Earth is a ball

someone234

@SilverishGoldNova The 3d being can only see in 2d at once and has to assume the third dimension by angles and shading.

SilverishGoldNova

someone234 said:

@SilverishGoldNova The 3d being can only see in 2d at once and has to assume the third dimension by angles and shading.

Who was arguing the Earth was 2d?

someone234

@SilverishGoldNova If you don't argue that it's 2-D then how exactly do the edges form and where are these 'edges'?

Edril

Do any flat-earthers want to address my point about the celestial poles, or has someone234 trashed this conversation?

Erfisflat

Edril said:

Do any flat-earthers want to address my point about the celestial poles, or has someone234 trashed this conversation?

Celestial poles? Is this a question about the sky or the earth?

Edril

@Erfisflat

In the northern hemisphere (or central....hemi...circle??), You can see a star called Polaris, aka the north star. All other stars rotate around this one. You cannot see this star in the southern hemisphere (or outer...hemi....ring??). Instead you see a different star, Sigma Octantis which has a different set of stars rotating around it.

You can observe this phenomenon yourself.

The fact that the north and south have different celestial poles is impossible on a flat earth, and supports a globe.

Erfisflat

"You can observe this phenomenon yourself"

Unfortunately, I'm in the northern hemi-whatever, so this is a false statement. I've heard a lot of globe earth proponents bring up this argument and seeing how it doesn't actually prove curvature, I've not made it a priority. I'll look into it soon and get back with you.

Edril

 @Erfisflat

"Unfortunately, I'm in the northern hemi-whatever, so this is a false statement."

It's not a false statement. You can observe this.

First, while in the northern hemisphere, even though the southern celestial pole is below the horizon, you can discern it's position by watching the stars that are rotating around it.

Second, you could travel to the southern hemisphere and observe the same thing but reversed.

This disproves the flat earth because this can't happen on a flat plane.

I've even searched the internet for a rebuttal to this and can't find one. Maybe you can find one, but I thought we're not supposed to believe what people tell us without seeing it for ourselves.

While looking for a rebuttal, I found this post where the celestial pole argument is laid out better than I did.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5269.0

Erfisflat

Edril said:

@Erfisflat

In the northern hemisphere (or central....hemi...circle??), You can see a star called Polaris, aka the north star. All other stars rotate around this one. You cannot see this star in the southern hemisphere (or outer...hemi....ring??). Instead you see a different star, Sigma Octantis which has a different set of stars rotating around it.

You can observe this phenomenon yourself.

The fact that the north and south have different celestial poles is impossible on a flat earth, and supports a globe.

Have you observed this yourself, or do you have conclusive evidence of the southern celestial pole star'(s) existence?

Edril

 @Erfisflat

Ugh... yes, I've seen the north star.

There is mountains of evidence for the celestial poles. People have been staring at the stars for millennia. It is well documented. This is how sailors navigated.

Erfisflat

@Edril

"The fact that the north and south have different celestial poles is impossible on a flat earth, and supports a globe."

I wouldn't say it was impossible on a flat earth. When you have measured the earth for yourself, you can conclusively say, with verifiable evidence, that the earth is flat. You may point to the sky and say this means we live on a ball (that's if you can prove it exists), and I will then say,  "Hey, that's some weird a $$ stuff going on in the sky there, now, look down at this flat body of water on the earth. That's impossible on a globe." This would be a more accurate statement. You've entered on the assumption that anyone has realized a correct model of the flat earth, let alone you or I. Have you seen what stars actually looked like? I'm not talking about the CGI from NASA. If a perfectly intelligent designer put the firmament in the sky, which I have seen very good proof of, I doubt we'll figure out what's fully going on above our heads. We have the privilege of actually being able to measure the earth for ourselves, and we take it for granted. I could direct you to a few rebuttals to your argument or plagiarize them myself, but that would take the fun out of your search for the truth. Is this the only reason you think you live on a spinning ball?

Erfisflat

" @Erfisflat

Ugh... yes, I've seen the north star.  "

I have too, that's not what I was referring to. Specifically :

"The fact that the north and south have different celestial poles is impossible on a flat earth, and supports a globe"

"There is mountains of evidence for the celestial poles. People have been staring at the stars for millennia. It is well documented. This is how sailors navigated."

I'll ask someone next time I run across some southern hemisphere sky navigation sailors.

@edril

Erfisflat

Sorry, but I try to stay clear of TFES

@edril

Edril

@Erfisflat
You've displayed a confirmation bias by accepting second hand evidence that supports your claim and rejecting second hand evidence that refutes it on the basis that it is second hand.

Now you're refusing to collect 1st hand evidence as well.

You created a thread where we're supposed to persuade you.

So you tell me. What is acceptible evidence? What would persuade you? If theres no way to persuade you than this thread is trollery.

Erfisflat

"You've displayed a confirmation bias by accepting second hand evidence that supports your claim"

Which was that? I've personally measured the level surfaces of miles of water. This precedes yours and anyone at tfes' sayso. 


"and rejecting second hand evidence that refutes it on the basis that it is second hand."

I've determined that, at it's core, this is a red herring. I'm not persuaded. Not to mention you've not even given me a good piece of evidence proving that it happens. Is it at shill city? (Tfes)

"So you tell me. What is acceptible evidence? What would persuade you? If theres no way to persuade you than this thread is trollery."

More than a strawman. Try curved water. I may even be inclined to analyze ANY video of the full earth in rotation. 

@edril

someone234

@Edril how can I trash a conversation with a brainwashed propaganda tool? See how he doesn't think about what you say but just mocks it? He does the same to me.

Edril

@Erfisflat

"I wouldn't say it was impossible on a flat earth"

Why?

"Have you seen what stars actually looked like?"

Yes, every day and night when its not cloudy.


"If a perfectly intelligent designer put the firmament in the sky, which I have seen very good proof of..."

You've given yourself a massive burden of proof here. I'd love to see it. 

"We have the privilege of actually being able to measure the earth for ourselves, and we take it for granted."

Explain the measurment method to me so I can take it. I love metrology.

" Is this the only reason you think you live on a spinning ball?"

No, I presented this one because it's a naked eye observation anyone can make for themselves. The other reasons involve trusting authority, so thats bunk to you because you dont understand how the relationship between authority and skepticism works.

someone234

@Edril you are talking to a wall, he will bounce it all back.

Erfisflat

"Why?"

I explained in the post above why I believe so. It's a red herring. It's looking at the sky and it ultimately proves nothing. It's not impossible because you just don't know.



"Yes, every day and night when its not cloudy."

That's right, I keep forgetting you think our sun is a star. But because it is an unfathomable distance, it shrinks from perspective. No. Im talking about full zoom. Like with this.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2417488569/a-closer-look-at-the-nikon-coolpix-p900-megazoom

I'm not trying to promote a camera. You can rent one for about $50 a weekend. They're about $500 new.

"You've given yourself a massive burden of proof here. I'd love to see it."

You sure you don't want to ask Google first? No? Ok. Let's start with my favorite and most obvious.


"Explain the measurment method to me so I can take it. I love metrology."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aplanetruth.info/2015/07/03/measuring-the-non-curvature-of-the-earth-basic-spherical-geometry/amp/

"No, but the other reasons involve trusting authority, so thats bunk to you because you dont understand how the relationship between authority and skepticism works."

What don't I understand about it? If it goes against common sense, and there is no evidence for the claim, I am skeptical of the information. @Edril

Erfisflat

Of course the curvature formula doesn't account for observer and observed height above sea level. For this there is a calculator.
@Edril

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

someone234

@Erfisflat how fascinating, you ignore all he says and think rainbows prove the Earth is flat.

Erfisflat

@Edril have i ignored anything you said? Anyone else have this opinion? Have you anything useful to add to this conversation, @someone234.

Three thumbs up and someone234 will have all of his comments deleted until he can develop a coherent and logical argument or statement.

Edril

@Erfisflat
"have i ignored anything you said?"
No, but your confirmation bias is evident. If one posts second hand evidence, you deem it invalid, but supply nothing but second hand evidence to refute it.

"Three thumbs up and someone234 will have all of his comments deleted until he can develop a coherent and logical argument or statement."

This is an informal debate. Don't enforce formality after deciding to make it informal. You're not that weak.

"That's right, I keep forgetting you think our sun is a star. But because it is an unfathomable distance, it shrinks from perspective."

I don't get this point. Could you elaborate?

"Let's start with my favorite and most obvious." 
Again with the confirmation bias. We need a single standard for what constitutes as acceptable evidence. You can't claim all opposing digital images are potentially fake and then present images as proof of your own claims.

"What don't I understand about it? If it goes against common sense, and there is no evidence for the claim, I am skeptical of the information."

Skepticism is healthy and indeed necessary for scientific advancement. What you don't understand is that when experts are wrong, it takes experts to refute them. It doesn't even take an expert in optics to see that the dome shaped lens in that video you posted (again, double-standard) displays phenomenon that we don't see in the night sky, but without the knowledge and experience in optics to properly show this, I shouldn't be trusted as an authority when refuting it.
You appeal to arguments from authority constantly. Do you administer a breathalyzer test to any bus driver before getting on his bus? Do you personally confirm without doubt that your food is safe before eating it? Do you not use the internet without first ensuring that you're identity is not susceptible to theft? No, you use judgement to trust an authority or act in risk.

But when presented with evidence against your conviction, you suddenly become an expert authority in optics, metrology, cartography, etc....enough to deem your second hand evidence as acceptable but not what's provided to you in opposition to your mindset. 

Edril

@someone234

Don't turn this into a flame war. I'm trying to enjoy this conversation.

Erfisflat

"No, but your confirmation bias is evident. If one posts second hand evidence, you deem it invalid, but supply nothing but second hand evidence to refute it."

Please state an example, be specific. 

"This is an informal debate. Don't enforce formality after deciding to make it informal. You're not that weak."

Informal as it may be, I'm not here to entertain trolls and children. I've little time to spend here and I reserve the right to make sure people aren't subject to childish ad hominem attacks.

"I don't get this point. Could you elaborate?"

In the heliocentric model, we thought our sun was a small star, despite the obvious observation that the stars are very small, and the sun is the the same size as the moon. The distances and sizes are played with to make it more believable.

"Skepticism is healthy and indeed necessary for scientific advancement. What you don't understand is that when experts are wrong, it takes experts to refute them."

You do know they all pretty much work for the same corporation, right? You know what a grant is? You ever tried to get a grant to prove the earth is not a ball? You don't need to be an expert to use the scientific method. This way, we don't have to chance anyone being wrong or worse, lying intentionally. This is why they call it the appeal to authority fallacy. It is not infallible information. The experiments involved are ones that anyone can do and ends with empirically validatable evidence. 

"Again with the confirmation bias. We need a single standard for what constitutes as acceptable evidence. You can't claim all opposing digital images are potentially fake and then present images as proof of your own claims."

Well I mean, there are thousands of pictures of rainbows on the internet. You've never seen a rainbow? Most of them have a second, mirrored rainbow above the first, a little less apparent than the first. That isn't the point though. You've never seen a rainbow? Any rainbow? Wow.

"It doesn't even take an expert in optics to see that the dome shaped lens in that video you posted (again, double-standard) "

Something anyone can verify for very little money, so no. Not the same. Verifiability is key.

"displays phenomenon that we don't see in the night sky, but without the knowledge and experience in optics to properly show this, I shouldn't be trusted as an authority when refuting it."

The important part to take from the video is the answer to your point: "...impossible on a flat earth..." I'm not saying he's 100% correct, but he showed it is possible. Refraction is clear and indisputable in both of the models, and plays a major role in the apparent position of celestial bodies (again, in both models).

"You appeal to arguments from authority constantly."

I really can't explain the difference between verifiable and argument from authority any more clearly than I already have.

" Do you administer a breathalyzer test to any bus driver before getting on his bus? "

No, but I'm not going to lie and say I know the man is not drunk if he slurs his speech and stumbles.

"Do you personally confirm without doubt that your food is safe before eating it?"

That is going a bit overboard. But if a strange man hands me a vial with skull and crossbones on it, and says it's perfectly healthy, I'm not just going to take his word for it. This is what we did for years.  We see and experience a flat and motionless world, but are told to deny our senses and believe in the experts, with little to any proof of anything to the contrary.

 Do you not use the internet without first ensuring that you're identity is not susceptible to theft?

I can't think of anyone in their right mind that would want to steal a flat earthers identity. This is a bit irrelevant though.

"No, you use judgement to trust an authority or act in risk."

These are false analogies to say the least, for the reasons above. It's the difference between science and pseudoscience. I'm sure you'll understand. 
@edril

someone234

@Erfisflat So enlighten us all as to where the 'edges' of the 3-D flat Earth can be found... Oh what's that? Nowhere? What a shame.

Edril

@Erfisflat

"Please state an example, be specific. "

NASA images are fake, but look at this image of a rainbow. Scientists are lying, but look at this guy with a youtube account.

"You've never seen a rainbow? Most of them have a second, mirrored rainbow above the first, a little less apparent than the first."

Are you saying that rainbows are light sources that reflect off a firmament? If this were so, it would be easy to reproduce this effect using the powerful light sources we've invented. Where's that video?

"In the heliocentric model, we thought our sun was a small star, despite the obvious observation that the stars are very small, and the sun is the the same size as the moon. The distances and sizes are played with to make it more believable."

Roll your chair away from your computer desk and watch your monitor appear to be smaller. Perspective makes things look smaller the farther they are. Are you suggesting that planets are actually bigger than stars? They certainly look bigger from our perspective.

"I'm not saying he's 100% correct, but he showed it is possible."

He didn't show that it's possible to have 2 celestial poles on a flat earth, he was saying that its possible that there ISN'T a second celestial pole. And mentioning logical possibilities does nothing to prove that they are actual, nor does it do anything to disprove the opposition. I could lay out all the philosophical proof that it's possible that we are all just brains in a vat being fed experiences by a computer. This does nothing to prove it, though.

"You do know they all pretty much work for the same corporation, right?"

Your claim is that "pretty much" the entire scientific community works for some singular kabalistic corporation?

"This is why they call it the appeal to authority fallacy."

This is where your disconnect lies. the appeal to authority fallacy is saying a statement is true because of the person who said it. This doesn't mean you don't have to be an expert to do good science, it means the fact that you are an expert is not proof that your claims are correct. This is a HUGE difference, and misunderstanding this seems to have a huge affect on your judgment of reality. 

Erfisflat

"NASA images are fake,"

Admittedly fake on most occasions, and goes against common senses. In this day and age, no image of something that is not verifiable should be considered evidence, especially when they are proven fakes. 

"but look at this image of a rainbow. "

...that most everyone who has ever been outside can verify exists. Weve all seen a rainbow, none of us has seen curvature,  let alone a ball earth.

"Scientists are lying, but look at this guy with a youtube account."

That gives us something nearly anyone can do to demonstrate that particular point... Do you know what verifiability and falsifiability means? If a "scientist" gave us something demonstrable to prove the earth a ball, I'd listen. I wouldn't be here.

If a fisherman said he caught a 1,000 pound catfish, you wouldn't just automatically believe him. He's an expert in his field. He may even be able to produce some imagery (though he may say it is a composite image) that doesn't make it any more real. Why is it so hard for you to understand the simple concept of verifiability? 

"Are you saying that rainbows are light sources that reflect off a firmament? If this were so, it would be easy to reproduce this effect using the powerful light sources we've invented. Where's that video?"

No, I'm not saying rainbows are light sources at all. Your scientists claim that rainbows are just light scattered to the eye from refraction of rainwater. I say gibberish. We can falsify this claim by shining a light around in the shower. You'll never produce those results unless you have a reflective surface to double that light from a different angle, onto a medium. That reflective surface, in this case, determines the shape of the rainbow.

"Roll your chair away from your computer desk and watch your monitor appear to be smaller. Perspective makes things look smaller the farther they are. Are you suggesting that planets are actually bigger than stars? They certainly look bigger from our perspective."

They appear to be roughly the same size. In order for a scientist to say that perspective has shrunk the stars down smaller than the moon for example, he should first prove the distance is far greater. This is an unevidenced assumption. 

"He didn't show that it's possible to have 2 celestial poles on a flat earth, he was saying that its possible that there ISN'T a second celestial pole. And mentioning logical possibilities does nothing to prove that they are actual, nor does it do anything to disprove the opposition. I could lay out all the philosophical proof that it's possible that we are all just brains in a vat being fed experiences by a computer. This does nothing to prove it, though."

It wasn't philosophical, it was demonstrable science. I wasn't, once again, saying this was proof of anything other than to correct your statement that it was impossible on a flat earth. Don't ignore that.

If you were debating brain in a vat with me and I said it was impossible for some reason, then you gave a philosophical proof showing it WAS possible, just that I had not properly researched it, i would be committing the logical fallacy by ignoring that and continuing to assume it is impossible, just as you are now.

"Your claim is that "pretty much" the entire scientific community works for some singular kabalistic corporation?"

Most of the entire scientific community assumes the ball earth. But most of them get government grants, so, in short, yes. Albeit unknowingly. 

"This is where your disconnect lies. the appeal to authority fallacy is saying a statement is true because of the person who said it. This doesn't mean you don't have to be an expert to do good science, it means the fact that you are an expert is not proof that your claims are correct. This is a HUGE difference, and misunderstanding this seems to have a huge affect on your judgment of reality."

Wait, you just proved my point. You are saying that we should take scientist's word for our conclusion. I'm saying that just because an "expert" says so, we shouldn't assume it as truth. Where is the disconnect again? 
@edril

someone234

This thread is like a ping pong match but instead of hitting the ball back, the other side keeps denying that the hit is a valid hit.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

This thread is like a ping pong match but instead of hitting the ball back, the other side keeps denying that the hit is a valid hit.

You're welcome to ignore it. Nobody is making you read it and put your worthless opinions in as you deem fit.

someone234

@Erfisflat Case in point.

Erfisflat

K thnx, buh bye.

Edril

@Erfisflat

" I wasn't, once again, saying this was proof of anything other than to correct your statement that it was impossible on a flat earth. Don't ignore that."

It didn't correct my statement that 2 celestial poles is impossible on a flat earth. He was demonstrating how the appearance of a southern pole could be an optical illusion. On a flat earth, the southern sky would be blocked by the plane of the earth, you wouldn't be able to see an actual southern celestial pole. But we do. And as we both agree, that video didn't explain what we actually see in the sky.

"Where is the disconnect again? "

The disconnect is that you are confusing a layman's appeal to the consensus of authority with the logical fallacy "argument from authority".
The argument from authority fallacy is if I attempt to prove a biology claim by showing you my degree in biology instead of showing you my research.
But when a layman proposes that it makes more sense for he and other laymen to trust the scientific consensus rather than believe, without evidence, that the entire scientific community has pulled off the biggest conspiracy in history, this is not the argument from authority fallacy.
The heliocentric solar system with spherical planets was demonstrated by prediction-causing math and observation. The evidence was always falsifiable, but never falsified by the thousands of experts who contributed to the conversation over hundreds of years. It withstood scrutiny, and instead produced practical predictions.

Humans are notoriously bad at cooperating and collaborating, especially when it comes to keeping unethical secrets. The most powerful man in the world couldn't keep a blowjob secret. Religion has had the most success in creating large scale human cooperation and the flat-earth theory suggests that the world governments and the entire scientific community has been able to cooperate in a way that completely dwarfs the cooperation of even the most influential religions, for hundreds of years, from generation to generation. And without a single leak. Not one whistle blower. Not one false move, just perfect execution of a historically impossible task.

I'm not saying scientists are right because they're scientists, I'm saying that I believe them because the likelihood that they are wrong about such a fundamental concept is extremely unlikely, and believing that they are conspiring to keep a secret and tell lies is far less likely than them being wrong.

Erfisflat

@Edril
It didn't correct my statement that 2 celestial poles is impossible on a flat earth. He was demonstrating how the appearance of a southern pole could be an optical illusion.

...so that optical illusion would make it possible on a flat earth.

"On a flat earth, the southern sky would be blocked by the plane of the earth, you wouldn't be able to see an actual southern celestial pole. But we do. And as we both agree, that video didn't explain what we actually see in the sky."

I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean it would be blocked by the plane? Are you under the impression that stars are going under the flat earth?

"The disconnect is that you are confusing a layman's appeal to the consensus of authority with the logical fallacy "argument from authority".
The argument from authority fallacy is if I attempt to prove a biology claim by showing you my degree in biology instead of showing you my research."

Similar to NASA saying the earth is a spinning ball without evidence? You're taking their word for it either way.

"But when a layman proposes that it makes more sense for he and other laymen to trust the scientific consensus rather than believe, without evidence, that the entire scientific community has pulled off the biggest conspiracy in history, this is not the argument from authority fallacy."

There is empirical evidence that contradicts this "scientific consensus", and little to no evidence that supports it. This is what this conversation can be translated to.

You: "Santa Claus is real, and you're an if you doubt it."
Me: "Santa Claus is not real, there is no evidence for his existence."
You: "but I saw him at the mall! How do all those great presents get under my tree? Exactly what I asked him for in my letter, no less!
Me: "those are fakes, and your parents are lying to you."
You: "but all the parents in the world wouldn't be lying to us!"


"The heliocentric solar system with spherical planets was demonstrated by prediction-causing math and observation. The evidence was always falsifiable, but never falsified by the thousands of experts who contributed to the conversation over hundreds of years. It withstood scrutiny, and instead produced practical predictions."

What you're claiming is that pseudoscience should take precedence over the scientific method. Sure, we can use mathematics to make measurements and such, but constructing an entire model by reverse engineering the mathematics has nothing to do with the scientific method. 

Ampersand

"Scientists don't have any evidence but I have loads" says flat earth supporter, ironically and hypocritically making a load of baseless claims without any evidence.

On the other hand back in reality:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_by_name.html

https://link.springer.com/journal/10509

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/planetary-and-space-science

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

"Scientists don't have any evidence but I have loads" says flat earth supporter, ironically and hypocritically making a load of baseless claims without any evidence.

On the other hand back in reality:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_by_name.html

https://link.springer.com/journal/10509

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/planetary-and-space-science

Please point me to the one that proves that we are living on a spinning ball, so that the results can be tested and verified. Thank you in advance.

Ampersand

You don't seem to have understood. You made unsupported claims in your last post which are clearly wrong as shown by my evidence. Before moving on to a separate topic you may want to address how wrong you are.

For your new question, this has already been pointed out to you numerous times in many threads. Take for example every single eclipse prediction based on conventional physics which is precisely correct. A hypothesis which is empirically tested and proven correct.

Why can't flat earther do the same?

Erfisflat

"You don't seem to have understood. You made unsupported claims in your last post which are clearly wrong as shown by my evidence. Before moving on to a separate topic you may want to address how wrong you are."

I understand perfectly well. I made the claim that I and other flat earthers are actually testing the models, there is evidence for my model, and its all here on this site. You enter from stage left and misquote me with "Scientists don't have any evidence but I have loads" which is quite dishonest and typical of lowlife trolls, but then you turn that into irrelevant experiments that prove absolutely nothing, except that NASA claims to do a lot of irrelevant experiments. Then you accuse me of changing the subject... evidence for the curveball. Put up or fvckoph 

"Why can't flat earther do the same?"

We do it the same way you do.

SilverishGoldNova

@Ampersand You know, I am creating a youtube channel for the flat Earth. Would you like the links even tho I know you're gonna flood the comments with fallacious and biased rambling?

Nope

SilverishGoldNova I would like the links. I mean if it is ok. : )

SilverishGoldNova

Nope said:

SilverishGoldNova I would like the links. I mean if it is ok. : )

Promise that you're not going to just dislike every video and then spam ad hominems without watching.

Also, I plan to start doing more than just FE videos and start investigating other conspiracies. Do you have any suggestions?

Erfisflat

Nope said:

SilverishGoldNova I would like the links. I mean if it is ok. : )

I can't het back to our original debate to respond to you. What is your native language?

Nope

SilverishGoldNova
I would wan't to see your videos to get a better insight into the flat earth arguments. A dislike signify you do not like the video. If I seek information and a video delvers it there is no reason would not like the video. Ad homines are unrelated to understanding an argument. It is also a bad refuting method as it is unrelated to an argument. There for they are unnecessary and do not accomplish anything. I also do not know you so I do not have the amount of information necessary to make a good assumption. Due to the reasons that I could not make a good Ad homine and an Ad homine won't accomplish anything and going to a video to gain information an dislike a video would be dishonest I promise not to dislike all your videos and not to spam ad hominems. : )

SilverishGoldNova

@nope I'll give you the Link asap but ffor now I'm working on a video

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

It seems you've understood about a quarter of the point.

You claimed that you have masses of proof - though you make these claims without providing proof and seem to miss the irony and hypocrisy. You claim that you have provided masses of proof elsewhere, but the last time you tried to make your case to me you were unable to do so as I comprehensively proved you wrong, showing how you  made masses of logical and scientific errors and were forced to retreat from your argument. Simply claiming you have evidence after being shown multiple times your evidence is bunkum is now a solid argument.

What you fail to address completely however is your previous claim about there being little or potentially no evidence to back up the scientific consensus that the Earth is a sphere. This makes you seem out of touch with reality as there mountains of evidence - which you have been provided and now seem to be doing your best to ignore. Not agreeing with the evidence is one thing - pretending it doesn't exist is a sign of delusion.

Also you claim "We do it the same way you do" in regards to making claims about the Earth. Fine - tell me the sun's actual size, distance from the earth and orbit. It should be very simple to do and the most basic step in trying to create your theory.. You believe you are on a flat plane. There are at least a few hundred people who share your belief in the USA. My making multiple simultaneous observations of the angle of the sun from different positions it should be fairly simple to trianguate out its position. But apparently no flat earthers have ever managed to do this. How strange - almost like the Earth isn't actually flat at all and attempting to make these observations would just help prove it. 

Ampersand

@SilverishGoldNova

You realise that calling someone 'fallacious' and 'biased' just because they disagree with you is fallacious reasoning and likely indicative of bias, right?

WilliamSchulz

I guess I'm going to get my self involved in this, but if I am, I would appreciate if no comments accuse me of ad hominum. If you don't agree, that doesn't make ad h. Just press the informative button and I will respond ASAP.

Anyway, I am a spinning ball believer, in that the world is tilted on an axis. I will use this space to explain the nature of seasons on a round earth in comparison with a flat earth. 

On a round Earth, sunlight hits the Earth in different places. It is hotter near the equator because it gets more sunlight than the North or South Hemisphere. Because the sunlight has a more concentrated spot to hit on an imaginary line rather than the North Pole, it follows that it is hotter in Africa than America.


Okay, so now that we have an image to work with, this explains how seasons work. When sunlight hits the America for an extended period of time, it warms up, but this occurs in intervals, more or less, depending on whether it is winter or spring. The rotation degree of the axis determines the length of the day or how much sunlight can hit the Northern Hemisphere compared to the South. In Australia, it is summer when North America is in winter is because the sunlight hits different areas more at different times. In a flat earth model, which I suppose looks something like this,


there is no real way to determine the seasons. If the sun was orbiting 360 every day, it would not just spend more time in the Pacific Ocean over December, the sun has to stay in one particular spot, the center of the solar system. It is the movement of the Earth which causes different areas of sunlight to be hit, not the erratic movement of the sun at different times. I also have seen this image commonly explained to determine seasons, 



However, this again shows the erratic nature of the sun. The sun can't follow Mar / Sept and then become magically circular in the month of June alone. This doesn't explain also how it is summer in Australia when it is winter in North America. In all three images, Australia is away from the sun and deprived of light, whereas North America always seems to be covered one way or another. 

Therefore, by nature of the seasons, the Earth has to be a Globe, not a flat surface. If you think I'm leaving the tilt out of the equator, here it is.

Also, curvature has to be taken out of the factor here, there is a reason why you can't see curvature unless you are in space. I'm going to ask you to imagine a globe, now imagine a plane outside of the globe flying across the globe. Our perception has to be that of a rectangle, but flying over the globe, the rectangle moves with our perception, so as we move across the globe, it moves downward. Image the rectangle at 45 degrees when we start, as we move across, it goes down as we travel across in order to see everything coming up in front of us, like an arc. Although a flat earth pattern might seem to make sense, think of it from a globe perspective. A flight path moves up and down the globe toward the poles because it saves time rather than flying straight across, which would increase time, which matches that of a globe model. Here is an image to help reinforce this. 

Here is another one, this time on a flat earth that expanded as a globe, can be shown to move toward the poles.

What I want to focus on is the top one, where as our rectangular plane of view moves, it changes angles with the angle change in the globe, this matching my statements. 

With that, I'll pass on the argument, I am looking forward to hearing your side.

Grenache

Even though I cannot personally see the entire ball with my own eyes I accept the logic that:
a) when I look in the distance the horizon dips out of my view, and when I drive toward that horizon it continues to reveal, demonstrating that there is more beyond what I can see.
b) it is a handy explanation for changes in weather
c) it is a handy explanation for celestial bodies changing position relative to the earth

Edril

@Erfisflat

"...so that optical illusion would make it possible on a flat earth."

No, because It's an illusion, not an actual southern celestial pole.

"I'm not sure I follow."

Do I need to explain what a celestial pole is?

"Similar to NASA saying the earth is a spinning ball without evidence? You're taking their word for it either way."

NASA makes that claim as a testimony. They aren't the originators of the heliocentric solar system or the spherical earth models. The scientific evidence for a spherical earth far predates NASA. Why would they reproduce it? Also, I don't go to NASA with all, or really any of my scientific inquiries. Claiming that NASA lies and that they photoshopped their images is barking up the wrong tree. You need to find the flaws in the original science which originally produced the models that every one nowadays takes for granted since it has withstood hundreds of years of scrutiny. And no, simply saying they are wrong or pseudoscience does not count as scrutiny. Neither does proposing alternate explanations via youtube for what we observe. That is not scientific scrutiny either.

This thread is 15 pages of people showing you the evidence of a spherical earth, which you have not shown to be incorrect. You simply keep restating that you don't buy it. I understand that this thread is organized for us to persuade you, but you keep stating there is empirical evidence of a flat earth without providing it.

Erfisflat

Wow, everyone wants to get in now that I've taken on some extra hours at work!