Earth is a ball

Erfisflat

"I'm not sure how I can make this easier for you to understand - the assumption you are making is that the evidence of your own senses is correct."

And you are assuming that my senses are deceiving me. If someone came to my house and told me it was raining, by instinct alone, I'd make a choice of observations to decide for myself whether or not they were telling me the truth. I could look at them and see if they were wet, if not, it would cast doubt. I could then look out the window and see for myself if it were raining. I am looking out the window, you are refusing to make ANY observations, and are instead believing what you are told.

" You then state that we must understand science in terms of the evidence of our own senses presenting a "simpler" and therefore correct argument. You then take this to the logical conclusion, which is that the truth is being concealed from us. It is, however, not in fact simpler to assume that everybody is lying to you about things they have no incentive to lie about than that the scientific consensus which is constructed by the accumulation of evidence and the testing of hypotheses is broadly correct.

I didn't say there was no incentive.

@medic

Medic

>And you are assuming that my senses are deceiving me.

I'm not assuming anything, mate. I'd love it if the Earth was flat and everything worked out just as we observe it. Science tells me otherwise.

>believing what you are told.

I just described, in 3000 words, a procedure which I can and do carry out to prove the existence of a round earth. Come on.

>I didn't say there was no incentive.

haven't mentioned one yet

The scientific method starts by assuming nothing. In your example, by science, we would create a hypothesis - "it is raining". Next, you would create a method of detecting rain. Next, you'd test if it was raining. If it was not raining, you would discard the hypothesis. If it was, your hypothesis would be confirmed. An accumulation of hypotheses which are tested over and over again becomes a scientific theory, and when it explains things well enough for long enough it becomes a fact.

No one was born a "flat earther" or a "glober". We are presented with science, and we can choose to ignore it, in the knowledge that we are incorrect.

I furthermore resent the implication that I'm a "sheeple", if you like. I have indeed examined the evidence for the existence of a flat and round earth, and I have concluded that the weight of proof for a round earth adds up to the earth being round.

Erfisflat

"one can observe the hypotheses of nuclear physics in action"

Prove then, through observation and the scientific method, that the sun is a ball of flaming gasses 5,778 K and 93,000,000 miles away.

"Observe the current paradigm."

I don't see "ask what everyone else thinks about it" anywhere in the scientific method. 

"Observe the evidence."

Ball earth theory evidence so far: 
A theory.

Have you seen the preponderance of evidence for a flat stationary earth? I have. Lot's of it are scientific experiments and every day observations.

 "Develop hypotheses. Compare these hypotheses with the evidence. If these hypotheses contradict the evidence, the hypothesis is wrong."

Reread the opening post and present some conclusive evidence or stop wasting my time.
@medic

Erfisflat

"I won't pretend that gravity isn't complicated, but come on. "

That's all you can say? Is that like a concession?
@medic

Medic

>Prove then, through observation and the scientific method, that the sun is a ball of flaming gasses 5,778 K and 93,000,000 miles away.

one can replicate the reactions that occur in the sun. Have a look at radioactive reactions, theorise which emissions they would create. Observe if you're right. Notice that you are. I won't pretend that I'm a nuclear physicist or anywhere near clever enough to understand this but what I can understand is that it is far more likely that this is the case than the alternative.

>Ball earth theory evidence so far: overwhelming weight of evidence

Constant mass, lunar eclipses, NASA photographs, existence of gravity, the earth is rotating (focault's pendulum, which I've seen, there's a good one on display in the Science Museum in the UK), the horizon, views from plane windows, varying star consellations, erastothenes, seeing farther from higher, circumnavigation, other planets and stars, time zones. 

I'm sure you'll respond by explaining away all of these but this is not scientific. If the evidence contradicts your view, your view is wrong. Explanation attempts are always circular, because they take it as read that the earth is flat and attempt to understand this in the light of that. This is wrong. Real science states that all of this accumulation of evidence becomes a theory which points to the earth being round. Pathetic.

>That's all you can say? Is that like a concession?

It's not a concession of any kind, you spanner. Assuming that the Earth is flat because of "the evidence of our senses" and then attempting to understand why there is contradictory evidence to that hypothesis is bad science.

Erfisflat

" Science tells me otherwise."

This is what's asked for in the OP mate.

"I just described, in 3000 words, a procedure which I can and do carry out to prove the existence of a round earth. Come on."

And I gave an alternative to that description that better fits it, without assuming the conclusion or any conjecture.

"haven't mentioned one yet"

I've asked a couple of related questions which you've ignored and hoped you could answer it yourself. My answer would be speculative anyway, and it does nothing to impact the resolution. The odds of something not happening does not make it infalliable.

"The scientific method starts by assuming nothing. In your example, by science, we would create a hypothesis - "it is raining". Next, you would create a method of detecting rain. Next, you'd test if it was raining. If it was not raining, you would discard the hypothesis. If it was, your hypothesis would be confirmed. An accumulation of hypotheses which are tested over and over again becomes a scientific theory, and when it explains things well enough for long enough it becomes a fact."

This is very dogmatic, and any pioneer in science would be turning in their grave. As newer methods of testing become available, theories are evaluated. You're assuming the earth being a ball as fact and the only evidence you have for it is a theory, which you also mistake for a fact.

"No one was born a "flat earther" or a "glober". We are presented with science, and we can choose to ignore it, in the knowledge that we are incorrect."

The globe earth is implemented in the education system. Anything that must be drilled into a child's head that can never be observed as fact with no other choice is called indoctrination. I'm asking you for what science proves the earth is a ball, I HAVE examined both arguments and have made a desicion. Have you?

"I furthermore resent the implication that I'm a "sheeple", if you like. I have indeed examined the evidence for the existence of a flat and round earth, and I have concluded that the weight of proof for a round earth adds up to the earth being round."

Please state your evidence.

@Medic

Medic

>Constant mass, lunar eclipses, NASA photographs, existence of gravity, the earth is rotating (focault's pendulum, which I've seen, there's a good one on display in the Science Museum in the UK), the horizon, views from plane windows, varying star consellations, erastothenes, seeing farther from higher, circumnavigation, other planets and stars, time zones. 

Further debate is pointless. This is my last message on the topic. I'll be very disappointed if you take this as a concession, and I'm sure if you do so you won't object to me calling you intellectually dishonest. 

Erfisflat

Medic said:

>Constant mass, lunar eclipses, NASA photographs, existence of gravity, the earth is rotating (focault's pendulum, which I've seen, there's a good one on display in the Science Museum in the UK), the horizon, views from plane windows, varying star consellations, erastothenes, seeing farther from higher, circumnavigation, other planets and stars, time zones. 

Further debate is pointless. This is my last message on the topic. I'll be very disappointed if you take this as a concession, and I'm sure if you do so you won't object to me calling you intellectually dishonest. 

So you're not interested in any rebuttal to these tired old arguments?

Erfisflat

He finally gives some evidence and wants to dip out now. Eh, @medic?

Medic

Not particularly, mate. I know exactly what they'll be and I know exactly where they'll start. I also know that you won't see yourself falling into the same of rhythm of begging the question.

Erfisflat

"one can replicate the reactions that occur in the sun. Have a look at radioactive reactions, theorise which emissions they would create. Observe if you're right. Notice that you are. I won't pretend that I'm a nuclear physicist or anywhere near clever enough to understand this but what I can understand is that it is far more likely that this is the case than the alternative."

Right then, seems like you have no clue what you're talking about. Basically you give me a "but, but, muh science book ".

"Constant mass, lunar eclipses, NASA photographs, existence of gravity, the earth is rotating (focault's pendulum, which I've seen, there's a good one on display in the Science Museum in the UK), the horizon, views from plane windows, varying star consellations, erastothenes, seeing farther from higher, circumnavigation, other planets and stars, time zones."

These are the basic reasons that come up in a Google search. I know, I had to GOOGLE "why the earth is a ball too". These have been refuted repeatedly here, you must be new. Welcome! My response is above. If I have to, I'll rebut them again, but not if you're tucking tail and won't even read it.

"I'm sure you'll respond by explaining away all of these but this is not scientific. If the evidence contradicts your view, your view is wrong. Explanation attempts are always circular, because they take it as read that the earth is flat and attempt to understand this in the light of that. This is wrong. Real science states that all of this accumulation of evidence becomes a theory which points to the earth being round. Pathetic."

These are red herrings and misunderstandings, some are just outright deceptive. But you don't care, right, the earth is a ball no matter what, right? You saw it yourself all the time on the TV, and Google says it's true. Back out of the rabbit hole, run away from the truth. 

Who's next?
@medic

Medic

Edit: Right, let's give this one more go. I'd love it if the truth were simple. I'd love it if the narrative we've been taught is wrong. The truth is rarely pure and never simple.

>refuted repeatedly here, you must be new.

BY ASSUMING THE THING YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO PROVE

>You saw it yourself all the time on the TV, and Google says it's true
I do love how you lionise yourself as a hero of science and promoting facts against all the SHEEPLE and fake news television and google. Nonsense.

Erfisflat

"BY ASSUMING THE THING YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO PROVE"

This is a baseless claim. Instead I showed you how YOU were assuming the conclusion.

@medic

Erfisflat

I do love how you pretend to be a scientist while taking other people's word for everything @medic

Medic

"evidence that contradicts my view is wrong"

Erfisflat

We're down to one liners now? Child's play. Have a cup of maturity. I could say the same thing towards you.

Erfisflat

Shall I do the rebuttal one at a time or all at once mr. "This is my last response for this discussion?" I see you can't look away now. @medic

Erfisflat

Mr. Top ten reasons the earth is not flat. Ask Nasa to take you up and show you.

Medic

Sure, how about a livestream from the ISS.

Erfisflat

All unaltered high altitude balloon footage shows a flat and eye level horizon, even up to 100,000 feet elevation. How do planes, which fly far below that, see any curvature, @medic?

Medic

>unaltered

Aha. You see what you've done? Do you see what you have quite literally just done? You have declared evidence that doesn't fit your worldview as being faked. All of the high altitude balloon footage that has ever been taken that shows curvature is false. This is bad science. You should be ashamed.

Erfisflat

Medic said:

>unaltered

Aha. You see what you've done? Do you see what you have quite literally just done? You have declared evidence that doesn't fit your worldview as being faked. All of the high altitude balloon footage that has ever been taken that shows curvature is false. This is bad science. You should be ashamed.

Not if you show exactly how it is faked. Unless your talking about imagery produced by government sources. Those are all badly faked.

Erfisflat

Do you know what a fisheye lens is? It doesn't appear so, because you can't recognize one.

Erfisflat

Go to the video, and see how bent those solar panels are. I mean, I don't want to laugh at your expense, but you're proving to me that you've done this much:0 research into the flat earth theory if you can't even recognize a wide angle lens. @medic

Erfisflat

What's next? See more from higher? Lol @medic

Medic

https://youtu.be/pFqE_ZqcWys

Sigh. I took Photography in high school, and I'm well aware of the effect of both the fisheye lenses and so- called "correcting" lenses. I'm well aware that anecdote is not evidence but where we would use this type of lens we would always have problems with round things because they would over-correct. The point here is that fisheye lenses curve things up and down depending on where the centre of the image is. There's plenty of good scientific literature on the topic by experts who apply geometry to determine how to correct.

The point here is I'm not a science major. I'm willing to bet you weren't either. I majored in Economics, but I know well enough that I can determine scientific fact from non-scientific non-fact simply by looking at the evidence ab initio, not from evidence of my senses and not by assuming that there has been a concerted cover-up. You can call me a "sheep" with my head up my , unwilling to see the glorious truth that you and you alone have been privledged and clever enough to discover.

The point is that we determine fact from fiction by looking at all the evidence, and where that contradicts our theories we ignore that theory and amend it so it fits the evidence and adequately explains our natural phenomena. We see that that lunar eclipses occur, so we amend our theory of the Earth to fit that. We don't assume that the Earth is flat, and so there must be something causing the lunar eclipses that is not the Earth. We see shadows casting different lengths, so we amend our theories to fit the facts, we don't amend our theories by attempting to understand how this can happen if the Earth is flat.

Medic

Bugger. Seems my long reply got lost in the air

Medic

Of course I know what fisheye lenses are, I took Photography in high school. (I'm well aware that anecdote is not evidence) We were taught that the fisheye lens distorts based upon where the middle of the image is, and we always had problems with round thing because it's really hard to correct from them. the point being you cannot tell from any one video whether the Earth is flat or round but this is irrelevant.

I choose to believe that science as taught to me is correct, simply because the alternative is unthinkable and illogical - call me a sheep who cannot see the glorious light of the thing that only you have been priviledged to see, but I don't think it's as simple as it seems. I'd love it if it were, but the truth is very rarely simple. I'm not a Science major, I majored in Economics, but one thing I can do is I can test studies for methodology and weight of evidence by reviewing them. I can look at the multitudes of literature that support a round earth and I can ignore them and go for what I thought when I was two. Or I can accept them as the compilation of evidence that accumulates over the years.

The point of all of this is where we're presented with evidence that contradicts our theories, we amend our theories to fit the evidence, not the other way around. We think smoking is harmless, we're presented with evidence that cancer rates are higher in smokers, we don't try and understand why this happens if cigarettes are indeed harmless, we amend our theories and state that smoking causes cancer. We see that sticks cast shadows of different lengths and directions all over the Earth, we don't try and understand how this can happen with a flat Earth, we seek out a more rational and logical explanation. And when these things that cause us to try and seek out a rational and logical explanation converge, we have a scientific theory.

In short:

Erfisflat

"Of course I know what fisheye lenses are, I took Photography in high school. (I'm well aware that anecdote is not evidence) We were taught that the fisheye lens distorts based upon where the middle of the image is, and we always had problems with round thing because it's really hard to correct from them. the point being you cannot tell from any one video whether the Earth is flat or round but this is irrelevant"

So you concede. Do you not recognize this as evidence of fakery? Have you conceded airplane windows too? You literally just posted evidence, saw that the evidence was faked, pretended you knew it all along, then said the evidence was "irrelevant". This is dishonest, don't you agree?

"I choose to believe that science as taught to me is correct, simply because the alternative is unthinkable and illogical"

Ever wonder why that is? Ever wonder why flat earth has been publicly made synonymous with "dumb"? The same reason there are globes in kindergarten. I'll give you a hint. MKULtra 

"call me a sheep who cannot see the glorious light of the thing that only you have been priviledged to see, but I don't think it's as simple as it seems. I'd love it if it were, but the truth is very rarely simple. I'm not a Science major, I majored in Economics, but one thing I can do is I can test studies for methodology and weight of evidence by reviewing them. I can look at the multitudes of literature that support a round earth and I can ignore them and go for what I thought when I was two. Or I can accept them as the compilation of evidence that accumulates over the years."

I've never called you a sheep and I'm not entirely sure why you've decided to take this label upon yourself. Is this some sort of martyr defense? I'm under the impression that we were two adults having a logical and scientific discussion. I'm just looking for conclusive evidence and encouraging research.

" The point of all of this is where we're presented with evidence that contradicts our theories, we amend our theories to fit the evidence, not the other way around. We think smoking is harmless, we're presented with evidence that cancer rates are higher in smokers, we amend our theories and state that smoking causes cancer. We see that sticks cast shadows of different lengths and directions all over the Earth, we don't try and understand how this can happen with a flat Earth, we seek out a more rational and logical explanation. And when these things that cause us to try and seek out a rational and logical explanation converge, we have a scientific theory"

You're still saying that a flat and stationary earth is irrational and illogical as I'm pointing out how it is irrational and illogical to say the earth is a ball. You're being intellectually dishenest. Name one flat earth proof that you've examined.

Unroll then, here is a balloon at over 100,000 '. Two cameras. (One fisheye)


@medic

Erfisflat

I just realized how gullible you are. Did you pay to see the swinging pendulum that has convinced millions of people that the earth was moving under instead of the obvious, that the pendulum moved around over the earth?
@medic

Medic

The science museum is free, you spoon. Jesus Christ. The pendulum is fixed in place. The inferences you make is that I'm gullible. I'm done with you.

Erfisflat

Medic said:

The science museum is free, you spoon. Jesus Christ. The pendulum is fixed in place. The inferences you make is that I'm gullible. I'm done with you.

Lol, the pendulum was fixed in place? Are you sure you saw a Foucault pendulum?

Erfisflat

So a pendulum can be suspended, so that the earth moves around under it, but a hot air balloon is not subject to the earth's rotation? Whereas they can float around for hours and land in the same spot? Come on!
@medic

Erfisflat

And you think I'm a spoon. @medic

Erfisflat

You're right about one thing though. Apparently you are done. @medic

Erfisflat

Get a second wind, we can talk about some more of your 
Later @medic

Erfisflat

Gravity
View from a plane
NASA imagery
Foucault pendulum 

Erfisflat

y

Erfisflat

I'm not being overly critical of your evidence. I'm showing you how your logic and science is flawed. With no objection I might add. Form a complete sentence next time..@medic

Erfisflat

Forgot to add a poll. Updated

Ghosty

@Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

Ghosty said:

Do you have evidence that the government is lying to all of us? You mean all the countries in the world have governments and scientists that are lying to us? 

Surely you don't need me to prove that governments lie... You born yesterday?

Not at all. I wasn't born yesterday. I mean, how could I even type this down? 
I am well aware that the government has lied over time, but you have absolutely no evidence that the government is telling us to be flat. 
Why don't you go to the end of the world as see if it's flat? Oh, too cold? Ice wall? Another great excuse? Well, good for you. You from the Viking Age? 

Erfisflat

Ghosty said:

@Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

Ghosty said:

Do you have evidence that the government is lying to all of us? You mean all the countries in the world have governments and scientists that are lying to us? 

Surely you don't need me to prove that governments lie... You born yesterday?

Not at all. I wasn't born yesterday. I mean, how could I even type this down? 
I am well aware that the government has lied over time, but you have absolutely no evidence that the government is telling us to be flat. 
Why don't you go to the end of the world as see if it's flat? Oh, too cold? Ice wall? Another great excuse? Well, good for you. You from the Viking Age? 

There is ample evidence that governments are untrustworthy. I've even given evidence here that they manipulated high altitude footage of the earth. The rest of your post is not even coherent. Maybe you weren't literally born yesterday, but you might as well have been. Are you arguing for or against a spherical earth?

Redmond

NASA and the government spend a fortune on probes and satellites and photos, which have shown evidence that the Earth is round.  NASA astronauts have taken photos and evidence of the Earth, and none show that it is flat.  Also, if we, for example, were to place two sticks on the ground, the shadow would gradually move over time.  If the world were flat, the shadow would remain the same, however, it doesn't due to Earth's rotation.

Redmond

@SilverishGoldNova

You do provide a point that the Earth cannot be proven round without biased evidence.  However, isn't that the case with a lot of facts?  Also, plenty of evidence has also been found to prove that Earth isn't round.  Also, would Nasa spend millions of dollars on space technology just to prove whether or not the Earth is round?  

On one hand, NASA has provided photos with evidence that the Earth is round, among several cases during space travel and the shuttle program.  Also, many experiments on things such as measuring shadows and using the stars and astronomy have proven that the Earth is round. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, We can't prove that these photos weren't faked without considering NASA's bias.  It's a tough debate, but I'mma have to stick with the Earth being flat.

Redmond

https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

Redmond

@Medic

This is a good point.

Medic

@Redmond
I've got the flat-earthers on mute because even starting with the argument that the earth is flat against all of science is a sign of bad faith arguments. Don't waste your time.

Erfisflat

Hes got us on mute because he got stomped in this debate

Erfisflat

@Redmond, are you a flat eqrther? You say it's flat, but you also say it's round

Erfisflat

"NASA and the government spend a fortune on probes and satellites and photos, which have shown evidence that the Earth is round. NASA astronauts have taken photos and evidence of the Earth, and none show that it is flat."

 The photos are as fake as the lochness monster's. Easily proven. Satellites are also a sci-fi fantasy story.

 "Also, many experiments on things such as measuring shadows"

 That's only if you assume the sun is 93,000,000 miles away which is ridiculous. The same exact measurements can be made from a smaller and closer sun on a flat plane.

"and using the stars and astronomy have proven that the Earth is round." How's that?

@redmond