frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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





Earth is a ball

1246723



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Just proofreading my post, in further response to:

    " What about how stars change positions in the sky as you move south?"

    The dome is close enough to the earth that it follows the law of perspective. Once again, if you do not make the assumption that the earth is a spinning ball, the flat earth model is more logical if one will consider basic laws and everyday observations from reality.

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat  So you believe the earth is flat but have yet to diced on a perfect model. Sounds reasonable.  I will start by defending my model. Cloud movement are not determined by the rotation of the earth alone. Wind is mostly an effect of unequal temperature which is caused by the sun. Hurricanes are like a vortex due to hot air below and cold air above so they rotate which is why they are effected in a different way by the earths rotation. I hope the video I found with that title is right. So from what I saw from the video I watched the Sun was about to rise as the moon entered the loner eclipse. The video I watched showed the moon go behind the earth before the sun it's self was visible. As long as the sun is not visible when the moon is in it's lunar eclipse and the moon is on the opposite side of the sun rise my model still stands. Perhaps you could point me to another one of the 50 instances (Unless I watched the wrong video). In your model is it possible for some one in both that south and north Hemispheres to see the same stars? My model shows that if you were directly below the sun you should have equal days and nights. I am having trouble seeing how your model shows that.
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat The equator of the earth spins faster then the farther you get from the equator. A hurricane rotates around and tend to be really big. That is important as the difference from one end of the hurricane to the other is large so the faster spinning part moves cause the Hurricane wind to move with it causing the opposite side with a less fast rotating earth to move the opposite direction. Normally this effect can't be well above but when somethings as large as a hurricane comes on long with wind it can be observed. If you through a ball really far like from the north pole to the equator at a point it will miss the point. But we can only through so far that it really makes no difference and the ball should reach your friend.  But the sun in your model appears to be pushing south and on the opposite side north and both south and north on the other side of the planet. I am confused. Wouldn't it not always be going away from the equator because the night side of the earth has the sun to one side meaning it would push both Hampshire away in the same direction on the night side?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Which is more logical?
    1. Were on a pressurized ball that water has conformed around flying through and adjacent to a massive vacuum around a huge ball of burning gas?

    2. Were on a level, stationary, contained plane?

    Why?
    Gooberry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    We live in an objective reality. If I told you that paper could cut steel, you'd need a practical example of such, to take me seriously, or you would consider the claim nonsensical and nonfactual. Objective reality is not open for debate.

    This is demonstrable fact. An observation of objective reality.


    This water conforms to its container. The surface of this water always seeks it's level. We can scale this up to any level, and the results are the same.







    Now if you told me that at some point we could curve that glass around, and the water would conform to the outside of the container, turn the glass into a pressurized ball and rest it adjacent to a vacuum, I'd need some sort of practical evidence of such a claim.

     This is what Im asking for here. Nevermind what authority or anyone says. Two humans convincing each other of our objective reality using practical example or experimentation. 
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

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

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat So you will only trust what you can observe? I will ask you this. How does your model explain day length?Image result for flat earth gif
    Most flat earth models show more night then day. This is not the case as you could measure the length of days your self. You have yet to explain a lunar eclipse. The lunar eclipse you mentioned are selenelion as it says on your Wikipedia which are defined as having the sun rising on the opposite side of the lunar eclipse with the moon going behind the earth. Plus why would you trust them anyway if you have not seen for yourself. I believe the ball earth model is more logical. What would cause the sun and moon to rotate in that way and ened up changing the location of their rotation? My model explains this with gravity and as we know by simply plain with a ball on a string and you would know some force is needed to cause this kind of motion. MY model has yet to fail me an explanation. My model is exact and well determined that it explains natural phenomenon in a logical way to me. The idea that all heavenly bodys are round and the earth is not seems unlikely to me. Maybe it will helow if I new what cause you to become a flat earthier?
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat  said "http://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/diamag/ " First combustion is possible in space if you bring Oxygen with you to space. Their is no need for air around you if you keep pear oxygen in your space shuttle. I must say though combustion is not nearly say affection as other forms of propulsion. Second newtons third law says for every action their is a equal an opposite reaction. If combustion is pushing back the opposite reaction is you moving forward. Their is no need for a physical object. It is not a high pressure system next to a low pressure system. It is a high pressure system slowly decreasing in to a low pressure system and even space is not a complete vacuum. It is just a really low pressure system. You can't really say the point where space begins. That is why scientist can't say where space begins and can't really say how the atmosphere meets space. Yes I probably spell something wrong.
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat Said:  http://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/diamag/ What does this mean?
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat
    Although I believe the Earth is round, I'll be arguing for both sides in this debate
    Erfisflat said:
    We live in an objective reality. If I told you that paper could cut steel, you'd need a practical example of such, to take me seriously, or you would consider the claim nonsensical and nonfactual. Objective reality is not open for debate.
    Now if you told me that at some point we could curve that glass around, and the water would conform to the outside of the container, turn the glass into a pressurized ball and rest it adjacent to a vacuum, I'd need some sort of practical evidence of such a claim.

