frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





The Earth is flat 4.0

124



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Because when I was on the equator last summer, i could totally tell I was moving at 1,600+ kph.
    If you woke up in a bed on a plane (with no windows) traveling at 200mph, you wouldn't know that you were moving. We don't feel the effects of constant velocity, we only feel the effects of acceleration.

    If I was on a plane with no windows travelling at 200 mph I would know that I was moving. 
    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 highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @JoePineapples
    I'm saying that GPS can alternately explained and is compatible with flat earth. Since USGS maintains these systems, (and control the data that is transmitted ) and technology has advanced tremendously since it's development in the 1940's, it is entirely plausible to say this technology, or an updated version of it, is still in use today. Especially since the earth is flat.

    http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4760

    And over $150 million has been allocated to it's continued developement.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2014-06/narins.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjJucXKhYfVAhUHKiYKHbZEAuoQFggeMAA&usg=AFQjCNHYOFvIoj56E4eQc9QhukuTASpFsA
    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 highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @JoePineapples
    I'm saying that GPS can alternately explained and is compatible with flat earth. Since USGS maintains these systems, (and control the data that is transmitted ) and technology has advanced tremendously since it's development in the 1940's, it is entirely plausible to say this technology, or an updated version of it, is still in use today. Especially since the earth is flat.

    http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4760

    And over $150 million has been allocated to it's continued developement.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2014-06/narins.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjJucXKhYfVAhUHKiYKHbZEAuoQFggeMAA&usg=AFQjCNHYOFvIoj56E4eQc9QhukuTASpFsA


    LOL, .. so if the "satellite-balloons" fall, they'll still have the ground based Flat Earth LORAN.

    Hey @Erfisflat check out this Navigation watch they had in the Old days: (scroll down to "Plus Fours RoutFinder") I would love to have one of those to show the kids.
    https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2014/11/before-gps-and-geocaching-existed-three-navigation-systems/
    Erfisflat
  • Well I think we've dealt with most of the fallacy lords @Erfisflat @Evidence . Any more takers or naaaah?
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    Well I think we've dealt with most of the fallacy lords @Erfisflat @Evidence . Any more takers or naaaah?

    Also I am genuinely happy C :trollface: veny hasn't joined the new debate yet. He's a troll with reading comprehension problems. Double annoyance
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    My argument isn't about the definition on level, or what word pilots use. That is your red herring. If you prefer to say perpendicular to the horizon, rather than nose down, we can say with that, either way, this has gotten extremely off topic

    Now you are persuing another strawman. We all know that when we say flat earth, we don't mean perfectly mathematically flat, we mean NOT A BALL. SR-71 Blackbird. You haven't even mentioned it in this rebuttal.

    Oh your argument is completely based on definitions, but you've just undermined your own argument and are now in a place where you now have to decide which of your two contradictory positions takes precedence. Why do you think I specifically said refusing to accept the dictionary definition of flat that I presented was sensible? It's because your entire argument falls apart if you do so!

    You argued that any usage of level could not possible include curved, because that's not the first definition of the word "level" that comes up in a dictionary and the dictionary takes precedence. Now you argue that despite the usage the "flat" in "flat earth" failing to meet the dictionary definition, we should reject the dictionary definition and look at the context to work out a sensible definition - exactly what I argued for previously in relation to "level" but you tried to argue against with your semantic argument.

    You are now expressing mutually contradictory views. So which is it, do we always apply the dictionary definition and reject common sense and the actual usage of words or not? You can't have one rule for yourself and another for people who disagree with you, that would be biased and hypocritical.

    PS: In relation to flight level, this is specific technical jargon that doesn't mean what you claim and would result in a curved flight path as someone travels round the world.

    As I stated, the SR-71 would out of necessity of a plane travelling at that speed over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, should be travelling nose down at a constant rate of 900 feet per second. This is my argument. 

    Now that you've had your way with that strawman, and are still ignoring the argument after a second time I pointed this out, I'll assume you concede.

    Your argument about pilots ignoring the curvature of the earth and flying off into space because you think they must robotically follow your definition of level rather than being able to think for themselves is reliant on your definition of level being right (as well as you know, at some point you actually supporting your claim with evidence). Therefore not only is this argument irrelevent until that argument is settled but as you seem to have just implicitly rejected your own argument as explained above I don't think it will last much longer..

    This is my position, and what you have described is an appeal to authority fallacy. You've decided to take men's word on something that you'll never be able to confirm. This is cult-like dogma. Nowhere in the definition of the scientific method does it say take another person's word as infallible. If it isn't rooted in the scientific method it is pseudoscience. These scientists may very well have performed the experiment and empirically validated the results, but all that you've empirically validated is reading their interpretations of the data, and assume that they are being truthful.

    Firstly there is argument whether an appeal to authority is actually a fallacy and "Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided as it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources,with some holding that it is a strong argument[ which "has a legitimate force" so before you can use an appeal to authority based argument you need to actually provide reasoning why we should believe your take on the appeal to authority fallacy.

    Secondly, this is VERY much a strawman argument you are making and an appeal to authority wouldn't apply here even if you did reason that appeals to authority are fallacious. I did not say we take scientists at their word as you claim, did I? I gave the example of reading their study in a scientific journal. If you aren't aware of how scientific journals and publican work this would be the results of a study or experiment that had been peer reviewed and presented in high detail to allow for independent checking of the results and the claims being verified. therefore it is not relying on someone's word but relying on high quality evidence so your suggestion is a strawman.

    Likewise, at no point did I suggest that scientific studies were infallible, rather the opposite point was made in fact. I was saying that we don't automatically reject experiments of others as empirical evidence just because  we have not personally conducted the experiment ourselves. There should be testing of ideas so we have multiple experiments confirming and refining each particular area of research but I think you'll find that there is nothing in the scientific method that expects you to reject all evidence as non-empirical until you have personally conducted an experiment verifying or rejecting it. It is your claim which is therefore pseudoscience and again you tried to strawman.

    Actually it does. Your cognitive dissonance has impaired your logical judgement. If I were to provide a picture of shark kitty......tell you it is a composite image of two images fused together in Photoshop, then call it scientific evidence for it's existence and think you daft for not believing he exists, AND letting you know you'll never get to verify his existence for whatever reason, you'd think I lacked any sense at all. This is your logic.

    Are you arguing that all images that are composites are untrustworthy? Please go to a google street view. They are all manipulated composite images but we would obviously not argue that the buildings and people don't exist so if the above is your logic then it is false and you have no point.

    Alternatively are you arguing that in that kitty shark as a particular example has some specific connection which makes it more analogous to NASA photographs than other composite images? If so you need to actually make an enlargement to support that then, though I don't know how you possible could.

    An image of shark kitty is two images joined together in such a way that they intentionally distort the image and give the appearance of an outlanddish freakish creature that does not exist in real live. This is not analogous to what NASA did and nothing they have stated they have said makes that claim, so I have no idea why you have brought it up.

    Google street view are multiple images switched together at the sides of the images to allow a greater field of view, giving you more information than you could attain through a single photo of something which does exist in real life. This is analogous to what NASA did state they did and nothing about it would suggest that the shape of the earth has been faked.

    Again, verifiability is the key factor here. If I were so inclined, I could drive over to Hollywood and wait at the model's house for her to come out, and verify that she exists. Or I could drive down the street from google maps to verify it exists. As i said (and you continue to ignore), anyone can measure a body of water and find it flat. Not so with a ball earth. Matter of factly very little if any of your evidence is verifiable. 

    Firstly, you might be able to verify them or you might not. You could spend months trying to stalk a super model and fail - which could mean she doesn't exist or (much more likely) that you're just not a very good stalker. Similarly you could drive down a road and see that it's very different from the google streetview - but you wouldn't know if this was because the picture was faked or (again, much more likely) things have just changed since the picture was taken. If the road is different from the picture on street view from X years ago, do you assume all the differences are fake or refuse to accept them as real because you can't verify them - no, not if you're normal.

    However, more relevantly, presumably you don't spend your time stalking women or trying to drive down every street in the world so you have not actually verified any of this yet you still assume they are correct.

    Lastly, based on your own metrics you try to apply later on in this argument where you reject anything that is potentially in any way infallible no matter how unlikely - your personal eyewitness testimony is not infallible and so we must reject your argument.. You could get people mixed up with people who look similar or go down the wrong street or hallucinate and not realise it or just not pay attention, etc, etc, etc. You have to be consistent with your reasoning, which you don't seem to be doing at the moment. Instead you are applying ridiculous made-up standards to my arguments and then assuming that any old claim by yourself is true just because you say it is. 

    Also all my evidence has been verified to scientifically accurate measures. Have yours?

    So you admit to cherry picking. You at first backed the meteorologist (I asked twice), who stated this was a superior mirage, now you are just claiming atmospheric refraction, after I showed that to be false. As i stated, if you can't demonstrate the effect on any scale, it is a pseudoscientific claim, your point is moot, and mine stands..

    Your argument relies upon a superior mirage not being a form of atmospheric refraction and being mutualyl exclusive with it. Unfortunately for you tour own sources specifically disagree with you as explained in my last post and you have provided no other evidence. I'm not cherrypicking - I don't need to when you keep on shooting yourself in the foot by presenting sources which support my side of the argument.

    That is your opinion, you are basing your counterarguments on an appeal to authority fallacy. The information is not infallible because you must assume several things including that the experiments were even performed, the data was not misinterpreted, all variables are taken into consideration and that the experts are not being dishonest about anything. If the information isn't falsifiable, it is pseudoscience. The only thing you have empirically validated here is what they have claimed, similar to taking a preacher's (an expert in his field) word over something you can test yourself.

    I'm assuming at this point you don't know what an appeal to authority fallacy is. It is "Stephen Hawkings says I'm right", it's not "here's actual details from peer reviews of empirical experiments studies conducted based on Stephen Hawkin's theories which show I'm right but which you can look through check the basis of".

    Also no information anywhere is ever  completely infallible except "I think therefore I am" so your definition is meaningless unless you want to argue for absolute solipsism.

    Eye witness testimony (even your own) can be mistaken.  Videos and images can be manipulated, including every single one you have provided. Studies could potentially be faked.

    What matters is how likely something is to be correct. What makes my evidence worthwhile is that there is a specific system in place (the scientific method) to ensure hypotheses are extensively tested by a variety of independent scientists whose results are published in detail and peer review. It's the highest standard of evidence as it systematically and comprehensively tests the basis of theories with real experiments again and again and again. On the other hand, let's say I wanted to check the results of the gyroscope experiment you provided a video of. Step 1: I buy the same gyroscope as the person did, except oh wait I can't because he missed out even some of the most rudimentary details of what makes an experiment trustworthy.

    Also you don't seem to know what falsifiable means. It means that you can test hypotheses to see if they are right. So all the examples of experiments I have given you are examples of falsifiability being tested and it is inherent in the scientific method that this be the case.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

    In this case, I have provided ample empirical evidence against a spherical earth, and the authority is biased. To show that the scientists are "independent", you must show that they are not government funded. The highest degree of empirical evidence would be actual empirical evidence.

    Again, not an appeal to authority. It's the results of their experiments, not their authority that matters. That you can't actually argue against the evidence on it's own grounds speaks volumes. 

    Actually no, they don't match what is expected if you have any knowledge of geometry. An object coming between two objects from below would produce a shadow moving up from the bottom, not coming down from the top, as observed in that selenelion. This is a major problem for your model, and i assume you will try to cherry pick or grasp at straws to get around this.

    Nope, completely wrong.

    Imagine two people standing on pretty much opposite ends of a globed earth, both just able to see the moon as the it rises for one of them and sets for the other. Now as the moon eclipses  they are basically 180 degrees inverted from one another's point of view (being on opposite sides of the earth), so the the side that starts to show the eclipse will be the top of the moon for one of them and the bottom of the moon for the other. THAT'S what we'd expect to happen and it's also exactly what did happen, exactly as predicted.

    You can see an example of the same eclipse starting from the other side for people in Asia below:





    Hell, if you look at latitude rather than longitude you can even see the difference in the angle it comes in at, like here from Russia where it's nearer to directly from the top of the moon:



    Exactly as predicted by a globed earth.

    At this point I personally believe the reason you don't believe in a spherical earth is because you have poor spacial reasoning.

    I'm not particularly concerned about what exactly blocks the light of the sun, as this would be speculation. I've proved empirically  and mathematically that the earth is not a ball, that there is no motion, and that the earth does not come between the sun and the moon. I don't attach myself to any particular model, aside from stating the obvious, that the earth is without curvature or motion.

    Firstly, you've claimed the earth is not a ball and are trying to defend your arguments. You have proven nothing so far. The lack of a flat earth to explain reality is a massive downside in accepting the argument. If no-one can construct even a possible representation of the earth and sun on a flat earth, that is a massive problem because that aspect of it is just basic geometry. 

    Its not circular when I've first proved the earth to be without curve or motion.

    Which you haven't. You're assuming the earth is without curve or motion to make your point, which is in turn to try and prove that the earth is without curve and motion. Hence, quite ironically, you are making a circular argument and it cannot be accepted. 

    So, according to you, and without practical evidence, refraction has not only caused the light from both celestial bodies to go in opposite directions around the ball earth, whereas they don't have to be in a straight line, but has also caused the shadow of the earth to come and go in the wrong direction. Correct? It seems you will just use refraction to suit any and all of your arguments involving sight without the first bit of practical evidence and are a lost cause. You'd prefer to take men's word for where you live than your own common sense and instead of developing an original though you refuse to think for yourself and instead accept whatever conjecture Google throws at you.

    As you've admitted that light can curve upwards and downwards as it travels, do you have an issue with the first part? Are you retracting your claims about mirages?

    Also the shadow of the earth, as explained above, is occurring exactly as predicted and the side the shadow comes in from is completely unrelated to atmospheric reflection so please don't strawman. As explained above it's due to the position of the observer on the earth. The involvement of  refraction is what I explained previously and an extension of the above - the light curving along a gradient of atmospheric density

    I didn't see an experiment there that proves your claim, just some diagrams and mathematics. Maybe an explanation, or better yet, a demonstration? I try to thoroughly explain any details from any experiments I suggest, so that anyone can follow, you are just asserting that there is an experiment where there is none. 

    I've got to say, you aren't very good at using sources. This isn't the first time you've been provided a source upon request and then said you can't see it. Did you try perhaps looking in the contents for a relevant section (such as "Test of Accuracy) and going to the relevant page for that section (in this case bottom of page 6)? 

    And you again pose that the light from that building, which we should not be able to see at all, is bent over the curve, because it is a mirage. Since you've claimed that it is an inferior mirage, this is a non sequitur. The top portion would not be visible in either case, therefore it can't possibly be miraged onto the bottom.

    Semantics.

    It's an inverted image that is lower that the correctly sided version of the image but higher than actual physical object. That is expected as per your own definitions of mirages.

    Let me know what you want to call it. if you want to call just the bottom bit a superior mirage because it's a higher than the original, fine. If you want to call it an inferior mirage because the bottom bit is lower than the main image we see, that's fine to.

    The actual description of the physical actions fo the light is as per the examples, so any argument you have here is just dickering about the name.

    Yes, atmospheric refraction exists, but not in the way you'd hope. If the image isn't inverted, it isn't a mirage for one, and if the light is bent, it causes the object to appear lower. I've given a few practical examples, which you've so far ignored, and haven't provided any practical evidence to the contrary, just assertions that it happens, due to the earth being a ball.

    See above refutation.

    Your own source disagrees with you and you provide no evidence to back it up besides your baseless opinion. No evidenciary merit to your argument here.

    "The superior mirage is most striking when it exhibits three or more images. The upper and lower images are always erect, while a single middle image will be inverted. No matter the number, images will alternate between erect and inverted, although sometimes a pair will appear back to back and might be interpreted as a single image."

    It is talking about what happens WHEN it exhibits three or more images. Before that, as quoted in my previous post, it specifically says there can just be a single image. please don't cherry pick.

    A joint university study, conducted by the world's leading experts on mirage plainly states that mirages are inverted images of an object.

    http://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirtypes.html

    http://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirintro.html


    Wow, you are really shooting yourself in the foot here because for a second time your own source contradicts your claims.

    Your expert source specifically says that atmospheric refraction works explicitly as I claim and also explicitly states mirages are a type of atmospheric refraction! Not only that but it says that the understandign or mriages, which you aggree with, specifically relies on our understanding of atmospheric refraction!

    "Mirages are phenomena of atmospheric refraction; so to understand mirages, you first have to understand refraction in the atmosphere"

    "The air near sea level is about a thousand times less dense than water; but that's still enough to change the direction of light rays that enter it from a different medium, such as the nearly empty space outside our atmosphere. And, because the density of the air changes continuously with height above the Earth, light rays within the Earth's atmosphere bend continuously as they pass from one level to another. Usually, the density decreases steadily from the ground up, so the rays (which always bend toward the denser material) are concave toward the surface of the Earth."

    Not only that but, just in case you want to try and claim some bizarre meaning or understanding of what he's saying - your world expert has specifically weighed in on just the type of examples you are using here:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-skyline-mirage-20150507-story.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw==

    "Normally, Chicago is hidden by the curvature of the Earth, so that it lies below the lake horizon. Here, the optical ray curvature is stronger than the curvature of the lake surface, and that brings the city's buildings into view."

    It seems you will accept any excuse given to you at this point no matter the absurdity of it, and have closed yourself off to the possibility of anything but a spherical earth. This is dogmatic, not science. From the meteorologist's superior mirage and now on to looming. No amount of evidence I provide will ever penetrate your bias. Of course, the universities share this bias, and aren't likely going to state the obvious, that distances sighted further than we should are evidence for a flat earth, so one must apply common sense in these situations, and think for yourself. It appears so far that this is not going to be possible for you.

    A lot of complaining and no evidence or reasoned rebuttal, just baseless claims about bias. At this point two of your own sources contradict you about how atmospheric refraction works and you have provided no other argument. Do you concede the point?

    This isn't some rare occurrence. Time lapses show people can see it for hours on end, and locals say the site is very common.

    Firstly, how common is "very common"? Every day? Every other day? Once a week? Once a month? More?

    Secondly, we're talking about the norm of refraction across the entire world. Even if it happened every single second of every single day above Lake Michigan, that would have a negligible impact on the overall commonality of atmospheric refraction. We haven't got into it yet (not much point going into the details of atmospheric refraction when you haven't admitted it exists) but there are specific reasons why we would not expect the conditions there to be normal.

    Yes, i completely understood what the argument claimed. I explained it in my own words and asked id this is wjat you are agreeing with, so far youve done some fancy sidestepping to dodge my simple question. I'll assume you've conceded this argument, or do not understand the article you stated.

    Yes, i completely understood what the argument claimed. I explained it in my own words and asked id this is wjat you are agreeing with, so far youve done some fancy sidestepping to dodge my simple question. I'll assume you've conceded this argument, or do not understand the article you stated.

    No, you failed to understand completely and I've explained why - you claimed "This article claims that the moon is pulling some of the water, and the earth, but not the other side's  (of the earth) water," when it specifically says that the moon's gravity effects all the water including on the other side of the earth.

    You have offered no rebuttal and do not offer one here, saying that I'm "sidestepping" but presenting no evidence or reasoning to support this. 

    Now you're quote mining me.

    As shown with the quotes (e.g. evidence supporting my reading of what was said), you got confused about what you were responding to so your reply to my point didn't make sense. I've provided you the quotes so you can give a proper response.

    I'm not even being aggressive or insulting here, these are lengthy responses with lots of points and it's easy to mess one up. I'm sure if we keep this up I'll do it too at some point. However the fact is, your response was not adequate because you got confused about what was being said and the point being argued. Now that, as per my previous post, I've laid out the thread of the conversation and what was being discussed, are you able to offer a rebuttal?

    You are proving to me that you don't even know your own model very well. The length of day isn't due to the elliptical orbit, which is less than 3%, but the amount of time it takes to rotate 360° relative to the stars and the sun.

    ...

    Again this is false. See above.

    ...

    This is another incoherent non sequitur. Maybe now that you're familiar with your own model a bit better, you can grasp at another straw.

    And likewise I'd say that this shows you don't know the model you're criticising very well.

    As we seem to disagree and remebering that in this case "day" refers to the ~24 revolution of the earth, NOT the amount of daylight we have, let's look up the answer. This is a dispute over what the normal understanding of physics says, so that is very easy just to look up:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time#Eccentricity_of_the_Earth.27s_orbit

    "The Earth revolves around the Sun. As seen from Earth, the Sun appears to revolve once around the Earth through the background stars in one year. If the Earth orbited the Sun with a constant speed, in a circular orbit in a plane perpendicular to the Earth's axis, then the Sun would culminate every day at exactly the same time, and be a perfect time keeper (except for the very small effect of the slowing rotation of the Earth). But the orbit of the Earth is an ellipse not centered on the Sun, and its speed varies between 30.287 and 29.291 km/s, according to Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and its angular speed also varies, and thus the Sun appears to move faster (relative to the background stars) at perihelion (currently around 3 January) and slower at aphelion a half year later."

    "At these extreme points this effect varies the apparent solar day by 7.9 s/day from its mean. Consequently, the smaller daily differences on other days in speed are cumulative until these points, reflecting how the planet accelerates and decelerates compared to the mean. As a result, the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit contributes a sine wave variation with an amplitude of 7.66 min and a period of one year to the equation of time. The zero points are reached at perihelion (at the beginning of January) and aphelion (beginning of July); the extreme values are in early April (negative) and early October (positive)."

    Exactly as I claimed, even down to the perihelion and aphelion being a couple of weeks off from the solstices.

    Also the change in longitude is less than 3% of the sun's relative position in the sky.

    Lastly, you are misusing non-sequiter. You disagree with one of my claims, but everything makes sense in context. if not, pelase specify how rather than just making baseless and unsupported claims.

    No. This is an incoherent statement. I could not have agreed with something you seem to have just fabricated.

    "This makes no sense on a sphere, because those paths would be equal in distance, making a symmetrical figure eight, but makes perfect sense on a flat earth model, where the southern path is larger."

    You agree with the movement of a globe on a tilted axis causing a minimum of the up down motion here.

    In relation to me explaining the length of the day effects the left right motion - "This is plausible (although I wonder why gravity would care if the days would reset every 6 months), and it explains why it would be a figure eight"

    You agree that the explained change in length of day would cause side to side motion here.

    So overall you haven't agreed that the change would cause the larger southern loop and have your reservation about not seeing why it goes around in 6 month cycles, but as far as I can see you specifically HAVE agreed that "one axes would be affected by axial tilt and the other the difference in the length of the day".. Do you disagree and if so can you provide a rationale which explains your previous statements?

    So you dont agree that gyroscopes respond to the earth's motions. Do you agree with Newtons laws of motion? Namely his 3rd? I've stated that there is no proof that the earth spins. I've given a definition of a gyroscope and explained that Foucault invented and claimed to have used it to measure the earth's motion. I then provided evidence that it doesn't. Are you now flip flopping on this point too? Sorry, but even Google cant save you from me.

    No, I don't agree that gyroscopres respond to the earth's motions in the same way I don't agree scales will respond to the weight of a flea. They both potentially could, but whether they will or not depends on their accuracy and sensitivity which varies from instance to instance. Anyone who simply assumes that a particular gyroscope is sensitive enough for no particular reason other than it's is being biased and does not have a scientifically backed up argument but rather one based on unfounded and unsupported assumptions. 

    Your reference to Foucault was an unsupported claim that all modern gyroscopes, no matter how cheaply produced, will be better than his gyroscope and his gyroscope was sensitive enough to detect the earth's rotation. You have no actually supported this with anything other than assumptions.

    Thanks for the correction, now onto my point. Gyroscopes prove the earth is motionless. Point still stands.

    Baseless claim.

    Now your just quoting my response to your claim. This has become another of your asanine red herrings.

    When you refer to what people have said, it helps to quote to show that you are doing so accurately as I have. Do you have an evidence or logic based rebuttal rather than yet another baseless claim as used here?

    Nice dodge, I'll assume that you can't verify Foucault's claim/experiment, and have conceded this argument as well.

    A random unevidenced assumption and no rebuttal beyiond saying "nice dodge" with no reasoning for why my statement was ineligible. This is therefore yet another baseless and ineffective rebuttal

    I take it this means you don't understand the science behind your own claims. I've asked for a gyroscope experiment that responds to the earth's motions. You've failed.

    I provided a detailed one. Your only response was yet another baseless claim of saying that you bet I don't understand the science behind it it. Baseless claims aren't evidence.

    Another cherry picking fallacy admitted. See above refutations.

    You should probably stop referring to fallacies as you seem to always use them incorrectly. For one, like any other claim in a debate you need to back them up. You would need to actually show that I'm cherrypicking. For two, that obviously doesn't apply. The video is just another example of example the same argument you've already made four times, not some special strong argument I've been purposely avoiding, and it wasn't avoided because it was good evidence that I was avoiding but rather because it's childish and spends the first few minutes focusing on movie memes so i didn;t think there was any content there at all.

    So, you say, but you haven't really proven anything wrong, you've give some mathematics from your model, but you've largely ignored the argument. You've not even mentioned or accounted for any direction at all for instance. In your model, the moon orbits the earth eastward. Since the claim is made that the earth spins faster than that of the moon's orbit so that we see it moving westward. Why then has the moon appeared to move from the northwest to the southeast across the sun during that eclipse?

    Hmmmm, "Since the claim is made that the earth spins faster than that of the moon's orbit"? 

    Oh really? Let's check the record. I said:

    "The Moon moves ~2,300 mph. The Earth's surface at its fastest (at the equator) moves at ~1040 mph. 2,300 > 1040 so the Moon moves faster than the surface of the earth moves."

    So in fact I SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM. I'm just about willing to assume this was an accident, but the poor faith arguing in other section of this topic will soon have me viewing things like this as deliberate straw men.

    Now thinking it over based on what I actually said, do you still have issues or questions?

    Your claim is now that the earth moves parallel to the moon? If not this is a horrible analogy.

    You can choose to move whichever direction you want but we would expect parallel to have the largest effect and it's still so tiny as to be irrelevant, so it's actually a great analogy. The relevant point across both the analogy and real life is it's angular momentum which matters.

    Another red herring? Nobody said anything about testing hypotheses.

    We talked about testing predictions. predictions = hypotheses.

    You implied that predicting eclipses would be impossible on a flat earth. I showed how eclipses have been predicted for thousands of years, even when civilizations had sense enough to know that the earth was a motionless plane. Will you address my rebuttal? Let's see...

    How can I say what would be possible on a flat earth when you can't even present a model of it? No the issue is that on a flat earth our calculations based on a spherical rotating earth with the moon and sun at the appropriate distance wouldn't work.

    The point is that it can be done without complex orbital mechanical mathematics. How do you know that today's scientists don't base their predictions on thousands of years of past events?

    They publish their calculations which go through the usual scientific process of peer review and testing.

    So we are now in agreement, assuming a spherical earth is not a necessity when predicting eclipses, despite your claim that it is.

    Where did I agree to that? You'll note I never mentioned predicting an eclipse and I specifically mentioned there were limits. Besides, you miss the point. Predictions based on pattern recognition tell us nothing. Predictions based on mathematical models show us the shape of the earth. If we use calculations for a spherical rotating and moving earth and it's right, that shows we're on a spherical rotating earth. If we were on a flat earth we'd expect them to be totally out.

    Never claimed this. Your argument was that predicting eclipses proves a spherical earth. I've refuted this argument.

    Strawman. 

    Refer back to the point that started this Mayan tangent off. I said it was because "science accurately models and predicts occurrences in advance based on the physics of a round earth puts it way way way way ahead in terms of verifiability over a flat earth." Note both MODELS and BASED ON THE PHYSICS. Do the Mayans use a model based on actual physics? No. Hence why their example tells us nothign about actual physics and is irrelevant

    It proved to get more accurate with time.

    This doesn't seem to be supported and I fail to see the relevance if it were.

    This is an unevidenced claim.

    I didn't expect you to need evidence for this and feel this it shows a drastic lack of knowledge about the spherical earth you're trying to refute.

    Here's a semi-random example (I did make sure to get a NASA one, knowing how much you love them) https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/2010/TP214171a.pdf

  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a23518/first-photo-of-earth-from-space-70-years/

    First photo of earth from space. 65 miles up. Perfectly flat.

    This seems to have been taken in as poor a manner as possible, presumably either to purposely provide false results or out of lack of knowledge about how to conduct this measurement properly.

    1) Using a low res version of the image where the ability to see the curve will be minimised)
    2) Only using a fraction of the image, again minimising the side of the curve
    3) White lines multiple pixels think. Should be single pixel so as to not obscure curve,

    So trying this again properly, oh look, a curve!



    SilverishGoldNova
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Because when I was on the equator last summer, i could totally tell I was moving at 1,600+ kph.
    If you woke up in a bed on a plane (with no windows) traveling at 200mph, you wouldn't know that you were moving. We don't feel the effects of constant velocity, we only feel the effects of acceleration.

    If I was on a plane with no windows travelling at 200 mph I would know that I was moving. 
    Already asked you several times earlier in the thread to give examples how you could use your senses to detect velocity and you couldn't come up with any examples. How would you do it here, keeping in mind things like engine noises, turbulence, etc can be faked?
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:

    I've decided to stop speculating about the sun, maps, or any particular model, since none of these are empirically validatable. The earth has been proved to be without curvature or axial or orbital movement. 
    Firstly, one of the points you have raised in the debate we're currently having is about theanalemma where you have given the rationale that it "makes perfect sense on a flat earth model, where the southern path is larger" so you clearly are willing to make points based on models - which I need to see if I'm to respond to them.

    Secondly, if needs be I'm not asking you to commit to a model. I'm just asking for a single flat earth model that could even fit in the realm of plausibility.

    Thirdly in that post I also raise a specific point about an observable phenomenon and how it seems to contradict any potential flat earth model which you have again not responded to.
    1. The sun analemma is something that can be empirically observed. The distance to the sun cannot.

    2.  If you'd like, you can research the various models on www.google.com pick your favorite. I've determined, with the scientific method that water is flat (excluding waves and swells) and nobody has proved that the earth is in motion. These are irrefutable contradictions with the heliocentric model. 

    3. Which was that?
    1. Firstly, the distance to the sun can and has been empirically observed. You might not like the answers and may want to call them fake, but people have empirically measured the distance to the sun.

    2. I've looked at a few but nothing stands up to even a few moments scrutiny. How can the flat earth exist if it seems like the configuration of the sun and moon is impossible and your only evidence against it? Also agian, people have provided proof of the earth's motion. You disagreeing with them is not the same as them not existing. Do you really need me to list examples?

    3.




    The explanation for this is fairly obvious on a spherical earth. The sun is a long way away and is at an angle where it's lower than the visual horizon of the clouds but above the angle of the bulge of the earth.

    On a flat earth it seems the sun must be less than 28,000 feet high by a fair margin and that people would often see the sun in front of clouds which has never happened before in the entire history of mankind.
  • Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a23518/first-photo-of-earth-from-space-70-years/

    First photo of earth from space. 65 miles up. Perfectly flat.

    This seems to have been taken in as poor a manner as possible, presumably either to purposely provide false results or out of lack of knowledge about how to conduct this measurement properly.

    1) Using a low res version of the image where the ability to see the curve will be minimised)
    2) Only using a fraction of the image, again minimising the side of the curve
    3) White lines multiple pixels think. Should be single pixel so as to not obscure curve,

    So trying this again properly, oh look, a curve!



    Still no curvature. 

    Seriously? Are you a one-eyed robot who has a weirdly angled fish eye lense camera for an eye?
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova

    Do you have a very small screen or something?

    The earth curves above the straight line I've drawn between the two points.
  • @Ampersand I have a pretty big monitor. Are you using the Burj Khalifa as a monitor or something
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Can you see the red line?

    Can you see the white bits above the line?

    Curvature.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova @Erfisflat check this out, the $10billion a month rip off from NASA will continue, but I don't know how long poor Buzz Aldrin can continue to hide the truth? I actually feel sorry for the man for being put on a pedestal like this "Biggest lie in American history" that includes fooling the whole world! Razing another generation of Globetard's.




    Is that tears coming down the poor mans face?
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -  
    In your flat earth model you propose a force, spreading equally over the flat earth going straight down, this force holds us to the ground. Why is the bottom layer of the earth, whatever you may say it is, not affected by this force? Is the entire universe on your flat earth model moving down incredibly fast? You have consistently ridiculed claims that we are moving very fast on a spinning ball, I must be able to ridicule your model by saying we are all falling on a big plate. 

    (Created in 5 seconds with snipping tool)

    The same force holding a human down on the earth must also affect the bottom of the earth. 

    Speaking of forces, what holds your earth together? The earth is not a solid uniform disk made of the same material. What is stopping the earth from falling apart? If there is a force holding the earth together, why are we not affected by it?

    The idea of gravity can answer these questions, the force holding us down, and the force holding the earth together, are the same.The earth is a ball, and the force of gravity pull us towards the center. Speaking of things that gravity answers that the flat earth model must make up new forces for. Why other planets are balls, why thing orbit abound each other, why some stars eventually create black holes. Not to mention that the flat earth model assumes that there exists a mysterious entity called Rahu that makes eclipses(I remember reading an post when this entity is mentioned). I leave you with this definition:

    Occam's “Razor” - is the stated principle that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In other words, the explanation that assumes the least amount of things is usually correct. 
    -

    Here is the topside view of the flat earth, how is it possible for the entire south pole to be daytime of six months, from about September to march? The entire south pole, the thing around your model, if lit by the sun for 6 months. The entirety of it. And while the whole south pole is lit, the entire north pole is dark. What is your explanation, or are you going to assume more things?
    -
    Literally, all you have to do to test the curvature of the earth is stand up.


  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    In your flat earth model you propose a force, spreading equally over the flat earth going straight down, this force holds us to the ground. Why is the bottom layer of the earth, whatever you may say it is, not affected by this force? Is the entire universe on your flat earth model moving down incredibly fast? You have consistently ridiculed claims that we are moving very fast on a spinning ball, I must be able to ridicule your model by saying we are all falling on a big plate. 

    (Created in 5 seconds with snipping tool)

    The same force holding a human down on the earth must also affect the bottom of the earth. 

    Speaking of forces, what holds your earth together? The earth is not a solid uniform disk made of the same material. What is stopping the earth from falling apart? If there is a force holding the earth together, why are we not affected by it?

    The idea of gravity can answer these questions, the force holding us down, and the force holding the earth together, are the same.The earth is a ball, and the force of gravity pull us towards the center. Speaking of things that gravity answers that the flat earth model must make up new forces for. Why other planets are balls, why thing orbit abound each other, why some stars eventually create black holes. Not to mention that the flat earth model assumes that there exists a mysterious entity called Rahu that makes eclipses(I remember reading an post when this entity is mentioned). I leave you with this definition:

    Occam's “Razor” - is the stated principle that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In other words, the explanation that assumes the least amount of things is usually correct. 
    -

    Here is the topside view of the flat earth, how is it possible for the entire south pole to be daytime of six months, from about September to march? The entire south pole, the thing around your model, if lit by the sun for 6 months. The entirety of it. And while the whole south pole is lit, the entire north pole is dark. What is your explanation, or are you going to assume more things?
    -
    Literally, all you have to do to test the curvature of the earth is stand up.



    Lets see here.

    1. 'In your flat earth model you propose a force, spreading equally over the flat earth going straight down, this force holds us to the ground. Why is the bottom layer of the earth, whatever you may say it is, not affected by this force? Is the entire universe on your flat earth model moving down incredibly fast? You have consistently ridiculed claims that we are moving very fast on a spinning ball, I must be able to ridicule your model by saying we are all falling on a big plate. "
     
    No flat Earth belives the Earth rises or falls down in order to account for gravity. I am not sure where you got that information from, perhaps from shills such as TFES. 

    Drop a microphone. It falls because it is more dense than the air. Drop a balloon, it rises because the helium in the balloon is less dense. 

    2. http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/06/arctic-midnight-sun-proves-flat-earth.html

    This article should get rid of your concerns.

    3. 

    Really? Boats over the horizon? 

    PS: That picture of the poorly drawn stick figure on the flat Earth. You would have to assume the dome is exactly like that. The video also fails to acknowledge even the basics of the flat Earth (mainly perspective) 
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -  
    "No flat Earth believes the Earth rises or falls down in order to account for gravity. I am not sure where you got that information from, perhaps from shills such as TFES. "

    I think you may misunderstand me. What I am trying to illustrate with my poor drawing is that the force that applies to us, "Density" must also apply to the earth itself. This must mean that the earth is falling down because it is denser than the vacuum under the earth.


    What force makes less dense objects float, and more dense objects sink?

    On your video about gravity being fake(I have already sent you this btw):
    Now unless you have taken science courses in the past, you don't have the right to say gravity isn't real.
    Gravity is a pull between masses. If one mass is large and the other mass is small then the force is small. If both masses are large then force is strong. Jumping up is accelerating you upwards at a certain value but because of gravity, you are accelerating down at 9.81 meters per second per second which is why your upwards velocity is slowed down and your downwards velocity increases. You begin to accelerate down at that value.

    Magnetic fields are stronger than gravitational fields (and much different). Their interactions with magnetic materials produce an attractive force with a much higher acceleration than gravity of the earth, depending on how close each magnetic mass is. There is little reliance on the mass of such objects and so using paper clips, you have reduced the force of the earth greatly without affecting the magnetic properties and therefore, magnetic pull.

    The balloon contains a very small amount of mass, but it also displaces a lot of space. Density is a measure of mass per volume of displacement and only a gas with density smaller than air and low enough to cancel the weight of the balloon will move up. This is because it has less mass per volume of displacement than the air around it and gravity will pull the denser gas (with more mass per volume of displacement) towards earth harder than the less dense gas (because it has less mass per volume of displacement).
    The elastic energy in the slinky is high. When you let go, the elastic energy transforms into kinetic energy which is pulling the slinky back together. I'll try to explain but in order to abide by your rules in the description, it will be hard. The slinky is stretched which gives it a high elastic energy level. When you let go, that energy pulls the slinky together in both directions. Elastic energy is stored in higher values at the top than at the bottom. So when released, the top is pulled down and by elastic energy. Since acceleration due to gravity is constant, the bottom won't fall because the top is accelerating faster on account of the elastic energy. You will most likely need a decent background in science to understand this properly.

    The demonstration with the water tank is similar to the balloon one earlier in the video. Gravity will pull harder on a larger mass. Density is the unit given to define the mass per volume of displacement. Whether one of the objects sink relies on two things: -The volume of displacement -The mass of the object Water is 1000kg per cubic meter So if I have an object that is small but is 1001kg per cubic meter or higher then it will sink as gravity pulls on it harder than it does on water. Wood is less than 1000kg per cubic meter and won't sink. Air is very small (I think 1 kg per cubic meter) an wont get pulled under water.

    Since the tilt of the Earth is considerable (approximately 23 degrees 27 minutes), the sun does not set at high latitudes in local summer.The sun remains continuously visible for one day during the summer solstice at the polar circle, for several weeks only 100 km (62 mi) closer to the pole, and for six months at the pole. At extreme latitudes, the midnight sun is usually referred to as polar day.

    ran out of time, with address the rest at a later time
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Why do we debate about flat or not flat earth. It feels as if people are just arguing and giving evidence that dose not appear to effectively change anyone minds.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Nope
    Plenty of minds have been changed from this in the last 5 years. Yours or your kids generations will be the last globetards. 
    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 highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    This is essentially ID vs big bangism.
    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 highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @MissDMeanor ;



    Look at the bottom of the picture. That was an easy explanation. The Earth is sitting on something.
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    @SilverishGoldNova
    And somehow the thing the earth is sitting on is unaffected by gravity? or Density? Are you telling me there exists a material that has no density/is not affected by gravity, but has enough physical existence to hold the earth and the entire universe? You are telling me that exists with no evidence of such a material. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Getting into heavy speculation here. We've dug about 7 miles down?
    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 highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Getting into heavy speculation here. We've dug about 7 miles down?
    You'll note it was the flat earth side that stated the existence of something they have never seen or provided any evidence for the existence of (that I'm aware of, I may have missed it earlier in the thread). If your theory relies on heavy speculation, that is a flaw with your theory.
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -  
    In that video a relatively flat surface mixed with a cheap camera resulted in it seeming as if a ship did not sink over the horizon. Have you noticed that in none of the videos you linked the camera is high quality? Take this video for example:



    The camera is zoomed in, you can see the details of the ship clearly. The ship goes down the horizon. How is it possible that you can see only the TOP of tall building in Manhattan from long island? Again, you can only see the top of the towers.

    Meanwhile in your video you can barley make out the existence of the ship, and it's incredibly blurry. Again, curvature exists and your $40 cameras are not persuading anyone. Again, I am completely open to new ideas, but how am I supposed to be able to trust a low quality video?


    I request you respond to all the points I made in my post, as you have not. 
    Hankfea
  • @SilverishGoldNova
    And somehow the thing the earth is sitting on is unaffected by gravity? or Density? Are you telling me there exists a material that has no density/is not affected by gravity, but has enough physical existence to hold the earth and the entire universe? You are telling me that exists with no evidence of such a material. 
    Maybe it isn't effected by density, maybe its the only thing under the Earth?

    Now this debate is just a bunch of speculation... 
    fea
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova
    The round earth model does not have speculation. There exist an infinite vacuum that we travel through on all sides of us. The only model with speculation is yours.

    In the round earth model the force that holds us down collapses in on itself, into the center of the sphere. The problem with your model is that we need to assume more things, as the force pulling down so the question must be asked, what is under the earth? The fact that we must speculate what is under the earth in the flat earth model allows us to apply Occam's Razor, eliminating that possibility.

    Also, you haven't refuted anything I said about density or gravity. 
    HankEvidencefea
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    @MissDMeanor Erfisflat already refuted the same rebuttal you used and C/P'd. 

    So, your rebuttal to my video is that it's low quality, and then you link a HIGH quality video, of basically the same thing?  

    Interesting.

    @SilverishGoldNova
    The round earth model does not have speculation. There exist an infinite vacuum that we travel through on all sides of us. The only model with speculation is yours.

    In the round earth model the force that holds us down collapses in on itself, into the center of the sphere. The problem with your model is that we need to assume more things, as the force pulling down so the question must be asked, what is under the earth? The fact that we must speculate what is under the earth in the flat earth model allows us to apply Occam's Razor, eliminating that possibility.

    Also, you haven't refuted anything I said about density or gravity. 
    "In the round earth model the force that holds us down collapses in on itself, into the center of the sphere. The problem with your model is that we need to assume more things, as the force pulling down so the question must be asked, what is under the earth? The fact that we must speculate what is under the earth in the flat earth model" I don't even know why I am wasting my time responding to the conversation about the Earth falling down...

    It seems that your rebuttal to gravity was baselessly claiming the Earth was falling, before you C/P'd a refuted "rebuttal"
    fea
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Getting into heavy speculation here. We've dug about 7 miles down?
    You'll note it was the flat earth side that stated the existence of something they have never seen or provided any evidence for the existence of (that I'm aware of, I may have missed it earlier in the thread). If your theory relies on heavy speculation, that is a flaw with your theory.
    It isn't speculation or theory to state the obvious fact that water is flat. 
    fea
    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 highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova
    ErfisFlat did not rebut what I said, we rebutted the entire thing in one sentence that was essentially "gravity is only a theory".

    The high quality video was of a ship going under the horizon due to earth's curvature, somehow that is the "same thing"

    "interesting."

    My argument is that the earth must be falling under the flat earth model, here is the proof.

    Flat Earth Model
    1. Assuming the earth is flat
    2. Assuming there exists a uniform force that acts downwards on the earth
    3. Assuming there does not exist a magical material that has physical presence without having density or being affected by the force mentioned in(2)
    4. The bottom layer of the earth is, it is still affected by gravity(or density) and is being pulled downwards by(2)
    5. In the flat earth theory the earth must be falling

    This is simply what the result of arguing that there exists a uniform downwards form that keeps us in place, gravity does not have to make such assumptions.


    I am not speculating anything, I am merely saying that a force that on the top of the earth must affect the bottom of the Earth
    fea
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    Black holes are speculation, this is something you've never seen or provided any existence for, yet I suppose you take this as fact, as much as you do the unevidenced ball earth.
    fea
    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 highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Getting into heavy speculation here. We've dug about 7 miles down?
    You'll note it was the flat earth side that stated the existence of something they have never seen or provided any evidence for the existence of (that I'm aware of, I may have missed it earlier in the thread). If your theory relies on heavy speculation, that is a flaw with your theory.
    It isn't speculation or theory to state the obvious fact that water is flat. 
    This is a non-sequiter. We were talking about what is underneath a flat earth. Unless you are trying to claim that the flat earth is also floating on a flat plane of water?
    fea
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Im claiming it's an obviously currently unanswerable question. Similar to asking deep sea fish what is on top of the water.
    fea
    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 highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -  
    The point is that in a round earth model there is no speculation, as there is no under the earth. Therefore, Occam's Razor can be applied.
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    There are two possibilities
    1.There exists a vacuum under the earth, result in the conclusion that the earth is falling downwards. This possibility does not have any speculation. But if this is the case, than your arguments involving how we cannot feel the earth moving are incorrect. 

    2. There exist a unidentified substance that is not affected by density/gravity (I merely use them interchangeably to avoid being sidetracked on the existence of gravity-still waiting on that rebuttal) that, therefore, does defy the laws of physics. This involves a lot of speculation, as we have no indication that such a material exists. Because of this speculation, that is not present in the spherical earth model, Occam's Razor can be used to justify the Spherical earth model.

    @SilverishGoldNova
    @Erfisflat
    Pick one, as we should move off this topic and move to the gravity debate, which you two seem unwilling to enter. The consistent dancing around the topic makes it seem like you concede that gravity exists.
    SilverishGoldNovafea
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited November 2017
     MissDMeanor said:
    There are two possibilities
    1.There exists a vacuum under the earth, result in the conclusion that the earth is falling downwards. This possibility does not have any speculation. But if this is the case, than your arguments involving how we cannot feel the earth moving are incorrect. 

    2. There exist a unidentified substance that is not affected by density/gravity (I merely use them interchangeably to avoid being sidetracked on the existence of gravity-still waiting on that rebuttal) that, therefore, does defy the laws of physics. This involves a lot of speculation, as we have no indication that such a material exists. Because of this speculation, that is present in the spherical earth model, Occam's Razor can be used to justify the Spherical earth model.
    Something I somewhat agree with. Either way its an assumption whether there is something below or not

    MissDMeanor
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    https://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

    Gravity is both a theory and a law, gravity, of course, does not work on the flat earth model
    SilverishGoldNova
  • https://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

    Gravity is both a theory and a law, gravity, of course, does not work on the flat earth model
    Right, it's just a theory.
    Hankfea
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -  

    "We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

    While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall."

    HankSilverishGoldNova
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -  
    "The rest of your post is discussing the theory of gravity, which was invented to support the ball earth assumption. You are using a theory to support an assumption. I'm proving that assumption to be false, therefore the theory is false."

    A proves B to be correct, B can only be proven false by proving that A is false. I have presented my argument on why gravity exists and how it works, I only wait your rebuttals. Also, for some reason @Erfisflat is ignoring me. 
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    "The rest of your post is discussing the theory of gravity, which was invented to support the ball earth assumption. You are using a theory to support an assumption.
    Nobody said that, but its true
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • MissDMeanorMissDMeanor 100 Pts   -  
    Pg 2 of this debate, @Erfisflat said that

    fea
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    Pg 2 of this debate, @Erfisflat said that

    O right. It's true, tho
    Hank
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Im claiming it's an obviously currently unanswerable question. Similar to asking deep sea fish what is on top of the water.
    Then shouldn't you be quoting SilverishGoldNova and explaining why he's wrong to make these claims?
  • @Ampersand Well then I guess both me and DMeanor are guilty of assumptions? We both admitted either way its an assumption
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova
    And somehow the thing the earth is sitting on is unaffected by gravity? or Density? Are you telling me there exists a material that has no density/is not affected by gravity, but has enough physical existence to hold the earth and the entire universe? You are telling me that exists with no evidence of such a material. 

    @MissDMeanor Yes, there is this umm, .. thing that not just the earth, but ALL things in existence is sitting on, .. or more like; "exists IN", .. and the best part of it is that we all have this .. this .. well it's not material, but, .. umm, I don't know how else to define it other than what it actually is: "Spit/Mind".

    Before you guys blow this off as nonsense, can you please consider it first? Debate it, ask me questions, maybe there is some things I missed?

    OK, now think of the physical universe, either a globe earth expanding in a Big-Banged space vacuum (please see NASA images for more information), or a more obvious Flat Earth with an atmosphere/air under a dome, and above that a lesser heaven where our stars are.
    Let's start with the Big-Banged universe because neither theory really matters in this case since whichever concept we imagine, we see it with our minds-eye, .. Big-Banged, or Gods creation, for the mind it's all the same. And obviously we can question either concept, but that's besides the point.

    So there you go, if you want to believe the Big-Banged earth, solar system, space, it too has to be IN something, right? In this case we say it's in an expanding universe.
    Q. What's holding up the Expanding universe? Wait, better yet, we can ask; what held up that whatever quantum-speck that Big-Banged? Or what was this quantum 'speck' residing in once it popped out of "nothing"?
    You have to admit that whatever this "speck" was, once it appeared, it had to be IN something, and it wasn't in any "space" that Big-Bangers can explain because this speck existed in a point in  '?'  before space and time even existed. Before it created Spacetime.
    Remember that this 'speck' is before there was an 'up', or a 'down'. Before space, before any 'thing". We have only "speck", so what do you all say is this pre-Big Banged speck in?

    The Flat Earth with the dome, and above that the stars are all in whatever the Big-Banged universe is expanding in.

    Whoever created everything by rules and laws, obviously defined what 'up' is and what 'down' is. Now you can call up 'anti-gravity' and down 'gravity', but that's your choice. With, or without gravity: "What goes up, .. must come down", except the things that were made to stay up.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova
    The round earth model does not have speculation. There exist an infinite vacuum that we travel through on all sides of us. The only model with speculation is yours.

    In the round earth model the force that holds us down collapses in on itself, into the center of the sphere. The problem with your model is that we need to assume more things, as the force pulling down so the question must be asked, what is under the earth? The fact that we must speculate what is under the earth in the flat earth model allows us to apply Occam's Razor, eliminating that possibility.

    Also, you haven't refuted anything I said about density or gravity. 

    @MissDMeanor
    LOL, .. infinite vacuum that started 13.75 billion years ago, by a quantum whatever speck that for unknown reasons was getting denser and hotter. If this answers ANYTHING for you or anyone, then you are far, far more "religious" then I ever was when I was a Christian. Remember that Religion and blind-faith go hand in hand, which is how fantasy comes alive.

    If anyone past the age of four who has seen how things work, can imagine that a very, very teeny-tiny "something", before it itself created space, time and mass/gravity, can get denser, .. and by this act of getting denser and denser it gets hotter and hotter (besides, did hot and cold even exist yet? And what was getting hot, and from what, .. friction lol?) until it reached exactly 66.6 gazillion degrees (lol again) until this whatever speck just couldn't take the pressure (from what? what was squeezing on this speck, or what was pulling it smaller and smaller?) till it exploded!
    Exploded with a Big Bang mind you, .. Yep, his eminence George Lemaitre heard it, and 666CERN verified this in their Giant particle collider with the 4" thick cables running 17 miles in a giant shape of a '6'.

    Can you imagine something exploding before gravity, before space and time, before heat and cold existed, and it just did. Yep, these are not 'speculations' because 666CERN and snake tongued NASA sees things like this happening all the time. They spend a lot of hours outside of space and time watching quantum-specks pop in and out of existence, .. get hotter and hotter and exploding. Oh yeah, let's not forget bosons, they are everywhere outside of existence, you just have to know 'where' to look?
    SilverishGoldNova
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova

    Not really, as I see it MissDMeanor was following the logic of your argument. The assumption is inherent in your theory. That MDM pointed that out does not make it her assumption.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Ampersand said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    Not really, as I see it MissDMeanor was following the logic of your argument. The assumption is inherent in your theory. That MDM pointed that out does not make it her assumption.

    With the mountains of proof of a flat Earth in mind it's more likely there is something situated below us. We would feel if we were moving so fast.

    Either who knows 

    Or infinite plane

    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
This Debate has been closed.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch