The Earth is flat 4.0

Erfisflat

Proof of a flat motionless earth.

1. On a ball earth, pilots get to a certain altitude and LEVEL out. On a ball they would fly out in space in a matter of hours.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. Whether it's 30 miles,

5. 60 miles

6. Or more

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

7.

Question to globe earthers; do you actually believe that the moon is pulling AND pushing against the earth's water with a magical force named gravity, and that the moon should NOT have collapsed into earth from earth's gravitational pull?

8. The sun analemma contradicts the globe earth model.

9. Credit to @SilverishGoldNova

From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles

10. 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

11. Purpose: Is the earth a ball?

Research: How much curvature should there be over a given distance? Referred to a university study, and autocad generated formula that uses the Pythagorean theorem. This formula is for sea level only, but gives us a general idea of how much curve there should be. When adjusting for observer's height above sea level, an automatic calculated can be used, which is peer reviewed.

Opponent response nuh uh.
An appeal to the stone fallacy.

Hypothesis: at a given distance, 12.5 miles, and at a height of 6 feet above sea level, a target should have it's bottom 60' missing, IF the earth is a ball.

Experiment: Set up Nikon 900 Zoom camera about 6' above sea level, and an Orion Telescope about 4'. Both on tripods. Test the curvature of the Earth across Mobile Bay toward the Port of Mobile and downtown Mobile, Alabama. If the earth is a ball, 60' of the coast shouldn't be visible.

Analysis:

Conclusion: Earth is not a ball (that is 25,000 miles in circumference)

http://deanodle.org/articles/article/41/gods-flat-earth-the-firmament-of-his-power

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

12. http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/9142/#Comment_9142

@JoePineapples this is just a few proofs of the claim: the earth is flat.

Erfisflat

According to my senses the Earth is a series of giant slopes, it's neither round nor flat.

Really? Where do you live? Have you ever visited the ocean? Can you provide further evidence that the earth is a giant slope?

"Likewise, an amoeba sat in one of the dimples of a golf ball wouldn't see that the golf ball is round, it would think that the golf ball is actually a giant crater (if the amoeba could think and use the same senses as ourselves)."

This doesn't give accurate measurements. If that amoeba were to attach a camera to a balloon and ascend a relative 100,000+ feet, what would happen to the horizon? It would drop and curve, correct?

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

What motion and curvature would you expect that you aren't sensing?

Eight inches of drop per mile squared. The motions listed above in several directions at once.

Erfisflat

Since I've got 3 on the hook for now, I'll expect a response to these arguments above from at least one of you. I'm working on more.

Erfisflat

Here's the deal. This is An open challenge to anyone here. If you feel that someone you deem smarter could challenge my logic and science, bring them to me here. Neil Tyson, cool hard logic, metabunk, anyone. I've gone to these people and have been ignored and my comments and challenges ignored/deleted.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Three issues with this:

1) It is obviously inconsistent with reality. Has the sun and the moon rotating constantly on opposite sides of the earth from one another with the moon in total darkness when they can quite frequently be seen looking as if they are quite close together in the sky, with the moon clearly in daylight, and certainly not in different hemispheres even if the earth were flat. This is an example of something that we can tell is incorrect just based on our basic senses. Even if the earth were flat, this video certainly wouldn't represent it.

2) Doesn't even attempt to answer several of my questions: "So can I get an overview of the flat earth explanation for the solar system? Like how it is all meant to fit together, where the sun and moon are in relation to us, what size they are, what speed they move at, how hot the sun is, etc."

3) Is too simplistic to even be worth calling a model. It is just a CGI someone's put together without any explained rationale behind it.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

What motion and curvature would you expect that you aren't sensing?

Eight inches of drop per mile squared. The motions listed above in several directions at once.

So are you saying that is you were two miles away from a mountian that someone had incorrectly measured and your friend said "Oh by the way that mountain it 4,389 feet high, you'd be able to say "No, it's actually 4,387 feet and eight inches"? That seems absurd and either you need to give a believable example or provide evidence. I have been asking for you to explain your claim several times now and it's like getting blood from a stone.

if you'd prefer to rely on arguments and evidence and move on to what you posted up above we can, as I think that was what the poster who raised this initially was after. However so far you haven't supported your claim that "our basic senses tell us in every way that the earth is flat and without motion" and that therefore the burden of proof is on people who don't believe in a flat earth.

Erfisflat

So are you saying that is you were two miles away from a mountian that someone had incorrectly measured and your friend said "Oh by the way that mountain it 4,389 feet high, you'd be able to say "No, it's actually 4,387 feet and eight inches"? That seems absurd and either you need to give a believable example or provide evidence. I have been asking for you to explain your claim several times now and it's like getting blood from a stone.

Yes, this is completely absurd and I'm not entirely sure where this idea came from. I gave a few examples of the lack of curvature (8" per mile^2) in the proofs above. This is why my senses tell me the earth is flat. You've completely ignored the lack of sensed motion too.

"if you'd prefer to rely on arguments and evidence and move on to what you posted up above we can, as I think that was what the poster who raised this initially was after. However so far you haven't supported your claim that "our basic senses tell us in every way that the earth is flat and without motion" and that therefore the burden of proof is on people who don't believe in a flat earth."

You can do as you like. I'm still waiting on any sort of evidence that proves we live on a spinning ball, as the OP states as the reason of this debate.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Three issues with this:

1) It is obviously inconsistent with reality. Has the sun and the moon rotating constantly on opposite sides of the earth from one another with the moon in total darkness when they can quite frequently be seen looking as if they are quite close together in the sky, with the moon clearly in daylight, and certainly not in different hemispheres even if the earth were flat. This is an example of something that we can tell is incorrect just based on our basic senses. Even if the earth were flat, this video certainly wouldn't represent it.

2) Doesn't even attempt to answer several of my questions: "So can I get an overview of the flat earth explanation for the solar system? Like how it is all meant to fit together, where the sun and moon are in relation to us, what size they are, what speed they move at, how hot the sun is, etc."

3) Is too simplistic to even be worth calling a model. It is just a CGI someone's put together without any explained rationale behind it.

1. It's a somewhat crude representation of a model, which is what you asked for. I didn't make it, and it is obviously looped to not include the moon and sun's differences in speed. This was just to give you a basic idea as to how the model would work. Not all flat earthers agree on each model, and your disagreement with a model doesn't prove the earth is a ball. Nor does it prove to my senses that the earth is a spinning ball.

2. Further discussion of the model, I haven't currently claimed any specifics on a model because there are too many unpredictable variables in deducing distance and size to and of the sun and moon.

3. Can you show me a good picture of our solar system?

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Here's the deal. This is An open challenge to anyone here. If you feel that someone you deem smarter could challenge my logic and science, bring them to me here. Neil Tyson, cool hard logic, metabunk, anyone. I've gone to these people and have been ignored and my comments and challenges ignored/deleted.

Eh, I'll give it a shot.

1) Semantics. This doesn't seem to be an actual argument against there being a flat earth, you just think it's inappropriate to use the word 'level' if in the grand scheme of things they are curving with the earth.

2) I assume you have some rationale for why all photos ever taken of a spherical earth with water curving are wrong. Feel free to provide it.

However going even further and saying "Water has never been found in humped form on any measurable scale" is pretty absurd:

https://i.imgur.com/YawGsFG.jpg

As in my previous post, THIS is an example of something that's been disproven through our basic senses.

3) I assume you are C+Ping this from somewhere as your link is broken.

Please see: http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2012/03/seeing-over-the-horizon.html

It involves the principle of refraction, which you yourself have used in a previous post.

4) I have literally no idea what I'm meant to be looking at. it's all a haze and I can't see the Roger's building. Of the four videos this is the only one that could be interesting as there is a still of a calculation at the start which shows a calculation including the normal change from refraction.

5) It literally explains in the video why you can see it. The editor who posted it gives no rationale for why the explanation is wrong, just cuts to few seconds of a button called being pressed, which is neither a logical nor evidence based argument. It is also inconsistent with your prior video which tries to factor light refraction in.

6) Same as #3.

7)
Question to globe earthers; do you actually believe that the moon is pulling AND pushing against the earth's water with a magical force named gravity,

No, the moon pulls the earth's water it does not push it and we don't believe it is magical but rather a bnautral and fairly well understood force, the parameters of which have been tested by scientists many tiems and foudn to be correct with a modern understanding of physics which involve a spherical earth.

and that the moon should NOT have collapsed into earth from earth's gravitational pull?

That's correct, we don't think the moon should have collapsed into the earth from earth's gravitational pull. It is meant to eventually, as its orbit decays, but not for billions of years.

8. The sun analemma is a part of the normal spherical earth model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma. ;

9) A quick check (https://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm) shows that the distance is about 20 miles and 60, not 120. Also there is no rationale given for why this contradicts a spherical earth or would be unexpected.

10)

Three issues.

a) Your quote obviously misunderstands gyropscopes. Do we agree that the basic purpose of gyroscopes is to measure changes in orientation, not speed? As it in fact says in your very quote of their functionality? This is their basic purpose, yes?

In which case the quote about speed is nonsense. It doesn't matter if something is going very fast if they're going such a large distance that it will still take them a long time to complete a full rotation orbit. For instance if you had a perfect gyroscope it would take 365 days to do a full 360 spin around the axis monitoring the orbit of the earth around the sun.

b) For the experiment in youtube, you can see the reasoning for why part A is correct. Despite the earth rotating around 1,000 miles per hour (at the we are expecting only a change of a few degrees per hour). Hence your own evidence helps prove how your previous evidence is incorrect.

As for its own merits, it's a good attempt but the issue is the measure of certainty. GYroscopes are like any other instrument, they have different degrees of precision and certainty. You wouldn't expect to be able to detect a nanogram of material on your kitchen scales, nor see a black hole through a children's telescope. Is the gyroscope good enough to detect the precision of the earth? We have no reason to think so because the user does nothing to show that this is the case, although it does look fairly cheap and will likely have a lot of friction which means it isn't suitable for detecting slow changes on angular momentum.

As for no examples of this being seen, that's very much false. Not only do we have examples:

But we have very old examples:

c) planes. There are different kind of gyroscopes in use on planes specifically because they don't want it to detect the earth's alignment so they are only designed to rotate around all three axises. Please see: https://www.experimentalaircraft.info/articles/aircraft-gyroscopic-principles.php

11 and 12 don't seem to be arguments.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

So are you saying that is you were two miles away from a mountian that someone had incorrectly measured and your friend said "Oh by the way that mountain it 4,389 feet high, you'd be able to say "No, it's actually 4,387 feet and eight inches"? That seems absurd and either you need to give a believable example or provide evidence. I have been asking for you to explain your claim several times now and it's like getting blood from a stone.

Yes, this is completely absurd and I'm not entirely sure where this idea came from. I gave a few examples of the lack of curvature (8" per mile^2) in the proofs above. This is why my senses tell me the earth is flat. You've completely ignored the lack of sensed motion too.

"if you'd prefer to rely on arguments and evidence and move on to what you posted up above we can, as I think that was what the poster who raised this initially was after. However so far you haven't supported your claim that "our basic senses tell us in every way that the earth is flat and without motion" and that therefore the burden of proof is on people who don't believe in a flat earth."

You can do as you like. I'm still waiting on any sort of evidence that proves we live on a spinning ball, as the OP states as the reason of this debate.

You are meant to be giving examples of how you can detect the earth is flat using only your basic senses. That was your claim. Doing experiments or using mathematics to try and work things out is not relying on your basic senses. As I said if you want to rely on arguments that's fine, but that is not what you were saying previously. Your only examples of a lack of a sense of motion that I have seen is with a gyroscope, which again isn't something you can tell with just your basic senses.

My example is of you being able to detect an 8 inch drop per miles. If that's not right then you need to give a believable example or provide evidence that you can detect an 8 in ch drop a mile away. I have been tryign to get to the bottom of this for several posts and I can't get a straight answer.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Three issues with this:

1) It is obviously inconsistent with reality. Has the sun and the moon rotating constantly on opposite sides of the earth from one another with the moon in total darkness when they can quite frequently be seen looking as if they are quite close together in the sky, with the moon clearly in daylight, and certainly not in different hemispheres even if the earth were flat. This is an example of something that we can tell is incorrect just based on our basic senses. Even if the earth were flat, this video certainly wouldn't represent it.

2) Doesn't even attempt to answer several of my questions: "So can I get an overview of the flat earth explanation for the solar system? Like how it is all meant to fit together, where the sun and moon are in relation to us, what size they are, what speed they move at, how hot the sun is, etc."

3) Is too simplistic to even be worth calling a model. It is just a CGI someone's put together without any explained rationale behind it.

1. It's a somewhat crude representation of a model, which is what you asked for. I didn't make it, and it is obviously looped to not include the moon and sun's differences in speed. This was just to give you a basic idea as to how the model would work. Not all flat earthers agree on each model, and your disagreement with a model doesn't prove the earth is a ball. Nor does it prove to my senses that the earth is a spinning ball.

2. Further discussion of the model, I haven't currently claimed any specifics on a model because there are too many unpredictable variables in deducing distance and size to and of the sun and moon.

3. Can you show me a good picture of our solar system?

1. How about this, why don't you post the model you believe is correct. Also the lack of any competing model which is anywhere near complete and the fact that the spherical model is scientifcally verifiable and all the technology and instances of the world being spherical which rely on a spherical earth and would involve a massive international conspiracy to explain make it very very very very unlikely to the point of ridiculousness that it would be wrong.

2. Give me ranges. For instance I got this thrown up at me while I was dealing with some of the youtube results from when I was dealing with your evidence:

Apparently Flat Earthers think this shows the sun is less than 28,000 feet high - and indeed if the earth were flat it would be hard to explain how else the plane is higher than the sun - although it then causes a load of other absurdities which would be even harder to answer. On the other hand it's easily explainable with a spherical earth.

3. Depends what you want from it:

Scale: http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

Pictures and a few key stats: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8026259/PIA21425.jpg

Orbits: http://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/02/94902-004-C44BF4C5.jpg

The issue with the solar system is that most of it is massive empty space as the first image makes clear. Any picture which is accurately scales is also too massive to be useful. A Flat Earth Model shouldn't have that issue because the sun and moon would presumably have to be much closer. It's also important because the Sun and the Moon are key features that we can all see with our eyes and there are certain easily accepted facts about how they act which anyone can verify simply by observation (e.g. we only ever see one side of the moon lit up, the moon reflects the light of the sun, etc). I'd be interested if there is even one flat earth explanation that can plausibly model the relationship between the earth, sun and moon so that it represents what we can see from Earth.

JoePineapples

Erfisflat said:

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.

...when the truth doesn't fit your agenda so you pull a cut & shut from two separate Wikipedia entries (gyroscope & gyro-compass) then present it as one quote

Actually I was wrong about that, the gyro-compass entry does also include that short part about a gyroscope.
The problem still lies with the fact that you're presenting the gyro-compass entry as the definition of a gyroscope.
From that same Wiki page: "Although one important component of a gyrocompass is a gyroscope, these are not the same devices"

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Here's the deal. This is An open challenge to anyone here. If you feel that someone you deem smarter could challenge my logic and science, bring them to me here. Neil Tyson, cool hard logic, metabunk, anyone. I've gone to these people and have been ignored and my comments and challenges ignored/deleted.

Eh, I'll give it a shot.

1) Semantics. This doesn't seem to be an actual argument against there being a flat earth, you just think it's inappropriate to use the word 'level' if in the grand scheme of things they are curving with the earth.

2) I assume you have some rationale for why all photos ever taken of a spherical earth with water curving are wrong. Feel free to provide it.

However going even further and saying "Water has never been found in humped form on any measurable scale" is pretty absurd:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/YawGsFG.jpg[/img]

As in my previous post, THIS is an example of something that's been disproven through our basic senses.

3) I assume you are C+Ping this from somewhere as your link is broken.

Please see: http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2012/03/seeing-over-the-horizon.html

It involves the principle of refraction, which you yourself have used in a previous post.

4) I have literally no idea what I'm meant to be looking at. it's all a haze and I can't see the Roger's building. Of the four videos this is the only one that could be interesting as there is a still of a calculation at the start which shows a calculation including the normal change from refraction.

5) It literally explains in the video why you can see it. The editor who posted it gives no rationale for why the explanation is wrong, just cuts to few seconds of a button called being pressed, which is neither a logical nor evidence based argument. It is also inconsistent with your prior video which tries to factor light refraction in.

6) Same as #3.

7)
Question to globe earthers; do you actually believe that the moon is pulling AND pushing against the earth's water with a magical force named gravity,

No, the moon pulls the earth's water it does not push it and we don't believe it is magical but rather a bnautral and fairly well understood force, the parameters of which have been tested by scientists many tiems and foudn to be correct with a modern understanding of physics which involve a spherical earth.

and that the moon should NOT have collapsed into earth from earth's gravitational pull?

That's correct, we don't think the moon should have collapsed into the earth from earth's gravitational pull. It is meant to eventually, as its orbit decays, but not for billions of years.

8. The sun analemma is a part of the normal spherical earth model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma. ;

9) A quick check (https://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm) shows that the distance is about 20 miles and 60, not 120. Also there is no rationale given for why this contradicts a spherical earth or would be unexpected.

10)

Three issues.

a) Your quote obviously misunderstands gyropscopes. Do we agree that the basic purpose of gyroscopes is to measure changes in orientation, not speed? As it in fact says in your very quote of their functionality? This is their basic purpose, yes?

In which case the quote about speed is nonsense. It doesn't matter if something is going very fast if they're going such a large distance that it will still take them a long time to complete a full rotation orbit. For instance if you had a perfect gyroscope it would take 365 days to do a full 360 spin around the axis monitoring the orbit of the earth around the sun.

b) For the experiment in youtube, you can see the reasoning for why part A is correct. Despite the earth rotating around 1,000 miles per hour (at the we are expecting only a change of a few degrees per hour). Hence your own evidence helps prove how your previous evidence is incorrect.

As for its own merits, it's a good attempt but the issue is the measure of certainty. GYroscopes are like any other instrument, they have different degrees of precision and certainty. You wouldn't expect to be able to detect a nanogram of material on your kitchen scales, nor see a black hole through a children's telescope. Is the gyroscope good enough to detect the precision of the earth? We have no reason to think so because the user does nothing to show that this is the case, although it does look fairly cheap and will likely have a lot of friction which means it isn't suitable for detecting slow changes on angular momentum.

As for no examples of this being seen, that's very much false. Not only do we have examples:

But we have very old examples:

c) planes. There are different kind of gyroscopes in use on planes specifically because they don't want it to detect the earth's alignment so they are only designed to rotate around all three axises. Please see: https://www.experimentalaircraft.info/articles/aircraft-gyroscopic-principles.php

11 and 12 don't seem to be arguments.

1. Ok, you may take level as to mean curved, but I don't. Allow me to elaborate.

The sr-71 blackbird has a top speed of around 2,192 mph. In order for it not to find itself in space in a matter of just minutes, it would have to fly nose down in a constant 900 feet per second descent, if it were flying over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

2. You mean, aside from NASA admittedly photoshopping several pictures of earth? I dismiss any photos of earth as a ball because they cant be empirically validated, ever.

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

3. "I assume you are C+Ping this from somewhere as your link is broken."

Sorry about that.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=3&h0=6&unit=imperial

"Please see: http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2012/03/seeing-over-the-horizon.html

It involves the principle of refraction, which you yourself have used in a previous post."

And, for arguments sake, can you explain what the article claims in your own words? Of course you'll understand that I can't assume you understand what the article states. It also helps the reasoner (you) to see how asinine or fallacious the claim is and the planned rebuttal will be easier to explain.

(Also, what I used in a previous post and how exactly it is related)

4." I have literally no idea what I'm meant to be looking at. it's all a haze and I can't see the Roger's building. Of the four videos this is the only one that could be interesting as there is a still of a calculation at the start which shows a calculation including the normal change from refraction.

So, to be clear, your rebuttal is, "I can't see clearly through 30-150 miles of atmosphere." And "it's possible because of refraction."? I'm paraphrasing of course.

5. "It literally explains in the video why you can see it. The editor who posted it gives no rationale for why the explanation is wrong, just cuts to few seconds of a button called being pressed, which is neither a logical nor evidence based argument. It is also inconsistent with your prior video which tries to factor light refraction in."

So, you are in agreement with the weatherman, who claims this is a mirage?

Or is your claim just "Because refraction"? Please be more specific, this is a scientific discussion. I'd start with a practical demonstration or comparison of how refraction can cause a city to reappear from out of sight.

6. Ditto

7. "No, the moon pulls the earth's water it does not push it."

Then you have some alternate explanation for this.

It also seems logical that the moon can tug on the earth's water's against it's much larger pull and earth is moving away from the earth, not closer, as you erroneously claimed? (This is your model you aren't familiar with)

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/131/is-the-moon-moving-further-away-from-earth-and-closer-to-the-sun-why

8. Apolagies, maybe I should point out specifically what makes the analemma impossible on a globe, and more plausible on a flat plane.
And thanks for the wiki link, but I'll just explain it In my own words.

The analemma is basically a snapshot of a spot in the sky, everyday for a year, showing it's relevant position. With the analemma, the pattern forms a figure 8, or more appropriately, a snowman shape, with the larger, more wider path at the southern hemisphere. This makes no sense on a sphere, because those paths would be equal in distance, making a symmetrical figure eight, but makes perfect sense on a flat earth model, where the southern path is larger.

9. A quick check (https://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm) shows that the distance is about 20 miles and 60, not 120. Also there is no rationale given for why this contradicts a spherical earth or would be unexpected."

The distance was calculated for the distance from new York to Philadelphia (while admittedly erroneous at 20 miles short of the original claim of 100 miles. This is observable a straight line path.

10. "Your quote obviously misunderstands gyropscopes. Do we agree that the basic purpose of gyroscopes is to measure changes in orientation, not speed? As it in fact says in your very quote of their functionality? This is their basic purpose, yes?"

Yes, agreed, please quote my quote that states anything differently so that we have a mutual understanding of the misrepresentation.

"In which case the quote about speed is nonsense. It doesn't matter if something is going very fast if they're going such a large distance that it will still take them a long time to complete a full rotation orbit. For instance if you had a perfect gyroscope it would take 365 days to do a full 360 spin around the axis monitoring the orbit of the earth around the sun."

This is not the only claimed motion of the earth that would cause the gyroscope to change orientation. This is an obvious cherry picking fallacy.

b) "For the experiment in youtube, you can see the reasoning for why part A is correct. Despite the earth rotating around 1,000 miles per hour (at the we are expecting only a change of a few degrees per hour). Hence your own evidence helps prove how your previous evidence is incorrect."

I'm not entirely sure if your claim is that the gyroscope should not have changed orientation over 6 hours, even "a few degrees per hour" (15 to be exact) or if it is that it did, please be specific.

"As for its own merits, it's a good attempt but the issue is the measure of certainty. GYroscopes are like any other instrument, they have different degrees of precision and certainty. You wouldn't expect to be able to detect a nanogram of material on your kitchen scales, nor see a black hole through a children's telescope. Is the gyroscope good enough to detect the precision of the earth? We have no reason to think so because the user does nothing to show that this is the case, although it does look fairly cheap and will likely have a lot of friction which means it isn't suitable for detecting slow changes on angular momentum."

Foucault originally discovered the gyroscope to try and prove the rotation of the earth. It was a very crude first gyroscope and he made the first claim. Surely gyroscopes haven't deteriorated over time.

"As for no examples of this being seen, that's very much false. Not only do we have examples:"

1. Video is demonstrating procession of a rotating ball, not the earth's rotation. The video uses a ball gyroscope that indeed shows precession, but this does nothing to show how it relates to the earth's motion, unless of course, you are assuming the conclusion. This is a non sequitur.

2. Forgive me, can you timestamp the video to where it shows the gyroscope responding to the earth's combined motions specifically? I did not see that part.

C planes. There are different kind of gyroscopes in use on planes specifically because they don't want it to detect the earth's alignment so they are only designed to rotate around all three axises. Please see: https://www.experimentalaircraft.info/articles/aircraft-gyroscopic-principles.php

Once again, can you quote where the article supports your claim?

And 11 argues that the sight shouldn't be visible, due to the supposed earth's curvature. There's 60 feet of it in the experiment.

12. Is an irrefutable argument against heliocentrism. I'll assume you ignore it, unless you want to c/p it.

Erfisflat

"Doing experiments or using mathematics to try and work things out is not relying on your basic senses."

They dont? Should we define experiments?

"I have been tryign to get to the bottom of this for several posts and I can't get a straight answer."

Sorry, but of course you would need to do a little math before or after the fact. Standing on the shores of a 60 mile lake and being able to see an impossible (if the earth were a spinning ball) site is observing using on of the basic senses.

@Ampersand

fea

SilverishGoldNova said:

Any takers left for me or nah?

Doesn't appear to be any. Amp and Joe don't seem to understand their own model, let alone ours. Erfisflat has already refuted most of their semantic nonsense.

walterba

The Earth is not flat due to when airplanes, boats, etc. going from a place and being able to return back there. This is due to the spherical shape of the Earth.

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

1a) "Definition of level" - It is level in relation to the ground/water directly beneath it. Its overall flight path is curved and not level. If you have an issue, take it up with the dictionaries as this is just semantics and not aan argument about the actual physical properties of the earth.

b) "Plane flying nose down" Alternatively it could just maintain an overall slightly curved flight-path that keeps it level with the ground beneath it.

2) "Empirically Validate" You have relied on youtube video you cannot empirically validate and you expect me to take them at face value despite the fact that I cannot empirically validate them - this is of course putting aside that empirically validate is a very vague term that you seem to be misusing. Please apply the same standard to everything.

Also your link doesn't seem to support your argument. The "photoshopping" isn't anything that would alter the shape of the planet and your source is NASA itself, so you seem to be complaining that they are open and honest about their methodology. That doesn't seem to be a very good rationale for distrusting someone.

3) "Refraction 1" Your calculator states that it makes the assumption that "light travels in straight lines". This is true in a vacuum but would not be expected to be true in an atmosphere. Your own video in point 4 makes the assumption of atmospheric refraction being a valid factor, so perhaps a first good step would be for you to work out a coherent argument.

4) "Refraction 2" The point this video tries to make relies on the Rogers Centre being visible. It is not visible or if it is I'm not able to identify it. Hence the point is not made. If I'm missing it, please feel free to help by taking a screen shot on a close up, circling the building in mspaint and then uploading to imgur to repost here. Should take you 3 mins and would go a long way to helping this argument, which was probably one of the best of the lot.

5) ""Refraction 3" Yes, I am agreeing with the explanation of the professional meteorologist over someone just going "" with no rationale which is all the criticism your evidence supplies. It really is a piece of evidence against your argument.

6) ""Refraction 4" Pretty much.

7) "Sea bulges" Yes. https://pumas.nasa.gov/files/01_25_11_1.pdf

In regards to "It also seems logical that the moon can tug on the earth's water's against it's much larger pull and earth is moving away from the earth, not closer, as you erroneously claimed? (This is your model you aren't familiar with)" can you please try restating. I'm having trouble parting it. I don't really want to guess what you're trying to say.

8) "Analemma" I think you should recheck the link. The Earth has an axial tilt in relation to the sun (a large part of why the seasons change) and we orbit the sun elliptically, not circularly. There is no single one analemmas that we would get if the earth was spherical like you claim. There are quite evidently a whole variety of analemmas we could theoretically get depending on the size, shape, rotation and orbit of the earth - e.g. imagine if the earth permanently kept the same face to the sun, the analemmas we would get would be a dot. As it happens the analemmas we get from every position on the globe happen to marry up exactly with what we would expect from the the existing understanding of how our spherical earth works.

9) "New Jersey to Philly/New York"

As per your statement "From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles" The view is not 120 miles, the view is about 20 miles to large buildings New York in one direction and then 60 miles to large buildings in Philly in the other. It is not claiming that from this point you can see 120 miles in a single direction.

There is also no explanation given as to why we should find this pertinent. Should it be impossible to see the skyscrapes in each city from that locale taking into account all relevant factors? If so you need to actually make that argument.

10a) "How gyroscopes function"

You provided the quote ""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."

This, based on the understanding you have agreed, is nonsense. For instance the galaxy does rotate at around 500,000 mph, but it is so massive that it still takes take over 200 million years to complete a rotation. Based on our agreed understanding of it being the angular velocity that matters, this quote is nonsense.

You also claim "This is not the only claimed motion of the earth that would cause the gyroscope to change orientation. This is an obvious cherry picking fallacy."

Your quote mentioned four examples. Of the four, I spoke about the orbit of the sun round the earth. In the next point (b) I handled the revolution of the earth on his axis. I dealt with both the ones that were kind of reasonable. If I wanted to cherrypick i would have focused on the two that I ignored that were most absurd, that I instead ignored because of their absurdity and clear irrelevence, the orbit of the solar system round the galaxy at 200+ million years for a revolution or the movement of the galaxy round the universe which isn't really an orbit but for any kind of measurement you want to set would be even more tragically absurdly long for it to register.

b) "Clarification"

I am pointing out your evidence is once again contradictory. Your quote assumed gyroscopes measure directional velicoty. Your video assumes they measure angular velocity. The point is that regardless of whether either or neither of the videos is accurate, you are taking mutually contradictory positions.

You stated "Foucault originally discovered the gyroscope to try and prove the rotation of the earth. It was a very crude first gyroscope and he made the first claim. Surely gyroscopes haven't deteriorated over time."

This is an homile, not logic or proof. The best gyroscopes we can make are certainly better than the best they could do then as we are now able to build ones based on lasers and even quantum mechanic principles that do the same job but are essentially unrecognisable. However that is not to say something churned out by a Chinese factory is better than a masterwork piece of artifice from 150 years ago. Would you think , say, a cheap katana churned out of a factory for $40 is better than the work of the finest blacksmiths of antiquity?

What is the standard of the piece used? Is this actually a revolutionary experiment or just someone who didn't think things through and perform the basics checks necessary to ensure their equipment is up to the right standard? Are you able to empirically validate the quality of the gyroscope? Then if not, unless you are being hypocritical, I'm sure you will insist on applying the same logic you have earlier in your argument and you will refuse to consider this piece of evidence.

In terms of video evidence, I'm struggling to define exactly what your standards are as they seem fairly variable. Is this suitable:

"Plane Gyroscopes" - Check the last section, bottom of the page. Page has copying and pasting disabled or I'd just quote.

11) This is just random claims

12) This is just what I guess are flat earther image memes. Did you link to the right post?

"They dont? Should we define experiments?"

You seem to have forgotten the point that you were trying to argue (What the base assumption should be before we look at proof). If you need to do experiments then your point is irrelevant.

Erfisflat

walterba said:

The Earth is not flat due to when airplanes, boats, etc. going from a place and being able to return back there. This is due to the spherical shape of the Earth.

SilverishGoldNova

walterba said:

The Earth is not flat due to when airplanes, boats, etc. going from a place and being able to return back there. This is due to the spherical shape of the Earth.

Hmm.

I think what you're trying to say is that you can only go around the Earth on a globe. And that has been refuted so many times and in so many ways.

Evidence

walterba said:

The Earth is not flat due to when airplanes, boats, etc. going from a place and being able to return back there. This is due to the spherical shape of the Earth.

Hey, that's an honest comment, .. I did worse in the beginning. Hey @walterba remember that our compass always points to the North. To visualize this, tie a 6 foot string to a pole mimicking the pole being "North" and the string your compass pointing towards North.

Now walk around the pole, .. see? You can go around the Flat-Earth using your compass.

Welcome to Flat Earth.

Ampersand

Evidence said:

walterba said:

The Earth is not flat due to when airplanes, boats, etc. going from a place and being able to return back there. This is due to the spherical shape of the Earth.

Hey, that's an honest comment, .. I did worse in the beginning. Hey @walterba remember that our compass always points to the North. To visualize this, tie a 6 foot string to a pole mimicking the pole being "North" and the string your compass pointing towards North.

Now walk around the pole, .. see? You can go around the Flat-Earth using your compass.

Welcome to Flat Earth.

Does your flat earth model have a functional explanation for why this happens?

Normal physics based on a spherical world does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field

Evidence

@SilverishGoldNova and @Erfisflat I too have a question so I could understand our Flat Earth sun/moon motion better? (I tried looking it up, but just couldn't phrase it right in Google to get an answer?)

Q. The sun/moon always come up from the East, and set to the West. From no matter where I lived, (Europe, US) they always appeared to make this East to West journey more to the South of me. (Some trees would even grow moss on the North side because it never gets sun) Now please look at this video (just using it for my question, that's it)

Time 2:04 Tropic of Cancer rotation, .. if I lived just South of the suns 'tropic of cancer' rotation, my sun rise and sunset would be more to the North of me, .. is that how it is, like if I was way South on the Falkland Islands?

Thanks.

Evidence

Ampersand said:

Evidence said:

walterba said:

The Earth is not flat due to when airplanes, boats, etc. going from a place and being able to return back there. This is due to the spherical shape of the Earth.

Hey, that's an honest comment, .. I did worse in the beginning. Hey @walterba remember that our compass always points to the North. To visualize this, tie a 6 foot string to a pole mimicking the pole being "North" and the string your compass pointing towards North.

Now walk around the pole, .. see? You can go around the Flat-Earth using your compass.

Welcome to Flat Earth.

Does your flat earth model have a functional explanation for why this happens?

Normal physics based on a spherical world does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field

Yes I see, another NASA artist rendered image most likely taken from the moon, right?

Normal physics based on a spherical world? That's not 'normal physics', maybe in your sci-fi universe? Besides, IF -

Like Earth, the Sun has a North Pole, a South Pole, and an equator. The poles of the Sun are different in several ways from the areas near the Sun's equator. The Sun has a magnetic field with North and South Magnetic Poles.

how is it that our compass don't ever point 'up' towards either of those bodies? Please don't tell me "because it is 93 million miles away". If it can hold the Earth, moon and your solar system in orbit, it should be close enough to make our hair stand up!
Want to talk about "black holes", .. I love the explanations on them. Makes me want to jump in my Star Cruiser and fly into one.

JoePineapples

Aeroplanes, heh. It's as though some people don't know what an altimeter is.
I don't see any issue with the analemma, the Earth spins on a tilted axis as it orbits the sun.

Ampersand

Evidence said:
Yes I see, another NASA artist rendered image most likely taken from the moon, right?

Normal physics based on a spherical world? That's not 'normal physics', maybe in your sci-fi universe? Besides, IF -

Like Earth, the Sun has a North Pole, a South Pole, and an equator. The poles of the Sun are different in several ways from the areas near the Sun's equator. The Sun has a magnetic field with North and South Magnetic Poles.

how is it that our compass don't ever point 'up' towards either of those bodies? Please don't tell me "because it is 93 million miles away". If it can hold the Earth, moon and your solar system in orbit, it should be close enough to make our hair stand up!
Want to talk about "black holes", .. I love the explanations on them. Makes me want to jump in my Star Cruiser and fly into one.

I don't know why you're focusing solely on the image at the top of the article I linked to, but your assumptions are incorrect regardless. If you check the source for the image you can clearly see it comes from a peer reviewed scientific study, the results of which were published in one of the world's leading scientific journals.

Also if you think a spherical world isn't normal, please refer to every mainstream (and even most oddball heterodox) physics textbooks, journals, articles, etc. Please also see the host of experiments which have shown the normal understanding of physics is correct.

For your question, it doesn't need to be answered because your premise is absurd and unsupported. Your proposition is "I am going to change major variable and then just assume an outcome that suits my purposes based on no evidence". Electromagnetism is not gravity. A needle is not a planet. You have provided absolutely no evidence that the results you expect are real besides your own personal and unsupported assumptions, so until you present a solid argument there is nothing for me to respond to.

Erfisflat

1. Level adjective

1.
having a flat and even surface without slopes or bumps.

Sorry, but a "constant 900 feet per second drop"
Does not equate to "maintain an overall slightly curved flight-path that keeps it level with the ground beneath it."

I've given a small comparison of an sr-71 with a 900 foot drop. This would have to be constant, so as to not stall in a nose up ascent in a matter of seconds. In reality, this is unheard of, as we see images of the blackbird in flight usually flying level. (See definition above)

2. "Empirically Validate" You have relied on youtube video you cannot empirically validate and you expect me to take them at face value despite the fact that I cannot empirically validate them - this is of course putting aside that empirically validate is a very vague term that you seem to be misusing. Please apply the same standard to everything."

The key difference is that Chicago from Michigan, or literally anything I present as evidence is something we can empirically validate. Not to mention many unbiased eyewitness accounts. This is far more credible than government word of something that's impossible for anyone else to see.

"The "photoshopping" isn't anything that would alter the shape of the planet and your source is NASA itself, so you seem to be complaining that they are open and honest about their methodology. That doesn't seem to be a very good rationale for distrusting someone."

The scientists take scans of earth and project them onto a ball, I'm not sure how much more blatant you can get. This can easily be done with a high altitude plane over a flat earth. The point is that these aren't actual photographs, despite the fact that most people assume they are. Maybe some audio from the interview will help. NASA was a bit deceptive by leaving parts out.

3) "Refraction 1" Your calculator states that it makes the assumption that "light travels in straight lines". This is true in a vacuum but would not be expected to be true in an atmosphere. Your own video in point 4 makes the assumption of atmospheric refraction being a valid factor, so perhaps a first good step would be for you to work out a coherent argument."

Ok, since you seem to be eluding the point, I'll help. The scientific claim and rebuttal for seeing over impossible distances is refraction. While I agree that refraction does play a part in the experiments, (some, like the Mobile experiment showed very little refraction) it does not do so in a way you, or most globe earth proponents assume.

Refraction, when under these circumstances, produce results on a flat earth that cause objects to appear lower instead of higher. This point has been demonstrated multiple times here. I've given at least 3 practical demonstrations of this, and all examples of refraction either invert the image, or lower it. In order for you to use the refraction argument to suggest that an object can be raised back into view, it must be demonstrable, or it is a pseudoscientific claim, and can be dismissed.

4. "It is not visible or if it is I'm not able to identify it."

The white dome building is the Rogers center. As you agreed, it should not be visible.

An inferior mirage is present, but as an inferior mirage is where the inverted image is produced under the actual image, it does not change the fact that it should be invisible.

Here, the road has disappeared, and is now reflecting the sky. You can still discern where the horizon is, due to the treeline, where we cant above. The air being more dense just above the road collectively causes a mirage. the light hits the air, then is bent back up to the eye. Not over the curvature and down to the eye, as the meteorologist claims. I can see the guys at the networks mouths drop when he says the obvious.

"What we're seeing here, is evidence that we live on a flat plane! Now here's Bob with the sports!"

5) ""Refraction 3" Yes, I am agreeing with the explanation of the professional meteorologist over someone just going "" with no rationale which is all the criticism your evidence supplies. It really is a piece of evidence against your argument."

Then you need to explain why this image looks nothing like a mirage, as the meteorologist claims.

6) ""Refraction 4" Pretty much.

Say you were in a rain storm, dense fog, etc. looking towards Chicago, where it was dry and hot. This would be the only way the light could be bent down over a curve because the air is more dense in chicago and less dense in the storm, and, being in a storm, you wouldn't be able to see 60 miles.

https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/

7) "Sea bulges" Yes. https://pumas.nasa.gov/files/01_25_11_1.pdf

This article claims that the moon is pulling some of the water, and the earth, but not the other side's (of the earth) water, is this your position?

"In regards to "It also seems logical that the moon can tug on the earth's water's against it's much larger pull and earth is moving away from the earth, not closer, as you erroneously claimed? (This is your model you aren't familiar with)" can you please try restating. I'm having trouble parting it. I don't really want to guess what you're trying to say."

Since now your apparent position is that the moon has enough mass to outpull the earth's gravity on it's side, AND the earth AWAY from its water on the other side, but that the earth (with 5x more mass and g-pull) is not pulling the moon into itself, I think this level of illogical has reached it's peak. Your claim was that eventually the moon would be pulled into the earth, this is shown to be a false claim, even assuming your model is correct.

8) "Analemma" I think you should recheck the link. The Earth has an axial tilt in relation to the sun (a large part of why the seasons change) and we orbit the sun elliptically, not circularly. There is no single one analemmas that we would get if the earth was spherical like you claim. There are quite evidently a whole variety of analemmas we could theoretically get depending on the size, shape, rotation and orbit of the earth - e.g. imagine if the earth permanently kept the same face to the sun, the analemmas we would get would be a dot. As it happens the analemmas we get from every position on the globe happen to marry up exactly with what we would expect from the the existing understanding of how our spherical earth works."

I disagree, if the earth were spherical and spinning, then the tilt is facing away from the sun in our winter. The spinning should remain constant, allowing the sun to get back to the same distance in both hemispheres, since they are identical sides of a sphere. The tilt explains the reason that it makes the southern loop, but not a wider one, which is due to the rotation. The elliptical orbit has a difference of 3 million miles (out of 93 million) from it's closest point to it's furthest, which would only cause the sun to appear smaller. Even if it somehow caused a snowman analemma instead of a figure 8, the difference would be minute, only about 3-4% difference.

9) "New Jersey to Philly/New York"

As per your statement "From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles" The view is not 120 miles, the view is about 20 miles to large buildings New York in one direction and then 60 miles to large buildings in Philly in the other. It is not claiming that from this point you can see 120 miles in a single direction.

There is also no explanation given as to why we should find this pertinent. Should it be impossible to see the skyscrapes in each city from that locale taking into account all relevant factors? If so you need to actually make that argument.

10a) "How gyroscopes function"

You provided the quote ""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."

"This, based on the understanding you have agreed, is nonsense. For instance the galaxy does rotate at around 500,000 mph, but it is so massive that it still takes take over 200 million years to complete a rotation. Based on our agreed understanding of it being the angular velocity that matters, this quote is nonsense."

So in effect, your claim is that there is no observable reaction for any of these alleged motions? Is this not the very definition of pseudoscience?

"You also claim "This is not the only claimed motion of the earth that would cause the gyroscope to change orientation. This is an obvious cherry picking fallacy."

No, cherry picking is where I bring up the very many proposed motions of your model of earth and you chose to only discuss one or one at a time, as seen above....

"Your quote mentioned four examples. Of the four, I spoke about the orbit of the sun round the earth. In the next point (b) I handled the revolution of the earth on his axis. I dealt with both the ones that were kind of reasonable. If I wanted to cherrypick i would have focused on the two that I ignored that were most absurd, that I instead ignored because of their absurdity and clear irrelevence, the orbit of the solar system round the galaxy at 200+ million years for a revolution or the movement of the galaxy round the universe which isn't really an orbit but for any kind of measurement you want to set would be even more tragically absurdly long for it to register."

...And what you admit to. Whether or not you deem it worthy of consideration, it is a motion. One of a combination of motions in different directions at one that we have no evidence of, aside from seeing the celestial bodies move.

b) "Clarification"

"I am pointing out your evidence is once again contradictory. Your quote assumed gyroscopes measure directional velicoty. Your video assumes they measure angular velocity. The point is that regardless of whether either or neither of the videos is accurate, you are taking mutually contradictory positions."

You could then point out the difference between angular velocity and "directional" velocity, and which statements I made were contradictory instead of making baseless claims to dodge the point, obvious makings of a strawman argument.

"You stated "Foucault originally discovered the gyroscope to try and prove the rotation of the earth. It was a very crude first gyroscope and he made the first claim. Surely gyroscopes haven't deteriorated over time.""

"This is an homile,"

Hmmm?

(https://www.wordnik.com/words/homile)

"not logic or proof. The best gyroscopes we can make are certainly better than the best they could do then as we are now able to build ones based on lasers and even quantum mechanic principles that do the same job but are essentially unrecognisable. However that is not to say something churned out by a Chinese factory is better than a masterwork piece of artifice from 150 years ago. Would you think , say, a cheap katana churned out of a factory for $40 is better than the work of the finest blacksmiths of antiquity?"

Comparing a spinning top to a piece of ancient Japanese steel?
This is a false analogy fallacy.

If you can produce evidence that shows a gyroscope responding directly to the spin of the earth with whatever gyroscope you wish, now woild be the appropriate time.

"What is the standard of the piece used? Is this actually a revolutionary experiment or just someone who didn't think things through and perform the basics checks necessary to ensure their equipment is up to the right standard? Are you able to empirically validate the quality of the gyroscope? Then if not, unless you are being hypocritical, I'm sure you will insist on applying the same logic you have earlier in your argument and you will refuse to consider this piece of evidence.

In terms of video evidence, I'm struggling to define exactly what your standards are as they seem fairly variable. Is this suitable:

And I get a PlayStation remote control with no explanation from you of how they might be relative experiments.

"Plane Gyroscopes" - Check the last section, bottom of the page. Page has copying and pasting disabled or I'd just quote.

11) This is just random claims

This is a pooh-pooh fallacy, dodging the argument.

"At a given distance, 12.5 miles, and at a height of 6 feet above sea level, a target should have it's bottom 60' missing"

The target is entirely visible, so the earth cannot be a ball.

12) This is just what I guess are flat earther image memes. Did you link to the right post?

The forum is correct, though I linked to the wrong post. Read throughout the opening argument at least.
http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1205/the-eclipse-debunks-the-globe-heliocentric-model-of-the-universe/p1

"They dont? Should we define experiments?"

You seem to have forgotten the point that you were trying to argue (What the base assumption should be before we look at proof). If you need to do experiments then your point is irrelevant.

I haven't forgotten. My basic senses tell me that the earth is flat and motionless, I stand by this claim and any claims against it.

Erfisflat

Not one single legitimate reason to believe we live on a spinning ball. The reason for this debate.

Erfisflat

Look at those poll results! It's good to know all this research is not a waste of time. 6 flat earthers here so far, and absolutely no good reason to believe we live on a spinning ball.

Ampersand

1. You are now making hypotheticals based on your semantics. This argument is losing all relevance.

2. What do you think "empirical validation" means and how do you think it can be applied differently in the two contrasting examples?

Also it is potentially possible that any evidence can be faked.Simply saying "They could have faked it" could first of all apply to any evidence, including every piece of evidence you have provided, and due to that is utterly meaningless unless you can provide a rationale for why it should be believed that something was faked.

Also you have given no rationale beyond for personal incredulity and belief that it is so obvious. I already understand that you believe your statements. Simply repeating your beliefs doesn't give me or anyone else reason to believe you.

3. I've had a quick ctrl+f through this thread and can find no evidence presented by you of how you believe refraction works. You have talked about it multiple times and stated your opinion, but have not used facts or evidence to support your claims. The position you are trying to present of you having already having proven something and me needing to meet that standard seems to be false.

Also atmospheric refraction is somethign that has to be considered and accounted for with laser usage on satelites. You can read through a runthrough of some of the information involved here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.9547&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It can also be seen during lunar eclipses when the sun will sometimes just be visible (because its apparent position is moved a degrees or so higher) - with lunar eclipses being an example of a observable phenomenon that would seen impossible on a flat earth unless it fits the ancient conception fo the sun travelling underneath the earth (which tahnks to 24 communication we know is false.

You can also see this in if scientists do experiments based on stellar positioning, etc and don't account for refraction based on the normal model they will be almost right but off by a few degrees.

Lastly the way that based on the observable properties of light which have been tested countless times it is exactly what we would expect to happen.

4) Again, can you circle it or something because it isn't visible. There is a white building to the left, but it seems too far towards the left and is the wrong shape. What in that image do you think is the building we are discussing?

Also in your example, that seems to back up atmospheric refraction once you take into account your mistake. You have stated the hot air over the road is denser. This is incorrect as the more you heat gases the less dense they become (not taking into account chemical or physical changes which can occur separate from the general increase in thermal energy akin to ice being less dense than water due to hydrogen bonding) so in your example the dense air is on top of the less dense air which is just above the hot. Once you take this into account, it them follows that atmospheric refraction is correct: aside aside from local properties which effect heat like hot tarmac, generally air has the opposite layout to the one in your example - air is less dense the further up you go - e.g. mountaineers struggle to breath at the top of mountains due to the air being less dense. Therefore we would expect the effect to be opposite to.

5) First you would need to prove that this image looks nothing like a mirage, as the meteorologist claims, so are we're debating this in point 4 this seems a retread and I think we can probably group this and some of the other points together.

6) The issue is vertical density, with the decrease in air density the higher up you get, not horizontal. Again I suggest we combine this point with 4

7) That's not what it claims so you must have misunderstood. One of the steps in the walkthrough it gives you (page 6) is calculating the force in the antipodal point, so it obvious does not claim the moon is not exerting a force on the antipodal point - very much the opposite. It then continues to explain why the forces involved cause this end-result. I suggest taking your time and reading through thoroughly. You have asked a question as to how it works, I've provided you with what I think is a good walkthrough.

"Since now your apparent position is that the moon has enough mass to outpull the earth's gravity on it's side, AND the earth AWAY from its water on the other side, but that the earth (with 5x more mass and g-pull) is not pulling the moon into itself, I think this level of illogical has reached it's peak. Your claim was that eventually the moon would be pulled into the earth, this is shown to be a false claim, even assuming your model is correct."

The moon isn't out-pulling the earth on either side. Do you see the water flowing up into the sky towards the moon? No, even if you toss water up into the sky towards the moon the earth pulls it back down towards itself. No-one at any point has claimed the moon outpulls the Earth in that regard - which is not to say that it doesn't have an effect, with that effect being the one I have laid out and given you a walk-through to. This is a misrepresentation of what has been explained to you.

Also do you have an argument against gravity causing the earth to orbit the sun besides personal incredulity? The basics of orbital mechanics can be explained by Newton's laws: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm. Would you like to raise an evidence or logic based argument against them?

8) What you aren't taking into account is that a day (the time the earth takes to complete a revolution isn't consistently the same length of 24 hours, it differs as we progress through the year (a measurable fact). The average day is 23 hours 56 minutes and this varies based on the time of year as the earth has an elliptical orbit. So if you measure the sun's position at 12:00 during some parts of the year where our days (as in the revolutions, not just the amount of sunshine) are longer, the sun will be further back in the sky than when the days are shorter.

9) You don't seem to have replied to point 9

10a) "So in effect, your claim is that there is no observable reaction for any of these alleged motions? Is this not the very definition of pseudoscience?"

No, I am claiming that your quote is completely wrong because it doesn't seem to understand the concept of angular momentum. it expects large results based merely on the overall speed, when in relation to angular momentum speed alone tells you absolutely nothing about what results you would expect. If you are travelling 10,000 mph in a straight line out into space then you would expect no change whatsoever on a gyroscope. If you were travelling 10,000mph round a very small circular orbit of 1 mile then you would expect it to be changing direction wildly if it could even keep up with that pace.

The quote you posted provides absolutely no worth to your argument or any understanding of how gyroscopes function.

"No, cherry picking is where I bring up the very many proposed motions of your model of earth and you chose to only discuss one or one at a time, as seen above...."

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

You seem to have conceded that some of the examples are poor (you can only cherrypick if there are poor examples available) and I focused on the ones which were most relevant to the argument, not the most ridiculous ones that were irrelevant because we would have to wait a million years to see a small change on an impossibly perfect gyroscope. That is the opposite of cherrypicking - it's trying to engage your opponent's argument openly and honestly.

"...And what you admit to. Whether or not you deem it worthy of consideration, it is a motion. One of a combination of motions in different directions at one that we have no evidence of, aside from seeing the celestial bodies move."

Great, I'll meet you in a billion years to see if we've picked up the change in angular momentum from the Galaxy's drift. You get busy inventing completely frictionless material for your perfect gyroscope.

"You could then point out the difference between angular velocity and "directional" velocity, and which statements I made were contradictory instead of making baseless claims to dodge the point, obvious makings of a strawman argument."

If you want definitions, you don't need me to provide these for you and I would mentioned that I had assumed you would know the difference seeing as it is important to understanding how gyroscopes work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_momentum

I also specifically said which parts of your arguments were contradictory. I said "Your quote assumed gyroscopes measure directional velocity. Your video assumes they measure angular velocity. The point is that regardless of whether either or neither of the videos is accurate, you are taking mutually contradictory positions" These were in relation to the quote and video in point 10 as this was under the point 10 section. If these instructions aren't clear enough for you then you can ask for clarification as I have when I've felt you've been unclear. To suggest I didn't explain the issue is obviously incorrect.

"Hmmm?

(https://www.wordnik.com/words/homile)"

Typo. Homily.

"Comparing a spinning top to a piece of ancient Japanese steel?
This is a false analogy fallacy. "

Please feel free to explain why. If we are going to start looking at logical proofs then we will also have to go back to the very first step where you assume gyroscopes worse than Foulcart's can't be made, but instead just assume this with no evidence or logic.

As for the complete link:

Again it walks you though the steps and the science precisely and there is a link to further info in the details for the video.

11) Ironically you just saying "this is a pooh pooh fallacy" without offering any details of why my argument is a pooh pooh fallacy would mean you are being equally fallacious.

You don't seem to have a argument there. You are just claiming things. I was assuming this wasn't a serious point and with the last couple of points you were just getting into jokey memes or something, but just because you say "The target is entirely visible, so the earth cannot be a ball." does not mean it is true or that is supported.

12) This seems to back up a spherical earth in every way. Your point is something that is explained scientifically and linked to in that thread and that science accurately models and predicts occurrences in advance based on the physics of a round earth puts it way way way way ahead in terms of verifiability over a flat earth.

Evidence

Ampersand said:

Evidence said:
Yes I see, another NASA artist rendered image most likely taken from the moon, right?

Normal physics based on a spherical world? That's not 'normal physics', maybe in your sci-fi universe? Besides, IF -

Like Earth, the Sun has a North Pole, a South Pole, and an equator. The poles of the Sun are different in several ways from the areas near the Sun's equator. The Sun has a magnetic field with North and South Magnetic Poles.

how is it that our compass don't ever point 'up' towards either of those bodies? Please don't tell me "because it is 93 million miles away". If it can hold the Earth, moon and your solar system in orbit, it should be close enough to make our hair stand up!
Want to talk about "black holes", .. I love the explanations on them. Makes me want to jump in my Star Cruiser and fly into one.

I don't know why you're focusing solely on the image at the top of the article I linked to, but your assumptions are incorrect regardless. If you check the source for the image you can clearly see it comes from a peer reviewed scientific study, the results of which were published in one of the world's leading scientific journals.

Also if you think a spherical world isn't normal, please refer to every mainstream (and even most oddball heterodox) physics textbooks, journals, articles, etc. Please also see the host of experiments which have shown the normal understanding of physics is correct.

For your question, it doesn't need to be answered because your premise is absurd and unsupported. Your proposition is "I am going to change major variable and then just assume an outcome that suits my purposes based on no evidence". Electromagnetism is not gravity. A needle is not a planet. You have provided absolutely no evidence that the results you expect are real besides your own personal and unsupported assumptions, so until you present a solid argument there is nothing for me to respond to.

@Ampersand said: If you check the source for the image you can clearly see it comes from a peer reviewed scientific study, the results of which were published in one of the world's leading scientific journals.

Yes, so since NASA robs us of at least 10 BILLION $ a month, and can offer to hire and pay the best scientists in the field more money than what they could get anywhere else, and have them sit and do "nothing" behind a desk for the rest of their lives, what they are TOLD to say by NASA must be true?

Let's see now, so since the Leader of a starving Country is fat, (Kim Jong in) then this means the whole country is well fed? I mean why else would millions of people "worship him" if they were starving, right? The "source" doesn't lie after all, .. oh pleeeasee?

And yes, brainwashed, starved people worshipping a Dictator is 'normal', just as we who been brainwashed all these years by 'mainstream physics textbooks, journals and articles with science fiction globe earths and artist rendered planets, .. for us to think the earth is spherical is normal.

Ampersand - For your question, it doesn't need to be answered because your premise is absurd and unsupported. Your proposition is "I am going to change major variable and then just assume an outcome that suits my purposes based on no evidence".

That is EXACTLY what NASA, CERN and all those involved in the "Cosmos, Globe Earth Deception" do! Not just 'change variables', but make up a fantastic gibberish language to explain their fairytale stories, with pretty artist rendered pictures of planets millions of light years away, .. yes, no evidence whatsoever, unless we take paintings of planets, movie-aliens and their space ships as real?

Ampersand - Electromagnetism is not gravity.

So are you saying now that the sun doesn't have a North-South Pole? Have you taken this up with the Germans at 666CERN, or with snake-tongued-NASA?

Ampersand - A needle is not a planet. You have provided absolutely no evidence that the results you expect are real besides your own personal and unsupported assumptions, so until you present a solid argument there is nothing for me to respond to.

Make solid arguments to sci-fi fantasy that has become one of the most deceiving and dangerous Religions on Earth? Not to mention the costliest, which will soon pass the cost of all the World Wars combined, .. if it hasn't already?

No, we don't know many of the wonders how Gods Flat Earth operates, we'll just have to take it one step at a time. So far, I like what our Flat Earth friends here present as evidence against NASA's claims.

Your sun:
The mean radius of the sun is 432,450 miles (696,000 kilometers), which makes its diameter about 864,938 miles (1.392 million km). You could line up 109 Earths across the face of the sun. The sun's circumference is about 2,713,406 miles (4,366,813 km). The total volume of the sun is 1.4 x 1027 cubic meters. I mean this baby must have a N. - S. magnetic pull strong enough to have sucked off all the iron from every planet orbiting it, yet here we are, even our compasses can't detect it??

So tell me, does the sun have a magnetic north or not? I know, why don't you call the ISS and ask them to check with a compass!? Or do they just answer Kindergartners questions, and do backflips for the past 10 years?

Q. Why don't they have a lab outside the ISS with some space-gloves sticking out where the Astro-nuts could manipulate all the space experiments with? Come to think of it, where are all the experiments that they are doing in space-vacuum? I would like a steel bottle full of that Spacetime-fabric, you know, have a steel thermos with both ends unscrew able, then go out there, catch some of that redshift space vacuum, close both ends and bring it down, .. so me and my Flat Earth buddies could examine it? Who knows, we might find a few tiny black holes in there?
Oohh, Oooh and what if we had two bottles of Space-vacuum, with a black hole in each? We could create a wormhole between the two!? We could send one to Mars, and keep one here on planet earth, where we could send Astronauts through the wormhole straight to Mars in seconds. I'm sure Steven Hawking's would be delighted to have a bottle of Space-fabric with a hole in it, don't you think? I'm sure his 70's answering machine would go crazy if he was presented with such rare and priceless gift.

Ampersand

@Evidence

Surprisingly considering your name, you completely lack evidence. Every single point you raise is a completely baseless assumption.

You accuse NASA of doctoring evidence but offer no proof for why this claim should be believed. You accuse scientists of making up gibberish that isn't real but offer no proof why your claim should be believed.

You also don't answer the points I make. The only reason we would expect compasses to point up towards the sun is because you say so, which isn't a valid reason. It makes sense to you personally that this happens despite you having given no rationale beyond "Well the sun is big and a completely different force acts in a certain way under in completely different ways in different situations".

That is not a solid rationale as you are comparing electromagnetic radiation to gravity and needles to planets. If you make it even a bit less absurd (say just change the force involved and keep the object the same) then needles point towards Earth's magnetic field and they drop towards Earth's gravity which is a consistent result of needles being effected by the earth over the sun in both cases. But no, apparently we have to base the way needles react on how planets move for no reason other than you have randomly said so with no evidence.

Why is it reasonable for me to answer your questions rather than rejecting the premise of your questions when they are utterly unsupported? You need to back up your claims.

Also are you trying to joke with that last paragraph about bottling space-time fabric and black holes or are you actually serious?

Erfisflat

1. You are now making hypotheticals based on your semantics. This argument is losing all relevance.

I said that planes fly level, you then said "semantics" and proceeded to suggest that level means ball shaped (because the earth is a ball no matrer what) then I gave an accurate definition of level and you say I'm debating semantics when every construction worker (And almost everyone else in touch with reality) knows level to be flat and as straight as either can be. All this while completely ignoring the crux, which is the Sr-71 blackbird argument. A silent but deadly concession so to speak. My point stands unrefuted. We can agree to disagree on a definition if you'd like, and get back on point.

2. What do you think "empirical validation" means and how do you think it can be applied differently in the two contrasting examples?

You debating semantics again? To empirically validate something is to personally observe, experience or perform the experimental evidence.

"Also it is potentially possible that anyevidence can be faked.Simply saying "They could have faked it" could first of all apply to any evidence, including every piece of evidence you have provided, and due to that is utterly meaningless unless you can provide a rationale for why it should be believed that something was faked."

Aside from NASA openly admitting the fact that several images they present are produced in Photoshop? The evidence I provide is all empirically validatable. Anyone willing and able to do so can perform basic experiments and test any medium to large bodies of water for any curvature.

"Also you have given no rationale beyond for personal incredulity and belief that it is so obvious. I already understand that you believe your statements. Simply repeating your beliefs doesn't give me or anyone else reason to believe you."

I have no idea what you're referring to. Pictures of earth have been admitted to be faked. Anyone with a computer can produce one with Photoshop in a few days even for a beginner. We cannot go to space and see the earth as a ball. We, as civilians don't even get to see any curve, even at over 100,000 feet. I can buy a ticket to Michigan and fly to see the Chicago skyline across the lake. This refutes the globe earth model.

"3. I've had a quick ctrl+f through this thread and can find no evidence presented by you of how you believe refraction works. You have talked about it multiple times and stated your opinion, but have not used facts or evidence to support your claims. The position you are trying to present of you having already having proven something and me needing to meet that standard seems to be false."

Even in the last post I showed the straw is magnified and lowered. The video demonstrated how the effect can be reproduced. Anyone can fill a glass with water and observe an object being magnified and lowered behind it or in the glass.

"Also atmospheric refraction is somethign that has to be considered and accounted for with laser usage on satelites. You can read through a runthrough of some of the information involved here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.9547&rep=rep1&type=pdf"

Oh boy. Not more empirically unvalidatable information. Question, if I am proving that the earth is not spherical, why would I believe that satellites are orbiting it? What evidence do you have that they exist? Let me guess CGI pictures, right? Your argument is an assuming the conclusion fallacy.

"It can also be seen during lunar eclipses when the sun will sometimes just be visible (because its apparent position is moved a degrees or so higher) -

This is an assumption with no evidence. Also assuming the conclusion.

"with lunar eclipses being an example of a observable phenomenon that would seen impossible on a flat earth unless it fits the ancient conception fo the sun travelling underneath the earth (which tahnks to 24 communication we know is false."

Eclipses being caused by the earth was refuted on the first few pages of the earth is flat debate.

http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4500/#Comment_4500

"You can also see this in if scientists do experiments based on stellar positioning, etc and don't account for refraction based on the normal model they will be almost right but off by a few degrees."

Ok. Let's rationalize. We are in a science debate. There is no reason to take another scientists word for anything. Especially ones that automatically assume our conclusion. If there is a specific experiment you'd like to present that we can evaluate, please do so.

"Lastly the way that based on the observable properties of light which have been tested countless times it is exactly what we would expect to happen."

Again, a specific example or some sort of evidence for this claim would prove your case. So far you're just making assumptions and baseless claims.

"4) Again, can you circle it or something because it isn't visible. There is a white building to the left, but it seems too far towards the left and is the wrong shape. What in that image do you think is the building we are discussing?"

Again, yes the white building. That we can all see. It should not be visible.

"Also in your example, that seems to back up atmospheric refraction once you take into account your mistake. You have stated the hot air over the road is denser. This is incorrect as the more you heat gases the less dense they become (not taking into account chemical or physical changes which can occur separate from the general increase in thermal energy akin to ice being less dense than water due to hydrogen bonding)"

My mistake, it is air that has more moisture than dry air that is the same temperature that is less dense. Not tempurature.

"so in your example the dense air is on top of the less dense air which is just above the hot. Once you take this into account, it them follows that atmospheric refraction is correct: aside aside from local properties which effect heat like hot tarmac, generally air has the opposite layout to the one in your example - air is less dense the further up you go - e.g. mountaineers struggle to breath at the top of mountains due to the air being less dense. Therefore we would expect the effect to be opposite to."

http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Inferior_mirage

5) First you would need to prove that this image looks nothing like a mirage, as the meteorologist claims, so are we're debating this in point 4 this seems a retread and I think we can probably group this and some of the other points together.

6) The issue is vertical density, with the decrease in air density the higher up you get, not horizontal. Again I suggest we combine this point with 4

Agreed, in all instances, the observer sees further than we should if the earth were a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. You claim that refraction has bent the image up over the curvature of the earth. Please provide practical evidence of this claim. You also claim that Chicago from Michigan is a "superior mirage", quoting the meteorologist. Here are some superior mirages.

Two qualifying characteristics of a superior mirage are image inversion, specifically, over the original object.

That does not have the defining characteristics of a superior mirage. This is why I make the claim that this looks nothing like a mirage. Because it doesn't.

"7) That's not what it claims so you must have misunderstood. One of the steps in the walkthrough it gives you (page 6) is calculating the force in the antipodal point, so it obvious does not claim the moon is not exerting a force on the antipodal point - very much the opposite. It then continues to explain why the forces involved cause this end-result. I suggest taking your time and reading through thoroughly. You have asked a question as to how it works, I've provided you with what I think is a good walkthrough."

"Since now your apparent position is that the moon has enough mass to outpull the earth's gravity on it's side, AND the earth AWAY from its water on the other side, but that the earth (with 5x more mass and g-pull) is not pulling the moon into itself, I think this level of illogical has reached it's peak. Your claim was that eventually the moon would be pulled into the earth, this is shown to be a false claim, even assuming your model is correct."

The moon isn't out-pulling the earth on either side. Do you see the water flowing up into the sky towards the moon? No, even if you toss water up into the sky towards the moon the earth pulls it back down towards itself. No-one at any point has claimed the moon outpulls the Earth in that regard - which is not to say that it doesn't have an effect, with that effect being the one I have laid out and given you a walk-through to. This is a misrepresentation of what has been explained to you.

I read it through and this is what I gathered. If you have a different position from the article, or can explain it differently, please do so. All you've done so far is "See (insert link here)" or as I like to call it. "But, but, muh science book"

"Also do you have an argument against gravity causing the earth to orbit the sun besides personal incredulity? The basics of orbital mechanics can be explained by Newton's laws: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm. Would you like to raise an evidence or logic based argument against them?"

The earth doesn't orbit the sun, and nothing orbits the earth. I am proving this by showing that the earth's water's are flat, as common sense tells us. Again, this is assuming the conclusion. You have not provided any evidence that the earth is a ball

"8) What you aren't taking into account is that a day (the time the earth takes to complete a revolution isn't consistently the same length of 24 hours, it differs as we progress through the year (a measurable fact). The average day is 23 hours 56 minutes and this varies based on the time of year as the earth has an elliptical orbit. So if you measure the sun's position at 12:00 during some parts of the year where our days (as in the revolutions, not just the amount of sunshine) are longer, the sun will be further back in the sky than when the days are shorter.

This is plausible (although I wonder why gravity would care if the days would reset every 6 months), and it explains why it would be a figure eight, but it still doesn't explain why the southern loop is larger. The southern hemisphere is the same size as the northern.

9) "You don't seem to have replied to point 9"

Yes, it took a lengthy amount of time to confirm what was seen from Washington rock and calculate what should be seen versus what is seen. While the results contradicted the globe earth measurements, compiling the information and explaining it would have resulted in just you claiming "refraction" again, so I felt it better to just group this with the others.

10a) "So in effect, your claim is that there is no observable reaction for any of these alleged motions? Is this not the very definition of pseudoscience?"

"No, I am claiming that your quote is completely wrong because it doesn't seem to understand the concept of angular momentum. it expects large results based merely on the overall speed, when in relation to angular momentum speed alone tells you absolutely nothing about what results you would expect. If you are travelling 10,000 mph in a straight line out into space then you would expect no change whatsoever on a gyroscope. If you were travelling 10,000mph round a very small circular orbit of 1 mile then you would expect it to be changing direction wildly if it could even keep up with that pace."

So if I was on a ball spinning 1,000 mph in one direction and travelling around the sun at about 500,000 mph, there should be a notable reaction somewhere, if not on a gyro, as Foucault claims, then where? Again, I ask for any evidence that Foucault produced results that contradict what I have presented. I've looked for it.

"The quote you posted provides absolutely no worth to your argument or any understanding of how gyroscopes function."

"No, cherry picking is where I bring up the very many proposed motions of your model of earth and you chose to only discuss one or one at a time, as seen above...."

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

You seem to have conceded that some of the examples are poor (you can only cherrypick if there are poor examples available) and I focused on the ones which were most relevant to the argument, not the most ridiculous ones that were irrelevant because we would have to wait a million years to see a small change on an impossibly perfect gyroscope. That is the opposite of cherrypicking - it's trying to engage your opponent's argument openly and honestly.

"...And what you admit to. Whether or not you deem it worthy of consideration, it is a motion. One of a combination of motions in different directions at one that we have no evidence of, aside from seeing the celestial bodies move."

Great, I'll meet you in a billion years to see if we've picked up the change in angular momentum from the Galaxy's drift. You get busy inventing completely frictionless material for your perfect gyroscope.

"You could then point out the difference between angular velocity and "directional" velocity, and which statements I made were contradictory instead of making baseless claims to dodge the point, obvious makings of a strawman argument."

If you want definitions, you don't need me to provide these for you and I would mentioned that I had assumed you would know the difference seeing as it is important to understanding how gyroscopes work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_momentum

I also specifically said which parts of your arguments were contradictory. I said "Your quote assumed gyroscopes measure directional velocity. Your video assumes they measure angular velocity. The point is that regardless of whether either or neither of the videos is accurate, you are taking mutually contradictory positions" These were in relation to the quote and video in point 10 as this was under the point 10 section. If these instructions aren't clear enough for you then you can ask for clarification as I have when I've felt you've been unclear. To suggest I didn't explain the issue is obviously incorrect."

You quoting yourself is not quoting me and explaining how each assumes either angular or linear velocity.

"Hmmm?

(https://www.wordnik.com/words/homile)"

Typo. Homily.

"Comparing a spinning top to a piece of ancient Japanese steel?
This is a false analogy fallacy. "

"Please feel free to explain why. If we are going to start looking at logical proofs then we will also have to go back to the very first step where you assume gyroscopes worse than Foulcart's can't be made, but instead just assume this with no evidence or logic."

Again, I've provided an example of a gyroscope that does not respond to the earth's rotation or orbit. If your claim is that the gyro used is not suitable for the experiment (Foucault gyroscopes certainly didn't spin for more than just a few minutes because of the friction), by all means, provide a more reliable gyroscope experiment which does respond to the earths motions. So far you've given my precession which is due to the weight of the gyroscope itself, not the earths motions.

"As for the complete link:

Again it walks you though the steps and the science precisely and there is a link to further info in the details for the video."

Which you undoubtedly do not understand enough to put into words.

"11) Ironically you just saying "this is a pooh pooh fallacy" without offering any details of why my argument is a pooh pooh fallacy would mean you are being equally fallacious."

You don't seem to have a argument there. You are just claiming things. I was assuming this wasn't a serious point and with the last couple of points you were just getting into jokey memes or something, but just because you say "The target is entirely visible, so the earth cannot be a ball." does not mean it is true or that is supported.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh

You dismissed the argument based on your perceived measurement of It's merit. The math is explained in the video, and I explained it myself that the distance should, if the earth were a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, provide a necessary 60 foot drop that isn't there. You can concede it if you like but don't pretend it hasn't been explained to you.

12)" This seems to back up a spherical earth in every way. Your point is something that is explained scientifically and linked to in that thread and that science accurately models and predicts occurrences in advance based on the physics of a round earth puts it way way way way ahead in terms of verifiability over a flat earth."

The geometry of what we should see in the heliocentric model, and what we did see contradicts each other. This is explained in detail in the link. There was no accurate heliocentric model available, which was the point of the post.

Predictability doesn't prove anything. The Mayans and Egyptians accurately predicted eclipses for many years and they were both flat earthers. After thousands of years of observing and predicting eclipses, it only follows suit that the predictability becomes more accurate with time. The thought that such predictability is still spot on for thousands of years actually also contradicts a completely random always expanding and rocketing through an infinite vacuum model such as the one you support, and leans more toward a finely tuned intelligently designed time piece.

Evidence

@Ampersand said: Evidence, Surprisingly considering your name, you completely lack evidence. Every single point you raise is a completely baseless assumption.

You mean like that NASA takes in an average of 10 Billion dollars a month, and have robbed us of trillions of dollars since it's German-Nazi conception, and offers us CGI and artist rendered images of planets created by sci-fi writers in comic books? Like Krypton, Tatooine, Kolob, etc.

Take a look at this "evidence" of new planets that NASA has found,

and tell me ONE thing, .. just ONE thing that is real, or actually taken by Kepler (that's hanging on a balloon somewhere high above our clouds)!? Where is the actual photos of these planets?

Ampersand - You accuse NASA of doctoring evidence but offer no proof for why this claim should be believed. You accuse scientists of making up gibberish that isn't real but offer no proof why your claim should be believed.

NASA is not "doctoring evidence", they give us all made up artist rendered images of Superman, Star-Trek, Star Wars sci-fi planets and systems. This is not a claim, but FACT. Anyone can see the evidence by looking at the pictures, and listening to the bull poop sci-fi stories.
And they are NOT 'scientists', but science fiction writers that Gone Wild, to where they really start believing the bull crap that they been feeding us just like Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith Jr. and the rest of the suicidal maniacs that have gone to their imaginary places and sky-daddies.

Ampersand - You also don't answer the points I make. The only reason we would expect compasses to point up towards the sun is because you say so, which isn't a valid reason. It makes sense to you personally that this happens despite you having given no rationale beyond "Well the sun is big and a completely different force acts in a certain way under in completely different ways in different situations".

Just answer my questions or reply to my comments like I do to yours, stop avoiding the issues. I gave you clear instructions that come straight from Sci-Fi Journals and records made by NASA. If the sun can keep the farthest planets in orbit, then it's magnetic North should be easily detected by a compass on the ISS. Show me where they have checked this out, instead of them always doing backflips and talking and singing to kindergartners in schools.

Ampersand - That is not a solid rationale as you are comparing electromagnetic radiation to gravity and needles to planets. If you make it even a bit less absurd (say just change the force involved and keep the object the same) then needles point towards Earth's magnetic field and they drop towards Earth's gravity which is a consistent result of needles being effected by the earth over the sun in both cases. But no, apparently we have to base the way needles react on how planets move for no reason other than you have randomly said so with no evidence.

I have shown you what your Sci-Fientists claim the size of your sun to be. If it can hold the farthest planets in your solar system in its orbit, then its magnetic north could make the needle of a compass on your ISS point to it. But, I guess people will just pay the billions of $$$ to see these permed jokers do back flips, and no real experiments EVER.

Ampersand - Why is it reasonable for me to answer your questions rather than rejecting the premise of your questions when they are utterly unsupported? You need to back up your claims.

Like Erfisflat, I'm pointing out flat out lies claimed as real. What more do you need? The JW's make up pictures of a future earth where JW children lay down with lions, Mormons are working hard to go to the Planet Kolob, Marshal Applewhite and his space crew went on Hale-Bopp, so you believe that? Do I have to show evidence that all that is when it is them that should show us some evidence that it's real besides fantastic stories with paintings?

Ampersand - Also are you trying to joke with that last paragraph about bottling space-time fabric and black holes or are you actually serious?

No, I'm dead serious.

Look, we take samples from deep in the earth, from deep in the oceans, from deep in snow, from the supposed moon landing, from Mars, .. so why don't we have samples of deep space?

Wouldn't you like to see just what type of vacuum space is, since we cannot create such vacuum here in a chamber? Besides, who knows what you may have captured in that bottle, since Commandant Higgs said "bosons are everywhere in space", .. heck, you may have a few dozen in the bottle! And you know what priceless importance that would be for 666CERN don't you? Here they are working 24/7 spending billions and billions of dollars trying to create a Big-Bang to open a door to a parallel universe in the LHC, and right there in the bottle could be the "key" to creation, some of Commandant Higgs "bosons". Not to mention a "black hole", which could provide a "way in" to that new parallel universe in way of a 'wormhole'! All the ISS scientists would have to do is take a sample of deep Spacetime and fabric.

Erfisflat

MissDMeanor said:

@SilverishGoldNova
I working on it

Still with us?

SilverishGoldNova

Erfisflat said:

MissDMeanor said:

@SilverishGoldNova
I working on it

Still with us?

30 years later...

Hank

If the edge of the Earth is surrounded by an ice wall that is Antarctica, why is Antarctica 17,662 kilometres in its circumference, yet the Earth is 44,000 kilometres?

SilverishGoldNova

Hank said:

If the edge of the Earth is surrounded by an ice wall that is Antarctica, why is Antarctica 17,662 kilometres in its circumference, yet the Earth is 44,000 kilometres?

Because it isn't, thats not how it works. But atleast you didnt start with appeal to authority and genetic fallacies.

Erfisflat

I'm actually not answering hypothetical questions pertaining to an unverifiable model or unverifiable map. I have seen no evidence of curvature or axial or orbital rotation. Those questions you can have @SilverishGoldNova

Evidence

Erfisflat said:

1. You are now making hypotheticals based on your semantics. This argument is losing all relevance.

I said that planes fly level, you then said "semantics" and proceeded to suggest that level means ball shaped (because the earth is a ball no matrer what) then I gave an accurate definition of level and you say I'm debating semantics when every construction worker (And almost everyone else in touch with reality) knows level to be flat and as straight as either can be. All this while completely ignoring the crux, which is the Sr-71 blackbird argument. A silent but deadly concession so to speak. My point stands unrefuted. We can agree to disagree on a definition if you'd like, and get back on point.

2. What do you think "empirical validation" means and how do you think it can be applied differently in the two contrasting examples?

You debating semantics again? To empirically validate something is to personally observe, experience or perform the experimental evidence.

"Also it is potentially possible that anyevidence can be faked.Simply saying "They could have faked it" could first of all apply to any evidence, including every piece of evidence you have provided, and due to that is utterly meaningless unless you can provide a rationale for why it should be believed that something was faked."

Aside from NASA openly admitting the fact that several images they present are produced in Photoshop? The evidence I provide is all empirically validatable. Anyone willing and able to do so can perform basic experiments and test any medium to large bodies of water for any curvature.

"Also you have given no rationale beyond for personal incredulity and belief that it is so obvious. I already understand that you believe your statements. Simply repeating your beliefs doesn't give me or anyone else reason to believe you."

I have no idea what you're referring to. Pictures of earth have been admitted to be faked. Anyone with a computer can produce one with Photoshop in a few days even for a beginner. We cannot go to space and see the earth as a ball. We, as civilians don't even get to see any curve, even at over 100,000 feet. I can buy a ticket to Michigan and fly to see the Chicago skyline across the lake. This refutes the globe earth model.

"3. I've had a quick ctrl+f through this thread and can find no evidence presented by you of how you believe refraction works. You have talked about it multiple times and stated your opinion, but have not used facts or evidence to support your claims. The position you are trying to present of you having already having proven something and me needing to meet that standard seems to be false."

Even in the last post I showed the straw is magnified and lowered. The video demonstrated how the effect can be reproduced. Anyone can fill a glass with water and observe an object being magnified and lowered behind it or in the glass.

"Also atmospheric refraction is somethign that has to be considered and accounted for with laser usage on satelites. You can read through a runthrough of some of the information involved here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.9547&rep=rep1&type=pdf"

Oh boy. Not more empirically unvalidatable information. Question, if I am proving that the earth is not spherical, why would I believe that satellites are orbiting it? What evidence do you have that they exist? Let me guess CGI pictures, right? Your argument is an assuming the conclusion fallacy.

"It can also be seen during lunar eclipses when the sun will sometimes just be visible (because its apparent position is moved a degrees or so higher) -

This is an assumption with no evidence. Also assuming the conclusion.

"with lunar eclipses being an example of a observable phenomenon that would seen impossible on a flat earth unless it fits the ancient conception fo the sun travelling underneath the earth (which tahnks to 24 communication we know is false."

Eclipses being caused by the earth was refuted on the first few pages of the earth is flat debate.

http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4500/#Comment_4500

"You can also see this in if scientists do experiments based on stellar positioning, etc and don't account for refraction based on the normal model they will be almost right but off by a few degrees."

Ok. Let's rationalize. We are in a science debate. There is no reason to take another scientists word for anything. Especially ones that automatically assume our conclusion. If there is a specific experiment you'd like to present that we can evaluate, please do so.

"Lastly the way that based on the observable properties of light which have been tested countless times it is exactly what we would expect to happen."

Again, a specific example or some sort of evidence for this claim would prove your case. So far you're just making assumptions and baseless claims.

"4) Again, can you circle it or something because it isn't visible. There is a white building to the left, but it seems too far towards the left and is the wrong shape. What in that image do you think is the building we are discussing?"

Again, yes the white building. That we can all see. It should not be visible.

"Also in your example, that seems to back up atmospheric refraction once you take into account your mistake. You have stated the hot air over the road is denser. This is incorrect as the more you heat gases the less dense they become (not taking into account chemical or physical changes which can occur separate from the general increase in thermal energy akin to ice being less dense than water due to hydrogen bonding)"

My mistake, it is air that has more moisture than dry air that is the same temperature that is less dense. Not tempurature.

"so in your example the dense air is on top of the less dense air which is just above the hot. Once you take this into account, it them follows that atmospheric refraction is correct: aside aside from local properties which effect heat like hot tarmac, generally air has the opposite layout to the one in your example - air is less dense the further up you go - e.g. mountaineers struggle to breath at the top of mountains due to the air being less dense. Therefore we would expect the effect to be opposite to."

http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Inferior_mirage

5) First you would need to prove that this image looks nothing like a mirage, as the meteorologist claims, so are we're debating this in point 4 this seems a retread and I think we can probably group this and some of the other points together.

6) The issue is vertical density, with the decrease in air density the higher up you get, not horizontal. Again I suggest we combine this point with 4

Agreed, in all instances, the observer sees further than we should if the earth were a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. You claim that refraction has bent the image up over the curvature of the earth. Please provide practical evidence of this claim. You also claim that Chicago from Michigan is a "superior mirage", quoting the meteorologist. Here are some superior mirages.

Two qualifying characteristics of a superior mirage are image inversion, specifically, over the original object.

That does not have the defining characteristics of a superior mirage. This is why I make the claim that this looks nothing like a mirage. Because it doesn't.

"7) That's not what it claims so you must have misunderstood. One of the steps in the walkthrough it gives you (page 6) is calculating the force in the antipodal point, so it obvious does not claim the moon is not exerting a force on the antipodal point - very much the opposite. It then continues to explain why the forces involved cause this end-result. I suggest taking your time and reading through thoroughly. You have asked a question as to how it works, I've provided you with what I think is a good walkthrough."

"Since now your apparent position is that the moon has enough mass to outpull the earth's gravity on it's side, AND the earth AWAY from its water on the other side, but that the earth (with 5x more mass and g-pull) is not pulling the moon into itself, I think this level of illogical has reached it's peak. Your claim was that eventually the moon would be pulled into the earth, this is shown to be a false claim, even assuming your model is correct."

The moon isn't out-pulling the earth on either side. Do you see the water flowing up into the sky towards the moon? No, even if you toss water up into the sky towards the moon the earth pulls it back down towards itself. No-one at any point has claimed the moon outpulls the Earth in that regard - which is not to say that it doesn't have an effect, with that effect being the one I have laid out and given you a walk-through to. This is a misrepresentation of what has been explained to you.

I read it through and this is what I gathered. If you have a different position from the article, or can explain it differently, please do so. All you've done so far is "See (insert link here)" or as I like to call it. "But, but, muh science book"

"Also do you have an argument against gravity causing the earth to orbit the sun besides personal incredulity? The basics of orbital mechanics can be explained by Newton's laws: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm. Would you like to raise an evidence or logic based argument against them?"

The earth doesn't orbit the sun, and nothing orbits the earth. I am proving this by showing that the earth's water's are flat, as common sense tells us. Again, this is assuming the conclusion. You have not provided any evidence that the earth is a ball

"8) What you aren't taking into account is that a day (the time the earth takes to complete a revolution isn't consistently the same length of 24 hours, it differs as we progress through the year (a measurable fact). The average day is 23 hours 56 minutes and this varies based on the time of year as the earth has an elliptical orbit. So if you measure the sun's position at 12:00 during some parts of the year where our days (as in the revolutions, not just the amount of sunshine) are longer, the sun will be further back in the sky than when the days are shorter.

This is plausible (although I wonder why gravity would care if the days would reset every 6 months), and it explains why it would be a figure eight, but it still doesn't explain why the southern loop is larger. The southern hemisphere is the same size as the northern.

9) "You don't seem to have replied to point 9"

Yes, it took a lengthy amount of time to confirm what was seen from Washington rock and calculate what should be seen versus what is seen. While the results contradicted the globe earth measurements, compiling the information and explaining it would have resulted in just you claiming "refraction" again, so I felt it better to just group this with the others.

10a) "So in effect, your claim is that there is no observable reaction for any of these alleged motions? Is this not the very definition of pseudoscience?"

"No, I am claiming that your quote is completely wrong because it doesn't seem to understand the concept of angular momentum. it expects large results based merely on the overall speed, when in relation to angular momentum speed alone tells you absolutely nothing about what results you would expect. If you are travelling 10,000 mph in a straight line out into space then you would expect no change whatsoever on a gyroscope. If you were travelling 10,000mph round a very small circular orbit of 1 mile then you would expect it to be changing direction wildly if it could even keep up with that pace."

So if I was on a ball spinning 1,000 mph in one direction and travelling around the sun at about 500,000 mph, there should be a notable reaction somewhere, if not on a gyro, as Foucault claims, then where? Again, I ask for any evidence that Foucault produced results that contradict what I have presented. I've looked for it.

"The quote you posted provides absolutely no worth to your argument or any understanding of how gyroscopes function."

"No, cherry picking is where I bring up the very many proposed motions of your model of earth and you chose to only discuss one or one at a time, as seen above...."

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

You seem to have conceded that some of the examples are poor (you can only cherrypick if there are poor examples available) and I focused on the ones which were most relevant to the argument, not the most ridiculous ones that were irrelevant because we would have to wait a million years to see a small change on an impossibly perfect gyroscope. That is the opposite of cherrypicking - it's trying to engage your opponent's argument openly and honestly.

"...And what you admit to. Whether or not you deem it worthy of consideration, it is a motion. One of a combination of motions in different directions at one that we have no evidence of, aside from seeing the celestial bodies move."

Great, I'll meet you in a billion years to see if we've picked up the change in angular momentum from the Galaxy's drift. You get busy inventing completely frictionless material for your perfect gyroscope.

"You could then point out the difference between angular velocity and "directional" velocity, and which statements I made were contradictory instead of making baseless claims to dodge the point, obvious makings of a strawman argument."

If you want definitions, you don't need me to provide these for you and I would mentioned that I had assumed you would know the difference seeing as it is important to understanding how gyroscopes work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_momentum

I also specifically said which parts of your arguments were contradictory. I said "Your quote assumed gyroscopes measure directional velocity. Your video assumes they measure angular velocity. The point is that regardless of whether either or neither of the videos is accurate, you are taking mutually contradictory positions" These were in relation to the quote and video in point 10 as this was under the point 10 section. If these instructions aren't clear enough for you then you can ask for clarification as I have when I've felt you've been unclear. To suggest I didn't explain the issue is obviously incorrect."

You quoting yourself is not quoting me and explaining how each assumes either angular or linear velocity.

"Hmmm?

(https://www.wordnik.com/words/homile)"

Typo. Homily.

"Comparing a spinning top to a piece of ancient Japanese steel?
This is a false analogy fallacy. "

"Please feel free to explain why. If we are going to start looking at logical proofs then we will also have to go back to the very first step where you assume gyroscopes worse than Foulcart's can't be made, but instead just assume this with no evidence or logic."

Again, I've provided an example of a gyroscope that does not respond to the earth's rotation or orbit. If your claim is that the gyro used is not suitable for the experiment (Foucault gyroscopes certainly didn't spin for more than just a few minutes because of the friction), by all means, provide a more reliable gyroscope experiment which does respond to the earths motions. So far you've given my precession which is due to the weight of the gyroscope itself, not the earths motions.

"As for the complete link:

Again it walks you though the steps and the science precisely and there is a link to further info in the details for the video."

Which you undoubtedly do not understand enough to put into words.

"11) Ironically you just saying "this is a pooh pooh fallacy" without offering any details of why my argument is a pooh pooh fallacy would mean you are being equally fallacious."

You don't seem to have a argument there. You are just claiming things. I was assuming this wasn't a serious point and with the last couple of points you were just getting into jokey memes or something, but just because you say "The target is entirely visible, so the earth cannot be a ball." does not mean it is true or that is supported.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh

You dismissed the argument based on your perceived measurement of It's merit. The math is explained in the video, and I explained it myself that the distance should, if the earth were a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, provide a necessary 60 foot drop that isn't there. You can concede it if you like but don't pretend it hasn't been explained to you.

12)" This seems to back up a spherical earth in every way. Your point is something that is explained scientifically and linked to in that thread and that science accurately models and predicts occurrences in advance based on the physics of a round earth puts it way way way way ahead in terms of verifiability over a flat earth."

The geometry of what we should see in the heliocentric model, and what we did see contradicts each other. This is explained in detail in the link. There was no accurate heliocentric model available, which was the point of the post.

Predictability doesn't prove anything. The Mayans and Egyptians accurately predicted eclipses for many years and they were both flat earthers. After thousands of years of observing and predicting eclipses, it only follows suit that the predictability becomes more accurate with time. The thought that such predictability is still spot on for thousands of years actually also contradicts a completely random always expanding and rocketing through an infinite vacuum model such as the one you support, and leans more toward a finely tuned intelligently designed time piece.

Buddy @Erfisflat this conversation should have been televised, as should have been many of your other official debates. You on debunking Globe Earth are like Kent Hovind debunking Evolution, leave them speechless.

Kent Hovind responds to Bill Nye

I like time 5:49 -

+1 buddy!

And may God bless you, .. you know, not any of the theist/atheist gods in Organized Religion, but our Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am"!

Erfisflat

6 flat earthers here now! Feel free to pm me for sources and furthering your reeducation

Ampersand

Just had a quick flick through. I'll reply at some point over the weekend if I manage to resist binge watching Stranger Things.

I just wanted to post to mention that in these responses there has still been no response to my post here.

Basically:

1) Can any Flat Earthers present a model of the earth, sun and moon showing a plausible representation of how they function, move and interact in relation to one another? The more detail the better, e.g. height, size, speed, etc would be preferred or if not specific details at least ranges e.g. "the Moon is between 10 km and 50 km in diameter". I'm not expecting any detail on the physics behind how the Sun or Moon stay in the sky as I assume no flat earth model can explain that but if someone could, throw it at me.

2)

Apparently Flat Earthers think this shows the sun is less than 28,000 feet high - and indeed if the earth were flat it would be hard to explain how else the plane is higher than the sun - although it then causes a load of other absurdities which would be even harder to answer like how does it warm people 1,000 miles away without burning people a few miles below it to death. On the other hand both those type of questions are easily and obviously easily explainable with a spherical earth.

Nope

Look at the ocean. There is a horizon. Case closed.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Look at the ocean. There is a perfectly flat horizon. Case closed.

There, i fixed it for you.

SilverishGoldNova

Nope said:

Look at the ocean. There is a horizon. Case closed.

This has been refuted many times But atleast you didn't start off with " da edgee"

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Just had a quick flick through. I'll reply at some point over the weekend if I manage to resist binge watching Stranger Things.

I just wanted to post to mention that in these responses there has still been no response to my post here.

Basically:

1) Can any Flat Earthers present a model of the earth, sun and moon showing a plausible representation of how they function, move and interact in relation to one another? The more detail the better, e.g. height, size, speed, etc would be preferred or if not specific details at least ranges e.g. "the Moon is between 10 km and 50 km in diameter". I'm not expecting any detail on the physics behind how the Sun or Moon stay in the sky as I assume no flat earth model can explain that but if someone could, throw it at me.

2)

Apparently Flat Earthers think this shows the sun is less than 28,000 feet high - and indeed if the earth were flat it would be hard to explain how else the plane is higher than the sun - although it then causes a load of other absurdities which would be even harder to answer like how does it warm people 1,000 miles away without burning people a few miles below it to death. On the other hand both those type of questions are easily and obviously easily explainable with a spherical earth.

I've decided to stop speculating about the sun, maps, or any particular model, since none of these are empirically validatable. The earth has been proved to be without curvature or axial or orbital movement.

Erfisflat

SilverishGoldNova said:

Nope said:

Look at the ocean. There is a horizon. Case closed.

This has been refuted many times But atleast you didn't start off with " da edgee"

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/08/q-if-earth-was-flat-would-there-be-the-horizon-if-so-what-would-it-look-like-if-the-earth-was-flat-and-had-infinite-area-would-that-change-the-answer/

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Look at the ocean. There is a horizon. Case closed.

I'm wondering what you think a flat earth horizon would look like. Flat and eye level? What about at 100,000 feet.

Nope

JoePineapples Thanks.

Evidence

I'm trying to figure out how to measure the distance of the sun from us here on earth, and any help would be appreciated?

Facts about two people viewing the sun at High Noon from the Northern, and Southern Hemisphere at the same time, but first, I'll show you that we need at least 2-8 degrees to see anything fair from one side, and 2-8 degrees to see it from the other side. We'll go with a good view like we see the sun from here the Northern hemisphere.

Take 4'X8' 3/4" Plywood (or a big cardboard, a big folding table etc.), stand it up 45deg. to the ground, with the edge facing you.
Walk up to it, touch your nose to the edge so it's straight front of you where you with one eye only see the thickness of the plywood.
Move your head to the side where now you can just see the whole board (I measured about 1- 2inches, which would be an approximate 8-degrees. from the center of the board to your eye.

Now if we would move the board 100' away, we would have to walk 14.05 feet perpendicular to the edge to see one side, and then walk back to the other side 14.05 feet to see the other side of the board, which means we would need a space of 28.10 feet.

At the equator at high noon, we put a board standing up, at a point in space on earth where the board does not cast a shadow either North, or South.

We know that we here in the North Hemisphere (depending how far North you are), we see the East-West sun traveling to about 8-deg. to the South of us, .. while we know that those who live on the Southern Hemisphere see the same suns East-West travel about 8-deg. to the North of them, so for this to be possible, which is to have people just thousands of miles apart see the E.-W. travel of the sun at 8-deg North and South at the same time, the sun is NOT anywhere 93 million miles away!

For us here on earth to be able to see both sides of the sun (in both North, and South of us) that is supposed to be 93 million miles away at the SAME TIME, we would have to travel 13,070,297 miles in both N. and S. directions, or be separated by a total of 26 million miles. Hmm, so how is this possible on a 8,000 mile diameter BALL?

Mathematical proof that NASA is lying about the size, the distance, and about all the orbiting B.S. No more Zero-G flights for you Perm-lady! lol

I'm figuring out a formula where we should be able to calculate not only the height of the sun, but its Diameter from these figures I get measuring different size lightbulbs, at different heights casting their shadows.

And if I a nobody can, then sure as hell NASA scientists know this, only they were never allowed to even think about it, or talk about it!

Gods willing we may have a pretty accurate Flat Earth map yet, and we've only begun. (Better get going on my extermination again NASA/CERN Cult-members!)

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

A bitcoin halving is imminent. Here's what that means.

In this Debate

The Earth is flat 4.0

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch