Earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

Erfisflat

You have assumed the conclusion

Erfisflat

Based on conjecture.

Erfisflat

You need some information on basic refraction?

Erfisflat

I'll let you build a model of the FIRMAMENT while I measure the earth

Erfisflat

Kinda like Batman and robin

billbatard

Who in this day an age with the internet tv libraries tv and schools who in such a world is enough to honestly believe the earth is flat, the incredible thing for me is to accpt that anyone could possibly be that ?!

billbatard

Its honestly seems to me that this must be some bodys idea of a prank , no one can be that retarded

AlexOland

@Erfisflat I did not assume the conclusion. If the sun does not change size during day and if that shadow experiment is true, the only way for the earth to be flat is for there to be some kind of refraction happening. I am asking you to explain how this refraction happens in the way you are suggesting. 

billbatard

Please someone tell me this annoying thread is a joke, a big joke .  I would be embarrassed to admit I thought the world was flat, it like admitting you're missing a testicle or have one boob larger than the other .

billbatard

I mean I am angry now, and I have a right to express my anger, anyone enough to actually believe the world is flat in our scientific world needs a lobotomy . 

billbatard

I mean it you are too to breath clean air .

billbatard

I mean I'm about to call Homeland security and issue a alert .

AlexOland

@Erfisflat You need to come up with an invisible dome that somehow refracts the light to make the sun appear to be not changing size when it is moving and this should still not contradict with the results of the shadow experiment. This is not basic refraction. This is impossible.

billbatard

You idiots cyber bombed my email , thanks for that  i mean that.. you have made a permanent enemy 

billbatard

@AlexOland Isn't this whole thing pointless, you are arguing with a person with the mind of a child obviously 

billbatard

This is pointless mental masturbation and it is becoming annoying

billbatard

You honestly have to be some sort of retard to think the earth is flat.. or think the moon landing was faked, shame on you for being such a moron .

billbatard

@Erfisflat you sad little virgin sperg 

Erfisflat

Triggered!

Erfisflat

Two of them.

billbatard

Place your faith in Science 

Erfisflat

Let's just ignore that youve just copy and pasted someone else's arguments. And are now ad hom spam and appeals to stones

Erfisflat

Probably safe to say who is ""..

Erfisflat

billbatard said:

Place your faith in Science 

It is, the scientific method.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Please answer my question. Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment. You will realize that it is impossible.

 The light has to be refracted in a certain way to make the sun look the same size while it is moving. But if you reflect the light in this certain way, the shadow experiment will no longer work. 

 If you cannot solve this problem, the flat earth is debunked.

Erfisflat

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

"You’re making the claim that all photos and videos from the 60s, 70s and 80s are all faked."

Lie #1. I am saying that it is not verifiable, and it can possibly be faked.

I'm saying that "pictures" of things that you nor I will never be able to verify can possibly be faked, and therefore they are not persuasive, not for the skeptic anyway. This is a trick for the gullible.

"If you have a hypothesis for how that could be done, and have evidence to support that hypothesis : please show it."

Let's see what was the Appolo budget?

Painting, build a model and photograph it, high altitude photo of earth from the other side of the room through a round window, it doesn't take much to do special effects without software, .

"Otherwise, if you make a claim, then refuse to justify it with any data or evidence, this is what is called “an unsupported assertion”."

"Now, given that you’re making the claim that all images are faked: is up to you to establish this is true: that’s your burden."

Let's see.

This is YOUR evidence. YOUR argument. YOUR claim.

You: "Pictures of earth from space show earth is spherical."

Me :"They can possibly be faked in some way, and we can never verify those images."

You: "prove they are faked."

Clear burden shifting. If you can't see it you have a clear  misunderstanding of basic logic.

"If you want to pretend that you can make claims and demand everyone else disproves them - go ahead, but everyone can tell you’re just trying to hide the fact you can’t demonstrate what your saying is true."

My sentiments exactly. Well said. You should look up intellectual dishonesty BTW.


"Let’s run with Star Wars, can you give me an example of a human being or ship in Star Wars being superimposed with a moving planet in video?"

What is the relevance?

Could you place them side by side with, say, a spacewalk video from the 1970s? What errors in the Star Wars image indicative of, say, CSP are evidenced in the Space video?

You are still shifting the burden. 

Your claiming the earth is flat - this means you are absolutely claiming the images are faked.

You have the burden of proof to establish that those images are faked.

Im sorry you can’t validate your own claims, but claiming that asking you to prove your position is shifting the burden - is nonsensical.

Lets call this what it is - you can’t prove any of the images are faked, they have to be fake for you to be correct, so you now try and make up a systematic set of excuses of why you can’t prove it, or shouldn’t have to.

Lie#2

I am claiming there is no evidence for the GE. It could be a bigger ball, or it could be flat. This is how a persuade me debate goes.

Unverifiable imagery is not conclusive.

You believe the earth is flat - you have repeatedly stated it, you had repeatedly claimed images are faked. So please don’t bother trying to insult everyone’s intelligence claiming thats not what you claim.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So it appears you’re claiming that they could be fake.

Okay. How?

Please explain, using the technology available in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s could be used to consistently provide what appears to be both contemporary photographic quality images of the earth from orbit, without showing any signs of camera effects that are largely apparent in even big budget film and TV decades later.

I've given several examples of how these images can be faked.

Using 1960s technology? That can produce equivalent images and quality. 

No you didn’t: Thats a lie.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat No, I will not let you change the subject. I will ask again: " Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment."

 I will respond to none of your other arguments until you either answer this question or admit that you cannot answer the question. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So it appears you’re claiming that they could be fake.

Okay. How?

Please explain, using the technology available in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s could be used to consistently provide what appears to be both contemporary photographic quality images of the earth from orbit, without showing any signs of camera effects that are largely apparent in even big budget film and TV decades later.

I've given several examples of how these images can be faked.

Using 1960s technology? That can produce equivalent images and quality. 

No you didn’t: Thats a lie.

Instead of making a broad assertion that I should give alternative explanations for all images and videos from the 60's, give me an example, this is your red herring, at least refrain from making it complete conjecture.

Gooberry

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat Please answer my question. Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment. You will realize that it is impossible.

 The light has to be refracted in a certain way to make the sun look the same size while it is moving. But if you reflect the light in this certain way, the shadow experiment will no longer work. 

 If you cannot solve this problem, the flat earth is debunked.

You also have to remember that if the earth is circling above the flat plane, it’s not just size that has to be changed in the atmosphere.

In the equator, at the equinox, the day is 12 hours long, and the sun rises in the easy and sets in the west. In Erfs model, the sun would rise in the north east and set in the the North west.

You’ve also got the issue that, say, during the summer in the Southern Hemisphere, the entire edge of the disk is in continuously sunlight for weeks, whilst places that are much closer to the sun are in darkness.


I mean, I’ve been through this before: he can’t tell you where the sun is, how far away it is, or the moon, he can’t show how the light from the Sun physically needs to travel and change to show what we see, he can’t estimate the amount of refraction required, the conditions required to cause it, or whether these are even possible with the measurable properties of air, or the properties measured of the atmosphere by balloons.

In fact, he has no evidence of any kind to support the idea that refraction can explain the observations, but he’s very good at emphatically telling us that it is possible, then admonishing us all for not being scientific.

Its kinda hilarious!

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat No, I will not let you change the subject. I will ask again: " Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment."

 I will respond to none of your other arguments until you either answer this question or admit that you cannot answer the question. 

Magnification 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Wrong. We will try again. "Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment."

 You do realize that, for this to happen, the light from the sun has to be refracted in two different ways simultaneously, right? Meaning it is impossible. 

AlexOland

@Gooberry Well, the amazing thing is that it is not a matter of having no evidence in this case. If he is unable to resolve this problem then a flat earth is, without a doubt, debunked. 

 I really see no way of resolving the problem though. If the dome refracts the light in a way that makes the sun not change size, because the light is refracted, the shadow experiment will not work anymore. He needs to invent a Schrödinger's dome or something... Just kidding, that would not work either. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So it appears you’re claiming that they could be fake.

Okay. How?

Please explain, using the technology available in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s could be used to consistently provide what appears to be both contemporary photographic quality images of the earth from orbit, without showing any signs of camera effects that are largely apparent in even big budget film and TV decades later.

I've given several examples of how these images can be faked.

Using 1960s technology? That can produce equivalent images and quality. 

No you didn’t: Thats a lie.

Instead of making a broad assertion that I should give alternative explanations for all images and videos from the 60's, give me an example, this is your red herring, at least refrain from making it complete conjecture.

You believe the earth is flat. Hence your name.

This means, necessarily, that all images ever taken of the earth from space that show any amount of curvature at any point have been faked, and given that orbits are impossible, and Gemini, Apollo are not aerodynamic to actively fly - any live action image from orbit is faked too.

Pointing this out, and pointing out that the effects available in the 1960s in most high budget sci do films and series - even thoughts that came out 10 years later were not as good quality as the video and photographs taken outside Gemini and Apollo (so try one of those) - is not a red herring. 

Its completely relevant as it casts a specific doubt on your claims.

Now, obviously, we both know you’re just making this all up, so you’re trying to get me to disprove your position whilst you’ve provided no reasons to doubt any of the images at all.


So, as your supposedly a scientist, and before you’ve claimed these images are all fake - you must have determined the type of technology available at the time to produce these fake photos and video? Say the first US space walk, or lunar rendezvous of the Apollo missions.

So what options were available to produce a fake image of the earth from space, what is the most photo realistic example of this technology you can produce.

You MUST have researched this, as a scientist would not claim or assume videos and pictures from then 60s were fakes without having compelling reason to believe so: right?

Gooberry

AlexOland said:

@Gooberry Well, the amazing thing is that it is not a matter of having no evidence in this case. If he is unable to resolve this problem then a flat earth is, without a doubt, debunked. 

 I really see no way of resolving the problem though. If the dome refracts the light in a way that makes the sun not change size, because the light is refracted, the shadow experiment will not work anymore. He needs to invent a Schrödinger's dome or something... Just kidding, that would not work either. 

Funnily enough, right before he disappeared for like 6 months; we were having a discussion about refraction: where he was claiming refraction couldn’t occur in air over distance if there was no physical change in medium, but the sun could appear to set because the accumulation of water over distance causes air to refract.

That was schroedingers refraction.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat Wrong. We will try again. "Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment."

 You do realize that, for this to happen, the light from the sun has to be refracted in two different ways simultaneously, right? Meaning it is impossible. 

Magnification is refraction in multiple ways simultaneously.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Gooberry Well, the amazing thing is that it is not a matter of having no evidence in this case. If he is unable to resolve this problem then a flat earth is, without a doubt, debunked. 

 I really see no way of resolving the problem though. If the dome refracts the light in a way that makes the sun not change size, because the light is refracted, the shadow experiment will not work anymore. He needs to invent a Schrödinger's dome or something... Just kidding, that would not work either. 

You have not shown that it would not work, you've merely asserted so, just as you have asserted that I must disprove your assumption.

You have been offered empirical evidence that contradict the predicted measurements of GE, will you continue to ignore it and persue this red herring?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat Wrong. We will try again. "Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment."

 You do realize that, for this to happen, the light from the sun has to be refracted in two different ways simultaneously, right? Meaning it is impossible. 

Magnification is refraction in multiple ways simultaneously.

So, I’m sure you can, say, draw a diagram that allows you illustrate the scientific principles between the refractive effect you claim occurs.

I mean as you are a scientist - in order for you to conclude this refractive effect a) can occur b) could produce the observation c) would produce observations consistent with more than one observer at more than one place at more than one time, you must have crunched some of the numbers and applied the scientific principles of refraction: right?

Can we see your working, please?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So it appears you’re claiming that they could be fake.

Okay. How?

Please explain, using the technology available in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s could be used to consistently provide what appears to be both contemporary photographic quality images of the earth from orbit, without showing any signs of camera effects that are largely apparent in even big budget film and TV decades later.

I've given several examples of how these images can be faked.

Using 1960s technology? That can produce equivalent images and quality. 

No you didn’t: Thats a lie.

Instead of making a broad assertion that I should give alternative explanations for all images and videos from the 60's, give me an example, this is your red herring, at least refrain from making it complete conjecture.

You believe the earth is flat. Hence your name.

This means, necessarily, that all images ever taken of the earth from space that show any amount of curvature at any point have been faked, and given that orbits are impossible, and Gemini, Apollo are not aerodynamic to actively fly - any live action image from orbit is faked too.

Pointing this out, and pointing out that the effects available in the 1960s in most high budget sci do films and series - even thoughts that came out 10 years later were not as good quality as the video and photographs taken outside Gemini and Apollo (so try one of those) - is not a red herring. 

Its completely relevant as it casts a specific doubt on your claims.

Now, obviously, we both know you’re just making this all up, so you’re trying to get me to disprove your position whilst you’ve provided no reasons to doubt any of the images at all.


So, as your supposedly a scientist, and before you’ve claimed these images are all fake - you must have determined the type of technology available at the time to produce these fake photos and video? Say the first US space walk, or lunar rendezvous of the Apollo missions.

So what options were available to produce a fake image of the earth from space, what is the most photo realistic example of this technology you can produce.

You MUST have researched this, as a scientist would not claim or assume videos and pictures from then 60s were fakes without having compelling reason to believe so: right?

I have given empirical reason to doubt the images are real, you ignoring those reasons is very blatantly, cherry picking. 

This is in light of not even the first image or video being produced as evidence, just the mere assertion that there are images. Which Appolo images are you referring to?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

AlexOland said:

@Gooberry Well, the amazing thing is that it is not a matter of having no evidence in this case. If he is unable to resolve this problem then a flat earth is, without a doubt, debunked. 

 I really see no way of resolving the problem though. If the dome refracts the light in a way that makes the sun not change size, because the light is refracted, the shadow experiment will not work anymore. He needs to invent a Schrödinger's dome or something... Just kidding, that would not work either. 

Funnily enough, right before he disappeared for like 6 months; we were having a discussion about refraction: where he was claiming refraction couldn’t occur in air over distance if there was no physical change in medium, but the sun could appear to set because the accumulation of water over distance causes air to refract.

That was schroedingers refraction.

That was a long time ago, and my arguments have since been revised with actual scientific evidence to back them up.

Like I said, restate your arguments if you want 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So it appears you’re claiming that they could be fake.

Okay. How?

Please explain, using the technology available in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s could be used to consistently provide what appears to be both contemporary photographic quality images of the earth from orbit, without showing any signs of camera effects that are largely apparent in even big budget film and TV decades later.

I've given several examples of how these images can be faked.

Using 1960s technology? That can produce equivalent images and quality. 

No you didn’t: Thats a lie.

Instead of making a broad assertion that I should give alternative explanations for all images and videos from the 60's, give me an example, this is your red herring, at least refrain from making it complete conjecture.

You believe the earth is flat. Hence your name.

This means, necessarily, that all images ever taken of the earth from space that show any amount of curvature at any point have been faked, and given that orbits are impossible, and Gemini, Apollo are not aerodynamic to actively fly - any live action image from orbit is faked too.

Pointing this out, and pointing out that the effects available in the 1960s in most high budget sci do films and series - even thoughts that came out 10 years later were not as good quality as the video and photographs taken outside Gemini and Apollo (so try one of those) - is not a red herring. 

Its completely relevant as it casts a specific doubt on your claims.

Now, obviously, we both know you’re just making this all up, so you’re trying to get me to disprove your position whilst you’ve provided no reasons to doubt any of the images at all.


So, as your supposedly a scientist, and before you’ve claimed these images are all fake - you must have determined the type of technology available at the time to produce these fake photos and video? Say the first US space walk, or lunar rendezvous of the Apollo missions.

So what options were available to produce a fake image of the earth from space, what is the most photo realistic example of this technology you can produce.

You MUST have researched this, as a scientist would not claim or assume videos and pictures from then 60s were fakes without having compelling reason to believe so: right?

I have given empirical reason to doubt the images are real, you ignoring those reasons is very blatantly, cherry picking. 

This is in light of not even the first image or video being produced as evidence, just the mere assertion that there are images. Which Appolo images are you referring to?

No you haven’t. Unless by empirical, you mean “non empirical”

Empirical reasons would involve you explaining the key indicators of faked or modified images, explaining why they can’t practically occur on non altered images: and then finding such key indicators in images that are practically understood to be unaltered. That’s science

Not only have you not done this this, you haven’t offered any evidence of the ability to produce such fake images pre photoshop, leave alone pre personal computers.

Now, what I’m doing, is using pointed questioning to show how little actual evidence you have, and how you have no actual backing for your position.


At no point have you offered any testable explanation of how you can personally tell any individual photo is faked. You cannot offer any practical explanation of how NASA has gone about faking images for the last 60 years. You also cannot offer any information about the technology available to fake images taken from space in the 60s; and you can’t provide any details about the practicalities involved at that time either.


So given that you seem to have no idea about the technology involved prior to 2008, or the process then or now, given that you can’t tell us any details of how to spot a fake, the method you would us and the empirical basis that method is based upon, nor outlined the way you have tested this method to ensure this accuracy: it kinda seems that you have no abilty to spot a real image from a fake image.

If you have no ability to empirically tell that any image I could is fake or not - why do you feel it matters that I haven provided you an image.


It seems that the only reason - given you own seeming completely inability to tell whether a photo is faked - for you to want me to provide an image - is so that you can dismiss it as fake, despite us having established that you have no empirical grounds to do so.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@Gooberry Well, the amazing thing is that it is not a matter of having no evidence in this case. If he is unable to resolve this problem then a flat earth is, without a doubt, debunked. 

 I really see no way of resolving the problem though. If the dome refracts the light in a way that makes the sun not change size, because the light is refracted, the shadow experiment will not work anymore. He needs to invent a Schrödinger's dome or something... Just kidding, that would not work either. 

You have not shown that it would not work, you've merely asserted so, just as you have asserted that I must disprove your assumption.

You have been offered empirical evidence that contradict the predicted measurements of GE, will you continue to ignore it and persue this red herring?

Please explain what part of the scientific method you feel allows you to state that:

a) the sun is always above the earth
b.) that “refraction” somehow will make the sun appear to set at some point for all observers,
c) and also produce results for the two stick experiment consistent with a spherical earth,
d) and produce day lengths consistent with a spherical earth
e) and do so every single day without exception, independent of any weather consitions

And yet offer absolutely no evidence to support the position that all 5 of those things are even physical possible, leave alone occur as described.

I would like to know what interpretation of science allows you to say the above is true - without any supporting data - and also allows you to complain at people asking you to show why you feel your position is true.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@Gooberry Well, the amazing thing is that it is not a matter of having no evidence in this case. If he is unable to resolve this problem then a flat earth is, without a doubt, debunked. 

 I really see no way of resolving the problem though. If the dome refracts the light in a way that makes the sun not change size, because the light is refracted, the shadow experiment will not work anymore. He needs to invent a Schrödinger's dome or something... Just kidding, that would not work either. 

You have not shown that it would not work, you've merely asserted so, just as you have asserted that I must disprove your assumption.

You have been offered empirical evidence that contradict the predicted measurements of GE, will you continue to ignore it and persue this red herring?

Please explain what part of the scientific method you feel allows you to state that:

a) the sun is always above the earth
b.) that “refraction” somehow will make the sun appear to set at some point for all observers,
c) and also produce results for the two stick experiment consistent with a spherical earth,
d) and produce day lengths consistent with a spherical earth
e) and do so every single day without exception, independent of any weather consitions

And yet offer absolutely no evidence to support the position that all 5 of those things are even physical possible, leave alone occur as described.

I would like to know what interpretation of science allows you to say the above is true - without any supporting data - and also allows you to complain at people asking you to show why you feel your position is true.

Please show what part of the scientific method that you used, that you feel I should, and why the light should not bend in the atmosphere, and what evidence you have that the FIRMAMENT doesn't exist.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat "Magnification is refraction in multiple ways simultaneously." Then we would see the sun change size and not change size simultaniously. 

' He needs to invent a Schrödinger's dome or something... Just kidding, that would not work either. '   I was trying to state that even having both of them at once would not work because you would just see both, which we do not in reality. 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat "and why the light should not bend in the atmosphere"

 Remember, I proved how we could know this. Measure the lenght of a plane. Learn how high it will fly. Observe it. If it has how much length it should have if it was that high, then it is proven that the atmosphere does not always refract light. 

Erfisflat

I'll post the empirical evidence again, try not to overlook it this time?

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat "Magnification is refraction in multiple ways simultaneously." Then we would see the sun change size and not change size simultaniously. 

' He needs to invent a Schrödinger's dome or something... Just kidding, that would not work either. '   I was trying to state that even having both of them at once would not work because you would just see both, which we do not in reality. 

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your arguments, please state your updated arguments in the most logical way, and how it is relevant to the shape of the earth.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat
 You think my argument proves nothing? Well, let us go to the beginning once more!

1- The shadow experiment tells us that if the earth was flat, the sun would have to be a couple thousand miles away.
2- If the sun were a couple thousand miles away, it would grow and shrink to 2x its size during the day. Which it does not.

Therefore, there needs to be some refraction at play here to make the sun look the same size. But there is a problem:

 If you were to refract the light as to make the sun appear to be not changing size, you would also be affecting the results of the shadow experiment.


 So, again, I ask you: "Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment."


 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat ; No, I will not look at your other evidence until you either answer the question or admit that you cannot answer the question. You do not get to ask for evidence and then run away when I present it.