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.


Communities




Earth is a ball

11718192123



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @tttflat

    Trying to keep it civil. If you have something usefully to add, that would be a great start to entering the conversation.
    Pogue
    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 said:
    http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/5.html

    The shadow thing is inconclusive, for either side.
    But, but, nuh uh my college humor video!

    Gooberry
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website.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)
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/5.html

    The shadow thing is inconclusive, for either side.
    But, but, nuh uh my college humor video!

    But, but, nuh uh, my fake evidence (supposed to be you since I can only assume that you are talking about me since I provided a college humor video to support that the moon landing was real and you did not)! Now that we finished this mini-debate and all the moon landing hoax evidence has been debunked and the moon landing is not a hoax evidence has not been debunked, can we go back to debating the shape of the Earth. The flat shape would be impossible due to gravity. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Pouge Yes, I can agree, this thread went off topic and the debate was inconclusive for either side. I think we need to stop fighting about who did not post evidence, and go back to the Earth's shape.

    With that in mind...

    Explain this.



    This picture was taken from Genoa, and is photographing the island of Elba, from over 125 miles away. 

    The image was taken from a height of 70 feet too. Now lets put these results into a curvature calculator.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Horizon = 10.25 Miles (54097.11 Feet)
    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.84 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.9 Feet)
    Hidden= 1.66 Miles (8779.41 Feet)
    Horizon Dip = 0.148 Degrees, (0.0026 Radians)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
    Refracted Horizon = 11.07 Miles (58431.55 Feet)
    Refracted Drop= 1.69 Miles (8932.46 Feet)
    Refracted Hidden= 1.4 Miles (7418.36 Feet)
    Refracted Dip = 0.137 Degrees, (0.0024 Radians)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we also take into account the elevation of the Island, which is 3,340 feet, then we cannot say that it is due to elevation.

    Simple, undeniable proof that we live on a stationary flat Earth, and we arent monkeys on a spinning ball.

    Uh oh. 
    Gooberry
    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)
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Pouge Yes, I can agree, this thread went off topic and the debate was inconclusive for either side. I think we need to stop fighting about who did not post evidence, and go back to the Earth's shape.

    With that in mind...

    Explain this.



    This picture was taken from Genoa, and is photographing the island of Elba, from over 125 miles away. 

    The image was taken from a height of 70 feet too. Now lets put these results into a curvature calculator.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Horizon = 10.25 Miles (54097.11 Feet)

    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.84 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.9 Feet)
    Hidden= 1.66 Miles (8779.41 Feet)
    Horizon Dip = 0.148 Degrees, (0.0026 Radians)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
    Refracted Horizon = 11.07 Miles (58431.55 Feet)
    Refracted Drop= 1.69 Miles (8932.46 Feet)
    Refracted Hidden= 1.4 Miles (7418.36 Feet)
    Refracted Dip = 0.137 Degrees, (0.0024 Radians)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we also take into account the elevation of the Island, which is 3,340 feet, then we cannot say that it is due to elevation.

    Simple, undeniable proof that we live on a stationary flat Earth, and we arent monkeys on a spinning ball.

    Uh oh. 
    Very phony numbers
    The cited 70 feet above sea-level is clearly nonsense when you look at the source of the Italian youtube-video. These pictures must have been taken from one of the tallest buildings or highest points of observation in or around Genoa.
    One seems to have been shot from one of the mountains surrounding Genoa.

    One seems to have been shot from one of the mountains surrounding Genoa.
    There's even one scene where you can see a small airplane fly by BELOW the observer.

    Here are the coordinates of the building in the first picture: 44°24'16.44"N   8°56'9.37"E.
    It's Terrazza Martini Tower, 116m high and standing on roughly 20m ground elevation (according to google earth). The observer is clearly standing higher than that.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrazza_Martini_Tower

    Original video: 
     Edit: Changed the link because the video did not work. 

    Also, it could have been the superior mirage. 

    Sources: 
    http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/supmrge.htm
    https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Superior_mirage
    http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz150.htm

    The link you have underneath your post: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html, yeah here is a link debunking everything in it: http://200proofsearthisnotflat.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/debunking-Dubay-70-79200.html.

    Uh, oh!
    SilverishGoldNovaqipwbdeo
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
     Interesting how you don't try to refute my argument. Your rebuttal is that Corsica, different island by the way, is a mirage. Great use of evidence. Does Corsica being a mirage necessarily disprove the flat Earth, or does it disprove a different argument? 
    GooberryPogue
    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   -  
     Interesting how you don't try to refute my argument. Your rebuttal is that Corsica, different island by the way, is a mirage. Great use of evidence. Does Corsica being a mirage necessarily disprove the flat Earth, or does it disprove a different argument? 
    Hi argument is that you’re argument used false numbers to make the view seem impossible.

    When you look at the real heights based on the original source of the video, it seems reasonable.

    The only way you can think he made the argument you claimed, is if you didn’t read any of his post.

    Pogue made a long, detailed rebuttal where he explained what you asked him to explain.

    This type of red herring nonsense is why I keep tagging your posts as fallacies: because that’s what they actually are.
    Pogueqipwbdeo
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Gooberry said:
     Interesting how you don't try to refute my argument. Your rebuttal is that Corsica, different island by the way, is a mirage. Great use of evidence. Does Corsica being a mirage necessarily disprove the flat Earth, or does it disprove a different argument? 
    Hi argument is that you’re argument used false numbers to make the view seem impossible.

    When you look at the real heights based on the original source of the video, it seems reasonable.

    The only way you can think he made the argument you claimed, is if you didn’t read any of his post.

    Pogue made a long, detailed rebuttal where he explained what you asked him to explain.

    This type of red herring nonsense is why I keep tagging your posts as fallacies: because that’s what they actually are.
    Lets see
    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
    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    GooberryPogueqipwbdeo
    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)
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
     Interesting how you don't try to refute my argument. Your rebuttal is that Corsica, different island by the way, is a mirage. Great use of evidence. Does Corsica being a mirage necessarily disprove the flat Earth, or does it disprove a different argument? 
    Hi argument is that you’re argument used false numbers to make the view seem impossible.

    When you look at the real heights based on the original source of the video, it seems reasonable.

    The only way you can think he made the argument you claimed, is if you didn’t read any of his post.

    Pogue made a long, detailed rebuttal where he explained what you asked him to explain.

    This type of red herring nonsense is why I keep tagging your posts as fallacies: because that’s what they actually are.
    Lets see
    Monte Capanne on Elba has an elevation of 1019m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 201km, you get 207.1 km of added intersecting sight lines. Elba is visible.
    qipwbdeo
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.

    For example, when someone points out that you ignored everything an opponent said, and you argue that he doesn’t understand what a red herring is: that is a deliberate attempt to distract:
    and thus a red herring. (As well as being an ad hominem)

    An additional example, is if you ignore everything an opponent says, and simply dismiss their position for a side issue (as you did), this is also an attempt to distract away from the key point.

    so yes: I understand what a red herring is. Do you?


    Pogueqipwbdeo
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    Also. Let me point out that you just admitted that the argument you just made was wrong, and based on faulty data.

    why didn’t you check you’re sources and data before making it?
     
    SilverishGoldNova
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018

    Monte Capanne on Elba has an elevation of 1019m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 201km, you get 207.1 km of added intersecting sight lines. Elba is visible.
    Distance = 125 Miles (659999.8 Feet), View Height = 1082.68 Feet (12992.13 Inches) Radius = 3959 Miles (20903520 Feet)

    Results ignoring refraction
    Horizon = 40.29 Miles (212755.03 Feet)
    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.82 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.89 Feet)
    Hidden= 4784 Feet (57408.03 Inches)
    Horizon Dip = 0.583 Degrees, (0.0102 Radians)

    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
    Refracted Horizon = 43.52 Miles (229801.27 Feet)
    Refracted Drop= 1.69 Miles (8932.46 Feet)
    Refracted Hidden= 3794.09 Feet (45529.1 Inches)
    Refracted Dip = 0.540 Degrees, (0.0094 Radians)Gooberry said:
    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    Also. Let me point out that you just admitted that the argument you just made was wrong, and based on faulty data.

    why didn’t you check you’re sources and data before making it?
     
    I said that we aren't discussing Corsica, we're talking about Elba, I did not say my argument was wrong. Clear exaggeration, I can give YOU a fallacy for that.
    Gooberry
    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   -  

    Monte Capanne on Elba has an elevation of 1019m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 201km, you get 207.1 km of added intersecting sight lines. Elba is visible.
    Distance = 125 Miles (659999.8 Feet), View Height = 1082.68 Feet (12992.13 Inches) Radius = 3959 Miles (20903520 Feet)

    Results ignoring refraction
    Horizon = 40.29 Miles (212755.03 Feet)
    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.82 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.89 Feet)
    Hidden= 4784 Feet (57408.03 Inches)
    Horizon Dip = 0.583 Degrees, (0.0102 Radians)

    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
    Refracted Horizon = 43.52 Miles (229801.27 Feet)
    Refracted Drop= 1.69 Miles (8932.46 Feet)
    Refracted Hidden= 3794.09 Feet (45529.1 Inches)
    Refracted Dip = 0.540 Degrees, (0.0094 Radians)Gooberry said:
    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    Also. Let me point out that you just admitted that the argument you just made was wrong, and based on faulty data.

    why didn’t you check you’re sources and data before making it?
     
    I said that we aren't discussing Corsica, we're talking about Elba, I did not say my argument was wrong. Clear exaggeration, I can give YOU a fallacy for that.
    You initially admitted your initial height was wrong.

    Youre entire argument seems to have been based on this incorrect initial height.

    Then you seemed to have gone back and removed that portion of your post.


    qipwbdeo
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Gooberry said:

    Monte Capanne on Elba has an elevation of 1019m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 201km, you get 207.1 km of added intersecting sight lines. Elba is visible.
    Distance = 125 Miles (659999.8 Feet), View Height = 1082.68 Feet (12992.13 Inches) Radius = 3959 Miles (20903520 Feet)

    Results ignoring refraction
    Horizon = 40.29 Miles (212755.03 Feet)
    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.82 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.89 Feet)
    Hidden= 4784 Feet (57408.03 Inches)
    Horizon Dip = 0.583 Degrees, (0.0102 Radians)

    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
    Refracted Horizon = 43.52 Miles (229801.27 Feet)
    Refracted Drop= 1.69 Miles (8932.46 Feet)
    Refracted Hidden= 3794.09 Feet (45529.1 Inches)
    Refracted Dip = 0.540 Degrees, (0.0094 Radians)Gooberry said:
    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    Also. Let me point out that you just admitted that the argument you just made was wrong, and based on faulty data.

    why didn’t you check you’re sources and data before making it?
     
    I said that we aren't discussing Corsica, we're talking about Elba, I did not say my argument was wrong. Clear exaggeration, I can give YOU a fallacy for that.
    You initially admitted your initial height was wrong.

    Youre entire argument seems to have been based on this incorrect initial height.

    Then you seemed to have gone back and removed that portion of your post.


    And yet, I showed that it would still be impossible using your height(s). Is this debateisland or is this the kindergartners circus?   
    Gooberry
    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)
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Did you put it in meters or in feet?
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:

    Monte Capanne on Elba has an elevation of 1019m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 201km, you get 207.1 km of added intersecting sight lines. Elba is visible.
    Distance = 125 Miles (659999.8 Feet), View Height = 1082.68 Feet (12992.13 Inches) Radius = 3959 Miles (20903520 Feet)

    Results ignoring refraction
    Horizon = 40.29 Miles (212755.03 Feet)
    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.82 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.89 Feet)
    Hidden= 4784 Feet (57408.03 Inches)
    Horizon Dip = 0.583 Degrees, (0.0102 Radians)

    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
    Refracted Horizon = 43.52 Miles (229801.27 Feet)
    Refracted Drop= 1.69 Miles (8932.46 Feet)
    Refracted Hidden= 3794.09 Feet (45529.1 Inches)
    Refracted Dip = 0.540 Degrees, (0.0094 Radians)Gooberry said:
    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    Also. Let me point out that you just admitted that the argument you just made was wrong, and based on faulty data.

    why didn’t you check you’re sources and data before making it?
     
    I said that we aren't discussing Corsica, we're talking about Elba, I did not say my argument was wrong. Clear exaggeration, I can give YOU a fallacy for that.
    You initially admitted your initial height was wrong.

    Youre entire argument seems to have been based on this incorrect initial height.

    Then you seemed to have gone back and removed that portion of your post.


    And yet, I showed that it would still be impossible using your height(s). Is this debateisland or is this the kindergartners circus?    So you ARE admitting your entire initial argument was wrong, and based on false data?
  • Pogue said:
    Gooberry said:

    Monte Capanne on Elba has an elevation of 1019m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 201km, you get 207.1 km of added intersecting sight lines. Elba is visible.
    Distance = 125 Miles (659999.8 Feet), View Height = 1082.68 Feet (12992.13 Inches) Radius = 3959 Miles (20903520 Feet)

    Results ignoring refraction
    Horizon = 40.29 Miles (212755.03 Feet)
    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.82 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.89 Feet)
    Hidden= 4784 Feet (57408.03 Inches)
    Horizon Dip = 0.583 Degrees, (0.0102 Radians)

    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
    Refracted Horizon = 43.52 Miles (229801.27 Feet)
    Refracted Drop= 1.69 Miles (8932.46 Feet)
    Refracted Hidden= 3794.09 Feet (45529.1 Inches)
    Refracted Dip = 0.540 Degrees, (0.0094 Radians)Gooberry said:
    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    Also. Let me point out that you just admitted that the argument you just made was wrong, and based on faulty data.

    why didn’t you check you’re sources and data before making it?
     
    I said that we aren't discussing Corsica, we're talking about Elba, I did not say my argument was wrong. Clear exaggeration, I can give YOU a fallacy for that.
    You initially admitted your initial height was wrong.

    Youre entire argument seems to have been based on this incorrect initial height.

    Then you seemed to have gone back and removed that portion of your post.


    And yet, I showed that it would still be impossible using your height(s). Is this debateisland or is this the kindergartners circus?   
    Did you put it in meters or feet? I put it in meters. I put it in the imperial system. So, the feet and miles system.
    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
    Unrelated but what the hell is happening to the quote system?
    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   -  
    Unrelated but what the hell is happening to the quote system?
    I think you messed it up when you deleted a portion of a post where you admitted you got your data wrong: as I was in the middle of quoting you when you did it.
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova
    I gave my measurements in the metric system so you said you used my heights so change it to metric. I do not know what is happening to this quote system, it is really messed up now. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Unrelated but what the hell is happening to the quote system?
    I think you messed it up when you deleted a portion of a post where you admitted you got your data wrong: as I was in the middle of quoting you when you did it.
    That also happened to me and it got messed up. However, it works fine when I do it for you. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Pogue said:
    @SilverishGoldNova
    I gave my measurements in the metric system so you said you used my heights so change it to metric. I do not know what is happening to this quote system, it is really messed up now. 
    @Gooberry Ok fine, I admit that I used the wrong height. Still, I have refuted the argument from YOUR height. 

    Pouge here is the same thing in meters. This is the link to the curvature calculator.

    https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

    Results ignoring refractionHorizon = 61.83 km (61827.91 m)Bulge = 792.72 metersDrop = 3.17 km (3171.48 m)Hidden= 1.52 km (1519.9 m)Horizon Dip = 0.556 Degrees, (0.0097 Radians)
    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 7432.83 km (7432833.33 m)Refracted Horizon = 66.78 km (66781.66 m)Refracted Drop= 2.72 km (2718.24 m)Refracted Hidden= 1.21 km (1211.72 m)Refracted Dip = 0.515 Degrees, (0.0090 Radians)
    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   -  
    Pogue said:
    @SilverishGoldNova
    I gave my measurements in the metric system so you said you used my heights so change it to metric. I do not know what is happening to this quote system, it is really messed up now. 
    @Gooberry Ok fine, I admit that I used the wrong height. Still, I have refuted the argument from YOUR height. 

    Pouge here is the same thing in meters. This is the link to the curvature calculator.

    https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

    Results ignoring refraction
    Horizon = 61.83 km (61827.91 m)Bulge = 792.72 metersDrop = 3.17 km (3171.48 m)Hidden= 1.52 km (1519.9 m)Horizon Dip = 0.556 Degrees, (0.0097 Radians)
    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 7432.83 km (7432833.33 m)Refracted Horizon = 66.78 km (66781.66 m)Refracted Drop= 2.72 km (2718.24 m)Refracted Hidden= 1.21 km (1211.72 m)Refracted Dip = 0.515 Degrees, (0.0090 Radians)
    Do you admitted your argument was wrong, then claimed I was commuting a fallacy by acknowledging you admitted your argument is wrong? I would suggest you undo that one :P

    So, can I ask again: why didn’t you check your maths, and check your sources?
    qipwbdeo
  • @Pouge Yes, I can agree, this thread went off topic and the debate was inconclusive for either side. I think we need to stop fighting about who did not post evidence, and go back to the Earth's shape.

    With that in mind...

    Explain this.



    This picture was taken from Genoa, and is photographing the island of Elba, from over 200 kilometers away.

    The image was taken from a height of 300 meters too. Now lets put these results into a curvature calculator.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Horizon = 10.25 Miles (54097.11 Feet)

    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.84 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.9 Feet)
    Hidden= 1.66 Miles (8779.41 Feet)
    Horizon Dip = 0.148 Degrees, (0.0026 Radians)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Results ignoring refractionHorizon = 61.83 km (61827.91 m)Bulge = 792.72 metersDrop = 3.17 km (3171.48 m)Hidden= 1.52 km (1519.9 m)Horizon Dip = 0.556 Degrees, (0.0097 Radians)
    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 7432.83 km (7432833.33 m)Refracted Horizon = 66.78 km (66781.66 m)Refracted Drop= 2.72 km (2718.24 m)Refracted Hidden= 1.21 km (1211.72 m)Refracted Dip = 0.515 Degrees, (0.0090 Radians)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we also take into account the elevation of the Island, which is 3,340 feet, then we cannot say that it is due to elevation.

    Simple, undeniable proof that we live on a stationary flat Earth, and we arent monkeys on a spinning ball.

    Uh oh. 

    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)
  • @Gooberry Ok there, I admit I used the wrong nunmber, but my position that it is undeniable flat Earth proof, regardless of which height you wanna use, stands. So please, put up or .
    LibertineStates
    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   -  
    @Gooberry Ok there, I admit I used the wrong nunmber, but my position that it is undeniable flat Earth proof, regardless of which height you wanna use, stands. So please, put up or .
    That wasn’t the question.

    You used the wrong number, which meant that you’re argument was wrong (now you’ve made another), you didn’t check your sources; and I’m asking why.

    was this a one-off, or general thing? Where did you get that 70ft number from?
    qipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova
    You got that from your source http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html.
    Here is the debunk from http://200proofsearthisnotflat.blogspot.com/2016/02/debunking-Dubay-70-79200.html. ;
    #74 Very phony numbers
    The cited 70 feet above sea-level are clearly nonsense when you look at the source of an Italian youtube-video. These pictures must have been taken from one of the tallest buildings or highest points of observation in or around Genoa.

    One seems to have been shot from one of the mountains surrounding Genoa.
    There's even one scene where you can see a small airplane fly by BELOW the observer.
    Monte Fasce just outside the central city is 834 meters high
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Fasce

    Here are the coordinates of the building in the first picture: 44°24'16.44"N   8°56'9.37"E.
    It's Terrazza Martini Tower, 116m high and standing on roughly 20m ground elevation (according to google earth). The observer is clearly standing higher than that.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrazza_Martini_Tower

    Since the 70 feet (21m!) are so utterly misleading and you can't tell the distances from the video, for all following pictures from Genoa I'll calculate with 300m height.

    (Sources for calculations: See #69&70)
    Gorgona has an elevation of 254m, with 300m observing height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 (this is a generous guess for these kinds of conditions) at a distance of 131km you get 143.7km of added intersecting sight lines. Gorgona is visible.

    #75 Very phony numbers
    See #74 for details.
    Monte Cinto on Corsica has an elevation of 2706m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 159km, you get 260.8 km of added intersecting sight lines. Corsica is very visible.

    #76 Very phony numbers
    See #74 for details.
    Monte Castello on Capraia has an elevation of 447m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 164km, you get 170.9 km of added intersecting sight lines. Capraia is visible.

    #77 Very phony numbers
    See #74 for details.
    Monte Capanne on Elba has an elevation of 1019m. With 300m observation height in Genoa and refraction coefficient of 0.2 at a distance of 201km, you get 207.1 km of added intersecting sight lines. Elba is visible.

    Metabunk.org only accounted for the standard refraction. The Superior-mirage is an option. Genoa has frequent mirages. In the original video, the bottom is gone, and parts of it are gone.  
    http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/supmrge.htm
    https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Superior_mirage
    http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz150.htm
    http://blog.daimonie.com/2015/11/200-reasons-why-flat-earthers-are.html

    Here is a reason why the Earth is round:

    Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same thing: Spinning masses of air sucking moisture from the ocean, dumping it back on us and destroying things in their path. A hurricane is just a giant wind drain—a low-pressure center with winds flushing into it. The wind always blows counter-clockwise inwards in Northern Hemisphere hurricanes—check out this picture of Hurricane Katrina and the United States. Notice the direction the wind is traveling with a compass, depending on where the Hurricane is.

    However, in the Southern Hemisphere, the wind travels the opposite direction. Here’s a picture of Hurricane Catarina, a very rare Southern Hemisphere Atlantic Hurricane:

    Notice that Catarina is very clearly spinning in the opposite direction. That’s because of the Coriolis effect—the wind changes direction as the planet spins beneath it. If the Earth wasn’t spinning, the wind should blow straight into the middle of the hurricane from all directions. But the Earth spins faster at the equator than at the poles, because our planet’s midsection has the furthest distance to travel with each rotation. Winds traveling northwards or southwards curve as they travel from slower spinning to faster spinning regions of the planet. The wind carves the opposite direction based on whether you are above or below the equator since the Earth’s rotation gets slower on alternate sides. 

    You can recreate this by spinning a basketball on your finger, and moving a marker from the bottom up or the top down—notice what the line looks like above and below the middle of the ball.

    Okay, let’s try to explain all that with a flat Earth. If Earth was a giant spinning plate with the North Pole at its center, all hurricanes should spin in the same direction and should have a much more spiral shape the further south (i.e., away from the center) you head. You could maybe slow down the spins further from the center of the spinning plate, but then you should see the continents ripping apart from the different speeds. It just doesn’t make any sense.

    There are so many more ways you can prove to yourself the Earth is round. You can see more things the higher up you are. You don’t feel a centripetal force like you would on a carousel. Long suspension bridges’ towers slope slightly away from one another to account for the curvature of the Earth. Every other planet is a spinning sphere. Satellites exist (as proven by the existence of your iPhone), and obey rules that only work if they’re orbiting around Earth. We’ve taken many, many pictures of Earth. Buy a weather balloon and strap a camera to it.

    Source: https://gizmodo.com/how-to-prove-to-yourself-or-shaq-the-earth-is-round-1793441692

    qipwbdeo
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    You do not know the height of the viewer and cannot tell what the hight is. This argument is therefore invalid. 
    qipwbdeo
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Gooberry said:
    @Gooberry Ok there, I admit I used the wrong nunmber, but my position that it is undeniable flat Earth proof, regardless of which height you wanna use, stands. So please, put up or .
    That wasn’t the question.

    You used the wrong number, which meant that you’re argument was wrong (now you’ve made another), you didn’t check your sources; and I’m asking why.

    was this a one-off, or general thing? Where did you get that 70ft number from?
    The 70ft number was from http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html. Everything in that is debunked by http://200proofsearthisnotflat.blogspot.com/2016/02/debunking-Dubay-70-79200.html and http://blog.daimonie.com/2015/11/200-reasons-why-flat-earthers-are.html
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Ultimately, gravity proves a spherical Earth. Earth is more of a semi-ellipsoid. Some argue that planes have to constantly dip or cars could hover and wait for the destination to come over. However, when the Earth moves, it brings the atmosphere with it too. This is because of drag (drag is sort of like `friction' but with fluids instead of solids). Another point to make is that aircraft define their position relative to an air traffic control tower - which is rotating with the earth. So, for aircraft, hovering or equivalently keeping equal distance to the control tower means it is rotating with the earth. 
    qipwbdeo
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • tttflattttflat 23 Pts   -  
    @Pogue and @Gooberry
    1. You guys act like 8-year-olds because you guys are 8-year olds.
    2. Here is some evidence for the flat Earth:
    a. The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only fake space agencies like NASA and SpaceX show it with their CGI. 
    b. The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space than truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is, in fact, is an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and the remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
    SilverishGoldNovaLibertineStatesEvidenceWilliamSchulz
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    tttflat said:
    @Pogue and @Gooberry
    1. You guys act like 8-year-olds because you guys are 8-year olds.
    Um, I am not 8 years old. I am 12. So by your logic, I act like a 12-year-old. 

    tttflat said:
    @Pogue and @Gooberry
    2. Here is some evidence for the flat Earth:
    a. The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only fake space agencies like NASA and SpaceX show it with their CGI. 
    Completly false! Look at this amateur with their homemade spacecraft. Evidence that SpaceX is fake. Oh and that every space agency is fake. The shape of the horizon is in fact highly dependent on altitude/scale. This is easily proven by drawing a circle and measuring the angles of the apparent fields of view down on a proposed sphere and the radius of the visible horizon on that sphere from different altitudes of observation, without any topography
    Source: https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/

    tttflat said:
    @Pogue and @Gooberry
    2. Here is some evidence for the flat Earth:
    b. The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space than truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is, in fact, is an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and the remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
    On small scales, water doesn't maintain its level due to surface tension. That's why falling water drops form spheres. Over long distances, water never is consistently level on earth. Example: Tides. Also, if you overlooked a perfectly level lake from a 50m elevation in perfect conditions, you could see ~50km far, with the horizon appearing 0.225° lower than eye-level. There is no way for your eyes to perceive anything near a curve. This is perfectly consistent with water leveling perpendicular to the center of the Earth. 
    qipwbdeoGooberryLibertineStates
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • qipwbdeoqipwbdeo 30 Pts   -  
    The equater is the largest distance you can go on the Earth. This is testable. However, on a flat Earth, with the model you provided, shows the path along the Antarctic to be the longest. Another reason why the model does not hold up.
    PogueLibertineStates
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    tttflat said:
    @Pogue and @Gooberry
    1. You guys act like 8-year-olds because you guys are 8-year olds.
    2. Here is some evidence for the flat Earth:
    a. The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only fake space agencies like NASA and SpaceX show it with their CGI. 
    b. The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space than truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is, in fact, is an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and the remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
    A.) There are multiple independent high altitude images of a curved horizon that aren’t NASA. 

    B.) water can be objectively observed to be curved, with basic experiments such as watching boats, planes, the sun falling over the horizon.

    Now, I’m not sure why you decided to launch into an ad-hominem attack unprompted; but quite honestly, if all you have is this type of non-evidence and name calling that typifies the other flat earthers here; the most appropriate thing you can contribute to this thread is silence.
    LibertineStatesqipwbdeoPogue
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  

    And now, for the extremely simple rebuttal to Gooberry's constantly posted hot air

    Image result for perspective vanishing point


    P L H P W B 
    l  e  o e  o  u  
    e a  w r  r   d  
    a r      s  k      
    s n     p  s
    e        e
              c
              t
              i
              v
              e

    Lets see how long it takes for this post to get marked as a fallacy for no good reason. 

    Unrelatedly, the stars are winning 2-0, 9:30 left in the 3rd Period. Go Stars!
    As you made repeated accusations that we were not arguing; I thought I’d point out that you ignore my response to this post:

    1.) You completely ignored, for the fifth time; the entire first 75% of my post, that outlines and details how and why you’ve refuted your own argument.

    2.) what, exactly, is this a rebuttal of? Because it is unrelated to my argument:

    You’re claiming that sunset and ships going over the horizon is due to “perspective”. which is not possible.

    Your rebuttal to this is an image in which neither ships nor the sun go over the horizon, and at no point shows the ground interfering with or getting in the way of objects above the ground. It doesn’t show anything you’ve claimed

    You offer no argument or explanation as to why it’s a rebuttal. Nor offer a description of what it is intended to show, or refute; nor did you even describe or referwnce anything I said.

    As I pointed out, parallel lines don’t meet; and as a result, the ground (or the sea) can’t appear in front of an object above the ground (or sea) if they’re flat: and this is actually mirrored - and shown  - by your perspective non-rebuttal image.

    So no: your argument makes no sense, it’s literally an irrelevant image asserted as if it shows something It doesn’t.

    As a result, your post constitutes both a non sequitur/red herring and an argument by assertion: so are genuinely fallacious.
    LibertineStatesqipwbdeo
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova

    And this one too:


    So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.


    When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances. 


    When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.


     When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.


    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.


    Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.


    If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.


    The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.


    The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.


    You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.


    The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.


    So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.

    LibertineStatesqipwbdeo
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova

    And this one too:


    So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.


    When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances. 


    When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.


     When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.


    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.


    Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.


    If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.


    The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.


    The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.


    You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.


    The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.


    So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.

    LibertineStatesqipwbdeo
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    tttflat said:
    @Pogue and @Gooberry
    1. You guys act like 8-year-olds because you guys are 8-year olds.
    Um, I am not 8 years old. I am 12. So by your logic, I act like a 12-year-old. 

    tttflat said:
    @Pogue and @Gooberry
    2. Here is some evidence for the flat Earth:
    a. The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only fake space agencies like NASA and SpaceX show it with their CGI. 
    Completly false! Look at this amateur with their homemade spacecraft. Evidence that SpaceX is fake. Oh and that every space agency is fake. The shape of the horizon is in fact highly dependent on altitude/scale. This is easily proven by drawing a circle and measuring the angles of the apparent fields of view down on a proposed sphere and the radius of the visible horizon on that sphere from different altitudes of observation, without any topography
    Source: https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/

    tttflat said:
    @Pogue and @Gooberry
    2. Here is some evidence for the flat Earth:
    b. The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space than truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is, in fact, is an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and the remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
    On small scales, water doesn't maintain its level due to surface tension. That's why falling water drops form spheres. Over long distances, water never is consistently level on earth. Example: Tides. Also, if you overlooked a perfectly level lake from a 50m elevation in perfect conditions, you could see ~50km far, with the horizon appearing 0.225° lower than eye-level. There is no way for your eyes to perceive anything near a curve. This is perfectly consistent with water leveling perpendicular to the center of the Earth. 
    @Pogue said:  On small scales, water doesn't maintain its level due to surface tension. That's why falling water drops form spheres.

    That's because it is in free fall, and water adheres to whatever it touches.
    Place a drop of water on a table, it looks like a dome, right? Now take a toothpick and slowly touch it, and drag the toothpick and watch how the water adheres to the dragged toothpick.
    In freefall, all the drop of water has is itself, so it forms a sphere.
    ErfisflatPogue
  • @Evidence Just as a warning these guys don't wanna listen, they instead will mark your comment as a fallacy or rehash past mistakes.
    Gooberry
    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   -  
    @Evidence Just as a warning these guys don't wanna listen, they instead will mark your comment as a fallacy or rehash past mistakes.

    I’ll mark posts as fallacies that are fallacies.

    For example, I refuted your position, and you ignored the response 4 times; the fifth you posted a reply that made no sense, I pointed out in extensive detail why: and you’ve ignored that twice now.

    You then complained that I wasn’t interested in debate or discussion in the midst of it, and are still doing that.

    I get the feeling you’re disinterested in a discussion; and so are finding whatever  nonsense distraction you can, rather than to address any one of the number of posts you ignored.

    this makes your post a red herring.

    qipwbdeo
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    And this one too:


    So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.


    When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances. 


    When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.


     When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.


    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.


    Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.


    If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.


    The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.


    The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.


    You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.


    The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.


    So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.

    @Gooberry said:  When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.

    When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.

    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.

    Vanishing point, interesting. So why don't you go and explain this to NASA, because they are calculating a lot of stuff using trig, on stars as far as 13 billion light years away, to another star 12.8 billion light years away.. to convince us of the expanding universe, the Big Bang and many other .

    If a ship on earth can reach it's vanishing point, or angular position of 0 degrees here on earth, then what is the angle from a NASA observer here on earth, and between two stars 12, and 13 billion light years away? (A new celestial wonder has stolen the title of most distant object ever seen in the universe, astronomers report. The new record holder is the galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away.)

    They aren't just calculating the expanding stars, but the very source of that light that has been traveling 13 billion years to reach us.

    With ships over the ocean, the light reaches us in microseconds, but stars and galaxies, .. yet they can trig it all out with "great accuracy" to where they can tell us what happened down to the millionths and billionths of a second after the Big Bang?


    You see what they can do with angles and trig? Even make us believe the Earth is a ball.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    And this one too:


    So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.


    When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances. 


    When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.


     When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.


    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.


    Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.


    If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.


    The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.


    The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.


    You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.


    The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.


    So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.

    @Gooberry said:  When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.

    When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.

    This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.

    Vanishing point, interesting. So why don't you go and explain this to NASA, because they are calculating a lot of stuff using trig, on stars as far as 13 billion light years away, to another star 12.8 billion light years away.. to convince us of the expanding universe, the Big Bang and many other

    If a ship on earth can reach it's vanishing point, or angular position of 0 degrees here on earth, then what is the angle from a NASA observer here on earth, and between two stars 12, and 13 billion light years away? (A new celestial wonder has stolen the title of most distant object ever seen in the universe, astronomers report. The new record holder is the galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away.)

    They aren't just calculating the expanding stars, but the very source of that light that has been traveling 13 billion years to reach us.

    With ships over the ocean, the light reaches us in microseconds, but stars and galaxies, .. yet they can trig it all out with "great accuracy" to where they can tell us what happened down to the millionths and billionths of a second after the Big Bang?


    You see what they can do with angles and trig? Even make us believe the Earth is a ball.
    I can’t even disentangle what you’re point even is in this nonsensical mess.

    I think you’re confusing perspective maths, with something else.

    qipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Evidence
    So it seems like @Erfisflat and @SilverishGoldNova are not responding to this so can you?
    Here is a reason why the Earth is round:

    Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same thing: Spinning masses of air sucking moisture from the ocean, dumping it back on us and destroying things in their path. A hurricane is just a giant wind drain—a low-pressure center with winds flushing into it. The wind always blows counter-clockwise inwards in Northern Hemisphere hurricanes—check out this picture of Hurricane Katrina and the United States. Notice the direction the wind is traveling with a compass, depending on where the Hurricane is.

    However, in the Southern Hemisphere, the wind travels the opposite direction. Here’s a picture of Hurricane Catarina, a very rare Southern Hemisphere Atlantic Hurricane:

    Notice that Catarina is very clearly spinning in the opposite direction. That’s because of the Coriolis effect—the wind changes direction as the planet spins beneath it. If the Earth wasn’t spinning, the wind should blow straight into the middle of the hurricane from all directions. But the Earth spins faster at the equator than at the poles, because our planet’s midsection has the furthest distance to travel with each rotation. Winds traveling northwards or southwards curve as they travel from slower spinning to faster spinning regions of the planet. The wind carves the opposite direction based on whether you are above or below the equator since the Earth’s rotation gets slower on alternate sides. 

    You can recreate this by spinning a basketball on your finger, and moving a marker from the bottom up or the top down—notice what the line looks like above and below the middle of the ball.

    Okay, let’s try to explain all that with a flat Earth. If Earth was a giant spinning plate with the North Pole at its center, all hurricanes should spin in the same direction and should have a much more spiral shape the further south (i.e., away from the center) you head. You could maybe slow down the spins further from the center of the spinning plate, but then you should see the continents ripping apart from the different speeds. It just doesn’t make any sense.

    There are so many more ways you can prove to yourself the Earth is round. You can see more things the higher up you are. You don’t feel a centripetal force like you would on a carousel. Long suspension bridges’ towers slope slightly away from one another to account for the curvature of the Earth. Every other planet is a spinning sphere. Satellites exist (as proven by the existence of your iPhone), and obey rules that only work if they’re orbiting around Earth. We’ve taken many, many pictures of Earth. Buy a weather balloon and strap a camera to it.

    Look at this, a guy sent a camera to space and the Earth is round:  https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/.

    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Evidence
    Can you please respond to what @qipwbdeo said? 
    "The equator is the largest distance you can go on the Earth. This is testable. However, on a flat Earth, with the model you provided, shows the path along the Antarctic to be the longest." This clearly proves the flat Earth model wrong!
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pouge The Corolis effect actually proves a flat Earth. It's simple.






    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)
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pouge The Corolis effect actually proves a flat Earth. It's simple.






    Please explain this in words. I do not really want to watch a video. 
    Evidence
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Pouge The Corolis effect actually proves a flat Earth. It's simple.






    If you think it is a valid argument to assert a video is correct without providing an argument: you shouldn’t not be able to object if anyone else asserts the video is incorrect without providing an argument.

    That video is incorrect.
    PogueEvidence
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pouge The Corolis effect actually proves a flat Earth. It's simple.






    The video is wrong! Wind flows in the northern hemisphere are Counterclockwise & in the Southern, clockwise. Look at videos of hurricanes & typhoons. This would invalidate what the video is saying about the cooling effects on the western coast. 

    The video proves why the Coriolis effect is real and is dictated by hemisphere. The important parts are from 1:44-5:35. It has a controlled experiment. At the end, it explains why there is a difference between hemispheres. It works because it does. To understand this, think of a pool at the geographic poles. It is stationary relative to Earth, but every sidereal day, it is actually completing one full rotation. The part further away from the pole and closer to the equator move faster because it has to complete a larger movement in the same amount of time (that is why rockets are launched closer to the equator. When the plug is pulled (part of the experiment) everything is moving toward the drain in the middle. The far side is faster so it gets ahead while the slower part is too slow so it lags behind. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @Evidence Just as a warning these guys don't wanna listen, they instead will mark your comment as a fallacy or rehash past mistakes.

    I’ll mark posts as fallacies that are fallacies.

    For example, I refuted your position, and you ignored the response 4 times; the fifth you posted a reply that made no sense, I pointed out in extensive detail why: and you’ve ignored that twice now.

    You then complained that I wasn’t interested in debate or discussion in the midst of it, and are still doing that.

    I get the feeling you’re disinterested in a discussion; and so are finding whatever  nonsense distraction you can, rather than to address any one of the number of posts you ignored.

    this makes your post a red herring.

    @Gooberry ;

    Definition of a Red Herring: Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. 

    SilverishGoldNova has done nothing wrong here. Even if you think the post doesn't make any sense, that does not make it a red herring. He seems perfectly interested in the discussion, please show a bit of respect. I know that I sound cynical, but this is starting to get out of hand.
    SilverishGoldNova
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


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