frame

Proof of a small and close sun

Opening Argument

edited September 27 in Earth Science

Image result for Proof of a small and close sun



northsouthkoreasubdeofeaErfisflat
  1. How far away is the sun?

    8 votes
    1. 93,000,000 MILES AWAY BECAUSE NASA TOLD ME
      62.50%
    2. Around 3,000-5,000 Miles
      37.50%
 

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • The sun can not be 3,000 to 5,000 miles away. 

    Aruments -
    1) Their would be too much radiation if the sun was 3,000 to 5,000 miles away. This may not have spurred human life and many not support human life.
    2) The solar system has been mapped or partially mapped.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • edited September 27
    Oh yes, the most effective and convincing way to make an argument. Solely through the use of memes. Surely, there is no better alternative to present an argument.
    SilverishGoldNova

  • loading...


  • WakeWake 121 Pts
    So your way of presenting an argument is to ignore pictures of the Earth from everything from satellites to the International Space Station. Now there's a real argument. Like those that claim the CIA blew up the World Trade Centers ignoring the pictures of the aircraft striking the buildings.
    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflat
  • edited September 27
    The sun can not be 3,000 to 5,000 miles away. 

    Aruments -
    1) Their would be too much radiation if the sun was 3,000 to 5,000 miles away. This may not have spurred human life and many not support human life.
    2) The solar system has been mapped or partially mapped.

    The solar system has been mapped? What you think is space is just the firmament. Simple as that. "There would be too much radiation". I just proved the sun is not only small, but close. What more do you need?
    Oh yes, the most effective and convincing way to make an argument. Solely through the use of memes. Surely, there is no better alternative to present an argument.
    Would you like to address these images instead of dismissing them as false because they have text in them (which you are dismissing as solely as memes, strawman and cherry picking fallacy). Otherwise you may continue with your appeal to the stone that you are adding to the list.
     Wake said:
    So your way of presenting an argument is to ignore pictures of the Earth from everything from satellites to the International Space Station. Now there's a real argument. Like those that claim the CIA blew up the World Trade Centers ignoring the pictures of the aircraft striking the buildings.

    We aren't even discussing NASA photos nor 9/11 (double red herring fallacy), but those have been debunked. NASA has admitted several times to faking images of the Earth, yet they won't admit that they faked the moon landings. However, there is proof of that too.

    The moon landings

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html "The last time anyone took a real photo of Earth"
    fea
     
  • subdeosubdeo 15 Pts
    edited September 27
    The sun only looks lower in the first set of pictures because of the angle of the picture. An amateur could tell you that. Also, the one above the clouds was probably taken later in the day, when the sun is at a lower angle.
      The other sets of pictures are of crepuscular rays that appear to converge just beyond the clouds, thus "proving" the sun is very near. This is not the case, however. First, this is because because crepuscular rays are actually parallel (look it up) and never converge. It just looks like they do because the beginnings are farther away. You can see this effect on railroad tracks, where the rails appear to converge in the distance.
        Secondly, the distance indicated by the rays (assuming they are parallel) are not consistent with the distance claimed by the flat earthers. The distance would be even <1 mile.
  • edited September 27
    @Subdeo Would you like to explain what fallacy I used, besides you backing up your buddies when I marked their Appeal to the Stone, Strawman, Cherry Picking, and Red Herring fallacies?
     


    fea
     
  • I never dismissed anything. I was simply saying something I thought of as humorous
    SilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 811 Pts
    edited September 28
    I'll not pretend to know how far away the sun is, but is a lot closer to the second choice than the first. Let's look at some of the images without preconceived notions. If you can't see this without bias, there's no reason to be here. It's called thinking for yourself. Anyone can do a Google search and parrot off what they're told. It takes critical thinking to find out the truth.




    The railroad tracks in the first picture, we know are parallel. The obvious difference is that the lines are receding from the observer, unlike the second set of lines, the right side going straight down, the lines on the left going away from the point of entry in the clouds. So that argument could be considered somewhat valid if we were to post an image such as this:


    We know for sure that the sun isn't just on the other side of the trees. We can see this difference in this simple experiment that anyone can perform with items from around the house.


    An observer standing at the ground level of the right picture (assuming he were about 2 inches tall) would see receding parallel lines.

    @subdeo
    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.

  • NopeNope 158 Pts
    SilverishGoldNova I looked at your pictures and scene I no little about you, you are a unreliable source. So yea I don't trust you (no offence) but it is important to no where you got your information.
  • edited November 4
    @Nope Ah, you're curious to where I got the information from is that correct? I do agree that it is good to know where an image comes from, for example sources like NASA are demonstrably unreliable, so we can't trust those. And I'm talking demonstrably unreliable, not "dunt trhsut randum cunthspiritihy thaurust vids lul trus nasa". So, thats what you mean right?
     
  • NopeNope 158 Pts
    SilverishGoldNova I mean where did you get your information? And yes don't trust random conspiracy.
  • @Nope Well, in order for me not to trust the "random conspiracy" videos, you need to first explain how these "random conspiracy videos" are invalid, using a point besides "dont trust conspiracy videos". Unfortunately YouTube deleted many flat Earth channels and videos back in January, so I cannot find the original sources. However, there are reuploads, would you like the reuploads? 
     
  • NopeNope 158 Pts
    SilverishGoldNova I mean are they just trolling or uneducated and not knowing what they are talking about. Or do they know what they are talking about and are legitimate and valid. Many show no siegns of reliability : )
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| 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