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

billbatard

@Erfisflat this is getting a bit scary

billbatard

Let me all in on a secret if you take a jet plane from cleveland to amsterdam you travel close to the north pole i did in 1977 it was pretty awesome, planes can fly you know why/ the science of areodynamics if scientists had gotten that wrong huge hunks of metal would not float at 50000 feet satalites would not stay in orbit we would not have gone to the moon news flash we went to the moon 5 times in fact, i mean this is amzing to me people still doubt the world is round evolution even global warming the big bang, liberals can be foolish too all this anti vax rubbish, and the hysteria about gmos, when there is absolutely no evidence they are in a ny way harmful, newsflash vaccines do not cause autism, what goes wrong in peoples minds? drugs? religion? what causes these defects?

Erfisflat

MayCaesar said:

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.

The first statement is self contradictory. Something that is an assumption is not automatically a fact.

Be the fact that sunsets can happen on a plane is not an esoteric concept. It is a demonstrable possibility, whether you understand it or not.

Keep ignoring that evidence

MayCaesar

@Erfisflat

Science does not work the way you think it does. You do not get to make several unfounded analogies and claim that something is a "demonstrable possibility". You either actually demonstrate it as a possibility through a coherent and logical argument, or your words are hollow.

I challenge you to come up with the refractive index value distribution in the atmosphere that would actually obscure the Sun from view in your model. Make it an actual mathematical distribution, rather than more of your buzzword-based ramblings.

Until you have something more to show than these lazy wordy arguments, your position has zero substance.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat "All of this is assuming that refraction isn't a thing"

 Here we go again. You are ignoring the fact that I just disproved that refraction could be a thing. Refraction cannot make the sun always look the same size, while still comporting with the results of the shadow experiment.

 Your response to this was that the size of the sun does not affect shadows, which I disproved mathematically. 

MayCaesar

Refraction cannot make anything look the same size even regardless of the effects on the shadow. It follows simply from the conservation of energy principle, requiring that the light flux drops with distance, regardless of what direction the light spreads in.

For the Sun to appear the same size to every observer at every location, it would have to be of infinite size. There is no other way to make it work mathematically.

I mean, the OP's argument fails at thousands notions as it is, but this one is probably the simplest.

AlexOland

@MayCaesar Well, letting him make these insane assumptions and then showing him why they do not work is more fun. Even we accept the existence of an impossible dome that somehow refracts light in a way that makes the sun not change size throughout the day, it still does not make a flat earth possible. 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat By the way, the sun cannot be setting due to downwards refraction. Even if we assume that the light somehow gets refracted, this would not comport with reality. 

 According to this idea, if you were on a high building and experienced a sunset, you can just come down that high building to experience the same sunset again. But, in real life, we observe the opposite of this. We do not see further the lower we are, we see further the higher we are. 

John_C_87

You are not making any argument. The understanding is you are using a point to assign yourself as a judge. I can understand why there is question on how light scientifically cannot be a method to prove empirically the earth is a sphere as the method simply establishes the Earths shape as a cylinder. The light comes only from one direction which is in motion.

A compass and sextant with the use of a process called surveying is used as a scientific method to describe the Earth as round.

Erfisflat

MayCaesar said:

@Erfisflat

Science does not work the way you think it does. You wedo not get to make several unfounded analogies and claim that something is a "demonstrable possibility". You either actually demonstrate it as a possibility through a coherent and logical argument, or your words are hollow.

I challenge you to come up with the refractive index value distribution in the atmosphere that would actually obscure the Sun from view in your model. Make it an actual mathematical distribution, rather than more of your buzzword-based ramblings.

Until you have something more to show than these lazy wordy arguments, your position has zero substance.

That isn't how it works either.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Appeal-to-Ignorance.html

Keep ignoring that evidence though.

I have proved that it is a possibility, and have refuted the "look at the sun" illogical inferences about the earth.

Erfisflat

MayCaesar said:

Refraction cannot make anything look the same size even regardless of the effects on the shadow. It follows simply from the conservation of energy principle, requiring that the light flux drops with distance, regardless of what direction the light spreads in.

For the Sun to appear the same size to every observer at every location, it would have to be of infinite size. There is no other way to make it work mathematically.

I mean, the OP's argument fails at thousands notions as it is, but this one is probably the simplest.

That is a baseless assertion, keep ignoring the damning evidence though, good job.


And keep ignoring the fact that I'm pointing that out too.

Erfisflat

John_C_87 said:

You are not making any argument. The understanding is you are using a point to assign yourself as a judge. I can understand why there is question on how light scientifically cannot be a method to prove empirically the earth is a sphere as we the method simply establishes the Earths shape as a cylinder. The light comes only from one direction which is in motion.

A compass and sextant with the use of a process called surveying is used as a scientific method to describe the Earth as round.

Agreed, sort of, but a compass and sextant aren't the only tools used to determine the surface of water is flat. You'd be surprised what a little math and a laser will do.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat By the way, the sun cannot be setting due to downwards refraction. Even if we assume that the light somehow gets refracted, this would not comport with reality. 

 According to this idea, if you were on a high building and experienced a sunset, you can just come down that high building to experience the same sunset again. But, in real life, we observe the opposite of this. We do not see further the lower we are, we see further the higher we are. 

It is illogical to assume that lights in the sky can prove absolute about the shape of the earth.

Erfisflat

I've given evidence that proves all your inferences and assumptions wrong.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat By the way, the sun cannot be setting due to downwards refraction. Even if we assume that the light somehow gets refracted, this would not comport with reality. 

 According to this idea, if you were on a high building and experienced a sunset, you can just come down that high building to experience the same sunset again. But, in real life, we observe the opposite of this. We do not see further the lower we are, we see further the higher we are. 

It is illogical to assume that lights in the sky can prove absolute about the shape of the earth.

Fallacy.

Scientific theories are proven by testing them again and again and seeing if the results match what the model predicts.

Seeing if stars, the moon, the sun and other planets all react as expected if the earth were round and orbiting the sun is not only logical but a core part of ensuring the earth being spherical is real.

You're only trying to reject all astronomical arguments out of hand because they prove you wrong.

Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

"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."

So your claim is that atmospheric refraction does not exist? Maybe you are ignorant about gradient refraction. This occurs when the density of a medium changes. The light is bent toward the denser medium. This is all well known and established.



This guy explains it pretty well, except that mirages are a break in the gradient, where the temperature is relatively lower or higher, where those light waves bounce off of the less dense layer. A process called total internal reflection.




If the temperature more gradually changes with altitude, this produces a gradient, where the light is just bent instead of reflected, causing the object to appear in a different spot, instead of appearing upside down.


"Further, even if that was not the case, you would still always see the Sun in your model. Refraction cannot hide an object from view, it can merely misplace its image. As long as the Sun shines light in all directions, no matter what bizarre air models you come up with, you will always see it, 24 hours a day."

Refraction can and has caused the light to disappear over a flat surface. This is demonstrable science. If you displace the apparent position of an object downward, the light is reflected off of the flat Earth and never meets the observer.






"Your model flies out the window at the tiniest scrutiny. Tends to happen, when you try to counter 2,500 years of rigorous science with arguments you came up with during one of your pub visits."

Those were some dumbass claims man

Gooberry said:

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?

It bends up. Here is the demonstration, in case you missed it, I also accidentally quoted my first response at the top.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat By the way, the sun cannot be setting due to downwards refraction. Even if we assume that the light somehow gets refracted, this would not comport with reality. 

 According to this idea, if you were on a high building and experienced a sunset, you can just come down that high building to experience the same sunset again. But, in real life, we observe the opposite of this. We do not see further the lower we are, we see further the higher we are. 

It is illogical to assume that lights in the sky can prove absolute about the shape of the earth.

Fallacy.

Scientific theories are proven by testing them again and again and seeing if the results match what the model predicts.

Seeing if stars, the moon, the sun and other planets all react as expected if the earth were round and orbiting the sun is not only logical but a core part of ensuring the earth being spherical is real.

You're only trying to reject all astronomical arguments out of hand because they prove you wrong.

Which fallacy? 

I am not here to listen to arguments about the celestial bodies. That is another debate altogether. I have seen and presented very accurate measurements of the earth. Pointing at the sky and making inferences from those observations is so pre-20th century. 

Erfisflat

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Erfisflat said:

"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."

So your claim is that atmospheric refraction does not exist? Maybe you are ignorant about gradient refraction. This occurs when the density of a medium changes. The light is bent toward the denser medium. This is all well known and established.



This guy explains it pretty well, except that mirages are a break in the gradient, where the temperature is relatively lower or higher, where those light waves bounce off of the less dense layer. A process called total internal reflection.




If the temperature more gradually changes with altitude, this produces a gradient, where the light is just bent instead of reflected, causing the object to appear in a different spot, instead of appearing upside down.


"Further, even if that was not the case, you would still always see the Sun in your model. Refraction cannot hide an object from view, it can merely misplace its image. As long as the Sun shines light in all directions, no matter what bizarre air models you come up with, you will always see it, 24 hours a day."

Refraction can and has caused the light to disappear over a flat surface. This is demonstrable science. If you displace the apparent position of an object downward, the light is reflected off of the flat Earth and never meets the observer.






"Your model flies out the window at the tiniest scrutiny. Tends to happen, when you try to counter 2,500 years of rigorous science with arguments you came up with during one of your pub visits."

Those were some dumbass claims man

Gooberry said:

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?

It bends up. Here is the demonstration, in case you missed it, I also accidentally quoted my first response at the top.

That in some very specific conditions, at some specific times light can bend upwards a fractional amount does not mean that the properties of the earth’s atmosphere are sufficient isn’t to cause an object rotating above the earth to - somehow - have its light refracted by just the right exact amount to make it appear to set for every observer on the planet at least twice a day at exact times of day, and exact rates that make it appear that the sun is dropping at a fixed angular speed and not changing size no matter what the weather or atmospheric conditions are at the time.


You can show light can bend upwards - good for you - so can everyone else who’s seen an inferior mirage.You have not, however, shown all that other ridiculous horsesh*t and insane coincidences that is also required to also be true are even possible, leave alone truez


Your tactic has simply been to repeatedly and consistently ignore the massive and major issues with complexity and details of your claims, and simply pretend that this minor
trivial point proves your major claims.



Your position is a laughable hasty generalization, and textbook pseudoscience - where a small innocuous piece of data is used to argue that broad and excessive claims that are not supported by the data are true.

Erfisflat

John_C_87 said:

You are not making any argument. The understanding is you are using a point to assign yourself as a judge. I can understand why there is question on how light scientifically cannot be a method to prove empirically the earth is a sphere as the method simply establishes the Earths shape as a cylinder. The light comes only from one direction which is in motion.

A compass and sextant with the use of a process called surveying is used as a scientific method to describe the Earth as round.

Then there are simple line of sight experiments.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

What evidence?

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

What evidence?

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

What evidence?

If you review this evidence, you will be the first out of how many here to admit it, which is sad.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat By the way, the sun cannot be setting due to downwards refraction. Even if we assume that the light somehow gets refracted, this would not comport with reality. 

 According to this idea, if you were on a high building and experienced a sunset, you can just come down that high building to experience the same sunset again. But, in real life, we observe the opposite of this. We do not see further the lower we are, we see further the higher we are. 

It is illogical to assume that lights in the sky can prove absolute about the shape of the earth.

Fallacy.

Scientific theories are proven by testing them again and again and seeing if the results match what the model predicts.

Seeing if stars, the moon, the sun and other planets all react as expected if the earth were round and orbiting the sun is not only logical but a core part of ensuring the earth being spherical is real.

You're only trying to reject all astronomical arguments out of hand because they prove you wrong.

Which fallacy? 

I am not here to listen to arguments about the celestial bodies. That is another debate altogether. I have seen and presented very accurate measurements of the earth. Pointing at the sky and making inferences from those observations is so pre-20th century. 

If something provides evidence the earth is spherical, it's valid regardless of whether it involves astronomical bodies or not. The relevant thing is the evidence, not your suddenly  random allergy to evidence involving astronomic bodies.

Choosing to ignore evidence based of random criteria that you pull out of your bum is completely unscientific and incredibly fallacious.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat By the way, the sun cannot be setting due to downwards refraction. Even if we assume that the light somehow gets refracted, this would not comport with reality. 

 According to this idea, if you were on a high building and experienced a sunset, you can just come down that high building to experience the same sunset again. But, in real life, we observe the opposite of this. We do not see further the lower we are, we see further the higher we are. 

It is illogical to assume that lights in the sky can prove absolute about the shape of the earth.

Fallacy.

Scientific theories are proven by testing them again and again and seeing if the results match what the model predicts.

Seeing if stars, the moon, the sun and other planets all react as expected if the earth were round and orbiting the sun is not only logical but a core part of ensuring the earth being spherical is real.

You're only trying to reject all astronomical arguments out of hand because they prove you wrong.

Which fallacy? 

I am not here to listen to arguments about the celestial bodies. That is another debate altogether. I have seen and presented very accurate measurements of the earth. Pointing at the sky and making inferences from those observations is so pre-20th century. 

If something provides evidence the earth is spherical, it's valid regardless of whether it involves astronomical bodies or not. The relevant thing is he evidence, not your suddenly  random allergy to evidence involving astronomic bodies.

Choosing to ignore evidence based of random criteria that you pull out of your is completely unscientific and incredibly fallacious.

The evidence that globites offered so far do not directly measure the earth. They assume it from observations in the opposite direction. It is illogical to dismiss evidence which directly contradicts the main tenant in the GE model (curvature) and instead infer the conclusion by making multiple assumptions about lights in the sky.

Erfisflat

@Ampersand, still waiting on you to identify that fallacy.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

What evidence?

Erf: No matter what YouTube videos and experiments you can possibly show me that indicates it is possible, there is no possibility that this is down to the type of surface refraction we’ve known about since the 1800s, and can be easily accounted by comparing the height of the beams at multiple locations.

Also Erf: I have a YouTube video that shows light bending, therefore every sunset occurs due to refraction in the atmosphere even though I can’t show how thenrefactive effects cause the sun to have constant velocity, to appear independent of weather conditions, to also effect the apparent size of the sun, and to make it appear below a flat plane. YOU ARE JUST ASSUMING THAT THE EARTH IS A SPHERE WITH SLL YOUR EVIDENCE!

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

What evidence?

Lol

You thinks that's evidence?

Do you want to just admit it's bad or should I explain for the umpteenth time why your random YouTube videos are not evidence?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

What evidence?

Erf: No matter what YouTube videos and experiments you can possibly show me that indicates it is possible, there is no possibility that this is down to the type of surface refraction we’ve known about since the 1800s, and can be easily accounted by comparing the height of the beams at multiple locations.

Also Erf: I have a YouTube video that shows light bending, therefore every sunset occurs due to refraction in the atmosphere even though I can’t show how thenrefactive effects cause the sun to have constant velocity, to appear independent of weather conditions, to also effect the apparent size of the sun, and to make it appear below a flat plane. YOU ARE JUST ASSUMING THAT THE EARTH IS A SPHERE WITH SLL YOUR EVIDENCE!

You are making vague references in order to dismiss evidence. Even if conditions were present that created downward refraction, which is rare, the test considers this, and the test still passes.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

What evidence?

Lol

You thinks that's evidence?

Do you want to just admit it's bad or should I explain for the umpteenth time why your random YouTube videos are not evidence?

I welcome any critique, as does the PHD who performed the tests. His email is available and anyone who wants to confirm the tests are welcome to come and record.  

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

What evidence?

Erf: No matter what YouTube videos and experiments you can possibly show me that indicates it is possible, there is no possibility that this is down to the type of surface refraction we’ve known about since the 1800s, and can be easily accounted by comparing the height of the beams at multiple locations.

Also Erf: I have a YouTube video that shows light bending, therefore every sunset occurs due to refraction in the atmosphere even though I can’t show how thenrefactive effects cause the sun to have constant velocity, to appear independent of weather conditions, to also effect the apparent size of the sun, and to make it appear below a flat plane. YOU ARE JUST ASSUMING THAT THE EARTH IS A SPHERE WITH SLL YOUR EVIDENCE!

You are making vague references in order to dismiss evidence. Even if conditions were present that created downward refraction, which is rare, the test considers this, and the test still passes.

Vague references?

Im referencing to terrestrial refraction that is wildly documented since the 1800s.

The test likely doesn’t consider this as this is different from thermal inversions that cause larger scale bending of light around curvature (say like Chicago) - and happens to varying degrees at all times as it is down to the density of the air close to the ground being higher.

Its a trivial test. Have three poles - one at each end, one at the middle. If the earth is flat, the laser will reach the same point at each pole - if the earth is a sphere the laser will be lower in the middle pole.

Now: why so no flat earthers ever bother to perform this experiment that accounts for terrestrial refraction. Ever? What are you afraid of?



This is the same old nonsense. You’ve been going through this entire thread asserting magical refraction accounts for the profound success of the spherical model and profound failure of the flat earth model to match observations, so probably not best to talk about making “vague references” when the only thing you ever do is use vague assertions to dismiss all the evidence that disagrees with you.

Erfisflat

Prominent globe earthers were invited to the empirical test, and not surprisingly, just as we see here, the invitation was declined by all of them. It appears that globetards are only interested in scientism, and as is the case here, the sky.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Prominent globe earthers were invited to the empirical test, and not surprisingly, just as we see here, the invitation was declined by all of them. It appears that globetards are only interested in scientism, and as is the case here, the sky.

Why are flat earthers so scared of performing experiments that would account for terrestrial refraction?

It requires only minor changes to experiments, and would account for an effect we know is present.

Why are you so scared of performing these tests, and instead rely on experiments we know - objectively - false answers?

Gooberry

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Prominent globe earthers were invited to the empirical test, and not surprisingly, just as we see here, the invitation was declined by all of them. It appears that globetards are only interested in scientism, and as is the case here, the sky.

Why are flat earthers so scared of performing experiments that would account for terrestrial refraction?

It requires only minor changes to experiments, and would account for an effect we know is present.

Why are you so scared of performing these tests, and instead rely on experiments we know - objectively - false answers?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=RMjDAzUFxX0

This is why - because when flat earthers accidentally account for terrestrial refraction with measurements involving multiple points - they end up proving the earth is a sphere....

We can’t have that now, can we!

Erfisflat

Vague references?

Yes, vague references, you haven't posted ANY material, therefore it is heresay. You can even post articles which make those claims. It is just heresay. Scientism. Not backed by empirical science. If it is, I should like to see it, or like I said, it is but heresay.


"Im referencing to terrestrial refraction that is wildly documented since the 1800s."

Where is the documentation? Heresay and scientism. Not to be taken seriously. Pseudoscience.

"The test likely doesn’t consider this as this is different from thermal inversions that cause larger scale bending of light around curvature (say like Chicago) - and happens to varying degrees at all times as it is down to the density of the air close to the ground being higher."

That is a false assumption. Especially over water, we here in the real world have a thing called the water cycle. Evaporation. We know that moist, warm air is less dense than dryer cooler air. This is undisputed scientific fact. We also know that the air just above the surface of water is warmer and more saturated than that air above it. This is why that air rises. It's less dense. It is why we have weather. I've pointed this out earlier in this debate.

The evidence also considers the farcical "standard refraction" in the predictions, and the observations defy that.

"Its a trivial test. Have three poles - one at each end, one at the middle. If the earth is flat, the laser will reach the same point at each pole - if the earth is a sphere the laser will be lower in the middle pole."

If refraction wasn't a thing, maybe. You havent seen the test, have you?

"Now: why so no flat earthers ever bother to perform this experiment that accounts for terrestrial refraction. Ever? What are you afraid of?"

This test bests that one. Have you performed the test? And it doesn't account for terrestrial refraction, it takes advantage of it. If you are refferring to the old Bedford experiments, they are planning to do just that.



"This is the same old nonsense. You’ve been going through this entire thread asserting magical refraction accounts for the profound success of the spherical model and profound failure of the flat earth model to match observations, so probably not best to talk about making “vague references” when the only thing you ever do is use vague assertions to dismiss all the evidence that disagrees with you."

Asserting scientific fact as "magic" just displays your level of ignorance

Plaffelvohfen

@Erfisflat

Is the moon also flat? Or Mars, Jupiter and any other planet? Or is the earth the only flat one? I'm curious about your answer on this...  

Erfisflat

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Erfisflat

Is the moon also flat? Or Mars, Jupiter and any other planet? Or is the earth the only flat one? I'm curious about your answer on this...  

I don't know. They appear round from my perspective. So does a quarter.

Erfisflat

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Erfisflat

Is the moon also flat? Or Mars, Jupiter and any other planet? Or is the earth the only flat one? I'm curious about your answer on this...  

I've learned that speculation and assumptions about objects in the sky is fruitless.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Vague references?

Yes, vague references, you haven't posted ANY material, therefore it is heresay. You can even post articles which make those claims. It is just heresay. Scientism. Not backed by empirical science. If it is, I should like to see it, or like I said, it is but heresay.


"Im referencing to terrestrial refraction that is wildly documented since the 1800s."

Where is the documentation? Heresay and scientism. Not to be taken seriously. Pseudoscience.

"The test likely doesn’t consider this as this is different from thermal inversions that cause larger scale bending of light around curvature (say like Chicago) - and happens to varying degrees at all times as it is down to the density of the air close to the ground being higher."

That is a false assumption. Especially over water, we here in the real world have a thing called the water cycle. Evaporation. We know that moist, warm air is less dense than dryer cooler air. This is undisputed scientific fact. We also know that the air just above the surface of water is warmer and more saturated than that air above it. This is why that air rises. It's less dense. It is why we have weather. I've pointed this out earlier in this debate.

The evidence also considers the farcical "standard refraction" in the predictions, and the observations defy that.

"Its a trivial test. Have three poles - one at each end, one at the middle. If the earth is flat, the laser will reach the same point at each pole - if the earth is a sphere the laser will be lower in the middle pole."

If refraction wasn't a thing, maybe. You havent seen the test, have you?

"Now: why so no flat earthers ever bother to perform this experiment that accounts for terrestrial refraction. Ever? What are you afraid of?"

This test bests that one. Have you performed the test? And it doesn't account for terrestrial refraction, it takes advantage of it. If you are refferring to the old Bedford experiments, they are planning to do just that.



"This is the same old nonsense. You’ve been going through this entire thread asserting magical refraction accounts for the profound success of the spherical model and profound failure of the flat earth model to match observations, so probably not best to talk about making “vague references” when the only thing you ever do is use vague assertions to dismiss all the evidence that disagrees with you."

Asserting scientific fact as "magic" just displays your level of ignorance

Just because I haven’t posted a link of a common and well understood process - doesn’t make it false. 

You know about terrestrial refraction - I’ve given multiple repeated links to it in the past.

So what you’re really doing, is simply denying the science of something you know exists,  because I haven’t posted a link.

That’s just intellectually dishonest and fools no one. Denial doesn’t suit you.


Speaking of intellectual dishonesty.

You’re being an . You claimed that there was no refraction occurring - so you’ve claimed that refraction isn’t a factor.

So the whole basis for you clinging to the validity of this experiment - is that refraction isn’t a thing.

The whole basis for my proposed experiment - is that refraction when beams are close to the surface of the water IS a thing.


So claiming your experiment accounts for refraction and mine doesn’t - is literally the exact opposite of what both of us have said.

but hey - you ignoring what you just said two posts ago is far for the course, right?


Now, right of the back of you claiming I’m using vague and unsubstantiated claims:

You said “this test bests that one”

how?
why?

Both tests would give you the answers you want if you were correct, only one would give you the correct answers if I was correct.

I’ve shown clear reasons why your proposed experiment is flawed - and have show that when flat earthers explain the experiment logically, and peform it - they demonstrate the earth is flat.

It seems you’re determined to continue repeating experiments that we know won’t work properly, because they give you answers you like.


And finally:

Here are the things that must happen if your claims about refraction are true.

1.) That light bends upwards

2.) That the rate the light from the sun is bent changes as the sun moves away in EXACTLY the right amount to make it move at constant speed.

3.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to be setting behind the earth

4.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to not be changing size

5.) That the light is bent in such a way that there is rarely if ever a double sun visible.

6.) That the effect affects the moon, but not the stars

7.) That when there is a double sun seen - both suns appear to set.

8.) That it occurs the same way in all places no matter what weather conditions there are - it is independent of local temperature, pressure and humidity

9.) That it occurs at every point in the world predictably at specific times without any substantial deviation at any point.

10.) That during 24hr sun in the Southern Hemisphere - the sun sets for people close to the sun, but not for people the other side of the planet from the sun.

Points 2-10 HAVE to be true in order for you pseudoscientific claims to be true - they are not proven just because (1) is proven - and not only have you repeatedly ignores them, provided no evidence to support them - nor have you even given a reason to expect that they COULD be true: 

The problems your claims face appear absurd and nonsensical on their face. You would have to be an , or in denial to believe them because they run so counter to logic and reason.

If you were intellectually honest, you would be charging into points 2-10 in full force, showing data, examples, calculations.

Instead you have gone through 7 pages without even acknowledging that these problems exist.

Wake up and smell the pseudoscience.

Or course, you won’t acknowledge any of the problems in your position - as you have to be dragged kicking and screaming against your will into a scientific discussion, and often simply retreat when you refute your position.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Let me go back to the start and explain this to you for the millionth time:

1- According to that shadow experiment the sun has to be close.
2- If it were close its angular size would change throughout the day.
3- The sun's angular size does not change, therefore there needs to be some sort of dome or something in the sky that refracts the sun's light in an exact way that makes the sun look always the exact same size. 
4- Now, for this magnification to happen, light has to be refracted more and more as the distance grows. 
5- Meaning that shadow experiment will not give the same results anymore because you literally changed the way that the light rays hit the earth. 


 We have been debating about this for 7 pages. And you were not able to give a single logical answer to where I made a mistake in my logic. You have tried to give these answers:

- The light rays from the sun break into 2 different light rays, that is how the sun looks the same and the shadow experiment works!
 * I simply pointed out that this still affects the experiment.

- The sun is magnified without it's light rays being refracted!
 * I simply explained what magnification is.

- The size of a light source does not change the way that the shadows will form!
 * I simply proved this wrong with mathematics. 


 Now before you mark this as "funny", please AT LEAST consider the fact that you might be wrong in what you are saying. 

 I will admit that your objections were sensible at the start of our argument. But for these last 2-3 pages you have completely shut down your brain. You are not trying to understand my evidence, you are just looking for ways to deny it. You are not even trying to refute it directly anymore because you have noticed that you are not able to do that. You are just trying to come up with excuses to discard my argument:
"Prominent globe earthers were invited to the empirical test, and not surprisingly, just as we see here, the invitation was declined by all of them. It appears that globetards are only interested in scientism, and as is the case here, the sky."
"The evidence that globites offered so far do not directly measure the earth. They assume it from observations in the opposite direction. It is illogical to dismiss evidence which directly contradicts the main tenant in the GE model (curvature) and instead infer the conclusion by making multiple assumptions about lights in the sky."



 Now, either explain where I made a mistake in my logic or admit that you cannot find a mistake. This will not be admitting that the world is not flat because you might simply be not seeing the contradiction even though it is there. 

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

“We know that moist, warm air is less dense than dryer cooler air. This is undisputed scientific fact. We also know that the air just above the surface of water is warmer and more saturated than that air above it.”


”you haven't posted ANY material, therefore it is heresay. You can even post articles which make those claims. It is just heresay”


So should I believe when you assert a claim without showing any evidence, or should I believe you when you say that if you don’t provide any data, or even if you do provide data, any information you don’t like is “heresay”.

Because right now - you haven’t provided any evidence that gradients of air are how you claim they are over water.

Erfisflat

"Just because I haven’t posted a link of a common and well understood process - doesn’t make it false. "

Right, well understood, from the 1800s you realize that holding on to heresay from 200 years ago is dogmatic, and unscientific, right? I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

"You know about terrestrial refraction - I’ve given multiple repeated links to it in the past."

I know there are claims, and I know there is no empirical data that supports it. And no, I don't remember you posting "multiple links" to that. This is another vague assertion. Heresay. Why should we believe you? You have proved that you are both logically and scientifically retarded.

"So what you’re really doing, is simply denying the science of something you know exists,  because I haven’t posted a link."

Actually what i didI did was explain the process accurately, using known scientific principles. You are merely denying that.

"That’s just intellectually dishonest and fools no one. Denial doesn’t suit you."

It suits you just fine, thats all you ever do.


"Speaking of intellectual dishonesty."

"You’re being an . You claimed that there was no refraction occurring - so you’ve claimed that refraction isn’t a factor."

I and Dr. John D. proved that terrestrial refraction wasn't an issue in this issue, by taking empirical measurements of the humidity and temperature. Your reply is cherry picking and ignoring evidence.

"So the whole basis for you clinging to the validity of this experiment - is that refraction isn’t a thing."

In this instance, terrestrial refraction wasn't an issue.

"The whole basis for my proposed experiment - is that refraction when beams are close to the surface of the water IS a thing."

Your basis is not founded on any empirical facts.


"So claiming your experiment accounts for refraction and mine doesn’t - is literally the exact opposite of what both of us have said."

You have merely proposed an experiment, that is all. I have presented the actual experiment, not the idea of one.

"but hey - you ignoring what you just said two posts ago is far for the course, right?"

Which is...


"Now, right of the back of you claiming I’m using vague and unsubstantiated claims:

You said “this test bests that one”

how?
why?"

Because yours is hypothetical, mine is based on empiricism.

"Both tests would give you the answers you want if you were correct, only one would give you the correct answers if I was correct."

So, perform the test, give accurate measurements of all axioms, just as Dr. John did. Prove your case. We have no information to examine. Just heresay and hypothesis.

"I’ve shown clear reasons why your proposed experiment is flawed - and have show that when flat earthers explain the experiment logically, and peform it - they demonstrate the earth is flat."

What? Yes, the test results showed conclusively that the water was flat, it did not meet the predictions of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. Any reasons you've claimed to propose have been refuted with actual science. Not heresay.

"It seems you’re determined to continue repeating experiments that we know won’t work properly, because they give you answers you like."

They don't work properly according to you?

Erfisflat

“We know that moist, warm air is less dense than dryer cooler air. This is undisputed scientific fact. We also know that the air just above the surface of water is warmer and more saturated than that air above it.”


”you haven't posted ANY material, therefore it is heresay. You can even post articles which make those claims. It is just heresay”


So should I believe when you assert a claim without showing any evidence, or should I believe you when you say that if you don’t provide any data, or even if you do provide data, any information you don’t like is “heresay”.

I've posted multiple sources that all agree those undisputed scientific facts. You?

Nah.

"Because right now - you haven’t provided any evidence that gradients of air are how you claim they are over water."

So now I must prove the process of evaporation to you?

Gooberry

1.)You didn’t explain the process accurately - you just asserted your own opinion, and made it sound sciencey.

What you said was nonsensical, and largely refutes itself: 

You've claimed less dense air rises, yet are claiming the least dense air is the layer at ground level.

In reality, less dense air rises, and the densest air remains. Duh.

So really, I’m just agreeing with the concepts: but I’m not drawing insane and contradictory conclusions - such as that warm air rises but also doesn’t rise lol.



So which is it, does warm air rise, or does warm air stay on the ground? It can’t do both!


2.) Both experiments are empirical. If the earth was flat and there is no refraction - both experiments should yield a flat earth result.

There’s literally no reason the test would fail if the earth was flat - and yet it always does.

Of course - your preferred course of action is to simply not perform the pesky experiment that proves the earth is a sphere.

3.)  We could perform the experiment - and do. Repeatedly. I’ve shown broad scale tests where objects are hidden by the earth’s curvature. Mountains, boats, cities.

Whenever there is definitive curvature seen, you dismiss it as refraction without any explanation or evidence.

4.) Your experiment will not work if the earth is a sphere and light close to the surface is denser than air above it - which we both agree on.

My experiment will work if the earth is flat and refraction works the way you say.

So what is the reason you think your experiment is better again? Because you assume the earth is not a sphere and that refraction doesn’t occur?

You’re quite the hypocrite now, aren’t you: as you quite happily accuse everyone else of doing what you’re doing right here.


The reason you won’t do the experiment - is that you know what the result will be.

Take a deep breath  of all that denial and psuedoscience!


5.) let’s try this list again - yet again you appear to have ignored the main issues!

Here are the things that must happen if your claims are true.

1.) That light bends upwards

2.) That the rate the light from the sun is bent changes as the sun moves away in EXACTLY the right amount to make it move at constant speed.

3.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to be setting behind the earth

4.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to not be changing size

5.) That the light is bent in such a way that there is rarely if ever a double sun visible.

6.) That the effect affects the moon, but not the stars

7.) That when there is a double sun seen - both suns appear to set.

8.) That it occurs the same way in all places no matter what weather conditions there are - it is independent of local temperature, pressure and humidity

9.) That it occurs at every point in the world predictably at specific times without any substantial deviation at any point.

10.) That during 24hr sun in the Southern Hemisphere - the sun sets for people close to the sun, but not for people the other side of the planet from the sun.

Points 2-10 HAVE to be true in order for you pseudoscientific claims to be true - they are not proven just because (1) is proven - and not only have you repeatedly ignores them, provided no evidence to support them - nor have you even given a reason to expect that they COULD be true: 

AlexOland

@Erfisflat You have been laughing at the same argument for 7 pages. If you think the argument is so laughable, refute it. I have been asking for this one explanation since the start of the debate. But you either try to explain it and fail or just act like you do not have to explain it. 

MayCaesar

Erfisflat said:

The evidence that globites offered so far do not directly measure the earth. They assume it from observations in the opposite direction. It is illogical to dismiss evidence which directly contradicts the main tenant in the GE model (curvature) and instead infer the conclusion by making multiple assumptions about lights in the sky.

It may seem so to you, because in your intellectual echo-chamber everything people say becomes twisted into something that is convenient for you to attack. We have, in fact, directly measured the size of Earth, many times, by hundreds different methods. GPS system alone offers the precision that surpasses any of the classical methods by orders of magnitude.

Of course, you do not understand how GPS works, just as you do not understand how anything works, so these measurements cannot penetrate your shell of ignorance. But that is only your fault, not that of serious scientists. Scientists do not owe people who do not know anything any special elaboration.

Erfisflat

"1.)You didn’t explain the process accurately - you just asserted your own opinion, and made it sound sciencey."

See, you go and make vague claims about nothing specific, it sounds somewhat logical, but not really. What on Earth do you need me to explain? The water cycle? Basic principles of refraction?

"What you said was nonsensical, and largely refutes itself: 

You've claimed less dense air rises, yet are claiming the least dense air is the layer at ground level."

Yes, evaporation is a constant. It's a damn shame somebody has to explain the water cycle to you. I can understand your ignorance of refraction, but basic concepts like evaporation and the water cycle? 

"In reality, less dense air rises, and the densest air remains. Duh."

Yes, why does that air rise? Because it is less dense. As it rises, it cools, and the moisture disappates, making it more dense. Does the evaporation process stop? Yes, but this is when the sun goes away, and the air and water have cooled to fairly equal temperatures. It also stops during precipitation, but then you have obvious visibility issues of course.

"So really, I’m just agreeing with the concepts: but I’m not drawing insane and contradictory conclusions - such as that warm air rises but also doesn’t rise lol."

Science may seem insane to the ignorant, I guess.



"So which is it, does warm air rise, or does warm air stay on the ground? It can’t do both!"

Both. Do you suggest that suddenly the water cycle has stopped? "Duh"


"2.) Both experiments are empirical. If the earth was flat and there is no refraction - both experiments should yield a flat earth result."

Vague references to two of the many experiments discussed here does not warrant a logical reply. Next.

"There’s literally no reason the test would fail if the earth was flat - and yet it always does."

You didn't see the tests did you? Why do you think it failed?

"Of course - your preferred course of action is to simply not perform the pesky experiment that proves the earth is a sphere."

Which is... Vague assertions again!

"3.)  We could perform the experiment - and do. Repeatedly. I’ve shown broad scale tests where objects are hidden by the earth’s curvature. Mountains, boats, cities."

During the day, when refraction would be strongest, then no temperature or humidity measurements were taken.

"Whenever there is definitive curvature seen, you dismiss it as refraction without any explanation or evidence."

You are blatantly ignoring this entire post, which is littered with just that: explanations and evidence.

"4.) Your experiment will not work if the earth is a sphere and light close to the surface is denser than air above it - which we both agree on."

That is farcical. When have I agreed that earth is a sphere, and "light close to the surface is denser..."? You are quite literally an ignorant, lying twit.

"My experiment will work if the earth is flat and refraction works the way you say."

Nope. Read the above statements.

"So what is the reason you think your experiment is better again? Because you assume the earth is not a sphere and that refraction doesn’t occur?"

I haven't assumed anything, it's a  test which measures the earth. It also measure the density of the gradient involved, something you don't understand.

"You’re quite the hypocrite now, aren’t you: as you quite happily accuse everyone else of doing what you’re doing right here."

Which is...


"The reason you won’t do the experiment - is that you know what the result will be."

I am going to try and partake in the experiment soon. Either way, it will be performed.

"Take a deep breath  of all that denial and psuedoscience!"

Tu quoque.


"5.) let’s try this list again - yet again you appear to have ignored the main issues!"

The ones that have been refuted repeatedly? No thanks. You've wasted enough of my day.

Here are the things that must happen if your claims are true.

1.) That light bends upwards

2.) That the rate the light from the sun is bent changes as the sun moves away in EXACTLY the right amount to make it move at constant speed.

3.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to be setting behind the earth

4.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to not be changing size

5.) That the light is bent in such a way that there is rarely if ever a double sun visible.

6.) That the effect affects the moon, but not the stars

7.) That when there is a double sun seen - both suns appear to set.

8.) That it occurs the same way in all places no matter what weather conditions there are - it is independent of local temperature, pressure and humidity

9.) That it occurs at every point in the world predictably at specific times without any substantial deviation at any point.

10.) That during 24hr sun in the Southern Hemisphere - the sun sets for people close to the sun, but not for people the other side of the planet from the sun.

Points 2-10 HAVE to be true in order for you pseudoscientific claims to be true - they are not proven just because (1) is proven - and not only have you repeatedly ignores them, provided no evidence to support them - nor have you even given a reason to expect that they COULD be true: 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

“We know that moist, warm air is less dense than dryer cooler air. This is undisputed scientific fact. We also know that the air just above the surface of water is warmer and more saturated than that air above it.”


”you haven't posted ANY material, therefore it is heresay. You can even post articles which make those claims. It is just heresay”


So should I believe when you assert a claim without showing any evidence, or should I believe you when you say that if you don’t provide any data, or even if you do provide data, any information you don’t like is “heresay”.

I've posted multiple sources that all agree those undisputed scientific facts. You?

Nah.

"Because right now - you haven’t provided any evidence that gradients of air are how you claim they are over water."

So now I must prove the process of evaporation to you?

This is so hilarious, I have to raise it again. First You haven’t provided a single link showing this is the way the gradient right above water is.

Your argument refutes itself, and like so much else you’ve said - is blatantly at odds with the laws of physics


If the air at the surface is less dense than the air above it, the less dense air will rise as the denser air will fall.

This means the denser air - with highest refraction index - is at the level of the ground. this is completely opposite to what you just said.


I mean, did you forget the laws of bouyancy existed for a moment?

Or did you just not think too hard when you wrote “that’s why hot air rises”

The clue is in the “rises” part, last time I checked, when something rises, this doesn’t mean “remains rooted to the lowest position”, shrug.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

“We know that moist, warm air is less dense than dryer cooler air. This is undisputed scientific fact. We also know that the air just above the surface of water is warmer and more saturated than that air above it.”


”you haven't posted ANY material, therefore it is heresay. You can even post articles which make those claims. It is just heresay”


So should I believe when you assert a claim without showing any evidence, or should I believe you when you say that if you don’t provide any data, or even if you do provide data, any information you don’t like is “heresay”.

I've posted multiple sources that all agree those undisputed scientific facts. You?

Nah.

"Because right now - you haven’t provided any evidence that gradients of air are how you claim they are over water."

So now I must prove the process of evaporation to you?

This is so hilarious, I have to raise it again. First You haven’t provided a single link showing this is the way the gradient right above water is.

Your argument refutes itself, and like so much else you’ve said - is blatantly at odds with the laws of physics


If the air at the surface is less dense than the air above it, the less dense air will rise as the denser air will fall.

This means the denser air - with highest refraction index - is at the level of the ground. this is completely opposite to what you just said.


I mean, did you forget the laws of bouyancy existed for a moment?

Or did you just not think too hard when you wrote “that’s why hot air rises”

The clue is in the “rises” part, last time I checked, when something rises, this doesn’t mean “remains rooted to the lowest position”, shrug.

Evaporation is a constant, so you will amost always have a less dense layer below the denser layer.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

“We know that moist, warm air is less dense than dryer cooler air. This is undisputed scientific fact. We also know that the air just above the surface of water is warmer and more saturated than that air above it.”


”you haven't posted ANY material, therefore it is heresay. You can even post articles which make those claims. It is just heresay”


So should I believe when you assert a claim without showing any evidence, or should I believe you when you say that if you don’t provide any data, or even if you do provide data, any information you don’t like is “heresay”.

I've posted multiple sources that all agree those undisputed scientific facts. You?

Nah.

"Because right now - you haven’t provided any evidence that gradients of air are how you claim they are over water."

So now I must prove the process of evaporation to you?

This is so hilarious, I have to raise it again. First You haven’t provided a single link showing this is the way the gradient right above water is.

Your argument refutes itself, and like so much else you’ve said - is blatantly at odds with the laws of physics


If the air at the surface is less dense than the air above it, the less dense air will rise as the denser air will fall.

This means the denser air - with highest refraction index - is at the level of the ground. this is completely opposite to what you just said.


I mean, did you forget the laws of bouyancy existed for a moment?

Or did you just not think too hard when you wrote “that’s why hot air rises”

The clue is in the “rises” part, last time I checked, when something rises, this doesn’t mean “remains rooted to the lowest position”, shrug.

I did explain this in my last post