     This is what Im asking for here. Nevermind what authority or anyone says. Two humans convincing each other of our objective reality using practical example or experimentation. 
    It would be very hard to create an experiment(although possible) to show how the water on Earth stay on the Earth. We know that everything has mass. The Earth has a large mass, creating gravity. Gravity is the force that keeps everything on Earth. As you can see, the object with the most mass attracts objects with less mass(as shown in our solar system). Since water would have a smaller mass than Earth, it will stay on Earth as a result of gravity. The reason the Earth is a "ball" is because when the Big Bang occurred, planets formed, and it heated the universe up. The planets are formed when the material the planets are made from becomes molten. As you can see, when something heats up extremely, it becomes bendable and the more you heat up, it will become liquid. Liquid always tends to stick together, therefore creating a "ball". After a long period of time, the universe cooled down, making the "balls" hard again.
    Like I said, I will argue for both sides.
    i fart cows
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    Heres a model
    Image result for earths gravitational force
    i fart cows
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    BaconToes I could prove that water on the earth sometimes leaves the earth if you give me a strong rocket then teach me how to use it and give a license to use it and give me a ok place to launch it.
    BaconToes
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    Nope said:
    BaconToes I could prove that water on the earth sometimes leaves the earth if you give me a strong rocket then teach me how to use it and give a license to use it and give me a ok place to launch it.
    haha, I mean how water stays on Earth naturally.  :joy:
    i fart cows
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @nope
    "How does your model explain day length."

    Of course this is a hypothetical question based on an unverifiable map that leaves too many variables like varying degrees of refraction (apparent position of the sun and moon, and actual position of the sun and moon) due to varying temperatures, resulting in varying degrees of moisture in the air. The sunlight would hit the earth more like this.
     
    Again, the map is purely assumed, I've not mapped the world yet. This is a very intelligently designed cosmology, working out the details took 500 years for the ball earth. When you have physically measured bodies of water and find the abundant LACK of curvature, you can then state with confidence: "The earth is flat". Working out the details is going to require more than just me. This is why I'm here. Anyone who actively researches the flat earth and performs the experiments for themselves knows that the earth is flat.

    "You have yet to explain a lunar eclipse."

    I have explained how the lunar eclipse is irrelevant. 

    "The lunar eclipse you mentioned are selenelion as it says on your Wikipedia which are defined as having the sun rising on the opposite side of the lunar eclipse with the moon going behind the earth."

    The wiki link was for records of past selenions. Have a look at what space.com says about it.

    https://amp.space.com/27338-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-sunrise-selenelion.html

    "The little-used name for this effect is called a "selenelion," a phenomenon that celestial geometry says cannot happen."

    "And indeed, during a lunar eclipse, the sun and moon are exactly 180 degrees apart in the sky. In a perfect alignment like this (called a "syzygy"), such an observation would seem impossible. But thanks to Earth's atmosphere, the images of both the sun and moon are apparently lifted above the horizon by atmospheric refraction. This allows people on Earth to see the sun for several extra minutes before it actually has risen and the moon for several extra minutes after it has actually set."

    They use the word apparently because this is an undemonstrable claim. When viewed through atmosphere the sun and moon's apparent position is lower than it's actual position, not higher. I've given a practical demostration of this effect in this very debate.

    "What would cause the sun and moon to rotate in that way and ened up changing the location of their rotation?"

    This isn't a very coherent question. Please source or ellaborate.

    "My model explains this with gravity and as we know by simply plain with a ball on a string and you would know some force is needed to cause this kind of motion."

    Actually that is what's known as centrifugal or centripedal force.

    It's almost as bad as my 5th grade science teacher trying to explain gravity by swinging a bucket round her head.

    "MY model has yet to fail me an explanation. My model is exact and well determined that it explains natural phenomenon in a logical way to me."

    That is because that is what was taught to you as a child and thereon. You've likely not even considered any alternative.

    "The idea that all heavenly bodys are round and the earth is not seems unlikely to me."

    The idea that you would look at tiny objects in the sky and assume they have any relevance to the physical ground you walk on seems illogical to me. You are assuming the heliocentric model is the correct one with no practical evidence.

     "Maybe it will helow if I new what cause you to become a flat earthier?"

    Over 2 years of research and experimentation.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat Your model shows light traveling farther on the equate then to the poles. Why? And why is half of Greenland always lit?

    "I have explained how the lunar eclipse is irrelevant."
    My model is still able to explain the lunar eclipse. If the earth is flat you would half to eventually come up with a working model.

    "This isn't a very coherent question. Please source or ellaborate."
    Sure. I am asking what forces cause the sun and moon to move in the way they do in your model. They roate over the equator and their circular path moves a little to cause shorter and longer days right? Why do the move this way?

    "That is because that is what was taught to you as a child and thereon. You've likely not even considered any alternative."
    I have considered alternatives. I would never advise you to keep an open mind with out keeping an open mind myself. The thing is I just have yet to find evidence that does not fit my model. 

    "The idea that you would look at tiny objects in the sky and assume they have any relevance to the physical ground you walk on seems illogical to me. You are assuming the heliocentric model is the correct one with no practical evidence."
    I don't assume. I am listing evidence. And while the shape of heavenly body can't relay prove the shape of the earth it can very well be relevant to the physical world as it is likely they are governed by the same laws of nature the govern us.

     "Maybe it will helow if I new what cause you to become a flat earthier?"
    I meant help not helow.

