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

Erfisflat

@AlexOland, you are still confusing my arguments. 

Let's try a real world example.

Take a small flashlight, and make a shadow from it, with a stick.

Now, take a slightly larger flashlight and put it in the same place, pointed in the same direction.

The shadow will not change.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat No, you are the one confusing things by trying to use an example to think about the issue rather than thinking about the issue itself. 

 That flashlight example is not clear. If you make the lightbulb bigger, the results WILL change. But if you just make the flashlight itself bigger, not changing the lightbulb, the flashlight will just illumunate more area.

 Now, our problem is similar to making the lightbulb bigger, if you really want to use an example. 

 

 As you can see, a larger flashlight DOES change the way that the shadow is formed. (Those balls are lightbulbs and that opening is where the light comes out in a flashlight. Oh, and that brown box is just an object)



 But, we do not have to use an example to understand this idea. It is actually pretty simple:

 Now, I think the image is pretty understandable but if you have any questions about it, you can ask! 

 As you can see, the 3 observers are seeing the sun in 3 different sizes. Meaning the dome has to refract the light to make it seem like the sun does not change size. But if this refraction happens, the shadows will be different as the dome has to magnify the sun more as the lenght between the dome and the sun increases. ( Do not misunderstand that plane, I am not trying to say that the sun would appear to grow a little as we go up in the sky. That would be hard to measure. I just put a "plane" there because I thought it was funny. Just treat it like the two other observers.)

Erfisflat

I must reiterate, the size of the source of light changing slightly (you have multiplied it's size in your diagram) does not change the results. Not only this, the. Rays from your diagram appear to be inches away from the object.

The experiment made the assumption that the sun is  far away, and it's rays would all be parallel.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat You either laughed at my "Plane" or my argument. I am really interested in how you will solve the problem if the latter is true. What kind of new baseless crazy assumptions will you make? 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat No, every slight change affects the result. If you claim that the slight change would be immeasurable, that is another story. 


"The experiment made the assumption that the sun is  far away, and it's rays would all be parallel."
 You are confusing what side you are on. 

 You are claiming that the earth is flat. The rays not being parallel is the only way the same effect can be achieved on the left model.

MayCaesar

Erfisflat said:

I must reiterate, the size of the source of light changing slightly (you have multiplied it's size in your diagram) does not change the results.

Yes it does. The Earth's curvature in itself is a pretty subtle effect locally. You cannot claim that a fine effect is false, when your measuring stick is coarse. It would be like saying that 4+4=8 is false, because, when rounding to the nearest number with a base 10, this equation reads as 0+0=10, which is false.

The Sun has approximately the 0.5 degree angular diameter on the sky. You cannot just say, "the rays are parallel", and neglect this diameter, when this diameter is what the conclusion of the argument depends on.

Your entire argument is based on neglecting the effects that prove you wrong, and holding on to those few effects that do not directly contradict your model. This is not science, this is religion.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

The experiment made the assumption that the sun is  far away, and it's rays would all be parallel.

The experiment with sticks has different potential outcomes depending on the shape of the earth.

If the earth is flat, the length of observed shadows would be different than if the earth was a sphere.

In general, that the sun is far away, and the rays are parallel incident on a spherical earth is a conclusion from, not the assumption of the experiment.

Erfisflat

"@Erfisflat No, every slight change affects the result. If you claim that the slight change would be immeasurable, that is another story. "

This is what I am trying to understand, the basis behind "every little change produces a different result"

The experiment is basically similar to triangulation. In triangulation, does the size of what you are trying to determine changing change the result? No.

Since the sun's light goes through the atmosphere, the light is bent. This means that the sun is not always where it appears.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

The experiment made the assumption that the sun is  far away, and it's rays would all be parallel.

The experiment with sticks has different potential outcomes depending on the shape of the earth.

If the earth is flat, the length of observed shadows would be different than if the earth was a sphere.

In general, that the sun is far away, and the rays are parallel incident on a spherical earth is a conclusion from, not the assumption of the experiment.

False. The out comes depend on a lot more than just the shape of the earth, stop being a dumbass.

The sun's apparent position, the angle of the rays are all dependents in the experiment.

Size is not

AlexOland

@Erfisflat ;
"The sun's apparent position, the angle of the rays are all dependents in the experiment.

Size is not"

 So you are claiming that if the sun changed size, the shadows of objects would not change? Then let me prove you wrong by the power of simple geometry. Just hold on.

Erfisflat

https://www.eaae-astronomy.org/eratosthenes/eratosthenes-99456

"With this information he measured the circumference of the Earth without leaving Egypt by assuming that Earth was a sphere and that the Sun rays are parallel when they arrive to Earth."

You'll note that angular size is not a factor, at all.

Erfisflat

To make a very long story short, globites here can only infer that the earth is a ball by making assumptions first, all the while blatantly ignoring direct measurements of the earth that prove it is most assuredly not a ball.

Erfisflat

Eratosthenes made some false assumptions.

1. That the sun was very far away, making the rays parallel.

2. Earth is a ball.

3. Light travels in straight lines forever.

MayCaesar

Erfisflat said:

To make a very long story short, globites here can only infer that the earth is a ball by making assumptions first, all the while blatantly ignoring direct measurements of the earth that prove it is most assuredly not a ball.

To make a very long story short, you have no knowledge on the subject, and even the most basic geometrical arguments fall flat with you.

There have been a few dozen arguments in this very thread that obliterated your claims. You labeled many of them as "Funny", because that is all you have to say in response.

You can easily test your own claims about shadows by taking two table lamps and playing with them in your room. Too bad you are not interested in it, because the moment you do it is the moment your sand castle crumbles.

billbatard

A troll or a retard, how else do you explain some one who says the earth is flat i mean the greeks figured it out like 3000 years ago!

billbatard

@MayCaesar you are arguing with a retarded brick wall, you tired your best what else can you do?

billbatard

@Zombieguy1987 is this guy a troll or  is her serious/ Should we get him a doctor? Is he escaped from some mental hospital then?

AlexOland

 .

AlexOland

I have just noticed that giving actual values to showcase my point is unnecesarry...  I will just present a simpler example.

billbatard

@Gooberry it puzzles me what motivates people to reject the obvious, from my research ost of this denail of modern knoweledge is wrapped around bible beleif, the stubborn refusal to admit that the bible was wrong about just about everything, and they cant leave this cave man iron age vision of the world behind, it really is sad, it used to make me angry, now it makes me so sad so many people, live in ignorance because they were sent to evagelical bible camp

AlexOland

 Here. Proof that the size of the sun would indeed affect shadows.

Zombieguy1987

billbatard said:

@Zombieguy1987 is this guy a troll or  is her serious/ Should we get him a doctor? Is he escaped from some mental hospital then?

Yes, @Erfisflat is so serious that he should be sent to a doctor because he needs to 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

The experiment made the assumption that the sun is  far away, and it's rays would all be parallel.

The experiment with sticks has different potential outcomes depending on the shape of the earth.

If the earth is flat, the length of observed shadows would be different than if the earth was a sphere.

In general, that the sun is far away, and the rays are parallel incident on a spherical earth is a conclusion from, not the assumption of the experiment.

False. The out comes depend on a lot more than just the shape of the earth, stop being a dumbass.

The sun's apparent position, the angle of the rays are all dependents in the experiment.

Size is not

Yeah, no that’s completely arse about face lol.

The angle of the rays, the suns apparent position and relative differences in angles are literally what the experiment is measuring. The clue is that the experiment is measuring the length of shadows and the differences in length of shadows between observers. The sun isn’t a different sun for each observer - so you’re literally measuring the difference in observafion angle for each observer: is their orientation with respect to each other: ie - the shape of the earth.

Its a 5th grade geometry problem. You’ve even helpfully drawn the diagram.

If the change in angle of the shadow is linearly proportional to the distance between the observers - regardless of where they are, the observation is like diagram.

if the change in angle of the shadow is proportional to the inverse tangent to some location directly underneath the sun, the observation looks like diagram 1.

This is trivial mathematics, and a basic experiment that proves the earth is a sphere.


Obviously, you don’t like that as it proves you wrong: so you’re doing this ridiculous denial of basic geometry - but this disproves flat earth - and is the evidence of a spherical earth you’ve been demanding.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat I have also calculated that if the sun were 2000 km away, and if you made it 2x bigger; the light rays hitting the flat earth with a 45 degree angle would fall 2-3 centimeters away from where they used to fall before. Definitely a measurable lenght.

 Now, I can show the math behind this but I do not think you will object to any of it. 

Erfisflat

"Yeah, no that’s completely arse about face lol."

Yeah, yeah, well see...

"The angle of the rays, the suns apparent position and relative differences in angles are literally what the experiment is measuring."

That is exactly what i said. Angular size is not a factor. No credible source agrees with it, and we're only to go on the baseless assertions put forth by globalites here, as well as out of scale diagrams.

"The clue is that the experiment is measuring the length of shadows and the differences in length of shadows between observers. The sun isn’t a different sun for each observer"

Ah, there the disagreement. Even in your model, refraction affects the position of the sun relative to the position of the observer on the earth. It is claimed that for an observer watching the sunset, the sun will be much higher. The observer who see the sun as his zenith will not have much refraction, as he is looking through less atmosphere, so, in this respect, the sun cannot be accurately triangulated, due to refraction, as I stated in the first place.

It looks like the rest of your post rests on that being a fact, so I'll let you try again.

 - so you’re literally measuring the difference in observafion angle for each observer: is their orientation with respect to each other: ie - the shape of the earth.

Its a 5th grade geometry problem. You’ve even helpfully drawn the diagram.

If the change in angle of the shadow is linearly proportional to the distance between the observers - regardless of where they are, the observation is like diagram.

if the change in angle of the shadow is proportional to the inverse tangent to some location directly underneath the sun, the observation looks like diagram 1.

This is trivial mathematics, and a basic experiment that proves the earth is a sphere.


Obviously, you don’t like that as it proves you wrong: so you’re doing this ridiculous denial of basic geometry - but this disproves flat earth - and is the evidence of a spherical earth you’ve been demanding.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

 Here. Proof that the size of the sun would indeed affect shadows.

This is obviously out of scale, in reality, it won't affect the shadows

AlexOland

@Erfisflat It is mathematically impossible for it to not affect the shadows. 

Erfisflat

Tell you what, find a single source that agrees that angular size was the determining factor in this experiment, I'll continue on this red herring /appeal to ignorance/burden shift with you. 

Erfisflat

You guys act like the title of the debate is : the sun is close. YoureY all clearly grasping at straws, and ignoring empirical evidence, which is pseudoscience, and illogical

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"Yeah, no that’s completely arse about face lol."

Yeah, yeah, well see...

"The angle of the rays, the suns apparent position and relative differences in angles are literally what the experiment is measuring."

That is exactly what i said. Angular size is not a factor. No credible source agrees with it, and we're only to go on the baseless assertions put forth by globalites here, as well as out of scale diagrams.

"The clue is that the experiment is measuring the length of shadows and the differences in length of shadows between observers. The sun isn’t a different sun for each observer"

Ah, there the disagreement. Even in your model, refraction affects the position of the sun relative to the position of the observer on the earth. It is claimed that for an observer watching the sunset, the sun will be much higher. The observer who see the sun as his zenith will not have much refraction, as he is looking through less atmosphere, so, in this respect, the sun cannot be accurately triangulated, due to refraction, as I stated in the first place.

It looks like the rest of your post rests on that being a fact, so I'll let you try again.

 - so you’re literally measuring the difference in observafion angle for each observer: is their orientation with respect to each other: ie - the shape of the earth.

Its a 5th grade geometry problem. You’ve even helpfully drawn the diagram.

If the change in angle of the shadow is linearly proportional to the distance between the observers - regardless of where they are, the observation is like diagram.

if the change in angle of the shadow is proportional to the inverse tangent to some location directly underneath the sun, the observation looks like diagram 1.

This is trivial mathematics, and a basic experiment that proves the earth is a sphere.


Obviously, you don’t like that as it proves you wrong: so you’re doing this ridiculous denial of basic geometry - but this disproves flat earth - and is the evidence of a spherical earth you’ve been demanding.

Yeah. This is what I’ve been saying.

The observational evidence PROVE earth is a sphere.

Atmospheric refraction has almost no impact on the measurement unless the sun is very low in the sky.


Your position has been refuted.



What you’re now doing, is making pseudoscientific assertions.

Your claiming - without any observational evidence, experiment, without any calculations, or demonstration of how possible it is, without any backing for your claim whatsoever, that refraction magically makes the flat earth look spherical.


Worse, the sun travels at a constant angular speed) can’t happen on a flat earth, and doesn’t change size (can’t happen on a flat earth).

So you have three major observations that are definitively consistent with the expected results of observations on a spherical earth.

And you have dismissed them all using a process that you cannot show is even happening.


When you have to claim that random effects all conspire in just the right ways to make a flat earth look spherical - with proof, it’s time to wake up and smell the horseshit.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat I do not think I need to find a source for the mathematically obvious. 

 Assume that x,y,z,w,r are positive numbers.
 Assume that we have a coordinate system and every object in our coordinate system is in the first region. Now, assume that the highest point of the sun has the coordinates (x,y). And the highest point of a bigger sun at the same time of the day would be this: (x,y+r). Now let's take an object to the right of our suns, the highest point of that object would be this: (x+z,y-w). Now let's connect the suns with our object with 2 lines and calculate the slopes of those lines:

 Smaller sun's line: y-(y-w) / x-(x+z) = w/z

Bigger sun's line: y+r-(y-w) / x-(x+z) = w+r / z

 As you can see, the line connecting the bigger sun and the object would have a bigger slope. Meaning, the shadow created by the bigger sun would be smaller.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat If you are going to ask why I did not write the negative, I did not write it because it just implies which way the slope is looking towards. That is irrelevant with what we are trying to find out. 

Erfisflat

MayCaesar said:

Erfisflat said:

To make a very long story short, globites here can only infer that the earth is a ball by making assumptions first, all the while blatantly ignoring direct measurements of the earth that prove it is most assuredly not a ball.

To make a very long story short, you have no knowledge on the subject, and even the most basic geometrical arguments fall flat with you.

There have been a few dozen arguments in this very thread that obliterated your claims. You labeled many of them as "Funny", because that is all you have to say in response.

You can easily test your own claims about shadows by taking two table lamps and playing with them in your room. Too bad you are not interested in it, because the moment you do it is the moment your sand castle crumbles.

And you morons could at any moment stop ignoring evidence which causes you sand castles to crumble.

None of you have, nor will you ever.

Keep on piling assumption on top of assumption

MayCaesar

@Erfisflat

"The Sun is close" is what you are claiming. We are not claiming anything like that. We are simply pointing out the geometrical fact that, for any object with non-negligible angular size, there will be effects on the shadows cast from the light coming from that object.

At this point, is seems, you yourself no longer understand what it is you are claiming. Unfortunately for you, basic geometry is far beyond your intellectual ability, so you do not even understand how little sense what you are saying makes.

I am still not sure if you are serious about your claims. Even if you were, I would think you would come up with better lines of defense. What you are using right now looks very much like a satire, rather than an argument a person legitimately believes in. If you are trying to make flat earthers look line loons, then you should not bother, since you are not trying to demonstrate anything we do not already know.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

You guys act like the title of the debate is : the sun is close. YoureY all clearly grasping at straws, and ignoring empirical evidence, which is pseudoscience, and illogical

If the earth is flat the sun HAS to be close.

The sun is always overhead for someone at some point in time: if the sun wasn’t super, super close - the sun would be prohibitively high in the sky for someone the other side of the planet.

Lol, I mean, there are a thousand individual problems with your asserted claim, that renders it incapable of explaining the evidence: but if the sun is at 14 degrees above horizontal (3000 miles high), or 26 degrees above horizontal (6000), or 45 degrees (12000), you could look through a wall of water and it’s not going to move the sun more than a few degrees.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Even if the sun was 5000 km away and you merely doubled its size,  there would be a 10 cm difference between high buildings' shadows near sunset or sunrise. 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Sorry, not just sunset or sunrise, there would be a 13cm difference in any time.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Sorry, again, it does not happen any time. It has to be close to sunset or sunrise. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

You guys act like the title of the debate is : the sun is close. YoureY all clearly grasping at straws, and ignoring empirical evidence, which is pseudoscience, and illogical

If the earth is flat the sun HAS to be close.

The sun is always overhead for someone at some point in time: if the sun wasn’t super, super close - the sun would be prohibitively high in the sky for someone the other side of the planet.

Lol, I mean, there are a thousand individual problems with your asserted claim, that renders it incapable of explaining the evidence: but if the sun is at 14 degrees above horizontal (3000 miles high), or 26 degrees above horizontal (6000), or 45 degrees (12000), you could look through a wall of water and it’s not going to move the sun more than a few degrees.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

MayCaesar said:

Erfisflat said:

To make a very long story short, globites here can only infer that the earth is a ball by making assumptions first, all the while blatantly ignoring direct measurements of the earth that prove it is most assuredly not a ball.

To make a very long story short, you have no knowledge on the subject, and even the most basic geometrical arguments fall flat with you.

There have been a few dozen arguments in this very thread that obliterated your claims. You labeled many of them as "Funny", because that is all you have to say in response.

You can easily test your own claims about shadows by taking two table lamps and playing with them in your room. Too bad you are not interested in it, because the moment you do it is the moment your sand castle crumbles.

And you morons could at any moment stop ignoring evidence which causes you sand castles to crumble.

None of you have, nor will you ever.

Keep on piling assumption on top of assumption

You’re not providing any evidence.

We're showing you experiments that prove that the earth is sphere - and you’re basically responding that the spherical observations are actually because the earth is flat and some process that you can’t explain, can’t show is happening, can’t show produces the observation, won’t elaborate on, and demand we accept.

Methinks you’re projecting.

Erfisflat

MayCaesar said:

@Erfisflat

"The Sun is close" is what you are claiming. We are not claiming anything like that. We are simply pointing out the geometrical fact that, for any object with non-negligible angular size, there will be effects on the shadows cast from the light coming from that object.

At this point, is seems, you yourself no longer understand what it is you are claiming. Unfortunately for you, basic geometry is far beyond your intellectual ability, so you do not even understand how little sense what you are saying makes.

I am still not sure if you are serious about your claims. Even if you were, I would think you would come up with better lines of defense. What you are using right now looks very much like a satire, rather than an argument a person legitimately believes in. If you are trying to make flat earthers look line loons, then you should not bother, since you are not trying to demonstrate anything we do not already know.

Actually, what I did was poi t out the errors in your logic, and present a better argument, with more scientifically sound evidence, using far less assumptions.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

You guys act like the title of the debate is : the sun is close. YoureY all clearly grasping at straws, and ignoring empirical evidence, which is pseudoscience, and illogical

If the earth is flat the sun HAS to be close.

The sun is always overhead for someone at some point in time: if the sun wasn’t super, super close - the sun would be prohibitively high in the sky for someone the other side of the planet.

Lol, I mean, there are a thousand individual problems with your asserted claim, that renders it incapable of explaining the evidence: but if the sun is at 14 degrees above horizontal (3000 miles high), or 26 degrees above horizontal (6000), or 45 degrees (12000), you could look through a wall of water and it’s not going to move the sun more than a few degrees.

All of this is assuming that refraction isn't a thing. It's not ancient Greece any more guys, it's time to let go of the dogmatic assumptions.

It's amazing how even facing empirical measurements, you will still dogmatically cling to this inconclusive evidence, and claim you live on spinny balls.

Erfisflat

Fact is, these empirical measurements that contradict the very foundation on which your model rests on are still being ignored, and the attention is drawn instead to the sky.

Erfisflat

The fallacy has been pointed out and ignored except by goober, who tried to dispute the fallacy, but quickly dropped that argument

Erfisflat

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.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

MayCaesar said:

Erfisflat said:

To make a very long story short, globites here can only infer that the earth is a ball by making assumptions first, all the while blatantly ignoring direct measurements of the earth that prove it is most assuredly not a ball.

To make a very long story short, you have no knowledge on the subject, and even the most basic geometrical arguments fall flat with you.

There have been a few dozen arguments in this very thread that obliterated your claims. You labeled many of them as "Funny", because that is all you have to say in response.

You can easily test your own claims about shadows by taking two table lamps and playing with them in your room. Too bad you are not interested in it, because the moment you do it is the moment your sand castle crumbles.

And you morons could at any moment stop ignoring evidence which causes you sand castles to crumble.

None of you have, nor will you ever.

Keep on piling assumption on top of assumption

You’re not providing any evidence.

We're showing you experiments that prove that the earth is sphere - and you’re basically responding that the spherical observations are actually because the earth is flat and some process that you can’t explain, can’t show is happening, can’t show produces the observation, won’t elaborate on, and demand we accept.

Methinks you’re projecting.

The processes are simple, and demonstrable, please stop lying

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

You guys act like the title of the debate is : the sun is close. YoureY all clearly grasping at straws, and ignoring empirical evidence, which is pseudoscience, and illogical

If the earth is flat the sun HAS to be close.

The sun is always overhead for someone at some point in time: if the sun wasn’t super, super close - the sun would be prohibitively high in the sky for someone the other side of the planet.

Lol, I mean, there are a thousand individual problems with your asserted claim, that renders it incapable of explaining the evidence: but if the sun is at 14 degrees above horizontal (3000 miles high), or 26 degrees above horizontal (6000), or 45 degrees (12000), you could look through a wall of water and it’s not going to move the sun more than a few degrees.

All of this is assuming that refraction isn't a thing. It's not ancient Greece any more guys, it's time to let go of the dogmatic assumptions.

It's amazing how even facing empirical measurements, you will still dogmatically cling to this inconclusive evidence, and claim you live on spinny balls.

No it isn’t assuming “refraction isn’t a thing”, it’s assuming that refraction works the way we understand refraction actually works.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

MayCaesar said:

Erfisflat said:

To make a very long story short, globites here can only infer that the earth is a ball by making assumptions first, all the while blatantly ignoring direct measurements of the earth that prove it is most assuredly not a ball.

To make a very long story short, you have no knowledge on the subject, and even the most basic geometrical arguments fall flat with you.

There have been a few dozen arguments in this very thread that obliterated your claims. You labeled many of them as "Funny", because that is all you have to say in response.

You can easily test your own claims about shadows by taking two table lamps and playing with them in your room. Too bad you are not interested in it, because the moment you do it is the moment your sand castle crumbles.

And you morons could at any moment stop ignoring evidence which causes you sand castles to crumble.

None of you have, nor will you ever.

Keep on piling assumption on top of assumption

You’re not providing any evidence.

We're showing you experiments that prove that the earth is sphere - and you’re basically responding that the spherical observations are actually because the earth is flat and some process that you can’t explain, can’t show is happening, can’t show produces the observation, won’t elaborate on, and demand we accept.

Methinks you’re projecting.

The processes are simple, and demonstrable, please stop lying

If the process are simple, and demonstrable: why have you gone this entire post vaguely asserting refraction magically accounts for all the observations you can’t explain.


How about you demonstrate that refraction can make the sun set, let’s start simple:

How many degrees does light from the sun have to bend?

MayCaesar

MayCaesar said:

@Erfisflat

"The Sun is close" is what you are claiming. We are not claiming anything like that. We are simply pointing out the geometrical fact that, for any object with non-negligible angular size, there will be effects on the shadows cast from the light coming from that object.

At this point, is seems, you yourself no longer understand what it is you are claiming. Unfortunately for you, basic geometry is far beyond your intellectual ability, so you do not even understand how little sense what you are saying makes.

I am still not sure if you are serious about your claims. Even if you were, I would think you would come up with better lines of defense. What you are using right now looks very much like a satire, rather than an argument a person legitimately believes in. If you are trying to make flat earthers look line loons, then you should not bother, since you are not trying to demonstrate anything we do not already know.

Actually, what I did was poi t out the errors in your logic, and present a better argument, with more scientifically sound evidence, using far less assumptions.

The only assumption needed for the shape of the Earth to be what it is is that the gravity gets bigger as the mass gets bigger and the distance gets smaller. You can literally derive everything else from this simple fact.

It is you who comes up with countless esoteric concepts, such as the Sun being hidden due to refraction, in order to explain all the 23647328764782364823243 facts that contradict your lazy model.

billbatard

@Gooberry hOW LONG WILL THIS MADNESS CONTINUE?