frame

Best Informative Content

  • Germany's Immigration Crisis

    Germany should continue to allow immigrants to come into their country. It can help improve and increase their economy and country.
    Pogueagsr
  • Celebrating President's Day?

    Yes, some people may celebrate Presidents’ Day possibly in addition to having the day off.
    agsr
  • Does the Biblical God exist? Possibly.

    anonymousdebater 

    For some reason, the link failed to work, here it is again, if all else fails, I'll have to improvise a little. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/17NyJvbWZw-dmGBtpRlCo22xhJa4yUKYFLpe1Qpq2Jl8/edit
    Evidence
  • Is pragmatism useful in society?

    Definition: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

    In economics: A pragmatic situation is one that draws from experience and involves a quick choice, and not one that is thought over very long.

    Pragmatic can also be synonymous with problematic in some instances.

    Pragmatic can also mean bringing change to society.
    Poguetherep
  • Flat Earth vs Spherical Earth

    Hello and thank you for your arguments! I am sorry that people are spam fallacy(ing) you, it is something that I find distasteful as well. In the meantime, while I got my round earth arguments from the site, I used my own words save in one instance and created my own at the end. Let's begin, this could take a while.

    "Thanks. In this debate, I will attempt to prove that we don't live on a spinning ball which is spinning at 1,000 mph, rocketing around the sun at 66,000 mph, which is blasting around a galaxy at faster than light which is inturn blasting around a magical great attractor faster than light."

    Even if we did perchance live on a flat Earth, we would still be rocketing around the sun at 66,000 miles per hour and around a galaxy. This changes nothing here. 

    The Gyroscope Argument: 

    I saw the video, and it did seem convincing, but there was no experiment shown with the spherical Earth, just an assumption that the degree of rotation would shift by 15 degrees. However, this gyroscope does concede a critical point, that Earth at least has a diagonal axis running through the middle of it. In order to maintain position, the gyroscope has to remain tilted, similar to our spherical Earth. Why is this important? This changes the way we see curvature, not on a round Earth that is not tilted, but one that is on an axis and slightly shifted, totally changing calculations, which I will use later to negate your calculations. 

    Atlantean Conspiracy:

    Unfortunately, I can not go through every argument, but I will name a few key ones that stand out.

    (If anyone wants to view > (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html)

    Argument 60:

     "Anyone can prove the sea-horizon perfectly straight and the entire Earth perfectly flat using nothing more than a level, tripods and a wooden plank. At any altitude above sea-level, simply fix a 6-12 foot long, smooth, leveled board edgewise upon tripods and observe the skyline from eye-level behind it. The distant horizon will always align perfectly parallel with the upper edge of the board. Furthermore, if you move in a half-circle from one end of the board to the other whilst observing the skyline over the upper edge, you will be able to trace a clear, flat 10-20 miles depending on your altitude. This would be impossible if the Earth were a globe 25,000 miles in circumference; the horizon would align over the center of the board but then gradually, noticeably decline towards the extremities. Just ten miles on each side would necessitate an easily visible curvature of 66.6 feet from each end to the center."

    Yes, the horizon will always be parallel, but this does not mean the Earth is flat, the way we see the horizon, it is impossible to see the horizon itself dip down because that would require that we see over the horizon. Maybe an image will help.
    Image result for trying to see over the horizon images

    If we could see over the horizon, that would be great, but we can't. Because the horizon minimally dips away from us, we would have little way of telling than sending an object over the horizon, which I have proved in the constructive with boats and the sun. It would be trying to see over a curve, you can see before the curve, but it is impossible to see the dip-down, as noted by my height argument in Const. 1.

    Also, I have an interesting strategy that helps me find flat curvature amounts. If you check the debate Is Earth a Ball, Erf posted a picture of the NYC skyline 48 miles away and said that we would need to see 1536 feel of curvature. How did he get this? Let me show, and then I will show how I got your 66.6.

