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

billbatard

The Bottom Line

Believing that the Earth is flat requires not only a world-wide conspiracy to fake decades of space exploration, but also the wholesale denial of many branches of science and the evidence of our senses. It requires the invention of new forces and laws of nature without evidence, and implicitly relies upon the actions of a deity-like being or beings.

Despite the rising prominence of Flat Earth ideas, there has never been evidence to suggest that the world could be flat. Advocates simply assume the “obvious truth” of a Flat Earth on the basis of religious faith, intuition, or humor, and then invent a reality to match.24 Although surprisingly frustrating, the rhetoric of Flat Earthers does nothing to change the simple fact, definitively proven for centuries: we l

billbatard

we live on the surface of a globe.

References

1. See for example Sebastian Kettley. “SpaceX flat Earth SHOCK: Was Falcon 1 Heavy launch faked to conceal planet’s shape?” Express.co.uk, Feb 7, 2018. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/915948/spacex-flat-earth-falcon-heavy-launch-fake-elon-musk (Accessed March 13, 2018)
2. Google Trends suggest that Google searches for “flat earth” have been climbing since early 2015, with interest since late 2015 remaining consistently higher than any previous period back to 2004.
3. “Spherical” is here used in an approximate sense. For a discussion of the finer complexities of describing the slightly irregular shape of the globe, see Isaac Asimov. “The Relativity of Wrong.” The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 35–44
4. The curvature of bodies of water has also been demonstrated experimentally, most famously by Alfred Russel Wallace to settle a wager with Flat Earther John Hampden in 1870. See Richard Milner and Michael Shermer. “Wallace and the Flat Earthers.” Skeptic, 2015, Vol. 20 No. 3. pp. 34–36; and, Daniel Loxton. Junior Skeptic #53, “Flat Earth?! The Convoluted Story of a Flatly Mistaken Idea.” Skeptic, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 70–71
5. Aristotle, translated by J. L. Stocks. On the Heavens. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922.) As transcribed at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html
6. Carl Sagan. Cosmos. (New York: Random House, 1983.) pp. 14–15
7. Jeffrey Burton Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. (New York: Praeger, 1991.)
8. Johannes de Sacrobosco. Lynn Thorndike, trans. Tractatus de Sphaera (On the Sphere of the World). (c. Early 13th century, translation published 1949.) As transcribed at http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm
9. This alternative cosmos was fully developed by 19th century Flat Earth proponent Samuel Birley Rowbotham. “Parallax.” Zetetic Astronomy. Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry Into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving It a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the only Material World in the Universe! (London: Simpkin, Marshall, and Co., 1865.) pp. 20–22, 79–80, 85–87
10. For a prominent example, see the tongue-in-cheek Flat Earth Society of Canada founded by philosophy professor Leo Ferrari and other mischievous intellectuals in 1970. It would be best, schemed one founding member, if people were “not quite sure whether they should take us literally or not.” Christine Garwood. Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. (London: Pan Books, 2008) pp. 280–314
11. Robert Schadewald. “The Flat Earth Bible.” Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 44, July, 1987. pp. 27–39
12. As skeptical scholar of Flat Earth ideas Bob Schadewald observed in 1982, “to my knowledge, every English-speaking flat earther who has ever lived has actually been a flat Earther because of the Bible.” Robert Schadewald. Lois Schadewald, Ed. Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair. (Xlibris, 2008.) 130
13. Robert J. Schadewald. “Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity and the Flat Earth.” Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1981–82, Vol. 6, No. 2. pp. 41–48
14. For example, contemporary Flat Earth Society president Daniel Shenton evidently accepts evolution by natural selection. David Adam. “The Earth is flat? What planet is he on?” The Guardian, Feb 23, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society(Accessed March 12, 2018)
15. See for example “They Think the Earth is Flat?” August 9, 2008. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/they-think-earth-is-flat/(Accessed March 13, 2018.) The article dismisses Flat Earth proponents as a “tiny minority of untrained, pseudoscientific hacks who—partially based on an overly literal interpretation of Scripture—buy into a disproven, centuries-old myth rather than accepting wellestablished modern science.”
16. Philip Stallings. “The Biblical Flat Earth: A Response To Answers In Genesis.” http://www.philipstallings.com/2016/03/the-biblical-flat-earth-response-to.html (Accessed March 13, 2018)
17. This became an especially dominant theme during the 1960s as the International Flat Earth Research Society led by Samuel Shenton struggled to rebut news of manned spaceflight into orbit and to the Moon. See Garwood. (2008.) pp. 219–279
18. “Flat Earth Proponent Decries Shuttle Fake.’” The Vancouver Sun, November 6, 1981
19. Schadewald. (2008.) pp. 111–112; Douglas Martin. “Charles Johnson, 76, Proponent of Flat Earth.” The New York Times, March 25, 2001. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/25/us/charles-johnson-76-proponent-of-flat-earth.html (Accessed March 12, 2018)
20. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Flat Earth Society. https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions (Accessed March 7, 2018)
21. This would be the case, for example, if the influential maps published by Samuel Birley Rowbotham were accepted. See “Parallax.” (1865.) pp. 21, 35
22. “Universal Acceleration.” https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration(Accessed March 14, 2018)
23. https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions. (Accessed March 7, 2018)
24. As affirmed by Daniel Shenton in 2009, “The Earth is flat. This is a belief I hold as the beginning of an ongoing search for truth and certainty. It is a starting point—an intellectual foundation on which I feel further knowledge can soundly be built.” Daniel Shenton. “In Defense of the Flat Earth.” (Flat Earth Society, 2009.) http://library.tfes.org/library/daniel_shenton_flat_earth_essay.pdf(Accessed March 12, 2018)

