frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


          
+ NEW DEBATE

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The earth is flat

ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.
natbaronspassedbillrandaltherepale5melanielustjoecavalrymarijuansmuchoweasearthsshapeand 3 others.
  1. Is the earth flat?23 votes
    1. Of course!
      21.74%
    2. But, muh science book!
      78.26%

Comments

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Why do you think you live on a spinning ball?
    natbaronspassedbill
  • natbaronsnatbarons 30 Points
    I agree with @Erfisflat . There are cover up claims of the NASA applo moon launch. Maybe images taken from space of the Earth are also counterfeit. That is one of the best cases for the Earth being some what round. Although gravity could have involvement in a flat Earth.
    passedbillErfisflat
  • passedbillpassedbill 41 Points
    @Erfisflat , the Earth is round. There were pictures taken from space of the Eartha me it proves that the Earth is in fact round. Also, there are thing she that depend on a round earth such as ships and travel. If the earth was flat they would fly right of into space. 
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @passedbill  saw a picture of a unicorn the other day, but I know full well they don't exist. In the flat earth model, the north pole is the middle of a circle, with south all straight lines away from there. East and west are only relative. So circumnavigation is entirely possible on a flat earth. On a ball earth however, pilots get to a certain altitude and LEVEL out. On a ball they would fly out in space, do you know how much a ball that it 25,000 miles in circumference should curve down in say, 10 miles?
    randal
  • randalrandal 53 Points
    That's a good find @Erfisflat . You made a wonderful point that even persuades me of your side a little. Although, you have to rember that there were images, which are not counterfeit taken of earth in space which clearly display its circular shape.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @randal
    NASA openly admits that they're all Photoshop bro. Like i say, there are pictures of unicorns and 200 foot gorillas out there, but that goes against our common senses. Water has never been found in humped form on any measurable scale, but it should be, in order for the earth to be a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. Research flat earth theory, don't take my word for it. Stay away from the flat earth society though, it's run by shills.
    therep
  • thereptherep 30 Points
    There are many pictures of the earth from different aeuronatuics orgainizations.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 8
    @therep

    Pictures are not proof of anything. You can go see the death star for about $10 now,  is that evidence for its existence?
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, I have to admit that I didnt hear about this consipracy theory before and after researching it a bit it seems that its a legitimate movement that sincerely belives he earth is flat.
    the movement has grown by 200 people a year since 2009, so I have to believe it is still a very small number of consipracy theorists...

    http://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,1324.msg1312141.html#msg1312141

    I personally will argue that there is a larger chance of us being Startrek hologram characters than Earth actually being flat.  I did see on the society site they have pretty nice rebuttals about frequent points about earth being round, so I will not attempt to actually debate this point.  
    My only argument will have to be that NASA, Russia, Elon Musk, SpaceX, all telescope people,,etc conspiring on this is pretty unlikely.
    ErfisflatAlwaysCorrect
  • LogicLogic 206 Points
    Google space?   Why not use a telescope to examine other planets and see how they are round. After that, What makes our planet the ONLY planet that is flat?
    melanielustriddle12Erfisflat
  • LogicLogic 206 Points
    Plus, There are alot of things we don't know about the earth like the pilot thing and why that happens. This doesn't just mean you can insert flat earth there. Like some theists use the god of the gap, While the earth other logical ones don't.  Some flat earthers use the 'flat earth' of the gaps. While the logical ones [knowing they have no legit proof]only say 'I know this and this about the earth from what i have learned, But i think the earth is like this and this.'
    Erfisflatriddle12AlwaysCorrect
  • ale5ale5 89 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Logic said:
    Google space?   Why not use a telescope to examine other planets and see how they are round. After that, What makes our planet the ONLY planet that is flat?
    Right - good point @Logic.  While we cannot show Earth is round what Is rationale for us being the only flat planet.  This flat Earth theory is pretty weird and really difficult to defend
    riddle12ErfisflatAlwaysCorrect
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    agsr said:
    @Erfisflat, I have to admit that I didnt hear about this consipracy theory before and after researching it a bit it seems that its a legitimate movement that sincerely belives he earth is flat.
    the movement has grown by 200 people a year since 2009, so I have to believe it is still a very small number of consipracy theorists...

    http://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,1324.msg1312141.html#msg1312141

    I personally will argue that there is a larger chance of us being Startrek hologram characters than Earth actually being flat.  I did see on the society site they have pretty nice rebuttals about frequent points about earth being round, so I will not attempt to actually debate this point.  
    My only argument will have to be that NASA, Russia, Elon Musk, SpaceX, all telescope people,,etc conspiring on this is pretty unlikely.
    oh, flat earth is much bigger than just a few hundred people look it up on Google trends. The flat earth society website is run by shills. Those few organizations are in fact conspiring,  but what do "telescope people" have to do with the earth shape? Sounds like a red herring. Likewise, the likelihood of a conspiracy is another red herring. There are actual people doing experiments try in to find curvature, what should be there, isnt.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Logic yet another logical fallacy. Looking at lights in the sky proves nothing about the ground you walk on. That's like looking at the billiard balls and stating that the table is spherical too. In all actuality, you can not see them as spheres anyway. When I say the earth is flat, I mean the entire heliocentric model is false. We've all been duped. There's nowhere else to go.
    Logic
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @ale5. It's not that difficult to defend, it's common sense. When you look at the horizon, what shape is it? When we observe liquid physics, we see it's always flat. Lakes, oceans, it's all flat.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Logic
    Error 404: argument not found
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    So that's it? Red herrings and "muh pictures"? Surely there is demonstrable evidence for such a widely accepted scientific "fact". Doesn't look good for atheists!
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    Let's look at how the earth being flat makes no sense.

    All objects in the universe have a center of gravity. And when matter gravitates towards that center, it comes in from all surrounding points possible on a plane. So what does this mean for outer space? SInce the scale of that empty space is so large, any matter floating by would have to gravitate towards some center. That's how the earth was created; leftover matter from stellar activity (which I can explain in-depth if you'd like) gravitated, formed a center core, and eventually the heat and pressure from that core created enough mass to have a strong enough gravitational pull to compress all that matter together. And in the conditions of space, as explained, the only shape that could possibly take would be a sphere. If the earth was flat, what would the dimensions be? Where would it end? What support does it possibly have? How thick is it? How do you explain the consistency throughout the entire world of layers of crust and core found through digging and empirical, physical evidence? It just doesn't add up.

    And we have that evidence when the earth takes a spherical shape. Look no farther than the sun. Why isn't the sun flat? Or the moon? We see the moon rotating constantly.

    For your point about the horizon, it's not that hard to explain. The earth is simply extremely large. Think about it like this; if you look at the tip of your finger, it has a distinct shape and a curve. But if you zoom in on the tip of your finger with a microscope, you'll get close enough to see that the image flattens out. If you were an extremely microscopic organism standing on the tip of someone's finger, it would look like a flat horizon, too. Humans standing on earth are similar. We see a flat horizon, but it's round when you zoom out and get the bigger picture.

    Another point; how do you explain those historic airplane flights that have gone around the world? We now know that it is possible to fly from one place in one direction, go all the way around, and arrive right back where you started but coming in from a different direction. That wouldn't be possible if the earth was a sphere.

    Thanks for sharing your opinion, it's an uncommon one. Although I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not (if you aren't then sorry)
    Erfisflatm_abusteit
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    Also, when has NASA ever admitted they photoshopped pictures of earth?

    I create space images on Photoshop all the time because there are some theories out there, such as black holes, where the only image that could be produced is digital. And not even for theories either - most pictures you see of our own galaxy, for example, are digitally generated and based off of what scientists have said are galaxies that most resemble our own. Sometimes scientists gather information on, say, a star, using radio technology and astrophysics-aligned math, but the telescope picture is small or too blurry because it's so far away. That's another instance where an artist would be given the information he needs to accurately digitally recreate an image of that star. There are a lot of fine reasons why NASA needs Photoshop, but I don't think any of them have ever had to do with images of the earth. If you know anything about that please say.
    Erfisflat
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    For axial rotation, look no farther than the sky...the sun doesn't orbit the earth, the earth simply rotates so that we have different views of the sun. See this:
    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/17/but-it-moves-how-we-know-the-e/
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    "any matter floating by would have to gravitate towards some center. "

    The only observable evidence of "gravity" is what goes up must come down. This contradicts a spherical earth. People knew the earth was flat for thousands of years. When Aristotle first postulated that the earth was round, they probably didn't think that someone would be living on the underside of it. Then, when that was realized, some magical "force" was needed to explain how this could be. Enter Newton and his answer with his theory, that supported Aristotle's initial theory, which had since graduated to an assumption. What you are try in to do now is prove the assumption with the theory. It's ok to make some assumptions to form a theory, but eventually you should prove the assumption.

    "That's how the earth was created; "

    Another assumption.. along with "space" which none of us have witnessed, what the core of the ball earth is, we've only dug 8 miles down, so it is NOT empirical, as you falsely stated. What if it's an infinite plane? 

    As far as the horizon, if you were to rise in altitude, it would fall and curve away, unlike reality, which stays flat and eye level.

    Circumnavigation was explained before. Look a couple of posts up.

    "Also, when has NASA ever admitted they photoshopped pictures of earth"

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

    http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/

    "For axial rotation, look no farther than the sky...the sun doesn't orbit the earth,"

    Of course not, nothing "orbits the earth, the sun is small and close. It circuits around the north pole, lighting locally. This is provable by looking at crepuscular rays.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Anyone else care to explain why they think they're a monkey on a spinning ball? 
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    "Of course not, nothing "orbits the earth" - Erfisflat 2017



    The Moon (Insert gif of guys yelling ooooooooh!)
    Erfisflat
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    No, seriously, I think you are actually trolling here.  Especially with that name.  Erf is flat.  Obvious troll is obvious.  
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @SuperSith89, I am actually enjoying his debate.  I was amazed to learn that it's an actual movement.  I don't buy it, but find it entertaining how passionate @Erfisflat and the movement feels about it.  
    It is also interesting that they don't accept anything as evidence to the contrary, citing conspiracy theories.
    melanielustSuperSith89LogicErfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    SuperSith89 said: "Of course not, nothing "orbits the earth" - Erfisflat 2017The Moon (Insert gif of guys yelling ooooooooh!) the moon is following the sun @SuperSith89

    You're just going to drop a link? I've shredded that list Long ago, some even here, pick your favorite for discussions. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr if there were verifiable evidence, I wouldn't be here.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr if there were verifiable evidence, I wouldn't be here.
    WhyTrump
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @Erfisflat I don't need to, you disregard it all in a conspiracy way.  Nothing you have 'shredded' was false in the first place.  I mean your seriously think it is because that is a pretty ignorant thing to do.  
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @SuperSith89. You googled it because you don't really know why you think you live on a spinning ball, do you? I'm no troll, but you appear to be at this point.
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, I am just curious what made you get into the "Earth is flat" and what other consipracy theiries you believe in?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr I'm doing some land surveying, and I was curious as to how much the earth should curve down away from me over some distances in order for it to be a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. I did some math, did my research and found out some very interesting things. As far as other conspiracies, if they lie about the shape of the earth, they'd lie about anything. A few minutes of research and critical thinking tells me the entire society we live in is completely staged.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Globetards believe they live on a cartoon spinning ball in an infinite space vacuum. The only proof these mental defectives have are cartoon composites and computer generated images provided by the government, that they saw on the television. Globetards were indoctrinated to reject any notion of a God, or a higher power, and instead wave their hands while proclaiming that the earth they live on was created by a magical explosion because of... reasons. Globetards believe that the earth was formed right in the perfect area, a certain distance from the sun, known as the "Goldilocks zone". This area of their imaginary infinite space vacuum is where everything is just perfect for life to not only survive, but to thrive as well. And of course globetards choose to believe this is all completely due to random, cosmic luck. They also believe that this same random cosmic luck is what caused their ape brained ancestors to evolve from primates into the bright shiny globetards that they are today. Basically, their argument boils down to... "but, but, but muh science book!" They can't even agree on whether or not their cartoon spinning ball is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid.
    Just after the nearest globetard claiming the earth is actually pear shaped, they will then cite Neil Degrasse Tyson saying so as their proof. Another thing globetards can't seem to get straight is the height in which the supposed curvature becomes visible on their spinning cartoon pearoid. Some globetards will tell you they can see the curvature from on top of a mountain, while other globetards proclaim they can see the curvature from outside an airplane window. But the smartest of the globetards will contradict his fellow ball worshippers and proclaim that one must be much higher than that in order to see the supposed curvature of the magical tilting pearoid. This alone gives us some insight into the fast paced research of globetards. Because all they had to do at some point, was to open their minds and use the senses they were created with to find out. Despite this, these gullible globe guzzlers think they can make pronouncements about reality, even though they have never actually lived in it.  -FEA
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, are you able to post details of your research?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr it would take a while, on which subject? FET, 9/11, Sandy hook, etc.?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 3
    The perpetuation of ball earth theory, just like Evolutionary Theory and the Big Bang Theory, has become more of a religion, an orthodoxy, than a science. People are expected not to question it, no matter what, at the risk of losing their job, breaking their careers, losing friends, being shunned by family, and being ridiculed by anyone who refuses to think for themselves. If anyone attempts to present scientific evidence contrary to the popularly held view, it is immediately dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or a "crazy religionist".

    Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented.
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, flat Earth theory. Sounds like you took specific measurements 
    Erfisflatjoecavalrym_abusteit
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 3
    @agsr. Using the Pythagorean theorem, we can accurately and easily determine the amount of curvature that should be present over any given distance. A simple formula can be used: (X^2)8" where X is the mileage. At a mere ten miles there should be a 66.6 foot drop. Coincidence? I think not.
  • LogicLogic 206 Points
    Haven't the greeks found a way to measure the curvature of the earth?
    Also, You are comparing to different things while i was comparing two of the same things.  i.e You compared billiard balls and the table, While i compared millions of planets to one planet.  Only from a theistic point of view can the earth be THIS special. And in my theistic point of view, God created many planets with different races, Different prophets on different worlds.  Our's isn't special.

    ErfisflatSuperSith89
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Logic said:
    Haven't the greeks found a way to measure the curvature of the earth?
    Also, You are comparing to different things while i was comparing two of the same things.  i.e You compared billiard balls and the table, While i compared millions of planets to one planet. You cannot empirically know that those lights are physical terra firma, that information, again, comes from NASA and the heliocentric model. Assumptions and pseudoscience.  Only from a theistic point of view can the earth be THIS special. In my point of view earth is geocentric, and there is a firmament, which is mentioned several times in the Bible and is supported by the likes of Tesla amongst others. And in my theistic point of view, God created many planets with different races, Different prophets on different worlds.  Our's isn't special.

    And the only evidence you have for this notion is CGI pictures from NASA.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Wow I did that all wrong, sorry still learning. My responses are included in your quote.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    They've added a "t" to plane and tricked us all for over 500 years.
    Logic
  • LogicLogic 206 Points
    1st comment:  No, If i were to use a telescope i could know they are spherical. 
    2nd :  No problem with your point of view, But i don't think the bible explicitly says the earth is flat does it? [Muslim here]
    3rd: LOL. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 3
    @Logic nope, it's impossible to be able to definitively tell that they are spherical terre firma through a telescope, this is a fact, you can't see  in 3 dimensions. For thousands of years they were known as the wandering stars.

     Yes, the Bible is a flat earth book.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Globetards believe they live on a cartoon spinning ball in an infinite space vacuum. The only proof these mental defectives have are cartoon composites and computer generated images provided by the government, that they saw on the television. Globetards were indoctrinated to reject any notion of a God, or a higher power, and instead wave their hands while proclaiming that the earth they live on was created by a magical explosion because of... reasons. Globetards believe that the earth was formed right in the perfect area, a certain distance from the sun, known as the "Goldilocks zone". This area of their imaginary infinite space vacuum is where everything is just perfect for life to not only survive, but to thrive as well. And of course globetards choose to believe this is all completely due to random, cosmic luck. They also believe that this same random cosmic luck is what caused their ape brained ancestors to evolve from primates into the bright shiny globetards that they are today. Basically, their argument boils down to... "but, but, but muh science book!" They can't even agree on whether or not their cartoon spinning ball is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid.
    Just after the nearest globetard claiming the earth is actually pear shaped, they will then cite Neil Degrasse Tyson saying so as their proof. Another thing globetards can't seem to get straight is the height in which the supposed curvature becomes visible on their spinning cartoon pearoid. Some globetards will tell you they can see the curvature from on top of a mountain, while other globetards proclaim they can see the curvature from outside an airplane window. But the smartest of the globetards will contradict his fellow ball worshippers and proclaim that one must be much higher than that in order to see the supposed curvature of the magical tilting pearoid. This alone gives us some insight into the fast paced research of globetards. Because all they had to do at some point, was to open their minds and use the senses they were created with to find out. Despite this, these gullible globe guzzlers think they can make pronouncements about reality, even though they have never actually lived in it. -FEA
  • LogicLogic 206 Points
    @Erfisflat  West - Take a picture of saturn with your telescope. 
    East Do the same, South do the same and finally North do the same. You can examine the ring on saturn and how it is a little rotated on the planet. 
    Erfisflat
  • LogicLogic 206 Points
    Question: Flat earthers believe there is a big ice wall surrounding the world, How come we haven't found it? And how thick is this ''Flat earth.''
  • LogicLogic 206 Points
    Question: Flat earthers believe there is a big ice wall surrounding the world, How come we haven't found it? And how thick is this ''Flat earth.''
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 4
    Logic said:
    @Erfisflat  West - Take a picture of saturn with your telescope. 
    East Do the same, South do the same and finally North do the same. You can examine the ring on saturn and how it is a little rotated on the planet. 
    I'm not sure where the cardinal directions come into play, are you suggesting that anyone can see more of it than anyone else? The thing is supposedly a few million miles away. It's impossible even in your model. Have you seen what Saturn looks like in a telescope?  Here.



    Rings don't necessarily mean spherical terra firma
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Logic said:
    Question: Flat earthers believe there is a big ice wall surrounding the world, How come we haven't found it? And how thick is this ''Flat earth.''
    Both at unfortunately unanswerable questions.

    Antarctica, the outer boundaries of the place we live is off limits pretty much to the public. The antarctic treaty and all..  Sure, there are pictures that come up on a Google image search, but I think you know my position on unverifiable imagery...

    http://bfy.tw/BO2x

    We've only dug about 8 miles deep. So I can't speculate how "thick" the earth is either, sorry.
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 50 Points
    The Earth is flat. Unless you are walking up a mountain.
    And of course walking down the other side of the mountain.
    If you cannot see beyond the end of your nose, then the Earth will always appear to be flat.
    joecavalry
  • joecavalryjoecavalry 96 Points
    @Fredsnephew , if you really bringing up mountains, why do people see the earth as circular when they are ina peak of a very large mountain like Mount Everest?
    Erfisflat
  • WhyTrumpWhyTrump 126 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, if earth is flat how come when We fly from US East coast to Asia the plane actually gets us back returning through west coast of US?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Fredsnephew , if you really bringing up mountains, why do people see the earth as circular when they are ina peak of a very large mountain like Mount Everest?

    They don't, you can't see the curvature from a mountain, nor a plane. There isn't any.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    WhyTrump said:
    @Erfisflat, if earth is flat how come when We fly from US East coast to Asia the plane actually gets us back returning through west coast of US?
    I've answered this before, so I'll just copy paste it.  In the flat earth model, the north pole is the middle of a circle, with south all straight lines away from there. East and west are only relative. So circumnavigation is entirely possible on a flat earth. On a ball earth however, pilots get to a certain altitude and LEVEL out. On a ball they would fly out in space...
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, wouldn't polar route disprove the flat earth theory then?  How would you defend against it?
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 5
    @agsr I would say that these flights are rare, often cancelled, or rerouted. I for one am not in the southern hemisphere to verify they exist at all, but i have tried to book them. Then I would say the map could be wrong, I didn't make it, it was given to me. I personally have measured the lake close to my house and it is perfectly flat on a calm day, this is something most people can confirm. 


    With the curvature calculator found here: https://dizzib.github.io/ you can see that an observer at 1000 feet looking at an item 163 miles away would find that object 10,631 feet below the horizon. This would place the peak of Canigou well over 1000 feet below the horizon however not only it, but other peaks near it are clearly seen. In the videos below you will see several, sometimes 6 or 7 noticeable and very clear distinct mountain peaks. Even peaks 4000 feet high can be seen and this peak should be over a mile below the horizon.





    http://canigou.allauch.free.fr/index.html
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    I'm a creationist and I still think the flat earth theory is a bunch of junk.  Your only evidence is speculation.  
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @SuperSith89

    My evidence is logical and scientifically sound. I've yet to see the same verifiable evidence for a globe earth. So far there's zero. Whether it's 30 miles, 


    60 miles

     Or more


    The math is not wrong. It's not speculation to state facts. Water is Flat. No curvature has been found. Anywhere. 


  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 50 Points
    If the earth is flat, then what is on the other side?
    Have any "flat earthers" seen the other side?
    How thick is the flat earth?
    What keeps water from spilling over the edges?
    If you fly to the edge of the flat earth and keep going, What happens then?
    Are all celestial bodies flat?
    If so, why do we always see the flat side and not the edge?
    Presumably if we viewed the edge, celestial bodies would appear as an elongated cuboid.
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, a few followup questions:
    1) if you could get on that flight via North Pole, would that provide you sufficient evidence that flat earth theory is wrong?
    2) would watching commercial flights on flight tracker go through North Pole be proof enough? Or would you argue that it is staged?


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    agsr said:
    @Erfisflat, a few followup questions:
    1) if you could get on that flight via North Pole, would that provide you sufficient evidence that flat earth theory is wrong?
    2) would watching commercial flights on flight tracker go through North Pole be proof enough? Or would you argue that it is staged?


    northern polar flights at perfectly compatible with the flat earth model. 



    It's the supposed southern polar flights that I'm skeptical of.



    These southern hemisphere flights usually take the path expected on the flat earth map.




    The GPS is turned off during those flights, so I'd need to take a compass.



    Even if all this happened,  it doesn't prove curvature, it just proves the map is wrong. When you've measured the lack of curvature that must be there, you then can KNOW that water is flat, that's where the real argument is, and that's where the flat earth beats everytime. Do the experiment and see for yourself. 

    https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-coolpix-p900
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 8
    If the earth is flat, then what is on the other side?
    Have any "flat earthers" seen the other side?
    How thick is the flat earth?
    What keeps water from spilling over the edges?
    If you fly to the edge of the flat earth and keep going, What happens then?
    Are all celestial bodies flat?
    If so, why do we always see the flat side and not the edge?
    Presumably if we viewed the edge, celestial bodies would appear as an elongated cuboid.
    Ah I knew somebody would eventually drill me about the edge. I did find a rare picture of the edge, just for you.

    https://www.sonicscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/edge1_two.jpg

    In all seriousness, there may not be an edge. The outskirts of Antarctica is as far as any citizen is allowed to freely explore. Nobody can. It may be an infinite plane as suggested by this Buddhist map from 1,000 A.D.


    Celestial bodies at just points of light in the sky. NASA gives us CGI to make us think they are terra firma, but everyone should know how I feel about that.


    marijuans
  • marijuansmarijuans 8 Points
    @Erfisflat , here she my question? How would airplanes or people travel in both directions a round the world if it's flat? IF you want to make a trip from Antarctica to NY, but go through the other side of the the world which they do know, you can't do that with a flat.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @marijuans
    I'm not sure what you mean. Source? 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Since no one has brought it up, I'll do the honors. Scientism claim: A lunar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes directly behind the Earth into its umbra. This can occur only when the sun, Earth, and moon are aligned exactly, or very closely so, with the Earth in the middle.


    While this would indeed suggest a spherical earth, I turns out to be another red herring. First, this quote for Samuel Rowbotham:

    " that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

    Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line? "

    One such occurrence of this phenomenon, since labelled a selenelion was recorded, and can be reviewed here:


    This completely refutes this "evidence" for a spherical earth, if you have some common sense and knowledge of basic geometry. 


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    I'll explain any more concerns related to that popsci article that keeps coming up in the Google search.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Ball earth evidence that isn't pseudoscience or other logical fallacy so far: 0

    Flat earth: I lost count, how many?
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    I am correct in assuming you believe in creation, yes?  Well I am sure you know of Answers In Genesis.  Very popular website filled with well written articles by creationists.  I found this on there to prove the Bible does not prove a flat Earth. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 7
    I am correct in assuming you believe in creation, yes?  Well I am sure you know of Answers In Genesis.  Very popular website filled with well written articles by creationists.  I found this on there to prove the Bible does not prove a flat Earth. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

    I mean, I've already given you a rebuttal to that, any talking points you'd like to discuss? I think most Biblical creationists are forcing interpretations to conform to popular consensus. I don't understand how one can misinterpret verses like:

    1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

    Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

    Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

    Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

    Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”


  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, I have do say that while I dont agree with Earth being flat I really think you are doing a great job defending this position and the material is really entertaining.  
    Bottom line is that if we can argue that there is a mass conspiracy theory that staged space exploration then no one can prove that earth is not flat.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr

    Thanks for the kind words, could you please elaborate on the last statement you made?
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Hi @Erfisflat, sure. I guess the point I am trying to make is that if you will assert that space is fake in a mass conspiracy theory, despite imagery and other traditionally established evidence then I cannot see how someone can fully disprove your theory.  It becomes a question of who has a burden of proof.
    again, I really enjoy this topic as it certainly challenged my thinking and taught me to question what we take for granted.  I am still very much of believe that earth is round, but your arguments are excellent.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr

    I'm glad to hear that, I hope you'll keep your mind open about this and any other ideas you may have dismissed before. Keep in mind that I am I no way trying to tell you what to think, that was what the public indoctrination system is for, I'm only here to show people how to think, encourage more of it, and urge people to not just accept what you're told, research all opposition and make an unbiased, informed decision. 

    There are a few things that would prove to me the earth was a ball.

    1. Let us see it ourselves! 
     
    If Buzz and company actually went to the Moon almost 50 years ago, there should be no problem getting a few regular citizens, ( ones that haven't swore an oath to Big Brother) at least to the ISS.  with the technological advancements over the last 50 years hell we should have McDonald's on the Moon by now.

    2. Put a live Cam on the moon!

    NASA steals over 50 million dollars a day. A decent live Cam on the moon (it shouldn't be hard, the same side faces us the whole time) available to all taxpayers. You know, one good enough to pick up a magnesium flare.

    3. A 360 degree camera pan

    This is pretty self explanatory for anyone with knowledge about movies, TV and 4th wall mechanics.

    4. Air lock bay footage

    One of the most exciting moments in those space movies is when they open the airlock hatch.  NASA has never given us footage of somebody suiting up, going into the airlock hatch, depressurizing and opening the door to space.

    I'm sure I could think of more, but the wife is bugging out, tomorrow is trash day. :/
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Proof that the earth is flat and motionless

    Gyroscopes

    Many of us science geeks know these toys  from the gift shop or as a simple top. Little did we know we had proof of the biggest lie ever told right in our hands. Gyroscope is defined as:

    a device consisting of a wheel or disk mounted so that it can spin rapidly about an axis that is itself free to alter in direction. The orientation of the axis is not affected by tilting of the mounting; so gyroscopes can be used to provide stability or maintain a reference direction in navigation systems, automatic pilots, and stabilizers. 

    From Wikipedia:
    A gyroscope is a spinning wheel mounted on a set of gimbals so that its axis is free to orient itself in any way.[2] When it is spun up to speed with its axis pointing in some direction, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, such a wheel will normally maintain its original orientation to a fixed point in outer space (not to a fixed point on Earth). Since our planet rotates, it appears to a stationary observer on Earth that a gyroscope's axis is completing a full rotation once every 24 hours.

    Seems like a reasonable way to test for any axial rotation, but it was never demonstrated. In actuality, it was tested, and it doesn't move at all, ever.


    "NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous (1,300,000 )mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of (1,868,000) mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever."- Eric Dubay


    Would a gyroscope even be still for a minute?



    Not only that, but planes are mounted with gyroscopes, in a casing called an attitude indicator. Letting the pilot know which way is up, the gyroscope remains in a fixed position from it's starting point. If a pilot is traveling over a ball, not over a flat plane as our senses tell us, the attitude indicator would be useless over long distances. 



    Some higher end phones are equipped with a gyroscope, if yours isn't, get one of these, set it on your nightstand tonight, and wake up in the morning to be sure your senses aren't deceiving you, your phone, and the earth, hasn't moved an inch, and we can conclude that gyroscopes are evidence of a flat, stationary earth.

    https://www.quadratec.com/products/94050_00.htm?gclid=CM-EspC-rdQCFQsQgQodPMkBJQ






  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 8

    What planet is this?



    This is the old one:


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Around the time Disney was acquiring the rights to Lucasfilms, they quietly celebrated with this image of Han Solo, frozen in mercury on... Mercury. 


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    The flat earth we live on is circular, with Antarctica fully surrounding us as an ice wall. Similar to a pizza. So we can describe our home as a pizza planet. Disney is known for putting easter eggs in their films. So is this another subliminal message?



  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @Erfisflat Taking those verses at face value, sure it may prove it, but it doesn't mean He literally kept it still.  Some of the Bible has more imagery like in Revelation and even Jesus used stories to prove His points.  What I'm saying is that these verses aren't literal in any way. All Psalms were written in poetry form even, just do the research on how each book was written and the Hebrew words too.  

    Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the void

    and hangs the earth on nothing."

    Isiah 40:22  "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,

    and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;"

    Though you may argue these verses could be poetic too, it goes to show that the Bible doesn't support just one.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat Taking those verses at face value, sure it may prove it, but it doesn't mean He literally kept it still.  Some of the Bible has more imagery like in Revelation and even Jesus used stories to prove His points.  What I'm saying is that these verses aren't literal in any way. All Psalms were written in poetry form even, just do the research on how each book was written and the Hebrew words too.  

    Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the void

    and hangs the earth on nothing."

    Isiah 40:22  "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,

    and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;"

    Though you may argue these verses could be poetic too, it goes to show that the Bible doesn't support just one.

    hanging the earth on nothing is far from spinning it around and sending it spiraling around an infinite vacuum, and yes a flat, circular earth. This I why I leave the bible out of my arguments, you and society can interpret it however you want. When it was written,  it was blatantly obvious and well known that the earth was flat and stationary, where at least the writers had the use of their God given senses.

  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    edited June 9 Premium Member
    Here are a few ways you can prove the earth is round, after getting some help from Reddit science community.
    Just re-create the experiment that [Eratosthenes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) used to measure the circumference of the Earth more than 2000 years ago. Here is a simple one you can do at home.

    Find a meter stick, walk outside on a sunny day, and stick it in the ground. Wait until noon. This should be noon not as said by your clock, but the point when the Sun is the highest in the sky. You can determine when this is by looking at the shadow of the stick. At local noon, the shadow will be pointing due north (if you're in the Northern hemisphere). 

    Now, measure the length of the shadow.

    Re-create this experiment again, many miles due north or south of your original location. You can either wait until tomorrow and go out and measure your stick, or have a friend who is many miles due north or south do the experiment at the same time. Your results won't be that different either way as long as you do the experiments within a few days of eacth other.

    What you will find is that the length of the stick's shadow is longer when you are further north. [This is because the Sun's rays are hitting the stick at a slightly different angle due to the Earth's curvature.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Eratosthenes_measure_of_Earth_circumference.svg/300px-Eratosthenes_measure_of_Earth_circumference.svg.png) With accurate measurements and only some simple trigonometry, you can measure the circumference of the Earth!

    The shadow is longer when you are further north. 
    Source:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5oempt/what_could_i_do_to_personally_prove_the_earth_is/?st=J3PN1XP2&sh=5df484e7

    Another approach:



    * Vacation on the [ISS](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/STS-130_Endeavour_flyaround_5.jpg). It's quite the view. Can't afford to go? [Watch it live streamed 24 hours a day.](http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload)

    * Notice how only spheres [cast circular shadows](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Write_adam_-_Total_Lunar_Eclipse,_December_21_2010_\(by\).jpg) at any angle, which [Aristotle deduced](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html), and [Aristarchus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Sizes_and_Distances_\(Aristarchus\)) used.

    * [Measure shadow angles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) like Eratosthenes.  

    * Notice how the [constellations](http://www.star-map.fr/free-star-maps/) change with latitude. You could sail south and literally watch the North star dip below the horizon.  

    * Notice flat earth models make no sense when you [figure out gravity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit) is a 1/r^2 force. Like at all. What's the moon doing?  

    * Infer from the spherical shape of all the other celestial bodies, Moon, [Venus](https://i.imgur.com/9BXc1.jpg) (I took this picture myself), Jupiter, the Sun, the stars.  

    * You can [circumnavigate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circumnavigations) the Earth.  

    * You can watch a [Foucault pendulum]() at different latitudes.  

    * Notice the Southern hemisphere's winter is our summer and vice versa.  

    * Ships sink below the horizon.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 9
    @agsr
    I'm going to do the rebuttals separately, some of these require more time and space.

    Ok, here we go. When I said I'd done two years of research, you didn't think I'd already run across these? Nearly every day was spent  (after a cup of Joe of course) looking for proof of a ball. You've probably picked up the help of a few globetards with cognitive dissonance that wave their hands at any proof thrown at them, and redirect me to their science books and calculators. They love words like "refraction" and "mirage" and their entire argument consist of but, but, muh maths! No disrespect, but please, for the love of God, don't be that guy.

    1. Globe earth proponents love the hundreds year old theoretical instances of so called proof. They cling to them like a story in the Bible. Errortosthanes was, quite frankly, an idiot. He also thought the earth was a ball (circumnavigation) because he'd seen elephants in the east (Indian) and again in the west (African). His experiment relies solely on a false premise. The distance to the sun. A close small sun will produce the same exact results over a flat surface. It's the very same proof as time zones.


    We can prove that the sun is close and small by simply looking up on any cloudy day.


    So again, the false premise is " the sun is so far away that it's rays are parallel when they reach the Earth"
    If you think those rays are parallel, then you probably failed geometry.


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr
    2. Once more, pictures from government organizations prove absolutely nothing to me, except when they are examined, that they are not to be trusted. 

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 9
    @agsr

    3. More images 

    I think I've covered this extensively. Take that first image you provided and flip it upside down. Here, I'll just show you.







    This, "coincidentally " lines up with another subliminal message:


    Does this not call into question every image they've produced?  NASA makes over $50,000,000 a day. That's a big budget Hollywood movie everyday. People may think that images on a computer are proof of something, I'm not fooled. I'm calling 


    Epic indeed.
    ale5PowerPikachu21
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 9
    @agsr
    Are we done with images and video from NASA? Can we dismiss NASA as a source and any information from them? I mean at this point I should be using this information as proof of a flat Earth. All who agree, give me a fist bump. Opposed?  Thumbs down.
  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    @Erfisflat

    Regarding the rays of the sun in that picture, this explains it well

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154951/why-do-sunbeams-diverge-even-though-the-sun-is-much-more-than-a-few-kilometers-a

    Basically  they appear converging because we can see them so far out.

    Erfisflat
  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    @Erfisflat

    Regarding " the sun is so far away that it's rays are parallel when they reach the Earth"

    I don't think that the idea is that rays have become parallel after traveling a large distance, but that the rays falling over comparitivelly large distances, say a mile,  on earth must have very little divergence even when they start from the surface of the sun.  Because even after traveling so far a distance, they have only diverged a mile...So they should be nearly parellel to begin with...



    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 9
    @Erfisflat

    Regarding the rays of the sun in that picture, this explains it well

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154951/why-do-sunbeams-diverge-even-though-the-sun-is-much-more-than-a-few-kilometers-a

    Basically  they appear converging because we can see them so far out.

    Yes, scientism has recognized this very obvious, verifiable flaw in their model, and quickly concocted conjecture to try to refute the claim. It would seem, at first glance, that the matter is settled with perspective and converging parallel lines, but a closer look reveals an obvious difference, and proves the poster you referenced, a dunce in both the laws of perspective and geometry. The lines seen on the tracks are receding parallel lines going away from the eye.

    Whereas the crepuscular rays are not.



  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat

    Regarding " the sun is so far away that it's rays are parallel when they reach the Earth"

    I don't think that the idea is that rays have become parallel after traveling a large distance, but that the rays falling over comparitivelly large distances, say a mile,  on earth must have very little divergence even when they start from the surface of the sun.  Because even after traveling so far a distance, they have only diverged a mile...So they should be nearly parellel to begin with...



    I'm guessing you're from Reddit. Welcome to debateisland! You should know that I've brought my case to Reddit and refuted most of the claims there, took an entire afternoon of my time, only to have every valid point deleted on the grounds that I was making it up. Needless to say I haven't been back.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr

    4. Lunar eclipses have been covered. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr

    5. Errortosthanes has been covered. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr
    6. Stars are close, like the sun. I've covered this. They follow the laws of perspective like everything else, and converge at the horizon. 

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr

    7. I've discussed the theory of gravity. 

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr
    8. I've covered circumnavigation. 

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 9
    @agar

    9.Focaults pendulum 
    which is just a swinging ball on a cable that somehow convinced a bunch of people that the earth moves under it instead of the the obvious that the ball moves over the earth. What of the Allias effect, where the pendulum sometimes goes the opposite way or speeds up, is the earth changing directions or speed during an eclipse? If the earth actually rotated under a swinging ball as pseudoscience claims, there should be no good reason that i can't get in a hot air balloon, rise up a few hundred feet and wait for Paris to come to me for my vacation this year.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr ;

    10. Seasons

    I believe ive covered this before  but I can't seem to find it now. The sun is on a tighter circuit around the pole in our summer, and moves to a larger circuit during our winter. 
  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    @Erfisflat Regarding you reply about suns rays, I don't think you have refuted it convincingly. In the image with yellow sun and yellow rays, the distances between where the rays fall on earth and the distance between the entry points (black ellispses), can be equal, but the entry points appear closer because they are far away. Another thing about how planes are not flying into space. It can be because of the air density. A horizontally moving airplane continues to drop in altitude to a point where the air density is the same, which happens to be a circle around the earth. Think about this. An airplane weighing say, 500 kg require a lift of 500 kg to stay afloat. We can say that lift is a function of air density, the planes speed and the angle of attack of the wings. Imagine our plane keeping speed and angle of attack of the wings the same. You are saying that the place should fly out into space. This does not happen because, when the plane gain altitude owing to the curvature of earth, say it gains a alt of 50 meters, it finds itself in an area of reduced air density, and is no longer getting a lift of 500kg. So it drops automatically until it is again in a belt of sufficient air density, that the lift is again 500 Kg. This process ends up making it maintain the same altitude as it fly around the earth..
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @crazyturtle

    About the sun, I'm I'm entirely sure what you're trying to say, the distances and measurements of the rays are largely irrelevant.  The angles are the point of the debate or the disagreement, your claim is an incoherent strawman, and I'm not sure what Air pressure and weight have to do with my point either. Please ellaborate, or maybe you shouldn't,  what's the highest grade you completed?
  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    @Erfisflat

    Angles? Ok how did you measure the angle between two rays of sunlight coming through the cloud?

    >I'm not sure what Air pressure and weight have to do with my point either.

    Not air pressure. Air density. Why wont you properly read what I have written and think about it for a while before hurling insults back ...?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat

    Angles? Ok how did you measure the angle between two rays of sunlight coming through the cloud?

    >I'm not sure what Air pressure and weight have to do with my point either.

    Not air pressure. Air density. Why wont you properly read what I have written and think about it for a while before hurling insults back ...?
    I measured the angles by... looking at the picture. ..these are parallel lines 


    We know these are receding parallel lines going away from us.


    As do these.


    There is nothing parallel or receding about these lines.

    I apologize if I insulted you by asking about your education. I'd like to know who I'm talking to. I still have no clue what Air density has to do with planes, out of necessity, traveling nose down.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 10
    Let's just move right on into ships going over curvature. 
    11. Ships
    This is the reason Aristotle claimed the earth was curved, or a ball. First, let's examine Aristotle himself. Everyone knows and admits he was a brilliant philosophical genius, but a scientist, he wasn't. Right or wrong though, his ideas seemed to be set in stone.

    Isaac Asimov noted: "No matter who disagreed with them, even other philosophers, Aristotles ideas - whether right or wrong - usually won out."


    John Appeldoorn writes "Aristotles teachings were unquestioned. After eighteen centuries, universities accepted them as if they had been written in stone" 

    He did not believe plants were separate in sex, and there the matter stood for 2,000 years, until in the 1700's, botanists pointed out the obvious.

    He also wrote "The brain is an organ of minor importance, perhaps necessary to cool the blood" 

    When Democritus theorized that the world and everything in it was comprised of small pieces of matter that he dubbed "atoms", Aristotle proclaimed tish-tosh, everything is in fact made from tiny pieces of each of the 4 elements, which was written down as fact by the universities until scientists in the 16th century reexamined the theory.

    In actuality, Aristotle set the scientific field back 2,000 years in some cases, more in others, we can't all excel in every subject we attempt. 

    Which leads me to ships. He watched ships disappear from the bottom up as they left for sea. This led him to believe that the water was curved. This was also 4th century B.C., before telescopic lenses were even dreamed up. Now that we have binoculars, telescopes and awesome cameras with ultra zoom capabilities, we can, and should, reexamine his theory.
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/nikon-p900-new-king-superzooms

    Next time you're at the beach, take a pair of binos. Wait for a ship to seemingly disappear over the horizon and pull out the binos, and you've magically pulled the entire ship backwards over the "curvature" of the earth! Bring a telescope or p900 to make it come back again after it disappears in the binos!




    These videos litter the internet now, dispelling this myth, and we can conclude that ships do not go over any curvature, and water, and the earth, is flat, as common sense tells us.


  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    >There is nothing parallel or receding about these lines.

    Why do you consider the lines in the wooden board as receding, but not  the lines in the last picture? In both cases one end of the line is at a point far away and the other end is at a point near the viewer. The only difference here in the rays of sun picture is that in addition to being far, the other end is also higher (the hole in the cloud). But the effect is the same. You can imagine one end of the surface on the wooden plank picture, propped up against something that it slants towards the viewer. The lines will still maintain the angled appearence...

    Even easier is if you imagine standing on a straight uphill road. You look up and away, you see that edges of the road appear angled to each other...



    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    >There is nothing parallel or receding about these lines.

    Why do you consider the lines in the wooden board as receding, but not  the lines in the last picture? In both cases one end of the line is at a point far away and the other end is at a point near the viewer. The only difference here in the rays of sun picture is that in addition to being far, the other end is also higher (the hole in the cloud). But the effect is the same. You can imagine one end of the surface on the wooden plank picture, propped up against something that it slants towards the viewer. The lines will still maintain the angled appearence...

    Even easier is if you imagine standing on a straight uphill road. You look up and away, you see that edges of the road appear angled to each other...



    I'm sorry, but I think the difference is obvious. Maybe someone else reading this can explain the difference to you, or explain where I am misinterpreting what you're claim is, or my misunderstanding of it is. I don't think I can explain it any better than what I have. Bring some friends from Reddit, that'd be even better.

  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    edited June 10
    @Erfisflat

    You say the difference is obvious. But that does not help if you are not able to state the obvious!

    I will give you another challenge. Imagine a long rod, say half mile long. Attach two lasers on either end of this rod that the laser beams are perfectly parellel to each other and both perpendicular to the rod.   Now imagine this contraption hung from a point 10 miles away from you and  1 mile high, in such a way that the laser beams fall one mile in front  of you  on the ground

    Now, Try to imagine what you will see?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 10
    @Erfisflat

    You say the difference is obvious. But that does not help if you are not able to state the obvious!

    I will give you another challenge. Imagine a long rod, say half mile long. Attach two lasers on either end of this rod that the laser beams are perfectly parellel to each other and both perpendicular to the rod.   Now imagine this contraption hung from a point 10 miles away from you and  1 mile high, in such a way that the laser beams fall one mile in front  of you  on the ground

    Now, Try to imagine what you will see?
    Yes, those lines would be coming at you, and while parallel, they would appear not to be. Do you see in my image how the rays are both going at all sorts of angles, even going to the side, toward the left and the right? So that we are seeing them at their proper angles?

    Do you also see these end posts as parallel? 


    There seems to be some huge misunderstanding. Perhaps you can also explain this hotspot under the sun .


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZ_FVORUUAA7Lfh.jpg
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 10
    Do you see how they are even bent backwards away from the point of entry in the clouds?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 10
    @crazyturtle
    I get your point, and it would be plausible if I had posted a picture similar to this one:

    But I chose that picture specifically because I've been in this discussion a few times, yes, the origin of the rays above are all further away from the eye than the point they reach the earth. In my image, the rays in the back are going the opposite way so that from either angle the rays can be traced back to the point of origin, above the clouds.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr
    You still interested? 
  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    edited June 11
    @Erfisflat >

     yes, the origin of the rays above are all further away from the eye than the point they reach th@Erfisflat

    Ok. Now we have agreed upon that, I will expl@Erfisflat

    > the rays in the back are going the oppsite way

    We have seen that how the rays appear angled to each other when the hole in the cloud is away and higher, and the point of incidence in near the obserrver and on the ground. Now imagine what happens if the point of incidence, where the rays are hitting the ground, is far too. This is the graph that plot distance of an rod of length 500 units, from the observer to the angle it subtends at the eye. https://pasteboard.co/h9gGQFqWY.png What you can see here is that the angle substended at the eye, which is the size of the object we perceive, reduces rapidly, before almost leveling off. What this result is that if the point of incidence is also far from the viewer, the viewer will percieve the rays as almost parallel (as you can see for the rays near the center of your picture, which are also falling much far into the sea.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
     @crazyturtle

    " yes, the origin of the rays above are all further away from the eye than the point they reach th@Erfisflat 

    Ok. Now we have agreed upon that, I will expl@Erfisflat "

    You're ignoring my image and my statement :

    "In my image, the rays in the back are going the opposite way so that from either angle the rays can be traced back to the point of origin, above the clouds."



    For the rays in the back, that are going away from the observer, the point of origin in the clouds is closer than the point that they reach the earth. 

    "We have seen that how the rays appear angled to each other when the hole in the cloud is away and higher, and the point of incidence in near the obserrver and on the ground. Now imagine what happens if the point of incidence, where the rays are hitting the ground, is far too. This is the graph that plot distance of an rod of length 500 units, from the observer to the angle it subtends at the eye.https://pasteboard.co/h9gGQFqWY.png What you can see here is that the angle substended at the eye, which is the size of the object we perceive, reduces rapidly, before almost leveling off. What this result is that if the point of incidence is also far from the viewer, the viewer will percieve the rays as almost parallel (as you can see for the rays near the center of your picture, which are also falling much far into the sea."- Crazyturtle

  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    edited June 11
    @Erfisflat ;

    >For the rays in the back, that are going away from the observer..

    Ok. This seems to be the root of all your misunderstandings. How did you conclude that they are going away from the observer? For the looks of it?

    Take the original picture, the one with rays over a sea. In it, take the rays that are on the right hand side, and closest to the observer. You agree that these rays are not going away from the observer, right?

    Now move these rays (only the right one, and leave their right counterparts as such) and the cloud that cast it together, backwards and after a while they will appear just like the rays that appears to "go away from the user" in the last picture...

    Regarding the last part of my last post which you replied with jackie chan, I am not sure it is relavant anymore as the above point seem to be the root of your misunderstandings. In case you want me to clarify it, please let me know if you understand what the graph means.

  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    You seem to have run out of replies in text format. You seem to have an impressive collection of memes. I will give you that....

    The most funny thing about this conversation is that the same people who rejects thousands of photographs on the basis that it can be faked ends up using for proof.....drumroll.....

    "a photograph that looks  obviously photo shopped!"

    Somebody should make a meme out of that!
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @crazyturtle
    The huge difference? Verifiability. I've also proved my claims of photoshop. You?

  • crazyturtlecrazyturtle 13 Points
    Not that one. The one with suns rays over the sea...And to be clear, I am not saying the phots are fake. Just your reliance on them for your arguments seems quite baffling when you are rejecting photos as being fake the same time..

    And you didn't prove anything. And you also did not try to understand the explanations  I provided. You just replied with some memes that were ...quite frankly...pathetic. If you want to hold a conversation without irritating people, cut down on the memes. It might make you feel smarter...but n reality  they are actually  preventing you from getting smarter....
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Not that one. The one with suns rays over the sea...And to be clear, I am not saying the phots are fake. Just your reliance on them for your arguments seems quite baffling when you are rejecting photos as being fake the same time..

    And you didn't prove anything. And you also did not try to understand the explanations  I provided. You just replied with some memes that were ...quite frankly...pathetic. If you want to hold a conversation without irritating people, cut down on the memes. It might make you feel smarter...but n reality  they are actually  preventing you from getting smarter....
    Obviously you've not even read a portion of my posts here. I have in fact shown that photos of earth from space are Photoshop. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @evidence maybe you can translate what @crazyturtle is trying to tell me.
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, here is another  argument for you with help from reddit.

    flat-earthers claim that the apparent force of gravity felt on Earth is actually caused by the upward acceleration of the disc we're standing on. However we can easily measure that gravity is slightly different around the world, and weaker the further away from the ground you go. If this gravity were caused by an accelerating Earth, it would have to be uniform everywhere, since the whole disc is clearly accelerating at the same rate since it's not being torn apart. 

    Some of them at this point say that acceleration causes *most* of the gravity we feel, but that the mass of the disc also has an affect. Well if that were true, gravity on a disc would point slightly towards the center of the disc rather than always straight down. 

  • EvidenceEvidence 59 Points
    Erfisflat said:
    @evidence maybe you can translate what @crazyturtle is trying to tell me.
    Yeah I know, I was there too not so long ago until you showed me that cardboard cut out video using the sun and a flash light.
    Can you show him that, I can't find it!?
    Here is another good example:


    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 59 Points
    agsr said:
    @Erfisflat, here is another  argument for you with help from reddit.

    flat-earthers claim that the apparent force of gravity felt on Earth is actually caused by the upward acceleration of the disc we're standing on. However we can easily measure that gravity is slightly different around the world, and weaker the further away from the ground you go. If this gravity were caused by an accelerating Earth, it would have to be uniform everywhere, since the whole disc is clearly accelerating at the same rate since it's not being torn apart. 

    Some of them at this point say that acceleration causes *most* of the gravity we feel, but that the mass of the disc also has an affect. Well if that were true, gravity on a disc would point slightly towards the center of the disc rather than always straight down. 

    No gravity, just density and buoyancy.

    In the past 10 years, how many experiment did NASA scuba Astronauts show us done "outside" the ISS? Like put a bowling ball with marbles orbiting it? They don't even have to spin it in orbit, just let the "space-fabric" guide it in, like this:

     


    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr

    I'm repeating myself here, but I'll explain my position once again. Gravity is a theory without an ounce of practical evidence. We see things fall simply because the molecules that make up the air under the apple are less dense than the apple. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @agsr I've stated before that the earth is motionless and that the flat earth society are led by shills. 
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    Erfisflat is either a troll or just has a massive tinfoil around his head
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Erfisflat is either a troll or just has a massive tinfoil around his head
    troll (/ˈtroʊl//ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Evidence said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @evidence maybe you can translate what @crazyturtle is trying to tell me.
    Yeah I know, I was there too not so long ago until you showed me that cardboard cut out video using the sun and a flash light.
    Can you show him that, I can't find it!?
    Here is another good example:


    I posted that one a few posts back. I think it's insane how so many people will believe such nonsense or just dismiss evidence altogether if it doesn't match with an assumed premise. They just refuse to believe that they've been lied to. Like a Stockholm syndrome. 

    muchoweas
  • muchoweasmuchoweas 8 Points
    I agree with @Erfisflat . MAMy scientific theories are inaccurate and need further development,  this could be part of that.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    muchoweas said:
    I agree with @Erfisflat . MAMy scientific theories are inaccurate and need further development,  this could be part of that.
    Welcome to debateisland! That's an interesting point, could you give another example? 
    aarongearthsshape
  • earthsshapeearthsshape 7 Points
    @Erfisflat I politely disagree. There is documented photographic evidence of the Earth's shape.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    earthsshape said: @Erfisflat I politely disagree. There is documented photographic evidence of the Earth's shape.@earthsshape

    Post one.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Seeing the view count rising, but no more takers. People from DDO, welcome to Debateisland! Care to take a stab? 

    In the meantime, let's examine more evidence that water (and the earth) is flat. 

    The specular highlight.

    Light reflects off of convex surfaces in unique ways.
    This is a linear reflection.

    The light from the sun or moon is elongated here, and mirror like here.
     There's the problem, curved surfaces produce specular highlights, and shrunken, warped reflections on a ball. These expected results have never been found. It would even be safe to say that a reflection of the sun would be impossible to see, since the observer is at point 1 in this diagram. The reflection would only be visible at or near point 7.

    Samuel Rowbotham wrote in Zetectic Astronomy:

    IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet"

    When the math is done, it should curve 6 feet down in just 3 miles from the sea level, and, being a ball, would curve very sharply with over a mile drop from only 100 miles, so we should see these effects on our lakes and oceans. It would be a very noticable drop. To show this in observational experimentation, flatten out a long piece of reflective material, such as sheet metal. I like to use the side with imperfections, to simulate waves.

    Since we are very close to the earth in comparison to the sun, we hold the material up to the eye, and point it at a source of light, now bend that material, even the slightest, and the reflection will not remain. Now consider where the sun is at the time if sunset for any observer. Logically, any curve would interrupt this line of light between the source of light and the observer, this is the reason we see shadows being cast by ripples. Since this reflection is impossible to get on a ball, but experimentally reproduced with a flat surface, this is an empirical proof that there is no curvature to water.

    melefPowerPikachu21m_abusteit
  • melefmelef 32 Points
    @Erfisflat , I understand your evidence. I disagree, because on the basics or basic needs of theories it is proved wrong and cant be scientifically possible. Also, a flat eart isn't possible, because of the earth day and night.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    melef said:
    @Erfisflat , I understand your evidence. I disagree, because on the basics or basic needs of theories it is proved wrong and cant be scientifically possible. Also, a flat eart isn't possible, because of the earth day and night.
    Exactly how have theories proved flat earth wrong? Have you read any posts here? I have shown that a spherical earth is scientifically impossible. Night and day is completely compatible with the flat earth model. 

    I have explained this a few times now. 
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    @Erfisflat
    How does the night/day model for a flat earth explain the nights and days we observe on other planets, or the sunlight that reflects off the moon?
    Also, the scale of the ocean is too large for there to be a specular reflection.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @melanielust this is obviously another red herring. What exactly do lights in the sky prove about curvature or axial rotation? Also, big or not, curved water is curved water. As I have shown mathematically, it's not that big. Just saying "it's too big" isn't very scientific, and doesn't hold water.
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    @Erfisflat

    We can physically see the planets very clearly. You can do this yourself by taking at a telescope, finding jupiter, tracking it across the course of several nights, and taking photographs. Lots of amateur astronomers do this. I haven't compiled a video of it myself but I've seen the changes. Here's an example of an amateur making a GIF of Jupiter's rotation:
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @melanielust doesn't jupiter have moons? Where at the stars? I mean I'm willing to discuss this strawman with you, and this is a little more believable than what NASA provides,
    But empirically measuring the earth > looking at objects in the firmament. Maybe this would be better off on the space is fake debate. 
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    @erisflat

    I’ll mention it in the space debate if it’s brought up, but I think it’s still pertinent to this one. Jupiter has plenty of moons and they’re all at different orbits and distance from the planet, so from some perspectives it looks like there are no moons at all. Here’s one where one of the moons is visible:

    The stars are not visible because they’re washed out by the bright light of the sun, which is shining on Jupiter; so Jupiter + moons are the only things we could see. The sun washing out other light is also why we can’t see stars during the day.

    Also, the image you provided shows auroras, a phenomenon that can happen on the poles of planets. (Not an expert on this so don’t ask me how it works, I’m sure you could find something online though.) The earth equivalent of that would be the Northern Lights, which are quite beautiful.

    The point is that it proves planets rotate. You can see this happening with other planets in our solar system as well. Why would earth be any different?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @melanielust
    Obvious differences, and I'm trying to word this differently when I say this, but it doesn't really matter what shape lights appear to be in the sky. If this is the best proof there is for a spherical earth, well I'm sure you'll agree flat earth wins this debate..
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    @Erfisflat
    Admittedly it isn't the best evidence but it's what we're talking about right now. They’re not “lights in the sky,” they’re planets and you can clearly see them rotating for yourself.

    Based off of such observations, and with the help of other telescope technology (including radio signals which I think I explained in a different debate) you can measure Jupiter’s mass and curvature. Observing Jupiter’s moons specifically was actually the first way scientists ever calculated the extensive properties of a planet. I won’t go into the math but essentially the moons orbit because of gravitational pulls from Jupiter; the relative size of the moons compared to their distance from the planet can help determine how strong that pull is, which has a direct relationship with mass/density.

    http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~tss/ASTR410/Kelley04/jupmass.html

    On a side note personally I think the best evidence, and only evidence you need, are multiple pictures from different reliable sources, which we have. I think we’ve exhausted that subject beyond being able to change each other’s opinions though.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat
    Admittedly it isn't the best evidence but it's what we're talking about right now. They’re not “lights in the sky,” they’re planets and you can clearly see them rotating for yourself.

    Based off of such observations, and with the help of other telescope technology (including radio signals which I think I explained in a different debate) you can measure Jupiter’s mass and curvature. Observing Jupiter’s moons specifically was actually the first way scientists ever calculated the extensive properties of a planet. I won’t go into the math but essentially the moons orbit because of gravitational pulls from Jupiter; the relative size of the moons compared to their distance from the planet can help determine how strong that pull is, which has a direct relationship with mass/density.

    http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~tss/ASTR410/Kelley04/jupmass.html

    On a side note personally I think the best evidence, and only evidence you need, are multiple pictures from different reliable sources, which we have. I think we’ve exhausted that subject beyond being able to change each other’s opinions though.
    I mean, even after I've shown evidence of photoshop, not to mention NASA openly admits they're all Photoshop composites, you still insist there are pictures of earth from space?
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    @Erfisflat

    I do. Of course it’s easy to fake planets and space landscapes on Photoshop (I would know, I make space scenes on PS all the time for fun).

    We can’t take pictures of the earth from space unless there’s a manned mission where one happens to be taken, so the last unprocessed, unphotoshopped picture of Earth is from 1972 (Apollo 17 mission) and I think it’s pretty convincing. Other than that, processing images from space is a very complicated process and requires some enhancing or coloration so it’s easily visible. When they colorize images of say, a nebula, they do it according to what is most likely the real color based off of their calculations. That’s what Photoshop is for; “Data Visualizer” is an apt name.

    The second link you provided doesn’t seem too reliable but let’s go for it. Finding things that look like words on the earth’s surface doesn’t prove anything, especially if you edit it so much (flipping, inverting) so that it’s not actually the real image. Even if they intentionally edited it to include the word “sex” after you flip it 180 degrees (and they have no reason to do that) it doesn’t prove that the earth is flat.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat

    I do. Of course it’s easy to fake planets and space landscapes on Photoshop (I would know, I make space scenes on PS all the time for fun).


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points

    @melanielust

    So you admit that photo shopping images of earth is easy, claim that they took a picture over 50 years ago, which is demonstrably fake, probably a painting, 



    Then claim that despite 50 years of technological advancement, that now it's too hard, while parroting an excuse from NASA? It wouldn't take a fraction of their budget to strap the best camera money can buy to a rocket, fly it far enough away, turn it around and take a picture. You seem like a relatively intelligent person, do you know what intellectually dishonest means? No disrespect intended, and I appreciate the skepticism,  but you should apply that same level of skepticism to your arguments as well.

    Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @erisflat

    I’ll mention it in the space debate if it’s brought up, but I think it’s still pertinent to this one. Jupiter has plenty of moons and they’re all at different orbits and distance from the planet, so from some perspectives it looks like there are no moons at all. Here’s one where one of the moons is visible:

    The stars are not visible because they’re washed out by the bright light of the sun, which is shining on Jupiter; so Jupiter + moons are the only things we could see. The sun washing out other light is also why we can’t see stars during the day.

    Also, the image you provided shows auroras, a phenomenon that can happen on the poles of planets. (Not an expert on this so don’t ask me how it works, I’m sure you could find something online though.) The earth equivalent of that would be the Northern Lights, which are quite beautiful.

    The point is that it proves planets rotate. You can see this happening with other planets in our solar system as well. Why would earth be any different?
    one more thing, which direction does Jupiter spin? You've posted pictures of it spinning in both directions. Can you provide sources? 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    To the overwhelming amount of open minded critical thinkers privately messaging me, thanks for the encouragement and as as always, trust your senses and do your research.
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    @erisflat
    Jupiter rotates Eastward, in prograde motion. The first GIF was simply turned upside down; notice how the Red Spot is towards the top, when in reality it’s towards the bottom.

    As for the argument about images, NASA can’t just authorize a manned mission whenever they please. It’s kind of a big deal and requires a lot of funding. Sometimes it’s even more accurate to digitally visualize an image based off of data, which they do routinely through satellites and information collected from space stations.

    The video you provided was pretty interesting but I don’t think it makes much sense. Those countries wouldn’t be on “the other side” of the world, they would still be taking in light because the relative curvature of the planet allows for sunlight to extend that far. Imagine you’re holding up a tennis ball and you shine a flashlight on it; the light doesn’t only hit the part you can see upfront, it also extends to the curved sides.

    I appreciate your skepticism, I really do, and I am glad you are now civilly engaging in this discussion. I am skeptic of many things myself, and this just isn’t one of them, and I think that’s ok. If there’s one thing I’ve gained from all this it’s improved debating + research skills and the ability to approach opinions I radically disagree with judgement-free, so thanks for that as well.
    CuriousGeorge
  • agsragsr 353 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @melanielust, I feel exactly how you articulated. STill believe the earth is not flat, but I think it Is a good debating experience- which is a whole point of this site 
    melanielust
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @melanielust

    " Those countries wouldn’t be on “the other side” of the world, they would still be taking in light because the relative curvature of the planet allows for sunlight to extend that far."

    Even so, if those countries were at the top, they would see the sun very close to the horizon. So close that they would be experiencing a southern sunset. Really, I think you're grasping at straws on this one. 

  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    @Erfisflat
    Look at it this way.
    There's a reason Africa looks so big in that image; the camera is closer rather than far away. So if you zoomed out a little you'd still see all the countries. The sun would still be hitting them. It's all about relative curvature and the position of the observer. You could try it yourself with a globe, if you have one. If not:
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    melanielust said: @Erfisflat Look at it this way.There's a reason Africa looks so big in  image; the camera is closer rather than far away. So if you zoomed out a little you'd still see all the countries. The sun would still be hitting them. It's all about relative curvature and the position of the observer. You could try it yourself with a globe, if you have one. If not: "

    @melanielust I do own a globe, and did try this. While I agree that the continents got smaller with distance, but so did the globe. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points

    @melanielust
    I didn't see entire continents disappear either.  We should see a lot more of the northern hemisphere. This picture was supposedly taken during the original lunar landings, right?


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 18
    Google knows Earth Day 2013

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points

       @Imbster

    I'm glad you agree, flat earth theory is irrefutable. There are a couple of problems that im still researching, but once you measure the flatness of water, you can then know that at least 75% of earth is flat. The full model and details are still being discussed. Haven't  looked into tectonics much. 
    Imbster
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Imbster
    It's great that you're researching FET though, if you find anything out, let me know. Though you shouldn't trust anyone in particular, YouTube has a very active community, and might have a good answer. I'm more into empirical research and data.
    Imbster
  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    @Erfisflat
    Yes it's an evidence for intelligent design but generally I don't believe in intelligent design unless cancer was intelligently designed also.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflat
    Yes it's an evidence for intelligent design but generally I don't believe in intelligent design unless cancer was intelligently designed also.
    Yeah, I didn't believe in ID either until I figured out the earth was flat, and it was all deception to hide the dome.
  • EvidenceEvidence 59 Points
    Erfisflat said:
    @melanielust
    Obvious differences, and I'm trying to word this differently when I say this, but it doesn't really matter what shape lights appear to be in the sky. If this is the best proof there is for a spherical earth, well I'm sure you'll agree flat earth wins this debate..

    Erfisflat said:
    earthsshape said: @Erfisflat I politely disagree. There is documented photographic evidence of the Earth's shape.@earthsshape

    Post one.

    How do we delete a comment, I clicked on the wrong post??
    Options are only: Preview, Save Draft and Post Comment, no way to delete??
  • EvidenceEvidence 59 Points
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflat
    Yes it's an evidence for intelligent design but generally I don't believe in intelligent design unless cancer was intelligently designed also.


    Well, let's see now, a guy is laying dead on the floor with a bullet hole in his head, was that I.D'd?

    Or, which of the following was I.D.'d? The Honda ASIMO robot, or the far, far more complex engineer who created it?

  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    @Evidence
    very funny but I was actually careful not to input directly man made actions or man made objects to associate with intelligent design.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Imbster said:
    @Evidence
    very funny but I was actually careful not to input directly man made actions or man made objects to associate with intelligent design.
    http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/scientists-suggest-that-cancer-is-man-made/
  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    edited June 22
    @Erfisflat
    Yes I've read that but doesn't God influence the environment and if it were by chance of human diet wouldn't he play a role with his noodly appendages to corrupt the bodily system such that cancer happens? Other bodily systems have not experienced the fully devastating effects of cancer but why others have? It seems God plays something here as to designing and molding either an individual's particular system or cancer itself.

    In no sense do see cancer is directly man-made. And since I'm assuming right now that I reject science, let's add that pollution could be something God intelligently designed also to cause destruction on man himself. I mean God has power to and made many natural things.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflat
    Yes I've read that but doesn't God influence the environment and if it were by chance of human diet wouldn't he play a role with his noodly appendages to corrupt the bodily system such that cancer happens? Other bodily systems have not experienced the fully devastating effects of cancer but why others have? It seems God plays something here as to designing and molding either an individual's particular system or cancer itself.

    In no sense do see cancer is directly man-made. And since I'm assuming right now that I reject science, let's add that pollution could be something God intelligently designed also to cause destruction on man himself. I mean God has power to and made many natural things.

    Oh no, don't deny science. Deny pseudoscience. That which is mistakenly based on the scientific method.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflat
    Yes I've read that but doesn't God influence the environment and if it were by chance of human diet wouldn't he play a role with his noodly appendages to corrupt the bodily system such that cancer happens? Other bodily systems have not experienced the fully devastating effects of cancer but why others have? It seems God plays something here as to designing and molding either an individual's particular system or cancer itself.

    In no sense do see cancer is directly man-made. And since I'm assuming right now that I reject science, let's add that pollution could be something God intelligently designed also to cause destruction on man himself. I mean God has power to and made many natural things.

    pseu·do·sci·ence
    ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/
    noun
    1. a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

      sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
      noun
      1. 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.
  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    edited June 22
    @Erfisflat
    Haha no only in the current context that I support intelligent design( I don't,context). Wouldn't intelligent design be a pseudoscience? An intelligent agent cannot be falsifiable nor testable. It is very subjective to say the least such that it is not possible to make a set (mathematical) of intelligently designed entities.

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/050927voices_pseudoscience
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflat
    Haha no only in the current context that I support intelligent design( I don't,context). Wouldn't intelligent design be a pseudoscience? An intelligent agent cannot be falsifiable nor testable. It is very subjective to say the least that it is not possible to make a set (mathematical) of intelligently designed entities.
    Not when you use the scientific method to figure out that earth is flat space is fake, and everything was put here just for us. I'm taking a giant steamer on big bangism with the flat earth and on evolution with the ridiculousness of dinosaurs. Process of elimination bruh.

    "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflat
    Haha no only in the current context that I support intelligent design( I don't,context). Wouldn't intelligent design be a pseudoscience? An intelligent agent cannot be falsifiable nor testable. It is very subjective to say the least that it is not possible to make a set (mathematical) of intelligently designed entities.
    intelligent design has been so well hidden for the last 500 years that most humans can't even think for themselves anymore. We're expected to memorize the indoctrination pamphlets pay the taxes and follow the herd. Dismissing I.D. at your point wouldn't be a great idea. I'm not preaching, or suggesting that you start attending church. I'm saying this is the Great Deception, and time is running out. You, or someone you wake up may be the one that finds (scientific evidence for) The Creator.
  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    edited June 23
    @Erfisflat
    Well I'd accept intelligent design AS a philosophical theory. I believe aesthetics plays a part in the criteria of an intelligent design and agent.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflat
    Well I'd accept intelligent design AS a philosophical theory. I believe aesthetics plays a part in the criteria of an intelligent agent and agent.
    Im not entirely sure what you mean by that, please elaborate. 
  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    @Erfisflatl
    well simply intelligent design is more of a philosophical theory
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflatl
    well simply intelligent design is more of a philosophical theory
    Well, I hope now it is a far more plausible theory to you than the alternative. 

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 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
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch