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

1468910

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • Coveny said:
    @SilverishGoldNova it's not a refute because you don't "accept" pictures as proof. So it's just an insult... so ya it's spam. 
    thats actually sorta funny but I must ask, how do you define "spam"? I
    I'll go with Oxford's definition "Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc".
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 19 Premium Member
    Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    @SilverishGoldNova it's not a refute because you don't "accept" pictures as proof. So it's just an insult... so ya it's spam. 
    thats actually sorta funny but I must ask, how do you define "spam"? I
    I'll go with Oxford's definition "Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc".

    Since when is an argument you don't understand malware?
     

    @DawnBringerRiven So we're gonna talk about planes and pilots? Heres a picture from 317,000 feet. On a plane. And I would like to hear a more thoughtful rebuttal than "I don't like the way the image looks" or "but this other flat Earther said something..." (cuz ya know, just because me and @Erfisflat are flat Earthers doesn't mean I agree with literally everything he says)
    namemcname
  • @DawnBringerRiven

    "Flat Earth is the definition of psuedoscience. Flat earther's question the validity of current science, so they make up their own to fit their political agenda and retro fit their arguments specifically to refute current science instead of trying to find out the true truth as FEarthers claim to be attempting to do"

    This has literaly nothing to do with politics. To refute current science? You mean to show NASA admitting to faking images? Also, taking the time to do research into the flat Earth instead of just shooting your mouth off about what you were told as school isn't "psuedoscience".

    " By attempting to refute the globe shape as they claim is based on shaky evidence, they end up creating scientific laws for themselves based on even shakier evidence. One FE claimed that an eclipse is caused by an invisible object named rakha, but also used the fact that black holes aren't visible so believing in black holes is "rediculous" as they said. "

    So, your rebuttal to Rahu (not "Rakha") is @Erfisflat saying black holes don't exist? Wow. Not only is this a cherry picking fallacy (ignoring the proof I showed of rahu existing), but this is also a red herring fallacy (black holes have nothing to do with the conversation) .

    "The FEs I see are always passive aggressive and easily provoked even when they claim to be taking the high ground"

    So, calling an admitted troll a troll vs

    ""Yes I seriously said that. Yes I think mountains are curvature"
    "Refusal to provide evidence of my claim or address an opposition's argument against my claim means I'm a liar? You sure you want to take that position? ROFL"
    "And now you know my intentions... this is why I quit coming here I don't understand the simplest concepts."
    "I insulted you""

    Which one is more easily provoked now?

    "This is because they clearly do not care about the truth but more upholding their personal beliefs and opinions. FEs also very commonly used pictures as evidence even though they claim images are not to be used as evidence as "there are pictures of unicorns and King Kong." This is an obvious display of confirmation bias."

    You know how I mentioned earlier NASA admitting to faking images of the Earth?

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

    "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17."

    The moon landings have been proved fakes too, even some entry level globers like you admit it.
    I wouldn't mind an explanation from @Coveny and @DawnBringerRiven on what fallacy I used here, other than having a different opinion, thanks, then I can answer your basic questions...
    "NASA admitting to faking images" - This is a strawman fallacy. NASA didn't admit to faking images, NASA explained that the images are a composition of several smaller images. So you are misrepresenting NASA position.

    "black holes don't exist" is another strawman.

    Calling me a troll is name calling and the dehumanization fallacy

    Lastly your quotes of me are the Contextomy fallacy.

    Deletes incoming in 3 .... 2 .... 1....
  • @SilverishGoldNova
    If that's a serious answer, where did the dome come from and what is it made from?
    Have any planes or boats ever crashed into it?
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 19 Premium Member
    @Coveny ;
    "NASA admitting to faking images" - This is a strawman fallacy. NASA didn't admit to faking images, NASA explained that the images are a composition of several smaller images. So you are misrepresenting NASA position." My question is why an $18 BN a year company that allegedly has brought humanity beyond the solar system must now.... take scans of the Earth and put them in photoshop.
    ""black holes don't exist" is another strawman." Dawn was originally implying that Erfisflat said people were stupid if they "believed" in black holes (as his rebuttal to Rahu), so if anyone is using a strawman its him.
    "Calling me a troll is name calling and the dehumanization fallacy" dehumanization. "dehumanization"
    "Lastly your quotes of me are the Contextomy fallacy." Ya know, after the posts containing those quotes were deleted or I deleted most of your insults in the other thread you are now denying it ever happened.
    namemcname
  • CovenyCoveny 394 Pts
    edited September 19
    Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    @SilverishGoldNova it's not a refute because you don't "accept" pictures as proof. So it's just an insult... so ya it's spam. 
    thats actually sorta funny but I must ask, how do you define "spam"? I
    I'll go with Oxford's definition "Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc".

    Since when is an argument you don't understand malware?
     
    I have no problem understanding your argument, but even if I did that's not a requirement of:

    irrelevant messages sent over the internet to a large number of users for the purposes of advertising your beliefs.

    I get you have trouble understanding things, so you change others positions to make it something you can easily argue against and "defeat", but don't think I'm not going to call you out on that BS.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 19 Premium Member
    Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    @SilverishGoldNova it's not a refute because you don't "accept" pictures as proof. So it's just an insult... so ya it's spam. 
    thats actually sorta funny but I must ask, how do you define "spam"? I
    I'll go with Oxford's definition "Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc".

    Since when is an argument you don't understand malware?
     
    I have no problem understanding your argument, but even if I did that's not a requirement of:

    Irrelevant messages sent over the internet to a large number of users for the purposes of advertising your beliefs.

    I get you have trouble understanding things, so you change others positions to make it something you can easily argue against and "defeat", but don't think I'm not going to call you out on that BS.
    So now creating an argument and a debate for a flat Earth is advertising? Everyone, This Fine Gentleman Who Needs To Step Up His Arguments has just discreetly called me stupid after calling debate "advertising" *cue audience laughter*
    Erfisflatnamemcname
  • My question is why an $18 BN a year company that allegedly has brought humanity beyond the solar system must now.... take scans of the Earth and put them in photoshop.
    Now you misdirect rather than addressing or admitting to the fallacy you presented

    Dawn was originally implying that Erfisflat said people were stupid if they "believed" in black holes (as his rebuttal to Rahu), so if anyone is using a strawman its him.
    Now you move the goal posts. It's not that Dawn said it, it's that he "implied" it.

    dehumanization. "dehumanization"
    Point stands unrefuted

    Ya know, after the posts containing those quotes were deleted or I deleted most of your insults in the other thread you are now denying it ever happened.
    I have not and did not deny insulting you, you are strawman'ing my position ... again 
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 19 Premium Member
    Coveny said:
    My question is why an $18 BN a year company that allegedly has brought humanity beyond the solar system must now.... take scans of the Earth and put them in photoshop.
    "Now you misdirect rather than addressing or admitting to the fallacy you presented"
    Point stands unrefuted, answer my question instead of just dismissing it a fallacy

    Dawn was originally implying that Erfisflat said people were stupid if they "believed" in black holes (as his rebuttal to Rahu), so if anyone is using a strawman its him.
    "Now you move the goal posts. It's not that Dawn said it, it's that he "implied" it."
    You know with you, I have noticed the tiniest of things must be dissected for you and that 1 word can completely redirect the conversation.

    dehumanization. "dehumanization"
    "Point stands unrefuted"
    Explain how me calling you a troll is dehumanization.


    Ya know, after the posts containing those quotes were deleted or I deleted most of your insults in the other thread you are now denying it ever happened.
    "I have not and did not deny insulting you, you are strawman'ing my position ... again" 
    You did and now you're just calling it a fallacy if I bring it up
    @Coveny
    namemcname
  • Okay. So what exactly is the Flat Earth, if not a disk (meaning it would have an edge)? If we're talking about an infinite plane, then would this mean I can go straight forever? If it's an infinite plane, will I eventually reach my house if I choose one direction and go straight?
    Image result for Dome and firmament

    This is a dome, which is we travelers don't "fall off the edge all the time"


    Is that a real picture of the dome or CGI?


    Coveny
  • Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    @SilverishGoldNova it's not a refute because you don't "accept" pictures as proof. So it's just an insult... so ya it's spam. 
    thats actually sorta funny but I must ask, how do you define "spam"? I
    I'll go with Oxford's definition "Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc".

    Since when is an argument you don't understand malware?
     
    I have no problem understanding your argument, but even if I did that's not a requirement of:

    Irrelevant messages sent over the internet to a large number of users for the purposes of advertising your beliefs.

    I get you have trouble understanding things, so you change others positions to make it something you can easily argue against and "defeat", but don't think I'm not going to call you out on that BS.
    So now creating an argument and a debate for a flat Earth is advertising? Everyone, This Fine Gentleman Who Needs To Step Up His Arguments has just discreetly called me stupid after calling debate "advertising" *cue audience laughter*
    Didn't call you stupid, said you have trouble understanding things. Yet another strawman/misquote. 

    But I have called you stupid in the past, as a for the record thing, so you should know that if I feel like using the term toward you I'll neither imply or be "discreet" about it.

    Also you have no grasp of what advertising is. You are selling the flat earth model and you want people to buy into it. You are doing so by "spreading the word" just like every other theist who believes this crap. (and no I didn't call you a theist, I said you were like a theist... I clarify this because I KNOW you will misrepresent me on this)
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Coveny said:
    My question is why an $18 BN a year company that allegedly has brought humanity beyond the solar system must now.... take scans of the Earth and put them in photoshop.
    "Now you misdirect rather than addressing or admitting to the fallacy you presented"
    Point stands unrefuted, answer my question instead of just dismissing it a fallacy
    Correct MY point stand unrefuted, and rather than address it you have moved off in another direction.

    Dawn was originally implying that Erfisflat said people were stupid if they "believed" in black holes (as his rebuttal to Rahu), so if anyone is using a strawman its him.
    Now you move the goal posts. It's not that Dawn said it, it's that he "implied" it.
    You know with you, I have noticed the tiniest of things must be dissected for you and that 1 word can completely redirect the conversation.
    Nothing added to the debate from insults, MY point stands..

    dehumanization. "dehumanization"
    Point stands unrefuted
    Explain how me calling you a troll is dehumanization.
    As you are confused about this and don't understand. Trolls are not humans.

    Ya know, after the posts containing those quotes were deleted or I deleted most of your insults in the other thread you are now denying it ever happened.
    I have not and did not deny insulting you, you are strawman'ing my position ... again 
    You did and now you're just calling it a fallacy if I bring it up
    I did not call it a fallacy for "bringing it up". You aren't addressing my point, or MY position. Point stands unrefuted


    SilverishGoldNovanamemcname
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    My question is why an $18 BN a year company that allegedly has brought humanity beyond the solar system must now.... take scans of the Earth and put them in photoshop.
    "Now you misdirect rather than addressing or admitting to the fallacy you presented"
    Point stands unrefuted, answer my question instead of just dismissing it a fallacy
    "Correct MY point stand unrefuted, and rather than address it you have moved off in another direction."
    Could you just answer it, and stop with your deflection/reflection fallacy?

    Dawn was originally implying that Erfisflat said people were stupid if they "believed" in black holes (as his rebuttal to Rahu), so if anyone is using a strawman its him.
    "Now you move the goal posts. It's not that Dawn said it, it's that he "implied" it."
    You know with you, I have noticed the tiniest of things must be dissected for you and that 1 word can completely redirect the conversation.
    "Nothing added to the debate from insults, MY point stands.."
    So, is it a strawman or insults we're talking about? Gish gallop fallacy.

    dehumanization. "dehumanization"
    "Point stands unrefuted"
    Explain how me calling you a troll is dehumanization.
    "As you are confused about this and don't understand. Trolls are not humans."
    I didn't know you lived under a bridge. Which one? Ya know maybe I was exaggerating *before* when I said you admitted to being a troll, but now you're making it just so damn obvious. 

    Ya know, after the posts containing those quotes were deleted or I deleted most of your insults in the other thread you are now denying it ever happened.
    "I have not and did not deny insulting you, you are strawman'ing my position ... again" 
    You did and now you're just calling it a fallacy if I bring it up
    "I did not call it a fallacy for "bringing it up". You aren't addressing my point, or MY position. Point stands unrefuted"
    I've brought it up multiple times and each time its just "fulluci"



    namemcname
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    Coveny said:
    @SilverishGoldNova it's not a refute because you don't "accept" pictures as proof. So it's just an insult... so ya it's spam. 
    thats actually sorta funny but I must ask, how do you define "spam"? I
    I'll go with Oxford's definition "Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc".

    Since when is an argument you don't understand malware?
     
    I have no problem understanding your argument, but even if I did that's not a requirement of:

    Irrelevant messages sent over the internet to a large number of users for the purposes of advertising your beliefs.

    I get you have trouble understanding things, so you change others positions to make it something you can easily argue against and "defeat", but don't think I'm not going to call you out on that BS.
    So now creating an argument and a debate for a flat Earth is advertising? Everyone, This Fine Gentleman Who Needs To Step Up His Arguments has just discreetly called me stupid after calling debate "advertising" *cue audience laughter*
    Didn't call you stupid, said you have trouble understanding things. Yet another strawman/misquote. 

    But I have called you stupid in the past, as a for the record thing, so you should know that if I feel like using the term toward you I'll neither imply or be "discreet" about it.

    Also you have no grasp of what advertising is. You are selling the flat earth model and you want people to buy into it. You are doing so by "spreading the word" just like every other theist who believes this crap. (and no I didn't call you a theist, I said you were like a theist... I clarify this because I KNOW you will misrepresent me on this)

    Mhm, well, atleast you're admitting it now, after trying to deny it... again...

    "Also you have no grasp of what advertising is. You are selling the flat earth model and you want people to buy into it. You are doing so by "spreading the word" just like every other theist who believes this crap. (and no I didn't call you a theist, I said you were like a theist... I clarify this because I KNOW you will misrepresent me on this)"

    So after directly calling me a theist (which is unrelated to the topic we're discussing, aka the flat Earth), you're now saying you said I was "like a theist" Ahem... and by the way, could you also explain witch burnings which you also think is relevant to the flat Earth?

    So you're going to compare debating the flat Earth to buying and selling and advertising? Yep... troll.



    Erfisflatnamemcname

  • Mhm, well, atleast you're admitting it now, after trying to deny it... again...

    "Also you have no grasp of what advertising is. You are selling the flat earth model and you want people to buy into it. You are doing so by "spreading the word" just like every other theist who believes this crap. (and no I didn't call you a theist, I said you were like a theist... I clarify this because I KNOW you will misrepresent me on this)"

    So after directly calling me a theist (which is unrelated to the topic we're discussing, aka the flat Earth), you're now saying you said I was "like a theist" Ahem... and by the way, could you also explain witch burnings which you also think is relevant to the flat Earth?

    So you're going to compare debating the flat Earth to buying and selling and advertising? Yep... troll.
    Didn't deny it.

    Didn't "directly" call you a theist.

    Theist is the bases of flat earth, so it is related.

    You are like a theist.

    Witch burning is an example (like flat earth) of theist passing off the bible as "facts"

    And rather than addressing the debate you revert back to insults/name calling again. Your next move is "I already addressed that", "I totally won", and "whatever you accuse me of doing... YOU DO THAT!"
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Coveny which bridge do you live under, since apparently calling you a troll is dehumanization fallacy?
    Erfisflatnamemcname
  • @Coveny which bridge do you live under, since apparently calling you a troll is dehumanization fallacy?
    You tried to dehumanize me. Why are you still digging, still insulting me, and still NOT debating me. I think we both know that's because your position is weak so you would rather draw me into an insult war where you can justify deleting everything. 
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovanamemcname
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Can you also show what this dome is made of and where it was discovered?
    http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4528/#Comment_4528
    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.

  • anyways...

    - The explanation for water not draining off the edges of the flat Earth are either that there is a giant, encompassing wall surrounding it or there is is a giant, encompassing dome covering it.

    -Nobody has ever seen this wall or the dome, there have never been any reports of anyone flying or sailing in to either of them. There, apparently, has never even been a quest to reach this great barrier (which would make it the new final frontier), even though doing so would bring fame and fortune.

    -There are photos, videos and even live feeds from the space station (I have one on my phone right now) which all show the Earth to be pretty spherical, but these must all be elaborate hoaxes (what would be the gain from this? What benefit would outweigh the astronomical cost of such an elaborate, orchestrated hoax?)
    @SilverishGoldNova, you yourself have posted a photo showing the curvature and asked us to explain it (!?!)


    In short, irrefutable evidence of some humongous barrier surrounding the flat Earth, would be rather easy to come by and would make the responsible party rather famous and rich.
    Fooling the global population for centuries that the Earth is (mostly) spherical would be pretty much an impossible task to keep up for so long (the effort to do so escalating along the ages, with each technological advance) and the cost would be unfathomable.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 20 Premium Member
    "- The explanation for water not draining off the edges of the flat Earth are either that there is a giant, encompassing wall surrounding it or there is is a giant, encompassing dome covering it."

    My explanation for water not draining off the edges of the flat Earth is that the water freezes. (Because it is not as close to the sun's path) Antarctica is the far limits of our earth, and it is protected by the longest lasting worldwide treaty, the Antarctic Treaty. Maybe they're protecting us, maybe there's a dome, who knows, who cares! It's a red herring. Even if I had pictures of the edge 

     

    http://bfy.tw/E1Ha

    how would anyone know if it was a painting, or CGI? It's currently only verifiable by a very few. If you can never verify an image, it's not infallible evidence. For instance:

    The soon to be former, and least evidenced model of the earth.


    And of course, the short lived Shark kitty, God rest his soul.

    Let's not forget this "fact"



    "-Nobody has ever seen this wall or the dome, there have never been any reports of anyone flying or sailing in to either of them. There, apparently, has never even been a quest to reach this great barrier
    (which would make it the new final frontier), even though doing so would bring fame and fortune."

    This is a false presumption. 

    http://bfy.tw/E1Kh


    Coveny
    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.

  • Not only do NASA pictures show us that the earth is an oblate spheroid, we can see that the earth is not flat because any layman can go outside and see the International Space Station passing over their location. On many occasions, it can be seen to pass over twice in 92 minutes (The ISS's orbital period). If the earth was flat, the ISS would not return back around the other side of the earth.
    CovenySilverishGoldNovaErfisflat
  • Erfisflat said:
    "The main problem with the flat Earth being "empirically observed" is that they are usually normal citizens without access the technology to actually effectively study the earth"

    False. All that is needed to effectively study the earth is a good camera and a body of water. Bodies of water must usually be over a mile to notice any (lack of) curvature, but everything is from 6 miles to upwards of 150 miles have been measured and recorded, and all of it is flat (as common sense tells us).
    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.
    "They don't have access to space shuttles, helicopters, aircrafts that can travel tens of thousands of feet in the air, actual means of traveling and observing the earth."

    First of all these things are not needed to measure the earth, as noted above. Second, pilots have come forth saying the earth is flat.


    As I have stated above, you can not just take their word for it. It is the same as taking nasa's word for something.
    Third, flat earthers have launched weather balloons tens of thousands of feet in the air, and it is flat.


    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.
    "They are highly restricted to basically a camera in their backyard, telescopes, and google images and Wikipedia and then ultimately mere speculation."

    The math doesn't lie. It is not speculation to state facts. Water, in all measurable circumstance, is flat. Speculation would be what you are doing, stating there is curved water where there isn't. From any point on earth, assuming it is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the earth, especially water, must curve down 8 inches per square mile over any given distance. This has been proven false repeatedly with irrefutable, verifiable, testable evidence that anyone can perform.
    Fact is, the only ones "restricted" are globetards. They rely solely on 2nd hand evidence having faith in men from the government, and accept it without question, even denying their own basic common senses.
    What if the Earth is not 25,000 miles in circumstance? Have you measured the earth yourself to come to this number? 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. Only the surface of water in an open container is flat. But even then there are waves and what have you that affect the appearance of the surface of water. Water changes form depending on its container. This does not mean "in all measurable circumstances."
    "These methods are not accurate enough to support building up a new field of science."

    Please state WHY the experimentation is not accurate. One need only a good telescopic camera, a body of water, a map and a clear day (assuming they have a basic knowledge of spherical geometry) to test the globe.
    Air balloons can only travel so high before you run out of oxygen. The average civilian does not have the funds to travel the planet so they can properly measure it for themselves. You can not measure the entirety of the earth with your eyes, cameras, and rulers.
    "They have gauges that show your aircraft's position in relation to the horizon and the pilot constantly makes slight adjustments in their direction."

    This is a false statement with no evidence. I've already shown one pilot who contradicts this baseless claim, have spoken with a few pilots myself on the matter, so we're going to need something more substantial than just you're saying so. A pilot travelling the average commercial speed of 500mph must descend about 46 feet per minute. As most passengers would no doubt notice this declination, and "slight adjustments " would not be enough, it is entirely plausible to say that pilots obtain cruising altitude and level off for the flight, there is also what's called the angle of attack, which means pilots angle upwards during flights to maintain altitude. 


    There is also the fact that gyroscopes mounted in the attitude indicator do not roll back during flights, providing yet another conclusive piece of evidence for a flat stationary earth.
    Google "attitude indicator". Not altitude. Just because you have not heard of something does not mean it doesn't exist. Also as I have stated before, 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. Now, people would be able to notice a 46ft difference in altitude under certain circumstances. If you are in a biplane for example, it is very easy to notice a 46 ft drop or climb. Because the plane is small, you can feel the plane's movements as you are sitting very close to it's center of mass. The forces on the plane affect you more. However in an airliner the hull itself is 46ft in length alone If not longer. It's center of mass is not as small so the forces acting on the plane are distributed more because of the higher surface area of the plane therefore, the net forces acting on the plane don't affect you as effectively. Also the clouds greatly obscure your vision of the ground so it becomes even harder to observe an altitude change if it is a cloudy day. Summary: imagine yourself suspended 10 thousand feet in the air. You drop 20 inches, you won't be able to observe the difference. Now you are suspended ten feet in the air. You drop 20 inches again, and you will easily notice the altitude change. This is very dumbed down but I hope it still gets my point across. You will be able to notice under certain circumstances. 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. 


    "In a globe earth, the ocean's curvature change is so minute that it cannot be observed with the naked eye."

    False. Your vagueness is evidence that you have no clue how much a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference is supposed to curve away over a given distance. Globetards often use terms like "so big" as a means of making the globe earth unfalsifiable. That is the definition of pseudoscience. 


    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.
    "You need to be able to observe the Earth from outer space to see this curvature, but of course Flat Earthers do not have the ability to leave the planet to be able to directly observe this."

    And of course, neither do you. Seeing that neither of us has been nor will ever go to space, we must take a government organization's word for it. Now that many of us know that if the government were in charge of the desert there'd be a shortage of sand (untrustworthy), finding other means of falsifying the globe is the only route left. If there are discrepancies with the individual experimentation being performed, pointing that out would be a valid point, but in essence, neither of us has been to space, so it's a moot point.
    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?
    "Also in the globe earth science, every object is pulled toward the middle of the planet. This causes water to ultimately be wrapped around the planet, like glazing on a donut hole."

    This is a pseudoscientific claim. It has never been observed on any scale. Not ever in any experiment EVER has a body of water conformed to the exterior of it's container.
    If it was never observed it wouldn't be apart of science. I never claimed water conforms to the outside of a container. And as I have stated above, the earth itself is not a container. The ocean is not inside of the Earth. Water and the surface of water levels out on the outside of the earth, or the surface of the Earth. Please properly address my claims instead of calling them psuedoscience and completely dismissing them. I know I called FE psuedoscience, but I did not dismiss entirely any of your arguments.
    "People have also seen the Earth as a ball as you claim they haven't."

    For a six figure salary, I'd say I went to the moon and saw the earth as a ball too. Of course I'd have to swear the oath of secrecy, etc. 
    This is irrelevant. For a six figure salary, I would also claim the Earth is flat.
    "The people that visited the moon have seen the planet as a ball"

    Where is the evidence for this claim?

    "The people that have been on the ISS have seen Earth as a ball, and so will the people traveling to Mars. But to this I'm sure you will simply claim to be false"

    I'm not just claiming, I've proved the earth to be both motionless and flat, so of course the ISS is a hoax.
    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.
    " I have never heard of this object before. I can not imagine how something can both be invisible and cast a shadow at the same time. "

    I'm sure there are many things which you don't know. 
    Literally every single person on the planet has many things they don't know. I understand my point here may be irrelevant.


    But you'll believe this without a shred of practical evidence backing it.  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.
    Now I have clarified my points. 
    Coveny
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 20 Premium Member
    subdeo said:
    Not only do NASA pictures show us that the earth is an oblate spheroid, we can see that the earth is not flat because any layman can go outside and see the International Space Station passing over their location. On many occasions, it can be seen to pass over twice in 92 minutes (The ISS's orbital period). If the earth was flat, the ISS would not return back around the other side of the earth.
    It is likely the ISS is simply a U2 Plane. Even then it is possible at certain angles to see the Earth as flat in the livestream and NASA has admitted on multiple occassions their images of the Earth are fake
    namemcnameCoveny
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Coveny said:

    Mhm, well, atleast you're admitting it now, after trying to deny it... again...

    "Also you have no grasp of what advertising is. You are selling the flat earth model and you want people to buy into it. You are doing so by "spreading the word" just like every other theist who believes this crap. (and no I didn't call you a theist, I said you were like a theist... I clarify this because I KNOW you will misrepresent me on this)"

    So after directly calling me a theist (which is unrelated to the topic we're discussing, aka the flat Earth), you're now saying you said I was "like a theist" Ahem... and by the way, could you also explain witch burnings which you also think is relevant to the flat Earth?

    So you're going to compare debating the flat Earth to buying and selling and advertising? Yep... troll.
    Didn't deny it.

    Didn't "directly" call you a theist.

    Theist is the bases of flat earth, so it is related.

    You are like a theist.

    Witch burning is an example (like flat earth) of theist passing off the bible as "facts"

    And rather than addressing the debate you revert back to insults/name calling again. Your next move is "I already addressed that", "I totally won", and "whatever you accuse me of doing... YOU DO THAT!"
    Sorry to remind you but we can actually look back and see what you said. Also, if calling you a troll is "dehumanization" then which bridge do you live under because it is so damn obvious you're just a bad troll at this point.
    namemcnameCoveny
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @SilverishGoldNova
    If that's a serious answer, where did the dome come from and what is it made from?
    Have any planes or boats ever crashed into it?
    Who knows what its made of, and yep






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