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"Sunset refutes the flat earth. Because - you know, how can the earth be flat if the sun is above for some and below for others at the same time. Duh.

So the earth isn’t flat."

Your argument is this:

If the earth is a ball, the sun would set.

The sun sets, so the earth is a ball.

Yet another affirming the consequent. The same observation can be reproduced by bending the light up over the eye. This is why you raise altitude and experience sunset again.



The object appears lower.

"Because you cannot accept that - you have to invent a solution. Hence refraction."

Now I've "invented" refraction?
I think maybe is just an appeal to ignorance.

"You have no evidence to support it, its pretty much unfalsifiable, you have no ability to prove it, and you can’t justify any of it:"

That refraction exists?

Firstly, I love it when you pretend to understand what logical fallacies are, and make major mistakes like this.

No it’s not affirming the consequent - the clue is that it is a negation.

if you have flu - you have a fever.

you have a fever - you have flu is confirming the consequent.

You don’t have flu - so you dont have a fever is denyinf the antecedent.

You don’t have a fever - so you don’t have the flu - is what I’m doing and is called “Modus Tollens”, and is acceptable, valid logic.

You should stop accusing people of fallacies as you get them wrong 99% of the time. Just like this.


For the second part, let’s see whether we can trick you into being a scientist!


Are you claiming that the image you just showed, and the throwaway explanfion you have is the reason the sun appears to set for all individuals on the earth.

So let’s presume that you’re not just determined to believe a flat earth - and are using whatever reason you can find to explain why the evidence doesn’t agree with you (this is what you’re doing, though)

As you’ve given few details, let’s ask:

- What experiment or test have you made to show that this is what is happening every single day for every single person.

- What way have could your position here be falsified? What experiment could prove you wrong.

and the most important.

- do you actually believe this is credible? Are you willing to double down and tell me how valid this is? Are you willing to be caught in a lie by telling us all that you’ve researched this, obtained evidence this is what’s happening, proved it, and will defend it?

If you are, then are you willing to change your mind if I prove it is impossible?

If not: why are you offering up idle speculation you haven’t proved.


we all know that you’re just throwing out nonsense that you can’t prove and won’t support, so you’ll probably just accuse me of shifting the burden, or that I have to disprove the tenuous argument you won’t even stand by. We should all take that type of non response as proof that even Erf understands he is wrong.

billbatard

@Gooberry thank you for being sane this is all so it gives me  a head ache

Erfisflat

Dee said:

@Erfisflat

So tell me do you still believe the earth is covered by a dome? Do you still believe the Moon landings were faked?

You're possibly to embarrassed to admit this was your position in previous encounters I understand if you now wish to distance yourself from these hilarious claims  

I do think this, but is not the topic.

Gooberry

billbatard said:

@Gooberry thank you for being sane this is all so it gives me  a head ache

Yeah, we know his position is intellectually bankrupt, but the tactics he uses to hide how absurd his position is - is more interesting to tease out, and makes it easier to understand how the and gullible can be suckered in.

Thats why I focus on what I do, there’s no point in challenging the claims any more - they were refuted on page 1. Now it’s just a case of watching him wiggle between claiming he’s being scientific - and him making a series of unsubstantiated claims without evidence and arguing we have to disprove them all.

Its fun when you pin him down and get him to commit to a specific claim is awesome, because watching him explode when you disprove it is perfect!

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Your argument: "But maybe there is a dome that we cannot observe in any way that somehow refracts light in a way that I cannot explain, coincidentally replicating everything we would see if the earth was a ball!"


 Let's play a game. I do not believe that England exists. I believe that all the people saying they are from England are liars and all of the photographs showing England are made with photoshop. Every person who believes that they have gone to England are just brainwashed by the government. Even if you take me to England, there is still the possibility that the government has put me in a virtual world without me noticing it. Why is the government lying about this? Because there is actually a secret military base that controls human minds where England is supposed to be. 
 
 Now, according to you, this is a valid argument. It is possible after all, right? So, I challenge you to prove the existence of England! 

 Hah, ignorant sheep! How can you disregard the possibility that the government actually somehow makes you feel like you see England but in reality it is just a simulation! 

Erfisflat

"The reason mirage works is the combination of extremely heavy temperature gradient near the surface heated by the sun to 100+ degree temperatures, and the extremely tiny reflection angle. "

That is false, and you have no evidence for the claim. All that is needed for a mirage is varying temperatures in one area, which is in an observers field of view. Here is the Smithsonian channel, proving you wrong.



With inferior mirages, the surface is heated by the sun, and in turn the air at the surface is heated, as cooler air is just above that. 

"That only works very close to the surface, so your Sun better be within 1-2 meters of the surface, if you really want to use this effect as an explanation."

As I said, the variance in temperature can happen anywhere, and since we are nearly always close to the surface, will always be looking through those variable density mediums. 

As you know, perspective causes objects to appear lower, where the top of mount Everest from a distance will be close to the surface. That is ignoring the possibility of a glass/water dome, which can cause the object to appear even lower. So you claims thus far are not based in any fact.


"Further, this effect allows you to see the oasis which you cannot see directly as a reflection. It does not hide an oasis which you can see directly from you. There is no mechanism to hide such an oasis mathematically. Nor there is to hide your sun from direct view."

The experiments are there. You may have missed them. The ones that hide objects by bending the light up.

"You throw a lot of buzzwords in, but we both understand that you do not have a clue about how any of this actually works."

Maybe you were the one that did that? 

Let's compare your first post to this one.


"The refractive index of air (and of any gas in normal conditions, really) is so close to 1, you might as well assume it to be 1, because any effects will not be visible with a naked eye in any case."

Your position was that refraction is impossible in air, or we would not see it, due to the refractive index of air. Now that it has been proved that atmospheric refraction is a thing, you just going to make other baseless claims? Where do you get your information from?

@MayCaesar

Erfisflat

A superior mirage occurs when the air below the line of sight is colder than the air above it. This unusual arrangement is called a temperature inversion, since warm air above cold air is the opposite of the normal temperature gradient of the atmosphere.

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

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"The reason mirage works is the combination of extremely heavy temperature gradient near the surface heated by the sun to 100+ degree temperatures, and the extremely tiny reflection angle. "

That is false, and you have no evidence for the claim. All that is needed for a mirage is varying temperatures in one area, which is in an observers field of view. Here is the Smithsonian channel, proving you wrong.



With inferior mirages, the surface is heated by the sun, and in turn the air at the surface is heated, as cooler air is just above that. 

"That only works very close to the surface, so your Sun better be within 1-2 meters of the surface, if you really want to use this effect as an explanation."

As I said, the variance in temperature can happen anywhere, and since we are nearly always close to the surface, will always be looking through those variable density mediums. 

As you know, perspective causes objects to appear lower, where the top of mount Everest from a distance will be close to the surface. That is ignoring the possibility of a glass/water dome, which can cause the object to appear even lower. So you claims thus far are not based in any fact.


"Further, this effect allows you to see the oasis which you cannot see directly as a reflection. It does not hide an oasis which you can see directly from you. There is no mechanism to hide such an oasis mathematically. Nor there is to hide your sun from direct view."

The experiments are there. You may have missed them. The ones that hide objects by bending the light up.

"You throw a lot of buzzwords in, but we both understand that you do not have a clue about how any of this actually works."

Maybe you were the one that did that? 

Let's compare your first post to this one.


"The refractive index of air (and of any gas in normal conditions, really) is so close to 1, you might as well assume it to be 1, because any effects will not be visible with a naked eye in any case."

Your position was that refraction is impossible in air, or we would not see it, due to the refractive index of air. Now that it has been proved that atmospheric refraction is a thing, you just going to make other baseless claims? Where do you get your information from?

@MayCaesar

So, you’re claiming that the sun appearing to set is an inferior mirage caused by refraction?

Are you willing to actually stick by that claim?

Erfisflat

Meaning normally, in no specialized conditions, the air is warmer closer to the surface, and temperature decreases with altitude. This is the general trend in the troposphere, where we reside, and ALL of these observations occur.

This gradient bends the light up, making an object appear lower. In some cases, the light being bent up, in relation to the angle it hits the medium, the light will be intersected by the ground plane.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Meaning normally, in no specialized conditions, the air is warmer closer to the surface, and temperature decreases with altitude. This is the general trend in the troposphere, where we reside, and ALL of these observations occur.

This gradient bends the light up, making an object appear lower. In some cases, the light being bent up, in relation to the angle it hits the medium, the light will be intersected by the ground plane.

Are you willing to stick by that claim that the sun appearing to set is caused by an inferior mirage?

AlexOland

@Erfisflat ; 
"The refractive index of air (and of any gas in normal conditions, really) is so close to 1, you might as well assume it to be 1, because any effects will not be visible with a naked eye in any case."

 You have no idea what "normal conditions" is, do you? If you did you would understand what MayCaesar was trying to say. I wish you listened to your chemistry teacher in high school. 

http://www.wikizeroo.net/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvU3RhbmRhcmRfY29uZGl0aW9uc19mb3JfdGVtcGVyYXR1cmVfYW5kX3ByZXNzdXJl

Gooberry

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat ; 
"The refractive index of air (and of any gas in normal conditions, really) is so close to 1, you might as well assume it to be 1, because any effects will not be visible with a naked eye in any case."

 You have no idea what "normal conditions" is, do you? If you did you would understand what MayCaesar was trying to say. I wish you listened to your chemistry teacher in high school. 

http://www.wikizeroo.net/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvU3RhbmRhcmRfY29uZGl0aW9uc19mb3JfdGVtcGVyYXR1cmVfYW5kX3ByZXNzdXJl

It’s a good habbit to make him double down on his claims - you let him make this insane and unscientific assertions, get him to confirm this is definitively what happens, and he’s researched it thoroughly, then when you show it’s impossible - it’s far more satisfying.

Obviously, that’s why he won’t confirm this is what he believes, or confirm this is his theory - because if he doesn’t confirm it, he can wiggle out of it later - like a true scientist!

AlexOland

@Erfisflat "With inferior mirages, the surface is heated by the sun, and in turn the air at the surface is heated, as cooler air is just above that. " 
 
 You just proved @MayCaesar right. 


 "As I said, the variance in temperature can happen anywhere, and since we are nearly always close to the surface, will always be looking through those variable density mediums. "

 Yes, it can happen anywhere. But can it happen to such extent that it is enough to make the sun dissappear? How can air far away from the ground get that much difference in temperature? 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat "That is false, and you have no evidence for the claim. All that is needed for a mirage is varying temperatures in one area, which is in an observers field of view. Here is the Smithsonian channel, proving you wrong."

 You say this and then we can clearly see in the video that the experiment is done near the ground...  This kind of helps @MayCaesar 's prove his point. 

Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

A superior mirage occurs when the air below the line of sight is colder than the air above it. This unusual arrangement is called a temperature inversion, since warm air above cold air is the opposite of the normal temperature gradient of the atmosphere.

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

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat Okay, let me slow down a little bit. I think this is too complicated for you.
1- The sun has to be couple thousand miles away on a flat earth. I have already proved this and you did not object to this part at the start of our conversation.
2- If the sun was that high, it would change size as the day progresses. This is a fact unless you want to reinvent perspective.
3- Therefore there needs to be a dome that refracts the light to make the sun stay the same size throughout the day. The dome is not actually necesarry, there just needs to be some part of the sky higher than our planes go that refract the light in a certain manner. 
4- But if the light is refracted to make the sun look like it does not change size, the shadow experiment will give different results. Based on the fact that the light will come with a different angle. You cannot object to this part as it is common sense that if you refract light, the light will move in a different direction.

 Where is the problem?

Number three is a self contradictory statement. Please fix this illogical post if you want me to logically address it.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Erfisflat said:

A superior mirage occurs when the air below the line of sight is colder than the air above it. This unusual arrangement is called a temperature inversion, since warm air above cold air is the opposite of the normal temperature gradient of the atmosphere.

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

So not willing to stick your neck out and confirm that the sunset is DEFINITELY produced by an inferior mirage as you’ve defined it.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

"ive answered your question, have you reviewed the evidence?"

 @Erfisflat ; you have literally just said that "Oh you do not understand the experiment.". How is that answering the question? Explain how a sun couple miles ahead could always look the same size and still produce the same results with that shadow experiment. 

 With my amazing art skills, I have illustrated the problem. The yellow ball is the sun, the yellow lines are the rays, those black things sticking out are the sticks, the black line on the ground is the flat earth. And that blue part is the supposed dome. Now, show me, how the light could be refracted in such a way that it does not affect the experiment but somehow makes the sun look always the same size when it moves. Do not forget that you also have to take into account the fact that the sun is moving. 

You know full well that isn't all I said, you are quote mining me now, which is a sign of ignorance or deceit.

You are again shifting the burden with your diagram. Both the atmosphere, and the image of the bear prove that the sun could be magnified as it gets further, and still keeping the same results of the experiment, which depend on the actual position of the sun, not it's apparent size.

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@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."


 

By changing the size, you have not changed the results, this is only if you change the apparent position. 

You keep referring to the results, but it appears you don't know the experiment very well.

AlofRI

One half of this argument is flat !

Gooberry

AlofRI said:

One half of this argument is flat !

My favourite part is that Erf has not provided any evidence to show the sun is being affected the way he claims it is.

This is the sneakiness of his pseudoscience! He’s basically shown an object appears lower ( ignoring all the other facets of the observations - like seeing two objects, distortion, shimmering), then proceeded to claim this specific observation in one place in specific conditions applies all around the world without exception, though he can’t provide any evidence this is what’s happening.
 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat ; "You know full well that isn't all I said, you are quote mining me now, which is a sign of ignorance or deceit."

 You just said that the answer is "magnification" without trying to show how this is an answer and then you claimed that I do not understand the experiment. Quoting, is not the same thing as quote mining. 


 "You are again shifting the burden with your diagram. Both the atmosphere, and the image of the bear prove that the sun could be magnified as it gets further, and still keeping the same results of the experiment, which depend on the actual position of the sun, not it's apparent size."

 Shifting the burden? I was asking for this from the start of the conversation. You are just avoiding the question again and again. 
 Do you know what needs to happen for the sun's apparent size to not change? Do you even know how magnification works? You clearly do not. When you look through a magnification glass, you are not just seeing a magic vision. The way the magnifying glass makes objects look bigger is BY REFRACTING LIGHT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPUhgxwB9U

AlexOland

 So, you claim that as we get further away from the sun, it becomes more magnified. But for this to happen, the light needs to be refracted in a different way. And IF THE LIGHT IS REFRACTED IN THAT DIFFERENT WAY, SURPRISE SURPRISE, THE RESULTS WILL HAVE CHANGED! 

 How can you not understand this SIMPLE IDEA. 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat NOT TO MENTION, your magical magnifying dome somehow makes the object appear bigger as the object gets further. For this to happen, the dome would have to change properties as the sun moves away. 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat So let's look at where you are now, 

 Claim: You claim that there is an invisible and unreachable shape-shifting dome that magnifies the sun more and more as the sun gets away from it.

 And even this IDIOTIC assumption does not make your flat earth possible.

 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

"Sunset refutes the flat earth. Because - you know, how can the earth be flat if the sun is above for some and below for others at the same time. Duh.

So the earth isn’t flat."

Your argument is this:

If the earth is a ball, the sun would set.

The sun sets, so the earth is a ball.

Yet another affirming the consequent. The same observation can be reproduced by bending the light up over the eye. This is why you raise altitude and experience sunset again.



The object appears lower.

"Because you cannot accept that - you have to invent a solution. Hence refraction."

Now I've "invented" refraction?
I think maybe is just an appeal to ignorance.

"You have no evidence to support it, its pretty much unfalsifiable, you have no ability to prove it, and you can’t justify any of it:"

That refraction exists?

Firstly, I love it when you pretend to understand what logical fallacies are, and make major mistakes like this.

No it’s not affirming the consequent - the clue is that it is a negation.

if you have flu - you have a fever.

you have a fever - you have flu is confirming the consequent.

You don’t have flu - so you dont have a fever is denyinf the antecedent.

You don’t have a fever - so you don’t have the flu - is what I’m doing and is called “Modus Tollens”, and is acceptable, valid logic.

You should stop accusing people of fallacies as you get them wrong 99% of the time. Just like this.


For the second part, let’s see whether we can trick you into being a scientist!


Are you claiming that the image you just showed, and the throwaway explanfion you have is the reason the sun appears to set for all individuals on the earth.

So let’s presume that you’re not just determined to believe a flat earth - and are using whatever reason you can find to explain why the evidence doesn’t agree with you (this is what you’re doing, though)

As you’ve given few details, let’s ask:

- What experiment or test have you made to show that this is what is happening every single day for every single person.

- What way have could your position here be falsified? What experiment could prove you wrong.

and the most important.

- do you actually believe this is credible? Are you willing to double down and tell me how valid this is? Are you willing to be caught in a lie by telling us all that you’ve researched this, obtained evidence this is what’s happening, proved it, and will defend it?

If you are, then are you willing to change your mind if I prove it is impossible?

If not: why are you offering up idle speculation you haven’t proved.


we all know that you’re just throwing out nonsense that you can’t prove and won’t support, so you’ll probably just accuse me of shifting the burden, or that I have to disprove the tenuous argument you won’t even stand by. We should all take that type of non response as proof that even Erf understands he is wrong.

I mean you can change your argument now, but the quote is right there.

"Sunset refutes the flat earth."

If I have paraphrased it incorrectly, there's that, but the way you formed your argument is affirming the consequent.

If the earth is a ball, there would be a sunset.

There is a sunset, so the earth is a ball.

You can change it to modus tollens,(somehow) but without rewording your argument (which you haven't) it remains fallacious.

As shown in the experiments above, sunsets aren't mutually exclusive to a spherical earth. You can have a fever and not have a flu. You can have a sunset, and not have a ball earth.

My argument is more logically sound.

If the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, it should have measurable curvature.

It does not have measurable curvature, so earth is not a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

That is the most logically sound argument in the entire debate, and is largely ignored, for whatever reason.

In order for your argument to be sound, you should prove that sunsets are mutually exclusive to the ball earth, and deny or disprove the experiments that show it is possible.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat So let's look at where you are now, 

 Claim: You claim that there is an invisible and unreachable shape-shifting dome that magnifies the sun more and more as the sun gets away from it.

 And even this IDIOTIC assumption does not make your flat earth possible.

 

"Shape shifting"!?! That's rich.

No.

My claim is that the earth isn't a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, and a shrinking sun is in no way mutually exclusive to a flat earth.

Try again

AlexOland

@Erfisflat You are a very dishonest person. You are trying to ignore the part where I disproved your little claim:



"@Erfisflat ; "You know full well that isn't all I said, you are quote mining me now, which is a sign of ignorance or deceit."

 You just said that the answer is "magnification" without trying to show how this is an answer and then you claimed that I do not understand the experiment. Quoting, is not the same thing as quote mining. 


 "You are again shifting the burden with your diagram. Both the atmosphere, and the image of the bear prove that the sun could be magnified as it gets further, and still keeping the same results of the experiment, which depend on the actual position of the sun, not it's apparent size."

 Shifting the burden? I was asking for this from the start of the conversation. You are just avoiding the question again and again. 
 Do you know what needs to happen for the sun's apparent size to not change? Do you even know how magnification works? You clearly do not. When you look through a magnification glass, you are not just seeing a magic vision. The way the magnifying glass makes objects look bigger is BY REFRACTING LIGHT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPUhgxwB9U"

AlexOland

@Erfisflat A magnifying glass cannot magnify anything WITHOUT REFRACTING LIGHT. 

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat NOT TO MENTION, your magical magnifying dome somehow makes the object appear bigger as the object gets further. For this to happen, the dome would have to change properties as the sun moves away. 

Let me slow down so that you can understand it. We arent just talking about the FIRMAMENT. There is also atmosphere. You seem to flip flop from one or another, ignoring the one you want to. 

If the sun is at zenith, you will be looking through less atmosphere than anywhere else, therefore you will have less refraction.

As the sun moves away from you, as per the laws of perspective, you are looking through more and more atmosphere, which in turn magnifies the sun more and more. 

The point is, as noted above, a shrinking sun is not mutually exclusive to flat earth, because of refraction.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat MAGNIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE REFRACTION OF LIGHT. What part of this are you objecting to?

AlexOland

 So, you claim that as we get further away from the sun, it becomes more magnified. But for this to happen, the light needs to be refracted in a different way. And IF THE LIGHT IS REFRACTED IN THAT DIFFERENT WAY, SURPRISE SURPRISE, THE RESULTS WILL HAVE CHANGED! 

 How can you not understand this SIMPLE IDEA. 

--- 

 Sending this again, as you are ignoring my main points. 

Erfisflat

"@Erfisflat You are a very dishonest person. You are trying to ignore the part where I disproved your little claim:



"@Erfisflat ; "You know full well that isn't all I said, you are quote mining me now, which is a sign of ignorance or deceit.""

Where did you disprove this claim? It was just posted, and this is your first response. 

This is your quote:

"you have literally just said that "Oh you do not understand the experiment.". How is that answering the question? Explain how a sun couple miles ahead could always look the same size and still produce the same results with that shadow experiment."

You have taken a portion of my quote, and said that is literally what I said. In actuality, my argument was specifically answering your question:

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@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."


 

By changing the size, you have not changed the results, this is only if you change the apparent position. 

You keep referring to the results, but it appears you don't know the experiment very well.

That is by definition, quote mining.

 "You just said that the answer is "magnification" without trying to show how this is an answer and then you claimed that I do not understand the experiment. Quoting, is not the same thing as quote mining. "

Yes it is.


 "You are again shifting the burden with your diagram. Both the atmosphere, and the image of the bear prove that the sun could be magnified as it gets further, and still keeping the same results of the experiment, which depend on the actual position of the sun, not it's apparent size."

" Shifting the burden? I was asking for this from the start of the conversation. You are just avoiding the question again and again. 
 Do you know what needs to happen for the sun's apparent size to not change? Do you even know how magnification works? You clearly do not. When you look through a magnification glass, you are not just seeing a magic vision. The way the magnifying glass makes objects look bigger is BY REFRACTING LIGHT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPUhgxwB9U""

Agreed, relevance?

AlexOland

@Erfisflat So you are also claiming that there exists a refracting mass of gas, far above the ground where we cannot reach? You do realize this goes against everything we know about gases, correct?

AlexOland

@Erfisflat I am posting this for the third time <span></span> :


  

  So, you claim that as we get further away from the sun, it becomes more magnified. But for this to happen, the light needs to be refracted in a different way. And IF THE LIGHT IS REFRACTED IN THAT DIFFERENT WAY, SURPRISE SURPRISE, THE RESULTS WILL HAVE CHANGED! 

 How can you not understand this SIMPLE IDEA. 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat "Agreed, relevance?" Do you see the relevance now? Does it ring any bells? You know, I have explained this 10 times or so. 

Erfisflat

"@Erfisflat Your argument: "But maybe there is a dome that we cannot observe in any way that somehow refracts light in a way that I cannot explain, coincidentally replicating everything we would see if the earth was a ball!""

That is not my argument. The light is refracted in perfectly explainable, and demonstrable ways. This is known and established. It is therefore a possible alternative cause for your specific issue, and should not be ignored, or dismissed outright, as you two seem to be trying to do.

The result is that by pointing out the claim is not mutually exclusive to a ball or flat Earth, it isn't even relevant, and more supporting evidence is needed to make a conclusion.


 "Let's play a game. I do not believe that England exists. I believe that all the people saying they are from England are liars and all of the photographs showing England are made with photoshop. Every person who believes that they have gone to England are just brainwashed by the government. Even if you take me to England, there is still the possibility that the government has put me in a virtual world without me noticing it. Why is the government lying about this? Because there is actually a secret military base that controls human minds where England is supposed to be."

It's a somewhat valid argument. Governments are known for lying to answer the question. I suppose there are ways of confirming that England exists. I'm searching for relevance here, so this doesn't seem like a false comparison....
 
" Now, according to you, this is a valid argument. It is possible after all, right? So, I challenge you to prove the existence of England! "

We can go to England, confirm what we are seeing, and verify that it is england via GPS, or from observations of england exclusive animals or building and monuments. We could go visit the Queen of England. 

Are you suggesting that we can go to the FIRMAMENT, and verify it?

" Hah, ignorant sheep! How can you disregard the possibility that the government actually somehow makes you feel like you see England but in reality it is just a simulation! "

This is a valid argument. As it is a possible alternative cause. 

If we are in England, we will see the Queen of England in her castle.

We see the Queen of England, so we are in England.

"But this could all be a simulation! That could be a hologram of the queen"

 is a valid counterclaim, as it is possible today.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat So you are also claiming that there exists a refracting mass of gas, far above the ground where we cannot reach? You do realize this goes against everything we know about gases, correct?

How so? The atmosphere extends well above where we cannot "reach"

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Funny, how your only argument in that comment of yours was that I quote-mined. I did not, but I will not try to defend that point. Yeah, let's say I quote-mined. I really do not care. I am willing to admit a mistake like that. Now, let's get back to our argument shall we? 

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat "Agreed, relevance?" Do you see the relevance now? Does it ring any bells? You know, I have explained this 10 times or so. 

If I saw the relevance, I wouldn't have asked for the relevance.

Are you saying that because there is no magnifying glass in front of our face that atmospheric refraction isn't a thing?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

"Sunset refutes the flat earth. Because - you know, how can the earth be flat if the sun is above for some and below for others at the same time. Duh.

So the earth isn’t flat."

Your argument is this:

If the earth is a ball, the sun would set.

The sun sets, so the earth is a ball.

Yet another affirming the consequent. The same observation can be reproduced by bending the light up over the eye. This is why you raise altitude and experience sunset again.



The object appears lower.

"Because you cannot accept that - you have to invent a solution. Hence refraction."

Now I've "invented" refraction?
I think maybe is just an appeal to ignorance.

"You have no evidence to support it, its pretty much unfalsifiable, you have no ability to prove it, and you can’t justify any of it:"

That refraction exists?

Firstly, I love it when you pretend to understand what logical fallacies are, and make major mistakes like this.

No it’s not affirming the consequent - the clue is that it is a negation.

if you have flu - you have a fever.

you have a fever - you have flu is confirming the consequent.

You don’t have flu - so you dont have a fever is denyinf the antecedent.

You don’t have a fever - so you don’t have the flu - is what I’m doing and is called “Modus Tollens”, and is acceptable, valid logic.

You should stop accusing people of fallacies as you get them wrong 99% of the time. Just like this.


For the second part, let’s see whether we can trick you into being a scientist!


Are you claiming that the image you just showed, and the throwaway explanfion you have is the reason the sun appears to set for all individuals on the earth.

So let’s presume that you’re not just determined to believe a flat earth - and are using whatever reason you can find to explain why the evidence doesn’t agree with you (this is what you’re doing, though)

As you’ve given few details, let’s ask:

- What experiment or test have you made to show that this is what is happening every single day for every single person.

- What way have could your position here be falsified? What experiment could prove you wrong.

and the most important.

- do you actually believe this is credible? Are you willing to double down and tell me how valid this is? Are you willing to be caught in a lie by telling us all that you’ve researched this, obtained evidence this is what’s happening, proved it, and will defend it?

If you are, then are you willing to change your mind if I prove it is impossible?

If not: why are you offering up idle speculation you haven’t proved.


we all know that you’re just throwing out nonsense that you can’t prove and won’t support, so you’ll probably just accuse me of shifting the burden, or that I have to disprove the tenuous argument you won’t even stand by. We should all take that type of non response as proof that even Erf understands he is wrong.

I mean you can change your argument now, but the quote is right there.

"Sunset refutes the flat earth."

If I have paraphrased it incorrectly, there's that, but the way you formed your argument is affirming the consequent.

If the earth is a ball, there would be a sunset.

There is a sunset, so the earth is a ball.

You can change it to modus tollens,(somehow) but without rewording your argument (which you haven't) it remains fallacious.

As shown in the experiments above, sunsets aren't mutually exclusive to a spherical earth. You can have a fever and not have a flu. You can have a sunset, and not have a ball earth.

My argument is more logically sound.

If the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, it should have measurable curvature.

It does not have measurable curvature, so earth is not a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

That is the most logically sound argument in the entire debate, and is largely ignored, for whatever reason.

In order for your argument to be sound, you should prove that sunsets are mutually exclusive to the ball earth, and deny or disprove the experiments that show it is possible.

Firstly, it’s definitely modus Tollens. Textbook modus Tollens.

If the earth is flat with the sun above, then the sun can’t appear bellow. The sun appears below therefore the earth cannot be flat with the sun above. This is basic logic.

Half of your strategy consists of asserting that everyone else is engaging in logical fallacies without any justification or understanding. But anyhoo.



Now, your position is NOT, that if the earth is spherical there should be measurable curvature - and there isn’t. That is flagrantly dishonest, and a grotesque misrepresentation you have made so far.

This is what you pretend your position is; in order for people to produce all the innumerable examples of measurable curvature.

What your position REALLY is, is that all the substantial myriad examples where the earth appears definitively curved can be unilaterally dismissed by you without evidence.

Sunset - is a conclusive demonstration of measurable curvature.

Objects falling over the Horizon is conclusive demonstration of measurable curvature.

Images and videos of measurable curvature is conclusive demonstration of measurable curvature.

The position of the sun through the day, it’s size, seasons, time zones, rotation of stars, eclipses, and a while myriad of examples are conclusive demonstrations of curvature.

You know the drill.


Your whole position is not that there is no evidence - it is that none of the evidence counts.


And as I’ve pointed out, the way you reject evidence, is by making absurd claims that you cannot and will not substantiate, then demand everyone to prove them wrong.

You must give reasoned evidence and justification as to why you can claim all images of earth from space are faked. Claiming that they are faked is not enough.

You must give reasoned evidence and justification that the sun is being refracted into a sunset despite it being above the earth - you can’t simply claim this is what’s happening.


Your entire strategy is simply making unsubstantiated claims to excuse the fact that for a flat plane - almost every detailed observation one can make of it shows it to have curvature.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat I am posting this for the third time <span></span> :


  

  So, you claim that as we get further away from the sun, it becomes more magnified. But for this to happen, the light needs to be refracted in a different way. And IF THE LIGHT IS REFRACTED IN THAT DIFFERENT WAY, SURPRISE SURPRISE, THE RESULTS WILL HAVE CHANGED! 

 How can you not understand this SIMPLE IDEA. 

"In a different way" is to vague, please clarify.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat Funny, how your only argument in that comment of yours was that I quote-mined. I did not, but I will not try to defend that point. Yeah, let's say I quote-mined. I really do not care. I am willing to admit a mistake like that. Now, let's get back to our argument shall we? 

You just repeated the fallacy.

That wasn't my only argument. I also agreed with your statement and asked you for clarification on relevance.

Erfisflat

In this experiment, please explain how changing the sun's apparent size slightly will change the results significantly...

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Now, I will go slowly,
Look at that picture that I drew.
Let's suppose that the sun in that image is at the right height to not contradict with the shadow experiment. 
You say that the dome magnifies the sun as it gets further away.

 Are we clear so far? Alright. Now, tell me, how does magnification work? It refracts the light in a certain way that makes it look like the sun is bigger, correct? No objections so far?

 Now, look at my picture again. The sun was placed at an height where the experiment would work on a flat earth because the rays come with the correct angles. As you have agreed, magnification is possible only through the refraction of light. 

 Now, I will repeat it one more time. In my drawing:  The sun light comes in a way that produces the same results as the shadow experiment. Meaning if the way that the light comes is changed, the experiment would not work anymore. Meaning, if the sun light was refracted, the results of the shadow experiment would change. 

 And, as you agreed, magnification requires refraction. THEREFORE, if the dome magnified the sun, the shadow experiment would give different results. 

 Clear enough? Or do you need a 12th explanation? 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat You know what I meant when saying that "your only argument was quote mining" 

 The only part where you try to make a logical case against me was that quote mining part. Yes, you agreed with me on how magnification works. But this is not an argument made against me, correct? In fact, if we were to take the literal definition: "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory."
 "I agree" is not an argument. 

 You are not trying to understand what I am saying, you are just trying to find mistakes. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

In this experiment, please explain how changing the sun's apparent size slightly will change the results significantly...

If the earth was a rotating sphere, with the sun at a long distance:
a.) the suns movement through the sky should be constant.
b.) the suns size shouldn’t change.
c.) the angle and length of shadows should be consistent with hypothesis 2

If the earth was flat - with the su rotating above.

a.) the suns movement through the sky should vary depending on the time of day.
b.) the suns size would change significantly through the day.
c.) the angle and length of shadows should be consistent with hypothesis 1.

All 3 of the observations fall conclusively on the size of a spherical earth, and refute the flat earth.




Its funny how much of your supporting arguments for a flat earth involve trying to argue that the observations of a flat earth would be identical to that on a spherical earth.



 

AlexOland

 Look at the left example. Now consider that we add in a dome that refracts light more and more as the lenght between the dome and the sun increases. Do you see how the results would change? You are literally changing the way that the light moves. How the hell can the results not change?

Zombieguy1987

Erfisflat said:

@Zombieguy1987, you're just here to support the globetards, kinda like a soccer mom who doesn't understand soccer, amirite?

Nah, mate. I'm here to see you fail again at convincing people that the earth is flat. 

But, I'll throw you a bone.

Go to the "Magic ice wall" Go on it until you're at the edge and take a picture of it. Then I'll believe that the earth is flat