection of the headlight on it. We see a straight line go all the way to the bottom of the picture. 

Same here. We know the water is flat in this picture because the reflection goes in a straight line, all the way to the water's edge.

This reflective surface is convex.


This is similar to what is expected on a ball earth, where ALL bodies of water MUST exhibit a degree of convexity. Instead, we see this on a calm body of water.


Perfectly flat, mirror image. Observable reality that no one can deny that contradicts the spherical earth model.

Can you name a single way any of that contradicts what is expected in a normal view of science and the world?

For instance - why don't you calculate the degree of convexity that would be expected in that lake or of the headlights and then compare it to what is visible. After all, until you do something like that you're just making up more claims based on evidenced assumptions. If you prefer I'm just as happy to accept a scientific paper from a reputable source which explains what we would expect to see under these conditions.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/48-reflection-of-light

It's just sad that I have to explain obvious, everyday observations and the differences between flat reflective surfaces and convex ones. Let the globetards commence the naysays in

3...
2...
1...

You are meant to be arguing refraction. That is reflection. Those are two different things. No-one has made claims about reflection except for you and you haven't bothered to actually back them up with anything.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Submarine periscopes. Virtually useless on the imaginary ball earth. As you can see from the earth curvature calculator here:

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=10&h0=1&unit=imperial

A periscope extended 1 foot from the water would have the horizon reduced to only 1.2 miles away. Seeing another ship at only 10 miles would be impossible on a spherical earth, unless that ship were over 50 feet above the water, where only anything above 51 feet would be visible.

So when you say "virtually useless" you mean "lets you see things several miles away while being largely hidden".
And your explanation of how it would work on a spherical earth is in no way different from how it actually works in reality? Good job helping the spherical earth cause I guess.

Ampersand

Oh and the points you avoided answering are telling.

No response to the view of the sky being inconsistent with your pet theory?

Erfisflat

"Why would it be relevant? Both 'experiments' match what we would see with normal physics so there is no need to defend conventional physics and as per the other example your own random pet theory has already been disproven so no need to beat a dead horse - after all you've offered no defence of your claims being completely wrong and just brought up the other experiment here."

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.

"Actually we're talking about how light reacts as a constant throughout the universe. No-one cares how light refracts in a glass by itself - its only use is any relevance it has to how light reacts in general. As shown, your claim about how the light reacts is false as it doesn't carry over to other examples, we know you are wrong and your claim is false. On the other hand the scientific explanation is still 100% 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. 

"Also, just in case you didn't notice, the water is in a curved glass."

Which caused the sides (where the curve was more substantial relative to the viewer) to appear even lower. So, the middle is lower, and the sides are even lower. What is your point? 

"Actually your claims have been shown to be false and you have offered no rebuttal - you said light refracts downwards and have offered no defense to show that it actually refracts in all directions."

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.

"The only support it has is you saying it works. You have offered no actual explanation to back this up or contradict the scientific consensus."

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

"If you want to test your experiment, that is simple. You state images reflect downwards. I state that as per the scientific consensus there can be some reflection up or down depending on your viewpoint, but the primary refraction will be left and right and that is what causes the straw to move to the right. "

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. 


"If we take a picture of a vertical straw to the right and left of the glass my theory states the images of the straw refracted through the water and glass and air will be to the right and left of its position. your theory says it will just be lower."



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

"I am correct you are wrong. Your theory is wrong and obviously wrong at that." 

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.

"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."

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.

"Verify what? Can you name a single way in which anything you have pictured contradicts science as it is commonly understood by pretty much everyone else on earth?"

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.

"I literally provided references to scientific studies in the very post you quoted in the very portion next to the bit you quoted. Why are you pretending you haven't already been given the answer?

Once again, for the second time:"

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. 

"I provide peer reviewed scientific literature and you are unable to offer any rebuttal of the actual evidence so post an image macro. Very telling."

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. 

"Lie.

Lets have a look at the entire thread of the conversation.

YOU: "If "gravity" bends light, as you openly claim, how can the light from the city of Chicago be bent up away from the mass of the earth?"

ME: "I haven't made that claim, please don't make stuff up. As it happens gravity does bend light, although the effect won't be especially significant in the case of Earth. Gravity also bends light towards the source of gravity (in this case the Earth). Why would you think it bends it away?

YOU: "This is what you meant by "you haven't accounted for refraction", right? You claim that the light from Chicago bends, due to refraction, allowing it to be visible over the curvature of the earth, so that it appears higher, and the curve has disappeared. "

So yes, when you say "This is what you mean" in the post I quoted, it refers to your claim about gravity refracting light, because apparently that is apparently how you think science says refraction works.

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 don't even know what you're arguing against and then you make up a lie about what you were talking about when the record is clear."

Again, the quote in question:
 "This is what you meant by "you haven't accounted for refraction", right? You claim that the light from Chicago bends, due to refraction, allowing it to be visible over the curvature of the earth, so that it appears higher, and the curve has disappeared."

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.

"Prove what wrong? You've made up some stuff and shown a couple of pictures which back up the normal scientific method of how refraction works. What would I rebut."

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

"You need to explain how you were able to make basic mistakes in an experiment' a five year old would conduct."

What mistakes were those?

"You say light refracts down yet in your own evidence it refracts to the side - completely contradicting you and backing up the scientific rationale that there is no single direction light always refracts but then it changes based upon the gradient of the medium it is passing across."

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. 

"Care to include a link to a definition of the word verify which shows it means that it has to be verified by everyone on earth as per your claim you've just made?

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.

"Better yet, care to link to an explanation of the scientific method which explains how every single person on earth has to verify an experiment for it to count as verified?"

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

"Of course you can't. Don't waste time with pseudoscientific objections."

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.

"People in NASA openly talk about the nature of how space and physics work, it isn't a secret. Also as mentioned their are private organisations which do the same - firing satellites into the atmosphere and suchlike."

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





"Also Occams razor states the simplest reason is typically the case. Yours is a massive worldwide conspiracy of governments, pilots, sailors, independent scientists, astronomers, and manufacturers."

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.

"Mine is that scientific experiments that have been backed up time and time again as accurate are in fact correct."

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

"You apparently don't know what an analogy is. that is a direct contradiction of your claim - no analogy necessary."

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.

"Also you talk about all these measurements that have been taken showing waters flatness. Care to link me to -oh - lets say half a dozen peer reviewed scientific studies where:"

There's where you turn to "expert opinion" again. This is how we got here in the first place. You're too gullible. I'm sure you can link me to a paper that all the globetards agree says the earth is a spinning ball, but without actual evidence, it's pseudoscientific nonsense. Now, demonstrable experimentation is what makes the difference, actually showing how something works instead of just asserting something. So far you have nothing, zilch, nada.

"a) Water has been measured with a degree of accuracy where we would expect to see curvature based on he conventional understanding of physics and a spherical earth."

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.

and

b) No curvature has been found.

Because lets face it, what you actually mean is "When I look at a lake or a glass of water I can't see curvature" which is preety pointless seeing as the change would be so small you wouldn't expect to see it."

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?

@ampersand ;

Nope

Erfisflat said:
"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."
You need evidence. Currently you offered the argument of water making things appear lower when you are looking at them from a above angle or through a glass which gets smaller at the bottom.

"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."

"Yup, a completely irrelevant experiment and observation. This is another false analogy fallacy."
But if it is an observation that supports the common theory of refraction, how is it a fallacy when the main disagreement at the moment is how light bends in the air?

"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."
In correct. The atmosphere does not have a glass which is slanted inward toward the bottom. My theory says it will appear lower when the glass is slanted inward because the normal is also slanted down. One must be seen the light at the normal for the straw to appear at the same level. We must not have a slanted glass. Remember "It is that when we best replicate the conditions of the atmosphere, which doesn't include curved glass". Also the air was cold at the surface beneath a lair of warm air. You must also consider that reblacting a situation the best you can when it is not reblacteted very good and considering it proof is not the scientific method.

"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."
Earth is not a space ship. Earth is not shaped like a testicle. You seem to be miss informed on the ball earth theory.

"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."
"Nice dodge. 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."

"ErfisFlat, man who thinks the earth is round and has never encountered raindrops."
I will not say I know what Ampersand meant but it would appear as if they where countering your claim about "Water, in every measurable circumstance is found with a flat and level surface".

You have yet to explain the earth magnetism and the dynamic properties of water. I cannot refute a point unless I know what the point is. : )

Ampersand said: 
"So, humdinger it is, you've constructed another strawman, and dodged my point entirely."

"Lie."

Lie are told with the attempt to deceive someone. I don't think Erfisflat was trying to deceive anyone. But I cannot say for sure.

Erfisflat

"You need evidence. Currently you offered the argument of water making things appear lower when you are looking at them from a above angle or through a glass which gets smaller at the bottom."

 You can't watch videos for some reason, and the mason jar is not "a glass which gets smaller at the bottom". The evidence is verifiable with simple experimentation.

 "But if it is an observation that supports the common theory of refraction, how is it a fallacy when the main disagreement at the moment is how light bends in the air?"

 The common theory of refraction is what matches the results of observable experimentational results. Anything else is pseudoscience and unevidenced claims.

 "Earth is not a space ship. Earth is not shaped like a testicle. You seem to be miss informed on the ball earth theory."
 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth

 "The testicle should be round, firm, and smooth."

http://youngmenshealthsite.org/guides/testicular-self-exam/

 "I will not say I know what Ampersand meant but it would appear as if they where countering your claim about "Water, in every measurable circumstance is found with a flat and level surface"."

 I guess I assumed one would have sense enough to realize that I was referring to BODIES of water. At least more than a drop, that which shape is determined by atmospheric pressure, only because there is far more than just a drop of water on the earth.

 "You have yet to explain the earth magnetism and the dynamic properties of water. I cannot refute a point unless I know what the point is. : )"

 It's a pretty long story. I have plenty of videos with demonstrable evidence, I'll look for some literature since you aren't aloud to YouTube.

 In short, the planar earth has a magnetic field because it is like a Tesla coil.


Of course, the poles are also reversed in this model too.

The sun and moon are, well I'm not sure actually. But something like this.

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/ich76mE

Salt water is dimagnetic.

https://sciencing.com/do-magnets-work-saltwater-6382590.html

This perfectly explains the tides on a flat plane and doesn't have to assume any magical unproved forces.

Erfisflat

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

SilverishGoldNova

After some time on DDO, I have returned here.

The flat Earth thread there has now been turned into a circle jerk for globetards.

SuzyCreamcheese

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

SilverishGoldNova

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