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

1457910

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • Those videos don't really show anything of value that would prove your point. If there was an actual barrier surrounded a flat Earth, it would be very easy to visit (as long as you had access to a suitable craft). Boats and cameras have been around for centuries, there should be hundreds of thousands of accounts of people reaching the barrier, paintings/tapestries/poems about it, not to mention the overwhelming amount of photographs there should be of it.
    Instead you're relying on videos of rockets gradually self destructing (rather than impacting on something) and sketchy conspiracy fan vids which deliver no goods. 
    CovenySilverishGoldNova
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Those videos don't really show anything of value that would prove your point. If there was an actual barrier surrounded a flat Earth, it would be very easy to visit (as long as you had access to a suitable craft). Boats and cameras have been around for centuries, there should be hundreds of thousands of accounts of people reaching the barrier, paintings/tapestries/poems about it, not to mention the overwhelming amount of photographs there should be of it.
    Instead you're relying on videos of rockets gradually self destructing (rather than impacting on something) and sketchy conspiracy fan vids which deliver no goods. 

    With the antarctic treaty (which was created shortly after NASA was founded), civillians were effectively banned from Antarctica with the exception of carefully guided tours. But regardless there have been multiple accounts of an ice wall or dome. And do you have anything to say about the last one, besides "ura cunthpirici thurust"?


    Covenyfea
  • @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".
    "Literally nothing to do with politics" You have said multiple times that the government is faking globe earth and spreading globe Earth propoganda. What the government does has to do with politics. Those images simply had clouds added on to them. Why are you trusting what NAsA says in the first place? And yes, proving a flat Earth is refuting current science. It is against accepted knowledge.
    " 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) .
    No. It is not a rebuttal. It is me showing a clear contradiction of logic. Erfisflat claimed black holes don't exist since you cannot see them, and then claims that a gigantic invisible object exists. I was simply pointing out a contradiction, not making a rebuttal/argument.
    "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
    No. I admitted to disagreeing with a Flat Earther and then being met with complete rage and an array of insults.
    ""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?
    Huh? I never said any of this.
    "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
    They only claimed to be faking the clouds.
    "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."
    I never said this.
    The moon landings have been proved fakes too, even some entry level globers like you admit it.
    No they haven't. You just simply claimed them to be proven fake.
    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... Now you can.

    CovenySilverishGoldNova
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 20 Premium Member
    @DawnBringerRiven Lets just start a brand new chain shall we, so I get the bold lol

    Literally nothing to do with politics" You have said multiple times that the government is faking globe earth and spreading globe Earth propoganda. What the government does has to do with politics. Those images simply had clouds added on to them. Why are you trusting what NAsA says in the first place? And yes, proving a flat Earth is refuting current science. It is against accepted knowledge.

    So because I mentioned the NASA several times, this is now a political debate? Your fallacy is:



    Why not tell me if you voted for either of the puppets, and if so which one, since I mentioned NASA afterall?

    If were are talking about the Earth being flat or not
    , we're talking about Science. If were are talking about say Conservatism, Liberalism, Anarchism, Etc, we're discussing politics. Learn the difference. 


    No. It is not a rebuttal. It is me showing a clear contradiction of logic. Erfisflat claimed black holes don't exist since you cannot see them, and then claims that a gigantic invisible object exists. I was simply pointing out a contradiction, not making a rebuttal/argument.

    Did you leave even look at the proof I showed you, or are you just ignoring it? Go back and read the whole debate then come back to me.

    No. I admitted to disagreeing with a Flat Earther and then being met with complete rage and an array of insults.

    ???

    Huh? I never said any of this.

    You're not the fine gentleman who needs to step up your arguments, otherwise I wouldn't be responding to you

    They only claimed to be faking the clouds.

    "The last time anyone took a photo"... yeah no. Also, if you go on their website you will notice they say all of their pictures are either CGI or Paintings.

    I never said this.

    Wasn't directing that at you

    No they haven't. You just simply claimed them to be proven fake.

    http://debateisland.com/discussion/1218/the-moon-landings-were-faked Maybe instead of just reading the title then sticking by that, watch the video


    Covenyfea
  • edited September 20
    @DawnBringerRiven Lets just start a brand new chain shall we, so I get the bold lol

    Literally nothing to do with politics" You have said multiple times that the government is faking globe earth and spreading globe Earth propoganda. What the government does has to do with politics. Those images simply had clouds added on to them. Why are you trusting what NAsA says in the first place? And yes, proving a flat Earth is refuting current science. It is against accepted knowledge.

    So because I mentioned the NASA several times, this is now a political debate? Your fallacy is:



    Why not tell me if you voted for either of the puppets, and if so which one, since I mentioned NASA afterall?

    If were are talking about the Earth being flat or not
    , we're talking about Science. If were are talking about say Conservatism, Liberalism, Anarchism, Etc, we're discussing politics. Learn the difference. 


    No. It is not a rebuttal. It is me showing a clear contradiction of logic. Erfisflat claimed black holes don't exist since you cannot see them, and then claims that a gigantic invisible object exists. I was simply pointing out a contradiction, not making a rebuttal/argument.

    Did you leave even look at the proof I showed you, or are you just ignoring it? Go back and read the whole debate then come back to me.

    No. I admitted to disagreeing with a Flat Earther and then being met with complete rage and an array of insults.

    ???

    Huh? I never said any of this.

    You're not the fine gentleman who needs to step up your arguments, otherwise I wouldn't be responding to you

    They only claimed to be faking the clouds.

    "The last time anyone took a photo"... yeah no. Also, if you go on their website you will notice they say all of their pictures are either CGI or Paintings.

    I never said this.

    Wasn't directing that at you

    No they haven't. You just simply claimed them to be proven fake.

    http://debateisland.com/discussion/1218/the-moon-landings-were-faked Maybe instead of just reading the title then sticking by that, watch the video


    This is exactly why I didn't want to correct your statements. This is getting completely off topic. I do not understand why it matters if this debate is political or not. When I said political agenda, I basically just meant your opinions. That's it. Now that is true cherry picking. I don't understand why you also assume I am a resident of USA. Nonetheless, this is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. I am not going to spend the time reading through pages of other discussions for more details on your argument. If you want to present an argument, say it here. Copy and paste something from an earlier debate if you want. Now, you can make rebuttals to the arguments I made that were not just simply me correcting misconceptions on my wording.
    Coveny
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 20 Premium Member
    @DawnBringerRiven Regardless of where you live this is not a political debate. You could live in a volcano in the middle of the ocean and this wouldn't be a political debate. And apparently I also have to explain to you that we can look back and see what you said, so just denying it isnt gonna help you. You tried to argue that this was a political discussion and that I had a political agenda because I mentioned NASA and then now that I've called you out, now its a cherry picking fallacy? 

    Mhm.

    Makes sense

    You make perfect sense.

    I've been debating the flat Earth for months, most of the responses I got were just dismissing my claims as a fallacy without explaining it.

    But I do agree instead of you and your friend calling literaly everything I say a fallacy, then denying that you ever said that when I call you out, lets get back to debate.

    Could you explain this picture from 317,000 feet?



    And the midnight sun?

    fea
  • @SilverishGoldNova Im sure the reason you get called out for fallacies all the time is because you use just so damn many of them. And with you you're just insisting that they're gish galloping.
    CovenyErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • edited September 20
    Silver, I called it cherry picking because if I had just removed the word "political" in that sentence you wouldn't have wasted paragraphs on if this discussion is political or not. I did not change what I said, I merely clarified it. I meant your personal opinions. This debate being related to politics or not proves and disproves nothing. 
    Now, why are you still using images as arguments? If I had posted an image of the Earth being curved, you would just claim it to be fake and dismissed it entirely. Neither of us can actually prove if either of the images we find on random websites are true or faked. We don't know. We did not take them ourselves or witness them being taken. Also I don't know what portion of the Earth is in that photo. Even with a flat plank, there are small curves on the surface of the plank you can't see from distance. Even with a ball, it is not perfectly curved. There are always small flat surfaces on a ball not visible to our naked eyes. Also, this is clearly a picture of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not a solid, it is a gas. No matter what shape the atmosphere may be, that does not reflect the shape of what's inside the atmosphere. Now your second image is obviously fake. It's a wallpaper. It's a design made to look nice. I can't take art as proof that the Earth is flat. 
    Coveny
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    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.
    Actually NASA "pictures"(There aren't any) show a perfect sphere. Oblate spheroid is squashed.

    "any layman can go outside and see the International Space Station passing over their location" 

    This doesn't prove that the earth is a ball. 




    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.

  • @DawnBringerRiven I ran into the "we don't accept pictures as proof unless it proves what we want" and the "science isn't to be trusted unless it's something we agree with" before. I wish you better luck getting through it than I had...
    DawnBringerRiven
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 20 Premium Member
    Coveny said:
    @DawnBringerRiven I ran into the "we don't accept pictures as proof unless it proves what we want" and the "science isn't to be trusted unless it's something we agree with" before. I wish you better luck getting through it than I had...
    Right, as with you it ended with desperate ad homs and then bad trolling


    @DawnBringerRiven  Theres a difference between when you don't explain why an image is faked, and a company that admits to faking images

    "Now your second image is obviously fake. It's a wallpaper. It's a design made to look nice. I can't take art as proof that the Earth is flat. "

    They took several images at different times and put them together. You could get why they did it there. NASA claims they did it because either one guy didnt like the colors or they cant when they should be able to.
    Covenyfea
  • @Erfisflat your map (which you have admitted is flawed during our debate on flight times) is flat it doesn't portray a global path well.

    https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4f10dbba1695b821142a45632e109e4a

    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • Coveny said:
    @DawnBringerRiven I ran into the "we don't accept pictures as proof unless it proves what we want" and the "science isn't to be trusted unless it's something we agree with" before. I wish you better luck getting through it than I had...
    Right, as with you it ended with desperate ad homs and then bad trolling


    @DawnBringerRiven  Theres a difference between when you don't explain why an image is faked, and a company that admits to faking images

    "Now your second image is obviously fake. It's a wallpaper. It's a design made to look nice. I can't take art as proof that the Earth is flat. "

    They took several images at different times and put them together. You could get why they did it there. NASA claims they did it because either one guy didnt like the colors or they cant when they should be able to.
    There aren't any stars in the second picture. And the landscape changes between each picture. It is obviously fake. It is art. Have you ever seen the sun illuminate the sky like that at 2 in the morning? My concern about the existence of Rahu has still not been addressed, as well as my rebuttal to Erfisflat's argument. Please address those statements before presenting completely new arguments.

    Coveny
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 21 Premium Member
    Coveny said:
    @DawnBringerRiven I ran into the "we don't accept pictures as proof unless it proves what we want" and the "science isn't to be trusted unless it's something we agree with" before. I wish you better luck getting through it than I had...
    Right, as with you it ended with desperate ad homs and then bad trolling


    @DawnBringerRiven  Theres a difference between when you don't explain why an image is faked, and a company that admits to faking images

    "Now your second image is obviously fake. It's a wallpaper. It's a design made to look nice. I can't take art as proof that the Earth is flat. "

    They took several images at different times and put them together. You could get why they did it there. NASA claims they did it because either one guy didnt like the colors or they cant when they should be able to.
    There aren't any stars in the second picture. And the landscape changes between each picture. It is obviously fake. It is art. Have you ever seen the sun illuminate the sky like that at 2 in the morning? My concern about the existence of Rahu has still not been addressed, as well as my rebuttal to Erfisflat's argument. Please address those statements before presenting completely new arguments.

    What concern? How we can see it? Yep, you're trying to keep up the conversation by ignoring the picture. Again read through the whole debate then get back to me. Black holes are irrelevant to the existence of Rahu. But since you are apparently incapable of going back to page 1


    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i1z9CHB7dtQ/maxresdefault.jpg


    Covenyfea
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 21 Premium Member
    @DawnBringerRiven How about who knows why its visible? It's usually unseen but can be clearly seen in that picture and video. Also, I am not addressing your position on black holes because once again that is irrelevant to discussing Rahu.
    fea
  • edited September 21
    Once again, I am not talking about black holes. My argument against Rahu has nothing to do with black holes. My concern is this, if Rahu is invisible but casts a shadow at the same time (e.g. causing an eclipse), how is that possible? If something is invisible, that means light is traveling through it, like glass. A shadow is caused by light being blocked by an object. How can Rahu have light completely pass through it, but at the same time, completely block light? If you say that Rahu is visible during an eclipse, then a shadow should not be cast because in the video you provided, Rahu emits light. Therefore, it makes no sense that Rahu can cause eclipses.
    Coveny
  • Erfisflat said:
    "The mai itn 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. 
    If Erfisflat does not address these rebuttals, I will assume they have conceded to these statements.
    CovenyErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 21 Premium Member
    Once again, I am not talking about black holes. My argument against Rahu has nothing to do with black holes. My concern is this, if Rahu is invisible but casts a shadow at the same time (e.g. causing an eclipse), how is that possible? If something is invisible, that means light is traveling through it, like glass. A shadow is caused by light being blocked by an object. How can Rahu have light completely pass through it, but at the same time, completely block light? If you say that Rahu is visible during an eclipse, then a shadow should not be cast because in the video you provided, Rahu emits light. Therefore, it makes no sense that Rahu can cause eclipses.
    and the picture? The second picture in the other thing is the arctic sun btw. and I see coveny gave me another caution point
    Covenyfea
  • The picture of the atmosphere? Whether it is real or faked, it still proves and disproves nothing. It's a gas. The shape of the atmosphere does not have to be the same as the shape of its contents (e.g. land and the ocean). Even if the atmosphere is completely pizza flat, the earth can still be spherical, and vise versa.
    Also, I took the liberty to backwards search the second picture, and I have found that it is literally, a wall paper. https://imgur.com/a/EGJ1d

    Coveny
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 21 Premium Member
    The picture of the atmosphere? Whether it is real or faked, it still proves and disproves nothing. It's a gas. The shape of the atmosphere does not have to be the same as the shape of its contents (e.g. land and the ocean). Even if the atmosphere is completely pizza flat, the earth can still be spherical, and vise versa.
    Also, I took the liberty to backwards search the second picture, and I have found that it is literally, a wall paper. https://imgur.com/a/EGJ1d

    So the the sky and ocean can be perfectly flat like this
    Image result for 200 proofs the earth

    Image result for 317000 feet

    but the Earth can be a big ol ball? I thought we were able to see curvature at 35,000 feet, but none at 317,000 feet.

    And you aren't even trying to address the picture of Rahu I sent you, and are you saying Gas means the image above this proves nothing or that that is why Rahu appears which would make my earlier sentence incorrect, because either way ROFL wow... just wow. Are you conceeding now?




    DawnBringerRivenCovenyfeaErfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "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. 
    Covenyfea
    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.

  • The picture of the atmosphere? Whether it is real or faked, it still proves and disproves nothing. It's a gas. The shape of the atmosphere does not have to be the same as the shape of its contents (e.g. land and the ocean). Even if the atmosphere is completely pizza flat, the earth can still be spherical, and vise versa.
    Also, I took the liberty to backwards search the second picture, and I have found that it is literally, a wall paper. https://imgur.com/a/EGJ1d

    So the the sky and ocean can be perfectly flat like this
    Image result for 200 proofs the earth
    No. Flat does not mean two dimensional, if it did that would mean you are arguing that Earth is as flat as this picture. A flat shape can have things inside it, just like if you hallow out a flat cube or square or what have you, you can place objects inside it. I never specified the thickness of the atmosphere as it was only a hypothetical scenario meant to be used as an example.
    Image result for 317000 feet

    but the Earth can be a big ol ball? I thought we were able to see curvature at 35,000 feet, but none at 317,000 feet.
    35,000 feet you can still see the landscape and horizon. At 317,000 feet, you cannot see the land this way. The curvature you are speaking of relates to the horizon, but the horizon is not visible at this height.
    And you aren't even trying to address the picture of Rahu I sent you, and are you saying Gas means the image above this proves nothing or that that is why Rahu appears which would make my earlier sentence incorrect, because either way ROFL wow... just wow. Are you conceeding now?
    What picture of Rahu? I already addressed a video of it and you still have not addressed my rebuttal to that video. What difference would it make if addressed a picture if I have already addressed an alleged video of it?




    Again, I had to spend an entire comment correcting your misconceptions on my wording. I hope the debates between us do not end up being 80% me correcting your misconceptions of my arguments and only 20% of actual debate relating to the topic.

    SilverishGoldNovaCoveny
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Once again, I am not talking about black holes. My argument against Rahu has nothing to do with black holes. My concern is this, if Rahu is invisible but casts a shadow at the same time (e.g. causing an eclipse), how is that possible? If something is invisible, that means light is traveling through it, like glass. A shadow is caused by light being blocked by an object. How can Rahu have light completely pass through it, but at the same time, completely block light? If you say that Rahu is visible during an eclipse, then a shadow should not be cast because in the video you provided, Rahu emits light. Therefore, it makes no sense that Rahu can cause eclipses.
    You completely ignored the rebuttal I gave on this point. I showed you how an invisible object can block light.

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55833/what-causes-insects-to-cast-large-shadows-from-where-their-feet-are
    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.

  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 709 PtsPremium Member
    edited September 22 Premium Member
    @DawnBringerRiven So the reason we don't see curvature at that height is just because we can't?... I happily accept your concession.

    "What picture of Rahu? I already addressed a video of it and you still have not addressed my rebuttal to that video. What difference would it make if addressed a picture if I have already addressed an alleged video of it"

    A baseless theory about the video is not a rebuttal. Before you ramble on about images of a globe, well I already got that covered. You were first implying that Gas disproved the airplane picture, now the fact that its in the air disproves it?

    Which is not only a gish gallop, but a red herring and frankly... I feel like you're trolling.

    Edit: @Coveny thanks for the heads up, I specially designed my profile picture based on my experience with you, how does it look? What do you think of it @Erfisflat
    CovenyfeaErfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 658 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "but the horizon is not visible at this height."

    Sure looks like the horizon to me. Are you suggesting all that is just atmosphere? 
    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.

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