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

11718192022



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • GooberryGooberry 608 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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat, @SilverishGoldNova, and @Evidence
    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.

    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 
    Evidenceqipwbdeo
    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
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Except for when I refuted the 300m observations to which your objection was  “Lol you had the wrong height lol”. It’s cool tho.
    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:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Except for when I refuted the 300m observations to which your objection was  “Lol you had the wrong height lol”
    To which I refuted it the 300m observation because there is no clear height and you can even see a plane in a shot. 
    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! 
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Personally speaking, SGN wouldn't have to object to your assumed fallacies if you didn't make a page trying to list 61 fallacies for Erfisflat.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Again, I am an adamant round Earth believer, but I don't let that get in the way of proper debating principles.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Pogue said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Except for when I refuted the 300m observations to which your objection was  “Lol you had the wrong height lol”
    To which I refuted it the 300m observation because there is no clear height and you can even see a plane in a shot. 
    You claimed that if it waa a 300 meter height we would see the curve. Let alone your 116 m claim...
    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 said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Personally speaking, SGN wouldn't have to object to your assumed fallacies if you didn't make a page trying to list 61 fallacies for Erfisflat.

    I would not have to list 66 untruths, and 35 logical fallacies made over 3 posts, if Erfisflat didn’t make 66 untrue statements and commit 35 logical fallacies.


    qipwbdeo
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Again, I am an adamant round Earth believer, but I don't let that get in the way of proper debating principles.
    And I’m pretty sure claiming literally everything they disagree with is a fallacy while committing fallacies (Especially the deflections and rehashing past mistakes)themselves is not proper debating, they just don’t get that, that’s why I try not to waste too much effort with them
    WilliamSchulzPogueGooberry
    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 said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Except for when I refuted the 300m observations to which your objection was  “Lol you had the wrong height lol”. It’s cool tho.
    As your obviously reading posts: please take a look at these arguments you’ve been consistently ignoring:

    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.
    qipwbdeo
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Personally speaking, SGN wouldn't have to object to your assumed fallacies if you didn't make a page trying to list 61 fallacies for Erfisflat.

    And this one:


    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.

    qipwbdeo
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Personally speaking, SGN wouldn't have to object to your assumed fallacies if you didn't make a page trying to list 61 fallacies for Erfisflat.

    I would not have to list 66 untruths, and 35 logical fallacies made over 3 posts, if Erfisflat didn’t make 66 untrue statements and commit 35 logical fallacies.


    You literally complained that SGN spent 3 pages objecting to posts made as fallacies. You wanted a reason, I gave you the cause.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Except for when I refuted the 300m observations to which your objection was  “Lol you had the wrong height lol”
    To which I refuted it the 300m observation because there is no clear height and you can even see a plane in a shot. 
    You claimed that if it waa a 300 meter height we would see the curve. Let alone your 116 m claim...
    1. The height is undisclosed. 
    2. Genoa gets frequent mirages. 
    3. There is a part of the original video where you can see a plane fly below. 
    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   -  
    The video proves why the Coriolis effect is real and is dictated by hemisphere.  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. 
    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   -  

    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/.

    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   -  
    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.

    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 

    Please respond. 
    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:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Except for when I refuted the 300m observations to which your objection was  “Lol you had the wrong height lol”. It’s cool tho.

    Of course my objection is that you have the wrong height: pogue is talking you through the maths on this one, and why have two of us bombard you.

    The specific issue I’m trying to raise is one concerning how you are sourcing your arguments, as it seems that you don’t bother checking your sources. 

    This is an important question: because if you don’t bother checking your sources and when proven one claim is proven wrong, you simply make another equally invalid and unconfirmed claim, it helps the reader of this debate gauge your personal scientific honesty.

    This is even more important because both you and erf are making an aweful lot of claims; and providing little actual validation for them, shifting the claim burden to everyone else.

    in cases where people actually go through and provide a detailed rebuttal: both you and erf appear to mostly ignore them.


    qipwbdeo
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Except for when I refuted the 300m observations to which your objection was  “Lol you had the wrong height lol”. It’s cool tho.

    Of course my objection is that you have the wrong height: pogue is talking you through the maths on this one, and why have two of us bombard you.

    The specific issue I’m trying to raise is one concerning how you are sourcing your arguments, as it seems that you don’t bother checking your sources. 

    This is an important question: because if you don’t bother checking your sources and when proven one claim is proven wrong, you simply make another equally invalid and unconfirmed claim, it helps the reader of this debate gauge your personal scientific honesty.

    This is even more important because both you and erf are making an aweful lot of claims; and providing little actual validation for them, shifting the claim burden to everyone else.

    in cases where people actually go through and provide a detailed rebuttal: both you and erf appear to mostly ignore them.


    qipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova
    Metabunk.org only accounts for standard refraction and nothing else. The height is not disclosed so the argument can be clarified has invalid. The hight with 300m is close to what it needs. The higher up you are the further you can see and the camera is most likely not perfectly leveled. A plane is below (by a lot) the viewer. Genoa experiences frequent mirages. Please counter the other points brought up. 
    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 said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Personally speaking, SGN wouldn't have to object to your assumed fallacies if you didn't make a page trying to list 61 fallacies for Erfisflat.

    I would not have to list 66 untruths, and 35 logical fallacies made over 3 posts, if Erfisflat didn’t make 66 untrue statements and commit 35 logical fallacies.


    You literally complained that SGN spent 3 pages objecting to posts made as fallacies. You wanted a reason, I gave you the cause.
    1.) I wasn’t complaining as much as I was pointing it out it was a fallacious argument (which it is).

    2.) I wasn’t looking for a reason, and certainly not a subjective opinion. Indeed, I don’t personally need to know why he wanted to make such a fallacious argument.

    3.) I pointed out, over three or four responses (I forget which), the basis for my responses, and the key omissions of fact, if all you seem to be objection to is me going through and listing over 100 fallacies and untruthful statements let me ask you this:

    if Erf made 100 untruthful and fallacious statements wouldn’t it not be legitimate to outline and list fallacies and untruths? If someone is spending the majority of posts repeatedly stating untruths and fallacies to an unduly excessive degree: would it not be valid to point this out?
    qipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    It would be impossible for lunar and solar eclipses to happen. 

     235,000mi=378,196km
    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   -  
    Again, I am an adamant round Earth believer, but I don't let that get in the way of proper debating principles.
    And I’m pretty sure claiming literally everything they disagree with is a fallacy while committing fallacies (Especially the deflections and rehashing past mistakes)themselves is not proper debating, they just don’t get that, that’s why I try not to waste too much effort with them
    Nice hasty generalization fallacy! I have never deflected and rehashed a past mistake (except for once in which you committed a terrible fallacy). You refer to them which could only include the round Earthers of @Gooberry, @LibertineStates, and I. Although, it is needed to point out past mistakes that have not been corrected. No, not everything I disagree with, just the fallacies I recognize. 
    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   -  
    Again, I am an adamant round Earth believer, but I don't let that get in the way of proper debating principles.
    And I’m pretty sure claiming literally everything they disagree with is a fallacy while committing fallacies (Especially the deflections and rehashing past mistakes)themselves is not proper debating, they just don’t get that, that’s why I try not to waste too much effort with them
    If you read my replies, my position is that your arguments are based on actual fallacies. I do my best in each reply to outline and describe what fallacy you are commiting.

    if our pay attention, also; Ive been repeatedly attempting to engage you in a debate: and so far you’ve been doing your best to ignore everything.

    So, as you are focusing on attacking me, and my behaviour rather than my arguments (which I am still waiting for you to reply for), this makes your argument here an Ad-Hominem attack.



    Pogue
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    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.


    Mess, .. every explanation in defense of the BB-Universe globe earth is a mess.

    Why do things seem farther?
    You pointed it out using a triangle, which is trig. which is perspective, which brings us to the; angular position of 0 degrees, which brings us to NASA pointing out distances, how far apart those stars are, using angular position of zero degrees. Now you understand?
    Pogue
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.


    Mess, .. every explanation in defense of the BB-Universe globe earth is a mess.

    Why do things seem farther?
    You pointed it out using a triangle, which is trig. which is perspective, which brings us to the; angular position of 0 degrees, which brings us to NASA pointing out distances, how far apart those stars are, using angular position of zero degrees. Now you understand?
    1.) why on earth are you equating or lumping together the Big Bang with globe earth?

    2.) trig is not perspective. Perspective uses trig.

    3.) how does that bring us to the angular position of 0? How is that even relevant

    4.) how does that lead to NASA pointing out these distances?

    5.) I don’t understand the relevance or even what argument your making after this point.






    qipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Can you guys please respond to my other arguments? 
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.


    Mess, .. every explanation in defense of the BB-Universe globe earth is a mess.

    Why do things seem farther?
    You pointed it out using a triangle, which is trig. which is perspective, which brings us to the; angular position of 0 degrees, which brings us to NASA pointing out distances, how far apart those stars are, using angular position of zero degrees. Now you understand?

    We use triangles because basic trigonometric relations between the lengths of the sides of a triangle and its angles are used to calculate the lengths of all of the sides of the triangle. This method is called trigonometric parallax. 
    Example: 
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

    Anyway, how do they relate, contradict each other, how is this relevant, and how does it lead to an angular position of 0?
    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! 
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    @Erfisflat, @SilverishGoldNova, and @Evidence
    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.

    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 
    Here is all the things that @Erfisflat, @SilvrishGoldNova, and their reference to Eric Dubay and other Flat Earthers have shown me the answers to, with evidence over the past year that convinced me that the Earth was NOT a spinning ball, and your bringing it up again as proof for the globe earth??

    The Flat Earth answers to the following points, is what will convince anyone that the Earth is not a NASA-globe:

     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.
    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Pogue said:
    @Erfisflat, @SilverishGoldNova, and @Evidence
    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.

    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 
    Here is all the things that @Erfisflat, @SilvrishGoldNova, and their reference to Eric Dubay and other Flat Earthers have shown me the answers to, with evidence over the past year that convinced me that the Earth was NOT a spinning ball, and your bringing it up again as proof for the globe earth??

    The Flat Earth answers to the following points, is what will convince anyone that the Earth is not a NASA-globe:

     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.
    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 
    That site 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. Can you please provide these answers. People have known about the round Earth way before NASA! The moon debunks the flat Earth, http://flatearthdeception.com/the-moon-proves-the-flat-earth-deception/.
    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! 
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.


    Mess, .. every explanation in defense of the BB-Universe globe earth is a mess.

    Why do things seem farther?
    You pointed it out using a triangle, which is trig. which is perspective, which brings us to the; angular position of 0 degrees, which brings us to NASA pointing out distances, how far apart those stars are, using angular position of zero degrees. Now you understand?
    1.) why on earth are you equating or lumping together the Big Bang with globe earth?

    2.) trig is not perspective. Perspective uses trig.

    3.) how does that bring us to the angular position of 0? How is that even relevant

    4.) how does that lead to NASA pointing out these distances?

    5.) I don’t understand the relevance or even what argument your making after this point.








    Of course you don't understand, the only thing you understand is if I talk NASA lingo.

    Yes, NASA triangulates for distances of stars using "angular position of 0 degrees", it is what you said, so how could you not understand?

    If a ship vanishing over the horizon can achieve "angular position of 0 degrees", then how do they account for position and distances of stars 13 billion light years away!?

    Wait, are you sure you're not a Flat Earther, you sure help us see the lies in the Globe Earth story better with every argument you post!
    Thanks.
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.


    Mess, .. every explanation in defense of the BB-Universe globe earth is a mess.

    Why do things seem farther?
    You pointed it out using a triangle, which is trig. which is perspective, which brings us to the; angular position of 0 degrees, which brings us to NASA pointing out distances, how far apart those stars are, using angular position of zero degrees. Now you understand?
    1.) why on earth are you equating or lumping together the Big Bang with globe earth?

    2.) trig is not perspective. Perspective uses trig.

    3.) how does that bring us to the angular position of 0? How is that even relevant

    4.) how does that lead to NASA pointing out these distances?

    5.) I don’t understand the relevance or even what argument your making after this point.








    Of course you don't understand, the only thing you understand is if I talk NASA lingo.

    Yes, NASA triangulates for distances of stars using "angular position of 0 degrees", it is what you said, so how could you not understand?

    If a ship vanishing over the horizon can achieve "angular position of 0 degrees", then how do they account for position and distances of stars 13 billion light years away!?

    Wait, are you sure you're not a Flat Earther, you sure help us see the lies in the Globe Earth story better with every argument you post!
    Thanks.
    We use triangles because basic trigonometric relations between the lengths of the sides of a triangle and its angles are used to calculate the lengths of all of the sides of the triangle. This method is called trigonometric parallax. 
    Example: 
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

    NASA was created in 1957. We knew about the round EArth way before that.
    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   -  
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.


    Mess, .. every explanation in defense of the BB-Universe globe earth is a mess.

    Why do things seem farther?
    You pointed it out using a triangle, which is trig. which is perspective, which brings us to the; angular position of 0 degrees, which brings us to NASA pointing out distances, how far apart those stars are, using angular position of zero degrees. Now you understand?
    1.) why on earth are you equating or lumping together the Big Bang with globe earth?

    2.) trig is not perspective. Perspective uses trig.

    3.) how does that bring us to the angular position of 0? How is that even relevant

    4.) how does that lead to NASA pointing out these distances?

    5.) I don’t understand the relevance or even what argument your making after this point.








    Of course you don't understand, the only thing you understand is if I talk NASA lingo.

    Yes, NASA triangulates for distances of stars using "angular position of 0 degrees", it is what you said, so how could you not understand?


    If a ship vanishing over the horizon can achieve "angular position of 0 degrees", then how do they account for position and distances of stars 13 billion light years away!?

    Wait, are you sure you're not a Flat Earther, you sure help us see the lies in the Globe Earth story better with every argument you post!
    Thanks.
    1.) NASA don’t triangulate distances of stats using “angular position of 0 degrees” that statement literally makes no sense. I have no clue what you’re talking about here, it’s like you’re trying to string two completely unrelated things together.

    2.) an angular position of 0 degrees isn’t something that’s achieved. It’s literaly just a positon in the sky; and I have no idea why you think a ship being able to be seen at 0 degrees has anything to do with stars being 13 billion light years away

    I am still no closer to understanding what you’re talking about, or what you’re even trying to say.

    You’re sentences appear to be a jumble of words about disparate things all mixed together to try and make a point that you don’t even seem to understand
    Pogueqipwbdeo
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Pogue said:
    It would be impossible for lunar and solar eclipses to happen. 

     235,000mi=378,196km
    I explained this in my debate with @WilliamSchulz . I think if you actually read my arguments instead of clicking the fallacy button and hopping off, maybe you can get a more clear grasp of our model. The moon emits its own light, and eclipses are caused by an object called Rahu.


    Evidence
    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)
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    Evidence said:
    Pogue said:
    @Erfisflat, @SilverishGoldNova, and @Evidence
    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.

    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 
    Here is all the things that @Erfisflat, @SilvrishGoldNova, and their reference to Eric Dubay and other Flat Earthers have shown me the answers to, with evidence over the past year that convinced me that the Earth was NOT a spinning ball, and your bringing it up again as proof for the globe earth??

    The Flat Earth answers to the following points, is what will convince anyone that the Earth is not a NASA-globe:

     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.
    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 
    That site 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. Can you please provide these answers. People have known about the round Earth way before NASA! The moon debunks the flat Earth, http://flatearthdeception.com/the-moon-proves-the-flat-earth-deception/.
    Die Seite, die du im Blog suchst, ist nicht vorhanden. 

    People have worshipped gods like Mars, Jupiter, Venus long before your globe earth came into existence, before the Big-Bang.
    Pogue
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    It would be impossible for lunar and solar eclipses to happen. 

     235,000mi=378,196km
    I explained this in my debate with @WilliamSchulz . I think if you actually read my arguments instead of clicking the fallacy button and hopping off, maybe you can get a more clear grasp of our model.
    I clicked one once and only when you committed an ad-hominem fallacy and a hasty generalization fallacy. Can you explain that here? This debate is not that one.
    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:
    Pogue said:
    It would be impossible for lunar and solar eclipses to happen. 

     235,000mi=378,196km
    I explained this in my debate with @WilliamSchulz . I think if you actually read my arguments instead of clicking the fallacy button and hopping off, maybe you can get a more clear grasp of our model.
    I clicked one once and only when you committed an ad-hominem fallacy and a hasty generalization fallacy. Can you explain that here? This debate is not that one.
    Since I didn't edit in time I guess I'll just insert it here.

    The moon emits its own light, and eclipses are caused by an object called Rahu.

    What ad hominem and hasty generalization fallacy did I use in that debate? Jesus fvck man...
    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   -  
    Evidence said:
    Pogue said:
    Evidence said:
    Pogue said:
    @Erfisflat, @SilverishGoldNova, and @Evidence
    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.

    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 
    Here is all the things that @Erfisflat, @SilvrishGoldNova, and their reference to Eric Dubay and other Flat Earthers have shown me the answers to, with evidence over the past year that convinced me that the Earth was NOT a spinning ball, and your bringing it up again as proof for the globe earth??

    The Flat Earth answers to the following points, is what will convince anyone that the Earth is not a NASA-globe:

     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.
    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. Since the ISS exists, the pictures are real. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 
    That site 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. Can you please provide these answers. People have known about the round Earth way before NASA! The moon debunks the flat Earth, http://flatearthdeception.com/the-moon-proves-the-flat-earth-deception/.
    Die Seite, die du im Blog suchst, ist nicht vorhanden. 

    People have worshipped gods like Mars, Jupiter, Venus long before your globe earth came into existence, before the Big-Bang.
    My fault, http://200proofsearthisnotflat.blogspot.com/2016/02/debunking-dubay-1-79200.html is the real site. The last part makes no sense. It is irrelevant. 
    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   -  
    Pogue said:
    Pogue said:
    It would be impossible for lunar and solar eclipses to happen. 

     235,000mi=378,196km
    I explained this in my debate with @WilliamSchulz . I think if you actually read my arguments instead of clicking the fallacy button and hopping off, maybe you can get a more clear grasp of our model.
    I clicked one once and only when you committed an ad-hominem fallacy and a hasty generalization fallacy. Can you explain that here? This debate is not that one.
    Since I didn't edit in time I guess I'll just insert it here.

    The moon emits its own light, and eclipses are caused by an object called Rahu.

    What ad hominem and hasty generalization fallacy did I use in that debate? Jesus fvck man...
    False. 
    Moon closeup photo proves that the sun illuminates the ball-shaped moon

    They have to excuse a myriad of things, to make their flat earth theory seem to work.

    But we can see the truth with our own eyes!

    This website exposes the flat earth deception and proves that the earth is globe shaped

    Hal Hilton provided this proof about the full moon appearing upside down to people in South America, which is not possible on the flat earth.

    When standing and viewing the full moon from Alberta Canada, the well defined and unique *face* of the moon itself is easily seen and configured.

    If the earth is a globe, one would expect to see the same full moon with the same EXACT unique features…however, it would be viewed, when standing upright in Santiago Chile with those same features upside down.

    And that is PRECISELY what is easily observed! Here are two, fully verified, full moon photographs from two separate locations. One from Alberta Canada with the Alberta Legislature Building as a reference source, which is 53 degrees North of the Equator.

    Alberta full moon proves globe earth not flat earth

    And one from Santiago Chile with the fully unique Virgin of the Assumption statue located at the Cathedral Church of the Virgin of the Assumption which is 33 degrees South of the Equator.

    Santiago Chile full moon proves globe earth not flat earth

    If the FE model, as promoted with a moon rotation motion over the equator of the FE, the person seeing the moon from Alberta Canada would see one side of the moon…and another person seeing that same moon from Santiago Chile would see the BACK SIDE of the moon…not the 180-degree view of the same side of the moon as seen from Canada.


    Fallacies (not hasty generalization but a false comparison): One of the fallacies was when you said “claiming that the Earth cannot be flat because Jupiter's moons appeared spherical during observations is like claiming that the square in the middle of my profile picture is actually a circle because it is surrounded by 8 other circles.” This is a false comparison fallacy. "It kinda feels like those clowns at d.org who claimed everything I posted was automatically fake news."

    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   -  
    Pogue said:
    It would be impossible for lunar and solar eclipses to happen. 

     235,000mi=378,196km
    I explained this in my debate with @WilliamSchulz . I think if you actually read my arguments instead of clicking the fallacy button and hopping off, maybe you can get a more clear grasp of our model. The moon emits its own light, and eclipses are caused by an object called Rahu.


    What evidence do you have that the moon emits it’s own light? Or that there is an object you call Rahu?



    qipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    Pogue said:
    It would be impossible for lunar and solar eclipses to happen. 

     235,000mi=378,196km
    I explained this in my debate with @WilliamSchulz . I think if you actually read my arguments instead of clicking the fallacy button and hopping off, maybe you can get a more clear grasp of our model.
    I clicked one once and only when you committed an ad-hominem fallacy and a hasty generalization fallacy. Can you explain that here? This debate is not that one.
    Since I didn't edit in time I guess I'll just insert it here.

    The moon emits its own light, and eclipses are caused by an object called Rahu.

    What ad hominem and hasty generalization fallacy did I use in that debate? Jesus fvck man...
    I looked up Rahu and this showed up. "
    Image result for Rahu
    Rahu is usually paired with Ketu. The time of day considered to be under the influence of Rahu is called Rahu kala and is considered inauspicious. Rahu is mentioned in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain texts. Rahu is also found in astrology and horoscopes."
    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:
    Pogue said:
    Pogue said:
    It would be impossible for lunar and solar eclipses to happen. 

     235,000mi=378,196km
    I explained this in my debate with @WilliamSchulz . I think if you actually read my arguments instead of clicking the fallacy button and hopping off, maybe you can get a more clear grasp of our model.
    I clicked one once and only when you committed an ad-hominem fallacy and a hasty generalization fallacy. Can you explain that here? This debate is not that one.
    Since I didn't edit in time I guess I'll just insert it here.

    The moon emits its own light, and eclipses are caused by an object called Rahu.

    What ad hominem and hasty generalization fallacy did I use in that debate? Jesus fvck man...
    I looked up Rahu and this showed up. "
    Image result for Rahu
    Rahu is usually paired with Ketu. The time of day considered to be under the influence of Rahu is called Rahu kala and is considered inauspicious. Rahu is mentioned in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain texts. Rahu is also found in astrology and horoscopes."
    It's different from that, it's simply a nickname often given.
    https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPHmBny3b8zGfIPJwdMSdRwQW21Y8ITz0mLMZ9LqNf1sVCarE8xkiPW77h_B_g05g?key=eUZrcVhvNzBnUFV5TWJVbTY0b0xHMWtjbTNJNERB


    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)
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Gooberry said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Personally speaking, SGN wouldn't have to object to your assumed fallacies if you didn't make a page trying to list 61 fallacies for Erfisflat.

    I would not have to list 66 untruths, and 35 logical fallacies made over 3 posts, if Erfisflat didn’t make 66 untrue statements and commit 35 logical fallacies.


    You literally complained that SGN spent 3 pages objecting to posts made as fallacies. You wanted a reason, I gave you the cause.
    1.) I wasn’t complaining as much as I was pointing it out it was a fallacious argument (which it is).

    2.) I wasn’t looking for a reason, and certainly not a subjective opinion. Indeed, I don’t personally need to know why he wanted to make such a fallacious argument.

    3.) I pointed out, over three or four responses (I forget which), the basis for my responses, and the key omissions of fact, if all you seem to be objection to is me going through and listing over 100 fallacies and untruthful statements let me ask you this:

    if Erf made 100 untruthful and fallacious statements wouldn’t it not be legitimate to outline and list fallacies and untruths? If someone is spending the majority of posts repeatedly stating untruths and fallacies to an unduly excessive degree: would it not be valid to point this out?
    Mind you, the point of the debate is not to assume untruths, untruths have to be proven and accepted by the opponent. This is named by the key word "concession" As none of you have persuaded the opponents, no concessions have been made, therefore nothing can be assumed untrue. You can certainly pile up evidence and show it crystal clear, but unless the evidence has definitions and other factual phrases, the argument itself can't be "true"
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Pogue said:
    Pogue said:
    Pogue said:
    It would be impossible for lunar and solar eclipses to happen. 

     235,000mi=378,196km
    I explained this in my debate with @WilliamSchulz . I think if you actually read my arguments instead of clicking the fallacy button and hopping off, maybe you can get a more clear grasp of our model.
    I clicked one once and only when you committed an ad-hominem fallacy and a hasty generalization fallacy. Can you explain that here? This debate is not that one.
    Since I didn't edit in time I guess I'll just insert it here.

    The moon emits its own light, and eclipses are caused by an object called Rahu.

    What ad hominem and hasty generalization fallacy did I use in that debate? Jesus fvck man...
    I looked up Rahu and this showed up. "
    Image result for Rahu
    Rahu is usually paired with Ketu. The time of day considered to be under the influence of Rahu is called Rahu kala and is considered inauspicious. Rahu is mentioned in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain texts. Rahu is also found in astrology and horoscopes."
    It's different from that, it's simply a nickname often given.
    https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPHmBny3b8zGfIPJwdMSdRwQW21Y8ITz0mLMZ9LqNf1sVCarE8xkiPW77h_B_g05g?key=eUZrcVhvNzBnUFV5TWJVbTY0b0xHMWtjbTNJNERB


    Is this based on Hinduism? If this is real, how can we accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses with the globe Earth model? Besides the pictures, anything else? Please debunk my other arguments. 
    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! 
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    Can you guys please respond to my other arguments? 





    We use triangles because basic trigonometric relations between the lengths of the sides of a triangle and its angles are used to calculate the lengths of all of the sides of the triangle. This method is called trigonometric parallax. 
    Example: 
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

    Anyway, how do they relate, contradict each other, how is this relevant, and how does it lead to an angular position of 0?



    I see what you're talking about now, it's been ages since I did trig, so I have some questions, especially on how NASA measures the distance of stars at millions and  billions of light years away? This I have to see?


                              
    trig parallax setup

    OK, .. so in the above diagram, they have the earth orbiting the sun, or Heliocentricity used to get a side to the triangle correct .. you have got to be kidding me? This starts off with huge assumptions, including the wobbly orbit between 91, and 94 million miles around the sun can significantly effect the distance of any "background star" that is billions of light years away!

    But fine, so we have one side lets say 93 million miles (accepting that the earth orbits the sun), I can see that, .. then lining up the same "nearby star" 6 months apart with the same "background" star, right? Is that what the two arrows are pointing to 6 months apart, the same "background star" ??

    But we don't know the distance of the "nearby star", how do they get "sun-star", or the "earth-star" side of the triangle? That parallax angle could vary greatly, especially when your dealing with "background stars" at assumed millions and even billions of light YEARS away!?!?
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Gooberry said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Personally speaking, SGN wouldn't have to object to your assumed fallacies if you didn't make a page trying to list 61 fallacies for Erfisflat.

    I would not have to list 66 untruths, and 35 logical fallacies made over 3 posts, if Erfisflat didn’t make 66 untrue statements and commit 35 logical fallacies.


    You literally complained that SGN spent 3 pages objecting to posts made as fallacies. You wanted a reason, I gave you the cause.
    1.) I wasn’t complaining as much as I was pointing it out it was a fallacious argument (which it is).

    2.) I wasn’t looking for a reason, and certainly not a subjective opinion. Indeed, I don’t personally need to know why he wanted to make such a fallacious argument.

    3.) I pointed out, over three or four responses (I forget which), the basis for my responses, and the key omissions of fact, if all you seem to be objection to is me going through and listing over 100 fallacies and untruthful statements let me ask you this:

    if Erf made 100 untruthful and fallacious statements wouldn’t it not be legitimate to outline and list fallacies and untruths? If someone is spending the majority of posts repeatedly stating untruths and fallacies to an unduly excessive degree: would it not be valid to point this out?
    Mind you, the point of the debate is not to assume untruths, untruths have to be proven and accepted by the opponent. This is named by the key word "concession" As none of you have persuaded the opponents, no concessions have been made, therefore nothing can be assumed untrue. You can certainly pile up evidence and show it crystal clear, but unless the evidence has definitions and other factual phrases, the argument itself can't be "true"
    among the many points of debate is to point out untruths and fallacies: which is what I have been doing. For the purposes of a debate, pointing out the quantity of untruths and fallacies is also relevant.

    as I also said, though, and it should be born in mind: if flat earthers could be reasoned with, they wouldn’t be flat earthers.

    qipwbdeo
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    @Gooberry

    While true that one can point out fallacies and errors, that is only what you do, leaving Pogue and others to show evidence. 

    I don't mean to sound hurtful here, I really don't, but if you want to persuade them, stick to a point, say gravity, and keep arguing it. Once you finally force concessions, use gravity to prove other things, say the horizon or the existence of space, idk. 

    I don't think your quote should be born in mind, it actually seems like SGN and Erf conversely can't reason with you, this debate needs to take a turn, which I hope has been happening.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova

    I apologize, I made a small mistake in our debate with rebuttal #4 in rebutting the rebuttal. My math up until the end was good, here is where I messed up. When I found 411.06 miles, I incorrectly did my formula to find the curvature. The amount is higher, because the viewer is at a higher elevation than that of a person at ground level.

    Person at Ground Level:
    Image result for line tangenting a circle images

    Person 60 miles up: (Left image)

    Image result for line going through a circle images

    Imagine that the line is steeper than the one on the left, and we have our self a triangle equation. Because we are viewing down, we are looking over the hypotenuse, and forms a right angle from Earth to us currently. I found the length of line A, with B already given.
    Image result for right angle triangle 
    Here, imagine the triangle standing upwards, and I found the upper leg to be 210.87, and 60 was given as the height. In geometry, you would have to draw a line through the middle to locate height, but since we are imagining the triangle upwards into space, side B is the height at 60 miles. Now, use the Pythagorean theorem a2 + b2 = c2 > 219.239 miles. Admittedly, the number is not that much more than 210.87, but I would rather correct a marginal error than leave it wrong. 

    Before I go, it is important to note that as a result, one at 60 miles can see into the curvature if you think about the right angle spot being ground level. While a person at sea level sees minimalist levels of curvature, a person at 60 miles can see into and below the circle, even if it doesn't appear that way. Because the Earth shapes proportionately, then the curvature is spread out over the distance.

    Thanks, and sorry for the error.
    qipwbdeo
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Just skip to the atmospheric refraction argument.

    Due to atmospheric refraction it is perfectly possible to see something that by Pythagorean law you shouldn't be able to, as that is built on the assumption that you're measuring in a straight line, which isn't true when light travels through a density gradient (like the atmosphere).

    Weirdly after arguing against this point for months ErfisFlat seemed to accept it a few days ago as he stated atmospheric refraction is why flat earters can't tell the position, speed or distance of the sun, moon, etc.
    Pogueqipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Evidence said:
    Pogue said:
    Can you guys please respond to my other arguments? 





    We use triangles because basic trigonometric relations between the lengths of the sides of a triangle and its angles are used to calculate the lengths of all of the sides of the triangle. This method is called trigonometric parallax. 
    Example: 
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

    Anyway, how do they relate, contradict each other, how is this relevant, and how does it lead to an angular position of 0?



    I see what you're talking about now, it's been ages since I did trig, so I have some questions, especially on how NASA measures the distance of stars at millions and  billions of light years away? This I have to see?


                              
    trig parallax setup

    OK, .. so in the above diagram, they have the earth orbiting the sun, or Heliocentricity used to get a side to the triangle correct .. you have got to be kidding me? This starts off with huge assumptions, including the wobbly orbit between 91, and 94 million miles around the sun can significantly effect the distance of any "background star" that is billions of light years away!

    But fine, so we have one side lets say 93 million miles (accepting that the earth orbits the sun), I can see that, .. then lining up the same "nearby star" 6 months apart with the same "background" star, right? Is that what the two arrows are pointing to 6 months apart, the same "background star" ??

    But we don't know the distance of the "nearby star", how do they get "sun-star", or the "earth-star" side of the triangle? That parallax angle could vary greatly, especially when your dealing with "background stars" at assumed millions and even billions of light YEARS away!?!?


    The side of the triangle between the observers labeled ``B'' in the figure above, is called the baseline. The size of the parallax angle p is proportional to the size of the baseline. If the parallax angle is too small to measure because the object is so far away, then the surveyors have to increase their distance from each other. Ordinarily, you would have to use trigonometric functions like a tangent or a sine, but if the angle is small enough, you find a very simple relation between the parallax angle p, baseline B, and the distance d:

    p = (206,265 × B/d
    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

    While true that one can point out fallacies and errors, that is only what you do, leaving Pogue and others to show evidence. 

    I don't mean to sound hurtful here, I really don't, but if you want to persuade them, stick to a point, say gravity, and keep arguing it. Once you finally force concessions, use gravity to prove other things, say the horizon or the existence of space, idk. 

    I don't think your quote should be born in mind, it actually seems like SGN and Erf conversely can't reason with you, this debate needs to take a turn, which I hope has been happening.
    If you pay attention throughout; the whole point of my posts to SGN is about one individual point, for which I provided evidence. The same goes for Erf.

    Now if you’re interested in the reasons I’m pointing out that someone has 66 untruths and makes 35 fallacies in 3 posts, or that someone is repeatedly relying on fallacy and dodges, that question mostly answers itself.

    qipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Gooberry said:
    Gooberry said:
    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.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone , I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    Personally speaking, SGN wouldn't have to object to your assumed fallacies if you didn't make a page trying to list 61 fallacies for Erfisflat.

    I would not have to list 66 untruths, and 35 logical fallacies made over 3 posts, if Erfisflat didn’t make 66 untrue statements and commit 35 logical fallacies.


    You literally complained that SGN spent 3 pages objecting to posts made as fallacies. You wanted a reason, I gave you the cause.
    1.) I wasn’t complaining as much as I was pointing it out it was a fallacious argument (which it is).

    2.) I wasn’t looking for a reason, and certainly not a subjective opinion. Indeed, I don’t personally need to know why he wanted to make such a fallacious argument.

    3.) I pointed out, over three or four responses (I forget which), the basis for my responses, and the key omissions of fact, if all you seem to be objection to is me going through and listing over 100 fallacies and untruthful statements let me ask you this:

    if Erf made 100 untruthful and fallacious statements wouldn’t it not be legitimate to outline and list fallacies and untruths? If someone is spending the majority of posts repeatedly stating untruths and fallacies to an unduly excessive degree: would it not be valid to point this out?
    Mind you, the point of the debate is not to assume untruths, untruths have to be proven and accepted by the opponent. This is named by the key word "concession" As none of you have persuaded the opponents, no concessions have been made, therefore nothing can be assumed untrue. You can certainly pile up evidence and show it crystal clear, but unless the evidence has definitions and other factual phrases, the argument itself can't be "true"
    An untruth is "a lie or false statement" or "the quality of being false." Meriam Webster defines it as lack of truthfulness: falsity:
     something that is untrue: falsehood. An example would be when @tttflat said: "All amateur balloon, rocket, plane[,] and drone footage show[s] a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high." That is false. 

    Sources: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/untruth ;
    LibertineStates
    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! 
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