frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

We live on a flat plane

14567810»

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 26 Premium Member
    @namemcname Going a little off topic again. Anyway, The reason I suspect Coveny as being a troll is honestly I refuse to believe anyone is that vacuous.  He can be seen frequently comparing flat Earthers to advertising and businesses, or even as extreme as comparing flat Earthers to murderers, which is apparently valid because I am clearly an extremist because I'm an FE'r amirite? If he doesn't understand our arguments, he either turns to fallacies (often ad homs, cherry picking or appeal to the stone) or flags it as spam, and then spams reports. Not to mention he is calling it dehumanization when I call him out, and then uses a ton of fallacies while accusing me of using them. He's just another one of those troll globers who is obsessed with and despises flat Earthers
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 25 Premium Member
    @DawnBringerRiven  before I start another rebuttal, I'd like to point out a statement you made earlier:


    And point out AGAIN that you have now dropped 90% of our arguments. I'm actually pointing this out seperately because you've ignored it when I point it out repeatedly, and in my opinion this is very hypocritical, as you are now clinging to the last two pitiful points, which as far as I'm concerned, have been refuted.

    "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. "

    It matters not who first proposes the argument with the strawmen fallacy. Though anyone here can plainly see I've been arguing for flat water/horizon for 2-3 years now. What matters is who first points the finger in the wrong direction. You claimed that the horizon was curved in the video.

    @DawnBringerRiven said:
    "If you want to truly rebuke my argument you will need to-
    A: Prove that theodolites are ineffective tools                                                                                                                                     B: Explain why the Earth is seen as curved in a non-fisheye lens in the video I provided"

    I've shown you that the horizon is flat in that video. Your response seems to be now that the balloon wasn't high enough to see a curve.
    You claimed you saw a curve where there was none. So your statement: "I explained why you cannot match a straight line directly on top of the horizon to prove it's flat."

    And your diagram is a strawman. Your position was that the horizon was curved, it is now not far enough away to see a curve. This is a direct contradiction. A complete 180 degree switch in your position. A misrepresentation of your initial argument. The horizon is flat in that video and you can dance around it if you want, you aren't fooling anyone here.

    "That statement being why my line appeared crooked. That is a true fallacy. Dun dun dunnnnnn~"

    I not only told you your line was crooked, I showed you. 

    "I will also explain why you can not correct for the balloons tilt. It goes straight upwards, it doesn't ascend at an angle."

    As someone that has seen hoirs of balloon footage, i can assure you, no balloon will be perfectly stable during ascension. This is simply a false statement, as anyone who sees the video will agree. I've included a few screenshots to show you what a ridiculous statement you're making here.



    "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?"

    Another ridiculous statement, I simply rotated the image until the horizon was horizontal. In the second screencap above, the image (balloon camera) was rotated 10 degrees, so a rotation of -10 degrees corrects it.

    "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 you're just grasping at straws. When the conversation started, you argued that a theodolite was used to measure the Bedford canal, and you sourced Wikipedia. 
    When I quoted the Wikipedia article as saying telescope instead of theodolite, you dropped the Bedford canal, and took sides with a random YouTuber who uses his phone to measure the angle of the sun, and sourced an explanation for what a theodolite is.

    " 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 "

    Again, you're desperately grasping at straws. You're not even watching the videos before you post them, and you can't explain what is going on in them, or how they prove a spherical earth. 

    *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."

    Yes, I asked for you to post this source, repeatedly, you've ignored that. It seems you've messed up here. Without a source or evidence, you're just making unsubstantiated claims. As you've said before, you sourced the Bedford canal experiment, and theodolites, not the claim that one was used there to prove anything, why, or how it proves a spherical earth. This being the 3rd-4th time I've asked for a source, I move to dismiss the claim as unsubstantiated until such evidence is presented.

     "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, "

    You measured a theodolite through wikipedia? Please ellaborate.

    "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. "

    Which makes it irrelevant. This is by definition a strawman. Measuring the angle of the sun is irrelevant. I am focusing on the earth. Stay on topic.

    "No. I simply stated that the argument originates from that experiment, and then gave a source showing that a theodolite measured it."

    Please source this statement. Last time asking. 

     "I am not referring to the the original Bedford level experiment when talking about the use of the theodolite."

    So they didn't use a theodolite at the Bedford canal? One minute they did, the next they didnt...

    "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."

    With no source, evidence, or a proper explanation. 

    "This is not me dodging the question. I merely restated why the experiment is insignificant to my argument."

    That is you dodging a lot of questions points and rebuttals. And now the entire experiment is irrelevant to your argument. You're admitting to giving red herring arguments.

    "This is not a random claim as I have claimed this before. "

    It doesnt make it any more relevant, or valid, since it goes without source or evidence.

    "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,"

    So, exactly what planet's horizon were you assuming i was referring to? Grasping at straws.

    "not just oceans and landmasses. That would be a different discussion."

    Actually no it is part of our discussion, and essentially the topic of this entire debate. I'll give you your statement back to you. If horizons and water does not curve, the earth can not be a spinning ball. You must specifically "rebuke" every single one of my statements I made here with reliable sources or first hand accounts. If you completely dismiss any one of my statements I will assume you have conceded to that statement and conceded that the earth is flat. I've required all of the arguments that you've dropped in order for you to review and redeem yourself and unless and until you do, I've wasted my time and I'll not waste anymore until you've addressed my arguments.
    DawnBringerRiven
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 25 Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    @dawnbringerriven ;

    "This argument originates from the Bedford experiment involving a seemingly flat river and three poles. Because of measurements being from optical observation, this experiment was flawed. This is because your eyes do not have perfect sight since your eyes assume all light only travels straight, but light actually bends and bounces from surface to surface."

    Exactly how many surfaces is the light bouncing from over that 6 mile stretch of water? Look carefully. 


    "Mirages are a optical phenomenon due to the different densities of air causing different bendings of light"

    I'll not deny that mirage happen, but to suggest that every time someone sees something they shouldn't that they see a mirage is just another feeble attempt to maintain an unfalsifiable theory. We all know what mirages look like, but just for clarification, let's look at the types of mirages.


    As anyone can see, the most obvious property of any mirage is an image inversion. A superior mirage is an image flipped over the top of the original image, and an inferior mirage is an image flipped under the original image. Let's compare an actual mirage to what people have witnessed.

    1.

    This six mile test shows no inversion. The mirror reflecting the sun should not be visible. 



    2. 

    Toronto from across lake Ontario, a distance of over 30 miles. From 6 feet above sea level, the Rogers Center (the white building) should be completely hidden by the curvature of the earth. Some inversion is present, under the image just above the water.



    3.

    Chicago from across lake Michigan, 60 miles away, the majority of the city should be hidden behind the curvature. No inversion is present.



    4. 

    Oahu from Kauai is over 90 miles of flat earth. 

    5. 

    The isle of man is visible from Blackpool, 62 miles away.

    https://www.liveblackpool.info/news/729/swim-from-blackpool-to-the-isle-of-man!

    6. 

    And 163 miles away, the peak of Canigou should be over 1,000 feet over the curvature. No inversion is present.

    http://canigou.allauch.free.fr/index.html
    Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "How exactly did they measure 150 miles of water and the elevation of that water with just a camera and their eyes? I was referencing how FEs are usually normal citizens without access to thousands of dollars to spend on advanced equipment."

    You don't need very expensive equipment, just your eyes. If an object is supposed to be hidden by curvature, it should be impossible to see. Pretty simple. Of course it helps to learn the mathematics involved to figure out how much curvature there should be.


    "As I have stated , you can not just take their word for it. It is the same as taking nasa's word for something."

    Taking a government organization's word is far different from asking a random pilot or two. You also completely ignored the angle of attack argument, which is standard for all pilots and flights.
    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/october/flight-training-magazine/technique--angle-of-attack

    "This is not high enough. You will need to be able to observe the planet as a whole to definitively determine if the world is flat or not."


    So your official position is that we can't see a curve... unless we see the whole ball? You do realize this is patently ridiculous right? How high do you have to be to see curvature? 

    " What if the Earth is not 25,000 miles in circumstance? Have you measured the earth yourself to come to this number? "

    I'm just going by what NAsA and the scientific community claim. If you would like to proclaim that the earth is much, MUCH bigger than that, I might agree, IF you offered some inkling of real evidence. 

    "Firstly, water is not flat. It is not solid, it is a liquid. It doesn't have an actual shape. If you place water in a sphere container, the water will conform to that shape. It will not curve, it will simply just conform to its mold. Water without a container, like the water seen in oceans, is not in a closed container. Therefore it levels out. "

    This is my whole point. Level means flat. Therefore, while the land will have hills, mountains, etc. the oceans are level.

    "Only the surface of water in an open container is flat. "

    Which means that the ocean's surface is flat, I'm glad were in agreement. Do you agree that most of the earth is ocean?

    "But even then there are waves and what have you that affect the appearance of the surface of water.

    It doesn't affect the overall dimensions of it's surface. 



    "Water changes form depending on its container. This does not mean "in all measurable circumstances."

    It doesn't affect the overall dimensions of it's surface. So, to recap, water takes the from of it's container, and finds and maintains a flat, level surface in all measurable circumstances.

    "Air balloons can only travel so high before you run out of oxygen."

    ??? Weather balloons don't need oxygen. This balloon reached 110,000 feet. The horizon stayed flat and eye level the whole ride. This contradicts the model you defend.

    You can not measure the entirety of the earth with your eyes, cameras, and rulers.

    Yes, yes you can. If the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, there should be a declination from any given point of 8" per mile squared. As we have agreed, water (the surface) is always relatively flat. Which means we shouldn't be able to see some things at some distances. There are several reported instances where can.

    "Google "attitude indicator". Not altitude. Just because you have not heard of something does not mean it doesn't exist."

    You saw I put attitude indicator plain as day. I did bring this point up, and I know full well what they are and how they work.


    I'm going to assume due to your response that you don't. 

     we can not trust the word of others. The entire reason why flat Earth theory exists is because certain people do not trust current science and do not take their word as a fact. Do not take pilots word either. Apply the same skepticism you treat astronauts with to every other group of people. 

    I have no reason to distrust random pilots who gain nothing from telling me the way they fly. I do have several reasons to distrust NASA, aside from me measuring the earth itself, whose entire existence ($18,000,000,000 yearly) depends wholly on the earth being a spinning ball. Thousands of people fly in planes. What reason do I have to distrust them? Or my own senses, since I myself have been on both commercial and single engine flights?

    "I don't quite understand why you bring up the angle of attack. It is simply an angle showing what direction the aircraft will be taking off. The plane isn't actually angled upwards it is just that specific part of the wing that is."

    Just to be clear,  you're suggesting that an airplane wing is angled slightly down during flight at cruising speed and altitude?

    "Again, why do you trust this number. It is a number created by NASA. Treating this math as true is treating NASA's measured size of the Earth as true as well."

    I don't, you do. That is presumably why you are here. Again, if you're suggesting the earth is bigger or smaller, some more evidence is needed, not just your say so.


    "Just because you don't have the ability to perform an observation does not mean the results of that observation can't be true. I also don't understand why you believe governments need to fake the existence of  a globe Earth. You do understand that USA is only one of many governments that support globe Earth. What benefit do governments receive from faking this?"

    We do have a means of performing an observation that directly contradicts the globe earth theory. By measuring the water, and it is always found to be relatively flat. Why they hide it is irrelevant, and a very long story.

    You simply dismissed my argument without providing evidence to support your own claim. In your previous statement you call me out for not providing evidence and then immediately make a huge claim with no evidence to back it. I did not provide evidence for this as I knew you would dismiss this argument regardless.

    There is substantial evidence that supports the flat earth, especially in the debate the earth is flat. So far you've just denied all of it.

    "Literally every single person on the planet has many things they don't know. I understand my point here may be irrelevant."

    Very, but there is no reason to believe that the earth comes between the sun and the moon. Selenelions prove that.

    Those planets are supposed to be much much farther apart. "A shred of evidence" is a huge exaggeration. With a good telescope you yourself can see these objects if you look at the right spot in the sky at night.

    Just because you see lights in the sky doesn't mean they are  physical terra  firma.

    Sorry It took so long to respond. 
    @DawnBringerRiven is completely unable to defend the globe Earth theory, so I assume that Dawn concedes completely to my argument. I will no longer reply to any comments that do not refute my current arguments. If no serious rebuttals are made toward my argument, then I will assume the globe  Earthers have given up on this debate all together. 
    Expand "show previous quotes"
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 25 Premium Member
    Tune in to pbs kids and see how many times you'll see a ball earth to get an idea of the levels of indoctrination our kids are being subject to.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:

    @DawnBringerRiven said:
    "If you want to truly rebuke my argument you will need to-
    A: Prove that theodolites are ineffective tools                                                                                                                                     B: Explain why the Earth is seen as curved in a non-fisheye lens in the video I provided"

    I've shown you that the horizon is flat in that video. Your response seems to be now that the balloon wasn't high enough to see a curve.
    You claimed you saw a curve where there was none. So your statement: "I explained why you cannot match a straight line directly on top of the horizon to prove it's flat."
    I never said the balloon wasn't high enough to see the curve. I said the picture you provided was flawed. You still have not addressed my explanation of the Earth can seem straight while looked at certain angles so I will assume you have conceded to that statement.
    And your diagram is a strawman. Your position was that the horizon was curved, it is now not far enough away to see a curve. This is a direct contradiction. A complete 180 degree switch in your position. A misrepresentation of your initial argument. The horizon is flat in that video and you can dance around it if you want, you aren't fooling anyone here.

    "That statement being why my line appeared crooked. That is a true fallacy. Dun dun dunnnnnn~"

    I not only told you your line was crooked, I showed you. 
    And then I refuted what you showed me. And then you still did not refute that claim. That claim being the screenshot of a red line directly on top of a circle making it appear flat. I will now expand on this argument. You put a line directly on top of the horizon so it blocked the view of the horizon line. The curvature can not be seen if you put a line completely blocking vision of the horizon. You need to put the line above the horizon line, not on top of it. You did not address my accusation of a fallacy so I will assume you have conceded to that statement.

    "I will also explain why you can not correct for the balloons tilt. It goes straight upwards, it doesn't ascend at an angle."

    As someone that has seen hoirs of balloon footage, i can assure you, no balloon will be perfectly stable during ascension. This is simply a false statement, as anyone who sees the video will agree. I've included a few screenshots to show you what a ridiculous statement you're making here.I agree the balloon tilts, but putting the line directly on top of the horizon blocks the view of any curvature. Put the line directly above the line so it is completely visible and you can see a curve. Slightly above the horizon, not on top of it.



    "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?"

    Another ridiculous statement, I simply rotated the image until the horizon was horizontal. In the second screencap above, the image (balloon camera) was rotated 10 degrees, so a rotation of -10 degrees And I have stated why matching the line with the horizon is flawed with my screenshot of a circle with a straight red line on it which you have still not addressed. If you put the line straight above the horizon as I did, you can clearly see the curvature 
    corrects it.

    "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 you're just grasping at straws. When the conversation started, you argued that a theodolite was used to measure the Bedford canal, and you sourced Wikipedia. 
    When I quoted the Wikipedia article as saying telescope instead of theodolite, you dropped the Bedford canal, and took sides with a random YouTuber who uses his phone to measure the angle of the sun, and sourced an explanation for what a theodolite is.
    Grasping at straws? For what purpose? I admitted making a mistake with choosing my sources. You act as if youtubers are bad evidence but have posted multiple people in youtube videos as evidence yourself. I did drop the bedford canal specifically since you said the location was irrelevant so I thought it wouldn't matter if I chose a different body of water that a theodolite measured. 
    " 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 "

    Again, you're desperately grasping at straws. You're not even watching the videos before you post them, and you can't explain what is going on in them, or how they prove a spherical earth. 
    Grasping at what straws for what purpose? No I did not watch the second video as I have already stated. I will post better source later in this comment.
    *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."

    Yes, I asked for you to post this source, repeatedly, you've ignored that. It seems you've messed up here. Without a source or evidence, you're just making unsubstantiated claims. As you've said before, you sourced the Bedford canal experiment, and theodolites, not the claim that one was used there to prove anything, why, or how it proves a spherical earth. This being the 3rd-4th time I've asked for a source, I move to dismiss the claim as unsubstantiated until such evidence is presented.
    I did not ignore it. Since you seemed to have completely forgotten I posted this wikipedia source already- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment ;When viewed through a theodolite (a precision instrument for measuring angles), the middle pole was found to be almost three feet (0.91 m) higher than the poles at each end.
     "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, "

    You measured a theodolite through wikipedia? Please ellaborate.
    Elaboration= I sourced Bedford Canal being measured by a theodolite by someone else.

    "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. "

    Which makes it irrelevant. This is by definition a strawman. Measuring the angle of the sun is irrelevant. I am focusing on the earth. Stay on topic.
    Exactly my point. The second video is irrellevant and off topic as I have already stated it to be my mistake.
    "No. I simply stated that the argument originates from that experiment, and then gave a source showing that a theodolite measured it."

    Please source this statement. Last time asking. 
    Already did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
     "I am not referring to the the original Bedford level experiment when talking about the use of the theodolite."

    So they didn't use a theodolite at the Bedford canal? One minute they did, the next they didnt...
    The original meaning the very first bedford experiment. That is what original means. My next sentence clarifies this claim. A theodolite was not used in the original experiment. I don't understand why you addressed this statement separately as my next statement clarifies it.

    "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."

    With no source, evidence, or a proper explanation. 
    This being my next statement. I gave all three of these things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment ;
    "This is not me dodging the question. I merely restated why the experiment is insignificant to my argument." And here is my explanation  As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodolite was almost three feet (0.91 m) higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved.
     
    That is you dodging a lot of questions points and rebuttals. And now the entire experiment is irrelevant to your argument. You're admitting to giving red herring arguments.

    "This is not a random claim as I have claimed this before. "

    It doesnt make it any more relevant, or valid, since it goes without source or evidence.
    I gave source and evidence.
    "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,"                                                                                                                         The atmosphere's horizon. A perspective from the outside of the Earth not from directly on it.

    So, exactly what planet's horizon were you assuming i was referring to? Grasping at straws.

    "not just oceans and landmasses. That would be a different discussion."

    Actually no it is part of our discussion, and essentially the topic of this entire debate. I'll give you your statement back to you. If horizons and water does not curve, the earth can not be a spinning ball. You must specifically "rebuke" every single one of my statements I made here with reliable sources or first hand accounts. If you completely dismiss any one of my statements I will assume you have conceded to that statement and conceded that the earth is flat. I've required all of the arguments that you've dropped in order for you to review and redeem yourself and unless and until you do, I've wasted my time and I'll not waste anymore until you've addressed my arguments.
    I set those rules being completely overconfident about my argument, I admit this part of my argument, the rules at the bottom, are completely overzealous and unnecessary. Also the other times in this comment I said to assume you have conceded that that argument, I was half joking. Yes, consciously and intentionally joking as the seriousness of the statement is humorous. I still want you to address those statements, but I'm not assuming anything. This is not me grabbing at straws or whatever, this is me saying that part of my argument is unnecessary and can be basically ignored. You don't have to source from scholarly articles, or address every single statement I make, but if you don't address a statement I may ask you to address it. 

    Erfisflat said:
    @DawnBringerRiven
    "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 c@DawnBringerRiven ect 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? But all that is getting really off topic. 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. 
    I will also explain why you can not correct for the balloons tilt. It goes straight upwards, it doesn't ascend at an angle. What could possibly cause a tilt in the first place? At above the atmosphere there is proof to support wind in low-orbit BUT that wind is negligible unless you are traveling at high speeds. 

    "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.

    "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.

    "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.
    Now here is where I will post a relevant replacement source for the wiki  - 
    http://flatearthdeception.com/perspective-proves-the-flat-earth-deception/ Now this describes a theodolite measuring the horizontal line of the ocean. This source is from google scholarly. It makes more arguments against a flat earth, but you don't need to address those. You only need to pay attention the section contained in this screenshot.
    Now, if there are any questions you believe I am still dodging, ask them in your next rebuttal clearly. In your next two comments, yes I agree that you do not always see mirages. My point is that mirages trick your eyes, making your sight imperfect. To the argument after that, yes we see water behaving like that, but as I said before, our eyes can not notice a gradual mere inches or feet curve in water. Again, if you believe I am still dodging any questions that are relevant to my points I just stated, and did not just address in this comment, ask them in your next rebuttal in a clear manner. 
    CCC.PNG 149.3K
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Now here is where I will post a relevant replacement source for the wiki  - 
    http://flatearthdeception.com/perspective-proves-the-flat-earth-deception/ Now this describes a theodolite measuring the horizontal line of the ocean. This source is from google scholarly. It makes more arguments against a flat earth, but you don't need to address those. You only need to pay attention the section contained in this screenshot.

    So your position is now that "theodolites (somehow) prove the earth is not flat, let this guy tell you." You can't properly explain exactly how (likely, you have no idea), but they do. "Here is something completely unrelated that says so." You seem to say. Have you completely forgotten how to think for yourself?

    Since you can't argue for yourself, ill form a rebuttal to this bloggers counterclaim. The screenshot is an attempted rebuttal to the flat earth claim that the horizon meets the eye at any altitude, which is true.


    Here is a digital test showing how the horizon should act, if the earth were a ball. 


    The rebuttal is that the horizon does drop with altitude, but we don't see it. The theodolite is a telescope (it saws so even in your screenshot) with a water level on it, used to determine, over distance, a point that is level with it, or, exactly eye level. Since neither of you provide any evidence for his claim, here is an experiment that disproves his claim.

    Now that you've dropped all arguments and are left with nothing, I'll assume you have conceded. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    "Not a lie at all. You words were "it doesn't prove curvature, it just proves the map is wrong" on page 8 of "the earth is flat" post. Flight times over antarctica would require commercial planes to travel at mach 2 to make those times on the flat earth model. So obviously "it doesn't prove curvature, it just proves the map is wrong". So tell me how that's twisting your words, OR we can go back to the original argument and you can explain this flight time:"

    Quote mining I see. Doesn't surprise me. Fallacious as always.

    If you were a wrestler your name would be...
    John Fallacena
    ROFL
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
     "You still have not addressed my explanation of the Earth can seem straight while looked at certain angles so I will assume you have conceded to that statement"

    Your arguments are flat. Not only do you horribly misinterpret what I have to show, you also misinterpret your own arguments. It's not according to any angle specifically that the diagram explains makes a circle appear flat. Mainly because you zoom in and look at only a small portion of it. The evidence doesn't support your claim that: "Earth can seem straight while looked (at certain angles)" and you're left with an unsubstantiated claim. The earth looked flat no matter how it eas angles, my pimp cane showed. The diagram you've offered as evidence, when transitioned to our video (which you claimed showed a curved horizon, but was actually flat, and have even admitted looks flat), means that the balloon was not far enough from the earth (the supposed circle) to see a curve. So my question to you is, what is your official position, is the horizon flat or curved in that video? We'll go from there. Your position, like all the rest, adjusts and often contradict each other. Please clarify. If we are in agreement that the horizon is flat in the video, the argument has been nullified and or supports my position. 

    " it doesn't ascend at an angle. What could possibly cause a tilt in the first place? At above the atmosphere there is proof to support wind in low-orbit BUT that wind is negligible unless you are traveling at high speeds. "

    You're now denying observable fact. Did you even watch the video? Why the balloon changed it's angle is totally irrelevant. I posted stills showing varying degrees of tilt. If this is how you're going to continue arguing strawmen I'll just agree to disagree with your fallacious arguments. 


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • You've been passively aggressive towards me this entire debate so firstly I would like to make a few things very clear. First, I do not hold the belief that the Earth is round. I am not the type of person that deals in black and white, that either something is regarded as true or it isn't, I don't think like that. We are not gods. We do not know every single factor involved when choosing to believe something. It only takes one seemingly tiny factor to blow a huge belief out of the water at the drop of a coin. I believe in the possibility of concepts to be true or false. I simply believe that a round Earth is most likely a truth. Secondly, I don't care about proving people wrong or being proven wrong. You have stated that I was desperate in this debate, that can not be farther from the truth. I don't care what is true and what is false. The reason I am debating here is simply because it is my hobby. Because I regard debating as a medium for my entertainment. I could care less about what I'm debating about. I even argue for positions I disagree with from time to time for fun. So before you go off and call me a globetard again, or use your catchphrase (calling me ridiculous) just remember I don't exactly hold these beliefs and that I am simply debating for the sake of debating. It is very clear that you are taking this debate very seriously, but I am not at all emotionally invested in this debate as I am debating for my own entertainment. I also find it interesting that you can become so invested in something I find so utterly insignificant. This is not an insult, I am simply stating this out of curiosity. How come flat Earthers are so invested in the shape of an object? I can not fathom what causes such an obsession with something that holds no bearing on your livelihood. Whether the Earth is a sphere, flat, hallow, triangle, a raptor, etc., It doesn't change anything significant about your life besides how you go about traveling internationally. I also wanted to point out that accusing people of fallacies is ultimately pointless on this site. Accusing someone of a fallacy only holds weight if your in a high school debating club/debating competition. I have been in debates for years and I have not heard of Gish galloping or red haring or a strawman fallacy until I entered this forum. You accuse someone of a fallacy only to discredit them. That's all that does. Here there are no judges or point systems. There is absolutely no need to accuse people of fallacies in this site as it proves and disproves nothing. It just discredits people. Now that that's all out of the way back to debating. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Now here is where I will post a relevant replacement source for the wiki  - 
    http://flatearthdeception.com/perspective-proves-the-flat-earth-deception/ Now this describes a theodolite measuring the horizontal line of the ocean. This source is from google scholarly. It makes more arguments against a flat earth, but you don't need to address those. You only need to pay attention the section contained in this screenshot.

    So your position is now that "theodolites (somehow) prove the earth is not flat, let this guy tell you." You can't properly explain exactly how (likely, you have no idea), but they do. "Here is something completely unrelated that says so." You seem to say. Have you completely forgotten how to think for yourself?
    You wanted a source for my explanation. I gave it. I haven't even read this article until much after I proposed my argument against water being flat. As I have said above I do not take people's word for it. I posted this article simply as a support for my claim as you have vehemently asked me to do multiple times.
    Since you can't argue for yourself, ill form a rebuttal to this bloggers counterclaim. The screenshot is an attempted rebuttal to the flat earth claim that the horizon meets the eye at any altitude, which is true.


    Here is a digital test showing how the horizon should act, if the earth were a ball. 

    You can not just make up an argument for you to refute. I never proposed the argument from your screenshot. I specifically said you can ignore every other point the article makes besides the one in the screenshot I provided of the article. I am not going to refute a rebuttal to a claim you made up for me. Why do you think I would follow up an argument I didn't propose myself? 
    The rebuttal is that the horizon does drop with altitude, but we don't see it. The theodolite is a telescope (it saws so even in your screenshot) with a water level on it, used to determine, over distance, a point that is level with it, or, exactly eye level. Since neither of you provide any evidence for his claim, here is an experiment that disproves his claim.
    Now that you've dropped all arguments and are left with nothing, I'll assume you have conceded. 

    I have repeatedly asked you to address my proof of the Earth appearing like it is flat from certain angles. Yes, angles. Like perspective, not literal mathematical angles you goof. The mathematical diagram was just there to showcase that straight lines when blocking the vision of a part of the circle and are zoomed in make it seem like a straight line.  This line appears straight does it not? But the picture it is from is a circle as I have showed you.It is curved, but you can't see the curve because it is blocked by the line. That is just what you have done in your photo and why your photo is flawed. My proof that the atmosphere's horizon still holds as well as my argument for water as a theodolite measuring water to curve has still not been refuted.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    They really need to make a wtf? Response button
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "I do not hold the belief that the Earth is round."

    Just wanted to put that in quotations. As I read into your rebuttal, I see we are finally in agreement about the shape of the earth.

    I knew there was a catch. 

    " I simply believe that a round Earth is most likely a truth"

    So. Do you believe the earth is round or not. How can you not believe the earth is round and at the same time believe it to be most likely? What evidence have you seen that it is most likely? This is what I've been searching for!

    " I am simply debating for the sake of debating"

    So you're just here to disagree with people for entertainment? Sounds pretty trolly to me bruh.

    "How come flat Earthers are so invested in the shape of an object?"

    This is where we live. This is about the origins of man. This is the biggest lie of all time. This confirms the Bible, and contradicts big bangism. You might could care less about it, but that is what makes you a globetard! 

    I'm here to recruit to be honest. I need critical, unbiased, scientific minds. While your ruse gives me a chance to prove the flat earth, the fallacious, contradicting arguments get old. You've now basically admitted you were just a naysayer, so I think we're done for the most part.

    "Accusing someone of a fallacy only holds weight if your in a high school debating club/debating competition."

    Fallacies are statements which might sound reasonable or superficially true, but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by pointing out where the proponents are either a) unintelligent and or b) deceptive. It is important to avoid them in your arguments, and it is also important to be able to spot them in other's arguments so that you don't fall for a false line of reasoning. Think of it as intellectual king fu, the vital set of self defense in a debate.

     "It just discredits people."

    This is the whole reason you're here, to decide who is correct, and who is wrong, through the use of words. This is a debate site. 

    " Now that that's all out of the way back to debating. "

    Smh.

    "You wanted a source for my explanation. I gave it. I haven't even read this article until much after I proposed my argument against water being flat. As I have said above I do not take people's word for it. I posted this article simply as a support for my claim as you have vehemently asked me to do multiple times"

    So, you posted an argument, then when asked for evidence or source, you posted an irrelevant article that you didnt even read. Gotcha.

    "You can not just make up an argument for you to refute. I never proposed the argument from your screenshot. I specifically said you can ignore every other point the article makes besides the one in the screenshot I provided of the article. I am not going to refute a rebuttal to a claim you made up for me. Why do you think I would follow up an argument I didn't propose myself?"

    That's the problem. Your screenshot did not even contain an argument. I took the liberty of actually reading the article, summing it up (and dumbing it down) and giving a refutation for it. You've yet to even explain your position with theodolites, and how they prove the earth is a ball.

    I have repeatedly asked you to address my proof of the Earth appearing like it is flat from certain angles. Yes, angles. Like perspective, not literal mathematical angles you goof. The mathematical diagram was just there to showcase that straight lines when blocking the vision of a part of the circle and are zoomed in make it seem like a straight line.  This line appears straight does it not? But the picture it is from is a circle as I have showed you.It is curved, but you can't see the curve because it is blocked by the line. That is just what you have done in your photo and why your photo is flawed. My proof that the atmosphere's horizon still holds as well as my argument for water as a theodolite measuring water to curve has still not been refuted.

    Wtf. I don't have time for such stupidity. Once more. For the little people. Your diagrams do not match your arguments. You claim that the balloon was looking at a ball at the wrong angle, which made it look flat. Your diagram claims that the balloon was too close to the earth to be curved. All of this after you claimed it was curved in the first place. You've completely ignored the majority of my concerns and rebuttals and I must politely exist stage left, so that I don't actually say something to hurt your feelings.













    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 29 Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    They really need to make a wtf? Response button
    They had it a while ago but they removed it.

    Heres a list of badges

    http://debateisland.com/yaga/badges/
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @DawnBringerRiven

    So, your defense for your fallacies are, rather than admit it or defend yourself, to say its invalid because this isnt a high school debate hall? Wow. Also, you make no attempt at refuting Erfisflats argument, instead rambling on about how the flat Earth is stupid and irrelevant. Which is a fallacy itself.

  • edited September 29
    Erfisflat said:
    "I do not hold the belief that the Earth is round."

    Just wanted to put that in quotations. As I read into your rebuttal, I see we are finally in agreement about the shape of the earth.

    I knew there was a catch. 

    " I simply believe that a round Earth is most likely a truth"

    So. Do you believe the earth is round or not. How can you not believe the earth is round and at the same time believe it to be most likely? What evidence have you seen that it is most likely? This is what I've been searching for!
    The same way agnostics believe about God.  You should understand this analogy without an explanation I presume.
    " I am simply debating for the sake of debating"

    So you're just here to disagree with people for entertainment? Sounds pretty trolly to me bruh.
    Of course. Are you saying you do not enjoy spending the huge amount of time you put into this website? If you do not, why do you tolerate spending so much time here if it bores you? If this site does not bore you then you enjoy being here do you not? And I already pointed out that I do not care about proving people wrong. I don't care about the end result, just the process.
    "How come flat Earthers are so invested in the shape of an object?"

    This is where we live. This is about the origins of man. This is the biggest lie of all time. This confirms the Bible, and contradicts big bangism. You might could care less about it, but that is what makes you a globetard! 
    Now you have switched from passive aggressive to straight forward insults. Not that I mind, but this insult is completely unnecessary and bad debate etiquette. I would expect more from a moderator.
    I'm here to recruit to be honest. I need critical, unbiased, scientific minds. While your ruse gives me a chance to prove the flat earth, the fallacious, contradicting arguments get old. You've now basically admitted you were just a naysayer, so I think we're done for the most part.
    Recruit? Why? How can you think of yourself as unbiased? You are obviously biased towards a flat Earth. If you were truly unbiased you would be open to the idea of a Round Earth being possible but instead you call the belief itself and everyone who believes it ridiculous. This is clearly heavy bias. 
    "Accusing someone of a fallacy only holds weight if your in a high school debating club/debating competition."

    Fallacies are statements which might sound reasonable or superficially true, but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by pointing out where the proponents are either a) unintelligent and or b) deceptive. It is important to avoid them in your arguments, and it is also important to be able to spot them in other's arguments so that you don't fall for a false line of reasoning. Think of it as intellectual king fu, the vital set of self defense in a debate.
    I already stated why I wouldn't deceive you as I don't have a reason too. That was most of the reason I included this segment. It seems you use the accusation of fallacies as an excuse to completely dismiss arguments you can't find a way to refute. You still have yet to refute my rebuttal to your picture with the line covering the horizon. You have just simply dismissed my rebuttal by accusing me of fallacies.
     "It just discredits people."

    This is the whole reason you're here, to decide who is correct, and who is wrong, through the use of words. This is a debate site. 
    This is not why I am here. I'm here to learn people's many different perspectives on various topics as I find them interesting. Discrediting someone and proving them wrong are fundamentally different. Discrediting is making someone seem like the type of person who is wrong a lot of the time by insulting them directly or indirectly.  Proving someone wrong is showing evidence that refutes their claims and shows them to be wrong in one particular topic.  Discrediting someone does not mean they are wrong, but proving them wrong allegedly does. Keep in mind just because someone wins an argument doesn't mean they are correct, it could just mean they are more skilled at debating and their opponent was bad at backing up their claims. 
    " Now that that's all out of the way back to debating. "

    Smh.

    "You wanted a source for my explanation. I gave it. I haven't even read this article until much after I proposed my argument against water being flat. As I have said above I do not take people's word for it. I posted this article simply as a support for my claim as you have vehemently asked me to do multiple times"

    So, you posted an argument, then when asked for evidence or source, you posted an irrelevant article that you didnt even read. Gotcha.
    Irrelevant how? My argument was that theodolites measured water and showed it to be curved. This article from google scholarly completely supports that claim. And of course I read it, I only stated that I did not discover the article until after you asked me for a different source for the theodolite.

    "You can not just make up an argument for you to refute. I never proposed the argument from your screenshot. I specifically said you can ignore every other point the article makes besides the one in the screenshot I provided of the article. I am not going to refute a rebuttal to a claim you made up for me. Why do you think I would follow up an argument I didn't propose myself?"

    That's the problem. Your screenshot did not even contain an argument. I took the liberty of actually reading the article, summing it up (and dumbing it down) and giving a refutation for it. You've yet to even explain your position with theodolites, and how they prove the earth is a ball.
    It did screenshot an argument but that is not the point. This article is supporting evidence which you have asked for and then completely dismissed when I gave it. I have already explained numerous times my position and how theodolites prove water to be curved, which you also have seemingly forgot about/dismissed intentionally.

    I have repeatedly asked you to address my proof of the Earth appearing like it is flat from certain angles. Yes, angles. Like perspective, not literal mathematical angles you goof. The mathematical diagram was just there to showcase that straight lines when blocking the vision of a part of the circle and are zoomed in make it seem like a straight line.  This line appears straight does it not? But the picture it is from is a circle as I have showed you. It is curved, but you can't see the curve because it is blocked by the line. That is just what you have done in your photo and why your photo is flawed. My proof that the atmosphere's horizon still holds as well as my argument for water as a theodolite measuring water to curve has still not been refuted.

    Wtf. I don't have time for such stupidity. Once more. For the little people. Your diagrams do not match your arguments. You claim that the balloon was looking at a ball at the wrong angle, which made it look flat. Your diagram claims that the balloon was too close to the earth to be curved. All of this after you claimed it was curved in the first place. You've completely ignored the majority of my concerns and rebuttals and I must politely exist stage left, so that I don't actually say something to hurt your feelings.
    Another direct insult. The diagram is a rebuttal to your argument which you have still not addressed and are still dismissing it. I did not claim the angle of the balloon made Earth look flat. I asked how do you know the angle of the balloon in relation to the planet, which you addressed. And then I stated the perspective of the curved horizon was blocked because you blocked vision of it with a line which would hide any curvature, so I stated you are looking at from the wrong angle, in which I mean perspective, not a literal angle.  I have not ignored the majority of your concerns. I have addressed the majority of your concerns, all of them if I didn't forget any. You made this debate between us dissolve completely from an actual debate to me just correcting your misconceptions. In your "rebuttal" to my latest argument you have dedicated it solely to give excuses for dismissing my arguments without presenting any other evidence refuting my claims or presenting any new evidence. Truly you must exit the stage as you have made this debate boring. This forum has dissolved into slander and insults and me simply justifying myself against such insults. That is not a real debate.  I should not have to constantly spend entire comments simply correcting your misconceptions of my statements. I have neither the time, nor crayons to repeatedly explain my position to you. 












  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    They really need to make a wtf? Response button
    They had it a while ago but they removed it.

    Heres a list of badges

    http://debateisland.com/yaga/badges/
    Bummer
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat Atleast they already got the badges programmed if they decide to bring it back... we need it.
    Erfisflat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 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