The old boats over the horizon argument? I'm pretty familiar with this one. It is just way too easy to debunk. Boats disappear over the horizon due to the vanishing point of perspective, and if you grab a pair of binoculars and zoom in you can see the boat come back to view. This would be impossible on a globe, where boats disappear over curvature, which would absolutely and completely block the view.yolostide said:The Earth can not be flat due to many factors including the horizon.
"You tilted the picture but also call my line fake for it being crooked?"
I tilted the still to correct for the balloons tilt. You have made an acute angle, if you correct the angle of the horizon, you'd match your line, as i have, and you'd see the horizon is flat. Instead, you ignore my line and point me to a diagram to try and show the horizon is curved, yet another strawman.
You can't accuse me of a strawman. I am the one making the argument. A strawman is when "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." I was the one who proposed this entire argument. That being my argument against flat water and flat horizon. How is it misrepresented? Nonetheless, what really matters right now is that I made a rebuttal to your line matching the horizon. I explained why you cannot match a straight line directly on top of the horizon to prove it's flat. Yet you ignored my proof of that claim and instead accused me of a fallacy. That is clearly a red herring fallacy. You attempted to distract me from the proof that circles looked at from a certain angle can appear straight, did not refute that claim, and then proceeded to accuse me of a fallacy while presenting a new argument to a separate statement. That statement being why my line appeared crooked. That is a true fallacy. Dun dun dunnnnnn~I will also explain why you can not correct for the balloons tilt. It goes straight upwards, it doesn't ascend at an angle. Also, you can't possibly know the exact tilt of the balloon in relation to the Earth's horizon. How would you figure that out? Or did you simply guess?
"I just sourced this with the two vidoes I provided. It wasn't directly involving the bedford canal, as you also said is irellevant so I am sure it isn't a problem if some other form of water is measured."
I may have missed that please link it again. The only video I remember is of a guy measuring the angle of the sun. This argument has bounced from the claim that they used a theodolite at the Bedford canal to measuring the water. Then when that was shown to be a false claim, you switched to the theodolite was used to measure the altitude of some unknown body of water, which proved it was flat. Neither having any backing evidence. Now not even the earth is being measured anymore, and you've turned everyone's attention to the sun. The argument ends with YET ANOTHER red herring.
A red herring fallacy? No I'm just clumsy to not properly look at my own sources. I assumed that the theodolite was measuring water, but in the video he was measuring the SUN. Whoops. Now I know what you may be thinking about this quote "When I said he is measuring the elevation of the Earth, I meant elevation of objects relating to the Earth. Not the Earth itself." This is true for the first video, but not the second. I did not look at the second video and assumed he was measuring water, but he wasn't *BUT* I already sourced the Bedford canal being measured by the theodolite which you simply dismissed and seemingly forgot about. It seems we both messed up here."This argument has bounced from the claim that they used a theodolite at Bedford canal to measuring the water" No, I sourced it being measured by a theodolite through Wikipedia, which you dismissed so I gave a replacement source with a theodolite simply measuring a random body of water, except in that replacement source he was measuring the sun instead.
"What Bedford canal argument? I have already said that the experiment is not what I am referring to and you yourself has stated the experiment to be irrelevant. I have stated already that the important part is not the location or the experiment but the water itself."
I really thought it would be obvious to anyone that when you referred you the Bedford canal here:
I really assumed you were referring to the water inside the canal. Your arguments change so much, this is an obvious gish gallop.
No. I simply stated that the argument originates from that experiment, and then gave a source showing that a theodolite measured it. I am not referring to the the original Bedford level experiment when talking about the use of the theodolite. A theodolite was not used in the original experiment. In my argument I simply stated that the Bedford canal, where the experiment took place, was measured using a theodolite and proved the Earth to be round.
"You've once again dodged the request for any evidence for this claim.
This is not me dodging the question. I merely restated why the experiment is insignificant to my argument."
You're just making random claims. Please provide relevant evidence. So far we've gotten nothing but strawmen. I've given several instances of flat horizons and bodies if water, and you've secretly conceded to each and every point except an unsubstantiated claim turned strawman, and your inability to tilt an image.
This is not a random claim as I have claimed this before. Now, the replacement evidence was not relevant the way I wanted it to be. It explained how a theodolite is used, but did not show a theodolite measuring water like in my original source. The flat horizons and bodies of water are unrelated, as right now we are discussing the horizon of the planet as a whole, not just oceans and landmasses. That would be a different discussion.