    Take 48 miles and wrongly multiplying it by water refraction of 1.33. Next, multiply it by 48 miles again to create a plane of vision. Then divide by 2, since flat earth believers use triangles and our perception on one object is that of a triangle. Then, account for any elevation changes and bam! 

    Calculations. 48*1.33*48/2 > 1532.16! Assuming that the person was at sea level, this is the closest calculation possible to 1536. 

    Your Amount: Luckily, your number is more sophisticated, and multiplies by a more modest 1.026, which is air refraction, but still can be found on elevation circumstances.

    Calculations: 10*1.026*10/2 > 51.3 feet of C
    Calculations: 20*1.026*20/2 > 205.3 feet of C

    From this, it is easy to say that if the Earth believer is tracing a line between 10-20 miles and curvature is 66.6, this makes an easy problem. The miles he is working with is 11.395 miles, use my calculations to see for yourself. 

    The issue here is that you use a parallel board, and not a plane, which negates the plane part of the argument! Thus, the same calculation, without the plane.

    Calculations: 11.395*1.026/2 > A much more modest 5.84 feet of visible curvature. From now on, since we view the horizon in a line, this will be my go to, and not the plane argument add on from the flat earth. 

    Thus this is the response to your curvature tests, but there is one more I will attack:

    Argument 69:

    "The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth."

    Once more, we are not seeing in triangles, or a plane. there is no 170 feet of curvature necessary, though this number is more modest than most that I have seen.

    Calculations: 60*1.026/2 > 30.78 feel of curvature. 

    Now apply elevation, it is not impossible for you to see below the horizon with higher elevation, and I will use the same image to show this.

    point of view on a round Earth

    The higher up one is, the more one can see more than a person at sea level! Thus, that 30 feet probably negates, since Manhattan's elevation is 22 feet. 30-22 > 8 feet is the possible margin of error, but because of elevation, this means nothing.

    Argument 70:
    "From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature."

    Here is the one instance I accuse you of false imagery, because I researched the location of the mountain, and despite originally confused with the distance, I saw the second city just a bit apart. The monument is really far away from Philly, but close enough to NYC to see buildings. However, lets look at your image.


    There is one answer, here is a map location of the park: Green Brook Township, NJ 08812

    Now, to see NYC, the viewer must face right, and see NYC, and there appears to be a city nearby. This would be impossible seeing Philly, because Philly is IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION! South-West, as a matter of fact. This image is not one of Philly, it is of NYC's neighboring city in New Jersey across the bay called Jersey City. That or somebody C/P Philadelphia into the image, but that would be lame. Debunked.

    Moving on :)

    You say that you have images not showing Earth's curvature, a 317K feet image when is in space! Yeah, space begins at 50 miles, or about 264,000 feet, at least in the US. While the world sets it at 380K, because of differing measurements (metric system), this at least shows that if you use NASA images, then we take the 264,000 amount, thus proving the existence of space and the validity of images from NASA.

    For the curvature tests from these heights, you would still have to be higher, because even at 60 miles up, Earth is 25,000 miles, seeing curvature would still be minimalist, if at all. Here is one such image from the moon.
    Image result for earth from the moon images

    Just so you know, I got this image from NASA, not a photo shopped picture. I don't even think they HAD Photoshop in 1969, in addition, film screens were black and white back then, so they couldn't have possibly been filming it, otherwise, we would have conclusive evidence. Rather, they are using a camera to snap a colored picture, which was around at the time, thus proving the moon landings. And yeah, you can see a star in the left hand side. Because we view Earth upward, and this picture is downward, and because the moon doesn't have a magnetic, gravitational, or atmospheric layer, seeing stars is harder, plus the image is pointing down.

    BTW: Do you notice how half the Earth is covered? Good, because this also proves the moon's rotational patterns!

    Rebutting the Rebuttal!

    1. Unfortunately, I can't provide you with photographs, but keep in mind, this year was 1961, and the ENAIC computer was developed in 1948. Considering that that computer took the size of a room, there is no way anyone could put a video inside the plane, the only videos I can find released by the Russian government are here.



    2. "This argument is really just a hasty generalization fallacy. While it may be true that those other objects according to those accounts you mentioned, claiming that the Earth cannot be flat because Jupiter's moons appeared spherical during observations is like claiming that the square in the middle of my profile picture is actually a circle because it is surrounded by 8 other circles."

    Except we are talking about constellations, not profile images. If Jupiter's moons are spherical, then how can the Earth be flat? As we exist on Earth which is in space, everything must be spherical because as proved with Einstein's images, everything has gravity and mass, which weighs the object down in space. Jupiter's moons are in the same way, spherical because they have mass orbiting around an object with a larger mass. In addition, if we have a semicircle over us according to flat earth believers, then why don't we have a bottom portion?

    Second, what do you think of asteroids that have hit the Earth if there is no space where they came from?

    3. 
    "My opponent claims that all constellations should be visible if the Earth were flat. He seems to have no understanding of perspective. Objects overhead are high, as they move away from us they appear to drop. Just as the railroad tracks appear to move into one another, the tops of the telephone poles appear to get lower. eventually the pole blends in with the horizon. The same thing happens with star constellations. Got it?"

    Definition of Perspective: "the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point."

    Objects can't appear to drop because that is not caused by perspective. Perspective, as shown in the definition, involves how we see something in moment, like Orion's Belt. Perspective of stars does not change over time. That would be like if I took my backpack and laid it on the ground, and suddenly, within three months of laying around, it somehow disappears. No, there has to be a different factor at hand, namely Earth's rotation and a round Earth changing seasons. Second, "when viewed from a particular point supports my theory because Ursula and Orion's Belt are two different seasonal constellations, so they have to be viewed from a particular point, summer or winter! This is not caused by a shift in perspective, this is how we view them when a third factor, as mentioned, causes it to be so!

    4. 
    "From 3 miles, we can only see 1.5 feet of curvature". Right. And I provided tests from hundreds of miles, which means we should definently notice the curvature.

    And yes, it is certainly not due to ocean swells, it is due to perspective."

    This number is a bit higher than 1.5 > 3*1.026/2 > 1.539, but excusing that, take 317,000 feet up and convert to miles > 317,000 / 5280 = 60 miles (.03 for haters). Thus, we have a proportion to solve. (3/1.539 = 60/X > 3X = 92.34 > 30.78 feet of curvature visible. Certainly impressive, but inaccurate, since that only judges the way up to that point, not the radius around it, we'll use a plane because we are judging an entire area of horizon drop, not a single ground to horizon line calculation. Now, solve a second proportion, Gooberry noted that atop a 874 foot skyscraper in Houston, one could see for 32-36 miles (34 averg.). Convert distance here to 317,000 feet. 874/34 = 317,000/X > 874X=10778000 > 12331.8 miles. Impressive, but we have to again divide by 30 feet since that was the original proportion for 3 miles 12331.8 miles/30 > 411.06 miles. This is how many miles we can see, now use my previously found formula to find curvature. (BTW, I did this all by myself and a calculator, no other source! #MathPride)

    Calculations: 411.06*1.026/2 > 210.87 miles of visible curvature, which would be minimalist, considering Earth's 25000 miles curves proportionate to its sphere shape. 

    Also, the boat does not go over the horizon, it merely stays on the horizon.

    5. 
    "Gravity does not exist. Rather, density and buoyancy are independent forces which cause this to happen. For example, if we are to drop something like, for example, a book, it will fall as it is more dense than the air in which surrounds it. If we drop a balloon, it will rise, because the helium in the balloon is less dense. Got it?"

    But then, the independent forces would collide with each other, thus causing random areas of 0-gravity, which is impossible. Gravity acts upon the mass (and density) of an object, which is why denser things fall, and less dense objects rise. Gravity acts proportionate to area of an object and its weight, not buoyancy, which only acts on an objects flotation on water.

    6. The reason the moon emits its own light is because the sun's light bounces off the moon and is visible to people on Earth. Without this, our tidal patterns would ultimately change.

    I know this is a lot, but Good Luck on the final counter rebuttal, and thanks for the debate!






    qipwbdeoPogueSilverishGoldNova
  • Earth is a ball

    You do not know the height of the viewer and cannot tell what the hight is. This argument is therefore invalid. 
    qipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    Gooberry said:
     Interesting how you don't try to refute my argument. Your rebuttal is that Corsica, different island by the way, is a mirage. Great use of evidence. Does Corsica being a mirage necessarily disprove the flat Earth, or does it disprove a different argument? 
    Hi argument is that you’re argument used false numbers to make the view seem impossible.

    When you look at the real heights based on the original source of the video, it seems reasonable.

    The only way you can think he made the argument you claimed, is if you didn’t read any of his post.

    Pogue made a long, detailed rebuttal where he explained what you asked him to explain.

    This type of red herring nonsense is why I keep tagging your posts as fallacies: because that’s what they actually are.
    Lets see
    Monte Capanne on Elba has an elevation of 1019m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 201km, you get 207.1 km of added intersecting sight lines. Elba is visible.
    qipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    @Pouge Yes, I can agree, this thread went off topic and the debate was inconclusive for either side. I think we need to stop fighting about who did not post evidence, and go back to the Earth's shape.

    With that in mind...

    Explain this.



    This picture was taken from Genoa, and is photographing the island of Elba, from over 125 miles away. 

    The image was taken from a height of 70 feet too. Now lets put these results into a curvature calculator.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Horizon = 10.25 Miles (54097.11 Feet)

    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.84 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.9 Feet)
    Hidden= 1.66 Miles (8779.41 Feet)
    Horizon Dip = 0.148 Degrees, (0.0026 Radians)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
    Refracted Horizon = 11.07 Miles (58431.55 Feet)
    Refracted Drop= 1.69 Miles (8932.46 Feet)
    Refracted Hidden= 1.4 Miles (7418.36 Feet)
    Refracted Dip = 0.137 Degrees, (0.0024 Radians)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we also take into account the elevation of the Island, which is 3,340 feet, then we cannot say that it is due to elevation.

    Simple, undeniable proof that we live on a stationary flat Earth, and we arent monkeys on a spinning ball.

    Uh oh. 
    Very phony numbers
    The cited 70 feet above sea-level is clearly nonsense when you look at the source of the Italian youtube-video. These pictures must have been taken from one of the tallest buildings or highest points of observation in or around Genoa.
    One seems to have been shot from one of the mountains surrounding Genoa.

    One seems to have been shot from one of the mountains surrounding Genoa.
    There's even one scene where you can see a small airplane fly by BELOW the observer.

    Here are the coordinates of the building in the first picture: 44°24'16.44"N   8°56'9.37"E.
    It's Terrazza Martini Tower, 116m high and standing on roughly 20m ground elevation (according to google earth). The observer is clearly standing higher than that.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrazza_Martini_Tower

    Original video: 
     Edit: Changed the link because the video did not work. 

    Also, it could have been the superior mirage. 

    Sources: 
    http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/supmrge.htm
    https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Superior_mirage
    http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz150.htm

    The link you have underneath your post: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html, yeah here is a link debunking everything in it: http://200proofsearthisnotflat.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/debunking-Dubay-70-79200.html.

    Uh, oh!
    SilverishGoldNovaqipwbdeo
  • Celebrating President's Day?

    Other than having a day off, do people really celebrate President Day consistent with it's original purpose?
    http://www.history.com/topics/holidays/presidents-day
    natbarons
  • Special counsel indicts Russians in 2016 election interference

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch