Earth is a ball

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat
"Me too. It is."
Ignoring the fact that the water experiments are not relevant the normal  was pointing down on your first picture with the straw and glass and you viewed the second picture from above the normal in the fallowing picture. The match what my model predicts and there for accomplish nothing. View the second image blow the normal with a glass that does not slant and if it does appear higher my model will be shown to be false.

"You literally just quoted me doing just that."
I am looking for evidence that ether contradicts my model or mimics the atmosphere and all its property. The atmosphere does not have a change in mediums from side to side but rather up and down. The atmosphere is 96% not water vapor and water vapor is not liquid water. Their is no glass barrier between mediums in the atmosphere. The atmosphere curves. The atmosphere has varing temperatures and winds. While all these factors may not matter you must first prove the do not matter.

"The empirical and practical experiments put forth so far."
You have yet to put fourth practical and empirical experiments.

"This is what we are referring to by atmospheric refraction. Light being bent from water, in its gaseous state."
The atmosphere is only around 4% water vapor. Don't ignore the other 96%.

"Theoretically, yes, and no. Technically we are in the same medium, but since the water is accumulated over a certain distance, and is very thin in the area directly around you, the experiment proves to be, logically a valid representation, or as close to a simulation as we can get at the moment. Again, at any time, if you have a valid experiment that better represents the conditions of the atmosphere, I'm willing to perform it, especially if it can reproduce the effects needed with the ball earth model."
Ignoring the fact water is not the atmosphere you must consider light bends when inturing and exiting the medium of water. Whit light in the atmosphere the light does not inter a new medium in to the side of the medium like the water but rather from up in down. That is where the density change lies not front to back. The change in the medium is not as drastic ether.

"Nonsense. Please explain how we can achieve this unmixing of different temperatures of water and how it could possibly have any effect on the results."
The water is the same temperature. It is colder then the air because it takes more energy to heat water then air. The water cools the air around it. This means the layer of air above the water is cool but that normal air is hotter. This means their is a sheet of cold air over the lake with hotter air above and around the lake. This has been confirmed and you could confirm it if you wan't. Hotter air is less dense then cold air. So when light inters a medium with a different desty it refracts. This is where the refraction happens.

"I have, and have deduced, with logic, that it is irrelevant. If you have verifiable evidence that contradicts this, present it."
How did you come to this conclusion? Less dense air is a new medium. My model shows if light inters a medium with a different density it will refract. We know that the change in medium is what causes refraction not going through a single medium as we can make the mediums we preform experiments on as long as we like and are results don't change. This means that you water experiment is no longer valid. Of course it did not contradict my model to begin with as you used slanted grass and viewed it from above the normal. You will also notice when you experiment with lenses made with the same materials but with different density that light will bend differently. If the only change comes from denser air blow less dense air then are experiments should reflect that. You have offerd no experiments to show that the density of the air should be ignored.

A full moon still contradicts your model.

I'll have to respond to this as soon as I'm done with goober. Maybe he'll produce an image for evaluation today. I do want you to elaborate on this statement though.

"A full moon still contradicts your model."

I don't have a full model. I can say with certainty that the earth is not a sphere, and this contradicts your model, but looking at the moon does not prove the earth is a spinning ball. 
@nope

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat
"Me too. It is."
Ignoring the fact that the water experiments are not relevant the normal  was pointing down on your first picture with the straw and glass and you viewed the second picture from above the normal in the fallowing picture. The match what my model predicts and there for accomplish nothing. View the second image blow the normal with a glass that does not slant and if it does appear higher my model will be shown to be false.

"You literally just quoted me doing just that."
I am looking for evidence that ether contradicts my model or mimics the atmosphere and all its property. The atmosphere does not have a change in mediums from side to side but rather up and down. The atmosphere is 96% not water vapor and water vapor is not liquid water. Their is no glass barrier between mediums in the atmosphere. The atmosphere curves. The atmosphere has varing temperatures and winds. While all these factors may not matter you must first prove the do not matter.

"The empirical and practical experiments put forth so far."
You have yet to put fourth practical and empirical experiments.

"This is what we are referring to by atmospheric refraction. Light being bent from water, in its gaseous state."
The atmosphere is only around 4% water vapor. Don't ignore the other 96%.

"Theoretically, yes, and no. Technically we are in the same medium, but since the water is accumulated over a certain distance, and is very thin in the area directly around you, the experiment proves to be, logically a valid representation, or as close to a simulation as we can get at the moment. Again, at any time, if you have a valid experiment that better represents the conditions of the atmosphere, I'm willing to perform it, especially if it can reproduce the effects needed with the ball earth model."
Ignoring the fact water is not the atmosphere you must consider light bends when inturing and exiting the medium of water. Whit light in the atmosphere the light does not inter a new medium in to the side of the medium like the water but rather from up in down. That is where the density change lies not front to back. The change in the medium is not as drastic ether.

"Nonsense. Please explain how we can achieve this unmixing of different temperatures of water and how it could possibly have any effect on the results."
The water is the same temperature. It is colder then the air because it takes more energy to heat water then air. The water cools the air around it. This means the layer of air above the water is cool but that normal air is hotter. This means their is a sheet of cold air over the lake with hotter air above and around the lake. This has been confirmed and you could confirm it if you wan't. Hotter air is less dense then cold air. So when light inters a medium with a different desty it refracts. This is where the refraction happens.

"I have, and have deduced, with logic, that it is irrelevant. If you have verifiable evidence that contradicts this, present it."
How did you come to this conclusion? Less dense air is a new medium. My model shows if light inters a medium with a different density it will refract. We know that the change in medium is what causes refraction not going through a single medium as we can make the mediums we preform experiments on as long as we like and are results don't change. This means that you water experiment is no longer valid. Of course it did not contradict my model to begin with as you used slanted grass and viewed it from above the normal. You will also notice when you experiment with lenses made with the same materials but with different density that light will bend differently. If the only change comes from denser air blow less dense air then are experiments should reflect that. You have offerd no experiments to show that the density of the air should be ignored.

A full moon still contradicts your model.

Hopefully I can understand your point. Better use diagrams and a source to be sure.

SilverishGoldNova

@Erfisflat Just looking at your sig I think all bodies of water have been proven to be demonstrably flat already

Nope

Erfisfla
"I don't have a full model. I can say with certainty that the earth is not a sphere, and this contradicts your model, but looking at the moon does not prove the earth is a spinning ball." 
A full moon can be observed any where on earth. Shadows can be observed on the surface of the moon creates. The moon does not always appear to the south.

Erfisflat

"A full moon can be observed any where on earth. "

Does not contradict my model.

"Shadows can be observed on the surface of the moon creates. "

Incoherent sentence.

"The moon does not always appear to the south."

Coherent, but does not contradict my model.

@nope

Nope

Erfisflat
"Does not contradict my model."
If the moon does not make its own light why can it be observed by slightly more then half the earth at once. Their must be some light source doing this. I have yet to find a good explanation to how this is possible on a flat earth.

"Incoherent sentence."
The craters of the moon have shadows in them. There for the moon does not make it's own light.

"Coherent, but does not contradict my model."
If the moon does not always appear to the south it cannot always be to the south.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Excellent! Just FYI, if you look at the video, the "very slight curvature" was about 60 degrees of arc; or about 4000 miles if you applied it to earth; but that you made the admission is important!

So moving onto incorrect statement #2.

Wide angle lenses produce significant distortion: true.

There's distortion in all cameras; true.

Is there enough distortion in all cameras to make a straight and level horizon look substantially curbed? No. Otherwise taking photos of straight lines would be impossible.

Erfisflat

"Does not contradict my model."
"If the moon does not make its own light why can it be observed by slightly more then half the earth at once. Their must be some light source doing this. I have yet to find a good explanation to how this is possible on a flat earth."

If there's one thing you take from this conversation, make it this. Pointing at the sky, then telling me something up there has anything to do with the ground beneath your feet is a non sequitur.

I can say with certainty that all bodies (over a drop) of water are flat. If the earth's surface is mostly water, it follows that the earth(or it's waters) are flat, and it would be directly impossible for the earth to be a sphere. This is a more logical statement.

I adhere to no model. Things that are seemingly impossible on a flat earth are just ignorance of how out firmament works. This is a masterpiece of the most perfect intelligent design. I think of it like an endless pink Floyd laser show that keeps perfect time. 


There are plenty of perfectly logical theories on the subject of the moon, all more plausible than the current model. Lunar waves is an interesting phenomenon that suggest that the moon may be a projection.


I know you have YouTube restrictions but it's a wave that comes over the moon, giving it the appearance of a reflection or protection onto the firmament. It's been recorded on various devices by various locations and sources around the plane, and though rare, the event can be empirically verified.

"Incoherent sentence."
"The craters of the moon have shadows in them. There for the moon does not make it's own light."

Who knows. This is partly why I am here. To get this conversation started, clear the taboos associated with the topic, and get answers. Maybe the shadows are just other parts that don't light up by themselves? You're assuming I have the position that the moon gives off it's own light. I have no firm position on the moon and am open for discussion on the matter.

"Coherent, but does not contradict my model."
"If the moon does not always appear to the south it cannot always be to the south."

Who said it is always south?



@nope

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat
"Does not contradict my model."
If the moon does not make its own light why can it be observed by slightly more then half the earth at once. Their must be some light source doing this. I have yet to find a good explanation to how this is possible on a flat earth.

"Incoherent sentence."
The craters of the moon have shadows in them. There for the moon does not make it's own light.

"Coherent, but does not contradict my model."
If the moon does not always appear to the south it cannot always be to the south.

I really thought goober was going to post a bent horizon picture that time. I'm really looking forward to seeing this "scientific evidence" that is highly inconclusive at best. Doesn't it seem like he is cherry picking my arguments and dodging all of my points, while ignoring most of my requests and points? Hopefully I'm not WASTING HIS TIME...

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Pseudo scientists often play a game called "find me a rock", this game goes like this:

PS: "find me a rock"

Me: "here you go, here's a rock"

PS: "that rock is too brown"

Me: "here you go, here is a brown rock"

PS: "that rock is too small"

Me: "here you go, here is a brown small rock"

PS: "that rock is too smooth"

... etc

The purpose of this game, is for the pseudoscientist to do no work, and make little argument at all, and to make his or her only contribution to a conversation to dream up different reasons to discount the rock being the correct one, even though he or she could have happily given all the possible rocks he or she would reject the rock at the start.

Your sig shows that you understand and appreciate the scientific method. As a result you must surely reject the pseudoscientific approach I just described and embrace the principles of falsifiability:

As a result, your position must be falsifiable; and as a result, so you surely know how to recognize if a picture of a curved horizon was valid and genuine in order to make your position falsifiable.

I would just like you to share what those criteria are, so I can look for the photo that satisfies your criteria and falsifies your position rather than having to play guess the reasons you won't accept a photograph.

Erfisflat

"Is there enough distortion in all cameras to make a straight and level horizon look substantially curbed? No."

Fase. I've seen curvature from a straight line on a "regular lens" as it approaches the edges. Photography experts agree.

https://photographylife.com/what-is-distortion/amp#barrel-distortion

Barrel distortion is typically present on most wide angle prime lenses and many zoom lenses with relatively short focal lengths. The amount of distortion can vary, depending on camera to subject distance. Even standard 50mm prime lenses can potentially yield barrel distortion at close distances. Barrel distortion can be decreased significantly by using compensating optical elements, but completely eliminating such distortion is nearly impossible.

" Otherwise taking photos of straight lines would be impossible."

If we're looking at an image, how do we know it isn't a fisheye lens? 

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Now as you seem unwilling to provide anything more than you already have, if you would be so kind, rather than reeling off a dozen or so new points; let's go back to the second point you got wrong. It's a few posts ago.

Erfisflat

"Pseudo scientists often play a game called "find me a rock", this game goes like this:

PS: "find me a rock"

Me: "here you go, here's a rock"

PS: "that rock is too brown"

Me: "here you go, here is a brown rock"

PS: "that rock is too small"

Me: "here you go, here is a brown small rock"

PS: "that rock is too smooth"

... etc

The purpose of this game, is for the pseudoscientist to do no work, and make little argument at all, and to make his or her only contribution to a conversation to dream up different reasons to discount the rock being the correct one, even though he or she could have happily given all the possible rocks he or she would reject the rock at the start."

Actually the pseudoscientist would be the one to bring the computer generated image of a rock, for a correct analogy. Or nothing at all, in your case.

"Your sig shows that you understand and appreciate the scientific method. As a result you must surely reject the pseudoscientific approach I just described and embrace the principles of falsifiability:"

Sure do.

"As a result, your position must be falsifiable; and as a result, so you surely know how to recognize if a picture of a curved horizon was valid and genuine in order to make your position falsifiable."

I sure do. None of them are valid. Images of the earth have been faked, and are easily done so, especially in this time. If the "photo" isn't validatable, it isn't infallible.

"I would just like you to share what those criteria are, so I can look for the photo that satisfies your criteria and falsifies your position rather than having to play guess the reasons you won't accept a photograph."

I've personally forgotten more ways to tell a phony. Put up or , present an image and let's analyze it together. You don't have to play the guessing game, and I don't have to play the begging game. ON WITH THE SHOW as they say...

@Gooberry

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Im asking how I would objectively verify, for myself whether the image would be acceptable to you.

I don't want to waste either of my time by posting a picture you won't accept.

As you claim to be a scientist, you should already know what potential image you would accept as genuine.

Why won't you share with the rest of us what you would deem as a objectively verifiable genuine and true image of a curved horizon like any reason reasonable or rational scientist would?

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

I would also point out that I'm treating you with respect, Im trying to understand your position, I'm not calling you names, and I'm trying to not throw a thousand points at you all at once, and keep things to small individual points at a time.

If you want to try argue through insults and belittling, go ahead; but your willingness to resort to such arguments in the face of someone being respectful it undermines your credibility.

Erfisflat

"Im asking how I would objectively verify, for myself whether the image would be acceptable to you."

Quite frankly, an image wouldn't be acceptable as scientific evidence. I know I'm repeating myself on this. Now if the image were verifiable, that'd be different. Like this image.


100 km of flat water.

"I don't want to waste either of my time by posting a picture you won't accept."

I've already given you over a half dozen examples of faked pictures of the curved earth that I do not accept. Why am I the one trying to guess what evidence you have? You've gone on a two to three page tangent about how I should take unverifiable imagery as infallible information. Is this logical to you?

"As you claim to be a scientist, you should already know what potential image you would accept as genuine."

One that is verifiable. That is, anyone can go and verify the image is accurate.

"Why won't you share with the rest of us what you would deem as a objectively verifiable genuine and true image of a curved horizon like any reason reasonable or rational scientist would?"

There isn't one. Too many easy ways to manipulate imagery. When you've measured the earth, and found no curve, no picture can supercede those results. Especially with $20,000,000,000 a year is dependant on it. 

Edit: forgot some zeroes.

But we may never know. We haven't seen anything...

@Gooberry

Erfisflat

If I offended you, apolagies. It is often difficult to maintain composure in the face of willful ignorance. 

Erfisflat

Fvck you Debra AI! THAT WAS CONSIDERATE!

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Okay, so the image has to be verifiable. I take verifiable to mean something along the lines of "confirmable as authentic or genuine."

That's pretty much what I am asking you to help me with: how do I tell whether an image verifiable.

You gave me an image example, that's a brilliant start.

What about your image is verifiable, and how can I tell (making that image objectively verifiable)? And how do you tell images from space don't have that feature that tells you that they aren't verifiable?

From my perspective, you presented an image, and I can't tell how to verify the water is flag, or whether it's "100km" of flat water. I don't know enough to know whether the photo is altered or faked, or a stitched panorama: you said yourself it's easy to fake images, it's not a location where I live or ever plan to go, nor do I have the necessary equipment to take the image itself either.

Now before you go on to "tell me" those individual things; I'm not interested in you telling me this specific image is verifiable (we can talk about that later if you want), Im interested in how you came to that conclusion for one photo, and came to another conclusion for pictures of earth from space. What separates them? 

You came very close to implying that it doesn't matter what images I provide you wouldn't accept them; first by saying images would not be evidence unless verified (but making it unclear how you would verify them); and second by saying that there are so many ways of altering images that with other evidence you would reject them. Am I understanding that right?

Ampersand

@Gooberry

His definition of validity is can you and he personally replicate the details of the photo. 

Therefore he can automatically disregard photos from space because he doesn't have a satellite while all photos from the ground can be considered verifiable because he could theoretically replicate them even though:

a) He never does.

b) The standard scientific theory says the view will change based on atmospheric refraction and he has no way to replicate atmospheric conditions to test that.

c) You wouldn't expect to see curvature at ground level just by looking.

You'll note that despite his talk of science versus pseudoscience, his criteria of verification is utterly pseudoscientific and not part of the scientific method. No matter how strong or utterly overwhelming the scientific evidence is, he will reject it unless he can personally check it: e.g. because he doesn't have a particle accelerator any experiments involving one of those are 'unverifiable' and can be ignored.

It's just an excuse to ignore evidence.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Okay, so the image has to be verifiable. I take verifiable to mean something along the lines of "confirmable as authentic or genuine."

That's pretty much what I am asking you to help me with: how do I tell whether an image verifiable.

You gave me an image example, that's a brilliant start.

What about your image is verifiable, and how can I tell (making that image objectively verifiable)? And how do you tell images from space don't have that feature that tells you that they aren't verifiable?

From my perspective, you presented an image, and I can't tell how to verify the water is flag, or whether it's "100km" of flat water. I don't know enough to know whether the photo is altered or faked, or a stitched panorama: you said yourself it's easy to fake images, it's not a location where I live or ever plan to go, nor do I have the necessary equipment to take the image itself either.

Now before you go on to "tell me" those individual things; I'm not interested in you telling me this specific image is verifiable (we can talk about that later if you want), Im interested in how you came to that conclusion for one photo, and came to another conclusion for pictures of earth from space. What separates them? 

You came very close to implying that it doesn't matter what images I provide you wouldn't accept them; first by saying images would not be evidence unless verified (but making it unclear how you would verify them); and second by saying that there are so many ways of altering images that with other evidence you would reject them. Am I understanding that right?

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Okay, so the image has to be verifiable. I take verifiable to mean something along the lines of "confirmable as authentic or genuine."

That's pretty much what I am asking you to help me with: how do I tell whether an image verifiable.

You gave me an image example, that's a brilliant start.

What about your image is verifiable, and how can I tell (making that image objectively verifiable)? And how do you tell images from space don't have that feature that tells you that they aren't verifiable?

From my perspective, you presented an image, and I can't tell how to verify the water is flag, or whether it's "100km" of flat water. I don't know enough to know whether the photo is altered or faked, or a stitched panorama: you said yourself it's easy to fake images, it's not a location where I live or ever plan to go, nor do I have the necessary equipment to take the image itself either.

Now before you go on to "tell me" those individual things; I'm not interested in you telling me this specific image is verifiable (we can talk about that later if you want), Im interested in how you came to that conclusion for one photo, and came to another conclusion for pictures of earth from space. What separates them? 

You came very close to implying that it doesn't matter what images I provide you wouldn't accept them; first by saying images would not be evidence unless verified (but making it unclear how you would verify them); and second by saying that there are so many ways of altering images that with other evidence you would reject them. Am I understanding that right?

Nope

"I can say with certainty that all bodies (over a drop) of water are flat. If the earth's surface is mostly water, it follows that the earth(or it's waters) are flat, and it would be directly impossible for the earth to be a sphere. This is a more logical statement."
While that is a logical statement why can you say all bodies of water are flat?

"Who knows. This is partly why I am here. To get this conversation started, clear the taboos associated with the topic, and get answers. Maybe the shadows are just other parts that don't light up by themselves? You're assuming I have the position that the moon gives off it's own light. I have no firm position on the moon and am open for discussion on the matter."
I am not assuming your position. If I am to make a claim I need to refute all possible alternative explanations that I can think of. While they can be part that don't light up. They match very well with shadows and it is extremely unlikely that the parts that don't light up line up perfectly with shadows.

"Who said it is always south?"
That is another alternative explanation that I must consider and refute in order to come to once conclusion. Some of my points may be to illuminate certain alternative explanations. 

Erfisflat

"Okay, so the image has to be verifiable. I take verifiable to mean something along the lines of "confirmable as authentic or genuine."

Right. If I describe and experiment to you, take pictures of my setup, my gear, the results, etc. I'm sharing information with you that you can repeat, and VERIFY those pictures are accurate. If you felt inclined to put a little effort and or money into the process, you can then VERIFY the results. 

On your hand, we will never be able to verify if a picture from space. No matter how much you'd like to be, you're not going be able to swear that oath of secrecy and be an asto-not. These guys had just supposedly seen the earth as a ball... If they let me go to the moon, you would see nothing but BEAMING SMILES. For possibly months. Something like this that speaks I'm a National Hero.


These guys looked like had just witnessed a murder and were being coached on what to say.

Erfisflat

Ampersand

So exactly the illogical and unscientific reasoning I explained he would give here: http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/16201/#Comment_16201

No matter how impossibly overwhelming the evidence and no matter how many times it has been verified, he will automatically disregard it of it involves expensive scientific equipment - completely contrary to the scientific method.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat so you have personally verified and recreated every image you’ve posted here as “proof”?

You also didn’t answer the latter part of my post.

WilliamSchulz

Ampersand said:

So exactly the illogical and unscientific reasoning I explained he would give here: http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/16201/#Comment_16201

No matter how impossibly overwhelming the evidence and no matter how many times it has been verified, he will automatically disregard it of it involves expensive scientific equipment - completely contrary to the scientific method.

While the first half may be true, expensive scientific equipment is not contrary to the scientific method. The scientific method requires a hypothesis, an experiment, an analysis, and a conclusion. Expensive equipment is a means to an ends, which means that it can be used in the scientific process. That being said, one can not disregard evidence based on the cost of equipment used, rather the uses of the equipment and the evidence that it obtains.  

Ampersand

@WilliamSchulz

You misread my argument as you're repeating my points back at me as if we're disagreeing.

ErfisFlat is the one whose argument is that he can ignore experimental results if they involve expensive equipment. It's ErfIsFlats illogic where he ignores valid and verified evidence that is contrary to the scientific method.

Erfisflat

"so you have personally verified and recreated every image you’ve posted here as “proof”?"

Of course not, don't be absurd, but I've personally verified that a large body of water is flat. On more than one occasion at that. The picture I posted above is a common occurrence and can be verified by literally anyone in the areas, even children.

 Another is the common sight of the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan. Thousands of people have witnessed it, all unbiased. This contradicts the space pictures that the common man cannot verify. This sheds doubt on the validity of such a picture, aside from the proven fact that a majority of those pictures were found to be completely fabricated or altered. Couple that with the fact that you can't even produce a single picture that you think is real over the course of 3 pages, and it is illogical to say that I should take those unverifiable images over ones that I CAN verify.

"You also didn’t answer the latter part of my post."

I'm limited on time as of lately. Would you like me to refresh you on over a dozen parts of my posts that you didn't answer?

Ampersand

"Of course not, don't be absurd, but I've personally verified that a large body of water is flat. On more than one occasion at that."

Provide full details of even one time you have measured the curvature of a large body of water, have not seen curvature and are observing it in a way where according to conventional physics and the limitations of human sight you would be expected to see curvature.

"Another is the common sight of the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan. Thousands of people have witnessed it, all unbiased. This contradicts the space pictures that the common man cannot verify."

Nope, not only is this expected and falling exactly in line with scientific predictions - but it is in fact incompatible with your claims. Why have only "thousands" of people seen it? Because it is a rare event that only happens when the atmospheric conditions are right. If the earth were flat you would expect to be able to see it everyday as the basic conditions (straight line of sight and large buildings) would not change.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html

Erfisflat

"While that is a logical statement why can you say all bodies of water are flat?"

It is a common physical property of water: To fill it's container, and seek to maintain a flat and level surface. If you have a logical reason to assume that one body of water has different physical properties than those that I have measured, I'm all ears. At some point you have to accept observable reality.

"I am not assuming your position. If I am to make a claim I need to refute all possible alternative explanations that I can think of. While they can be part that don't light up. They match very well with shadows and it is extremely unlikely that the parts that don't light up line up perfectly with shadows."

It was extremely unlikely that, before you came to Debateisland, the earth was flat. Now you find yourself pushing a strawman as an argument against the flat earth.

That is another alternative explanation that I must consider and refute in order to come to once conclusion. Some of my points may be to illuminate certain alternative explanations. 

Who is giving you the alternative explanation:"the moon is always south, therefore the earth must be flat"? Certainly not I.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

So exactly the illogical and unscientific reasoning I explained he would give here: http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/16201/#Comment_16201

No matter how impossibly overwhelming the evidence and no matter how many times it has been verified, he will automatically disregard it of it involves expensive scientific equipment - completely contrary to the scientific method.

You ignorantly claim it is illogical and unscientific, but what part of the scientific method says I have to take any image as infallible evidence for anything? These are the ways of the pseudoscientist. 

Erfisflat

"Provide full details of even one time you have measured the curvature of a large body of water, have not seen curvature and are observing it in a way where according to conventional physics and the limitations of human sight you would be expected to see curvature."

It's a simple experiment really. I'm not ordering you to take my word for it. Perform the experiment yourself. VALIDATE the results.

I was fortunate enough to end up within several miles of a large manmade lake. Over the course of 3 miles, one would expect, if we lived on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, to see a hump or drop in the water some 72" high. However, on a clear day, when the water is not choppy, an observer only 10 inches from the water's surface on one side can clearly see the shores on the other side.

Now, from our previous engagement, and likely your response will follow as "muh refraction", provide full details of even one time you have measured refraction from water effectively raising an object back into view from out of sight, all at eye's level.

"Nope, not only is this expected and falling exactly in line with scientific predictions - but it is in fact incompatible with your claims. Why have only "thousands" of people seen it? Because it is a rare event that only happens when the atmospheric conditions are right. If the earth were flat you would expect to be able to see it everyday as the basic conditions (straight line of sight and large buildings) would not change."

You're ignoring basic atmospheric blockage. Sure, you would expect to see it everyday, if there weren't a such thing as dust, heat, fog, dew, smog, etc. that all effectively cause our line of sight to be more or less limited. It's called visibility range, and comes with most weather apps and or websites. 

The link you provide is irrelevant, claims the image is a mirage, which is likely, but another topic altogether, as a mirage is essentially a mirror image, and no inversions are in the very many images of Chicago that I have seen. Though it is an interesting phenomenon that I will research when I find time.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

So exactly the illogical and unscientific reasoning I explained he would give here: http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/16201/#Comment_16201

No matter how impossibly overwhelming the evidence and no matter how many times it has been verified, he will automatically disregard it of it involves expensive scientific equipment - completely contrary to the scientific method.

You ignorantly claim it is illogical and unscientific, but what part of the scientific method says I have to take any image as infallible evidence for anything? These are the ways of the pseudoscientist. 

That would be a strawman argument you're making as I never made that claim. Please address my actual argument.

I said "No matter how impossibly overwhelming the evidence and no matter how many times it has been verified, he will automatically disregard it of it involves expensive scientific equipment - completely contrary to the scientific method"

So applying that to the example of an image, if there is overwhelming evidence that an image is real you will automatically disregard it if reproducing it would involve expensive scientific scientific equipment - completely contrary to the scientific method. You are there not expected to accept any image as automatically correct nor infallible (contrary to your claim), but you may not dismiss evidence simply because it's performed at a level you can't replicate yourself.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

"Provide full details of even one time you have measured the curvature of a large body of water, have not seen curvature and are observing it in a way where according to conventional physics and the limitations of human sight you would be expected to see curvature."

It's a simple experiment really. I'm not ordering you to take my word for it. Perform the experiment yourself. VALIDATE the results.

I was fortunate enough to end up within several miles of a large manmade lake. Over the course of 3 miles, one would expect, if we lived on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, to see a hump or drop in the water some 72" high. However, on a clear day, when the water is not choppy, an observer only 10 inches from the water's surface on one side can clearly see the shores on the other side.

Now, from our previous engagement, and likely your response will follow as "muh refraction", provide full details of even one time you have measured refraction from water effectively raising an object back into view from out of sight, all at eye's level.

"Nope, not only is this expected and falling exactly in line with scientific predictions - but it is in fact incompatible with your claims. Why have only "thousands" of people seen it? Because it is a rare event that only happens when the atmospheric conditions are right. If the earth were flat you would expect to be able to see it everyday as the basic conditions (straight line of sight and large buildings) would not change."

You're ignoring basic atmospheric blockage. Sure, you would expect to see it everyday, if there weren't a such thing as dust, heat, fog, dew, smog, etc. that all effectively cause our line of sight to be more or less limited. It's called visibility range, and comes with most weather apps and or websites. 

The link you provide is irrelevant, claims the image is a mirage, which is likely, but another topic altogether, as a mirage is essentially a mirror image, and no inversions are in the very many images of Chicago that I have seen. Though it is an interesting phenomenon that I will research when I find time.

It speaks volumes that you think that is an "experiment" that based on your description has any validity or use. I have asked for full details and there isn't even basic information provided like how far across the lake was or whether you even could actually see anything on the other side or not. Not only is it not replicatable but it doesn't even tell us anything what we're meant to be debating. Your own experiments continually fail to meet even the most basic levels of relevance to the claims you make.

You backed up your claims with "I've personally verified that a large body of water is flat. On more than one occasion at that". Your claims are now reliant on your personal verification acually existing and supporting your argument. If you cannot provide it you need to either concede the argument or provide alternative evidence.

For your request of "provide full details of even one time you have measured refraction from water effectively raising an object back into view from out of sight, all at eye's level":

Firstly why would I fulfil your request when you have continually failed (here) and refused (the scientific experiments I referenced multiple times previously) to respond to my similar requests? 

Secondly, why would I need to do my own measurements when the entire purpose of the scientific method and community is that it provides an astounding array of experiments which have already been conducted and verified that can be refereed to? Your need for everyone to personally verify things is a personal peccadillo of yours, nothing that logically or scientifically anyone else needs to pay any heed to.

Thirdly, why would I do an experiment about how water refracts when the debate is about how the atmospheric refraction works e.g. refraction along the density gradient of the air (e.g. air getting thinner the higher you go)? 

Fourthly, even if for some unknown reason I went along with your proposed experiment, it makes no sense even beyond all the other reasons it makes no sense. It can't all be eye level or you wouldn't measure curvature. At least one item should be different from eye level, such as the object and your eye being at eye level and the water being held above eye level. If you could then see the object in the water then that would show water could do what you asked.

You claim that it is "basic atmospheric blockage" that stops people from seeing images that are atmospherically refracted is of course not only lacking any evidence whatsoever - you simply claim it with no support - but contradicts your own claims. You claim that the earth is flat - so if I am looking just above the horizon I am looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere and yet I can see the clear blue sky on the other end (assuming it's day time). Similarly at night I can see stars just above the horizon (at lest if I am somewhere with low light pollution http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x61cokf) and all this blockage you claim magically disappears.

You finish off by stating: "The link you provide is irrelevant, claims the image is a mirage, which is likely, but another topic altogether, as a mirage is essentially a mirror image, and no inversions are in the very many images of Chicago that I have seen. Though it is an interesting phenomenon that I will research when I find time."

Again, more claims without evidence. Strange considering how according to your own sources which you have provided previously in attempts to back yourself up that ended with you shooting yourself in the foot, mirages are a form of atmospheric refraction and my explanation is correct. In particular what you claimed is "the world's leading experts on mirage" specifically say (http://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#looming):

Looming and Sinking

Looming and sinking are the simplest of all the refraction phenomena. They're simply abnormally large and small refraction, respectively. As was first shown by Lambert (1759), a constant density gradient in the lower atmosphere produces only a vertical displacement of distant objects, not a distortion. So looming is just an exaggeration of normal refraction, produced by a steeper than usual decrease in density with height.

As Talman (1932) says,

When abnormal refraction increases the apparent elevation of distant objects — often lifting above the horizon things normally below it — the process is described as ‘looming.’. Because we associate a certain apparent altitude with a certain distance, this phenomenon generally makes the objects seem nearer than they really are.

Looming   [align]

To simulate this effect, it's convenient to choose a temperature gradient that makes the ray curvature about half that of the Earth, instead of the usual 1/6 or 1/7 (the value Lambert inferred, by the way). If you look at the bending page, you'll see that a temperature inversion of about 0.11°/m will make the ray curvature match that of the Earth; so I've chosen 0.05°/m, or 5 degrees in 100 m, as the inversion to use.

Because my simulation program normally shades temperature inversions, the whole lower atmosphere here appears gray in the ray diagram at the left. (The gray shading indicates an inverted lapse rate, not a duct.)

To compare with the Standard-Atmosphere case, click here. About twice as much of the target is visible in the looming model as in the Standard one: we see 4 of its stripes here, instead of 2. As Everett (1874) says, “The visible effect is precisely the same as if the convexity of the surface of the earth were diminished.”

To see this much of the target in a Standard-Atmosphere simulation, a target distance of about 6 km would be needed, instead of the 10-km distance here. That illustrates why looming sometimes gives observers the impression that the object is abnormally nearby.

The classical example of looming is that described by William Latham (1798). A modern photograph showing looming (and some towering) of the Farallon Islands, as seen from San Francisco, is provided by Mila Zinkova. 

Personally I quite like the way how even hundreds of years ago William Latham was noting how the size of the cliffs that were being viewed via atmospheric refraction changed throughout the period of observations - notably growing upwards from their first site, making it clear that it is an issue of refraction rather than "atmospheric blockage" seeing as there is no conceivable way that dust in the atmosphere could lower or raise the images of cliffs while it is known and assumed that just this occurrence would happen with atmospheric refraction.

Erfisflat

Here's another, slightly more complicated experiment. 

Same lake, with has a length of over 30 miles. Acquired a phone with a gyroscope, a 6 inch level, and a boat. Start from one end (Martin Dam), place the phone at a stable and level place (use the level) and reset the gyroscope to that position. Drive the boat to the other side of the lake, some 31 miles, and relevel the phone. You'll find that the phone's  (gyroscope) orientation has not been changed, proving that the water is flat from start to end, and some 640 feet of curvature is not were it should be, IF the earth were a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference. Effectively eliminating any refraction and bendy light, we can deduce, once again, that the earth or at least it's waters, is flat, as common sense tells us.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

“Of course not, don't be absurd, but I've personally verified that a large body of water is flat. On more than one occasion at that.“

If you raised $@Erfisflat could fund a geostationary satellite or probe and verify some of these images. If you raised $10-20m you could become a space tourist, and verify these images. Any of us could. For a little less, we could build a rocket, and attach a decent (non fish eye) camera, and verify these images.  Even less you could fund a super high altitude balloon. 

As a result, all of these images are technically verifiable and reproducible; and your claims that they aren’t, is not based on any scientifically valid or objective criteria: What you appear to be doing, is arbitrarily assigning a practical and cost based limit on verifiability; so that all of your observations are below that limit, and all NASAs images are above that limit.

I’m never going to buy a camera and make the measurements you’ve made, and so applying my own limit of verifiability, your claims and NASAs claims are equally unverifiable by your own standards you apply.

In reality, whether you or I have the resources or ability to personally replicate a measurement or observation does not affect a measurements validity, or verifiability if it were, there’d be no science. As such, the argument that pictures from space are obviously not verifiable is not valid. Indeed, these pictures are verifiable and have been verified by other space agencies and organizations.

You’ve said that you won’t accept the pictures because you feel you have more valid measurements that mean they can’t be true.

That is a logically valid position; and means the validity of your position hinges on the credibility of measurements.

What I’m struggling to understand is why you don’t just say that, why all these obfuscated arguments and points?

For example: Why have you asked me several times to produce images that you know you won’t accept because you have better data? Why are you arguing that there is no evidence for a spherical earth, when it’s clear your position is that there is better evidence for your position? 

Even in terms of fakery; while you have provided some justifications, you have agreed can’t objectively show everything is a fake and are primarily arguing that it is valid to assume they are fake because you have the evidence that proves the earth is flat and is stronger than the remaining evidence the earth is a sphere.

What appears to be clear, as a result; is that your position stands or falls on the validity of your measurement of water: without that, pretty much every other point you’ve raised is effectively unsupported.

And just so you are aware; I am not ignoring the rest of your points; they are just not as important right now as working out what your actual argument is: it seems I have to tease the details out of you; as it’s clear now that what you’re really arguing, is very difficult from what you’re initially saying. 

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

“Of course not, don't be absurd, but I've personally verified that a large body of water is flat. On more than one occasion at that.“

If you raised $@Erfisflat could fund a geostationary satellite or probe and verify some of these images. If you raised $10-20m you could become a space tourist, and verify these images. Any of us could. For a little less, we could build a rocket, and attach a decent (non fish eye) camera, and verify these images.  Even less you could fund a super high altitude balloon. 

As a result, all of these images are technically verifiable and reproducible; and your claims that they aren’t, is not based on any scientifically valid or objective criteria: What you appear to be doing, is arbitrarily assigning a practical and cost based limit on verifiability; so that all of your observations are below that limit, and all NASAs images are above that limit.

I’m never going to buy a camera and make the measurements you’ve made, and so applying my own limit of verifiability, your claims and NASAs claims are equally unverifiable by your own standards you apply.

In reality, whether you or I have the resources or ability to personally replicate a measurement or observation does not affect a measurements validity, or verifiability if it were, there’d be no science. As such, the argument that pictures from space are obviously not verifiable is not valid. Indeed, these pictures are verifiable and have been verified by other space agencies and organizations.

You’ve said that you won’t accept the pictures because you feel you have more valid measurements that mean they can’t be true.

That is a logically valid position; and means the validity of your position hinges on the credibility of measurements.

What I’m struggling to understand is why you don’t just say that, why all these obfuscated arguments and points?

For example: Why have you asked me several times to produce images that you know you won’t accept because you have better data? Why are you arguing that there is no evidence for a spherical earth, when it’s clear your position is that there is better evidence for your position? 

Even in terms of fakery; while you have provided some justifications, you have agreed can’t objectively show everything is a fake and are primarily arguing that it is valid to assume they are fake because you have the evidence that proves the earth is flat and is stronger than the remaining evidence the earth is a sphere.

What appears to be clear, as a result; is that your position stands or falls on the validity of your measurement of water: without that, pretty much every other point you’ve raised is effectively unsupported.

And just so you are aware; I am not ignoring the rest of your points; they are just not as important right now as working out what your actual argument is: it seems I have to tease the details out of you; as it’s clear now that what you’re really arguing, is very difficult from what you’re initially saying. 

Nope

Erfisflat
No matter how long you make a container of water while the object may get smaller it always is shifted by the same amount as long as you keep your same angle in which you are looking through the water. (This is an experiment which you could preform which you would wan't to do very persisly.) This is important as it shows us that the leagnth of a medium light travels through does not effect the shift of the light. This is why your water experiment matters not. Light refracts when it inters a new medium. So when you looking through the air while the air has water vapor their is no change in medium to refract the light. On a flat earth it won't matter how far you are away from something their won't be refraction unless their is a change in medium. While there is no change in medium from side to side their is from up to down. The atmosphere gets thinner the higher you go most certainly if their is a layer of cold air under hot air in which case that is a more sudden faster change. Since thier is a change in medium from up to down their is refraction. But light only bends this way on a globe because the change in medium is curved. Your experiment is a terrible representation of the atmosphere for the reasons i mentioned. Lake Michagen is a big lake. Light refracts more over water normally. This is because the change in density of air is normally greatest over water. It is not hard to prove it takes more energy to heat water then air. So if waters temperature changes slower then the air then it is only natural for their to be a cold sheet of cold air over water. I am having trouble finding diagrams.  

Also how acrate is your phone gyroscope? Is their an app that alows you to tell the change in your gyroscopes angle to the ground?

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Here's another, slightly more complicated experiment. 

Same lake, with has a length of over 30 miles. Acquired a phone with a gyroscope, a 6 inch level, and a boat. Start from one end (Martin Dam), place the phone at a stable and level place (use the level) and reset the gyroscope to that position. Drive the boat to the other side of the lake, some 31 miles, and relevel the phone. You'll find that the phone's  (gyroscope) orientation has not been changed, proving that the water is flat from start to end, and some 640 feet of curvature is not were it should be, IF the earth were a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference. Effectively eliminating any refraction and bendy light, we can deduce, once again, that the earth or at least it's waters, is flat, as common sense tells us.

Are you assuming a magic gyroscope? Do I really have to walk you through the explanation of how all scientific instruments work within certain levels of accuracy and how gyroscopes function again?

Your boat would need to be going several thousand miles an hour to stand a chance of picking up anything.

Erfisflat

"If you raised $@Erfisflat could fund a geostationary satellite or probe and verify some of these images. "

How would i be able to verify that the so called satellite is "geostationary" and not all some computer simulation? I have no way to verify that satellites exist at all. 

"If you raised $10-20m you could become a space tourist, and verify these images."

Oh is that all? The claim is false, space tourism is a fantasy. Anyone offering any of this crap is scamming the public. Point me to where I can get a ticket to ride. We hear "maybe soon" or "some day". It's not going to happen, and for good reason.

" Any of us could."

False.

" For a little less, we could build a rocket, and attach a decent (non fish eye) camera, and verify these images.  Even less you could fund a super high altitude balloon. "

Then we would have to rely on camera lenses, which all have some degree of barrel or other distortion. A point that you dropped ages ago.

"As a result, all of these images are technically verifiable and reproducible; 

False.

"and your claims that they aren’t, is not based on any scientifically valid or objective criteria: What you appear to be doing, is arbitrarily assigning a practical and cost based limit on verifiability; so that all of your observations are below that limit, and all NASAs images are above that limit."

If that's how you want to put it.

"I’m never going to buy a camera and make the measurements you’ve made, and so applying my own limit of verifiability, your claims and NASAs claims are equally unverifiable by your own standards you apply."

You don't have to buy one, you can rent one over the weekend for as little as $50 or borrow one from someone. The key difference is practicality. If I were going to take anyone's word for something, it certainly wouldn't be from a biased source that admittedly fabricates images, or, as the pseudoscientist calls them "evidence".

"In reality, whether you or I have the resources or ability to personally replicate a measurement or observation does not affect a measurements validity, or verifiability if it were, there’d be no science."

All you need to verify the flat earth is the common senses. Open your eyes and look around. You don't even have to take a picture of it. To say that I should somehow raise millions of dollars to verify something that I can empirically see isn't true is intellectually dishonest. 

"As such, the argument that pictures from space are obviously not verifiable is not valid. Indeed, these pictures are verifiable and have been verified by other space agencies and organizations."

Once again, I give the analogy of a conversation with a pre-teen about Santa Claus.

Me:"Santa Claus is not real."

You:"but I saw him at the mall! How do all those presents get under my tree?

Me:"he was a fake, your parents are lying to you"

You:"that's crazy talk, ALL the parents in the whole world couldn't possibly be lying"

To say that all the space agencies couldn't collude against humanity with a common goal would be gullible. Even their symbols share traits.

"You’ve said that you won’t accept the pictures because you feel you have more valid measurements that mean they can’t be true."

I won't accept the pictures because so many of them are proven fakes. Aside from the whole empirically validatable experimental evidence to the contrary. 

"That is a logically valid position; and means the validity of your position hinges on the credibility of measurements."

I trust my own senses. I make up my own mind and think for myself. I question everything and have an open enough mind to consider any possibility.

"What I’m struggling to understand is why you don’t just say that, why all these obfuscated arguments and points?"

I think those were all the points in between that you thought were irrelevant. 

"For example: Why have you asked me several times to produce images that you know you won’t accept because you have better data? "

It's always funny when someone posts an image and I show you how it is faked. You thought you had the picture that proves everything, I'm sure. Bah, we'll never know now. 

"Why are you arguing that there is no evidence for a spherical earth, when it’s clear your position is that there is better evidence for your position? "

Because images aren't valid evidence. Go to the science forums and post a picture of the loch Ness monster. Drill them for a week about why they don't accept it as infallible evidence,  see what you get there.

"Even in terms of fakery; while you have provided some justifications, you have agreed can’t objectively show everything is a fake and are primarily arguing that it is valid to assume they are fake because you have the evidence that proves the earth is flat and is stronger than the remaining evidence the earth is a sphere."

So far, you've been shown, objectively how dozens of images of a spherical/curved earth are fakes. You didn't show... It was like a cheap steak. It was all fat and no meat. You can't actually be insisting that I can't show how an image has been faked, the last few pages I have done just that, without even opening the curtain on the "end all arguments"

"What appears to be clear, as a result; is that your position stands or falls on the validity of your measurement of water: without that, pretty much every other point you’ve raised is effectively unsupported."

I mean, where you get that from, I haven't a clue. Wait, I forgot, you cherry picked this entire conversation! Whatever.

"And just so you are aware; I am not ignoring the rest of your points; they are just not as important right now as working out what your actual argument is: it seems I have to tease the details out of you; as it’s clear now that what you’re really arguing, is very difficult from what you’re initially saying. "

Erfisflat

n

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

barking “false” a number of times does not make it false.

you could raise enough money to send yourself to space and see images for yourself. You won’t because it’s not practical for you to do so. 

Just because it’s impractical for you doesn’t make it unverifiable, and you are not the ultimate authority on where practicality ends and verifiability begins. Your position as a result is arbitrary and subjective, and no basis for an argument.

you’ve not really provided any argument against that. You have thrown in a lot of unrelated points (which I am noting for the future, I’m not ignoring).

You’re effectively making one big argument, that you’re dressing up into multiple different arguments, that when challenged as I have been doing here, all boils down to the same point over and over again. While you’ve called that cherry picking, this is literally the detail of your responses: the reason you are ruling everything out ends up returning to a couple of points.

That water is always flat, and you feel you have evidence that shows many images are fake: you feel these two things together means that the evidence of a flat earth is much more compelling than the evidence for a spherical earth.

I would disagree with the evidence, but the logic of it is reasonable if true.

So, logically speaking; if both those claims were incorrect: that you didn’t have evidence that water is flat, and photos were faked: you would not have a basis for an argument, you’d be forced to conclude the earth is a sphere, right?

 

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

I also particularly like the way I’m trying to engage on specific points one at a time, to try and both understand the core of your position, and where your coming from; and don’t seem to be getting much other than hostility and spurious insults in return.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

I also particularly like the way I’m trying to engage on specific points one at a time, to try and both understand the core of your position, and where your coming from; and don’t seem to be getting much other than hostility and spurious insults in return.

Please quote where I have insulted you. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

I also particularly like the way I’m trying to engage on specific points one at a time, to try and both understand the core of your position, and where your coming from; and don’t seem to be getting much other than hostility and spurious insults in return.

Then, please address the very many points you've ignored.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

I also particularly like the way I’m trying to engage on specific points one at a time, to try and both understand the core of your position, and where your coming from; and don’t seem to be getting much other than hostility and spurious insults in return.

Then, point me to the space ticket booth.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

It takes time, ability and money to reproduce your images. It takes a different amount of time, money and ability to reproduce images from space. Arbitrarily deciding that an experiment that costs x amount of money makes an experiment unverifiable is arbitrary unscientific frippery; and just because you have decided unilaterally to be the personal definer of how much is too much, doesn’t make it true.

But, pay attention. 

What I’m doing, is working out how you structure your arguments and beliefs; as well as trying to work out what they really are. I’m asking you a number of questions, and you’re half answering them whilst bogging down the replies with multiple sets of claims; I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not simply trying to bombard me with more points than I can 

Remember, you repeatedly requested that I provide images to you, only for me to tease out that you wouldn’t accept any images either way. That’s why I’m trying to understand the core of your position; and getting you to confirm and agree that I have understood it correctly; this prevents any wriggling out of core points later.

So, if you remember; we got to the point that your actual arguments, are that you feel that you have a lot of evidence that images from space are faked; and so therefore most of not all images from space, particularly NASA is untrustworthy, and that you have better evidence that the earth is flat from measuring water.

All the rest of your points are underpinned by those two: Your “verifiability problem” wouldn’t be a problem if you felt that amateur photography and NASA were

Genuine sources, and you wouldn’t have any argument to offer that the broad array of evidence of images from space are faked or wrong; you would have to conclude the earth was a sphere as a result, right?

I’m just trying to pin you down to a falsifiable and specific position that I can then go through and address piece by piece without the risk of you turning around and saying “a-hah! I forgot to mention this fundamental portion of my argument that is even more compelling than all the stuff I have been talking about for the last 100 posts”

Evidence

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

barking “false” a number of times does not make it false.

you could raise enough money to send yourself to space and see images for yourself. You won’t because it’s not practical for you to do so. 

Just because it’s impractical for you doesn’t make it unverifiable, and you are not the ultimate authority on where practicality ends and verifiability begins. Your position as a result is arbitrary and subjective, and no basis for an argument.

you’ve not really provided any argument against that. You have thrown in a lot of unrelated points (which I am noting for the future, I’m not ignoring).

You’re effectively making one big argument, that you’re dressing up into multiple different arguments, that when challenged as I have been doing here, all boils down to the same point over and over again. While you’ve called that cherry picking, this is literally the detail of your responses: the reason you are ruling everything out ends up returning to a couple of points.

That water is always flat, and you feel you have evidence that shows many images are fake: you feel these two things together means that the evidence of a flat earth is much more compelling than the evidence for a spherical earth.

I would disagree with the evidence, but the logic of it is reasonable if true.

So, logically speaking; if both those claims were incorrect: that you didn’t have evidence that water is flat, and photos were faked: you would not have a basis for an argument, you’d be forced to conclude the earth is a sphere, right?

 

The most common reference for the Globe earth is the boats/ships going, and disappearing over the curvature, they always do, and we see this referred to for the proof of the globe in movies, documentaries, text books, etc. and is accepted and used as "scientific fact".
But when someone points out the Chicago skyline over Lake Michigan, now that's refraction or whatever. But in that same picture we could have had a boat disappearing over the curvature (because it always does, no refraction ever mentioned there remember) while seeing the Chicago skyline at the same time.

Here is my request: The ISS been in space for 18 years now, the science-space program is costing us trillions of dollars, so where can we get the videos of the tens of thousands of "science experiments" that have been done both "in" the ISS, and outside of it in the true-vacuum of space?

For example:
- lighter spheres shown to orbit larger spheres, to prove:
"gravity"
"spacefabric"
- a spinning tennis ball covered in water
to prove that the earth CAN remain spinning and twirling through the vacuum of space for millions and billions of years and not freeze/boil/evaporate our oceans. (actually, I want to see a big hot lava rock sweat and cover itself with water and create an atmosphere.)
since the main reason gravity was invented is to support the BB-Story. So let's see all the tests done to prove that objects can "orbit" heavier objects? I mean there must be at least a few hundred of those experiments on file, .. right?

But here is what we DO get from our trillions of dollars in taxes 'Space Program' from outside the ISS, .. "space walks".
As for inside the ISS, Ooooh,  it's the undeniable scientific proof of BB-Space: "backflips". Yep, it's space walks with bubbles, or backflips.

No wonder every country want's to get in on the scam, all you need is a green-screen, some wire harnesses, and a pool, and whala, start making billions of dollars a month. With todays Powerful Photoshop programs, you don't even need a Zero-G Plane.