frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





I've changed my mind, the earth is a flying ball, and here is the evidence.

Debate Information

Here are the top reasons I now believe we are spinning and wobbling through a near perfect vacuum.

All the other planets are spherical.


Flattards try to show images and videos of other planets and stars as translucent, with a watery appearance.

This is nonsensical and their $900 cameras are rubbish compared to the NASA super duper million dollar telescopes with virtual reality components. 

The logic behind this evidence is flawless, and I'll give an example of the masterpiece of evidences. These are all animals.


These animals all (or at least eight) have four legs and with this logic, we can deduce that all animals have four legs. This is very basic kindergarten stuff guys, and I don't know why I couldn't get it before. Those animals with less than four legs like chimpanzees and squirrels are merely stuck in Darwinian transitional evolution phases and aren't actually animals, as modern scientists would have us believe.

Curved water is not a myth.

Flatties also claim they can never find curved water, so I went to this frozen lake and very carefully placed three identical spheres in a circle in the middle and let them go for a little experiment. I brought my camera along for proof of the results.


Lo and behold, when I let them go, they rolled away from each other, proving once and for all that there was a hump in the middle of the ice, as common sense tells us.


Flat earth "truthers" also claim to have done conclusive laser tests over water that show there is no hump in the middle, where there should be a very large one. This is the results of one of those tests that show a laser being seen on one side of a large lake.

What is never shown, interestingly enough, is a side view, which would prove what is exactly going on. Well, I snuck over to a side view of one of these tests and snapped this picture.


As you can plainly see, gravity has warped this laser light on both ends to cause it to go around the curved water. I asked a physicist with a college degree and he confirmed this is what is happening, so this isn't some uneducated guess guys, sorry. Which leads me to my next piece of evidence, education!

Flat earthers are mostly uneducated, having little to no college education, therefore their experiments and opinions are pretty useless. This is Fred, who got a bachelor's degree and is a pretty good auto mechanic.


Fred bought a corvette body and axles, and over the course of three years, built this corvette from the ground up, and it is like or better than a new one.


So, I asked Fred if he could take my car and do the same thing to it.


His reply, sadly was a no. This led me to the conclusion that if Fred had only gone on to get his master's in auto mechanic, could have done this seemingly simple feat. This is mainly the reason why I think flatties are dumb, and can't believe anything they say anymore, being highly uneducated chumps.

Flat earth idiots like to point out that the sun appears to shrink as it moves toward the horizon and this proves that it is close, and small, as seen in time lapses like this one.



They also point out how the sun goes not in a straight line but curves to the left or right and not in a straight line, but this is to be ignored for the purpose of this debate. But I've uncovered the real evidence to show you what they don't want you to see. I put a filter on the sun as it moves across the sky to show that it never changes size. Sure, those dumb flat earthers will say "that's not a filter, it's a cut and paste job!" but they are largely uneducated as I pointed out previously, and a physicist with a master's confirmed this is just a filter. I've comprised some screenshots from the results of my findings, and you'll see the sun never changes size throughout it's course through the sky... I mean as the earth rotates...


So there you have it. @ampersand, @logicvault, @Gooberry , @pogue, @SilverishGoldNova , and anyone else I've forgotten that I might have steamrolled in casual debate, please accept my apologies and a heart felt concession, I'm eating a plate of crow and going back to the ball!



George_HorseApplesaucecheesycheeseZombieguy1987RS_master
Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

Wayne Dyer



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    Wow, a troll within a troll. Way to prove my point. (slow clap). Be glad the rules here are not as loose as YouTube or Twitter. Otherwise I'd rip you a new one and sell the old one on ebay.
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
     Yes, balls should roll on ice because the earth is curved. This shows how much of an educated person you really are! I am truly in awe.

     That mechanic who believes the earth is flat really did wonders for your argument. Everyone knows mechanics are highly educated in cosmological principles and they are even more educated than actual cosmologists who are experts on the subject. 

     By the way, that laser experiment is flawless! Yeah there have been similar experiments in the past but all of those experiments are fake because they reached a different conclusion. All of the people who conducted the other experiments are dirty liars but the ones who conducted this experiment could never lie! What do they have to gain from this? I really can not see.
     
     By the way, the sun really shrinks! Some people say that this is simply because of something called "glaire" or something like that? Yeah, that is not real. I do not believe in "glier". People say they can use a dense filter to show the real size of the sun but that is just ridiculous! Everyone knows using a dense filter is editing and it can have no correlation between preventing this so called "glieare" to show up.

     By the way, hahah :D ! That last meme is so funny because it is true! How can people believe they are on a spinning ball and they are monkeys! Everyone knows evolution can not be real because inductive reasoning is clearly flawed! I think NASA formulated inductive reasoning along with that "klare" to trick people into believing that the earth is a globe. 

     Anyways, amazing work as usual my flat earther brother! I was scared at first but then I saw through your irony because I am very smart and woke.

     
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    Yes! Balls should roll on ice if the earth is a globe! You proved how you really are educated on the subject by saying this!

     That mechanic who believes the earth is flat did wonders for your argument. Everyone knows mechanics are highly educated in cosmological principles and they are more educated than cosmologists in physics.

     The laser experiment is just undeniable proof that the earth is flat. Yeah there have been a ton of experiments that have reached the conclusion that the earth was a globe but those are dirty lies and the people who conducted those experiments are paid by the evil NASA! That single laser experiment is the only experiment that matters and there is no way the conclusion can be wrong or there is no way that those people can lie. 

     Yes! Oh my god I was waiting for someone to reply to those globeheads on the shrinking of the sun! The sun clearly shrinks! They say that is because of "gliare" or something like that but that is a lie. I do not believe in "glair". They claim we can see the real size of the sun if we use dense filters but that is just editing! Using dense filters can not have any correlation to preventing this so called "galeir" thing.

     LOL omg  :D! That meme is so funny! How can people be so ? We are not monkeys and we are not on a ball, sheeple. Evolution can not be real because inductive reasoning is not valid. I believe NASA formulated inductive reasoning and that "klair" thing to trick people into believing the earth is a globe.

     By the way, I was so scared that you changed your views when I first saw this. But I was able to see through your irony because I am very smart and woke.
    Hi! Welcome to debateisland! I don't believe we have met! I see you believe the earth is a flying pizza. I believed this for a long time. Wonder why we never debated this? Oh well, we'll get the chance now! Of course the earth is a ball (for some odd reason, the medical term for ball is not allowed on debateisland, so much for debating "everything" huh yet some people are ok to spout "racist scum!" in other debates)

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/24228#Comment_24228

    Anyway, why did you ignore the first point? It is only ranked number 7 in popsci's top ten reasons we should believe in the wobbly ball! It is likely such a masterpiece that it is irrefutable, which is why you ignored it.

    It seems you missed the point of the mechanic argument. I didn't say he believed the earth was flat, though it wouldn't be surprising with only four years of college education. The point that went over your flat head was that he would have been able to turn my beater into a vette had he continued his indoctrina.. I mean formal education and gotten his master's. The point is that we can never question what the scientists that have all that learning because we are just dumb animals, we evolved from neanderthals, that is no mystery because of inductive reasoning like you say, which does not allow the conclusion to be false, I think.

    As for the laser test, you ignored the magical gravity pulling the ends of the laser back down on either side of the curved water, but I would like to know where all these "ton of experiments that reach the conclusion that the earth is a globe". I'm having trouble finding them, and think they would be quite useful in my debates against flattards in the future. All I can find is someone putting sticks in the dirt, misconceptions about a boat and fisheye camera lenses.

    http://theconversation.com/you-dont-need-to-build-a-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-isnt-flat-heres-the-simple-science-88106

    You are so incorrect about the sun, even those test which reduce glare are conclusive that the sun is not shrinking as it approaches the horizon. As you saw, i put my own filter on the sun and it stays the same size throughout it's course! You flat earthers are no match for glair!



    But again, your ingenius insight  into inductive reasoning is faulty, as inductive reasoning does not allow for a false conclusion.

    https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html ;

    So clearly The Planet of the Apes is based on fact and logical reasoning, a true story.



    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Ah sorry my friend. It seems I did not read all of your arguments properly as I was in a rush. I am sorry for that. I think I can convince you that we live on a flat pizza slice though!

     I will start from your last arguments and go towards the first ones because that is how I do things. I am different from everybody around me, you see?

     I do not think you got my point on the inductive reasoning. I said inductive reasoning itself was false(it cannot be considered reasoning) and I only said that because your meme mentioned evolution. A lot of people(like me) reject evolution because it involves inductive reasoning. We can not see evolution happening so it could not have happened. People say there are traces of it everywhere but that does not matter because we did not see evolution happening with our own eyes. I also do not believe that history happened because I did not see it. And I also believe that detectives are wrong to catch criminals through inductive reasoning because they did not see the criminal with their own eyes, right? You are a smart fella, I know you will get it. 

     Now, what was it? Claire? I don't know. The video clearly has no kaleir in it as people on the comments section have made obvious. I really don't know how you can not see it as well! The sun clearly changes size and it has nothing to do with kyle.

     With a "ton" of experiments thing I meant like, you know, observing ships disappear from bottom to top and the rotation of sytars or Eötvös effect or something, pfft! I am too woke for that . But there is this video that is extremely hilarious! Check it out:

     These people are clearly liars and are paid by NASA! I actually have proof! At the start of the video you can hear Stefan Dawkins talking. BUT HE IS DEAD! Who has the power to revive dead people? Only NASA can have that power.

     Ah, you are wrong about not questioning scientists buddy! We can talk about anything we want! What do scientists know that we don't! We can study every subject on earth at once you know! We do not need to accept their word on anything!
     Let me tell you a life story since we are friends, I went to the doctor once and he wrote some words on a paper and said they were.. madison? Anyways he said that I have something, I don't remember it was just too long. I asked him for proof that I have this sickness and he started about talking some weird stuff that I do not understand and I stopped him and said ", in english please." then he raised his tone. So I punched him in the face and left the hospital.

     Oh your first point, as I said, I was in a rush.(You know, a guy as woke as me gets a lot of chicks ;) ) Although I am a flat earther and although I would like to point out that your image looks kind of weird, I know for a fact that NASA devils have found ways to take good pictures of the planets:
    http://www.wiki-zero.co/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQXN0cm9waG90b2dyYXBoeSNBbWF0ZXVyX2FzdHJvcGhvdG9ncmFwaHk
    https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-blogs/imaging-foundations-richard-wright/capture-crystal-clear-astro-images/
     Just kidding! These are not actually real. When you take a photo; NASA takes your photo through the internet, edits it and sends it back to you! Wake up sheephotographers!(I came up with that phrase myself! I have 157.3 IQ after all)

     Lastly, Nasa says their photographs were... I don't know it's all lies anyways read this, it is obviously wrong:
    https://newrepublic.com/article/122308/first-photos-taken-every-planet-our-solar-system

     
     
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Ah sorry my friend. It seems I did not read all of your arguments properly as I was in a rush. I am sorry for that. I think I can convince you that we live on a flat pizza slice though!

    That is quite alright, we all make mistakes, including thinking that we live on a floating pizza.

    " I will start from your last arguments and go towards the first ones because that is how I do things. I am different from everybody around me, you see?"

    I'll try to follow. It makes it a bit harder to see those missed points and arguments, but flat earthers are different i give you that.

    " I do not think you got my point on the inductive reasoning. I said inductive reasoning itself was false(it cannot be considered reasoning) and I only said that because your meme mentioned evolution. A lot of people(like me) reject evolution because it involves inductive reasoning. We can not see evolution happening so it could not have happened. People say there are traces of it everywhere but that does not matter because we did not see evolution happening with our own eyes. I also do not believe that history happened because I did not see it. And I also believe that detectives are wrong to catch criminals through inductive reasoning because they did not see the criminal with their own eyes, right? You are a smart fella, I know you will get it. "

    Oh I get it just fine, and I agree that history is just that, "his story" but questioning scientific finds like digging up old bones and never finding a monkey fossil is not up for discussion, as I said, inductive reasoning leaves no room for error. 

    " Now, what was it? Claire? I don't know. The video clearly has no kaleir in it as people on the comments section have made obvious. I really don't know how you can not see it as well! The sun clearly changes size and it has nothing to do with kyle."

    That's impossible, glaire is totally to blame, especially when sunset is upon us, because the glaire is so high! Even when flat earthers use a filter on the sun, it clearly stays the same size, despite what some of these morons claim. While some even go a step further and claim that, get this, the sun doesn't change size very significantly because of atmospheric magnification! They claim that there is a massive amount of water in the air, and that water causes magnification, which is a silly claim, and no scientist in their right mind would support such an idea, they would have told us about this as soon as it was discovered.





     "With a "ton" of experiments thing I meant like, you know, observing ships disappear from bottom to top and the rotation of sytars or Eötvös effect or something, pfft! I am too woke for that . But there is this video that is extremely hilarious! Check it out:"

    That doesn't sound like a ton to me. I mean actual measurements and tests. Similar to what flattards are doing with ships that show, well you know, the opposite, since the earth is clearly a ball. 



    Yes, that video clearly shows a very very small earth. Flat earthers claimed that the priest Mr. Hawking was lying because the math didn't add up that that of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. Everyone knows that a man who outlived any ALS sufferer by about 50 years is probably divine, and could never be wrong, let alone those paid actors! Although the math shows that an observer or laser 32 inches from sea level would only see about 6inches of curvature over three miles:

    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=3&h0=3&unit=imperial

    We all know that math can lie, sometimes, especially when it goes against the blessed ball earth.

    " These people are clearly liars and are paid by NASA! I actually have proof! At the start of the video you can hear Stefan Dawkins talking. BUT HE IS DEAD! Who has the power to revive dead people? Only NASA can have that power.

    This is clearly a misunderstanding, anyone knows that his voice was prerecorded on a 1987 answering machine, long before he died.

    " Ah, you are wrong about not questioning scientists buddy! We can talk about anything we want! What do scientists know that we don't! We can study every subject on earth at once you know! We do not need to accept their word on anything! "

    You can certainly study what they say, but do not question their authoritative claims, and certainly do not test to see if they are wrong. This is purely pseudoscience and doesn't follow the new and improved scientific method!

    " Let me tell you a life story since we are friends, I went to the doctor once and he wrote some words on a paper and said they were.. madison? Anyways he said that I have something, I don't remember it was just too long. I asked him for proof that I have this sickness and he started about talking some weird stuff that I do not understand and I stopped him and said ", in english please." then he raised his tone. So I punched him in the face and left the hospital."

    This is nonsensical and we all know that we can ourselves test to see if the doctors, who have years of indoctrinative papers that prove they know what they are saying. The "madison" he forced you to take was clearly for your own good, and never had any addictive properties or negative side effects which may cause other problems with your body. We must trust the doctors who are paid by the almighty pharmaceutical companies that push these helpful drugs at any cost, because there is no way our bodies can heal themselves as some idiots would have us believe. So take that madison, friend.

    " Oh your first point, as I said, I was in a rush.(You know, a guy as woke as me gets a lot of chicks  ) Although I am a flat earther and although I would like to point out that your image looks kind of weird, I know for a fact that NASA devils have found ways to take good pictures of the planets:
    http://www.wiki-zero.co/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQXN0cm9waG90b2dyYXBoeSNBbWF0ZXVyX2FzdHJvcGhvdG9ncmFwaHk
    https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-blogs/imaging-foundations-richard-wright/capture-crystal-clear-astro-images/
     Just kidding! These are not actually real. When you take a photo; NASA takes your photo through the internet, edits it and sends it back to you! Wake up sheephotographers!(I came up with that phrase myself! I have 157.3 IQ after all)

    The caption in the first image clearly says that the image is a photograph, sorta.:
    "An image of Orion's Belt composited from digitized black-and-white photographic plates recorded through red and blue astronomical filters, with a computer synthesized green channel. The plates were taken using the Samuel Oschin Telescopebetween 1987 and 1991."

    That word means that they put a few images together in Photoshop, which clearly does not require much editing at all

    The second image is just of the moon, which everyone knows that NASA gives better pictures of. That P900 is no match for what NASA's billion dollar telescope can produce.





    " Lastly, Nasa says their photographs were... I don't know it's all lies anyways read this, it is obviously wrong:
    https://newrepublic.com/article/122308/first-photos-taken-every-planet-our-solar-system

    The last link you give that tries to discredit the priests at NASA only help us. Some flat earthers claim that these images are put out with the help of Disney, which is hilarious, but also false and has no merit.
    Image 1 in your link:


    Purely coincidental.

    Image 2 in your link:



    They claim this is the first image of earth from space, but this has to be a drawing or something... It's a straight line! The image quality is also very poor, and was probably edited before being released to the public, so Ill agree that this one was "obviously wrong". This certainly couldn't be 65 miles above earth and there must be a typo there somewhere, friend.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    Adding a late argument. Hope you don't mind, @alexoland,. This picture was taken from the ISS.

    https://www.quora.com/What-one-thing-do-you-really-want-but-can’t-afford

    Edit-fixed broken link. Edit again, link unworkable, please copy and paste the adress into your browser.



    Which is orbiting the earth in the thermosphere, surviving temperatures of over 3,600 degrees farenheight, because they have scientists on their side and they can invent things that can withstand these temperatures. They don't implement these things here on earth in less important things like firefighting suits because science is far more important than saving lives. Those stars you see through the earth are caused by refraction, my friend with a master's degree confirmed this. Anyways, since the ISS is orbiting the earth, it must be a ball.


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Okay, the joke is starting to get old so I will reveal myself as a globehead. Now let's look at the first argument that is the sun changing size:
    https://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es2603/es2603page01.cfm?chapter_no=investigation
     The sun actually does change size but not in the course of a day. Then how do I explain your video of the sun changing size? Just like I explained it before:
    https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/04/flat-earth-follies-sun-changes-size.html
     If you know how to take photographs, you can observe what the rest of the world is observing. 

     That video of the ship shows a mirage. Don't believe me? Make your observations again. You probably will not see this again. Did you know that a lot of people have actually watched boats as they went away? Do you know what their results were nearly all the time? The ship disappearing bottom first. Your mirage only happens on specific conditions.

     " We must trust the doctors who are paid by the almighty pharmaceutical companies that push these helpful drugs at any cost, because there is no way our bodies can heal themselves as some idiots would have us believe." seriously? Do you have a trust issue or something? There is not a conspiracy all against you. Doctors are actually doing their jobs. As I said, they could explain what the medicine does but will you understand without even a little information on the subject? Yeah, our body fights the sicknesses but it has its limits. Would you wait for your cancer to heal? 

     "Composited" is not editing something which is not in there. You are literally cherry picking. Look at what they composite and how they composite it and explain how the hell that would be a wrong way to show us the real thing?

     The issue is not that you have a bad camera. The issue is that you refuse to take the pictures in the right way. "OH! Why can't my picture look like THAT! Are you assaulting my camera?" your camera is probably fine as people even use their phones to do this. 

     Oh no that is not a coincidence. NASA workers put that disney dog image there knowingly. Why? Umm.. because they want us to find it?... It is hilarious that you would use that as your argument.

     I have to go now, I know I have not addressed all of your points but I will come back. Also, I think you would want to look into that "Eötvös effect".

     
    Erfisflat
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I am back. Let me jump right back on. 

     It is true that the ISS is travelling through thermosphere and it is also true that it can reach 2500 degrees in there. But you are forgetting that the thermosphere is a near perfect vacuum. 

     Now, I would like to question what exactly you believe. It is not fair that you are the only one asking questions right? Do you believe that we are on a flat circular piece of land and we live "on top" of this land? I would be happy if you clarified this. 

     I also would like to know why a significant amount of the population is lying? Why are they making us believe in the globe earth?

     Do you believe there is some magnetic force that pulls us to the ground or something like that or do you think this flat piece of land is going "up" at a certain speed so we feel like we are falling "down"?

     Is this your map:
     https://www.google.com/search?q=flat+earth+map&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=5wursr6ozyg8OM%3A%2CkLl4vrdip_X5kM%2C_&usg=__UDmw9MYpgT7lf-W4rNIodOBlUNw=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsmrHUyKPcAhWjJ5oKHQfiCjcQ9QEIKjAA#imgrc=5wursr6ozyg8OM:

     
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Hmm.. We dropped a lot of arguments there friend.
    AlexOland
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Which ones exactly? As I said, I was in a hurry when I wrote the first reply. But the second reply should respond to the rest of your arguments. You did see my second reply, yes?
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    I think at this point I am legally obligated to say "nice meltdown".
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat Okay, the joke is starting to get old so I will reveal myself as a globehead. Now let's look at the first argument that is the sun changing size:
    https://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es2603/es2603page01.cfm?chapter_no=investigation
     The sun actually does change size but not in the course of a day. Then how do I explain your video of the sun changing size? Just like I explained it before:
    https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/04/flat-earth-follies-sun-changes-size.html
     If you know how to take photographs, you can observe what the rest of the world is observing. 

     That video of the ship shows a mirage. Don't believe me? Make your observations again. You probably will not see this again. Did you know that a lot of people have actually watched boats as they went away? Do you know what their results were nearly all the time? The ship disappearing bottom first. Your mirage only happens on specific conditions.

     " We must trust the doctors who are paid by the almighty pharmaceutical companies that push these helpful drugs at any cost, because there is no way our bodies can heal themselves as some idiots would have us believe." seriously? Do you have a trust issue or something? There is not a conspiracy all against you. Doctors are actually doing their jobs. As I said, they could explain what the medicine does but will you understand without even a little information on the subject? Yeah, our body fights the sicknesses but it has its limits. Would you wait for your cancer to heal? 

     "Composited" is not editing something which is not in there. You are literally cherry picking. Look at what they composite and how they composite it and explain how the hell that would be a wrong way to show us the real thing?

     The issue is not that you have a bad camera. The issue is that you refuse to take the pictures in the right way. "OH! Why can't my picture look like THAT! Are you assaulting my camera?" your camera is probably fine as people even use their phones to do this. 

     Oh no that is not a coincidence. NASA workers put that disney dog image there knowingly. Why? Umm.. because they want us to find it?... It is hilarious that you would use that as your argument.

     I have to go now, I know I have not addressed all of your points but I will come back. Also, I think you would want to look into that "Eötvös effect".

     
    Aw, now that we're not playing devil's advocate of sorts anymore, which was a lot of fun, thanks, I do want to reorganize the structure of the debate, it seems to have gone here and there and points have been dropped, also points that were for the globe that I argued for would no longer be valid, or strawmen, if you aren't behind them.

    1. All other planets are round.

    I think you conceded the logic behind this as being irrational since you never mentioned it. This was a point and the other was of planets not actually appearing to be spherical, solid bodies, millions of miles away.
    I believe your argument, or i interpreted your argument as these were poor, pixelated images, and ended up posting images of the flat earth as a rebuttal and being apologetic for NASA and Disney tricksters.

    Basically agreeing that the character Pluto being thrown into the image of the planet pluto was merely coincidental. I'd have conceded, mostly because this is circumstantial, but you beat me to it by saying " that is not a coincidence, NASA put that disney dog there..." this early picture of pluto is just pure coincidence too, I'm sure.



    Also, the first image of earth from 65 miles away, which was flat, was dropped, understandably.

    2. Laser tests

    This one wasn't actually clarified, due to playing devils advocate, so it isn't a dropped point, but here is the clarification. At 7.5 miles, a laser test found this lake to be flat.



    After you claimed there were a "ton" of experiments that proved the earth was a ball, none specifically were cited, aside from the fraudulent one (which i will get to later), only the vague assertion that ships disappear from the bottom up, the rotation of the stars (which is a non-sequitor) and the Eötvös effect (which i saw no evidence for and am expected to research and explain because I assume you are not so sure about that one). This was countered with a video of a ship, once it disappeared from view with the naked eye, was brought back into view. Then a series of mirages and other refractive phenomena clearly takes place at the bottom of the ship first, where there is an abundance of water in the air. This, coupled with a complete lack of any measurement on your part leads to inconclusive results that do not take any refraction, which is clearly an issue, into consideration. You've also shown that you have no idea as to what distance these ships apparently start to drop over the horizon, nor have you included any experiments that prove this assertion, aside from the one where the experimenters were proved, mathematically, to be lying about the results (which was then dropped).


    3. Sun's size changes.

    This was shown at first without a filter, and the response was reasonable, a filter is needed for anything conclusively. After a video was done with side by side comparison with a filter, that was seemingly dropped because your response was that you'd explain it by repeating what you did the first time and then a link was thrown out that did not even mention filters, or glare. To me the absence of any explanation or clarification only points to the conclusion that you either do not understand the link or have not read the link. You merely conducted a search and found a page with the most relevant title to drop, expecting me to explain the information therein. You then conclude that any results that show the sun shrinking are invalid, because "they do not know how to take pictures". This is an unsupported and unexplained assertion, and exactly what I would say if I were facing an irrefutable argument from your position.

    Ships part 2.  

    Since you've ignored the refutation of the discovery channel's proof of curvature and boats, and instead assert without evidence that boats go over the curve (again without any measurement), Ill address your concerns and double or even triple down on the evidence that boats only appear to go over a curve. The main argument is that mine and mine only contains a mirage, and no other videos or instances of boats over horizons could possibly contain any mirages, which is illogical. What IS logical, is that at a variable distance, water will eventually accumulate depending on the amount of water vapor in the air, starting at the area closest to the surface of the water, and this water will bend the light to cause the light from the ship (starting from the bottom) to be obscured.








    There are literally dozens of examples, take your pick they all show exactly what I explained. Since you've offered nothing to support your claim that we can examine, we must assume that the claim is false.

    Education.

    The medicine argument is totally irrelevant at this point. Yes, we can physically know if there is something wrong with our bodies, and yes we can get opinions of this from multiple sources that we can often know and trust. With these in mind this makes this analogy an inaccurate one. I stated nothing but facts in my arguments, or in this case (on opposite day) the opposite of facts. Do pharmaceutical companies pay doctors to push their drugs? Yes.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/lawsuits-say-pharma-illegally-paid-doctors-to-push-their-drugs

    Do drugs have adverse side effects? Obviously.

    Images edited.

    Your claim that composite doesn't mean editing something "that was not there" is false. The very meaning of composite proves this. By a composite, they take two or more images and edit them together, meaning there was something in the first image that wasn't there before they edited it. There isn't really a valid argument here. Your claim that I am refusing to take a picture "in the right way" is also unsubstantiated.

    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat I am back. Let me jump right back on. 

     It is true that the ISS is travelling through thermosphere and it is also true that it can reach 2500 degrees in there. But you are forgetting that the thermosphere is a near perfect vacuum. 

     Now, I would like to question what exactly you believe. It is not fair that you are the only one asking questions right? Do you believe that we are on a flat circular piece of land and we live "on top" of this land? I would be happy if you clarified this. 

     I also would like to know why a significant amount of the population is lying? Why are they making us believe in the globe earth?

     Do you believe there is some magnetic force that pulls us to the ground or something like that or do you think this flat piece of land is going "up" at a certain speed so we feel like we are falling "down"?

     Is this your map:
     https://www.google.com/search?q=flat+earth+map&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=5wursr6ozyg8OM%3A%2CkLl4vrdip_X5kM%2C_&usg=__UDmw9MYpgT7lf-W4rNIodOBlUNw=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsmrHUyKPcAhWjJ5oKHQfiCjcQ9QEIKjAA#imgrc=5wursr6ozyg..
    Is your claim that near perfect vacuums cannot transfer heat? If so, how does the sun warm the earth? How did they get that temperature reading?

    My belief is that water is flat. This means that the earth, which comprises of 70% water, could not possibly be a ball. Earth could be an infinite plane. It is hard for me to say exactly what is true except that water is flat, which is a known fact. I can answer the obvious fact that yes, we do live "on top" of this land... Oh, and the heliocentric model is demonstrably wrong.

    A "significant amount of people" is a stretch. As of now, only three people allegedly completed only a sub-orbital flight, 533 people allegedly reached Earth orbit, 24 allegedly traveled beyond low Earth orbit and 12 allegedly walked on the Moon.  This is clearly not "a significant amount of people" when compared to the world's population. Why? First ask yourself who could be behind hiding a flat, stationary earth, as described in the Bible. Secondly, people will do anything for money. Third, assuming the earth may be infinite, they may be hiding land. What if the lost city of Atlantis is not a mythical place, but instead 10,000 miles to your left? Motive is important, but alone, it does not prove a thing, whether we know the motive or not.

    I do not believe the earth is moving at all, as i said a while ago. The earth is stationary. Claims like these are probably distractions from shills like The Flat Earth Society. I call it controlled opposition. Alternative explanations for the mythical gravity, which was ad hoc conjecture to support the initial assumption that earth was a ball.

    As for a map, i also do not allow myself to speculate. Pretty much the same people that give us the globe, gave us that map. I am not a cartographer, and frankly don't care. The map could be more controlled opposition, as with any flat earth model present today. I like to think there was intelligent design (it made us think we were on a spinning ball) and we will not actually know until we oust TPTB and science is rediscovered.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    I think at this point I am legally obligated to say "nice meltdown".
    You can say anything you like, but saying you are "legally obligated" to say anything is a lie. This was known as a devil's advocate parody. It was meant to spark interest in a conversation, and it was productive, one more person is questioning the ball earth and this is all that I want, conversation about this. We had conversation, but just as your trolling statement here, you became deceptive, or a lie(s). What you were doing was not science, that was lying to protect your religious beliefs, and I don't really care to converse with liars, unless they admit their deceit.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ya, im not really sure what happened with the last post as far as the quoting deal.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Well, I am kind of surprised because I think you did not read my arguments properly. 

     I can not explain what you are exactly seeing in your own camera. But I, myself have observed planets numerous times through telescopes. Plus, there are people who take the pictures of the planet by only taking the pictures through a telescope so you can not say: "I have not watched the planets through a telescope so I do not believe you.". These facts show that your picture quality was simply low. I suggest you go buy a telescope and take the pictures through there. If you can not, find pictures that are taken through telescopes.

     I already talked about that laser experiment. You are dismissing the experiment done by discovery channel and you are dismissing every photographic proof because of simple reasons like: "huh that looks like a drawing." or "Hah there is a picture of a dog there.". You dismiss all of these and you show this single video as your experiment. You know that this experiment could be flawed yes? Or the guy could even be lying for attention. 

     Oh you deny Eötvös effect as well? Hmm.. so you deny all the experiments and measurements that does not fit your flat earth and instead you accept that single video. I was planning to mention the coriolis effect but you will just deny that as well.

     Look at my comment. I gave a link to a site explaining why the sun appears to change size. Your video cleary has glare in it. Look at it for god's sake. Do you see a perfectly round shape in your video until the very last moments? No you do not. 

     Oh my god.. I did not say it will not happen ever again to no one. I said it doesn't happen very often. If you yourself went to the beach and tested again the probability of you experiencing that mirage is low. Yes of course there are more videos of the mirage! I do not say it does not exist! It blows my mind how you just changed the subject to this mirage and now you think you do not have to explain how ships start to disappear from bottom to top.

     The doctor issie is pretty irrelevant but I will answer it anyways. Read that article you linked. Does that say every doctor in the world is now a slave of pharma and they are all trying to conceive us? No. Better read before you post, eh?

     Cherry picking. That is all I have to say. "Composite does not mean editing something that was not there" by not "there" I did not mean not in the picture. I meant in reality. Think. You are taking a number of pictures and you are editing them together... the different pictures you took all represent reality. You know panoramic photographs? When you rotate your phone to take a large picture? That large picture is a composition of small pictures. Does that mean it does not represent reality?

     You do not even know how sun warms earth? You really did not go to school did you? Okay, think of a strong spotlight. Point that spotlight at a surface and wait. Oh what!? The surface just warmed up! Could THAT be what is happening with the sun and earth? 

     Well, if the flat earth was infinite, how could we see a circular shadow on the moon while the lunar eclipse? Does NASA cast that shadow somehow? Or do you believe that the moon is a hologram like some people?

     "Significant amount of people" everyone who builds or makes things with taking earth's curve into consideration. These people must be lying because if they really did take those things into consideration, the structures would not be as stable. Also, cosmologists should also be lying. All of the space agencies must be lying. Physicists in general should be lying because if it was really made up and there really were contradictions, those people would be the ones to notice it. General relativity must be a lie made up by Einstein. Plus, I should be lying because I have seen the ISS. Rocket launchers must be lying. If the government lies because there is profitable land outside of where we know, governments should be lying and they must be sending some amount of people to the outlands to profit from that land, more people to lie. 

     What I am trying to say is, you can not get away that easily if you claim that the earth is flat and people are trying to hide us from that fact. This is a large claim. 

     

     
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    Your petulance is astounding.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat Well, I am kind of surprised because I think you did not read my arguments properly. 

     I can not explain what you are exactly seeing in your own camera. But I, myself have observed planets numerous times through telescopes. Plus, there are people who take the pictures of the planet by only taking the pictures through a telescope so you can not say: "I have not watched the planets through a telescope so I do not believe you.". These facts show that your picture quality was simply low. I suggest you go buy a telescope and take the pictures through there. If you can not, find pictures that are taken through telescopes.

     I already talked about that laser experiment. You are dismissing the experiment done by discovery channel and you are dismissing every photographic proof because of simple reasons like: "huh that looks like a drawing." or "Hah there is a picture of a dog there.". You dismiss all of these and you show this single video as your experiment. You know that this experiment could be flawed yes? Or the guy could even be lying for attention. 

     Oh you deny Eötvös effect as well? Hmm.. so you deny all the experiments and measurements that does not fit your flat earth and instead you accept that single video. I was planning to mention the coriolis effect but you will just deny that as well.

     Look at my comment. I gave a link to a site explaining why the sun appears to change size. Your video cleary has glare in it. Look at it for god's sake. Do you see a perfectly round shape in your video until the very last moments? No you do not. 

     Oh my god.. I did not say it will not happen ever again to no one. I said it doesn't happen very often. If you yourself went to the beach and tested again the probability of you experiencing that mirage is low. Yes of course there are more videos of the mirage! I do not say it does not exist! It blows my mind how you just changed the subject to this mirage and now you think you do not have to explain how ships start to disappear from bottom to top.

     The doctor issie is pretty irrelevant but I will answer it anyways. Read that article you linked. Does that say every doctor in the world is now a slave of pharma and they are all trying to conceive us? No. Better read before you post, eh?

     Cherry picking. That is all I have to say. "Composite does not mean editing something that was not there" by not "there" I did not mean not in the picture. I meant in reality. Think. You are taking a number of pictures and you are editing them together... the different pictures you took all represent reality. You know panoramic photographs? When you rotate your phone to take a large picture? That large picture is a composition of small pictures. Does that mean it does not represent reality?

     You do not even know how sun warms earth? You really did not go to school did you? Okay, think of a strong spotlight. Point that spotlight at a surface and wait. Oh what!? The surface just warmed up! Could THAT be what is happening with the sun and earth? 

     Well, if the flat earth was infinite, how could we see a circular shadow on the moon while the lunar eclipse? Does NASA cast that shadow somehow? Or do you believe that the moon is a hologram like some people?

     "Significant amount of people" everyone who builds or makes things with taking earth's curve into consideration. These people must be lying because if they really did take those things into consideration, the structures would not be as stable. Also, cosmologists should also be lying. All of the space agencies must be lying. Physicists in general should be lying because if it was really made up and there really were contradictions, those people would be the ones to notice it. General relativity must be a lie made up by Einstein. Plus, I should be lying because I have seen the ISS. Rocket launchers must be lying. If the government lies because there is profitable land outside of where we know, governments should be lying and they must be sending some amount of people to the outlands to profit from that land, more people to lie. 

     What I am trying to say is, you can not get away that easily if you claim that the earth is flat and people are trying to hide us from that fact. This is a large claim. 

     

     

    First, you argument contains aneqdotal evidence, and would be great except you're facing actual footage with a camera with zooming power equivalant to most telescopes available today. So your claim that the "image quality was just low" is still unsubstantiated.

    https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/technology/camera-or-telescope-nikons-coolpix-p900-brings-revolution-with-its-incredible-zoom-on-546/

    Since you've entirely dropped the point that "All planets are spherical", this point is moot. Your statement that I buy a telescope and take pictures through it instead is wrong.

    On a side note, this telescopic camera also has been used to take images of stars. They are also not what we have been told.










    You claim that you have " already talked about that laser experiment", but this is a lie. Up until my last post I have not presented an actual laser experiment to talk about, only a mockup and meme about one. Now that you have the details of the experiment, please talk about it, else it is another dropped point. 

    I also thoroughly discredited the discovery channel's farcical experiment using mathematics and logic. This is not the same as denial. Since it seems to have either slipped you mind or went over it, instead of saying "I already talked about that" I will explain it again in even further detail.

    Lets start with how much curvature there should be in just 3 statute miles, since you apparently don't know. Samuel Birley Rowbotham worked out a simple formula for how much curvature there should be over any given distance on a spherical object that is 25,000 miles in circumference. I'll just quote his book here.


    IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity—every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
    Earth's rate of curvature as shown in Zetetic AstronomyVertical exaggeration 1000x.
    ...[A]fter the first few miles the curvature would be so great that no difficulty could exist in detecting either its actual existence or its proportion..."

    The formula that has been verified through CAD programs is as follows:


    (M X M)8"  where M=the mileage.

    In the discovery channels farcical display of deception, the laser was positioned on the shore of a lake, and the boat of actors drove the boat approximately 3 miles from the laser, so we have our number, the miles. Three miles times three miles is nine, multiplied times eight inches is 72",  exactly what they showed in the experiment! But, as globe earth proponents are quick to point out, this formula does not account for observer height. This is a rule of thumb for sea level only. The math gets far more complicated when factoring for observer height, which is why I like to use the calculator.


    The error is obviously in the laser's level. We have no way of showing if the laser was level, they do not show in thia video anyway. There should be only a 6 inch drop, so in order for the laser to hit at 6' above sea level, either the boat would have to be about 5 feet underwater, or the laser was not levelled, indicating a false result. You can call this "dismissing the evidence" if you want, but you'd be ignoring the mathematical refutation if you did.

    You also claim that I dismissed the "photographs" (I explained that they admit that they are edited, just as was explained to begin with) that you presented, but you ignored the image of the flat earth that YOU provided.

    So, as you can see, I am not just "denying" you evidence. I am meticulously explaining how the experiments are faulty. They took the initial formula, ignored the observer's height, and ran with it. You on the other hand have denied the experiments presented to you. It's not just "this guy" either. Curvature tests are quite popular on youtube and supply generous amounts of proof of lack of curvature.






    This in turn begs the question, once again, what ton of experiments are you referring to?
    You still haven't explained what Eotvos effect is, and how it is relevant, and you now bring up the coriolis effect, with a similar (lack of) argument. How do you expect to have honest discourse if you have no idea what you're talking about?

    The sun argument has just turned to denial on your part. You can't explain what your link says, or how it is relevant, you ignore the magnification properties of the atmosphere, and now it must be a perfectly round shape in the video to be valid. Grasp at straws much? For the record, the experiment takes shots at the sun, through a filter, nullifying any glare, which you agreed to in your very first post, but are now backpeddling to save face and deny, and the sun clearly changes size. If you would care to explain what your link is claiming, so that we are on the same page, now would be the time, if you find out it is even relevant.

    You continue denial with the ships evidence, even after several videos of this phenomenon occuring. You ignored the request of evidence that shows a ship going over the curve clearly and without mirage. You say it is very unlikely that mirages can happen to ships, yet you cannot produce even one example. I can only conclude that you have silently conceded. Denial is not how you debate. Someone could spend hours typing up a logical and reasonable explanation and supply empirical evidence with accurate measurements using advanced equipment and you could just say "nah". Of course Im paraphrasing, but that is about the equivalent of your rebuttal, in other words, there isn't one.

    At this point you have decided to throw away any structure in our debate and instead appear to be rambling and denying every piece of evidence put before you. The pharmaceutical argument is irrelevant, intended for another debate.

    The composite images argument is now another grasping at straws. Two images, edited together will obviously be inputting something that was not there. If it were " there", it would have been in the first image, and no editing would be needed. I could take two images and edit them together as so:


    These two images were technically "there", but were composited together in photoshop.




    These are all composite images. As is this one:


    Get my drift? The image you presented was not a panoramic, as you wish to compare it to, so that point is invalid.

    Your next argument is particularly asanine one. When asked how the ISS can sustain temperatures of over 3,500 degrees, your response was that it was in a vacuum. When asked how the heat from the sun reaches the earth if heat cannot travel in a vacuum, and NOT heat up the ISS in the same way,, you give an analogy of a spotlight on a surface... Seriously, are you 10? You are wasting my time. Try this. Put that spotlight on a surface in a near perfect vacuum. Will the surface still get heated? If so, why doesn't the ISS get that same heat from the sun in a vacuum? If not, how does the sun reach the earth, which is in a vacuum? Try and stay with me. Yes, I know how the sun heats the earth. It's about 3,000 miles away and doesn't have to travel in a vacuum before it hits a surface. Simple.

    You now bring up a new argument, lunar eclipses, under the presumption that the earth is a ball. Eclipses, as explained in the heliocentric model, as an even where the sun, moon and earth are in perfect alignment in different orders. 

    "A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

    Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?" Parallax


    One of these cases were recorded and shown on Youtube.



    Take note on how this guy tries to contrive conjecture to explain away this geometrically impossible feat of the heliocentric model. The shadow of something beneath his feet somehow coming from above his head is mathematically impossible, as the title of the video states. As far as what exactly causes this shadow, now shown not be the earth both logically and mathematically, is currently only speculated upon, and is irrelevant as it pertains to a complete flat earth model, none of which I subscribe to. My claim is that the waters on earth are flat, not that there is some unseen object that causes the shadow on the moon causing a lunar eclipse. In other words, by deductive reasoning this evidence is inconclusive, and when scientists and astronomers pull their head out of their arse, we may come closer to finding out.

    On to a motive. All of these people you insist would be lying about the shape of the earth is illogical. Most of them simply assume the earth is a ball and continue on with their well paid jobs. If someone were to discover something amiss somehow would probably not have the TESTICLES to come out and say anything, as if anyone would listen to them anyway. Most people consider this subject taboo, and even the mere mention of a flat earth is met with blank stares followed by vicious ad hominem attacks, so it's best for them to sit there in their cushy chairs and pretend nothing is wrong,  if they like their life and or lifestyle.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Oh come on now. Now I think you are just messing with me. What I presented was, in fact, anectodal evidence. Just like yours. "Hey, I took this picture. explain it or the earth is flat.". I do not know how you took the picture. I do not know what exactly could be affecting the picture. The only thing I know is that I have seen planets through telesopes and I have seen the pictures of the planets taken through telescopes. They are different then what you presented:


    http://www.deepskywatch.com/Articles/what-can-i-see-through-telescope.html

     I have read that when and where you take the pictures is important too. If you take the pictures in a city where there is light pollution, you are not going to get the same amount of quality. I think this could be your mistake when taking the pictures.

     Now, for the ships. "You say it is very unlikely that mirages can happen to ships, yet you cannot produce even one example." I am sorry, I thought you were capable of simple research. So you claim, this mirage happens more than what I claim? No. These mirage videos are only popular because flat earthers pay attention to them. When you search for: "Ships going ovet the horizon" you immediately come towards flat earther videos. But there are videos of what I claim, and if you go out and actually do the experiments a series of times you will see that the mirage happens only from time to time and you usually see what I claim. I remember watching ships go over the horizon as a child because I went to the ocean every day. I never came across this mirage. 







    (this is a flat earther video but it still shows what I claim)
     Again, you can not escape this. Ships usually disappear starting at the bottom. That mirage only happens in specific conditions. 

     I am sorry, but you are literally just wasting time and you know that. Those images you have shown are indeed composites but they are irrelevant to the discussion. Why? Because what I am talking about is taking parts of something which is real and then adding them together. You stand in front of a portrait let's say. The portrait is very big. So you take 3 separate pictures of it and you add them together properly. What you have is not just a random picture, you have taken 3 real pictures of the same thing and you added them together because that was how they were in real life. You choose to ignore this of course because you have no other argument. "Haha! Look at these pictures they are added together too! How do you explain these then?" You know the answer to those questions. You are just wasting time.

     No... you can not be serious... I refuse to believe that... ISS can deal with the sunlight through reflective surfaces. It is as simple as that. "Uh! why can't firefighters wear reflective surfaces and go into fire then?!" because firefighters are not in a perfect vacuum so heat also travels through air. The ISS does not have to deal with heat that is being transmitted through atoms since the thermosphere is a near perfect vacuum. You could find these out with ONE.SIMPLE.SEARCH.
    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1

     https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html ;   ... literally the first result when you search about both the moon and the sun being visible during an eclipse. You are too one-sided. And before you say: "Hahahah! They explained it with refraction! I win!" there are visible effects of the refraction. The days actually become longer when these happen. So, you can not use the: "I do not care because you explained it with refraction." card. 

     No, I will not let you get away with that last thing you said. If even you who has no education in physics can find these inconsistencies then the ones who are acutally educated on the subject can too. They must find it, in fact. Yeah some of them might not care and go on with their lives. But you can not claim that all of them are careless. That is just ridiculous. You still ignore that there are people whose jobs are to take the curve of the earth into account. What you are claiming is large. You can not even admit that simple fact and you expect people to take you seriously? 

     You did not watch the video. At 1m 45s they make their first measurement. You can see where the laser hits when they are 500ft away from the shore. After they travel about 3 miles they find out that the place where the laser hits rose by 6 feet. The height of the laser is pretty irrelevant because it does not change how much difference there will be between the two measurements.

     I explained the the sun in your video 2 times already. Read the link. If there are clouds in the air or you did not use a proper filter, the sun will apear to be larger. As you may not know, the sun should appear to be a perfect circle. If you see some kind of "spikes" around the sun, that means you are seing glares. Here is an example what your experiment should look like:


     "You know that this experiment could be flawed yes? Or the guy could even be lying for attention." there are 2 experiments which are conflicting. One is done by discovery channel and the other is done by a random flat earther. Which is more credible? I leave that decision to you.

     "You still haven't explained what Eotvos effect is, and how it is relevant, and you now bring up the coriolis effect, with a similar (lack of) argument. How do you expect to have honest discourse if you have no idea what you're talking about?"
     I asked you to look into the eötvös effect and you said this: "Eötvös effect (which i saw no evidence for and am expected to research and explain because I assume you are not so sure about that one)"
     You could literally type "eötvös effect" on google and look into it as I suggested but of course not! You need to waste time whenever you can, yes? Okay, I will type eötvös effect and coriolis effect on google and link you to the first results. I am sorry I expected you to do such a complicated thing:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eötvös_effect
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force

     I also suggest you watch this video of Vsauce I found talking about the two effects and other things as well:

     it is 17 minutes so if you hate the guy and want to jump right in to the part where he talks about the effects I mentioned, go to 11m 36s of the video.

     I started to feel like you are trolling because you really seem to be wasting time here. If you are not, I suggest you do not look at the situation one-sidedly. Before you present an argument look at the internet if there are explanations for it. What I am doing here is simply googling your questions and linking them here.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    I think at this point I am legally obligated to say "nice meltdown".
    You can say anything you like, but saying you are "legally obligated" to say anything is a lie. This was known as a devil's advocate parody. It was meant to spark interest in a conversation, and it was productive, one more person is questioning the ball earth and this is all that I want, conversation about this. We had conversation, but just as your trolling statement here, you became deceptive, or a lie(s). What you were doing was not science, that was lying to protect your religious beliefs, and I don't really care to converse with liars, unless they admit their deceit.
    *Checks appropriate response in The totally legit handbook of legally required responses in internet arguments*

    Ahem.

    U mad ?

    Btw feel free to try and present a definition of lying that includes my  false statements but doesn't include your obviously false statements that you are making for effect, like the entire topic of this debate. Your hypocrisy is appalling.

    Also try replacing "devil's advocate parody" with "strawman".


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2018
     Oh come on now. Now I think you are just messing with me. What I presented was, in fact, anectodal evidence. Just like yours. "Hey, I took this picture. explain it or the earth is flat."
    See, this is where you are mistaken, in more ways than one. Anecdotal evidence can be defined as testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience. It is distinctly different from scientific evidence, or proof based on findings from systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation. Hopefully you can understand that showing video proof of evidence is not the same as just saying you did something before. That's even considering if I had said that "Hey, I took this picture..." I did not take the picture, so in more than one way, you are mistaken.
     . I do not know how you took the picture. I do not know what exactly could be affecting the picture. The only thing I know is that I have seen planets through telesopes and I have seen the pictures of the planets taken through telescopes. They are different then what you presented:
    I have seen images that were allegedly taken from telescopes too, and again, I did not take the picture. Let's just say the photographer did fudge up the picture. How do you explain the multitude of videos of stars, since you seem to have seen the error in logic in the "all other planets are round" point.
     . Now, for the ships.

    You dropped the sun arguments.


      "You say it is very unlikely that mirages can happen to ships, yet you cannot produce even one example." I am sorry, I thought you were capable of simple research. So you claim, this mirage happens more than what I claim? No. These mirage videos are only popular because flat earthers pay attention to them. When you search for: "Ships going ovet the horizon" you immediately come towards flat earther videos. But there are videos of what I claim, and if you go out and actually do the experiments a series of times you will see that the mirage happens only from time to time and you usually see what I claim. I remember watching ships go over the horizon as a child because I went to the ocean every day. I never came across this mirage."

    Thanks for proving my point. Literally every video you posted shows exactly what i explained, so it would seem that you are incapable of simple research, or investigative validation . Even the globe earth proponent that shot the first video admits this obvious miraging, it's OK, he chopped it up into bits so that we couldn't tell that it was miraging. He was badgered until he included the whole video. Maybe you are unclear about what a mirage is? Read the comments. 



    In the second video, the mirror line or mirage line is clearly seen at the hull of the boat.

    If you didn't see that, I am now pointing it out. That is an inferior mirage, where the light coming from the bottom of the boat is obscured.



    This is an inferior mirage. By your logic, the lighthouse has gone over the curve of the earth.
    As was already proved, the water in the air magnifies, displaces and obscurs the light from the bottom of the boat first, and as it moves away is amplified, and boats do not go over the horizon.
     

    Again in the third video you posted. What's amazing is that the majority of videos are posted by flat earthers. Wonder why they know the earth is flat while FILMING a supposed "proof" of a spherical earth.

    I could go on wasting my time examining your evidence, but it is clear that miraging is consistent, and is exactly why boats appear to go over the horizon. I am in agreement that mirages happen in specific conditions, which you fail to describe, so Ill do it for you. Over a certain distance, especially over water, the air is layered in different densities, causing what's called a total internal reflection of the top of the ship onto the bottom of the ship. It's simple science, and just a few minutes of simple researching would have saved us a ton of time. 

    " I am sorry, but you are literally just wasting time and you know that. Those images you have shown are indeed composites but they are irrelevant to the discussion. "

    It is NOT irrelevant to the discussion. It is NOT a panorama as you keep asserting. Regardless of how you think the images are edited, the point remains, and you concede to the fact that the images were edited, even thrown together, for lack of a better description.

    "Why? Because what I am talking about is taking parts of something which is real and then adding them together. You stand in front of a portrait let's say. The portrait is very big. So you take 3 separate pictures of it and you add them together properly. What you have is not just a random picture, you have taken 3 real pictures of the same thing and you added them together because that was how they were in real life. You choose to ignore this of course because you have no other argument.

    I choose to ignore that argument because it isn't a panorama. It is a false comparison.

    "Haha! Look at these pictures they are added together too! How do you explain these then?" You know the answer to those questions. You are just wasting time."

    As are you the original point, which was that they are edited in photoshop, has now been conceded. Thank you. I'd also like to point out that in actuality you agreed, or did not oppose the fact that this is an image created in part, in photoshop:


    But this wasn't.


     "No... you can not be serious... I refuse to believe that... ISS can deal with the sunlight through reflective surfaces."

    Yes, there are some reflective surfaces on the ISS, but to say that it is completely IR reflective (I know you didn't, but this is the correct term) is absurd. Not to mention all the other satellites allegedly orbiting the earth.

    It is as simple as that. "Uh! why can't firefighters wear reflective surfaces and go into fire then?!" because firefighters are not in a perfect vacuum so heat also travels through air. The ISS does not have to deal with heat that is being transmitted through atoms since the thermosphere is a near perfect vacuum. You could find these out with ONE.SIMPLE.SEARCH.
    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1"

    Oh, now I'm debating Google. Are you so ignorant that you refuse to think for yourself? So, your claim started out as heat doesn't travel through a vacuum. When that was pointed out to be a lie, you backpeddled and claimed that the ISS is reflecting the heat back to... exactly what medium, since the third law of thermondynamics clearly stated that heat transfers from hot to cold, the very few atoms in the near perfect vacuum? Can you say solar cooker? Tell you what, find me some real images of satellites, not those artist impression composite and show me one that doesn't have any dark spots on it anywhere. Is there any demonstrable evidence for this series of absurd claims or are we just supposed to take this ellaborate story for your word on how such an object can survive in over 3500 F? How does the ISS shed the heat from the various computers and electronic devices body heat, etc onboard?



    https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html ;   ... literally the first result when you search about both the moon and the sun being visible during an eclipse. You are too one-sided. And before you say: "Hahahah! They explained it with refraction! I win!" there are visible effects of the refraction. The days actually become longer when these happen. So, you can not use the: "I do not care because you explained it with refraction." card. "

    So, even without any supporting evidence (just an authoritative say-so) we're to believe that not only has the light from the moon and sun both been raised several degrees in opposite directions, but that refraction has caused the shadow from the alleged spherical earth to move in the opposite direction? I'm sure you know the difference between assertion and evidence, correct? Is there any evidence for this assertion? Whenever I have performed refraction tests, the apparent position of object affected by refraction appear lower, not higher. This is why ships appear lower on the horizon than they are in reality. 



    Just a question for you. If your teacher won't tell you the truth, the governments won't tell you the truth, what makes you think that Google will tell you the truth?

    "No, I will not let you get away with that last thing you said. If even you who has no education in physics can find these inconsistencies then the ones who are acutally educated on the subject can too. They must find it, in fact. Yeah some of them might not care and go on with their lives. But you can not claim that all of them are careless. "

    Why would you say that I had no education in physics? Also, I did not claim that "all of them" are careless. The engineer (who are experts in practical physics) in the video I linked above was an avid flat earther before he disappeared.

    "That is just ridiculous. You still ignore that there are people whose jobs are to take the curve of the earth into account. What you are claiming is large. You can not even admit that simple fact and you expect people to take you seriously? "

    I did not ignore this. I pointed out that this was a broad assertion. Who, specifically takes the earth's curvature into account as their job.

    " You did not watch the video. At 1m 45s they make their first measurement. You can see where the laser hits when they are 500ft away from the shore. After they travel about 3 miles they find out that the place where the laser hits rose by 6 feet. The height of the laser is pretty irrelevant because it does not change how much difference there will be between the two measurements."

    Yes, i have seen the video. I saw the first measurement and it is irrelevant. Since you don't seem to understand the mathematical fact that the laser was not level or there was WAY too much curvature for a ball that is allegedly 25,000 miles in circumference, here is ONE rebuttal video that explains it in detail, with pictures!





    Face facts, this experiment was a blunder, and only proves the amount of deception that globe earth advocates try to push over on us. It's really sad that some people, ahem, actually fell for it.


    "there are 2 experiments which are conflicting. One is done by discovery channel and the other is done by a random flat earther. Which is more credible? I leave that decision to you."

    I guess that answers that question, if you are still incapable of understanding the impossibility of this experiment, you are probably by yourself by now. The fact that I included an entire mathematical refutation, and you neither recognized this or pointed out any errors speaks volumes.

    After a third time asking you to explain what the eötvös and coriolis effects are, and how they prove the earth is a ball, you continue to dodge the request. Sincere discourse is where two intellectuals have honest conversation about any given topic. If you have no comprehension of what these phenomena are, what makes you think you will begin to understand the rebuttal? I am not debating Google.

    @alexoland

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    I think at this point I am legally obligated to say "nice meltdown".
    You can say anything you like, but saying you are "legally obligated" to say anything is a lie. This was known as a devil's advocate parody. It was meant to spark interest in a conversation, and it was productive, one more person is questioning the ball earth and this is all that I want, conversation about this. We had conversation, but just as your trolling statement here, you became deceptive, or a lie(s). What you were doing was not science, that was lying to protect your religious beliefs, and I don't really care to converse with liars, unless they admit their deceit.
    *Checks appropriate response in The totally legit handbook of legally required responses in internet arguments*

    Ahem.

    U mad ?

    Btw feel free to try and present a definition of lying that includes my  false statements but doesn't include your obviously false statements that you are making for effect, like the entire topic of this debate. Your hypocrisy is appalling.

    Also try replacing "devil's advocate parody" with "strawman".


    Not mad at all, you're free to lie all you like on the internet, and I'm glad to point that out, repeatedly. All of these arguments are positions put forth at some time or another by globe earth proponents. So they do not meet the definition of strawmen, adversely, most points were seemingly taken up by at least one person here.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    I think at this point I am legally obligated to say "nice meltdown".
    You can say anything you like, but saying you are "legally obligated" to say anything is a lie. This was known as a devil's advocate parody. It was meant to spark interest in a conversation, and it was productive, one more person is questioning the ball earth and this is all that I want, conversation about this. We had conversation, but just as your trolling statement here, you became deceptive, or a lie(s). What you were doing was not science, that was lying to protect your religious beliefs, and I don't really care to converse with liars, unless they admit their deceit.
    *Checks appropriate response in The totally legit handbook of legally required responses in internet arguments*

    Ahem.

    U mad ?

    Btw feel free to try and present a definition of lying that includes my  false statements but doesn't include your obviously false statements that you are making for effect, like the entire topic of this debate. Your hypocrisy is appalling.

    Also try replacing "devil's advocate parody" with "strawman".


    Not mad at all, you're free to lie all you like on the internet, and I'm glad to point that out, repeatedly. All of these arguments are positions put forth at some time or another by globe earth proponents. So they do not meet the definition of strawmen, adversely, most points were seemingly taken up by at least one person here.
    You are getting mad and calling me a because I reffered to am imaginary "totally legit handbook of legally required responses in internet arguments".

    If you actually had an argument with evidence you would have provided it as I challenged you to.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    I think at this point I am legally obligated to say "nice meltdown".
    You can say anything you like, but saying you are "legally obligated" to say anything is a lie. This was known as a devil's advocate parody. It was meant to spark interest in a conversation, and it was productive, one more person is questioning the ball earth and this is all that I want, conversation about this. We had conversation, but just as your trolling statement here, you became deceptive, or a lie(s). What you were doing was not science, that was lying to protect your religious beliefs, and I don't really care to converse with liars, unless they admit their deceit.
    *Checks appropriate response in The totally legit handbook of legally required responses in internet arguments*

    Ahem.

    U mad ?

    Btw feel free to try and present a definition of lying that includes my  false statements but doesn't include your obviously false statements that you are making for effect, like the entire topic of this debate. Your hypocrisy is appalling.

    Also try replacing "devil's advocate parody" with "strawman".


    Not mad at all, you're free to lie all you like on the internet, and I'm glad to point that out, repeatedly. All of these arguments are positions put forth at some time or another by globe earth proponents. So they do not meet the definition of strawmen, adversely, most points were seemingly taken up by at least one person here.
    You are getting mad and calling me a because I reffered to am imaginary "totally legit handbook of legally required responses in internet arguments".

    If you actually had an argument with evidence you would have provided it as I challenged you to.
    Pointing out your deception and lies does not equal "mad". You have no argument left and are reduced to little more than trolling me in any possible attempt to derail discourse.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    @Erfisflat "Explain this picture even though you know nothing about how it was taken, or where and when it was taken. You can't? Then the earth is flat buddy." I thought that was your picture so I said it was anecdotal evidence. If it's not, the problem still remains though. I believe you can see the problem by looking at the quote.

     
     You are not going to say anything about those views of the planets through telescopes? Understandable. You just deny whatever you don't want to think about anyways.


     "Hah! The ships were slightly distorted so I do not have to explain they disappear starting from the bottom!" the building getting out of view, was not mentioned, understandibly. By the way, I said that specific mirage would not happen. The one where the mirroring effect had happened. I did not say anything about distortions. You are just trying to dodge the question. Even if the ships were distorted, why did they start disappearing from the bottom? 


    "It is NOT irrelevant to the discussion. It is NOT a panorama as you keep asserting. Regardless of how you think the images are edited, the point remains, and you concede to the fact that the images were edited, even thrown together, for lack of a better description."
     So.. your only argument is: "No that is not how it is!". Then let me respond in the same manner, yes! That IS how it IS. If you decide to actually respond to the argument, go back up and read what I said.

     Wait, let me get this straight. So you are saying NASA faked the space flights. They made photos in CGI. You were just saying that black and white picture was a drawing. And now you are saying: "It looks flat in this NASA photo! I proved it!". You are not only contradicting yourself and your beliefs, but you make the assumption that the photo should show a curve. We do not know the altitude. We do not know what kind of lens was used(I am surprised you hadn't thought of this. Flat earthers love bringing lenses up when we see a curve.)
     If NASA was trying to trick people, and they took a photo of the flat earth, would they post it? Your claim makes 0 sense no matter how we look at it.


     " So, your claim started out as heat doesn't travel through a vacuum. When that was pointed out to be a lie, " Hmm.. that is weird. I do not remember it being pointed out as a lie. Could your statement be a lie? Probably. 
     You are not debating google. I linked you a site that explains what you are asking about clearly. What you asked was a scientific question so it is only natural I gave you a site that explains it in full detail. I am not a manufacturer of satelites so I do not hold this information. I could copy and paste it, but that would not be practical. What you are doing is, again, wasting time. "You linked me to somewhere! Haha am I debating google now?!" yes, you are just wasting time. You don't want to reach at a conclusion. You are only trying to make your opponent look bad. 

     I presented explanation of the lunar eclipse. And you denied it because you think it is an assertion. Yeah let's forget the days actually become longer when this phenomenon occurs! 
    "Whenever I have performed refraction tests, the apparent position of object affected by refraction appear lower, not higher." what? I do not understand what is being said here. Refraction can make objects appear to be higher. Do you know what refraction is? And what did you make these tests on exactly? You just threw that out there without any explanation. By the way, this would be considered anectodal evidence, right?


     "Just a question for you. If your teacher won't tell you the truth, the governments won't tell you the truth, what makes you think that Google will tell you the truth?" google will offer you explanations. So before one-sidedly jumping onto conclusions, you need to listen to both sides at first. What you do is, you think you find an evidence, and without any research you start to use it. 


     I did not understand the video. They make their first measurements at 500 feet. No measurement was done before. Yet the guy claims that "The laser should not have gone up that much". They did not even claim it did yet? This was the first measurement. They make 2 measurements and they look at how much difference there is between them. The first measurement can not be false because there is nothing to compare it to. We do not know the exact height of the laser. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is the difference between the 2 measurements.


      "I guess that answers that question, if you are still incapable of understanding the impossibility of this experiment, you are probably by yourself by now. The fact that I included an entire mathematical refutation, and you neither recognized this or pointed out any errors speaks volumes."  Oh don't we all love this reasoning?
     "If you can not get this, you are the one who is wrong!"

     "After a third time asking you to explain what the eötvös and coriolis effects are, and how they prove the earth is a ball, you continue to dodge the request. Sincere discourse is where two intellectuals have honest conversation about any given topic. If you have no comprehension of what these phenomena are, what makes you think you will begin to understand the rebuttal? I am not debating Google."
     Oh my god. You are not debating google. I am asking you to look into what the two effects are so we can have a discussion about them. What do you want me to do, copy and paste the wiki page?
      This is exacly what you did when you presented me that math video. "Watch this video it explains how the experiment is wrong!" I did not say: "I will not watch that video!? What am I doing here, debating youtube?!". Your own actions are contradictory.
     I will explain again so you do not dodge it this time. I know what the eötvös effect is. I am asking you to look into it so that we can have a discussion about it. 

     
     I may have dropped some points(maybe not, don't have time to check).  I will be back though.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "@Erfisflat "Explain this picture even though you know nothing about how it was taken, or where and when it was taken. You can't? Then the earth is flat buddy." I thought that was your picture so I said it was anecdotal evidence. If it's not, the problem still remains though. I believe you can see the problem by looking at the quote.

    You are not going to say anything about those views of the planets through telescopes? Understandable. You just deny whatever you don't want to think about anyways."

    This point originally stemmed from the argument "other planets are round". Since you have never stated or supported this position, this point is moot, unless you do support this position.

     "Hah! The ships were slightly distorted so I do not have to explain they disappear starting from the bottom!"

    That is a strawman argument. Paraphrasing me with something I did not say is a fallacious attempt to win an argument.

    "the building getting out of view, was not mentioned, understandibly."

    It was irrelevant. The point is ships go over horizons. If you would like to discuss buildings being hidden from view, i can give several examples of entire cities being visible that should not be so. You haven't even shown that you are capable of calculating the earth's alleged curvature. State the video's evidence in an argument. Give the distance involved, how high the observer is, and what should and shouldn't be visible, then you have an argument.

    " By the way, I said that specific mirage would not happen. The one where the mirroring effect had happened. I did not say anything about distortions. "

    That specific mirage DID happen,  and does every time,  in every video of a boat that goes to a variable distance over water. As i pointed out with screenshots, inferior mirages obscur the light from the ships starting at the bottom.

    "You are just trying to dodge the question. Even if the ships were distorted, why did they start disappearing from the bottom? "

    This is where the most moisture is. Breaking waves, evaporation, etc. Not to mention swells that can also obscur the bottom of ships.


    "It is NOT irrelevant to the discussion. It is NOT a panorama as you keep asserting. Regardless of how you think the images are edited, the point remains, and you concede to the fact that the images were edited, even thrown together, for lack of a better description."
     So.. your only argument is: "No that is not how it is!". Then let me respond in the same manner, yes! That IS how it IS. If you decide to actually respond to the argument, go back up and read what I said."

    I read it. So, just to be clear, your position is that NASA, who makes close to $20,000,000,000.000 each year, sees a very large sky,  and "take(s) 3 separate pictures of it and you add them together properly."? When anyone else does this, the image looks something like this:


    http://m.airpano.com/360Degree-VirtualTour.php?3D=Stratosphere-Caucasus

    ...but when NASA does it, it looks like a regular image? It certainly wasn't elongated, so why the need to take 3 images? Regardless, the point was conceded long ago. The image was, like you said, edited in photoshop before public viewing.


    " Wait, let me get this straight. So you are saying NASA faked the space flights."

    Obviously, they couldn't get past the firmament, or Van Allen radiation belts, whatever they're calling it.

    "They made photos in CGI."

    Admittedly created in photoshop.

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

    "You were just saying that black and white picture was a drawing. "

    Nope, i believe it is real, I was playing devil's advocate when I said the flat earth image was fake. The other photos were "drawings" as I already proved.

    And now you are saying: "It looks flat in this NASA photo! I proved it!". You are not only contradicting yourself and your beliefs,"

    Explained above as a misunderstanding. Technically we've both "contradicted our beliefs and ourselves" here.

     "and but you make the assumption that the photo should show a curve. We do not know the altitude. "

    Incorrect, the altitude was stated on the link you provided as 65 miles.

    "We do not know what kind of lens was used(I am surprised you hadn't thought of this. Flat earthers love bringing lenses up when we see a curve.)"

    Please, explain what type of lens causes a curved line to be flat dead middle of the screen? I know about the lenses, as you implied, there is no such lens.


    " If NASA was trying to trick people, and they took a photo of the flat earth, would they post it? Your claim makes 0 sense no matter how we look at it."

    This image was taken before NASA in 1946 with a 35-millimeter motion picture camera as that camera was propelled skyward on a German V-2 missile. It is, officially, the first photo of Earth to be taken from space. It is perfectly flat. I'm sure you can Google some ad hoc conjecture to explain it away though. Try "how to beat these flat earther guise!"


     " So, your claim started out as heat doesn't travel through a vacuum. When that was pointed out to be a lie, " Hmm.. that is weird. I do not remember it being pointed out as a lie. Could your statement be a lie? Probably."

    Zzzz. So the sun's heat cannot travel through a vacuum again... Every planet should be a frozen wasteland. Right...

    " You are not debating google. I linked you a site that explains what you are asking about clearly. What you asked was a scientific question so it is only natural I gave you a site that explains it in full detail. I am not a manufacturer of satelites so I do not hold this information. I could copy and paste it, but that would not be practical. "

    A simple explanation in your own words will suffice. I do the same courtesy for you, so that both of us are on the same level of understanding...

    "What you are doing is, again, wasting time. "You linked me to somewhere! Haha am I debating google now?!" yes, you are just wasting time. You don't want to reach at a conclusion. You are only trying to make your opponent look bad."

    You're doing a fine job of that yourself. 

    " I presented explanation of the lunar eclipse. And you denied it because you think it is an assertion. Yeah let's forget the days actually become longer when this phenomenon occurs! "

    That is a non sequitor. Days become longer in my model, due to the sun being on a circuit that is closer to the observer. The days get longer in your model because of axial tilt. What exactly does this have to do with this point, or support your argument again?

    "Whenever I have performed refraction tests, the apparent position of object affected by refraction appear lower, not higher." what? I do not understand what is being said here. Refraction can make objects appear to be higher."

    Yes, depending on angles of incidence and the change of density, but in the circumstances of celestial bodies on the horizon, they appear lower, which is how we have sunsets, sinking ships, and cities on a flat earth.

    " Do you know what refraction is?"

    Of course, do you?

    "And what did you make these tests on exactly? You just threw that out there without any explanation. By the way, this would be considered anectodal evidence, right?"

    No. I included a test similar to the one I performed, you ignored the video, obviously.

     "Just a question for you. If your teacher won't tell you the truth, the governments won't tell you the truth, what makes you think that Google will tell you the truth?" google will offer you explanations. So before one-sidedly jumping onto conclusions, you need to listen to both sides at first. What you do is, you think you find an evidence, and without any research you start to use it. "

    Really? How much flat earth research have you done? I have researched the dichotomy for 3 years now, comparing evidence for either side. How do you think I became a flat earther? I tried to debunk it. 


     "I did not understand the video. "

    Not surprising. Go back and watch it again.

    "They make their first measurements at 500 feet. No measurement was done before."

    Did you watch your own video? Here's a screenshot of the first measurement:

    Literally not even 20 seconds into the first action scene. I guess it could have been missed, but we now see who is "incapable of simple research", as I pointed out in my FIRST rebuttal to this ridiculous weekend at bernie's sponsored clown show.

    "Yet the guy claims that "The laser should not have gone up that much". They did not even claim it did yet? This was the first measurement. They make 2 measurements and they look at how much difference there is between them. The first measurement can not be false because there is nothing to compare it to. We do not know the exact height of the laser. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is the difference between the 2 measurements."

    And just like that the rest of your rebuttal is nonsense.


      "I guess that answers that question, if you are still incapable of understanding the impossibility of this experiment, you are probably by yourself by now. The fact that I included an entire mathematical refutation, and you neither recognized this or pointed out any errors speaks volumes."  Oh don't we all love this reasoning?
     "If you can not get this, you are the one who is wrong!"

    Are you implying that because you failed at both the mathematics, logic, and basic observations of both the experiment and the rebuttal, that you are, by default, right? 

     "After a third time asking you to explain what the eötvös and coriolis effects are, and how they prove the earth is a ball, you continue to dodge the request. Sincere discourse is where two intellectuals have honest conversation about any given topic. If you have no comprehension of what these phenomena are, what makes you think you will begin to understand the rebuttal? I am not debating Google."
     Oh my god. You are not debating google."

    Thanks for clarifying what I just said.

    " I am asking you to look into what the two effects are so we can have a discussion about them. What do you want me to do, copy and paste the wiki page?"

    Nope, a simple explanation as to what the effects are and how they support your position, in your own words is traditional in any scientific discussion, and not too much to ask, right?

     " This is exacly what you did when you presented me that math video. "Watch this video it explains how the experiment is wrong!" I did not say: "I will not watch that video!? What am I doing here, debating youtube?!". Your own actions are contradictory."

    Actually that's incorrect, again. I first gave a detailed logical and mathematical refutation of this experiment that proved it was faked. When you denied that, or implied that you didn't understand it, I then resorted to a video to help you understand.

    " I will explain again so you do not dodge it this time. I know what the eötvös effect is. I am asking you to look into it so that we can have a discussion about it. "

    Saying you know what something is does not equal explaining what something is and how it is relevant to this discussion. I could just tell you to research the Fibbonacci sequence and without explanation, tell you this proves the flat earth, I don't think you'd take me seriously. I honestly don't have the time to explain exactly what these effects are to you. I think probably you are wasting time, in your own words.

     
     I may have dropped some points(maybe not, don't have time to check). I will be back though.

    @alexoland
    AlexOland
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    @Erfisflat
    "This point originally stemmed from the argument "other planets are round". Since you have never stated or supported this position, this point is moot, unless you do support this position." I did support this position. You did not read the reply, I think?

     
    "That is a strawman argument. Paraphrasing me with something I did not say is a fallacious attempt to win an argument." if I correctly represent what you said, then it is not wrong. And I did correctly represent what you said. You claim that because the ships looked distorted and left it at that. This gives you no excuse to not explain the ships disappearing.

     "It was irrelevant. The point is ships go over horizons. If you would like to discuss buildings being hidden from view, i can give several examples of entire cities being visible that should not be so"  ... you do know that everything can be hidden behind the earth's curve right? So it was not irrelevant. By the way, you are probably talking about the chicago skyline. That is a mirage and I can easily prove it. The image of the buildings look extended. Also, if you look at a video of the chicago skyline when the supposed mirage happens, you see that the buildings look quite weird. So, it was not irrelevant. You just wanted to drop it. And you did. 


     "That specific mirage DID happen,  and does every time,  in every video of a boat that goes to a variable distance over water. As i pointed out with screenshots, inferior mirages obscur the light from the ships starting at the bottom." hmm.. I do not see the ships being mirrored though. So doesn't that prove that the mirage you are talking about did not happen? Nah let's just ignore that.


     "Zzzz. So the sun's heat cannot travel through a vacuum again... Every planet should be a frozen wasteland. Right..."
     You are braindead. Sun's heat travels through light. I even gave you an example. Get a spotlight, point it at a wall. The wall will get heated. You are not even trying anymore.


     "I read it. So, just to be clear, your position is that NASA, who makes close to $20,000,000,000.000 each year, sees a very large sky,  and "take(s) 3 separate pictures of it and you add them together properly."? When anyone else does this, the image looks something like this:"
     Irrelevant. You asked why the images were photoshopped and I explained it. Now you are using the: "NASA makes this amount of money" card? Nice.


     "...but when NASA does it, it looks like a regular image? It certainly wasn't elongated, so why the need to take 3 images? Regardless, the point was conceded long ago. The image was, like you said, edited in photoshop before public viewing." nice argument. I explained what the editing was and why it was a good way of showing the reality. But your only argument still is this: "Hehe! It was edited so I win!". Okay let's just drop this as well just for your sake. 


     "Obviously, they couldn't get past the firmament, or Van Allen radiation belts, whatever they're calling it." so.. you decided to believe NASA's word? You are literally the embodiment of contradictions. You do not believe anything NASA says, you say they are faking it. And then you say: "Oh they can't pass that belt they are talking about.". You just accept whatever you want and leave out whatever you want. 

    "Admittedly created in photoshop."
     I explained this already. So, yeah. You chose to ignore it... again. That's okay though. I wouldn't want to pressure you.


     "Nope, i believe it is real, I was playing devil's advocate when I said the flat earth image was fake. The other photos were "drawings" as I already proved." No, you proved the pictures of the earth were usually "drawings" you never talked about the other photos on that site. I mean, you just said that were fake, but just that.

     
    "Explained above as a misunderstanding. Technically we've both "contradicted our beliefs and ourselves" here." so let me get this straight. NASA is trying to hide the flat earth. They take a picture of the flat earth for some reason. And they upload it. And you, who believes NASA is a accepts this photo because the earth looks flat in it. You are cherry-picking. You are only accepting information that fits your beliefs.

     

      I will admit that I was wrong when talking about that black-white picture. Still, you do not explain why NASA kept it up. And I do not understand why a lens would not show it as it is now? You flat earthers  always claim that a flat surface can look like curved through lenses. Why can't the same happen the other way?


     
     "A simple explanation in your own words will suffice. I do the same courtesy for you, so that both of us are on the same level of understanding..."  for both of us to get to the same level of understanding... you need to watch the video or look at the wiki page where it is visually explained... I do not understand why you are refusing to look at the pages. I can only think of one explanation in which you are wasting time.


     "That is a non sequitor. Days become longer in my model, due to the sun being on a circuit that is closer to the observer. The days get longer in your model because of axial tilt. What exactly does this have to do with this point, or support your argument again?"
     The reason I brought up the lunar eclipse was because I wanted you to explain why there was a circular shadow on the moon. You tried to dodge the question by saying there are eclipses when both the moon and the sun are up. I explained that, as you admitted, and now you are trying to ignore the first point. Now then, I ask again, why is there a circular shadow on the moon when the eclipse occurs? Why does an eclipse occur on the flat earth anyways?


     "Yes, depending on angles of incidence and the change of density, but in the circumstances of celestial bodies on the horizon, they appear lower, which is how we have sunsets, sinking ships, and cities on a flat earth."
     Irrelevant. I was talking about the sun being refracted. Not ships, cities and other stuff. 


     "No. I included a test similar to the one I performed, you ignored the video, obviously." I was talking about your test where you supposidly proved that things can only appear to be lower and not higher. I am still waiting for that.


     "Really? How much flat earth research have you done? I have researched the dichotomy for 3 years now, comparing evidence for either side. How do you think I became a flat earther? I tried to debunk it. " well, then that means you dropped researching now. Because you do not even look for explanations before you offer me supposed evidence that the earth is flat. Like the lunar eclipse. You first claimed it was a contradiction in the globe earth and when I explained it, you acted like we both have explanations for it. Or the ISS. Look at an image of the ISS. You can see how exactly they reflect the light that comes towards them.

     " I honestly don't have the time to explain exactly what these effects are to you. I think probably you are wasting time, in your own words."
     Oh so you do know what they are? Since you claimed that you can explain them? Good. Now I ask you then, why do things have less weight when they are going east and more weight when they are going west? This could be explained by the round earth's movement but I really can not see how it would work on a flat earth.
     Now for the coriolis effect, why do the hurricanes in the southern hemisphere rotate clockwise and the hurricanes in the northern hemisphere turn anti-clockwise?
     The coriolis effect also has to be accounted for bullets when long range shooting. It also has an effect on planes.


     I will need to watch the math video fully to comment on those points. 


     Lastly, you are being dishonest. You completely ignore entire arguments by playing simple word games. 
    "Oh I will not debate google."
    "Look the ships look slightly distorted."
    "The buildings are irrelevant because some other buildings look weird sometimes."
    "I debunked that already."

     I admit that there were points where I did mistakes in this conversation because I was in a hurry and did not research properly. It is not that I don't have time in my hands, I do. It's just that whenever I go on debate island something happens and I have to go everytime.

     I would be happy if you stated your intentions. Are you just trying to have a debate where you try to beat the other side or are you trying to reach at a conclusion? Because if you are trying to reach at a conclusion, you sure are not acting like it. 

     


     
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    @Erfisflat Here, I found a debunk of jeranism's debunk video:

    Edit: video deleted due to violation of terms of service. Please read the TOS before using Debateisland!

    https://www.debateisland.com/termsofservice

     First of all, I will admit that I was wrong when I tried to ignore jeran's debunk. In short, the actual mistake he made is with the calculator he uses. That calculator is for a different scenario. Debunk starts at about 11:27. And the flaw with using that calculator is explained at 18:29. I will also admit that I did not know this prior to watching the video. 

     If you are going to be like: "Oh explain it yourself I will not debate with youtube!"  I can not as the full explanation is best understood with visuals. I can create the visuals in paint or something but I honestly don't have the energy to open that thing and start drawing(I also suck at it.). So, if you actually want to reach at a conclusion watch the video. If you are here only to on people go ahead and continue doing that. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat 
    "This point originally stemmed from the argument "other planets are round". Since you have never stated or supported this position, this point is moot, unless you do support this position." I did support this position. You did not read the reply, I think?"

    You never explicitly stated, or even implied that you support the argument that you think the earth is spherical because other planets appear spherical. If you now do, I'll refer you to my opening analogy about the animals that you ignored. By your logic, the billiard table is a big ball, simply because the balls on top of it appear spherical.


     
    "That is a strawman argument. Paraphrasing me with something I did not say is a fallacious attempt to win an argument." if I correctly represent what you said, then it is not wrong. And I did correctly represent what you said. You claim that because the ships looked distorted and left it at that. This gives you no excuse to not explain the ships disappearing."

    I did explain why ships appear to disappear from the bottom up, with examples and practical experiments that show exactly what I was talking about. It's an illusion, caused by refraction, and simple laws of perspective. This makes your paraphrasing inaccurate. If you need me to explain it again, I'd be happy to, in the meantime, here is a video explanation with practical experimentation.




     "It was irrelevant. The point is ships go over horizons. If you would like to discuss buildings being hidden from view, i can give several examples of entire cities being visible that should not be so"  ... you do know that everything can be hidden behind the earth's curve right? So it was not irrelevant. By the way, you are probably talking about the chicago skyline."

    I did say several examples, but we can discuss that too.

    " That is a mirage and I can easily prove it. The image of the buildings look extended. Also, if you look at a video of the chicago skyline when the supposed mirage happens, you see that the buildings look quite weird. So, it was not irrelevant. You just wanted to drop it. And you did."

    This is an ignorant ad hoc excuse.
    Apparently now, your position is that boats assuredly go over the imaginary curve of the earth (this is supposed to happen at a mere 3 miles) and these can only be miraged in certain instances, but a city seen across 60 miles of water is most assuredly a mirage. Can you say intellectually dishonest?

    http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty

    Let's clear up the whole mirage misconception now.

    The term mirage refers to an inverted image. For inferior mirages, the inverted image is below the actual image. This mirage is consistently in all videos of boats going away from an observer. For superior mirages, the inversion is above.

    Logically, the alleged mirage you inferred could not be inferior, because it would be even further down over the supposed curvature of the earth. So were left with a superior mirage, this would cause the skyline to be raised, but, as explained before the image would be inverted. Here is a link to the photographer's pictures.

    https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com/Looking-toward-Chicago-from-Mi/i-fdS9LSW/A

    You will see that there are in fact, several photographs of mirages, mostly superior, and my argument is not that these are impossible. You will also see several examples of nearly the entire skyline, most of which should not be visible, not miraged, or inverted. This is but one instance where unbiased people have seen or photographed something that should be far below the alleged curvature of the earth. Is your position that ALL of these are some new type of mirage? Here is another example:

    Record holder for longest distance photographed:

    https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/ 

    Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic de Finestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 2 miles of missing vertical curvature.

    "That specific mirage DID happen,  and does every time,  in every video of a boat that goes to a variable distance over water. As i pointed out with screenshots, inferior mirages obscur the light from the ships starting at the bottom." hmm.. I do not see the ships being mirrored though. So doesn't that prove that the mirage you are talking about did not happen? Nah let's just ignore that."

    I think you would like to ignore the obvious miraging. Since your bias seems to have blinded you, I'll spend some of my time pointing out this mirror line to you.



    As you can see, this mirror line is clearly visible here, noted by the arrow pointing at the diagonal line on the front of the boat. The line abruptly stops and goes the other way, to the water. This is a mirage, whether you'll admit it or not.

     "Zzzz. So the sun's heat cannot travel through a vacuum again... Every planet should be a frozen wasteland. Right..."
     You are braindead. Sun's heat travels through light. I even gave you an example. Get a spotlight, point it at a wall. The wall will get heated. You are not even trying anymore."

    An ad hominem fallacy followed by a repeat of the erroneous analogy already rebutted before. You cannot compare an experiment performed in a non vacuum to a near perfect vacuum situation.


     "I read it. So, just to be clear, your position is that NASA, who makes close to $20,000,000,000.000 each year, sees a very large sky,  and "take(s) 3 separate pictures of it and you add them together properly."? When anyone else does this, the image looks something like this:"
     Irrelevant. You asked why the images were photoshopped and I explained it. Now you are using the: "NASA makes this amount of money" card? Nice."

    No, that's incorrect. I did not ask why the images were photoshopped. My claim is that the images were photoshopped. This stands and was conceded long ago. Your explanation of how the images were photoshopped is unsupported, and irrelevant.


     "...but when NASA does it, it looks like a regular image? It certainly wasn't elongated, so why the need to take 3 images? Regardless, the point was conceded long ago. The image was, like you said, edited in photoshop before public viewing." nice argument. I explained what the editing was and why it was a good way of showing the reality. But your only argument still is this: "Hehe! It was edited so I win!". Okay let's just drop this as well just for your sake."

    Right... For my sake...


     "Obviously, they couldn't get past the firmament, or Van Allen radiation belts, whatever they're calling it." so.. you decided to believe NASA's word? You are literally the embodiment of contradictions. You do not believe anything NASA says, you say they are faking it. And then you say: "Oh they can't pass that belt they are talking about.". You just accept whatever you want and leave out whatever you want."

    So you concede to the point "NASA faked the shuttle launches". 

    "Admittedly created in photoshop."
     I explained this already. So, yeah. You chose to ignore it... again. That's okay though. I wouldn't want to pressure you."

    You concede this point again.


     "Nope, i believe it is real, I was playing devil's advocate when I said the flat earth image was fake. The other photos were "drawings" as I already proved." No, you proved the pictures of the earth were usually "drawings" you never talked about the other photos on that site. I mean, you just said that were fake, but just that."

    Cherry picked. The flat image of earth is mutually agreed to be genuine. Point conceded.

     
    "Explained above as a misunderstanding. Technically we've both "contradicted our beliefs and ourselves" here." so let me get this straight. NASA is trying to hide the flat earth. They take a picture of the flat earth for some reason. And they upload it. And you, who believes NASA is a accepts this photo because the earth looks flat in it. You are cherry-picking. You are only accepting information that fits your beliefs."

    The image existed before NASA, and it made history. It would be near impossible to hide it. It's not widely advertised, but just like the other images and videos that prove the earth is flat, they can't be erased from history.

    "  I will admit that I was wrong when talking about that black-white picture. Still, you do not explain why NASA kept it up. And I do not understand why a lens would not show it as it is now? You flat earthers  always claim that a flat surface can look like curved through lenses. Why can't the same happen the other way?"

    It can, sort of. In the extreme edges of a fisheye lens, a curved lens can straighten out a line. As we can see, the line in question is fairly centered.



      "A simple explanation in your own words will suffice. I do the same courtesy for you, so that both of us are on the same level of understanding..."  for both of us to get to the same level of understanding... you need to watch the video or look at the wiki page where it is visually explained... I do not understand why you are refusing to look at the pages. I can only think of one explanation in which you are wasting time."

    That is your opinion, I call it equal laziness. Up to this point, you are too lazy to explain it and how it is relevant, and I am too lazy to explain it and how it is irrelevant.

     "That is a non sequitor. Days become longer in my model, due to the sun being on a circuit that is closer to the observer. The days get longer in your model because of axial tilt. What exactly does this have to do with this point, or support your argument again?"
     The reason I brought up the lunar eclipse was because I wanted you to explain why there was a circular shadow on the moon. You tried to dodge the question by saying there are eclipses when both the moon and the sun are up. I explained that, as you admitted, and now you are trying to ignore the first point. Now then, I ask again, why is there a circular shadow on the moon when the eclipse occurs? Why does an eclipse occur on the flat earth anyways?"

    You have not adequately explained it. You asserted, without suporting evidence, that refraction is responsible for this impossibility of the heliocentric model. Refraction can displace heavenly bodies, I agree, but not in the way you claim, this was proved with practical experimentation. Aside from that, in your model, the shadow of the earth should have come from the bottom of the moon and moved up, it didn't, it started at the top and moved down. There are a couple of theories that speculate why there is a shadow on the moon, but none are conclusive enough for me. What IS conclusive is that it is not the earth that causes the shadow on the moon.



     "Yes, depending on angles of incidence and the change of density, but in the circumstances of celestial bodies on the horizon, they appear lower, which is how we have sunsets, sinking ships, and cities on a flat earth."
     Irrelevant. I was talking about the sun being refracted. Not ships, cities and other stuff."

    The sun (which is a celestial body) was included (I've bolded it for you) in that rebuttal, nice dodge though.


     "No. I included a test similar to the one I performed, you ignored the video, obviously." I was talking about your test where you supposidly proved that things can only appear to be lower and not higher. I am still waiting for that."

    I did not record it. This is something that you can do for yourself. Take a clear canister of water and an object long enough to place halfway behind it so that you can see where it's actual position is, and it's refracted position is, it will always appear lowered. It's a simple experiment that anyone can perform and validate the results, this is the scientific method. Testable, repeatable, measurable results, unlike the opposing (your) arguments in this debate. 


     "Really? How much flat earth research have you done? I have researched the dichotomy for 3 years now, comparing evidence for either side. How do you think I became a flat earther? I tried to debunk it. " well, then that means you dropped researching now. Because you do not even look for explanations before you offer me supposed evidence that the earth is flat."

    That is what we are doing now. This is sincere discourse. I have been in your position. Right now you're questioning a subject that you at first thought was preposterous. I have seen all of these arguments dozens of times before. I have even proposed the same arguments you are now, although I was a bit more open minded to the idea in the end of my globe earth debates.

    " Like the lunar eclipse. You first claimed it was a contradiction in the globe earth and when I explained it, you acted like we both have explanations for it."

    As I stated before, it seems like a plausible explanation, but under any scrutiny, falls short of accurate. We are told that "sunsets are impossible on a flat earth",  then,  " circumnavigation ..." then, boats over the curve are impossible", but once you begin to understand the model, it makes far more sense than the currently accepted model.

     "Or the ISS. Look at an image of the ISS. You can see how exactly they reflect the light that comes towards them."

    Even if the machines were hermetically sealed in IR reflecting materials, there would be nowhere to radiate this heat away as according to Dr. Christian the heat in the thermosphere is always there. There is no colder place for the heat to transfer to (second law of thermodynamics).

     " I honestly don't have the time to explain exactly what these effects are to you. I think probably you are wasting time, in your own words."
     Oh so you do know what they are"

    I have been debating this topic since 2015, what do you think.

    "Since you claimed that you can explain them? Good. Now I ask you then, why do things have less weight when they are going east and more weight when they are going west?"

    Are you saying that I am heavy on a plane heading west than I would going east? Have you tested this? Can you cite a demonstration? How does this prove the earth is a spinning ball?

    " This could be explained by the round earth's movement but I really can not see how it would work on a flat earth."

    I'm asking to explain what plausible reason flying over a ball in opposing direction could possibly make anything weigh any different and how do you explain this in your model.

    " Now for the coriolis effect, why do the hurricanes in the southern hemisphere rotate clockwise and the hurricanes in the northern hemisphere turn anti-clockwise?"

    It is the "wake" of the sun on its circuit around the earth. Water is diamagnetic, meaning magnets repel water. The sun could be an electromagnet of some kind. The real question is, is the entire earth is spinning eastward, why aren't all storms and clouds moving westward.








    " The coriolis effect also has to be accounted for bullets when long range shooting."

    So they say. I have never had to account for the earth's spin when shooting long range, and don't know anyone who has.



    " It also has an effect on planes."

    Same as above. Logically, if the earth spun under planes (so you say), bullets (allegedly), and hurricanes, why not anything else? Bullets are in the air for all of a matter of seconds, but hot air balloons can float around for hours on end and set down exactly where they launched. Felix Baumgartner flew up to the stratosphere (24 miles) and landed in the opposite direction than if he were diving over a spinning earth. What practical evidence supports the coriolis or eotvos effect?


    " I will need to watch the math video fully to comment on those points." 

    You do that, and get back to me with a mathematical rebuttal.


    " Lastly, you are being dishonest. You completely ignore entire arguments by playing simple word games. 
    "Oh I will not debate google."
    "Look the ships look slightly distorted."
    "The buildings are irrelevant because some other buildings look weird sometimes."
    "I debunked that already.""

    These are quote marks ("). Most people generally use them to quote something someone said. Aince I've not said any of this, they are strawmen arguments.

     "I admit that there were points where I did mistakes in this conversation because I was in a hurry and did not research properly. It is not that I don't have time in my hands, I do. It's just that whenever I go on debate island something happens and I have to go everytime."

    You were hoping for an easy debate win, and it didn't turn out like that.

    " I would be happy if you stated your intentions. Are you just trying to have a debate where you try to beat the other side or are you trying to reach at a conclusion? Because if you are trying to reach at a conclusion, you sure are not acting like it. "

    I have empirically measured water, and found that the lake near my house is flat, where there should be a large hump of water in the middle, therefore, the earth couldn't be a sphere. I am merely pointing out the obvious to anyone capable of critical thought or rational reasoning. Have you seen the Matrix? I'm not claiming to be a Neo, but I'm nothing short of a Morpheus. The world needs Neos. This is my intention. @alexoland
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat "You were hoping for an easy debate win, and it didn't turn out like that." I wasn't debating to win, unlike you. You only accept the sources that support your own world view so I do not think I (or anyone) can ever convince you. 

     I drop the debate. You can say I lost because I do not have the determination to even read your response. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat "You were hoping for an easy debate win, and it didn't turn out like that." I wasn't debating to win, unlike you. You only accept the sources that support your own world view so I do not think I (or anyone) can ever convince you. 

     I drop the debate. You can say I lost because I do not have the determination to even read your response. 
    You didn't read the response, but you quoted the second from the last paragraph.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch