The Earth is flat 4.0

Erfisflat

Evidence said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know I'm down for whatever. I'm actually in the southeast. Central Alabama. Maybe you can photograph your setup to give us a better idea of how to replicate it. There are at least 6 flat earthers here, maybe we can get a few to help.

Erfisflat

@SilverishGoldNova

I see YouTube has taken down the surveyor phone calls video I posted here. 

Erfisflat

JoePineapples said:

Erfisflat said:

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

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

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

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

The wiki entry explains, as you do, that gyros and gyrocompasses are different, but the definition of a gyro remains the same, and is quoted from that article. 

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

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

This is a semantic argument. Essentially you think that pilots should use a different word other than "level" to describe maintaining a consistence altitude. Nothing you've said has any bearing on how planes are actually flied in reality, just your preference for terminology.

Allow me to offer an example. Flat means "having a level surface; without raised areas or indentations"

You state you believe in a flat earth, but the earth is obviously not flat. There are indentations (valleys) and raised areas (mountains and hills) than even children know exist.

So with this in mind I could either:

1) Assume that you must be using the dictionary definition of the word and insist despite any denials that you therefore think you can walk across the grand canyon because indents in the earth don't exist.

2) Apply basic common sense and recognise from my experience of being a human being and talking to other human beings that people don't always use dictionary definitions like some robot and that some basic common sense and context should be applied.

You have gone with option 1, which is clearly misinterpretive. This is purely a semantic point and to me it is so mind-bogglingly poor an argument that it damages your credibility because this isn't some technical point where we can disagree, this is just a very basic facet of how human beings talk and interact and it is hard not to view this as anything but wilful misinterpretation.

You debating semantics again? To empirically validate something is to personally observe, experience or perform the experimental evidence. 
.
No, I'm trying to understand your definition of empirical validation as it seems contrary to the norm. Are you suggesting that if a team of scientists performs an experiment that I read about in a scientific journal, I should not consider this empirically validated because I haven't personally observed it myself? That's my understanding of your explanation and this is contrary to the normal definition where the experiment would be the empirical evidence (as opposed to theoretical where people just sit around and think about things) and if you are going to insist on your own peculiar standards that do not meet the normal definitions then you need to give a rationale for why this should be accepted.

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

Their explanation is that they had satellites orbiting the earth which took pictures of individual sections of a spherical earth which then had to be joined together to show the complete image of a spherical earth. In the editing they made it so things joined up and looked reasonable (e.g. as clouds would have moved on and would look a jumbled mess without correction, tidied them up) Nothing about their explanation would suggest the earth is non-spherical.

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

You seem to be getting hung up on semantics. While your personal morality might cause you to label any image that has has any editing "fake", your definition is so stringent that it doesn't have any relevance to the situation.

If a magazine cover model has had blemishes removed, you may choose to call it fake but that doesn't mean the cover model doesn't exist and it doesn't provide any evidence towards claims that the cover model doesn't exist. If Google street view has been created by stitching multiple images together, you may choose to call it fake but that doesn't mean the street doesn't exist and it doesn't provide any evidence towards the claim that the street doesn't exist. If a view of spherical earth has been created by joining multiple images together, you may choose to call it fake but that doesn't mean the spherical earth doesn't exist and it doesn't provide any evidence towards the claim that the spherical earth doesn't exist.

Your objection here isn't relevant.

If you're trying to prove a massive worldwide conspiracy which would influence FAR more than NASA (There are a host of governmental AND independent commercial aeronautic and space ventures) then you can't just wave this away with a poor semantic argument. Also there are plenty of tests you can do to prove the earth is spherical, from Foulcalt's Pendulum to strapping a camera to a weather balloon.

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

I am not arguing that mirages do not exist so I ignored the images as they don't seem relevant. The argument is whether atmospheric refraction exists. The mirages/optical illusions are not mutually exclusive with atmospheric refraction and normal physics assumes they both exist. 

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

No, it's been empirically validated. People have not just sat and thought about it in a lab, they have conducted experiments and found out it exists as per the link I have already provided. That is what defines empiricism. Empiricism doesn't not mean, for instance, that every single person on earth has to personally get tutored in quantum physics and then individually get to replicate an experiment that shows the existence of a new particle on the Large Hadron Collider before we can consider the existence of the new particle empirically proven.

I have offered empirical evidence of the highest standard; peer reviewed research by experts that has been corroborated by other independent scientists across the globe and for which there is a massive scientific consensus so overwhelming it is hard to overstate. Frankly I don't know how you can believe the earth is not spherical and satellites aren't orbiting it, but if you are going to try and use your personal belief that satellites don't orbit the earth to try and ignore peer reviewed scientific studies then you are the one who is using the assuming the conclusion fallacy.

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

It's an observable event which I'm sure there are massive amounts of videos and recordings of and which you will be able to see for yourself if you choose to visit a place where an eclipse is happening.

The sun and moon react in exactly the way predicted by standard physics, the moon darkening slightly before it seems it should - as would be expected with light refraction. This is an example of scientific evidence. There is a hypothesis of what should happen based on certain assumptions (spherical earth, light refracts and has expected properties), observations are made and they match what is expected from the hypothesis.

If there a scientific flat earth explanation for eclipses which can be tested in a similar manner or is it another one of those ones where you just have to shrug your shoulders and say you hope to work out how this is feasible one day?

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

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

Your first part of the argument is circular reasoning. Essentially "Eclipses aren't real because the earth is a stationary plane which shows eclipses aren't real". It assumes the premise is correct to try and make the point which proves the premise is correct, which is fallacious.

Your second part is a video which shows EXACTLY what I predicted would happen. I predicted that "It can also be seen during lunar eclipses when the sun will sometimes just be visible (because its apparent position is moved a degrees or so higher)". As shown the sun is still just visible. Thank you for helping confirm my predictions and therefore helping validate the reality of a spherical earth and the refraction of light.

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

Taking scientists word isn't what I was suggesting or how science works. We don't trust scientists because they say so, we trust the peer reviewed and replicated experiments they conduct as the nature of the scientific method ensures very high degrees of accuracy. I also gave you an example of an experiment shows and testing refraction which you didn't respond to. Why don't you start there?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.9547&rep=rep1&type=pdf

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

Is this a point you are actually contending? Evidence should only be asked for on points of contention. You have already accepted multiple times that light refracts.

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

If we assume that the lower portion is a mirage, I think I can see that being the case. 

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

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

So are you accepting my argument? You accept my premise and then link to a site which explicitly accepts that atmospheric refraction exists (click on the keyword looming, for example in that link) but through the rest of the post it seems like you don't accept this.

Agreed, in all instances, the observer sees further than we should if the earth were a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. 

Further than we should if the earth was a ball and light does not refract across a gradient, which you have already conceded it does.

You claim that refraction has bent the image up over the curvature of the earth. Please provide practical evidence of this claim. You also claim that Chicago from Michigan is a "superior mirage", quoting the meteorologist. Here are some superior mirages.

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

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

You claim a defining characteristic of a superior mirage is image inversion.Let's see what your own source, the Meteorological Glossary of the American Meteological Association says:

"A mirage in which the image or images are displaced upward from the position of the object.

If only a single image of distant objects is seen, then the term looming is often applied: A horizontal surface appears to curve upward with increasing distance and terminate in a relatively distant optical horizon"

So as per the definition, it can be when an image singular is displaced. Your own source that you have already accepted as trustworthy and relevant by using it yourself explains that not only are your definitions wrong, but the examples you give are examples of the atmospheric refraction you were trying to deny! So the question isn't where is my evidence, rather it's why have you already supplied my evidence for me?

It is also telling that you keep on trying to focus on rare edge examples rather than the norm. You have already accepted that light curves along an atmospheric gradient. You have raised no objection to the common sense notion that the atmosphere is generally less dense the higher you can go. The logical conclusion is clear.

We could focus on edge examples like what if there is a really hot road (lower mirage) or a notable band of cold air at the right height (Superior mirage) or some other minority scenario (what happens if the light goes over a volcano that's exploding!) but that isn't really relevant to what we expect to happen normally. You have pointedly ignored answering my question of what we would expect to happen in a normal atmospheric situation based on the premise you have already accepted.

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

It's a comprehensive walkthrough it and even gives basic examples to help explain the process with a slinky. If you don't understand it then I don't think there's much more I can do for you. Fundamentally if you are unable to actually offer a rebuttal then you cannot contest the point.

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

Then you would be fallaciously assuming the conclusion.

However I think you're missing the actual response you were making in all this back and forth as this was regarding a specific claim you made. You said "that the earth (with 5x more mass and g-pull) is not pulling the moon into itself, I think this level of illogical has reached it's peak". You think it is illogical this isn't happening. You offered no argument beyond the fact you consider it illogical. That is not a valid argument.

9) This is plausible (although I wonder why gravity would care if the days would reset every 6 months), and it explains why it would be a figure eight, 

It "resets" every six months because the change in the length of the day is caused by the elliptical orbit and the orbit is 12 months with the extremes of distance from the sun being 6 months apart.

but it still doesn't explain why the southern loop is larger. The southern hemisphere is the same size as the northern.

At this point we are agreed that one axes would be affected by axial tilt and the other the difference in the length of the day, yes? Then the point the figure 8s cross depends on how these two interact. The difference in the length of day is caused by the the elliptical orbit of the Earth. The points where we are closest an further from the sun are 6 months apart (like the solstices) and occury a few weeks after the solstices. To get a perfect figure 8 we'd need it to be Summer Solstice > 3 Months pass > Extreme of orbit > 3 months pass > Winter Solstice > 3 months pass > Other extreme of orbit > 3 months pass > back to summer solstice and start again.

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

You are the one claiming "there should be a notable reaction somewhere", not me. If you believe this is true, back it up with proof. If not, concede the point. Also you have your figures wrong, the 500,000 mph is for the speed the solar system orbits the galaxy, not the speed the earth orbits the sun.

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

That was dealt with seperatly. The quote of myself was showing that your claimed that:

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

My quote of my previous statement was showing how I HAD referenced which statements were contradictory, thus making your argument of a strawman irrelevant.

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

Sorry, burden of proof is on you here. The only way your experiment is relevant is if the equipment is actually able to measure Earth's rotation. I don't need to disprove it because it simply being something that has never been proven is enough to make the results irrelevant.

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

I take it this means you don't understand the science? Please note that not only do you not understand the science behind gyroscopes, but you have had to ask me to provide definitions of basic terminology that is required to even begin talking about the basics of what they are and how they function (e.g. the difference between directional and angular velocity). On this basis if you really want to try and play this card, we'd certainly throw out your entire argument on gyroscopes and I could make a good case for throwing out your arguments on refraction and Analemmas as you've admitted to making mistakes there.

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

Ah, there's actually some content after the first few minutes of movie clips. Combined with your point 12 originally linking to image memes, I didn't last until the actual content in the video started. This is just the same argument raised about the optical horizon as your other pictures/videos so I'll lump it in with the rest of the argument about atmospheric refraction.

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

Eh, you don't really prove it so much as restate your opinion. In fact the right response is given but you don't accept it.

The basis of your error can be found in your claim "If the moon moves towards the east faster than the earth's spin, we'd see it rise in the east and set in the west, closer to what the shadow did, but as anyone with eyes can see, the shadow of the moon went the opposite direction."

This is confusion again between velocity and angular velocity. The movement of the moon in the sky is in relation to how fast it completes its orbit so its angular velocity that matters and decides this. Due to the orbit being bigger, it can be faster than the Earth but complete this orbit slower.

Let's look at the numbers:

The Moon moves ~2,300 mph. The Earth's surface at its fastest (at the equator) moves at ~1040 mph. 2,300 > 1040 so the Moon moves faster than the surface of the earth moves.

The Moons orbit is ~1,500,000 miles. This means it will complete an orbit in 1500000/2300 hours = ~652.2 hours = 27.175 days assuming 24 hour days. The actual orbital period 27.3 days but I made approximations about speed and even the length of days (as discussed and agreed earlier they're actually on average a bit shorter than 24 hours).

The Earth's circumference at the equator is ~25,000. This means it will complete a revolution in 25000/1040 = ~24 hours = 1 day

27 > 1 so it takes the moon longer to orbit the earth than it takes the earth to spin round a single revolution.

Mathematically proven that your claim is wrong.

This is also what you'd expect based on common sense. I mean whatever the system, we both agree the moon moves in the sky, yes? If at night time you drive a car as fast as you can parrallel to the moon (e.g. have directional velocity but no angular velocity) there is no noticeable difference in its position. On the other hand if you just turn 180 degrees on the spot (no directional velocity, lots then this completely removes the moon from your field of vision.

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

Please refer to your own signature: "Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." A prediction is synonymous with a hypothesis. Testing hypothesis very much does prove things as your own signature admits.

So why don't the Mayans and their predictions for instance matter? This is because their predictions don't involve the shape of the earth, so they're irrelevant to us in this discussion. Their mythology and their astronomy were separate. They used pattern recognition to predict solar and lunar eclipses with much noticeable success (albeit some failures). They didn't do anything to factor in the shape of the earth or the position shape or size of any celestial bodies, they were just looking at old records that they had collected over the years and working it out from there.

For instance both you and I can both successfully predict that the sun will rise tomorrow (and every day thereafter) regardless of our different opinions about the shape of the earth as recognising that patterns doesn't need to involve physics in any way. We could similarly predict the moon's changes in visible shape, equinoxes and increasingly more complex celestial patterns with no reference to the earth's shape - limited only by the availability of records and our own mathematical ability to interpret them.

So as they didn't factor them into their predictions in any way, Mayans predictions being right don't prove that the earth is flat. What the do prove is what the Mayans used as the basis of their predictions instead; that their records of previous eclipses were accurate and that their patter recognition methodology was accurate too (or at least fairly accurate as they did have failures).

On the other hand modern scientists don't follow the same method as ancient Mayans. They make models base on the expected properties of the moon, earth, sun, etc which allows them to calculate their orbits and interactions with precision. Because their methodology is based on specific physical properties rather than pattern recognition, it is those properties which are supported when their predictions are right.

Ampersand

Evidence said:

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

Do you not see how bad your argument is. You are not actually presenting a reasoned argument or evidence, you're just ranting.

You say NASA is an international conspiracy which is faking everything. You provide no evidence.

You claim all independent scientists are secretly on NASA's payroll which is why they're in on this conspiracy. You provide no evidence.

You claim that because the Sun is large, there should be an electromagnetic field that overpowers earths. You provide no evidence.

Not only have you not provided anything that I can give the slightest bit of credence to, as it's all just your baseless opinion, I don't know how you can look at your post and think that it will do anything other than drive people away from your theories.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

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

Firstly, one of the points you have raised in the debate we're currently having is about theanalemma where you have given the rationale that it "makes perfect sense on a flat earth model, where the southern path is larger" so you clearly are willing to make points based on models - which I need to see if I'm to respond to them.

Secondly, if needs be I'm not asking you to commit to a model. I'm just asking for a single flat earth model that could even fit in the realm of plausibility.

Thirdly in that post I also raise a specific point about an observable phenomenon and how it seems to contradict any potential flat earth model which you have again not responded to.

Ampersand

Evidence said:

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

I'd honestly be interested in a study comparing the spatial reasoning of flat earthers to the norm because there seems to be a big problem with imagining the movement of three dimensional object..

The earth rotates on it's axis. When you rotate it changes your perspective. It's angular velocity that matters here.

At the equator for example the earth moves 1,670 kph and has a circumference of 40,075. There are 360 degrees in a complete circle so for the sun to move 8 degrees we would expect this to take (not even including any benefit from directional velocity) (40,075 k/1670kph)*(8 degrees/360 degrees) = 0.53 hours. The distance the equator has had to travel in this time is 40,075 k*(8 degrees/360 degrees) = 890 kilometres

realpetertdm

You do know that modern GPS systems are based on a spherical earth, right? Which means that if the earth is flat, then planes will head away, and Google Maps would stop working.

JoePineapples

Why are the flat earthers so obsessed with NASA? It's almost as though all the other thousands of space agencies, research centres, astronomical societies, universities, observatories, etc. don't even exist. 
They seem to think NASA somehow controls all information released about space.

Erfisflat

realpetertdm said:

You do know that modern GPS systems are based on a spherical earth, right? Which means that if the earth is flat, then planes will head away, and Google Maps would stop working.

False. It's likely you haven't a clue how GPS works. They were doing it before they dreamed up sci-fi satellites. Here, learn something.

https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/06/01/cell-tower-triangulation-how-it-works/

http://m.cellreception.com/towers/

Erfisflat

Because when I was on the equator last summer, i could totally tell I was moving at 1,600+ kph.

JoePineapples

Erfisflat said:

Because when I was on the equator last summer, i could totally tell I was moving at 1,600+ kph.

If you woke up in a bed on a plane (with no windows) traveling at 200mph, you wouldn't know that you were moving. We don't feel the effects of constant velocity, we only feel the effects of acceleration.

JoePineapples

Erfisflat said:

realpetertdm said:

You do know that modern GPS systems are based on a spherical earth, right? Which means that if the earth is flat, then planes will head away, and Google Maps would stop working.

False. It's likely you haven't a clue how GPS works. They were doing it before they dreamed up sci-fi satellites. Here, learn something.

https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/06/01/cell-tower-triangulation-how-it-works/

http://m.cellreception.com/towers/

That's not GPS, that's triangulation. GPS is much more accurate.
It even makes the distinction between the two in your link:

"In densely populated urban areas, the cell towers are close together, and a much closer estimation of phone location can be made than in a rural area, where the towers are far apart.

Some of the newest cell phones can actually report a GPS location, and this is quite accurate, and doesn’t rely on the cell towers at all."

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Because when I was on the equator last summer, i could totally tell I was moving at 1,600+ kph.

If you would like to present an argument, do so. Insinuations are not evidence, so your response does not serve as a rebuttal.

Really your response should have the form:

1) Explanation of what you'd expect to see at the equator based on the normal understanding of physics.

2) Explanation of what was observed and how this is inconsistent with point 1.

Nope

We look in the distance an are sight of view is limited. This is because the earth is curved. If it was not we would be able to sea other land when we look out into the ocean. Hear look at a sunset over the sea. The moment the sun gone get up higher. What a tiny bit of the sun can be seen again. THE EARTH IS ROUND.

Hank

@Erfisflat

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

That is quite possibly the most ironic thing I have ever read in my life.

Evidence

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

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

This is a semantic argument. Essentially you think that pilots should use a different word other than "level" to describe maintaining a consistence altitude. Nothing you've said has any bearing on how planes are actually flied in reality, just your preference for terminology.

Allow me to offer an example. Flat means "having a level surface; without raised areas or indentations"

You state you believe in a flat earth, but the earth is obviously not flat. There are indentations (valleys) and raised areas (mountains and hills) than even children know exist.

< snip >

The Earth's circumference at the equator is ~25,000. This means it will complete a revolution in 25000/1040 = ~24 hours = 1 day

27 > 1 so it takes the moon longer to orbit the earth than it takes the earth to spin round a single revolution.

Mathematically proven that your claim is wrong.

This is also what you'd expect based on common sense. I mean whatever the system, we both agree the moon moves in the sky, yes? If at night time you drive a car as fast as you can parrallel to the moon (e.g. have directional velocity but no angular velocity) there is no noticeable difference in its position. On the other hand if you just turn 180 degrees on the spot (no directional velocity, lots then this completely removes the moon from your field of vision.

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

Please refer to your own signature: "Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." A prediction is synonymous with a hypothesis. Testing hypothesis very much does prove things as your own signature admits.

So why don't the Mayans and their predictions for instance matter? This is because their predictions don't involve the shape of the earth, so they're irrelevant to us in this discussion. Their mythology and their astronomy were separate. They used pattern recognition to predict solar and lunar eclipses with much noticeable success (albeit some failures). They didn't do anything to factor in the shape of the earth or the position shape or size of any celestial bodies, they were just looking at old records that they had collected over the years and working it out from there.

For instance both you and I can both successfully predict that the sun will rise tomorrow (and every day thereafter) regardless of our different opinions about the shape of the earth as recognising that patterns doesn't need to involve physics in any way. We could similarly predict the moon's changes in visible shape, equinoxes and increasingly more complex celestial patterns with no reference to the earth's shape - limited only by the availability of records and our own mathematical ability to interpret them.

So as they didn't factor them into their predictions in any way, Mayans predictions being right don't prove that the earth is flat. What the do prove is what the Mayans used as the basis of their predictions instead; that their records of previous eclipses were accurate and that their patter recognition methodology was accurate too (or at least fairly accurate as they did have failures).

On the other hand modern scientists don't follow the same method as ancient Mayans. They make models base on the expected properties of the moon, earth, sun, etc which allows them to calculate their orbits and interactions with precision. Because their methodology is based on specific physical properties rather than pattern recognition, it is those properties which are supported when their predictions are right.

@Ampersand said: On the other hand modern scientists don't follow the same method as ancient Mayans. They make models base on the expected properties of the moon, earth, sun, etc which allows them to calculate their orbits and interactions with precision.

Yes, the "expected properties" meaning taken that we are on a globe spinning, twirling, orbiting and expanding on an imaginary "Space fabric" which Mother Nature knitted from string-theories, with a little threads of bosons, leptons, moo-ons knitted between here and there, and all that sprinkled with the Magical 'gravity' which makes it expand, .. retract, .. clump up in balls, throw things into orbit and "keep it there" for millions and billions of years .. LOL.

How much do you know of Game Developing? What NASA put in their fake universe, their imaginary planetary orbits, their 66.6 degree axial tilts and all that other , these game developers with the New Software programs could do in 10 minutes. In another 20 minutes they could design a whole New solar system of out Earth and present it to NASA, .. the trick is that all scientists/NASA Game developers are old timers who have to work with the initial 200 to 500 year old story, .. what Copernicus started, and of course which has to be modified as time goes by with more people getting wiser about what they actually see.

Take a look at this video, NASA could easily claim this to be an actual real footage from a planet in a Parallel Universe, ..



Nice, right? Puts NASA's cartoon depicted Solar system to shame, .. make it look like a 12 year olds first computer project.

If we put real observed physical data that goes by known laws of physics, .. with data taken from here on earth, not this sci-fi imaginary solar system , .. and let's not forget the "actual gravitational pull of objects from the information that NASA gets from the ISS space experiments", .. lol (which is non-existent) every planet, moon, asteroid etc.  would be flying into each other, then be sucked in your imaginary sun 94 million, billion thousand miles away, and then continue to beeline into this imaginary infinity-space-attic.

NASA Solar system works because, .. like these games I shown you, .. they were programmed to work. This is why NASA space shuttles always dock perfectly with the ISS, why those goofballs playing with water in the ISS never started a fire, why their clothes are always clean and ironed, why their toilet looks like it NEVER was used once (can you imagine after 10 years how much and pee-stains  would be noticeable on the walls, on the toilet seat and in the permed-Astro-ladies hair!? That's why they can fly superman-style around in the ISS bumping into the walls and not get "Lost In Space", .. and also why Mars Rover made it to Mars, .. because, like in CGI Gaming they were "drawn" to work. Same with the Moon-landing, perfect touchdown, didn't even kick any dust up that would have been blown up thousands of miles and slowly come down covering the Lunar-lander. The Only place your Sci-Fi universe exists, is in Disney cartoons, and todays NASA CGI computer generated videos.

You call what NASA is doing; "Modern Science"? Ha, ha, ha, .. more like modern game creating, but I still say they should let "Sony Pictures" put out the videos for them, because for over 10 Billion dollars a month we cows expect something a little more believable. This is 2017 after all! Actually, they should really re-shoot the Moon Landing while still six of the Twelve Moon-landing Apostles, including our old buddy Buzz Aldrin are still alive!

JoePineapples

... again with the NASA obsession, as if all the thousands of other independent alternatives who get the same results don't exist

Ampersand

@Evidence

You don't seem to have understood the point being made and again just go off on a meaningless rant unsupported by any evidence..

The point is that astronomers, including NASA, make predictions based on a round earth (e.g. when a solar eclipse will happen) which are testable events in reality. Based on their model of a round earth 40,000 km in circumference, orbiting the sun at 30 km per second in an elliptical orbit of about 150,000,000 km, rotating on it's axis every 24 hours, etc etc they are able to make predictions which are then proven true such as the precise time and distance travelled of the solar eclipse that occured a month or so ago (and every other solar eclipse). Making accurate predictions is the basis for accepting the reliability of a model and as per the explaiend rationale the Mayans etc are not valid counter examples..

SilverishGoldNova

Hank said:

@Erfisflat

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

That is quite possibly the most ironic thing I have ever read in my life.

You were arguing against the ice wall by saying  that I said that the circumference was smaller than the Earth's. After I gave the most simple explanation (and congratulated you for not starting off with appeal to authority and genetic fallacies), it is now ironic?

JoePineapples said:

... again with the NASA obsession, as if all the thousands of other independent alternatives who get the same results don't exist

Such as? The red bull free fall (which I've debunked already) and airplane curvature (Which was already debunked by me and erf a million times)? 

namemcname

JoePineapples said:

... again with the NASA obsession, as if all the thousands of other independent alternatives who get the same results don't exist

Flat Earthers, when called out, tend to resort to the NASA obsession card, the Coveny-called-Silver-a-moron-once card, or ocassionally the strawman card.

SilverishGoldNova

namemcname said:

JoePineapples said:

... again with the NASA obsession, as if all the thousands of other independent alternatives who get the same results don't exist

Flat Earthers, when called out, tend to resort to the NASA obsession card, the Coveny-called-Silver-a-moron-once card, or ocassionally the strawman card.

Lets see here.

1. Well NASA imagery has been debunked many many times, and so have the "other sources". 
2. Coveny never addressed anything and used insults and strawmans for his arguments. 

XxalphacrocxX

If the Earth were Flat there would be no center of Gravity thus leaving yourself and all others floating in microgravity making day to day activities impossible
p.s. Next time you go spouting lies try to come up with a solid argument

SilverishGoldNova

XxalphacrocxX said:

If the Earth were Flat there would be no center of Gravity thus leaving yourself and all others floating in microgravity making day to day activities impossible
p.s. Next time you go spouting lies try to come up with a solid argument

Oh, no, not the gravity argument and the appeal to the stone fallacies for 5 billionth time, not this again, no way I could ever come back from this!

Gravity is a theory, based on the unproven center of the Earth. And the reason for us falling to the ground has been explained before. If the object is more dense than the air, it falls because it is more dense than the air. Anything else rises. I think your argument for gravity is based on "space" (aka the firmament"). Isnt it?

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

XxalphacrocxX said:

If the Earth were Flat there would be no center of Gravity thus leaving yourself and all others floating in microgravity making day to day activities impossible
p.s. Next time you go spouting lies try to come up with a solid argument

Oh, no, not the gravity argument and the appeal to the stone fallacies for 5 billionth time, not this again, no way I could ever come back from this!

Gravity is a theory, based on the unproven center of the Earth. And the reason for us falling to the ground has been explained before. If the object is more dense than the air, it falls because it is more dense than the air. Anything else rises. I think your argument for gravity is based on "space" (aka the firmament"). Isnt it?

Gravity is not "based on the unproven centre of the earth". it is based on a whole host of observable and testable data. For instance as far back as the 1700s people were measuring the gravity not of the earth itself, but specific features like mountains and that was using the equipment they had back then, not what we have available to us now. Even amateur astronomers can get telescopes good enough to see some of the moons of Jupiter as they orbit the spherical planet exactly according to the laws of gravity. Our knowledge of the spherical shape of the earth and our ability to stand on different places of it and be pulled towards the centre is certainly a massive component of it, but far from the only basis.

Not only that but "it falls because it is more dense than the air" is not an actual explanation and is also provably false (and also very simplistic as 'air' is a mixture of a variety of different elements of different densities). I think you are getting confused by air pressure. Gases lighter than other gases will rise until they reach an equilibrium due to the effect of gravity on individual molecules  and atoms being very weak and air pressure being comparatively strong when they are around denser elements. You can test this by putting helium in a vacuum chamber. Remove the air exerting pressure on the helium and it will sink even though it is lighter than air, completely contrary to your aim. Also we understand air pressure very well and it couldn't possible account for the effects of gravity.

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

namemcname said:

JoePineapples said:

... again with the NASA obsession, as if all the thousands of other independent alternatives who get the same results don't exist

Flat Earthers, when called out, tend to resort to the NASA obsession card, the Coveny-called-Silver-a-moron-once card, or ocassionally the strawman card.

Lets see here.

1. Well NASA imagery has been debunked many many times, and so have the "other sources". 
2. Coveny never addressed anything and used insults and strawmans for his arguments. 

Claiming you have debunked NASA imagery is not the same as actually debunking NASA imagery.

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

Such as? The red bull free fall (which I've debunked already) and airplane curvature (Which was already debunked by me and erf a million times)? 

NASA is the aerospace agency for the USA, not the world. There are plenty of other space agencies that launch satellites or rockets into space. Even North Korea for instance has launched satellites into space and not even they (who would have every reason to try and discredit the USA and will claim all kinds of crazy stuff) haven't tried to claim that everyone else is lying about the shape of the Earth.

There are also commercial space companies, like the well known types SpaceX but also a host of smaller companies. Hell, how do you think satellite TV works?

Then there are airliners, amateur pilots, sailors, etc who travel noticeable distances across the globe. A flat earth assumes distances radically different from that of a global earth - yet somehow all these people engage in plane travel or sailing and aren't getting lost or reporting that South America is thousands of miles further away than they thought.

SilverishGoldNova

Ampersand said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

namemcname said:

JoePineapples said:

... again with the NASA obsession, as if all the thousands of other independent alternatives who get the same results don't exist

Flat Earthers, when called out, tend to resort to the NASA obsession card, the Coveny-called-Silver-a-moron-once card, or ocassionally the strawman card.

Lets see here.

1. Well NASA imagery has been debunked many many times, and so have the "other sources". 
2. Coveny never addressed anything and used insults and strawmans for his arguments. 

Claiming you have debunked NASA imagery is not the same as actually debunking NASA imagery.

You're correct, I've debunked them many many times tho, but you keep ignoring that.

SilverishGoldNova

@Ampersand

1. 
2. 

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

You're correct, I've debunked them many many times tho, but you keep ignoring that.

What response do you expect me to have when a random person on the internet claims to have done something ("many many times") but has no evidence or reasoning to support it?

I'm giving your post exactly as much credence as it merits. Empty claims have no value as evidence.

SilverishGoldNova

Ampersand said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

You're correct, I've debunked them many many times tho, but you keep ignoring that.

What response do you expect me to have when a random person on the internet claims to have done something ("many many times") but has no evidence or reasoning to support it?

I'm giving your post exactly as much credence as it merits. Empty claims have no value as evidence.

http://debateisland.com/discussion/1283/nasa-admitting-to-faking-images

Here you go. Will you stop trying to ignore it now? I've shared it many times before, and the same contents too in posts.

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Ampersand

1. 
2. 

1. A video of some guy "BUT WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN" with no actual explanation for why anything that he is baffled by supposedly contravenes the laws of gravity. No value as evidence. Feel free to offer an explanation of why you think anything seen there contravenes what we would expect to happen.

2. An empty claim with no evidence to support it.

SilverishGoldNova

Ampersand said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Ampersand

1. 
2. 

1. A video of some guy "BUT WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN" with no actual explanation for why anything that he is baffled by supposedly contravenes the laws of gravity. No value as evidence. Feel free to offer an explanation of why you think anything seen there contravenes what we would expect to happen.

2. An empty claim with no evidence to support it.

1. The entire video is an explanation m8.

2. It works out the best with the many proofs of  the flat Earth in mind. Also, there are many locations unreachable by GPS. 

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

1. The entire video is an explanation m8.

2. It works out the best with the many proofs of  the flat Earth in mind. Also, there are many locations unreachable by GPS. 

1. Nope, it doesn't explain anything. To be relevant it would need to explain what should happen based on the standard conception of physics and then show something that violates those rules, preferably then explaining exactly what the violation means for our understanding of physics. Instead he just goes "Whoah, how could this balloon possible float?!?" and gives no reason why it is applicable to the argument or anyone should care.I'll make it easy on you, why don't you link to a single mainstream scientific article which explains how even one occurrence in that video isn't exactly what we would expect based on the standard understanding of physics which includes gravity. That should be the basic part of any argument you make, so I'm just asking you for the very minimum you need to make a valid argument anyway.

2. You haven't provided any proofs of a flat earth. If your evidence has no merit and it's actually other evidence that is supposedly relevant, why did you post it?

SilverishGoldNova

Ampersand said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

1. The entire video is an explanation m8.

2. It works out the best with the many proofs of  the flat Earth in mind. Also, there are many locations unreachable by GPS. 

1. Nope, it doesn't explain anything. To be relevant it would need to explain what should happen based on the standard conception of physics and then show something that violates those rules, preferably then explaining exactly what the violation means for our understanding of physics. Instead he just goes "Whoah, how could this balloon possible float?!?" and gives no reason why it is applicable to the argument or anyone should care.I'll make it easy on you, why don't you link to a single mainstream scientific article which explains how even one occurrence in that video isn't exactly what we would expect based on the standard understanding of physics which includes gravity. That should be the basic part of any argument you make, so I'm just asking you for the very minimum you need to make a valid argument anyway.

2. You haven't provided any proofs of a flat earth. If your evidence has no merit and it's actually other evidence that is supposedly relevant, why did you post it?

1. Ok lets reword it so you can understand it more clearly: I gave the explanation, the video is the expiremental proof. Got it? Your original question was for experimental proof of my explanation, and now you're attacking the video because he didn't give a direct explanation to how gravity works on a flat Earth even tho I did (and you were asking for experimental proof)
2. Rather than address my debate, you are now calling it worthless and implying that I've provided no evidence for a flat Earth, despite the fact I've actually provided many proofs of a flat Earth. This is appeal to the stone. To save your time going through the other debate, here are 2

https://gyazo.com/5b2700a39017faeb07e32f3fc11ae5ff 317,000 feet

 121,000 feet:


We are told we can see curvature at 35,000 feet. But there is none to be seen here. 

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

1. Ok lets reword it so you can understand it more clearly: I gave the explanation, the video is the expiremental proof. Got it? Your original question was for experimental proof of my explanation, and now you're attacking the video because he didn't give a direct explanation to how gravity works on a flat Earth even tho I did (and you were asking for experimental proof)

2. Rather than address my debate, you are now calling it worthless and implying that I've provided no evidence for a flat Earth, despite the fact I've actually provided many proofs of a flat Earth. This is appeal to the stone. To save your time going through the other debate, here are 2

https://gyazo.com/5b2700a39017faeb07e32f3fc11ae5ff 317,000 feet

 121,000 feet:


We are told we can see curvature at 35,000 feet. But there is none to be seen here. 

1. You did not give an explanation. You made an empty claim with no proof. 

If this is your proof, it simply doesn't work. The video doesn't show how even a single event shown in the video is meant to contravene the laws of physics as they are normally understood. The only thing it proves is that helium balloons float, metal sticks to magnets, etc which is hardly stuff that needs proof. What there helps prove your argument?

2. You seem to be showing me two pictures with no context of where they come from, how they were taken, how they can be trusted, etc. One of them shows curvature, the other doesn't. They obviously can't both be accurate so the lesson here is not to trust random pictures of no known provenance presented to you by a stranger on the internet. Please try again with meaningful evidence.

SilverishGoldNova

Ampersand said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

1. Ok lets reword it so you can understand it more clearly: I gave the explanation, the video is the expiremental proof. Got it? Your original question was for experimental proof of my explanation, and now you're attacking the video because he didn't give a direct explanation to how gravity works on a flat Earth even tho I did (and you were asking for experimental proof)

2. Rather than address my debate, you are now calling it worthless and implying that I've provided no evidence for a flat Earth, despite the fact I've actually provided many proofs of a flat Earth. This is appeal to the stone. To save your time going through the other debate, here are 2

https://gyazo.com/5b2700a39017faeb07e32f3fc11ae5ff 317,000 feet

 121,000 feet:


We are told we can see curvature at 35,000 feet. But there is none to be seen here. 

1. You did not give an explanation. You made an empty claim with no proof. 

If this is your proof, it simply doesn't work. The video doesn't show how even a single event shown in the video is meant to contravene the laws of physics as they are normally understood. The only thing it proves is that helium balloons float, metal sticks to magnets, etc which is hardly stuff that needs proof. What there helps prove your argument?

2. You seem to be showing me two pictures with no context of where they come from, how they were taken, how they can be trusted, etc. One of them shows curvature, the other doesn't. They obviously can't both be accurate so the lesson here is not to trust random pictures of no known provenance presented to you by a stranger on the internet. Please try again with meaningful evidence.

1. I really shouldn't have to explain to you objects falling and objects rising. And yes, it doesn't really take much proof to show that balloons rise. A balloon rising, and a tiny magnet overpowering a force that is supposedly strong enough to hold quadrillions of gallons of water on a ball spinning 1,000 MPH blasting around the sun at 66,000 MPH, COMPLETELY contradict gravity.

2. Neither of them show curvature. Look at them. " The lesson here is not to trust random pictures of no known provenance presented to you by a stranger on the internet. Please try again with meaningful evidence. " You've been attacking all of my evidence by claiming I shouldn't trust things from people on the internet.

Which is called Genetic Fallacy.

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

1. I really shouldn't have to explain to you objects falling and objects rising. And yes, it doesn't really take much proof to show that balloons rise. A balloon rising, and a tiny magnet overpowering a force that is supposedly strong enough to hold quadrillions of gallons of water on a ball spinning 1,000 MPH blasting around the sun at 66,000 MPH, COMPLETELY contradict gravity.

2. Neither of them show curvature. Look at them. " The lesson here is not to trust random pictures of no known provenance presented to you by a stranger on the internet. Please try again with meaningful evidence. " You've been attacking all of my evidence by claiming I shouldn't trust things from people on the internet.

Which is called Genetic Fallacy.

1. Why does it contradict gravity? Come on, show how this contradicts gravity. If it is completely contradicted it then surely you should have no trouble showing this. You can use the laws of gravity and your own reasoning to point out the problem or link to a source of mainstream science which explains how balloons totally won't rise and magnets totally don't work. Your opinion that it contradicts gravity is meaningless when you have nothing to back that opinion up with. Is this all your "evidence" amounts to, just making baseless claims about how you say gravity works with no proof or evidence to actually back you up?

2. The first picture clearly shows curvature. It even draws a line between two points and you can see the earth curving above it.

Also you seem to have missed the point of my criticism. It is not that evidence should be automatically be rejected if it comes form the internet, which is somehow the conclusion that you drew.

 Please refer to what I actually said "not to trust random pictures of no known provenance presented to you by a stranger on the internet". Information from a stranger on the internet could be worthwhile - but then it would have to be high quality and verifiable which is not the case here. I am supposed to trust this information because a random person gives me their word - which is not logical or solid proof.

If you were linking to a peer reviewed scientific experiment that explained the methodology for how these pictures were taken and went into detail about why your interpretation should be trusted then i would have no problem at all looking over the details. I'd consider lesser levels of evidence on their merits. however at the moment they have no evidenciary value. The only source for the details on them is your claims with nothing to back them up. At the moment the problem is that every argument you make boils down to "Because I say so" which is not worthwhile.

Evidence

JoePineapples said:

... again with the NASA obsession, as if all the thousands of other independent alternatives who get the same results don't exist

Independent, .. LOL.
Yes, they do exist, all under NASA. Created by NASA, funded by NASA and every sci-fi info that comes out of them has to pass NASA-approval. No one can invent any new sci-fi rhetoric without UN and/or NASA approval. We are not even allowed to buy 'magnetic wire' for our kids science projects, Better not even think of inventing any new, cheap electric car that could go more than 99 miles on a charge, or solar panels without NASA-UN approval, or they'll kill you with a "procedure" just like those getting ready for retirement and plan on collecting their Social Security.

Evidence

Ampersand said:

@Evidence

You don't seem to have understood the point being made and again just go off on a meaningless rant unsupported by any evidence..

The point is that astronomers, including NASA, make predictions based on a round earth (e.g. when a solar eclipse will happen) which are testable events in reality. Based on their model of a round earth 40,000 km in circumference, orbiting the sun at 30 km per second in an elliptical orbit of about 150,000,000 km, rotating on it's axis every 24 hours, etc etc they are able to make predictions which are then proven true such as the precise time and distance travelled of the solar eclipse that occured a month or so ago (and every other solar eclipse). Making accurate predictions is the basis for accepting the reliability of a model and as per the explaiend rationale the Mayans etc are not valid counter examples..

I understand your point, it is you who ignored mine because you want to hold on to your twirling-Globe from a Big Bang story.
You seen that CG-Game I posted? It is easy to twirl an imaginary planet in any imaginary way you want in a CG-3-D cartoon. George Lucas did it in 1977, and has literally taken over science in science Fairs on our whole world. When people think of science, .. they think of Sci-fi movies.

Oh, and yes they are all "testable" by any other CGI-cartoon creator anywhere. Why? Because NASA has the patent on sci-fi space.

Evidence

Ampersand said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

namemcname said:

JoePineapples said:

... again with the NASA obsession, as if all the thousands of other independent alternatives who get the same results don't exist

Flat Earthers, when called out, tend to resort to the NASA obsession card, the Coveny-called-Silver-a-moron-once card, or ocassionally the strawman card.

Lets see here.

1. Well NASA imagery has been debunked many many times, and so have the "other sources". 
2. Coveny never addressed anything and used insults and strawmans for his arguments. 

Claiming you have debunked NASA imagery is not the same as actually debunking NASA imagery.

@Ampersand what is there to debunk in NASA CGI imagery? That's like saying: "I can debunk Star Trek imagery!"  And as for any actual photos, they are taken in a studio, or here somewhere on earth, .. in the desert somewhere like the Mars Rover. So because there is really no "Space with planets where earth is supposed to be", there is really nothing about NASA to debunk, .. it's like debunking Disney, .. what would we be debunking about Disney, .. what, that the newer version of Mickey Mouse is not real because it is different than the old/earlier version one?

Ampersand

@Evidence

Again, no evidence in any of your posts. You don't seem to understand the basics of debating. Simply making baseless claims does not represent a valid argument. You can feel free to claim NASA is fake, but until you actually produce some evidence there's no reason for anyone to listen to you.

You also still haven't misunderstood my point. I made an example of the use of mathematics and physics to make predictions which are observed and confirmed in the real world (e.g. the timing of solar eclipses). Nothing about that is computer generated image based and it follows the scientific basis of testing and confirming experiments.

Erfisflat

@ampersand

"This is a semantic argument. Essentially you think that pilots should use a different word other than "level" to describe maintaining a consistence altitude. Nothing you've said has any bearing on how planes are actually flied in reality, just your preference for terminology."

My argument isn't about the definition on level, or what word pilots use. That is your red herring. If you prefer to say perpendicular to the horizon, rather than nose down, we can say with that, either way, this has gotten extremely off topic.

"Allow me to offer an example. Flat means "having a level surface; without raised areas or indentations"

You state you believe in a flat earth, but the earth is obviously not flat. There are indentations (valleys) and raised areas (mountains and hills) than even children know exist."

Now you are persuing another strawman. We all know that when we say flat earth, we don't mean perfectly mathematically flat, we mean NOT A BALL. SR-71 Blackbird. You haven't even mentioned it in this rebuttal.

"So with this in mind I could either:

1) Assume that you must be using the dictionary definition of the word and insist despite any denials that you therefore think you can walk across the grand canyon because indents in the earth don't exist.

2) Apply basic common sense and recognise from my experience of being a human being and talking to other human beings that people don't always use dictionary definitions like some robot and that some basic common sense and context should be applied."

As I stated, the SR-71 would out of necessity of a plane travelling at that speed over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, should be travelling nose down at a constant rate of 900 feet per second. This is my argument. 

You have gone with option 1, which is clearly misinterpretive. This is purely a semantic point and to me it is so mind-bogglingly poor an argument that it damages your credibility because this isn't some technical point where we can disagree, this is just a very basic facet of how human beings talk and interact and it is hard not to view this as anything but wilful misinterpretation.

Now that you've had your way with that strawman, and are still ignoring the argument after a second time I pointed this out, I'll assume you concede.

No, I'm trying to understand your definition of empirical validation as it seems contrary to the norm. Are you suggesting that if a team of scientists performs an experiment that I read about in a scientific journal, I should not consider this empirically validated because I haven't personally observed it myself? That's my understanding of your explanation and this is contrary to the normal definition where the experiment would be the empirical evidence (as opposed to theoretical where people just sit around and think about things) and if you are going to insist on your own peculiar standards that do not meet the normal definitions then you need to give a rationale for why this should be accepted.

This is my position, and what you have described is an appeal to authority fallacy. You've decided to take men's word on something that you'll never be able to confirm. This is cult-like dogma. Nowhere in the definition of the scientific method does it say take another person's word as infallible. If it isn't rooted in the scientific method it is pseudoscience. These scientists may very well have performed the experiment and empirically validated the results, but all that you've empirically validated is reading their interpretations of the data, and assume that they are being truthful.

Their explanation is that they had satellites orbiting the earth which took pictures of individual sections of a spherical earth which then had to be joined together to show the complete image of a spherical earth. In the editing they made it so things joined up and looked reasonable (e.g. as clouds would have moved on and would look a jumbled mess without correction, tidied them up) Nothing about their explanation would suggest the earth is non-spherical.

Actually it does. Your cognitive dissonance has impaired your logical judgement. If I were to provide a picture of shark kitty...

...tell you it is a composite image of two images fused together in Photoshop, then call it scientific evidence for it's existence and think you daft for not believing he exists, AND letting you know you'll never get to verify his existence for whatever reason, you'd think I lacked any sense at all. This is your logic. 

You seem to be getting hung up on semantics. While your personal morality might cause you to label any image that has has any editing "fake", your definition is so stringent that it doesn't have any relevance to the situation.

If a magazine cover model has had blemishes removed, you may choose to call it fake but that doesn't mean the cover model doesn't exist and it doesn't provide any evidence towards claims that the cover model doesn't exist. If Google street view has been created by stitching multiple images together, you may choose to call it fake but that doesn't mean the street doesn't exist and it doesn't provide any evidence towards the claim that the street doesn't exist. If a view of spherical earth has been created by joining multiple images together, you may choose to call it fake but that doesn't mean the spherical earth doesn't exist and it doesn't provide any evidence towards the claim that the spherical earth doesn't exist. 

Your objection here isn't relevant.

Again, verifiability is the key factor here. If I were so inclined, I could drive over to Hollywood and wait at the model's house for her to come out, and verify that she exists. Or I could drive down the street from google maps to verify it exists. As i said (and you continue to ignore), anyone can measure a body of water and find it flat. Not so with a ball earth. Matter of factly very little if any of your evidence is verifiable. 

If you're trying to prove a massive worldwide conspiracy which would influence FAR more than NASA (There are a host of governmental AND independent commercial aeronautic and space ventures) then you can't just wave this away with a poor semantic argument. Also there are plenty of tests you can do to prove the earth is spherical, from Foulcalt's Pendulum to strapping a camera to a weather balloon.

You first present an appeal to probability fallacy. I have already shown images of a spherical earth to be fabricated, fake, composites, whatever you want to call them. Then you would have to explain how swinging a pendulum over a flat, stationary surface proves a spherical earth and find a non-manipulated video from a weather balloon that shows a spherical or even curved earth.

I am not arguing that mirages do not exist so I ignored the images as they don't seem relevant. The argument is whether atmospheric refraction exists. The mirages/optical illusions are not mutually exclusive with atmospheric refraction and normal physics assumes they both exist. 

So you admit to cherry picking. You at first backed the meteorologist (I asked twice), who stated this was a superior mirage, now you are just claiming atmospheric refraction, after I showed that to be false. As i stated, if you can't demonstrate the effect on any scale, it is a pseudoscientific claim, your point is moot, and mine stands.

No, it's been empirically validated. People have not just sat and thought about it in a lab, they have conducted experiments and found out it exists as per the link I have already provided. That is what defines empiricism. Empiricism doesn't not mean, for instance, that every single person on earth has to personally get tutored in quantum physics and then individually get to replicate an experiment that shows the existence of a new particle on the Large Hadron Collider before we can consider the existence of the new particle empirically proven.

That is your opinion, you are basing your counterarguments on an appeal to authority fallacy. The information is not infallible because you must assume several things including that the experiments were even performed, the data was not misinterpreted, all variables are taken into consideration and that the experts are not being dishonest about anything. If the information isn't falsifiable, it is pseudoscience. The only thing you have empirically validated here is what they have claimed, similar to taking a preacher's (an expert in his field) word over something you can test yourself.

I have offered empirical evidence of the highest standard; peer reviewed research by experts that has been corroborated by other independent scientists across the globe and for which there is a massive scientific consensus so overwhelming it is hard to overstate. Frankly I don't know how you can believe the earth is not spherical and satellites aren't orbiting it, but if you are going to try and use your personal belief that satellites don't orbit the earth to try and ignore peer reviewed scientific studies then you are the one who is using the assuming the conclusion fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

In this case, I have provided ample empirical evidence against a spherical earth, and the authority is biased. To show that the scientists are "independent", you must show that they are not government funded. The highest degree of empirical evidence would be actual empirical evidence.

It's an observable event which I'm sure there are massive amounts of videos and recordings of and which you will be able to see for yourself if you choose to visit a place where an eclipse is happening. 

The sun and moon react in exactly the way predicted by standard physics, the moon darkening slightly before it seems it should - as would be expected with light refraction. This is an example of scientific evidence. There is a hypothesis of what should happen based on certain assumptions (spherical earth, light refracts and has expected properties), observations are made and they match what is expected from the hypothesis.

Actually no, they don't match what is expected if you have any knowledge of geometry. An object coming between two objects from below would produce a shadow moving up from the bottom, not coming down from the top, as observed in that selenelion. This is a major problem for your model, and i assume you will try to cherry pick or grasp at straws to get around this.

If there a scientific flat earth explanation for eclipses which can be tested in a similar manner or is it another one of those ones where you just have to shrug your shoulders and say you hope to work out how this is feasible one day?

I'm not particularly concerned about what exactly blocks the light of the sun, as this would be speculation. I've proved empirically  and mathematically that the earth is not a ball, that there is no motion, and that the earth does not come between the sun and the moon. I don't attach myself to any particular model, aside from stating the obvious, that the earth is without curvature or motion.

Your first part of the argument is circular reasoning. Essentially "Eclipses aren't real because the earth is a stationary plane which shows eclipses aren't real". 

Its not circular when I've first proved the earth to be without curve or motion.

It assumes the premise is correct to try and make the point which proves the premise is correct, which is fallacious.

Your second part is a video which shows EXACTLY what I predicted would happen. I predicted that "It can also be seen during lunar eclipses when the sun will sometimes just be visible (because its apparent position is moved a degrees or so higher)". As shown the sun is still just visible. Thank you for helping confirm my predictions and therefore helping validate the reality of a spherical earth and the refraction of light.

So, according to you, and without practical evidence, refraction has not only caused the light from both celestial bodies to go in opposite directions around the ball earth, whereas they don't have to be in a straight line, but has also caused the shadow of the earth to come and go in the wrong direction. Correct? It seems you will just use refraction to suit any and all of your arguments involving sight without the first bit of practical evidence and are a lost cause. You'd prefer to take men's word for where you live than your own common sense and instead of developing an original though you refuse to think for yourself and instead accept whatever conjecture Google throws at you.

Taking scientists word isn't what I was suggesting or how science works. We don't trust scientists because they say so, we trust the peer reviewed and replicated experiments they conduct as the nature of the scientific method ensures very high degrees of accuracy. I also gave you an example of an experiment shows and testing refraction which you didn't respond to. Why don't you start there?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.9547&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I didn't see an experiment there that proves your claim, just some diagrams and mathematics. Maybe an explanation, or better yet, a demonstration? I try to thoroughly explain any details from any experiments I suggest, so that anyone can follow, you are just asserting that there is an experiment where there is none. 

If we assume that the lower portion is a mirage, I think I can see that being the case. 

And you again pose that the light from that building, which we should not be able to see at all, is bent over the curve, because it is a mirage. Since you've claimed that it is an inferior mirage, this is a non sequitur. The top portion would not be visible in either case, therefore it can't possibly be miraged onto the bottom.

So are you accepting my argument? You accept my premise and then link to a site which explicitly accepts that atmospheric refraction exists (click on the keyword looming, for example in that link) but through the rest of the post it seems like you don't accept this.

Yes, atmospheric refraction exists, but not in the way you'd hope. If the image isn't inverted, it isn't a mirage for one, and if the light is bent, it causes the object to appear lower. I've given a few practical examples, which you've so far ignored, and haven't provided any practical evidence to the contrary, just assertions that it happens, due to the earth being a ball.

Further than we should if the earth was a ball and light does not refract across a gradient, which you have already conceded it does.

See above refutation.

You claim a defining characteristic of a superior mirage is image inversion.Let's see what your own source, the Meteorological Glossary of the American Meteological Associationsays:

"A mirage in which the image or images are displaced upward from the position of the object.

If only a single image of distant objects is seen, then the term looming is often applied: A horizontal surface appears to curve upward with increasing distance and terminate in a relatively distant optical horizon"

To finish the quote:

"The superior mirage is most striking when it exhibits three or more images. The upper and lower images are always erect, while a single middle image will be inverted. No matter the number, images will alternate between erect and inverted, although sometimes a pair will appear back to back and might be interpreted as a single image."

A joint university study, conducted by the world's leading experts on mirage plainly states that mirages are inverted images of an object.

http://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirtypes.html

http://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirintro.html

So as per the definition, it can be when an image singular is displaced. Your own source that you have already accepted as trustworthy and relevant by using it yourself explains that not only are your definitions wrong, but the examples you give are examples of the atmospheric refraction you were trying to deny! So the question isn't where is my evidence, rather it's why have you already supplied my evidence for me?

It seems you will accept any excuse given to you at this point no matter the absurdity of it, and have closed yourself off to the possibility of anything but a spherical earth. This is dogmatic, not science. From the meteorologist's superior mirage and now on to looming. No amount of evidence I provide will ever penetrate your bias. Of course, the universities share this bias, and aren't likely going to state the obvious, that distances sighted further than we should are evidence for a flat earth, so one must apply common sense in these situations, and think for yourself. It appears so far that this is not going to be possible for you.

It is also telling that you keep on trying to focus on rare edge examples rather than the norm. You have already accepted that light curves along an atmospheric gradient. You have raised no objection to the common sense notion that the atmosphere is generally less dense the higher you can go. The logical conclusion is clear.

We could focus on edge examples like what if there is a really hot road (lower mirage) or a notable band of cold air at the right height (Superior mirage) or some other minority scenario (what happens if the light goes over a volcano that's exploding!) but that isn't really relevant to what we expect to happen normally. You have pointedly ignored answering my question of what we would expect to happen in a normal atmospheric situation based on the premise you have already accepted.

This isn't some rare occurrence. Time lapses show people can see it for hours on end, and locals say the site is very common.

It's a comprehensive walkthrough it and even gives basic examples to help explain the process with a slinky. If you don't understand it then I don't think there's much more I can do for you. Fundamentally if you are unable to actually offer a rebuttal then you cannot contest the point.

Yes, i completely understood what the argument claimed. I explained it in my own words and asked id this is wjat you are agreeing with, so far youve done some fancy sidestepping to dodge my simple question. I'll assume you've conceded this argument, or do not understand the article you stated.

Then you would be fallaciously assuming the conclusion.

However I think you're missing the actual response you were making in all this back and forth as this was regarding a specific claim you made. You said "that the earth (with 5x more mass and g-pull) is not pulling the moon into itself, I think this level of illogical has reached it's peak". You think it is illogical this isn't happening. You offered no argument beyond the fact you consider it illogical. That is not a valid argument.

Now you're quote mining me.

It "resets" every six months because the change in the length of the day is caused by the elliptical orbit and the orbit is 12 months with the extremes of distance from the sun being 6 months apart.

You are proving to me that you don't even know your own model very well. The length of day isn't due to the elliptical orbit, which is less than 3%, but the amount of time it takes to rotate 360° relative to the stars and the sun.

At this point we are agreed that one axes would be affected by axial tilt and the other the difference in the length of the day, yes? 

No. This is an incoherent statement. I could not have agreed with something you seem to have just fabricated.

 Then the point the figure 8s cross depends on how these two interact. The difference in the length of day is caused by the the elliptical orbit of the Earth. 

Again this is false. See above.

The points where we are closest an further from the sun are 6 months apart (like the solstices) and occury a few weeks after the solstices. To get a perfect figure 8 we'd need it to be Summer Solstice > 3 Months pass > Extreme of orbit > 3 months pass > Winter Solstice > 3 months pass > Other extreme of orbit > 3 months pass > back to summer solstice and start again.

This is another incoherent non sequitur. Maybe now that you're familiar with your own model a bit better, you can grasp at another straw.

You are the one claiming "there should be a notable reaction somewhere", not me. If you believe this is true, back it up with proof. If not, concede the point. 

So you dont agree that gyroscopes respond to the earth's motions. Do you agree with Newtons laws of motion? Namely his 3rd? I've stated that there is no proof that the earth spins. I've given a definition of a gyroscope and explained that Foucault invented and claimed to have used it to measure the earth's motion. I then provided evidence that it doesn't. Are you now flip flopping on this point too? Sorry, but even Google cant save you from me.

Also you have your figures wrong, the 500,000 mph is for the speed the solar system orbits the galaxy, not the speed the earth orbits the sun.

Thanks for the correction, now onto my point. Gyroscopes prove the earth is motionless. Point still stands.

That was dealt with seperatly. The quote of myself was showing that your claimed that:

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

My quote of my previous statement was showing how I HAD referenced which statements were contradictory, thus making your argument of a strawman irrelevant.

Now your just quoting my response to your claim. This has become another of your asanine red herrings.

Sorry, burden of proof is on you here. The only way your experiment is relevant is if the equipment is actually able to measure Earth's rotation. I don't need to disprove it because it simply being something that has never been proven is enough to make the results irrelevant.

Nice dodge, I'll assume that you can't verify Foucault's claim/experiment, and have conceded this argument as well.

I take it this means you don't understand the science? Please note that not only do you not understand the science behind gyroscopes, but you have had to ask me to provide definitions of basic terminology that is required to even begin talking about the basics of what they are and how they function (e.g. the difference between directional and angular velocity). On this basis if you really want to try and play this card, we'd certainly throw out your entire argument on gyroscopes and I could make a good case for throwing out your arguments on refraction and Analemmas as you've admitted to making mistakes there.

I take it this means you don't understand the science behind your own claims. I've asked for a gyroscope experiment that responds to the earth's motions. You've failed.

Ah, there's actually some content after the first few minutes of movie clips. Combined with your point 12 originally linking to image memes, I didn't last until the actual content in the video started. This is just the same argument raised about the optical horizon as your other pictures/videos so I'll lump it in with the rest of the argument about atmospheric refraction.

Another cherry picking fallacy admitted. See above refutations.

Eh, you don't really prove it so much as restate your opinion. In fact the right response is given but you don't accept it.

The basis of your error can be found in your claim "If the moon moves towards the east faster than the earth's spin, we'd see it rise in the east and set in the west, closer to what the shadow did, but as anyone with eyes can see, the shadow of the moon went the opposite direction."

This is confusion again between velocity and angular velocity. The movement of the moon in the sky is in relation to how fast it completes its orbit so its angular velocity that matters and decides this. Due to the orbit being bigger, it can be faster than the Earth but complete this orbit slower.

Let's look at the numbers:

The Moon moves ~2,300 mph. The Earth's surface at its fastest (at the equator) moves at ~1040 mph. 2,300 > 1040 so the Moon moves faster than the surface of the earth moves.

The Moons orbit is ~1,500,000 miles. This means it will complete an orbit in 1500000/2300 hours = ~652.2 hours = 27.175 days assuming 24 hour days. The actual orbital period 27.3 days but I made approximations about speed and even the length of days (as discussed and agreed earlier they're actually on average a bit shorter than 24 hours).

The Earth's circumference at the equator is ~25,000. This means it will complete a revolution in 25000/1040 = ~24 hours = 1 day

27 > 1 so it takes the moon longer to orbit the earth than it takes the earth to spin round a single revolution.

Mathematically proven that your claim is wrong.

So, you say, but you haven't really proven anything wrong, you've give some mathematics from your model, but you've largely ignored the argument. You've not even mentioned or accounted for any direction at all for instance. In your model, the moon orbits the earth eastward. Since the claim is made that the earth spins faster than that of the moon's orbit so that we see it moving westward. Why then has the moon appeared to move from the northwest to the southeast across the sun during that eclipse?

This is also what you'd expect based on common sense. I mean whatever the system, we both agree the moon moves in the sky, yes? If at night time you drive a car as fast as you can parrallel to the moon (e.g. have directional velocity but no angular velocity) there is no noticeable difference in its position. On the other hand if you just turn 180 degrees on the spot (no directional velocity, lots then this completely removes the moon from your field of vision.

Your claim is now that the earth moves parallel to the moon? If not this is a horrible analogy.

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

Please refer to your own signature: "Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and theformulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." A prediction is synonymous with a hypothesis. Testing hypothesis very much does prove things as your own signature admits.

Another red herring? Nobody said anything about testing hypotheses. You implied that predicting eclipses would be impossible on a flat earth. I showed how eclipses have been predicted for thousands of years, even when civilizations had sense enough to know that the earth was a motionless plane. Will you address my rebuttal? Let's see...

So why don't the Mayans and their predictions for instance matter? This is because their predictions don't involve the shape of the earth, so they're irrelevant to us in this discussion. Their mythology and their astronomy were separate. They used pattern recognition to predict solar and lunar eclipses with much noticeable success (albeit some failures). They didn't do anything to factor in the shape of the earth or the position shape or size of any celestial bodies, they were just looking at old records that they had collected over the years and working it out from there.

The point is that it can be done without complex orbital mechanical mathematics. How do you know that today's scientists don't base their predictions on thousands of years of past events?

For instance both you and I can both successfully predict that the sun will rise tomorrow (and every day thereafter) regardless of our different opinions about the shape of the earth as recognising that patterns doesn't need to involve physics in any way. We could similarly predict the moon's changes in visible shape, equinoxes and increasingly more complex celestial patterns with no reference to the earth's shape - limited only by the availability of records and our own mathematical ability to interpret them.

So we are now in agreement, assuming a spherical earth is not a necessity when predicting eclipses, despite your claim that it is.

So as they didn't factor them into their predictions in any way, Mayans predictions being right don't prove that the earth is flat. 

Never claimed this. Your argument was that predicting eclipses proves a spherical earth. I've refuted this argument.

What the do prove is what the Mayans used as the basis of their predictions instead; that their records of previous eclipses were accurate and that their patter recognition methodology was accurate too (or at least fairly accurate as they did have failures).

It proved to get more accurate with time.

On the other hand modern scientists don't follow the same method as ancient Mayans. They make models base on the expected properties of the moon, earth, sun, etc which allows them to calculate their orbits and interactions with precision. Because their methodology is based on specific physical properties rather than pattern recognition, it is those properties which are supported when their predictions are right.

This is an unevidenced claim.

Erfisflat

Globetards be like, you can see ships go over the curve, but you can't see the curve at 100,000 feet altitude because you aren't far enough away.

Erfisflat

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a23518/first-photo-of-earth-from-space-70-years/

First photo of earth from space. 65 miles up. Perfectly flat.

Evidence

Erfisflat said:

@ampersand

"This is a semantic argument. Essentially you think that pilots should use a different word other than "level" to describe maintaining a consistence altitude. Nothing you've said has any bearing on how planes are actually flied in reality, just your preference for terminology."

My argument isn't about the definition on level, or what word pilots use. That is your red herring. If you prefer to say perpendicular to the horizon, rather than nose down, we can say with that, either way, this has gotten extremely off topic.

< snip >

Their explanation is that they had satellites orbiting the earth which took pictures of individual sections of a spherical earth which then had to be joined together to show the complete image of a spherical earth. In the editing they made it so things joined up and looked reasonable (e.g. as clouds would have moved on and would look a jumbled mess without correction, tidied them up) Nothing about their explanation would suggest the earth is non-spherical.

Actually it does. Your cognitive dissonance has impaired your logical judgement. If I were to provide a picture of shark kitty...

...tell you it is a composite image of two images fused together in Photoshop, then call it scientific evidence for it's existence and think you daft for not believing he exists, AND letting you know you'll never get to verify his existence for whatever reason, you'd think I lacked any sense at all. This is your logic. 

< snip >

For instance both you and I can both successfully predict that the sun will rise tomorrow (and every day thereafter) regardless of our different opinions about the shape of the earth as recognising that patterns doesn't need to involve physics in any way. We could similarly predict the moon's changes in visible shape, equinoxes and increasingly more complex celestial patterns with no reference to the earth's shape - limited only by the availability of records and our own mathematical ability to interpret them.

So we are now in agreement, assuming a spherical earth is not a necessity when predicting eclipses, despite your claim that it is.

So as they didn't factor them into their predictions in any way, Mayans predictions being right don't prove that the earth is flat. 

Never claimed this. Your argument was that predicting eclipses proves a spherical earth. I've refuted this argument.

What the do prove is what the Mayans used as the basis of their predictions instead; that their records of previous eclipses were accurate and that their patter recognition methodology was accurate too (or at least fairly accurate as they did have failures).

It proved to get more accurate with time.

On the other hand modern scientists don't follow the same method as ancient Mayans. They make models base on the expected properties of the moon, earth, sun, etc which allows them to calculate their orbits and interactions with precision. Because their methodology is based on specific physical properties rather than pattern recognition, it is those properties which are supported when their predictions are right.

This is an unevidenced claim.

Now that there, ..ladies and gentlemen, .. is debating. +1 @Erfisflat


Love the 'shark-kitty' and the Yorkie attacking a 'straw man' argument! LOL

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

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

Firstly, one of the points you have raised in the debate we're currently having is about theanalemma where you have given the rationale that it "makes perfect sense on a flat earth model, where the southern path is larger" so you clearly are willing to make points based on models - which I need to see if I'm to respond to them.

Secondly, if needs be I'm not asking you to commit to a model. I'm just asking for a single flat earth model that could even fit in the realm of plausibility.

Thirdly in that post I also raise a specific point about an observable phenomenon and how it seems to contradict any potential flat earth model which you have again not responded to.

1. The sun analemma is something that can be empirically observed. The distance to the sun cannot.

2.  If you'd like, you can research the various models on www.google.com pick your favorite. I've determined, with the scientific method that water is flat (excluding waves and swells) and nobody has proved that the earth is in motion. These are irrefutable contradictions with the heliocentric model. 

3. Which was that?

Evidence

Ampersand said:

@Evidence

Again, no evidence in any of your posts. You don't seem to understand the basics of debating. Simply making baseless claims does not represent a valid argument. You can feel free to claim NASA is fake, but until you actually produce some evidence there's no reason for anyone to listen to you.

You also still haven't misunderstood my point. I made an example of the use of mathematics and physics to make predictions which are observed and confirmed in the real world (e.g. the timing of solar eclipses). Nothing about that is computer generated image based and it follows the scientific basis of testing and confirming experiments.

Ampersand
NASA is not "fake", .. I have never, or would never claim a German-organization like NASA that takes in 10 billion $ a month "fake"! It is real and the pain they cause to those whom they claim: "sub-human" by stealing all this money is very real too.
What is fake is their claim, that the Disney and NASA created imaginary cartoons of space filled with planets where their spaceships make regular trips to is fake. No such place exists, and our world is not a ball twisting and twirling through these planets. NASA is as real as their LUNAR-LAND Real-estate agency is:

https://www.lunarland.com/

In other words, should you buy some acreage on the moon, your deed would be as "real" as NASA's claim of the moon landing, Mars landing, their "newfound planets millions of light years away", and so on. These are not fake, .. they really do sell land on the moon, and soon on Mars too. Like selling oceanfront property here in the deserts of Arizona.

Timing of solar eclipses were done way before the

July 29, 1958, United States of Nazi-German Occupation, .. in other words; before NASA, before Disney.

But explain this; why did NASA do all that heavy chem-trailing over populated cities on this last solar eclipse? Were they afraid that their mathematics and physics predictions may be questioned if we were allowed to see and video the eclipse? Boy, they had all their atmospheric-steamers, and HAARP going full blast on that day, .. why? What are they hiding?

Erfisflat

namemcname said:

JoePineapples said:

... again with the NASA obsession, as if all the thousands of other independent alternatives who get the same results don't exist

Flat Earthers, when called out, tend to resort to the NASA obsession card, the Coveny-called-Silver-a-moron-once card, or ocassionally the strawman card.

You just drop in for a one liner occasionally and disappear? You haven't actually called anyone out. When you're called out, you tuck tail.

SilverishGoldNova

@Erfisflat NameMcName occasionally drops in whenever we post something to attack it with a fallacious one liner, then disappears for days, weeks, even months, when we call him out. Atleast he's not as bad as some of the other glober fallacylords we have encountered