    "It's almost as bad as my 5th grade science teacher trying to explain gravity by swinging a bucket round her head."
    I know what centripetal force. I would not go into a topic without knowing about the things I post. I was just saying you play with a string and you find centripetal force I never connected it to gravity.

    "They use the word apparently because this is an undemonstrable claim. When viewed through atmosphere the sun and moon's apparent position is lower than it's actual position, not higher. I've given a practical demonstration of this effect in this very debate."
    Um do you have evidence?

  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat Said "When you have physically measured bodies of water and find the abundant LACK of curvature, you can then state with confidence: "The earth is flat". "
    What measurements are you taking about?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Nope said:
    Erfisflat Said "When you have physically measured bodies of water and find the abundant LACK of curvature, you can then state with confidence: "The earth is flat". "
    What measurements are you taking about?
    The measurements of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Sorry, been really busy today. Will take some time on this soon.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Medic Said "Here's your issue - we know that objects that are at rest remain at rest. There's a reason bricks don't fall through tables. A force must be acting upon them. In order for something to move a force must act upon it. This force is gravity."
    No that is a incarcerate statement. An object can be in motion with know forces acting on it. A net forces is needed to accelerate and object. According to the theory of earth rotating the brick is moving. An object at rest remain at rest. That is to say no matter what forces act upon it it will remain at rest. An object in a motion will remain in that motion unless acted upon by a net force in which case it will accelerate.
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat Said "And no, I'm not ignoring science. I'm refuting the science fiction that has been peddled to us for 500 years with the scientific method."'
    The Globe earth theory was around long before 500 years. More like 2,000.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @nope
    "Your model shows light traveling farther on the equate then to the poles. Why?"

    I did explain this pretty well the first time. The tempurature difference is the cause. The difference in temperature means difference in moisture and other molecule levels that would cause light to bend more or less.

    "And why is half of Greenland always lit?"

    This is yet again a map question and I do not subscribe to a map. The general idea is that Greenland is far enough north to experience a midnight sun, which is known in both models and accounts for reality, supposedly. I've never visited Greenland and can't verify the claim.



    "My model is still able to explain the lunar eclipse. If the earth is flat you would half to eventually come up with a working model."

    It doesn't accurately explain the selenelion in the video above, tides, and many other aspects I haven't even brought up. As has been shown, the sun and moon were both above the horizon during the eclipse, and, as you've so far ignored, the shadow came from above during the eclipse. I'm not particularly concerned with working out all the details of any model. I'm looking for conclusive  evidence of two things: curvature and axial or orbital rotation. Since every practical piece of evidence shows there is none, I can safely conclude there is none.

    " I am asking what forces cause the sun and moon to move in the way they do in your model. They roate over the equator and their circular path moves a little to cause shorter and longer days right? Why do the move this way? "

    It seems you insist on drilling me about a model. I fail to see how your question is relevant to the earth's shape. I can't speculate on what the sun and moon are, much less why they move as they do.

    "The thing is I just have yet to find evidence that does not fit my model."

    I've asked you before if you've properly researched the flat earth theory and I'll ask again. What evidence and or experiment have you examined that contradicted your model and supports a flat earth? Have you considered ANY criticism against your model?

    "the shape of heavenly body can't relay prove the shape of the earth"

    Agreed. Glad you can finally admit it.

    " it can very well be relevant to the physical world as it is likely they are governed by the same laws of nature the govern us."

    So, tiny lights in the sky moving around are governed by the same laws that govern us? Why and what does this prove?

     "Maybe it will help if I new what cause you to become a flat earthier?"

    Over 2 years of research and experimentation.

    "I was just saying you play with a string and you find centripetal force I never connected it to gravity."

    You said:
    "My model explains this with gravity and as we know by simply plain with a ball on a string and you would know some force is needed to cause this kind of motion."

    Maybe you should rephrase that then.

    "Um do you have evidence?"

    Place a container of water between your eye and any object. The object always appears lower. The experiment is on the first page in video form. Notice, in this familiar example, how the straw is lowered.


    This is practical evidence that supports my model and contradicts yours. Do you acknowledge it?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Erfisflat
    ---"I did explain this pretty well the first time. The tempurature difference is the cause. The difference in temperature means difference in moisture and other molecule levels that would cause light to bend more or less."
    Image result for accurate representation of flat earth and sunlight
    Umm... Interesting theory. 

    ---"It doesn't accurately explain the selenelion in the video above, tides, and many other aspects I haven't even brought up. As has been shown, the sun and moon were both above the horizon during the eclipse, and, as you've so far ignored, the shadow came from above during the eclipse. I'm not particularly concerned with working out all the details of any model. I'm looking for conclusive  evidence of two things: curvature and axial or orbital rotation. Since every practical piece of evidence shows there is none, I can safely conclude there is none."
    Selenelions are by definition the event when the sun is on the opposite side of the moon when it is a lunar eclipse. Atmospheric refraction makes it possible to sea both at once. Tides are explained by the gravitational pull of the moon and sun but mostly the moon. It is not going to be as essay to convince you of the earths shape because you won't trust any evidence you cannot see or see for yourself in an experiment. Non the less I will try. Have you ever been on a Plane?

    ---"It seems you insist on drilling me about a model. I fail to see how your question is relevant to the earth's shape. I can't speculate on what the sun and moon are, much less why they move as they do."
    Sorry if it seemed that way. I was just trying to figure out as much about your model as possible.

    ---"I've asked you before if you've properly researched the flat earth theory and I'll ask again. What evidence and or experiment have you examined that contradicted your model and supports a flat earth? Have you considered ANY criticism against your model?"
    This is going to take a while. : ) Recent eclipse. I believe I have covered that Selemlions. That one is literally covered above. So is tides. Atmospheric refraction explains many flat earth arguments. Flight patterns. I have covered this one in other debates. Many things determan flight patterns. Wind speed, temperature, safety, practicality. Don't go jumping to conclusions. Waiting in the air for your destination to come to you. Don't be ridiculous. We move with the earth. When we fly we still have that velocity and with gravity causing us to stay at that height it is just a ridiculous proof. Air planes having to dip their noses down. Guys it is basic gravity. All those if you get something in the air are explained. It looks flat. OK that one means nothing. Airy's experiment. Maybe thous who think that is evidence don't know how fast light is. If earth were spinning we would all fly of. Um gravity. The stars stay in their same positions. Do you know how far are model puts the stars. Stare behind the sun. Do you see cloud behind the sun. Some clouds are hard to see. Light travels through them easily. I look on line at some of the falt earth proofs and they are just silly. Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments light is confusing. You don't believe me. No I am serious it is realy confusing. Let us jump in to some complexes science. Light is relative. Time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light meaning light is still the speed of light relative to the person approaching the speed of light. This ant simple science. No matter your motion light will always be the speed of light relative to you. Their are experiments done to prove this. Tell me if you wan't me to elaborate. Then there is this one. The water level testing. I am still confused on how this works or what this proves. Am I missing something? I say I have considered criticism against my model.

    ---"So, tiny lights in the sky moving around are governed by the same laws that govern us? Why and what does this prove?"
    My intent was not to prove anything. I did use the word likely right? Just as you pointed out things you thought to be unlikely so did I.

    ---"Place a container of water between your eye and any object. The object always appears lower. The experiment is on the first page in video form. Notice, in this familiar example, how the straw is lowered."
    I thought we were taking about the atmosphere. Yea their is water in the atmosphere but it is in it's gasses state and is acamponed by other gasses. I am confused. My model also says light is bent by gravity. 
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    "Ummm.... interesting theory."

    That's it? So you concede this point as well? 

    "Selenelions are by definition the event when the sun is on the opposite side of the moon when it is a lunar eclipse. Atmospheric refraction makes it possible to sea both at once."

    We all saw the sun and moon above the horizon during the eclipse. You now claim it is possible because of atmospheric refraction, which is the bending of light due to water in the air. I've proved through experimentation that the light from the sun and moon could not possibly appear higher, as would be required in your model. You've yet to acknowledge this contradiction.

     "Tides are explained by the gravitational pull of the moon and sun but mostly the moon. "

    If this were the case, the tides would not be consistent on either side of the hypothetical ball earth as they are in your model. The two tides are caused by the moon pulling on the water and the earth to some degree, away from it's own water, like this.




    Cosmos.com claims centrifugaal force causes the second tide. They also claim the sun causes a tide, but that would give us 4 tides. Two large ones, due to the moon, and two smaller ones, from the sun. Since the sun and moon are nearly always in different places relative to the earth, the tides should be, if your model is correct, variable every day. If the tides are caused by centrifugal force, why is it only in one place, opposite the earth from the moon? This is a glaring flaw in your model.

    https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/why-are-there-two-tides-day

    " I will try. Have you ever been on a Plane?"

    Yes, many times. Why?


    "This is going to take a while. : ) Recent eclipse. "

    The recent eclipse shows a contradiction with your model and I don't remember seeing you post there. Proceed with a rebuttal or point me to where you have done so.

    "I believe I have covered that Selemlions. That one is literally covered above."

    You've ignored the fact that the shadow came from above, three times now. That is irrefutable as it would seem. The point remains standing until you've addressed that contradiction.

     "So is tides."

    Were still discussing tides.

    "Atmospheric refraction explains many flat earth arguments."

    If the light from the sun actually could be shown to be raised as is required for your model. It's a case of reproducing that effect with practical experimentation, not just making baseless claims. I've proved my case, and you've chosen to ignore it because it refutes your models claims.

    "Flight patterns. I have covered this one in other debates. Many things determan flight patterns. Wind speed, temperature, safety, practicality. Don't go jumping to conclusions."

    I've not even mentioned flight patterns here, please ellaborate.

    Waiting in the air for your destination to come to you. Don't be ridiculous. We move with the earth. When we fly we still have that velocity and with gravity causing us to stay at that height it is just a ridiculous proof.

    So when I see a train chugging a ling emitting steam, why doesn't the smoke follow the train and go straight up instead of getting caught up in the atmosphere and stay behind? This is an everyday observation that contradicts your claim.


    Why does the balloon and smoke from this smokestack rise straight up instead of getting caught in the atmosphere and stay behind, since the earth is rotating? You can't have your cake and eat it too.


    "Air planes having to dip their noses down. Guys it is basic gravity. All those if you get something in the air are explained."

    So, explain it. You can't just say "gravity" for everything.

    " It looks flat. OK that one means nothing."

    To you maybe, but then again you'd rather take someone else's word for everything. It looks flat, but it isn't because they said so. We can't feel movement, but we are because they said so....

    " Airy's experiment. Maybe thous who think that is evidence don't know how fast light is."

    I don't think that is a valid explanation, or that you even know the experiment very well.

    "If earth were spinning we would all fly of. Um gravity."

    Here we go again. The catch all for all of your problems.

    "The stars stay in their same positions.  Do you know how far are model puts the stars."

    Yes, I think it's ridiculous because I have rented a high power zoom camera and saw that the stars are not burning balls of gas zillions of miles away. It's conjecture to me.

    "Stare behind the sun. Do you see cloud behind the sun. Some clouds are hard to see. Light travels through them easily. I look on line at some of the falt earth proofs and they are just silly. 

    Of course they seem silly to you. The whole theory seems silly to you. Me too, until i rooted through the controlled opposition claims and measured the earth myself.

    Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments light is confusing. You don't believe me. No I am serious it is realy confusing. Let us jump in to some complexes science. Light is relative. Time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light meaning light is still the speed of light relative to the person approaching the speed of light.

    That is some great science fiction. Can you demonstrate it with a practical experimentation? Can I verify this claim in a my practical way?




    So what is a light year if time stops when you approach the speed of light? It's This ant simple science. No matter your motion light will always be the speed of light relative to you. Their are experiments done to prove this. Tell me if you wan't me to elaborate. Then there is this one. The water level testing. I am still confused on how this works or what this proves. Am I missing something? I say I have considered criticism against my model.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "This ant simple science. No matter your motion light will always be the speed of light relative to you."


    "Their are experiments done to prove this."

    Like? How can you prove this claim?

    " Tell me if you wan't me to elaborate."

    Yes

    "Then there is this one. The water level testing. I am still confused on how this works or what this proves." 

    I'm not sure, source it?

    "Am I missing something? I say I have considered criticism against my model."

    Gyroscopes. 

    The city of Chicago from across lake Michigan.

    The lack of specular highlights on the earth. I can ellaborat when I have more time, my browser is acting screwy, which is why I had to post prematurely.

    I'd still like you to prove that atmospheric refraction causes an object to appear higher. I've shown that it is just the oppoaite, and this refutation refutes a lot of your counterarguments and arguments including selenelions.

    @nope

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "I thought we were taking about the atmosphere. Yea their is water in the atmosphere but it is in it's gasses state and is acamponed by other gasses. I am confused. My model also says light is bent by gravity."

    Atmosphere is but an accumulation of water in the air, along with other things. This causes refraction and can be reproduced by combining those molecules of water into a container and observing with that. If mot please feel free to give a logical reason or proof why not.
    @nope
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    "That's it? So you concede this point as well? "
    My picture that I posted shows a flaw. How does the light get to the upposet side of the earth without passing through half the area in between. That is a lot of bending in similler temperature in the south but in the same temperature to the north the light does not bend that way. Why the constent different results in the same temperature?

    "We all saw the sun and moon above the horizon during the eclipse. You now claim it is possible because of atmospheric refraction, which is the bending of light due to water in the air. I've proved through experimentation that the light from the sun and moon could not possibly appear higher, as would be required in your model. You've yet to acknowledge this contradiction."
    First, water in the air doe not have all the same property's as water in a glass. Second, atmospheric refraction has very little to do with water vaper. It is more due to air density.

    "If this were the case, the tides would not be consistent on either side of the hypothetical ball earth as they are in your model. The two tides are caused by the moon pulling on the water and the earth to some degree, away from it's own water, like this. Cosmos.com claims centrifugaal force causes the second tide. They also claim the sun causes a tide, but that would give us 4 tides. Two large ones, due to the moon, and two smaller ones, from the sun. Since the sun and moon are nearly always in different places relative to the earth, the tides should be, if your model is correct, variable every day. If the tides are caused by centrifugal force, why is it only in one place, opposite the earth from the moon? This is a glaring flaw in your model."
    I'm not sure you completely understand my model. The sun does not give 4 tides. It weakens or strengthens the moons tides. The tides do change from day to day over the cores of a month. This is measurable. https://www.livescience.com/29621-what-causes-the-tides.html

    "The recent eclipse shows a contradiction with your model and I don't remember seeing you post there. Proceed with a rebuttal or point me to where you have done so."
    It in no way contradicts my model. From what I see flat earth people argue that the earth rotates faster eastward then the moon does in the same direction.
    I
    True but that is assuming the moon is like right on top of the earth. It is basic light physics. The closer the source of the shadow moves toward the source of the light. The faster the shadow moves when the source of the shadow moves. The moon does not have to move fast for it's shadow to move fast. Tell me if you wan't the math.

    "You've ignored the fact that the shadow came from above, three times now. That is irrefutable as it would seem. The point remains standing until you've addressed that contradiction."
    I don't know what comes from above means.

    "I've not even mentioned flight patterns here, please ellaborate."
    I was touching on other flat earth proofs as you asked if I consider evidence that was suppose to contradict my model.

    "So when I see a train chugging a ling emitting steam, why doesn't the smoke follow the train and go straight up instead of getting caught up in the atmosphere and stay behind? This is an everyday observation that contradicts your claim."
    The smoke steam the wind. The atmosphere moves with the earth and withcever direction the wind is blowing ant at its speed the gass or little drop of water is easily . 

    "Why does the balloon and smoke from this smokestack rise straight up instead of getting caught in the atmosphere and stay behind, since the earth is rotating? You can't have your cake and eat it too."
    The atmosphere moves with the earth. So do the smoke and balloon. Both the air balloon and smoke move with the earth forward and are always going down because of gravity.

    "So, explain it. You can't just say "gravity" for everything."
    Down is where gravity is forcing us. There for you won't have to dip your nose down.

    "To you maybe, but then again you'd rather take someone else's word for everything. It looks flat, but it isn't because they said so. We can't feel movement, but we are because they said so...."
    If we would expect it to look flat in both the globe earth and flat earth model then the fact it looks flat means nothing and you must turn to other evidence.

    "I don't think that is a valid explanation, or that you even know the experiment very well."
    This experiment proved Aether does not exist not the earth is stationary.

    "Here we go again. The catch all for all of your problems."
    Gravity counters forward momentum. It is a stronger force.

    "Yes, I think it's ridiculous because I have rented a high power zoom camera and saw that the stars are not burning balls of gas zillions of miles away. It's conjecture to me."
    Stars are not big balls of burning gas according to my model. They are plazma.

    "Of course they seem silly to you. The whole theory seems silly to you. Me too, until i rooted through the controlled opposition claims and measured the earth myself."
    They seem silly because my model easily explains them so they prove nothing.

    "That is some great science fiction. Can you demonstrate it with a practical experimentation? Can I verify this claim in a my practical way?"
    This is the kind of experiment that takes hard to get equipment. You would not be able to make a simple experiment to prove it. I can also say the original experiment that flat earthers use as evidence also requires special equipment so not trusting my explanation would mean you should also not trust the original experiment means the hole thing means nothing.

    As for the video, I can't watch it on my school computer. : ( 
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat 
    "The city of Chicago from across lake Michigan."
    atmospheric refraction
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Erfisflat 
    "Atmosphere is but an accumulation of water in the air, along with other things. This causes refraction and can be reproduced by combining those molecules of water into a container and observing with that. If mot please feel free to give a logical reason or proof why not."
    The state of a molecules and other gasses that economy that molecules matter. You can't change the sate and take away most of the molecules and expect the same result. It is mostly effected by dense and not dense air nor water vapor. Water vapor makes up no more then 4% of air usually. Aren't you forget like 96% of the atmosphere. I fail to see how you proved my statement wrong. 
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Erfisflat 
    When light inters a medium that slows it down it bends. If it slows down more it bends toward the normal which is an imaginary line which is 90 from the line where the two mediums meet. If it speeds up it moves away from the normal line. The more the difference in speed the more the bend. This explains the behavior of light with water and the lens. You could test different lens. Ones that curve in and ones that curve out and you will find this statement true. Less dens and more dens substances. I encourage you to play around with thies things and you should find my statements holds true. This is what cause mirages. We can then predict for my model  the result of air curving light and we see the results we would expect and yes light travels faster in air then in water. Air also gets less dens the higher you go which means the light does curve down. There for your proof fails. 
    Image result for atmospheric refraction bending light on earth
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Erfisflat
    "The lack of specular highlights on the earth"
    How are you going to prove that?
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Erfisflat
    Would you say if you look strait forward on the plane you would be looking at the tip of the wing or above if you are on a normal jet plane?
  • EdrilEdril 67 Pts   -  
    Why can you just use a telescope to see the sun and moon from any point on earth at any time of day? 

    Also, how do they convince all pilots to fly along a curved radius while telling passengers they are flying in a straight line?

    Also, couldn't a flat earth apologist simply get into a plane with a compass, start with the needle facing to the right, fly in a straight line, and show the needle spin clock-wise over the course of the flight, despite the plane not moving?

    Proving the flat earth would be VERY easy to do if it were fact, but pro-flat earth arguments always seem to be mental gymnastics...
  • NathanAllenNathanAllen 53 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat we have day and night as everyone not living under a rock knows, day and night is only possible with a earth of a ovaled or rounded shape. As the earth spins the sun crosses the sky till it can no longer stay in the sky and than it is dark. If the earth was flat a compass would not work as gravitational pull would be either uneven and only in the center or even and the compass would not work at all. 

    Even tough their may be some studies showing the earth can only be flat they overlook a lot of factors to come to the conclusion. How would half the earth be lit up and half of it be dark, how would compasses point to true north no matter where you are on the planet. A lot of factors prove the earth is round. 
    https://www.universetoday.com/59707/what-causes-day-and-night/
    https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
    https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html
    https://futurism.com/facts-obvious/
    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflat
    ~NathanAllen, Be yourself let no one tell you who you are. 
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat
    What happens when you go off the edge of the flat Earth?
    Does the flat Earth rotate around the sun?
    What is on the other side of the flat Earth?
    i fart cows
  • BaconToes said:
    @Erfisflat
    What happens when you go off the edge of the flat Earth?
    Does the flat Earth rotate around the sun?
    What is on the other side of the flat Earth?
    1 and 3. Common misconception. Most flat Earthers believe there is instead an ice wall, and/or dome/firmament.
    2. No, the flat Earth is also geocentric.
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • EdrilEdril 67 Pts   -  

    At the time of this post, it is 12:16 am in Pakistan.

    In Pakistan is the mountain Karakoram, home of K2, the second highest peak in the world.

    According to flat-earth theory, what prevents someone at this location, at this time (midnight) from seeing the sun?

  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    BaconToes said:
    @Erfisflat
    What happens when you go off the edge of the flat Earth?
    Does the flat Earth rotate around the sun?
    What is on the other side of the flat Earth?
    1 and 3. Common misconception. Most flat Earthers believe there is instead an ice wall, and/or dome/firmament.
    2. No, the flat Earth is also geocentric.
    But what is on the other side of the Earth?
    If it is made of ice, won't it melt?
    i fart cows
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    "My picture that I posted shows a flaw. How does the light get to the upposet side of the earth without passing through half the area in between. That is a lot of bending in similler temperature in the south but in the same temperature to the north the light does not bend that way. Why the constent different results in the same temperature?"

    1. The temperatures aren't the same. Temperatures differ greatly in the arctic and Antarctic. This is a huge contradiction with your model that I haven't even mentioned yet. Thanks for bringing it up.
    2. How does that picture represent reality?
    3. This problem is yet another map problem. You are still assuming I've adopted this map as factual. 
    4. How does this prove the earth is a ball?

    "First, water in the air doe not have all the same property's as water in a glass."

    Of course it doesn't, nobody has claimed this. The water in the air causes refraction like water in a glass in every testable circumstance. I said before, if you can prove that water vapor retracts in the opposite direction please do so, otherwise you are just saying nuh-uh. And by prove, I don't mean linking to another site, unless that site presents a practical example or experiment that can be reproduced on any scale, as I have. This is the difference between science and pseudoscience. 

    "Second, atmospheric refraction has very little to do with water vaper. It is more due to air density."

    Hilariously, you were claiming that gravity was bending the light before, now you're stating that it's due to air density. What makes the air denser if not water vapor, which is abundant in our atmosphere? Are you now trying to refute your own science?

    "It in no way contradicts my model."

    Your model says it may be possible for the shadow to go the east, even though we observe it going to the west. Your model doesn't even try to explain the shadow going in a southeast direction. Produce one animation for how it can happen with your model.

    "From what I see flat earth people argue that the earth rotates faster eastward then the moon does in the same direction."

    No real flat earther has claimed the earth to be moving at all. This is a false claim.

    "The moon does not have to move fast for it's shadow to move fast. Tell me if you wan't the math"

    I don't argue against the math involved. I'm arguing the direction only. Please address that contradiction with your model.

    (The selenelion) "I don't know what comes from above means."

    It's not a difficult sentence with difficult words. The shadow came over the moon from above. 


    If you have any knowledge of basic geometry, the shadow should have come from below, if the moon and sun were above the horizon similar to this:



    This conclusively proves that the earth doesn't block the light of the sun on the moon.

    "The smoke steam the wind."

    What?

     "The atmosphere moves with the earth and withcever direction the wind is blowing ant at its speed the gass or little drop of water is easily . "

    What??? If the magical Velcro atmosphere moves with the earth, why doesn't the steam move with the train? They are composed of basically the same thing.

    "The atmosphere moves with the earth. So do the smoke and balloon. Both the air balloon and smoke move with the earth forward and are always going down because of gravity."

    But sometimes smoke moves to the east, sometimes it moves to the east, it moves to the north and the south, but over never seen smoke go down. Please stop taking lsd.

    "Down is where gravity is forcing us. There for you won't have to dip your nose down."

    So when pilots fly a plane, they don't have to correct for the curvature of the earth because of a theory based on the assumption that earth is a ball. Gotcha. 

    "If we would expect it to look flat in both the globe earth and flat earth model then the fact it looks flat means nothing and you must turn to other evidence."

    It shouldn't look flat, especially at 100,000 feet. The horizon should fall away and curve as altitude is gained. It doesn't. 

    "This is the kind of experiment that takes hard to get equipment."

    A simple no would suffice. There is nothing practical we can do to prove the earth is a spinning ball. And all a person would have to do to prove that water is flat is measure a body of it.

    "This experiment proved Aether does not exist not the earth is stationary."

    This is what they tell you. The Michelson Morley experiment used an inferometer to determine if the earth was moving relative to the æther, which was by then a proven fact(the æther). This is why Einstein said, when referring to the experiment:

    "“If Michelson-Morley (experiment that failed) is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.”

    Of course a geocentric, flat earth didn't follow the Copernican principle, so instead of accepting the obvious, (that we aren't moving) that relativity was wrong, which supported the theory of gravity, which supported the spinning ball earth, he dismissed the æther.

    "I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment.”           -Albert Einstein      @Nope

    Why Does your school not allow you to look at YouTube videos?
    @nope
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Been working a lot here lately. May be absent for a while.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    I'm glad to see the conversation has gone on without me. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @bacontoes
    "But what is on the other side of the Earth?"

    Purely hypothetical question. It would be speculative to say what is "under" the earth. We can measure the top, and we have only dug about 7-8 miles down.

    "If it is made of ice, won't it melt?"

    Antarctica is too far from the sun's circuit to melt it, so it forms a bowl like structure around the flat earth. Very intelligently designed.


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "According to flat-earth theory, what prevents someone at this location, at this time (midnight) from seeing the sun?"

    Atmospheric refraction. 

    @nope
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Many experiments were done to prove the existence of the æther.
    http://aetherforce.com/the-aether-is-real-absolute-scientific-proof/
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat They allow me to look at some YouTube videos but not all. Only ones they consider educational (and lego videos for some reason) are un blocked. I don't know why they block many videos posted on this site but did not block lego videos.

    "Of course it doesn't, nobody has claimed this. The water in the air causes refraction like water in a glass in every testable circumstance. I said before, if you can prove that water vapor retracts in the opposite direction please do so, otherwise you are just saying nuh-uh. And by prove, I don't mean linking to another site, unless that site presents a practical example or experiment that can be reproduced on any scale, as I have. This is the difference between science and pseudoscience." 
    Light refraction works like this, when light inters a substance that causes it to slow down it bends toward from the normal line which is a line perpendicular to the line separating the substance and the substance the light came from at the point of entry. Like this:Image result for light refraction
    When light inters a substance that speeds up light it will bend away from the normal line as shown in this picture.Image result for light refraction away from the normal
    The higher the difference in speeds between substances or a vacuum the bigger the bend.
    This should not be to hard to prove. You just need different substances that light can pass through. I like using lenses. If you can control where your light source is you should be able to see this effect. Now let us apply this to earth. Earths atmosphere normally gets less dens as you go higher meaning light travels fast the higher you go which means the light bends away from the normal line the higher you go and toward the normal line the lower you go. This means light follows the curvature of the earth sort of. The less dens air above always bends the light away from the normal line toward the more dens air.which means it bends the light down. But wait the earth is curved so the earths surface is going lower to just as the light is going down.
    Image result for earth and light curving down diagram
    "Hilariously, you were claiming that gravity was bending the light before, now you're stating that it's due to air density. What makes the air denser if not water vapor, which is abundant in our atmosphere? Are you now trying to refute your own science?"
    Gravity does bend light. But earth gravity is so week that it barely bends light. Most of the bending is do to atmosphere refraction. Light bending is more observable with black holes because the actually have strong gravity. Gravity on earth bearly bends light which is why I mentioned it at the end and did not go into detail because it does not really mater in this situation. It is mostly due to air density because it is mostly due to atmospheric refraction which is a product of light traveling at different speeds which is in the case of the atmosphere due to different air density. The air density is due to denser substances moving down. Water vapor make up like I said less then 4% of are atmosphere which is why you should not act like it works by itself and test it in it's liquid state. 

    "Your model says it may be possible for the shadow to go the east, even though we observe it going to the west. Your model doesn't even try to explain the shadow going in a southeast direction. Produce one animation for how it can happen with your model."
    My model says that the moon is far eanf from the earth that when it moves a little it's shadow moves faster then the earth rotates meaning it will always go west.
    This picture should give you a more helpful angle.
    Image result for orbit of the moon around the earth

    "No real flat earther has claimed the earth to be moving at all. This is a false claim."
    Sorry for the confusion. I was meaning they argue are model shows the earth rotating eastward faster then the moon in the same direction and then say there for the eclipse can't happen in are model.

    "I don't argue against the math involved. I'm arguing the direction only. Please address that contradiction with your model"
    I am confused. What contradiction?

    "It's not a difficult sentence with difficult words. The shadow came over the moon from above."
    Above the moon. Of course it does.

    "What?"
    Well said.

    "What??? If the magical Velcro atmosphere moves with the earth, why doesn't the steam move with the train? They are composed of basically the same thing."
    The reason the steam does not move with the train is because it has the train velocity but when it goes in to the air the air really quickly changes the steams velocity. Air resistance changes the steams velocity,

    But sometimes smoke moves to the east, sometimes it moves to the east, it moves to the north and the south, but over never seen smoke go down. Please stop taking lsd.
    Smoke fallows the wind. What is Isd?

    "So when pilots fly a plane, they don't have to correct for the curvature of the earth because of a theory based on the assumption that earth is a ball. Gotcha."
    Good.

    I will address the rest later. I have things to do and I have to do things.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "The city of Chicago from across lake Michigan."
    atmospheric refraction"

    Right, like you said this is the main point we are disagreeing on. Whether the light from the sun and moon/

    boats/

    city of Chicago 

    Etc, etc. Appears lower on the horizon than higher is the dispute. I have DEMONSTRATED how refraction adamantly supports a flat earth with practical and objective evidence and experimentation, while you've given us a firm "but, but, muh science book", and a diagram.



    @nope
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Do you know the difference between science and pseudoscience?
    @nope
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited December 2017
     The USGS  claims that:
    "One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3)."

    https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html

    What you're claiming is so far pseudoscientific. I've demonstrated how refraction causes an object to appear lower. If you feel that you can reproduce different results with any material (that doesn't create an inversion) feel free to PROVE your claims, as I have done.
    @nope
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat
    "What you're claiming is so far pseudoscientific. I've demonstrated how refraction causes an object to appear lower. If you feel that you can reproduce different results with any material (that doesn't create an inversion) feel free to PROVE your claims, as I have done."
    You are claiming water bends light in the same way the atmosphere does. I would say that is not supported by good evidence as we know water is a lot more dense then the atmosphere. You can prove every thing I just said with a light source and different substances.. 
    Erfisflat
This Debate has been closed.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch