The earth is ball shaped

Erfisflat

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat: 

MKULTRA: Maybe when you mention an name, have some source material to go along with the point of view you're making?


https://www.amazon.com/MKULTRA-Program-Experimentation-Behavior-Modification/dp/0961647582

I don't want you to take my word for it. Anyone is perfectly capable of researching something they are ignorant about. The fact that you are ignorant about MKULTRA isnt my fault. Now, reasons to believe I am living stuck to the side of a spinning ball, in your own words please, or stop trolling.

Erfisflat

@TTKDB you stereotype and point fingers at people who have valid discourse, and ask nonsensical questions, and you have yet to express ANY type of argument. You merely ask questions.


 I can only assume that since you ask so much and make very little of what can be considered an argument, you know very little?

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat
Literary everything you’ve said is a fallacy   

Erfisflat

Zombieguy1987 said:

@Erfisflat
Literary everything you’ve said is a fallacy   

You're welcome to point them out, literally every one of them.

TTKDB

@Erfisflat:

Youre stereotyping yourself with your earth is flat commentary .

"you stereotype and point fingers at people who have valid discourse, and ask nonsensical questions, and you have yet to express ANY type of argument. You merely ask questions.


 I can only assume that since you ask so much and make very little of what can be considered an argument, you know very little?"

So the way that you're going to make arguments for your earth is flat ideology, is by calling some of the mainstream 's, and NASA is lying as well? 

With no evidence to support your individual points of view? 

This is how you're managing your debate? 

Erfisflat

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

Youre stereotyping yourself with your earth is flat commentary .

"you stereotype and point fingers at people who have valid discourse, and ask nonsensical questions, and you have yet to express ANY type of argument. You merely ask questions.


 I can only assume that since you ask so much and make very little of what can be considered an argument, you know very little?"

So the way that you're going to make arguments for your earth is flat ideology, is by calling some of the mainstream 's, and NASA is lying as well? 

With no evidence to support your individual points of view? 

This is how you're managing your debate? 

Why do you ask questions, then cherry pick my responses, often completely ignoring main points I make. Do you know what a persuade me debate is?

Erfisflat

Zombieguy1987 said:

@Erfisflat
Literary everything you’ve said is a fallacy   

Didn't think so.

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat ;
Well, your first fallacy is your comparison of a 200 foot tall guerilla with a girl to pictures that prove earth is round 

You. are. comparing. King Kong. to. pictures. of. the. earth

And I will tell you that my grandfather was an astronaut and sent me pictures of the earth, which showed the curvature, so, I've seen the curvature with my eyes, while you wear your flat earth glasses



Next, you use a source that is unreliable, and is disliked into oblivion, and like I said Is being crushed again. And as an added bonus, you never refuted Professor Stick's video

You also claim to be a "scientist" and 'measured" the earth and somehow came the conclusion that the world is flat!

The spotlight sun isn't a strawman, because a lot of flat earthers claim it's a real thing, because they think the earth doesn't rotate, and if that was the case, this would happen



Ah, who am I kidding?

you probably believe 9/11 was an inside job, or Sandy Hook was fake.  




I will never take you silly flat earthers with this contradictory nonsense  

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat ;
Also, you're impatient 

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

What an awful attempt at a rebuttal. If you had only pulled your head out of your arse and read my post before commenting, again (https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/24631/#Comment_24631 and https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/23634/#Comment_23634), you'd see that those "b. are not my claims, and 
C) do not prove the earth is a ball."

I saw your points and disregarded them because:

1) Empty claims with no evidence are irrelevent

2) I provided evidence such as a link to your previous posts showing you were wrong and this is evidence which does dispute your claims.

Also thanks for linking to previous posts where by your own standards you conceded the argument.

Thanks for catching that, I meant south America, which has about 12:30 hours in difference.

That you got the wrong continent is not a response to the underlying issue that the observable and empirical rising and setting of the sun is inconsistent with the flat earth. In a flat earth why is the sun not visible in some places but then visible in other places which are much further away?

Also still wrong based not on just the information you could look up, but the information I provided. If these locations are 11:30 hours apart (if they're 12:30 hours apart one way then it's 11:30 hours the other way unless you're going to start arguing that light is only visible if you're clockwise from the sun or something) and as already stated and shown with evidence the days last over 13:30 hours, they will have hours of sunlight and even an hour of sunlight with your poor mathematics

It isn't always above the equator, it makes a bigger circle in the December solstice, and a tighter circle in the June solstice.

Nice fantasy backed up by no proof or logic - but redundant seeing as that doesn't explain the illogicality of the suns rays magically stopping then restarting half a world away.

Lie, well maybe to you.

A scientific model is based on actual details. You have admitted previously you can't even provide basic information about the supposed nature of the flat earth like how big the sun is, how high it is, how fast it travels, etc. I don't know - maybe to you a conspiracy theorist ranting on the internet qualifies as a scientific model. To most people it refers to having an actual testable model with details of the system in.

Lol, testing the curved water now? Is it concave or convex?

People have been conducting experiments showing the earth was curved since before your grandparents were born and if you don't know that of the two a spherical earth would be convex that's just more proof of you not having basic spacial reasoning - something I've shown numerous times. 

1.eclipses (https://debateisland.com/discussion/1205/the-eclipse-debunks-the-globe-heliocentric-model-of-the-universe)

So your argument that the scientific method doesn't use models to make correct predictions and therefore validate their theory.... is scientists making completely accurate predictions and validating their theory? Seem to have shot yourself in the foot there.

Also if you look at the full version of that page via the internet archive you'll see you are proven wrong. Your argument is based on you not understanding that something's relative position in your line of sight depends on not just its movement but your own.

2. the motions of the moon and earth combined (https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/21329/#Comment_21329) 

Hahaha, nice link to you being unable to offer any evidence after your arguments are destroyed, getting called out on it, and then throwing a hissy fit and closing the thread - conceding the entire argument by your own standards.

3. Curved water, or lack thereof
4. the flat horizon at any practical altitude (aka reality), 5.lack of measureable motion,
6.the lack of specular highlight on the moon,
7. how a light from the yellow part of the spectrum (the sun) can reflect light in the silver part of the spectrum (the moon)
8. why the moonlight is cold, and makes fire burn hotter, while the sun's light is hot and is a fire deterrent
9. Selenelions
10. Currents and wind patterns
Many more

If you are claiming any of these show any contradiction with the scientific reality on the spherical earth or are unexplained, feel free to provide it. Currently your entire argument that there is any contradiction is that you say so - which isn't a valid argument. Provide evidence - I'm not going to waste my time countering your imagination.

So just for instance if you wanted to show how say "how a light from the yellow part of the spectrum (the sun) can reflect light in the silver part of the spectrum (the moon)" is relevant to the debate you would need to:

1) Show that the light from the sun is from the yellow part of the spectrum
2) Show that the light from the moon is from the silver part of the spectrum
3) Show how science doesn't adequately explain it.

Of course, you're not able to. I expect instead of trying to back up your claims with proof you'll throw a tantrum and blame me, then if I insist that your arguments are invalid unless they are backed up by evidence (which is the norm in a debate) you'll continue to sulk and then close the thread.

TTKDB

@Erfisflat:

"I'm here to try and get you to think for yourself. And the point of this debate is to give me ONE good reason why you believe the earth is a ball, despite not having seen a shred of evidence for it."

, you don't have any evidence do you?

So before you suggest that I think for myself, based upon your earth is flat ideology.

Either produce some legitimate evidence to support your so far "non debate" or get some different subject matter to debate.

I think for myself just fine.

Erfisflat

"Well, your first fallacy is your comparison of a 200 foot tall guerilla with a girl to pictures that prove earth is round "

I believe you are referring to the faulty comparison. This is not a faulty comparison. A faulty comparison example would be:
"Broccoli has significantly less fat than the leading candy bar!"

It also helps to give an explanation for why you deem it faulty, like this:
"While both broccoli and candy bars can be considered snacks, comparing the two in terms of fat content and ignoring the significant difference in taste, leads to the false comparison."
Instead of just repeating yourself, this really isn't a valid explanation:

"You. are. comparing. King Kong. to. pictures. of. the. earth"

Both the image of King Kong and the spherical earth are images that neither of us can see with our own eyes, nor will we ever.

"And I will tell you that my grandfather was an astronaut and sent me pictures of the earth, which showed the curvature, so, I've seen the curvature with my eyes, while you wear your flat earth glasses"



Not only did you misidentify that fallacy you also in your rebuttal committed another:



"Next, you use a source that is unreliable,"

I used a YouTube video response to your YouTube video. Regardless, which fallacy is that?

 "and is disliked into oblivion,"



Fallacy #2

" and like I said Is being crushed again. And as an added bonus, you never refuted Professor Stick's video"

And as an added bonus, when you rebutted my video, you ignored my response to that, as well as my response: "Would you like me to rebuttal his video?" He edits out a lot of the video, so it wouldn't take long, I just assumed you conceded because you went silent.

"You also claim to be a "scientist" and 'measured" the earth and somehow came the conclusion that the world is flat!"

I have, and which fallacy is that? 

"The spotlight sun isn't a strawman, because a lot of flat earthers claim it's a real thing, because they think the earth doesn't rotate, and if that was the case, this would happen"

I am not "a lot of flat earthers" so, it is, by definition, a strawman.



"Ah, who am I kidding?

you probably believe 9/11 was an inside job, or Sandy Hook was fake."

Oh look! A strawman!





I will never take you silly flat earthers with this contradictory nonsense.

And one more fallacy to top it all off.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat ;
"Oh look! A strawman!"


He says when you said my opinion about conspiracy theories is a fallacy 

Typical

Erfisflat

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

"I'm here to try and get you to think for yourself. And the point of this debate is to give me ONE good reason why you believe the earth is a ball, despite not having seen a shred of evidence for it."

, you don't have any evidence do you?

So before you suggest that I think for myself, based upon your earth is flat ideology.

Either produce some legitimate evidence to support your so far "non debate" or get some different subject matter to debate.

I think for myself just fine.

, you don't have any evidence, do you. This debate was set up so that anyone could prove that the earth is a spinning ball, and after a page and a half full of posts, nothing stands as evidence. It is not my job to provide you evidence in a negative debate, in this format, you hold the burden of proof. I don't believe the earth is a ball, and you haven't proved it.

Erfisflat

Zombieguy1987 said:

@Erfisflat ;
"Oh look! A strawman!"


He says when you said my opinion about conspiracy theories is a fallacy 

Typical

More incoherent babbling?

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat ;
That awkward moment when the "babbling" can be proven true by linking this debate, where you and your cronies believe 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, JFK were conspiracies etc.

 https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1072/what-do-you-think-of-conspiracy-theories

Also, you pull the "You can see the 200ft guerilla with a girl on the empire state building" cliché, which has been called a fallacy, because it's a bad comparison, and completely irrelevant to flat earth! 

Also, you used Wikipedia as a source, which can be edited by anyone, so, you used yet another unreliable source 

Erfisflat

"That awkward moment when the "babbling" can be proven true by linking this debate, where you and your cronies believe 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, JFK were conspiracies etc.

 https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1072/what-do-you-think-of-conspiracy-theories"

I said it was incoherent babbling, because it was. In the sentence:

"He says when you said my opinion about conspiracy theories is a fallacy"

You seem to be talking both to me and about me to someone else, using "he" and "you" as the subject of the same sentence, which makes the sentence incoherent. And it was a strawman, as it was off topic.

9/11, which about half of Americans think was a conspiracy,

https://www.livescience.com/56479-americans-believe-conspiracy-theories.html

for good reason (there is an ongoing debate here 

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/25745/#Comment_25745

 which you haven't participated in) was completely off topic in a shape of the earth debate, which makes it a strawman by definition, likewise with Sandy Hook.

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/13483/#Comment_13483

"Also, you pull the "You can see the 200ft guerilla with a girl on the empire state building" cliché, which has been called a fallacy, because it's a bad comparison, and completely irrelevant to flat earth!"

Again, you posted an image of something neither of us will ever empirically observe, and which goes against the common senses, and I did too. This makes them a valid comparison.

"Also, you used Wikipedia as a source, which can be edited by anyone, so, you used yet another unreliable source"

You want a different source, defining the fallacy which you used?

https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

This is the 73515th “debate”, where Erf asks for “proof”, making an attempt to use scientific sounding demands, then does his best to arbitrarily dismiss everything for any tenuous reason he can think of. 

If you play close attention, your position is literally coming up with a list of reasons why we should ignore observations of the earth where it appears spherical, and a list of reasons why you can’t  make the most basic of observations about the earth that would be expected if it were flat.

This is not science, or Earth Science. 

The process of science is to observe the world, craft explanations that explain it, then test those explanations. For the shape of the earth, this process has gone on from the time of Aristotle, to about 70 ish years ago when the matter was 100% settled with the launch of satellites and high altitude balloons.

In 2300 intervening years, there was no NASA, and the governments that existed had to communicate via pieces of paper delivered on horseback. The denizens for most of the time mostly cared about not dying of dysentery, rather than the shape of the earth. And yet the discoveries in astronomy and physics were apparently all lies engaged in by a communicating cabal so that a science agency for technology that hadn’t even been considered yet run by the government of a country that would not exist for 2000 years could make a few billion dollars of taxpayers for people whose great^10 grand parents hadn’t even been born yet.

To be scientific, one must have an explanation that you can test. As the world is complex, it is possible that other processes could occur that would make a particular individual test fail: in this case, you must either have a testable, scientifically backed explanation for how the failure can occur even though the explanation is true, or the explanation is so strong in all other examples, with the failure case so narrow, limited and specific, it is reasonable to presume that the failure occurred for some unknown reason rather than the explanation being false - allowing you to investigate - and subsequently the failure without having to throw away a good explanation.

Conversely, Pseudoscience often works in the opposite: assertions, unsupported explanations, unscientific hyperbolae are invoked to explain failures of the model you like, and the success of the model you don’t. It’s based on straw men and cherry picking: shooting down a strong theory with unsupported speculation you can’t prove nor show.

Pseudoscientists do things like show a YouTube video with no explanation or information showing something basic happening in uncontrolled conditions with no explanation of how it applies, then will assert that this one video “proves”, some major overwhelming phenomena that we should see every day, in different conditions, all year at all locations on the planet: without explaining how or why.

Interestingly, you will find specifically with flat earthers, that they will be experts in geometry and mathematics - until you ask them a basic question about observations on the flat earth - then they will process not to have a model - and that maths is not science. They will vehemently protest about how every space agency, government, astronomer, scientist and engineer related to the space program are all lying: but assert that YouTube videos

From FlatEarthTruther must be taken at face value. 

They will show videos of refraction, through glass, that they can’t show how applies to the atmosphere, nor how this mechanism can physically explain things like sunset, and claim this proves the earth is flat: but when the science is explained and a video showing different things happening in different conditions that support the actual established  scientific laws: they will dismiss this as “just YouTube videos that show nothing”. 

They will shout about how refraction works, talk about refraction in air, or mirages and how it proves their point - but when snells law is applied, and it is shown that changes in air pressure and temperature in a particular configuration can bend light just enough to make specific observations at a given distance - then asserting that because refraction doesn’t work in just one medium.

They will dismiss arguments as “why does looking at the sun and moon tell you anything about the shape of the earth?” And as well as ignoring the explanation, then in the next post talk about how the sun and moon in a particular scenario prove the earth is flat during selenelion eclipses.

They will dismiss geometry as “not representing the real world”, when it disproves a flat earth, then will use geometry in the next sentence - talking about crespicular rays, or the curvature calculations of the earth - which are all geometry.

Erf, specifically, has a penchant for claiming that everything is a straw man, or some form of fallacy, but is rarely if ever able to explain why, and will not engage past a few one liners, or an assertion that he’s right and you’re wrong.

Erf also knows that he doesn’t have any real or valid proof to support flat earth. That’s why he has/had a GoFundMe page so that people gave him money to find “proof of a flat earth”. It strongly implies you know you have no proof already - if you ask for money to “find proof”.

He has previously failed to grasp that the size of the moon compared to the earth depends on where you are - he’s claimed that two objects that are the same size are not the same size - that a video of Mobile bay shows no hint of the viewed objects being obscured by water - only to have actual research (like doing an image search of mobile bay) and application of basic science showing him he’s not only lying through his teeth when he claimed he had validated the images himself - but also showed exactly the very curvature he said was missing, as well as providing demonstrable visual evidence at how refraction can work to make the earth look flatter close to the water. When confronted with this incontrovertible evidence, Erf simply changes the subject, shouts, or otherwise deflects.

This is not science or earth science.

I could go on: but quite frankly Erf destroys his own credibility every post, so I will defer to him to refute himself - again.

Now - importantly I’m not suggesting this as an argument against his wildly asserted beliefs - which are normally sloppy, poorly reasoned and riddled with logical fallacies that he will mute you for if you decide to point out each and every one - if he bothers to provide an argument at all.

I’m pointing this out to highlight the utter lack of credibility this person has when it comes to any matters of science, to point out his only successes come against the naive or the uninitiated individuals who work under the assumption that Erf is approaching the argument from a position of intellectual honesty - which he very much is not. It is to warn readers of Erfs style and methods, so you don’t get caught in his Venus flytrap of trolling ignorance. 

This post is in part, to make everyone who may not be aware of Erfs Tactics, that he is not simply ignorant, or unintelligent: he is dishonest and bordering on pathologically delusional.

So, as a result, let’s look at this from a scientific perspective, let’s look at the most basic scientific approach one can take if you were intellectually honest.

If the earth was a very large sphere, with the moon revolving around it, and revolving around the sun at a great distance: what observations would you expect to make?

You would expect to observe:

• Objects obscured by the curvature as your distance to that object increases - boats would sail over the horizon, planes would fly over the horizon.
• You’d have a finite horizon distance you could see - regardless of atmospheric conditions - based on height. You should be able see much further at 1000 ft than 500ft: and you should be able to see objects at 1000ft and not at 500ft if they are at a distance invisible at 500ft height on a sphere, but not at 1000ft.
• If you move 1 degree of distance around the earth your relative observations of objects above will change by 1 degree compared to someone else.
• The objects in the sky like the sun, moon and stars will have a fixed angular speed - unlike planes, which have a variable angular speed because of basic geometry, they maintain their distance with the earth turning at constant speed.
• Shadows of a Lunar eclipses will always be circular, no matter how, where and when they occur.
• Stars visible on one part of the globe, would not be visible on others: specifically northern most stars in the north aren’t visible in the Southern Hemisphere. 
• Stars will rotate in different directions In the North and the south, and at the equator you will see the stars above you move in a straight line.

We observe all of these things - repeatedly - everyone - all over the globe - every day of the year.

That is scientific proof - the earth has all the features one would expect on the globe.

You can do the same for a flat earth, but we all know how that works out - which is why Erf won’t ever try and make that argument.

Now, sometimes we see objects a little further away than they should be. We know that light bends in the air based upon the conditions, so we can ask that question again: 

What would we see if the earth was a globe, and refraction occurred and worked the same way that the laws of refraction say they would:

• In conditions where light could be bent in the correct way, you’d see objects a little further away. But only in those conditions.
• You’d often see refractive effects in images where this effect occurs - shimmering, intermediate inversions, fluctuation.
• You’d not see the same thing each day when the refraction is caused by changeable atmospheric conditions.
• You’d be able to apply the mathematics of snells law to atmospheric conditions, and confirm the refraction could produce the observation.

When the refraction is caused by space

• you’d see stars very close to the horizon move faster than those further from the horizon.
• You’d be able to lunar eclipses with the sun and moon are at opposite sides of the horizon : but not once they both rise over the angle refraction produced by light travelling from a vacuum to air.

And we see all those things too. So the world looks to be exactly how I, NASA, Scientists and all normal people say it is.

So there’s really no scientific doubt on the idea of a spherical earth, and it is most definitely confirmable by repeatable measurements. This is not even starting on  us major branches of science, technology, engineering and politics that confirms that the earth is a sphere by other means.

I know what Erfs response will be, it will be some assertion about refraction, maybe a YouTube video. He may complain about me being derogatory - and 100% truthful. He’ll probably make some assertion about how refraction doesn’t work the way I say, or works the way he says: without any justification, reasoning or argument. Maybe he’ll skip everything and go straight for me having been away for a little while.

At no point will he take atmospheric conditions, calculate the refractive index, use snells law to show that even in extreme conditions - the refraction that causes some distant objects a fraction of a degree to become visible over the horizon - and then show using

Geometry, that the required refraction is too make the light rays change path.

He won’t, because he’s wrong, and if he did the science, crunched the numbers he’d know it.

Conversely, applying the laws of physics is nothing to be scared of: as an interesting experiment, I took one of his “impossible observation”, of one mountain from another - I believe the largest distance ever viewed on the earth: I took the refraction index of air with temperature, humidity, pressure expected at the top of a mountain: the same for air at the elevation in the space between them, and calculated how much refraction could be produced - and it just so happened to be roughly enough to make one visible from the other.

If he was right, he’d be able to show it in this way.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

This is the 73515th “debate”, where Erf asks for “proof”, making an attempt to use scientific sounding demands, then does his best to arbitrarily dismiss everything for any tenuous reason he can think of. 

If you play close attention, your position is literally coming up with a list of reasons why we should ignore observations of the earth where it appears spherical, and a list of reasons why you can’t  make the most basic of observations about the earth that would be expected if it were flat.

This is not science, or Earth Science. 

The process of science is to observe the world, craft explanations that explain it, then test those explanations. For the shape of the earth, this process has gone on from the time of Aristotle, to about 70 ish years ago when the matter was 100% settled with the launch of satellites and high altitude balloons.

In 2300 intervening years, there was no NASA, and the governments that existed had to communicate via pieces of paper delivered on horseback. The denizens for most of the time mostly cared about not dying of dysentery, rather than the shape of the earth. And yet the discoveries in astronomy and physics were apparently all lies engaged in by a communicating cabal so that a science agency for technology that hadn’t even been considered yet run by the government of a country that would not exist for 2000 years could make a few billion dollars of taxpayers for people whose great^10 grand parents hadn’t even been born yet.

To be scientific, one must have an explanation that you can test. As the world is complex, it is possible that other processes could occur that would make a particular individual test fail: in this case, you must either have a testable, scientifically backed explanation for how the failure can occur even though the explanation is true, or the explanation is so strong in all other examples, with the failure case so narrow, limited and specific, it is reasonable to presume that the failure occurred for some unknown reason rather than the explanation being false - allowing you to investigate - and subsequently the failure without having to throw away a good explanation.

Conversely, Pseudoscience often works in the opposite: assertions, unsupported explanations, unscientific hyperbolae are invoked to explain failures of the model you like, and the success of the model you don’t. It’s based on straw men and cherry picking: shooting down a strong theory with unsupported speculation you can’t prove nor show.

Pseudoscientists do things like show a YouTube video with no explanation or information showing something basic happening in uncontrolled conditions with no explanation of how it applies, then will assert that this one video “proves”, some major overwhelming phenomena that we should see every day, in different conditions, all year at all locations on the planet: without explaining how or why.

Interestingly, you will find specifically with flat earthers, that they will be experts in geometry and mathematics - until you ask them a basic question about observations on the flat earth - then they will process not to have a model - and that maths is not science. They will vehemently protest about how every space agency, government, astronomer, scientist and engineer related to the space program are all lying: but assert that YouTube videos

From FlatEarthTruther must be taken at face value. 

They will show videos of refraction, through glass, that they can’t show how applies to the atmosphere, nor how this mechanism can physically explain things like sunset, and claim this proves the earth is flat: but when the science is explained and a video showing different things happening in different conditions that support the actual established  scientific laws: they will dismiss this as “just YouTube videos that show nothing”. 

They will shout about how refraction works, talk about refraction in air, or mirages and how it proves their point - but when snells law is applied, and it is shown that changes in air pressure and temperature in a particular configuration can bend light just enough to make specific observations at a given distance - then asserting that because refraction doesn’t work in just one medium.

They will dismiss arguments as “why does looking at the sun and moon tell you anything about the shape of the earth?” And as well as ignoring the explanation, then in the next post talk about how the sun and moon in a particular scenario prove the earth is flat during selenelion eclipses.

They will dismiss geometry as “not representing the real world”, when it disproves a flat earth, then will use geometry in the next sentence - talking about crespicular rays, or the curvature calculations of the earth - which are all geometry.

Erf, specifically, has a penchant for claiming that everything is a straw man, or some form of fallacy, but is rarely if ever able to explain why, and will not engage past a few one liners, or an assertion that he’s right and you’re wrong.

Erf also knows that he doesn’t have any real or valid proof to support flat earth. That’s why he has/had a GoFundMe page so that people gave him money to find “proof of a flat earth”. It strongly implies you know you have no proof already - if you ask for money to “find proof”.

He has previously failed to grasp that the size of the moon compared to the earth depends on where you are - he’s claimed that two objects that are the same size are not the same size - that a video of Mobile bay shows no hint of the viewed objects being obscured by water - only to have actual research (like doing an image search of mobile bay) and application of basic science showing him he’s not only lying through his teeth when he claimed he had validated the images himself - but also showed exactly the very curvature he said was missing, as well as providing demonstrable visual evidence at how refraction can work to make the earth look flatter close to the water. When confronted with this incontrovertible evidence, Erf simply changes the subject, shouts, or otherwise deflects.

This is not science or earth science.

I could go on: but quite frankly Erf destroys his own credibility every post, so I will defer to him to refute himself - again.

Now - importantly I’m not suggesting this as an argument against his wildly asserted beliefs - which are normally sloppy, poorly reasoned and riddled with logical fallacies that he will mute you for if you decide to point out each and every one - if he bothers to provide an argument at all.

I’m pointing this out to highlight the utter lack of credibility this person has when it comes to any matters of science, to point out his only successes come against the naive or the uninitiated individuals who work under the assumption that Erf is approaching the argument from a position of intellectual honesty - which he very much is not. It is to warn readers of Erfs style and methods, so you don’t get caught in his Venus flytrap of trolling ignorance. 

This post is in part, to make everyone who may not be aware of Erfs Tactics, that he is not simply ignorant, or unintelligent: he is dishonest and bordering on pathologically delusional.

So, as a result, let’s look at this from a scientific perspective, let’s look at the most basic scientific approach one can take if you were intellectually honest.

If the earth was a very large sphere, with the moon revolving around it, and revolving around the sun at a great distance: what observations would you expect to make?

You would expect to observe:

• Objects obscured by the curvature as your distance to that object increases - boats would sail over the horizon, planes would fly over the horizon.
• You’d have a finite horizon distance you could see - regardless of atmospheric conditions - based on height. You should be able see much further at 1000 ft than 500ft: and you should be able to see objects at 1000ft and not at 500ft if they are at a distance invisible at 500ft height on a sphere, but not at 1000ft.
• If you move 1 degree of distance around the earth your relative observations of objects above will change by 1 degree compared to someone else.
• The objects in the sky like the sun, moon and stars will have a fixed angular speed - unlike planes, which have a variable angular speed because of basic geometry, they maintain their distance with the earth turning at constant speed.
• Shadows of a Lunar eclipses will always be circular, no matter how, where and when they occur.
• Stars visible on one part of the globe, would not be visible on others: specifically northern most stars in the north aren’t visible in the Southern Hemisphere. 
• Stars will rotate in different directions In the North and the south, and at the equator you will see the stars above you move in a straight line.

We observe all of these things - repeatedly - everyone - all over the globe - every day of the year.

That is scientific proof - the earth has all the features one would expect on the globe.

You can do the same for a flat earth, but we all know how that works out - which is why Erf won’t ever try and make that argument.

Now, sometimes we see objects a little further away than they should be. We know that light bends in the air based upon the conditions, so we can ask that question again: 

What would we see if the earth was a globe, and refraction occurred and worked the same way that the laws of refraction say they would:

• In conditions where light could be bent in the correct way, you’d see objects a little further away. But only in those conditions.
• You’d often see refractive effects in images where this effect occurs - shimmering, intermediate inversions, fluctuation.
• You’d not see the same thing each day when the refraction is caused by changeable atmospheric conditions.
• You’d be able to apply the mathematics of snells law to atmospheric conditions, and confirm the refraction could produce the observation.

When the refraction is caused by space

• you’d see stars very close to the horizon move faster than those further from the horizon.
• You’d be able to lunar eclipses with the sun and moon are at opposite sides of the horizon : but not once they both rise over the angle refraction produced by light travelling from a vacuum to air.

And we see all those things too. So the world looks to be exactly how I, NASA, Scientists and all normal people say it is.

So there’s really no scientific doubt on the idea of a spherical earth, and it is most definitely confirmable by repeatable measurements. This is not even starting on  us major branches of science, technology, engineering and politics that confirms that the earth is a sphere by other means.

I know what Erfs response will be, it will be some assertion about refraction, maybe a YouTube video. He may complain about me being derogatory - and 100% truthful. He’ll probably make some assertion about how refraction doesn’t work the way I say, or works the way he says: without any justification, reasoning or argument. Maybe he’ll skip everything and go straight for me having been away for a little while.

At no point will he take atmospheric conditions, calculate the refractive index, use snells law to show that even in extreme conditions - the refraction that causes some distant objects a fraction of a degree to become visible over the horizon - and then show using

Geometry, that the required refraction is too make the light rays change path.

He won’t, because he’s wrong, and if he did the science, crunched the numbers he’d know it.

Conversely, applying the laws of physics is nothing to be scared of: as an interesting experiment, I took one of his “impossible observation”, of one mountain from another - I believe the largest distance ever viewed on the earth: I took the refraction index of air with temperature, humidity, pressure expected at the top of a mountain: the same for air at the elevation in the space between them, and calculated how much refraction could be produced - and it just so happened to be roughly enough to make one visible from the other.

If he was right, he’d be able to show it in this way.

Wow, welcome back, Goober! What it been like six months? I haven't read this yet, and I'm currently working on an unrelated OP, so I may not read it even today, no doubt it's another loooong, rhetorical red herring, but, in the meantime, why don't you pick up where we left off, as you've conceded that point, and just disappeared.


https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1670/the-big-bang-story/p6

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

I have been waiting for six months for you to explain how my images and interpretations in that thread is wrong.

You said that no “curvature” was seen in any of the images.

I went through all of them and showed this was a complete lie: that every single one of them showed exactly the amount of curvature.

You got absolutely and obviously destroyed in that thread: by conceding the point that all these images by a flat earth source show the curvature that is absence: showing that they are idiots, and you are a fraud.


You said you’d destroy my interpretation, then instead went of on a wild tangent about some idiocy on refraction.

You’ve repeatedly invoked the laws of refraction: then said the laws of refraction worked in a different way: you’ve posted YouTube videos of refraction as “proof”, and rejected YouTube videos showing refraction working as per the laws of physics as “just a YouTube video”


There really isnt isn’t much more to say. I showed this video - that you claimed was valid - was not: and you couldn’t defend yourself.

I quite happy to have a conversation about refraction: but give what you’ve already said, I don’t think you understand how it works.

How about something basic:

You have air at 20 degrees c, 10% humidity meeting a body of air that is 5 degrees with 80% humidity. You standing on one side of this boundary, at 10ft observing someone at the other side of the boundary.

Would they appear higher or lower to you: would you appear higher or lower to them.

Could you be made to be invisible to them or vice versa? How would the light have to be refracted, by how much? What path does the light take so that it doesn’t reach the other person?


This is basic stuff: if you can’t or won’t answer it: it pretty much demonstrates that you’re a fraud that doesn’t understand what he’s yelling at people.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

I have been waiting for six months for you to explain how my images and interpretations in that thread is wrong.

You said that no “curvature” was seen in any of the images.

I went through all of them and showed this was a complete lie: that every single one of them showed exactly the amount of curvature.

You got absolutely and obviously destroyed in that thread: by conceding the point that all these images by a flat earth source show the curvature that is absence: showing that they are idiots, and you are a fraud.


You said you’d destroy my interpretation, then instead went of on a wild tangent about some idiocy on refraction.

You’ve repeatedly invoked the laws of refraction: then said the laws of refraction worked in a different way: you’ve posted YouTube videos of refraction as “proof”, and rejected YouTube videos showing refraction working as per the laws of physics as “just a YouTube video”


There really isnt isn’t much more to say. I showed this video - that you claimed was valid - was not: and you couldn’t defend yourself.

I quite happy to have a conversation about refraction: but give what you’ve already said, I don’t think you understand how it works.

How about something basic:

You have air at 20 degrees c, 10% humidity meeting a body of air that is 5 degrees with 80% humidity. You standing on one side of this boundary, at 10ft observing someone at the other side of the boundary.

Would they appear higher or lower to you: would you appear higher or lower to them.

Could you be made to be invisible to them or vice versa? How would the light have to be refracted, by how much? What path does the light take so that it doesn’t reach the other person?


This is basic stuff: if you can’t or won’t answer it: it pretty much demonstrates that you’re a fraud that doesn’t understand what he’s yelling at people.

It's like you've completely ignored my request to continue the conversation where we left off, which is a concession. How could this be? You don't want to talk about Snell's law, and how it dispoves you great many rhetorical assertions. I get it, this was a devastating point in your life, and you'd rather not talk about it? It did cause you to disappear for quite a long time.

Here, maybe jogging your memory will help.

"1&2. This is essentially the purpose of a debate, except in this case, you are lying about what laws of physics state, and I am correcting you. You can't honestly claim that I'm just repeating that you're wrong. If I'm not describing a scenario that is like yours, please, by all means, explain a likely scenario where and object, when viewed at eye level, will appear higher and more specifically reappear from out of sight with refraction, because I have yet to see this from you. I've seen refraction cause objects to appear lower, magnified, AND disappear. These are all agreeable with the flat earth.

So far you have a wide array of assertions that misinterpret Snell's law, and a side view of a laser being shone through sugar water. So far I have shown multiple examples of objects, when viewed through water, with an explanation as to why this is the most accurate representation of viewing objects over large distances, due to water vapor and other matter in the air, appear lower, as well as the bottoms disappearing, and you respond  with a rhetorical "nuh-uh, but muh science book". 

Once more, on multiple occasions, we can plainly demonstrate how refraction works, and this fully explains why observations occur like sunsets, ships over horizons, lake Pontchartrain, etc. and we don't have to assume that over some immeasurable distance, that any body of water curves against all common sense.







"if I was wrong, you could prove me wrong in (two) seconds by drawing a diagram of what I’m (describing), then doing the maths. You won’t do that."

I'm not entirely sure what you're describing. This is the issue. I've explained that you must define the axioms involved in order to properly calculate how we can apply Snell's law, and properly ascertain the correct direction that light should be bent in your model, which is so far, undefined... 

Claiming that I must draw a diagram to prove you wrong is shifting the burden. I've shown everyone a mountain that should not be seen in the current model and you have asserted that it is due to refraction. This burden of proof lies on you. If there is no defined boundary, there is no normal for the light to bend towards or away, then we cannot apply Snell's law, and your position is unfalsifiable, or a purely unevidenced assertion.

3." In every day atmospheric configuration: when light comes from a low density medium to a higher one, light bends towards normal: as in my configuration, normal is a vertical line, so light bending towards normal: as shown in all your examples: means objects would appear higher."

If the normal is a "vertical" line, then the boundary must be a horizontal one. This is assuming that we are looking down into a denser medium when we see these mountains from over 250 miles away, at eye level. This is illogical, to say the least. It's clear to any logical, unbiased thinker that if you are looking away at the eye level, that the boundary is vertical and the normal is horizontal, as in my model. It is also clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and are just "winging it".

4. "(There)(may) always be some tiny amounts of refraction, and there is, but it won’t appreciably (lower) objects over and above what I’ve already explained."

Because... You've "explained" this, I'm supposed to assume it correct?!? Right... Seems dogmatic that I assume your word is correct over both logic (there is always an appreciable amount of refractive elements in the air) and observations (shown above).

5. Once again, since we aren't seeing objects like mountains and city skylines floating in the sky consistently, and more consistently, the bottoms of objects are cut off, and if we can see that refraction happens consistently over large distances, we can say that refraction consistently lowers objects. The fact that we can't always see objects at 250 miles away proves that, aside from visibility issues, objects are more commonly lowered, as experimental evidence shows.

6. I'll agree that there does appear to be an apparent drop, nowhere near the allotted 60 feet worth, but this is again due to the refractive properties of air, which grow with distance. Over smaller distances, this refraction can be all but eliminated. "

TTKDB

@Erfisflat:

I'm here to try and get you to think for yourself.

, if I think like you, how is your earth is flat ideology or non argument style going to make my life better? 

The other people that you are having an earth is flat debate wrestling match with, is your ideology going to make their lives better if they think like you?

If they view NASA as you do as , will that make you happy?

If they view the mainstream media as a as well, will that make you happy as well? 

If hypothetically speaking others and I were to mentality wise buy off on the ideology that you're trying to sell to others via the guise of your non debate over your earth is flat commentary, will that make you happy?

You being the scientific individual that you are.

Apparently that mindset is what your only evidence seems to be, is that right? 

I'm looking at how you see and apparently think about things.

I am thinking for myself, based upon how you're orchestrating your Earth is flat commentary via your non debate. 

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

You claimed that the video showed no curvature - no hidden or obscured regions. You said you had investigated and reviewed this video and stood by its conclusion.

I unequivocally showed that it did.

The video posted showed the very curvature you said was missing.

Youre entire argument was refuted by your own video, and you demonstrated you were a .

Instead of dealing with that, by showing my analysis was wrong: you launched into this unrelated side track - to avoid the fact that you were proven to have lied - I asked you to confirm that you had done a basic investigation.



Now: Why should I engage with a who tries to change the subject when they’re proven wrong?

As I said; if you look at that post, I’m pointing out that you don’t seem to have a basic grasp of how refraction even works.

Im asking that question because I know you can’t answer basic scientific questions about refraction.

You have almost no scientific understanding, and you rely on straw men, rhetoric and hand waving to make a point: you are completely unable to apply science or mathematics to prove your point. And every post where you avoid answering actual scientific problems - like the one I proposed - help me demonstrate that you are a fraud to everyone reading.

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, you're not debating, what you're doing is called "ideology pushing."

The mainstream media are 's?

Where's your evidence?

You expressing that they are 's to you is not evidence, it's your opinion and not fact.

NASA is lying? Same thing, where's your evidence? 

So when you lack evidence, you seem to be at a loss for having a debate, right? 

Why are you here?

You're here behind the guise of having a debate to promote your earth is flat ideology, right? 

Yes or no? 

Nailed it on the head

Nathaniel_B

This man ACTUALLY think the world is flat!  I'm sleep!!!

Erfisflat

Nathaniel_B said:

This man ACTUALLY think the world is flat!  I'm sleep!!!

Not very convincing.
https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

You claimed that the video showed no curvature - no hidden or obscured regions. You said you had investigated and reviewed this video and stood by its conclusion.

I unequivocally showed that it did.

The video posted showed the very curvature you said was missing.

Youre entire argument was refuted by your own video, and you demonstrated you were a .

Instead of dealing with that, by showing my analysis was wrong: you launched into this unrelated side track - to avoid the fact that you were proven to have lied - I asked you to confirm that you had done a basic investigation.



Now: Why should I engage with a who tries to change the subject when they’re proven wrong?

As I said; if you look at that post, I’m pointing out that you don’t seem to have a basic grasp of how refraction even works.

Im asking that question because I know you can’t answer basic scientific questions about refraction.

You have almost no scientific understanding, and you rely on straw men, rhetoric and hand waving to make a point: you are completely unable to apply science or mathematics to prove your point. And every post where you avoid answering actual scientific problems - like the one I proposed - help me demonstrate that you are a fraud to everyone reading.

You were engaged just fine until you conceded. I understand, I don't like talking about traumatic episodes in my life either.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

You claimed a video showed no curvature. 

I proved it showed just the amount of curvature expected.

That destroys your position, and flat earth completely.

I am still waiting for a response to that. Feel free to continue with your wholly scientific approach of name calling as a response.

I will super impose images your claims that there I no curvature and you researched the images with the obvious disproof, and wait for you to fail to respond to that.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

You claimed a video showed no curvature. 

I proved it showed just the amount of curvature expected.

That destroys your position, and flat earth completely.

I am still waiting for a response to that. Feel free to continue with your wholly scientific approach of name calling as a response.

I will super impose images your claims that there I no curvature and you researched the images with the obvious disproof, and wait for you to fail to respond to that.

Keep pretending like we haven't discussed this being due to refraction, and dodging where that line of communication led to. Should I pull up the response I gave you?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

You claimed a video showed no curvature. 

I proved it showed just the amount of curvature expected.

That destroys your position, and flat earth completely.

I am still waiting for a response to that. Feel free to continue with your wholly scientific approach of name calling as a response.

I will super impose images your claims that there I no curvature and you researched the images with the obvious disproof, and wait for you to fail to respond to that.

And it appears you have your own dimwitted cronie.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

You claimed a video showed no curvature. 

I proved it showed just the amount of curvature expected.

That destroys your position, and flat earth completely.

I am still waiting for a response to that. Feel free to continue with your wholly scientific approach of name calling as a response.

I will super impose images your claims that there I no curvature and you researched the images with the obvious disproof, and wait for you to fail to respond to that.

Keep pretending like we haven't discussed this being due to refraction, and dodging where that line of communication led to. Should I pull up the response I gave you?

According to your argument: It can’t be caused by refraction: you've repeatedly said that refraction can’t occur without a change of medium.

You said you were coming up with a detailed rebuttal with information and details, and then nothing.

You said there should be 60 feet of curvature and there wasn’t. I showed there was 60 feet of curvature.

You got caught lying, and you never addressed any of my images again.

Ive been waiting over 6 months now I’ve been waiting for you to respond to that original rebuttal

Please explain why all these images show the exact curvature you said they were missing.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

So while I wait for you to not address those images, to not reference the multiple posts where you claimed “a big rebuttal” was coming, and while I await your dishonest claims that you even acknowledged anything I  had said. let’s leave you with this

You claim you’re a scientist. So do some science. You say that snells law - a mathematical model of reality - can make it look like a sunset on a flat plane?

Asserting that it can means nothing. Citing a YouTube video of “it happening”, cool! The maths should be trivial and easy for you to calculate! Put your money where your mouth is and prove it.

Do the calculations, apply the mathematics of snells law to the conditions on your flat plane, show that sunset can happen on a flat plane. Slam the cold, hard, irrefutable maths in my face, and prove me wrong.

Any genuine scientist would start off by establishing the validity of a model mathematically. You’ve refused to do this a dozen times.

Tell me: when a self proclaimed “scientist”,  repeatedly refuses to show their working, after multiple requests: why should we not conclude that this scientist is making things up?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

You claimed a video showed no curvature. 

I proved it showed just the amount of curvature expected.

That destroys your position, and flat earth completely.

I am still waiting for a response to that. Feel free to continue with your wholly scientific approach of name calling as a response.

I will super impose images your claims that there I no curvature and you researched the images with the obvious disproof, and wait for you to fail to respond to that.

Keep pretending like we haven't discussed this being due to refraction, and dodging where that line of communication led to. Should I pull up the response I gave you?

According to your argument: It can’t be caused by refraction: you've repeatedly said that refraction can’t occur without a change of medium.

You said you were coming up with a detailed rebuttal with information and details, and then nothing.

You said there should be 60 feet of curvature and there wasn’t. I showed there was 60 feet of curvature.

You got caught lying, and you never addressed any of my images again.

Ive been waiting over 6 months now I’ve been waiting for you to respond to that original rebuttal

Please explain why all these images show the exact curvature you said they were missing.

First of all, calling someone does not make you appear smarter, no matter how many times you do it. A lie is an intentional false statement. What I said was not an intentionally false statement. I doubt even the producers of the video intentionally misrepresented the visual data. There did in fact appear to be no curvature on either axis.

Secondly, I concede that there did, in this particular video, appear to be some things missing from the bottom of the structures in the video, though they were not "obvious" as you explained, and required far more detailed research than I put forth, for this, I applaud you, golf clap, of course. This was even mentioned in my last post to to you before you disappeared, numbered 6, even now repeated above, and again below.

This doesn't prove that the earth is a globe, though, for the simple reason that refraction was not accounted for. This ended up with your constant assertions about how Snell's law somehow agrees with you, though you only asserted this with no supporting evidence.

I also admit to claiming that, despite your assertion that refraction sometimes has an effect, and sometimes is negligible, that no boundary was crossed in the line of sight, making Snell's law inapplicable in those cases. Which then led to the enlightening conversation about Snell's law and how it supports my position with details, practical experiments and diagrams, and at the distance involved, refraction is probable, and causes an apparent drop of the structures. This was conceded with silence.

Which leads us back to where you disappeared for six months with no response, presumably waiting for my response, in an ongoing debate. 

So, if you'll kindly, and without further rhetorical delays, pick up where we left off:


"1&2. This is essentially the purpose of a debate, except in this case, you are lying about what laws of physics state, and I am correcting you. You can't honestly claim that I'm just repeating that you're wrong. If I'm not describing a scenario that is like yours, please, by all means, explain a likely scenario where and object, when viewed at eye level, will appear higher and more specifically reappear from out of sight with refraction, because I have yet to see this from you. I've seen refraction cause objects to appear lower, magnified, AND disappear. These are all agreeable with the flat earth.

So far you have a wide array of assertions that misinterpret Snell's law, and a side view of a laser being shone through sugar water. So far I have shown multiple examples of objects, when viewed through water, with an explanation as to why this is the most accurate representation of viewing objects over large distances, due to water vapor and other matter in the air, appear lower, as well as the bottoms disappearing, and you respond  with a rhetorical "nuh-uh, but muh science book". 

Once more, on multiple occasions, we can plainly demonstrate how refraction works, and this fully explains why observations occur like sunsets, ships over horizons, lake Pontchartrain, etc. and we don't have to assume that over some immeasurable distance, that any body of water curves against all common sense.







"if I was wrong, you could prove me wrong in (two) seconds by drawing a diagram of what I’m (describing), then doing the maths. You won’t do that."

I'm not entirely sure what you're describing. This is the issue. I've explained that you must define the axioms involved in order to properly calculate how we can apply Snell's law, and properly ascertain the correct direction that light should be bent in your model, which is so far, undefined... 

Claiming that I must draw a diagram to prove you wrong is shifting the burden. I've shown everyone a mountain that should not be seen in the current model and you have asserted that it is due to refraction. This burden of proof lies on you. If there is no defined boundary, there is no normal for the light to bend towards or away, then we cannot apply Snell's law, and your position is unfalsifiable, or a purely unevidenced assertion.

3." In every day atmospheric configuration: when light comes from a low density medium to a higher one, light bends towards normal: as in my configuration, normal is a vertical line, so light bending towards normal: as shown in all your examples: means objects would appear higher."

If the normal is a "vertical" line, then the boundary must be a horizontal one. This is assuming that we are looking down into a denser medium when we see these mountains from over 250 miles away, at eye level. This is illogical, to say the least. It's clear to any logical, unbiased thinker that if you are looking away at the eye level, that the boundary is vertical and the normal is horizontal, as in my model. It is also clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and are just "winging it".

4. "(There)(may) always be some tiny amounts of refraction, and there is, but it won’t appreciably (lower) objects over and above what I’ve already explained."

Because... You've "explained" this, I'm supposed to assume it correct?!? Right... Seems dogmatic that I assume your word is correct over both logic (there is always an appreciable amount of refractive elements in the air) and observations (shown above).

5. Once again, since we aren't seeing objects like mountains and city skylines floating in the sky consistently, and more consistently, the bottoms of objects are cut off, and if we can see that refraction happens consistently over large distances, we can say that refraction consistently lowers objects. The fact that we can't always see objects at 250 miles away proves that, aside from visibility issues, objects are more commonly lowered, as experimental evidence shows.

6. I'll agree that there does appear to be an apparent drop, nowhere near the allotted 60 feet worth, but this is again due to the refractive properties of air, which grow with distance. Over smaller distances, this refraction can be all but eliminated. "

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Bingo. And we get the concession. And a complete change of argument.

If the earth was a sphere - you said we’d need to see 60 missing feet. I showed 60 missing feet:

 

By definition, you’ve just conceded that the observations match what you would expect on a sphere.

And given that you repeatedly assert that no observations that support a spherical earth, you’ve also just conceded that the observations you claim don’t exist actually do!

Of course, you’re going to deny that, because you’re a pseudoscienst but:

• expected observation on a spherical earth. 60 missing feet.
• Actual observation: 60 missing feet.

There is no logical way to argue or

Spin your way out of that now. 

Well done. Spherical earth 3637265, Erf: 0.

So you said you analyzed the image, and said it didn’t show any cut off. It just took me googling mobile bay to prove that wrong. In your analysis, you also didn’t notice that there was a significant amount of refraction going on either.

So now, you demanded I show 60 missing feet - because otherwise the earth can’t be a sphere, I show 60 missing feet.

You’re argument now becomes (and you didn’t make it in your previous thread), that despite the observations showing 60 feet is missing curvature - exactly as expected on a globe - that the exact amount of curvature you didn’t notice is definitely not caused by the globe - but in a fluke of coincidence happens to be the exact amount of missing cut off you’d expect to see with some form of refraction!

How convenient!

It’s almost like you’re making sh*t up to explain all the multiple observation that are compatible with a spherical earth!

Pieter

I haven't seen a lot of things for myself, yet I believe in their true existence. God, Atoms, all sorts of animals and fish, almost all of the actors out there... I've never seen Paris. I know you are not saying that because I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist, but you're asking for supported claims. 

I understand that this is a 'persuade me' debate, and that anyone arguing here besides you @Erfisflat should only attempt to persuade you, and that strictly spoken you are not required to even respond, however, since I really believe that you are genuinely trying to persuade us that the earth is flat, or at least that we should consider the idea, I'd advice you to give us some evidence.

We may be fools, but we believe NASA for saying the earth is indeed a spherical shape. If you are not going to give us objective proof that they are indeed lying (as you claim) you cannot blame us for not believing you. Of course, you are under no direct liability to provide us with evidence, but it would certainly help you in helping us think for ourselves.

That said, happy debating, I hope you would do us the pleasure of providing us with the evidence that you undoubtedly have of NASA's lies.

Erfisflat

"Bingo. And we get the concession. And a complete change of argument."

Wow, it's the same argument standing there for 6 months, waiting on your response. I thought you died.

"If the earth was a sphere - you said we’d need to see 60 missing feet. I showed 60 missing feet:"

 

By definition, you’ve just conceded that the observations match what you would expect on a sphere.

Nope, that is a lie, maybe you should reread my statements. Maybe your head got in the way of my post. Anything to avoid the conversation from 6 months ago, right?

And given that you repeatedly assert that no observations that support a spherical earth, you’ve also just conceded that the observations you claim don’t exist actually do!

Of course, you’re going to deny that, because you’re a pseudoscienst but:

• expected observation on a spherical earth. 60 missing feet.
• Actual observation: 60 missing feet.

There is no logical way to argue or

Spin your way out of that now. 

Well done. Spherical earth 3637265, Erf: 0."

What a joke. This dodging tactic will probably go on for another 10 or 15 posts. While you just repeat to yourself a point that we've already moved past, for six months.

"So you said you analyzed the image, and said it didn’t show any cut off. It just took me googling mobile bay to prove that wrong. In your analysis, you also didn’t notice that there was a significant amount of refraction going on either."

To the contrary, after you pointed it out, I recognized the refraction, and went on to explain how it caused the apparent drop of Mobile Bay. You know, the points you conceded?

"So now, you demanded I show 60 missing feet - because otherwise the earth can’t be a sphere, I show 60 missing feet."

Actually, now, I'm back to discussing refraction, Snell's Law, and how it supports the flat Earth theory, and explains the apparent drop perfectly. Restating the same claims, even rearranging the words or substituting words, is not the same as making new claims, and certainly does nothing for the rebuttal. Your attempts to redirect the argument from the updated one is noted, and does not change the fact that you still have not responded to the argument.

"You’re argument now becomes (and you didn’t make it in your previous thread), that despite the observations showing 60 feet is missing curvature - exactly as expected on a globe - "

4th time you stated that, IIknow your proud.

" tha the exact amount of curvature you didn’t notice is definitely not caused by the globe - but in a fluke of coincidence happens to be the exact amount of missing cut off you’d expect to see with some form of refraction!

How convenient!

It’s almost like you’re making sh*t up to explain all the multiple observation that are compatible with a spherical earth!"

You keep saying exactly, but that is not correct, even in the 6 month old post, that was refuted, your claims we're more like: ""appears around 60ish"

"It appears to be"
"...Almost exactly the right amount of curvature"
"...around 15 feet around the corner of the island: It looks like..."
"appear to be on the water line"
"the bottom looks around 50% larger than the bottom"

It appears as though, because you can't move past this single point, that you've lost the war, after you won the battle! I mean, I was intellectually honest and conceded the point and went on to explain how the laws of refraction, that I have supported all along, and why ships go over the curvature of the earth, and the bottom of Chicago is gone, supports the flat Earth.

 My question to you is how you can be so intellectually dishonest as to pretend we haven't proceeded from that conversation? It seems now that at some 40 odd miles, you'll claim that there is 60 feet of drop, and that refraction is negligible, yet hold that refraction is the reason that almost a mile of curvature has disappeared from the Pic Gaspard image that everyone here can see proceeded from that.

In you’re calculations, I saw no attempt to calculate what the effects of refraction should be, or even allowed for it. 

I'll understand if you want to concede the points thereafter the points made over 6 months ago. I agree they were devastating to your blue balls.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

You’ve said refraction can account for the observations. 

Let’s assume every thing you said thus far is true - except for all the ones where we’ve shown you were lying.

Prove it.

Estimate the atmospheric conditions, and apply the mathematical laws of refraction to those conditions to demonstrate that in such conditions 60 feet of an object can appear to be below water.

Go.

“Even though it’s completely true, I will not attempt to show any calculations, and will vehemently protest any attempt to make me show how I have applied the mathematical laws of physics to this problem in order to reach my conclusion.”

- No scientist ever.

Erfisflat

Pieter said:

I haven't seen a lot of things for myself, yet I believe in their true existence. God, Atoms, all sorts of animals and fish, almost all of the actors out there... I've never seen Paris. I know you are not saying that because I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist, but you're asking for supported claims. 

I understand that this is a 'persuade me' debate, and that anyone arguing here besides you @Erfisflat should only attempt to persuade you, and that strictly spoken you are not required to even respond, however, since I really believe that you are genuinely trying to persuade us that the earth is flat, or at least that we should consider the idea, I'd advice you to give us some evidence.

We may be fools, but we believe NASA for saying the earth is indeed a spherical shape. If you are not going to give us objective proof that they are indeed lying (as you claim) you cannot blame us for not believing you. Of course, you are under no direct liability to provide us with evidence, but it would certainly help you in helping us think for ourselves.

That said, happy debating, I hope you would do us the pleasure of providing us with the evidence that you undoubtedly have of NASA's lies.

This is the second or third time this has been stated, and since ole Goober the troll has returned from the dead to start a seemingly endless loop, and will likely try hijacking every conversation thus forth because he is avoiding any progression, I'll link you a quick rundown of the flat Earth theory. Your post is refreshing and you appear to hold no previous biases, contrasting the other closed minded globe proponents here.



That should get you caught up on the flat Earth theory, and I look forward to any discourse or points you might have. You can also check out my very first debate here at debate island, here.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/930/the-earth-is-flat

TTKDB

@Erfisflat: Your self science enriched self has an ongoing debate going? 

Is there evidence on that debate that states exclusively that you proved that NASA is a as you've stated?

Is there evidence on that debate that states exclusively that you proved that the mainstream media is lying and you've provided evidence to support your claim?

Because if there ins't any evidence on that debate supporting your earth is flat debate.

Then you're engaging in an unsupported debate. 

Erfisflat

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat: Your self science enriched self has an ongoing debate going? 

Is there evidence on that debate that states exclusively that you proved that NASA is a as you've stated?

Is there evidence on that debate that states exclusively that you proved that the mainstream media is lying and you've provided evidence to support your claim?

Because if there ins't any evidence on that debate supporting your earth is flat debate.

Then you're engaging in an unsupported debate. 

I guess I'll start numbering all these questions so we can keep track of all of them.

1. yes there is a worldwide debate about the shape of the earth it isn't just here it's all over the place.

2. https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/25503/#Comment_25503

3. https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1288/las-vegas-shooting-sunday-october-1-2017/p1

4. Yes, loads of evidence

Erfisflat

As you seemingly have no evidence for the spherical earth, I can only assume that you concede?

@TTKDB

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

As you seemingly have no evidence for the spherical earth, I can only assume that you concede?

@TTKDB

So does that mean by you repeatedly asserting that refraction magically explains every observation yet have not once in an entire year of making this argument ever actually applied the laws of refraction to demonstrate you’re not making stuff up is a concession that you’re making stuff up?

If not: I await you showing me you can apply the laws of refraction and providing a scientific proof that your position is correct.

Go.

Waiting

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat: Your self science enriched self has an ongoing debate going? 

Is there evidence on that debate that states exclusively that you proved that NASA is a as you've stated?

Is there evidence on that debate that states exclusively that you proved that the mainstream media is lying and you've provided evidence to support your claim?

Because if there ins't any evidence on that debate supporting your earth is flat debate.

Then you're engaging in an unsupported debate. 

I guess I'll start numbering all these questions so we can keep track of all of them.

1. yes there is a worldwide debate about the shape of the earth it isn't just here it's all over the place.

2. https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/25503/#Comment_25503

3. https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1288/las-vegas-shooting-sunday-october-1-2017/p1

4. Yes, loads of evidence

Oh lord, you link a debate about the Las Vegas shootings, and of course, you say it's fake

TTKDB

@Erfisflat:

, you don't have any evidence to support your self made super scientist self.

You can trash NASA, but your evidence is still lacking.

Your non evidence is cheap talk 

You can trash the mainstream media, but your evidence is still lacking there to.

Your non evidence is more cheap talk.

You earth is flat drumming drummer.

Keep educating people with your anti trance talk Mr Super Scientist? 

Come on and see if maybe NASA might not call you out?

Maybe the mainstream media might not call you out? 

You wanted the attention, now back up your ideology? 

I'm not attacking you.

I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary. 

Your opinion and attitude don't count. 

TTKDB

This literature is available;

https://www.amazon.com/Earth-FLAT-like-Nathan-Roberts-ebook/dp/B07DMC6HK5 ;

The below is the description;

Description:

"This is the 1st ever children's book that is dedicated to helping parents and professional educators teach children the Biblically based Flat Earth Doctrine. When God made the earth He could have made it any which way He chose. However, according to the Biblical account of Creation, from Genesis to Revelation, His earth is only ever stationary and flat with a dome overhead. Every child deserves the opportunity to learn a Biblical account of God's Creation. If you are ready to teach your children this truth, then this book is the perfect fit for your home, school curriculum, and your church."

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

You’ve said refraction can account for the observations. 

Let’s assume every thing you said thus far is true - except for all the ones where we’ve shown you were lying.

Prove it.

Estimate the atmospheric conditions, and apply the mathematical laws of refraction to those conditions to demonstrate that in such conditions 60 feet of an object can appear to be below water.

Go.

“Even though it’s completely true, I will not attempt to show any calculations, and will vehemently protest any attempt to make me show how I have applied the mathematical laws of physics to this problem in order to reach my conclusion.”

- No scientist ever.

Give one logical and scientific reason why we should completely ignore refraction in this experiment, and not in other experiments, where the water was shown to be flat. 

Go.

Erfisflat

Zombieguy1987 said:

@Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat: Your self science enriched self has an ongoing debate going? 

Is there evidence on that debate that states exclusively that you proved that NASA is a as you've stated?

Is there evidence on that debate that states exclusively that you proved that the mainstream media is lying and you've provided evidence to support your claim?

Because if there ins't any evidence on that debate supporting your earth is flat debate.

Then you're engaging in an unsupported debate. 

I guess I'll start numbering all these questions so we can keep track of all of them.

1. yes there is a worldwide debate about the shape of the earth it isn't just here it's all over the place.

2. https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/25503/#Comment_25503

3. https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1288/las-vegas-shooting-sunday-october-1-2017/p1

4. Yes, loads of evidence

Oh lord, you link a debate about the Las Vegas shootings, and of course, you say it's fake

Cherry picking, ad hominem and kicking the stone. Literally everything you say is a fallacy.

Erfisflat

", you don't have any evidence to support your self made super scientist self."

You've asserted that I have no evidence a half dozen times now, while providing no evidence in a persuade me debate. Even after I linked you to everything you asked in detail. 

You ignore and persist in ignorant, assertive lines of questioning, that are in fact answered. If you need me to copy and paste the arguments here, I can, since you seemingly can't follow a simple link and read.

"You can trash NASA, but your evidence is still lacking."

The public confession of treason to the American people wasn't enough? Again, you don't seem to be able to comprehend basic English.

"Your non evidence is cheap talk"

You ignorance is cheap talk.

"You can trash the mainstream media, but your evidence is still lacking there to."

Read above responses involving your continued ignorance.

"Your non evidence is more cheap talk."

argumentum ad nauseam

"You earth is flat drumming drummer."

Incoherent babbling. You 20 questions drumming drummer.

"Keep educating people with your anti trance talk Mr Super Scientist?"

Not a question, just ad hominem.

"Come on and see if maybe NASA might not call you out?"

Not a question, f NASA.

"Maybe the mainstream media might not call you out? "

They aren't here to defend themselves, you are.

"You wanted the attention, now back up your ideology"

I have, and you ignored my responses, and keep drumming your question drum.

"I'm not attacking you."

You aren't forming any logical arguments either, so there's that.

"I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary."

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

TTKDB

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

TTKDB

@Erfisflat:

https://www.amazon.com/Earth-FLAT-like-Nathan-Roberts-ebook/dp/B07DMC6HK5

The description of the literature;

Description

"This is the 1st ever children's book that is dedicated to helping parents and professional educators teach children the Biblically based Flat Earth Doctrine. When God made the earth He could have made it any which way He chose. However, according to the Biblical account of Creation, from Genesis to Revelation, His earth is only ever stationary and flat with a dome overhead. Every child deserves the opportunity to learn a Biblical account of God's Creation. If you are ready to teach your children this truth, then this book is the perfect fit for your home, school curriculum, and your church."