frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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





Earth is a ball

18911131423



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    I also particularly like the way I’m trying to engage on specific points one at a time, to try and both understand the core of your position, and where your coming from; and don’t seem to be getting much other than hostility and spurious insults in return.


    Then, point me to the space ticket booth.
    You just need to go to a Hollywood basement somewhere... in Hollywood
    ErfisflatnamemcnameEvidence
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Evidence I returned from Debate.org, I was unable to do anything without being harrassed by Goldtop or some other globetard troll. It's a dead website anyway.

    Oh, and @Erfisflat too, so someone sent me a "Flut urf debunkf" video, I'm working on a debunk. Like the rest, it shouldn't be too difficult. This guy deletes comments who disagree with him, so I probably won't last long if I post it there.
    Erfisflatnamemcname
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Erfisflat So I will have it up when I can. But yeah, it's pretty apparent that this guy deletes comments he disagrees with. It says the video has like 60 comments, but I only see 20-30, all of which are praising him. Hundreds of thousands of views too.
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited February 2018

    "It takes time, ability and money to reproduce your images. It takes a different amount of time, money and ability to reproduce images from space. Arbitrarily deciding that an experiment that costs x amount of money makes an experiment unverifiable is arbitrary unscientific frippery; and just because you have decided unilaterally to be the personal definer of how much is too much, doesn’t make it true."

    Except you haven't even given an experiment, or picture, you've not done anything but ask questions about how I should take unverifiable imagery as infallible evidence for something that contradicts everyday observations and practical evidence. You assume that space tourism is a present reality with this many good reasons:0. I have actually been looking for this. It's impossible. 


    "But, pay attention. 


    What I’m doing, is working out how you structure your arguments and beliefs; as well as trying to work out what they really are. I’m asking you a number of questions, and you’re half answering them whilst bogging down the replies with multiple sets of claims; I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not simply trying to bombard me with more points than I can "


    I've done nothing but explain my position. Repeatedly showed you why I don't trust unverifiable imagery as evidence, how it has been consistently faked, and demonstrated how one can objectively verify that the images from "space" have been either manipulated or completely fabricated. This has gone largely ignored. 

    Whenever I respond to your posts, I take the time to quote everything you say and address every point you make. You've pretty much ignored 75% of my posts, dropping nearly every point I make.


    "Remember, you repeatedly requested that I provide images to you, only for me to tease out that you wouldn’t accept any images either way. That’s why I’m trying to understand the core of your position; and getting you to confirm and agree that I have understood it correctly; this prevents any wriggling out of core points later."


    The only core point I give is that unverifiable imagery should not be held as infallible evidence, especially in times where literally anyone could produce an image of a ball earth, and those images contradict basic, everyday observations. Saying that I should remember and etch in stone every single way that I can tell a ball earth image as fake, and if i forget even one is called baiting. 

     Since you're obviously not going to provide an image of a ball earth or curved horizon picture, I can only conclude that you concede the point. You could have saved us all 2-3 days of time and posted images that I could then show you how I know are fake. Since I basically refuted ALL images from space in the first few posts of this chain (that you've ignored) it comes as no surprise that you've drug us along this far and are refusing to forward this asinine point. I'm reminded of a child holding his fist out with a bet that I couldn't guess what was in it. 

    I'll give you an easy one. A video of an astronaut taking a camera and doing a 360° turn in space. It can't be done because of 4th wall mechanics. Or, a full video of an astronaut suiting up, going into the airlock chamber, depressurising, then opening the hatch to the vacuum of space. It was always one of those really exciting moments in those space movies, and would in my opinion indeed be very exciting. How about a fully HD live cam on the moon, trained on the earth, so that we could zoom in to see a magnesium flare. These are very affordable for NASA and would be less likely to be faked. 


    "So, if you remember; we got to the point that your actual arguments, are that you feel that you have a lot of evidence that images from space are faked; and so therefore most of not all images from space, particularly NASA is untrustworthy, and that you have better evidence that the earth is flat from measuring water.

    All the rest of your points are underpinned by those two: Your “verifiability problem” wouldn’t be a problem if you felt that amateur photography and NASA were

    Genuine sources, and you wouldn’t have any argument to offer that the broad array of evidence of images from space are faked or wrong; you would have to conclude the earth was a sphere as a result, right?"

    But I have shown that "the broad array of "evidence " of imagery from space is completely fabricated, manipulated, or misinterpreted. I can think of at least 3 more ways they are proved fakes or misinterpreted off the top of my head. Not to mention paintings. 


    "I’m just trying to pin you down to a falsifiable and specific position that I can then go through and address piece by piece without the risk of you turning around and saying “a-hah! I forgot to mention this fundamental portion of my argument that is even more compelling than all the stuff I have been talking about for the last 100 posts”

    How is this more simple than just posting an image in those last 100 posts, instead of working backwards to it, baiting me into a position where if I don't put forward all of my secrets from analyzing the many photos over the 3 years that i have vested in research, you can then say aha! This image doesn't match your listed exceptions, so you must accept it as gospel truth! It's quite dishonest, and very uproductive.


    @Gooberry

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Most expensive camera I could find on the net:

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/840667-REG/fujinon_xa101x8_9besm_tk_xa101x8_9besm_pf_2_3_precision_focus.html?ap=y&c3api=1876,{creative},{keyword}&gclid=Cj0KCQiA2NXTBRDoARIsAJRIvLyhzz62Ro0iURQBAi3QipwiwCUYniJU_cSLVksT0RQa0wdjjHxizqMaAgkPEALw_wcB

    $233,490.00

    A round trip to the moon for two people (supposedly, and "in coming years") 

    https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/space-tourism-company-plans-sell-trips-moon-750-million-each

    $1.5 billion

    So that's $1,500,233,490.00 subtracted from NASA annual budget of $18-20 billion, leaving about $16.5-18.5 billion for space flips, monkey suits and musical concerts in space, along with all those scientific experiments @Evidence mentioned.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Evidence I returned from Debate.org, I was unable to do anything without being harrassed by Goldtop or some other globetard troll. It's a dead website anyway.

    Oh, and @Erfisflat too, so someone sent me a "Flut urf debunkf" video, I'm working on a debunk. Like the rest, it shouldn't be too difficult. This guy deletes comments who disagree with him, so I probably won't last long if I post it there.
    What's the video? I'll do a debunk-debunk here if it isn't too long.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Evidence
    "But when someone points out the Chicago skyline over Lake Michigan, now that's refraction or whatever. But in that same picture we could have had a boat disappearing over the curvature (because it always does, no refraction ever mentioned there remember) while seeing the Chicago skyline at the same time."
    How do you know we could have a boat disappearing over the horizon and see Chicago over lake Michigan?

    "a spinning tennis ball covered in water
    to prove that the earth CAN remain spinning and twirling through the vacuum of space for millions and billions of years and not freeze/boil/evaporate our oceans. (actually, I want to see a big hot lava rock sweat and cover itself with water and create an atmosphere.)"
    A spinning tennis ball covered in water won't prove what you say it will. Gravity is week, really week. It would take a long time for one abject the mass of a tense ball to get immersed in a little water on it's own. Sense gravity is week the tense ball won't have to spin very fast at all to have the water fly of it. Why would you want a lave rock to cover itself with water?

    "For example:
    - lighter spheres shown to orbit larger spheres, to prove:
    "gravity"
    "spacefabric""
    What is a light sphere?

    "since the main reason gravity was invented is to support the BB-Story. So let's see all the tests done to prove that objects can "orbit" heavier objects? I mean there must be at least a few hundred of those experiments on file, .. right?"
    Gravity was not invented to support the BB-story. Gravity was the name given to a force. 

    "But here is what we DO get from our trillions of dollars in taxes 'Space Program' from outside the ISS, .. "space walks".
    As for inside the ISS, Ooooh,  it's the undeniable scientific proof of BB-Space: "backflips". Yep, it's space walks with bubbles, or backflips."
    https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html This website gives a list of things that come from space exploration. Weather you believe that people actually go to space or not ether way society does get something in return. If their not going to space with that money they are making devices which benefit society. 
    Erfisflat
  • Erfisflat said:
    @Evidence I returned from Debate.org, I was unable to do anything without being harrassed by Goldtop or some other globetard troll. It's a dead website anyway.

    Oh, and @Erfisflat too, so someone sent me a "Flut urf debunkf" video, I'm working on a debunk. Like the rest, it shouldn't be too difficult. This guy deletes comments who disagree with him, so I probably won't last long if I post it there.
    What's the video? I'll do a debunk-debunk here if it isn't too long.
    Well, it's like 20 minutes of grasping at straws and red herrings. Will that be possible?
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • namemcnamenamemcname 88 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @SilverishGoldNova Just... one question. How does your model explain the constant acceleration of the sun, given basic physics? Under the flat Earth, since you believe that the sun goes around in a circle to account for time zones, then the sun would be constantly accelerating. Knowing this, you must come up with a new model, or create an explanation for why this does not happen. Oh wait nevermind, you can't explain that. You were previously asked this question on DDO, in which you spent 2 weeks dodging this question, claiming that anyone who asked you it was "stalking" you, and then finally, you linked a video of dry ice floating above rails as your explanation, and than you spent weeks asserting you had already answered that.

    Not only this, but remember that picture from 121,000 feet you made such a big deal out of? Yeah, well, I think we've already proven that you just scored an own goal, so you once again dismissed it with a few random links and then you decided to change your profile pic to the Dallas Stars and run away back to DebateIsland. I get that you're young, and very easily influenced, but, come on , there's no way anyone is this gullible and stubborn.

    Given how just plain your position is, that's not too shocking.Most likely you are gonna do the same thing, or one of you is gonna delete my post. Lets wait and see...
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @Evidence I returned from Debate.org, I was unable to do anything without being harrassed by Goldtop or some other globetard troll. It's a dead website anyway.

    Oh, and @Erfisflat too, so someone sent me a "Flut urf debunkf" video, I'm working on a debunk. Like the rest, it shouldn't be too difficult. This guy deletes comments who disagree with him, so I probably won't last long if I post it there.
    What's the video? I'll do a debunk-debunk here if it isn't too long.
    Well, it's like 20 minutes of grasping at straws and red herrings. Will that be possible?
    Pm it
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova Just... one question. How does your model explain the constant acceleration of the sun, given basic physics? Under the flat Earth, since you believe that the sun goes around in a circle to account for time zones, then the sun would be constantly accelerating. Knowing this, you must come up with a new model, or create an explanation for why this does not happen. Oh wait nevermind, you can't explain that. You were previously asked this question on DDO, in which you spent 2 weeks dodging this question, claiming that anyone who asked you it was "stalking" you, and then finally, you linked a video of dry ice floating above rails as your explanation, and than you spent weeks asserting you had already answered that.

    Not only this, but remember that picture from 121,000 feet you made such a big deal out of? Yeah, well, I think we've already proven that you just scored an own goal, so you once again dismissed it with a few random links and then you decided to change your profile pic to the Dallas Stars and run away back to DebateIsland. I get that you're young, and very easily influenced, but, come on , there's no way anyone is this gullible and stubborn.

    Given how just plain your position is, that's not too shocking.Most likely you are gonna do the same thing, or one of you is gonna delete my post. Lets wait and see...
    So, because someone hasn't explained something about a model to the ignorant, like with your model, his position is "" and he should change his model to the heliocentric one, although this is clearly the model that is riddled with more holes? The heliocentric priests had 500 years to try to save that sinking ship.

    So here's a question for you. How does your model explain the constant acceleration, and deceleration of the earth, given basic physics? Like you, I have to have everything put into it's little box so that it looks good on the shelf sarc. What basic laws of physics does it break? Who gives a rat's arse? Does this automatically mean the earth is a ball by your logic? We have proved the earth is without curvature. We are working on a model. Go back to DDO and pat yourselves on the backs.

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Erfisflat The dry ice video had absolutely nothing to do with the suns physics, and I believe, well, yes, I explained both the acceleration and 121,000 "own goal", which resulted in Gold and friends circle jerk harassing me.

    @Namemcname Great, you again. Why not just go back to your DDO troll club? Also, I'm pretty sure following me everywhere and ganging up on me with the express purpose of starting flamewars is both stalking and harassment. For months, your club has constantly tried to start flamewars everywhere I go, and whenever I refute one of your arguments, you 4 are in the corner screaming " ",

    Not to mention creating childish debates like "SilverishGoldNova should be locked up in a mental hospital", attacking me based on my age or what hockey team I like, and mocking me for calling out your fallacies (e.g. "Does that picture exist or is just some made up ad hominem picture?")

    Don't forget the fact your friends regularly votebombed me, all while also launching organized attacks against people who voted in my favor.

    Considering you and your club prefer to vote bomb and harass your opponents, rather than address their points, you probably shouldn't say I'm not debating. 
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat


    You have repeatedly been goading me to share a picture of the earth that you have already said you will not accept before you’ve have even seen it.

    Why on earth are you still asking for it? It seems to be an excercise in wasting your time and mine. And how can you then imply I am the one trying to trick you?

    We both know a lot of pictures of the earth exist, and just positing one of them that I think is valid will be largely pointless as a result, don’t you think?


    I’m interested in working out the logical and scientific reasons why you believe what you do; and actually having you confirm that they are the reasons.


    The reason this is important is for the same reason it was important for me to understand what your approach to the images were: it’s a waste of both of our time for me to present an argument that you already know you won’t accept.


    I find it, frankly astonishing, that call this “baiting you into to a position”.


    Of course it is! That’s what you have to do in science! I’m not asking for details and long winded arguments, just a rough summary (lord knows it should be clear to you I’m not focusing on any specifics yet).


    So far, the reasons you’ve provided thus far seems to be that you have better evidence than that of a flat earth; that you think your first hand observation is more valid than images I can provide, and for a variety of reasons you think all the images are fake.


    I’m asking if that’s it, or if when I probe further, something new and completely fundamental will come out!


    This is key because It has been my experience that pseudoscientists, and those without a valid position never come out and state a full picture of what they believe and the logical reasons why it all fits together in a way that opens them up for true refutation.


    I’m not going to trick you into anything dishonest and you can quite rightly point it out if I do.


    However, if you say that “all pictures have x”, and then when I press you on it, you confirm “if a picture didn’t have x, my position would be false”, if I then show you a picture that has x in it, this not a ploy, or a dishonest trick: this is falsifying your position.


    Indeed, with your last reply your it seems objection to me asking detailed questions about what you believe and why, seems to be that I may find inconsistencies, contradictions or positions you hold that are against reality, and hold those up to you.


    You bet that’s what I am going to do: that is pretty much, by definition how science works; and I have no idea why you are so adverse to the idea, especially given this is how you claim your position is constructed.




  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  

    "You have repeatedly been goading me to share a picture of the earth that you have already said you will not accept before you’ve have even seen it.

    Why on earth are you still asking for it? "

    This is how science debates work. You claim that an image should be held as infallible evidence for something that contradicts common sense ans everyday observations. You supply such evidence for something, and we have a discussion about it. If you concede that you don't have evidence that you feel is strong enough to convince me that my senses are deceiving me, we then can move on to something maybe a little more substantial and conclusive.

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "I’m asking if that’s it, or if when I probe further, something new and completely fundamental will come out!"

    This is the purpose of any productive conversation. If you're still talking about images, I don't know what to tell you. You've given "pictures from space" as evidence, then, when pointed out how pictures have been and are easily manipulated in many ways to impact the resolution, whether it be with Photoshop software, which is readily available to anyone, the science behind bent glass in lenses, 
    https://computer.howstuffworks.com/augmented-reality.htm

    ...you have silently conceded the point, but cannot move forward from it. If you have evidence, put it forth so that it can be investigated. Truth fears no investigation.

    My point is, that you can't believe everything you see on your screen without some sort of evidence to back up the image. I see evidence to the contrary.
    EvidenceSilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer


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

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  


     
    That's it! Video evidence! Infallible PROOF that the earth is shaped like a Pringles chip!

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Why do you act like fish eye lenses are some unassailable issue? It distorts around the center of the lense.

    Freeze a video taken at a high altitude when the earth passes through the center of the screen and you will see the curvature. The higher the altitude the more obvious the curvature.


    ErfisflatPogueSilverishGoldNova
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    "I’m asking if that’s it, or if when I probe further, something new and completely fundamental will come out!"

    This is the purpose of any productive conversation. If you're still talking about images, I don't know what to tell you. You've given "pictures from space" as evidence, then, when pointed out how pictures have been and are easily manipulated in many ways to impact the resolution, whether it be with Photoshop software, which is readily available to anyone, the science behind bent glass in lenses, 
    https://computer.howstuffworks.com/augmented-reality.htm

    ...you have silently conceded the point, but cannot move forward from it. If you have evidence, put it forth so that it can be investigated. Truth fears no investigation.

    My point is, that you can't believe everything you see on your screen without some sort of evidence to back up the image. I see evidence to the contrary.
    Fallacious and unscientific reasoning. 

    Any evidence could theoretically be faked, including everything you have provided. However  that is not a scientific rationale for dismissing anything. Instead you actually have to provide evidence for something being faked which can be compared against the evidence for it being real. That is evidence based reasoning.

    Now the evidence for images from spave being real is clear. Matching all known science, proven in countless experiments by a variety of different independent bodies, etc etc.

    Now I'm sure you'll come back with one of your standard fallacious arguements, but which will it be?

    Will it be circular reasoning and baseless claims when you claim you've already provided evidence in this thread, not actually linking to anything and ignoring the fact all your claims are rebutted or in the process of being rebutted so prove nothing.

    Will you try and shift the burden of proof and try to say that we have to provide your proof for you?

    Will you implicitly concede the argument but never admit it, shifting on to some other point?

    Will you say evidence doesn't count unless you personally can verify it with a non-specific monetary limit - completely contrary to the scientific method?

    I could probably but together 6 standard responses that will rebuttal every argument you make because it's just the same fallacies over and over.

    Erfisflat
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Ampersand Like this curvature? 




    Image result for hockey laughing


    Yeah thanks, try to provide me an image showing curvature not from NASA or that does not have any distortion. Good luck.
    namemcname
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "Why do you act like fish eye lenses are some unassailable issue? It distorts around the center of the lense."

    Unassailable? Hardly. Inconclusive, at best. The fact that we can see a flat line anywhere near the center proves it isn't curved, to be technical. The insane amount of cutaways shows hefty editing, and the center could be easily cropped and moved around.
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:


     
    That's it! Video evidence! Infallible PROOF that the earth is shaped like a Pringles chip!

    Breaking news: Scientists announce we live on a shittake mushroom made out of mcdonalds fries.
    namemcname
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "Any evidence could theoretically be faked, including everything you have provided."

    This is why I always point out every day observations and repeatable, scalable and practical experiments as evidence and tell you to NOT to take my or anyone's word for something. That is the difference between science and pseudoscience. Images provided by institutions have been proved to be faked on the majority of the time, so there literally no reason to believe what's in any of them.

    "However  that is not a scientific rationale for dismissing anything. "

    It most certainly is, whether or not you understand it or not.

    "Instead you actually have to provide evidence for something being faked which can be compared against the evidence for it being real. That is evidence based reasoning."

    Your talking about like what I did the last few pages with @goober here? Showed multiples examples of how the earth's images are being altered or manipulated? Where can I find any evidence for it? I mean, I saw the movie gravity, do you think they were in outer space?

    "Now the evidence for images from spave being real is clear. Matching all known science, proven in countless experiments by a variety of different independent bodies, etc etc."

    Baseless assertion. I've seen nothing of the sort here.

    "Now I'm sure you'll come back with one of your standard fallacious arguements, but which will it be?"

    Begging the question.

    "Will it be circular reasoning and baseless claims when you claim you've already provided evidence in this thread, not actually linking to anything and ignoring the fact all your claims are rebutted or in the process of being rebutted so prove nothing."

    Zzz read the posts.

    "Will you try and shift the burden of proof and try to say that we have to provide your proof for you?"

    For what? You literally just stated:
    "...you actually have to provide evidence for something being faked which can be compared against the evidence for it being real."

    I've showed evidence of fakery. None opposing.

    "Will you implicitly concede the argument but never admit it, shifting on to some other point?"

    You're hilarious.

    "Will you say evidence doesn't count unless you personally can verify it with a non-specific monetary limit - completely contrary to the scientific method?"

    Point me to the space ticket, I know a guy who knows a guy.

    "I could probably but together 6 standard responses that will rebuttal every argument you make because it's just the same fallacies over and over."

    Looks like a bunch of nuh-uhs to me.

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:

    "You have repeatedly been goading me to share a picture of the earth that you have already said you will not accept before you’ve have even seen it.

    Why on earth are you still asking for it? "

    This is how science debates work. You claim that an image should be held as infallible evidence for something that contradicts common sense ans everyday observations. You supply such evidence for something, and we have a discussion about it. If you concede that you don't have evidence that you feel is strong enough to convince me that my senses are deceiving me, we then can move on to something maybe a little more substantial and conclusive.

    Asking someone repeatedly to produce an image when you have already declared you won’t accept any images is  a rhetorical ploy, not a scientific argument.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    "I’m asking if that’s it, or if when I probe further, something new and completely fundamental will come out!"

    This is the purpose of any productive conversation. If you're still talking about images, I don't know what to tell you. You've given "pictures from space" as evidence, then, when pointed out how pictures have been and are easily manipulated in many ways to impact the resolution, whether it be with Photoshop software, which is readily available to anyone, the science behind bent glass in lenses, 
    https://computer.howstuffworks.com/augmented-reality.htm

    ...you have silently conceded the point, but cannot move forward from it. If you have evidence, put it forth so that it can be investigated. Truth fears no investigation.

    My point is, that you can't believe everything you see on your screen without some sort of evidence to back up the image. I see evidence to the contrary.

    If you paid attention; I asked you to explain what evidence you would accept for an image; and you claimed you wouldn’t accept any. 

    You also claimed you wouldn’t be able to provide evidence that’s every single image was a fake, or provide any sort of justification of what image you’d accept.

    You claimed that all lenses contain some amount of barrel distortion, and yet post images of horizons you claim are flat: and yet refuse to explain how I can deduce or determine that when an image of a horizon is curved in space, but flat on earth, that the former is because of barrel distortion, and the latter is ok, for some reason.

    By your own admission, though, me posting images for you to rebut, is a pointless exercise. I’d far rather rebut the logic you actually use.

    But it’s hard to do that when you appear to deliberately avoid and deflect any time I question what that logic actually is.

    it appears as if you are happy throwing random claims, and nonsense using rhetorical ploys; but you seem
    genuinely scared of really talking about the logical glue that holds it all together. 

    I asked you a simple question that, as a scientist, you should not just be able to answer, but you should be enthusiastically answering.

    Could our answer it please so I can actually pin you down to a real position, and I can start dealing with specific justifications you’re using for it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "If you paid attention; I asked you to explain what evidence you would accept for an image; and you claimed you wouldn’t accept any."

    If you paid attention, I gave very rational reasoning for this.

    "You also claimed you wouldn’t be able to provide evidence that’s every single image was a fake, or provide any sort of justification of what image you’d accept."

    I gave some examples of some pretty great stuff that would be hard to fake, that I'd accept. If you paid attention. All of them dropped. I don't just not accept even photographs without good reason to do so, like how hard it would be to fake, for example.

    "You claimed that all lenses contain some amount of barrel distortion, and yet post images of horizons you claim are flat: and yet refuse to explain how I can deduce or determine that when an image of a horizon is curved in space, but flat on earth, that the former is because of barrel distortion, and the latter is ok, for some reason."

    Because we are on the ground. Not in space. We're never going because it isn't there. You dropped this point.

    "By your own admission, though, me posting images for you to rebut, is a pointless exercise. I’d far rather rebut the logic you actually use."

    It's irrefutable as far as I'm concerned. I know the earth is flat because I've measured it repeatedly and empirically. 

    "But it’s hard to do that when you appear to deliberately avoid and deflect any time I question what that logic actually is."

    Really? Maybe you should pay more attention.

    "it appears as if you are happy throwing random claims, and nonsense using rhetorical ploys; but you seem
    genuinely scared of really talking about the logical glue that holds it all together. "

    Maybe you aren't asking the right questions. If you're interested in logics debate which doesn't require empirical and objective evidence, I understand completely. You ignore evidence.

    "I asked you a simple question that, as a scientist, you should not just be able to answer, but you should be enthusiastically answering."

    You asked me a ton of questions, I've answered them repeatedly. You on the other hand have ignored 75% of my questions. Which are you talking about?

    Could our answer it please so I can actually pin you down to a real position, and I can start dealing with specific justifications you’re using for it."
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand Like this curvature? 




    Image result for hockey laughing


    Yeah thanks, try to provide me an image showing curvature not from NASA or that does not have any distortion. Good luck.
    If you think that is a straight line that passes through the centre of the image, your spacial reasoning skills are very poor. Which might explain your beliefs, to be honest.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-afOJ_gS0w7Q/WfnzyHDPoNI/AAAAAAAAFYk/F4FyhaMtrygfHNcbsu9N59za2rjT1NCgQCLcBGAs/s1600/gopro-SL-10-mach5.5-396000ft-lens-dead-center.jpg
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovanamemcname
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Ampersand said:
    @Ampersand Like this curvature? 




    Image result for hockey laughing


    Yeah thanks, try to provide me an image showing curvature not from NASA or that does not have any distortion. Good luck.
    If you think that is a straight line that passes through the centre of the image, your spacial reasoning skills are very poor. Which might explain your beliefs, to be honest.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-afOJ_gS0w7Q/WfnzyHDPoNI/AAAAAAAAFYk/F4FyhaMtrygfHNcbsu9N59za2rjT1NCgQCLcBGAs/s1600/gopro-SL-10-mach5.5-396000ft-lens-dead-center.jpg
    If you paid attention, a curved line can ONLY be made straight if the line is at the screens edge. Ignore the point I made about obvious cropping and editing though.

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    "Why do you act like fish eye lenses are some unassailable issue? It distorts around the center of the lense."

    Unassailable? Hardly. Inconclusive, at best. The fact that we can see a flat line anywhere near the center proves it isn't curved, to be technical. The insane amount of cutaways shows hefty editing, and the center could be easily cropped and moved around.
    "to be technical"?

    I wish! That would give me something substantial to respond to. Instead just more baseless claims backed up by nothing more than an overreaction imagination.

    That you are resorting to nonsense and conspiracy theories shows you have no real rebuttal.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    His screen is actually a bit concave which is impossible if the line weren't flat.
    namemcname
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Why do you act like fish eye lenses are some unassailable issue? It distorts around the center of the lense."

    Unassailable? Hardly. Inconclusive, at best. The fact that we can see a flat line anywhere near the center proves it isn't curved, to be technical. The insane amount of cutaways shows hefty editing, and the center could be easily cropped and moved around.
    "to be technical"?

    I wish! That would give me something substantial to respond to. Instead just more baseless claims backed up by nothing more than an overreaction imagination.

    That you are resorting to nonsense and conspiracy theories shows you have no real rebuttal.

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand

    Post the unedited version. It's ok.
    namemcname
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    I have asked you about 3 or four times to confirm whether your position is, basically, that you have better measurements and observations; most specifically measurements of water, and some evidence you feel shows most images are fake.

    You have done your best to avoid answering this, including complaining that I was trying to “bait you into a position.”

    If you feel you answered this, by all means say yes, or no, and if no; please explain what additional evidence you feel you base your opinion on. There’s no need to say anything at length, or repeat much of what you’ve already highlighted (most are variations of the above).


    Now; while I’m waiting for that. Let’s ask a lens question; and start working to refute your position.

    Is it possible to take a picture of a straight line with a camera?
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    @Ampersand Like this curvature? 




    Image result for hockey laughing


    Yeah thanks, try to provide me an image showing curvature not from NASA or that does not have any distortion. Good luck.
    If you think that is a straight line that passes through the centre of the image, your spacial reasoning skills are very poor. Which might explain your beliefs, to be honest.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-afOJ_gS0w7Q/WfnzyHDPoNI/AAAAAAAAFYk/F4FyhaMtrygfHNcbsu9N59za2rjT1NCgQCLcBGAs/s1600/gopro-SL-10-mach5.5-396000ft-lens-dead-center.jpg
    If you paid attention, a curved line can ONLY be made straight if the line is at the screens edge. Ignore the point I made about obvious cropping and editing though.

    I see you.
    The lense curves continually. Why does the curvature nearer the middle magically not cause distortion but the curvature near the outside does? What evidence do you have to support this outrageous theory that flies in the face of literally centuries of knowledge? Not only that but why are you making claims that contradict the evidence of your own eyes?

    I have provided you with an image from the same video where the centre of the line passes through the middle of the camera and it shows the horizon is curved. If when it is nearer to the edge and not passing through the centre of the camera the line is no longer curved ipso facto the movement away from the centre of the camera MUST change the curvature, otherwise the two lines would look the same, wouldn't they? Now as you have admitted many times in the past, these lenses can distort the curvature of lines. As would be expected in this circumstance, SilversishGoldNova's image has had the curvature of the earth's horizon reduced so it looks straightish because the horizon is off centre.

    The image shows a curved horizon of a spherical earth.

    This is also an experiment you can replicate for a few hundred thousand dollars - well within the budget of other endeavours you have said are replicable in the past. Even by your own nonsensical standards this should count as definitive proof.
    Erfisflat
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Why do you act like fish eye lenses are some unassailable issue? It distorts around the center of the lense."

    Unassailable? Hardly. Inconclusive, at best. The fact that we can see a flat line anywhere near the center proves it isn't curved, to be technical. The insane amount of cutaways shows hefty editing, and the center could be easily cropped and moved around.
    "to be technical"?

    I wish! That would give me something substantial to respond to. Instead just more baseless claims backed up by nothing more than an overreaction imagination.

    That you are resorting to nonsense and conspiracy theories shows you have no real rebuttal.

    You should learn your fallacies so you don't end up shooting yourself in the foot and looking silly.

    Appeal to the stone fallacy is dismissing an argument as absurd.

    In fact I dismissed it because you just made a load of claims without a single bit of evidence to back them up - basically pointing out that YOU were trying to dismiss an argument without proof. As you concur that dismissing an argument without proof in ineligible, you have implicitly conceded the point.

    Please go back and form an actual argument.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  

    This is why I always point out every day observations and repeatable, scalable and practical experiments as evidence and tell you to NOT to take my or anyone's word for something. That is the difference between science and pseudoscience. Images provided by institutions have been proved to be faked on the majority of the time, so there literally no reason to believe what's in any of them.

    Seems like you went with "When you claim you've already provided evidence in this thread, not actually linking to anything and ignoring the fact all your claims are rebutted or in the process of being rebutted so prove nothing."

    Called your fallaciousness in advance. You talking about how you so totally have loads of super A+ evidence and always make great points but you left them in your other jacket so can't provide an example at the moment is old hat and obviously does no actually constitute proof. Care for a second go?
    namemcname
  • I guess @Ampersand doesn't disagree his image is distorted eh. Now he's back to his fallacious and biased rambling @Erfisflat
    namemcname
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    I guess @Ampersand doesn't disagree his image is distorted eh. Now he's back to his fallacious and biased rambling @Erfisflat
    It was actually only your image that was distorted because your spacial reasoning is very poor and you couldn't tell what the centre of the image was.

    Don't feel embarrassed, it seems to be quite common among flat earthers. Erfistflat couldn't conceptualise how two people standing on different points of the earth would have a different view of the moon or how one object could be moving faster than another but still take longer to complete a circuit if that circuit was also bigger.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "I have asked you about 3 or four times to confirm whether your position is, basically, that you have better measurements and observations; most specifically measurements of water, and some evidence you feel shows most images are fake."

    Images of a curved earth to be more precise. You have conceded the last point.

    "You have done your best to avoid answering this, including complaining that I was trying to “bait you into a position.”"

    Actually I've confirmed this a few times now. 

    "If you feel you answered this, by all means say yes, or no, and if no; please explain what additional evidence you feel you base your opinion on. There’s no need to say anything at length, or repeat much of what you’ve already highlighted (most are variations of the above)."

    Yes. 


    "Now; while I’m waiting for that. Let’s ask a lens question; and start working to refute your position.

    Is it possible to take a picture of a straight line with a camera?"

    Yes, is this not obvious?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Ampersand said:
    I guess @Ampersand doesn't disagree his image is distorted eh. Now he's back to his fallacious and biased rambling @Erfisflat
    It was actually only your image that was distorted because your spacial reasoning is very poor and you couldn't tell what the centre of the image was.

    Don't feel embarrassed, it seems to be quite common among flat earthers. Erfistflat couldn't conceptualise how two people standing on different points of the earth would have a different view of the moon or how one object could be moving faster than another but still take longer to complete a circuit if that circuit was also bigger.
    I have a feeling you're that Ramshitter guy from DDO.

    Mate, your image has been refuted. It didn't take much effort. Again, a real image showing curvature from an independent source without a fish eye lense.

    We have a few showing NONE, like this one

    https://flaterthe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/cam2.png

    From 109,000 feet. We await your pitiful and fallacious dodge.
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    Excellent, if you’re able to take pictures of straight lines; that means that some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines?
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    I guess @Ampersand doesn't disagree his image is distorted eh. Now he's back to his fallacious and biased rambling @Erfisflat
    It was actually only your image that was distorted because your spacial reasoning is very poor and you couldn't tell what the centre of the image was.

    Don't feel embarrassed, it seems to be quite common among flat earthers. Erfistflat couldn't conceptualise how two people standing on different points of the earth would have a different view of the moon or how one object could be moving faster than another but still take longer to complete a circuit if that circuit was also bigger.
    I have a feeling you're that Ramshitter guy from DDO.

    Mate, your image has been refuted. It didn't take much effort. Again, a real image showing curvature from an independent source without a fish eye lense.

    We have a few showing NONE, like this one

    https://flaterthe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/cam2.png

    From 109,000 feet. We await your pitiful and fallacious dodge.
    Ah, so rather than actually providing an argument to rebuttal my image and defence of your claims, you just say you've rebutted it but don't actually do so. My evidence stands until you can rebuttal it. So far you have not done so.

    You'll note your image in this post is a random image of unknown provenance that only appears on four random conspiracy websites (https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiuRMUE-Q45oMwsqe6THhPz5SzWfjrwVMIYp4KnNl3M1ksyQl57ho-cg9mSr0p4P1WFNhvZL9gqHpXEvgRD0y16sIskb1Yfa-rDETS-L7vHSpdTaMuLPdfZil0QWnzewyeA-KbRfCwRkciwj3CXUZx7fJPEJtyhuP_11nSXym0kYN-N69p-7AKzR1sUFMgM_1N1z7nu4D9xum9p1AtFAmB4E8L9sMfF6fQTOIpgOVGZS_1zY9UX3K6A-TcPE-ZeySKcQOxFvEFvv0tv7nCMUL8a64_1_1SboO04r3cX4l4aJ8CsKFChqRjUvHM5OSNA-VZQfqulbwXir5_1LS1J9qu-NPp6x8ID7A15Q) while for mine I provided the video it was taken from so you could check yourself.

    Also while I provided an image where the line passes through the middle of the lense so there would be no distortion if the line were straight, you provide an image where it is obviously off centre and specifically off centre in such a way that it would be expected to negate the curvature (being underneath the centre of the frame).

    Poor effort.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @silverishgoldnova is this globetard actually sitting here here telling us that this video proves the earth is round, even after the video was shown to alter the horizon from convex to concave to flat? I mean he even admits with: "The lense curves continually.". The lens causes distortion, it inconclusive, plain and simple.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    @silverishgoldnova is this globetard actually sitting here here telling us that this video proves the earth is round, even after the video was shown to alter the horizon from convex to concave to flat? I mean he even admits with: "The lense curves continually.". The lens causes distortion, it inconclusive, plain and simple.
    His video has been refuted, so now he is left with dodges.
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    So now you're contradicting yourself and you do think a lense in an insulin levels problem that there is no accounting for?

    I've provided my explanation, that we would not expect there to be distortion in the middle of the image. You have actually already accepted this point just a couple of posts back (although you tried to take it too far) when you claimed there was no distortion anywhere near the centre of the picture.

    Doing a complete 180 based on no evidence to try and hide your ignorance, willing to say whatever is convenient without any regard for the truth.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @silverishgoldnova is this globetard actually sitting here here telling us that this video proves the earth is round, even after the video was shown to alter the horizon from convex to concave to flat? I mean he even admits with: "The lense curves continually.". The lens causes distortion, it inconclusive, plain and simple.
    His video has been refuted, so now he is left with dodges.
    Please save your criticism until:

    1) You learn to draw straight lines.

    2) You are able to form reasoned arguments rather than just constantly making fallacies.
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Ampersand , just so you realize, Erfisflat said:
    @silverishgoldnova is this globetard actually sitting here here telling us that this video proves the earth is round, even after the video was shown to alter the horizon from convex to concave to flat? I mean he even admits with: "The lense curves continually.". The lens causes distortion, it inconclusive, plain and simple.

    So yeah, he's refuted your argument, and so have I, in a couple of different ways. You admit it is distorted. I am familiar with this debate tactic, where your argument gets refuted, then you try to make your position infallible by hoping people are too lazy to read the previous posts. Again, are you that Ramshitter guy from DDO?
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • @Ampersand So, the center is focused on the Earth, and we notice significant curvature. If you understand how a fish eye lense works, then if the Earth were a ball, the horizon would be distorted to be flat. You refuted your own argument when you posted that link.

    @Namemcname Who scored the own goal now, sorry?
    namemcname
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

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

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @SilverishGoldNova

    Only if it were off centre, such as in your example where you failed at drawing a straight line.

    We can see your claim is wrong as we've seen in examples of curves turning even more concave, the exact opposite of what you claim about them becoming more flat. It can go either way depending on where the line is in relation to the centre of the lense. In my image it is dead centre so no distortion either way.
    Pogue
This Debate has been closed.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

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

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch