Earth is a ball

Erfisflat

I am trying to make you acknowledge that some lenses do not produce distortion. Not all lenses, just some.

That is an objective fact: and the images I showed are examples of lenses that do not produce distortion.

Posting images that show distortion is not any argument against the objective fact that some images do not.

Are you just not understanding my point?

Can you explain why linking an image of a lense that produces distortion somehow invalidate lenses that objectively take undistorted images?

Your argument makes no sense.

Maybe you should go back and read the last few posts again. Try it aloud. More specifically, the sourced fact that the distance to the subject makes a difference, and the footage that shows a lens doing just what the source claims. I know this refutes your position, and you'll continue to ignore it, but I'll spell it out a third time, for clarity. The lens on the shuttle showed little to no distortion on the ground, then warps the horizon at 230,000 feet. Keep playing dumb.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

As you’re going to sit there’s and claim an undistorting lens produces distortion, let’s move on.

You implied that an image that is misinterpreted makes it fake.

I asked whether if I misinterpreted a fish eye image of your face as an accurate representation of what you look like, would that make the image fake.

i thought I explained why; the word “misinterpreted” makes little sense to me in the context of fake (and I explained why).

I've not just made an unsupported claim, I've proved my claim. 

You last asked "If it took a selfie, and I misinterpreted it as a real image of your face (no ad-hom accusation of you being ugly, I swear! Just a theoretical), would that mean the image is fake?"

If it was a typo, I understand. 

How would you know if it were an actual photograph, or if I hired a painter to reproduce the image, if it is a still? 

Erfisflat

For about 30 years, I misinterpreted this as an actual photograph, without any supporting evidence. This could very well be a painting, but it isn't accurate, looking at the time zones proves this. Either way, I've never seen the earth from this point of view, so I can't say for sure that it is real.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

But thank you for confirming that a NASA space shuttle launch to orbit is a valid video

A valid video to demonstrate that particular point. I saw a flat horizon too, and I certainly didn't  see any orbit.

SilverishGoldNova

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat and @SilverishGoldNova can you link it then?  

Your arguments were essentially the same as the popsci and smarterthanthat articles, so uh, here you go.

http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/13038/#Comment_13038

SilverishGoldNova

SilverishGoldNova

@Erfisflat It's interesting that the only videos these globetards can provide have significant and obvious lense distortion. 

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

”Maybe you should go back and read the last few posts again. Try it aloud. More specifically, the sourced fact that the distance to the subject makes a difference, and the footage that shows a lens doing just what the source claims. I know this refutes your position, and you'll continue to ignore it, but I'll spell it out a third time, for clarity. The lens on the shuttle showed little to no distortion on the ground, then warps the horizon at 230,000 feet. Keep playing dumb.”

Your argument is that a video from a different camera with an unknown curvature profile that you’ve claimed is faking it’s image shows that a completely different lens that obviously produces little distortion produces distortion for reasons that make no sense. And you’ve claimed to have proven no camera in the world can ever take a picture of a straight line at height by showing a smattering of evidence.

You’ve claimed that a lens can produce major distortion sometimes, and not others. Essentially saying that light coming into the lens from exactly the same angles is bent differently depending from how far away it came. That is pseudoscientific nonsense, and is unsupported by your evidence

I understand what you claimed: it just makes no sense, is unsupported, and seems to fly in the face of everything anyone knows about lenses.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

For about 30 years, I misinterpreted this as an actual photograph, without any supporting evidence. This could very well be a painting, but it isn't accurate, looking at the time zones proves this. Either way, I've never seen the earth from this point of view, so I can't say for sure that it is real.

I’m just clarifying what you meant when we were talking about fake images.

When you said you thought an image was fake when misrepresented and misinterpreted.

If an image is not real, if someone misinterpreted that image as real, it doesn’t mean the image is fake; it depends on how the image was presented.

Also if an image is fake, and presented as real, and correctly interpreted by people as not real: that doesn’t make the image not fake.

So, to me, a fake image in this context is any image that is presented by the creator as showing something that was artificially introduced into the image and wasn’t originally there in the original.

would you agree with that definition: if not, so you have a better one?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

”Maybe you should go back and read the last few posts again. Try it aloud. More specifically, the sourced fact that the distance to the subject makes a difference, and the footage that shows a lens doing just what the source claims. I know this refutes your position, and you'll continue to ignore it, but I'll spell it out a third time, for clarity. The lens on the shuttle showed little to no distortion on the ground, then warps the horizon at 230,000 feet. Keep playing dumb.”

Your argument is that a video from a different camera with an unknown curvature profile that you’ve claimed is faking it’s image shows that a completely different lens that obviously produces little distortion produces distortion for reasons that make no sense. And you’ve claimed to have proven no camera in the world can ever take a picture of a straight line at height by showing a smattering of evidence.

You’ve claimed that a lens can produce major distortion sometimes, and not others. Essentially saying that light coming into the lens from exactly the same angles is bent differently depending from how far away it came. That is pseudoscientific nonsense, and is unsupported by your evidence

I understand what you claimed: it just makes no sense, is unsupported, and seems to fly in the face of everything anyone knows about lenses.

Except those who know anything about lenses. 

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

”Maybe you should go back and read the last few posts again. Try it aloud. More specifically, the sourced fact that the distance to the subject makes a difference, and the footage that shows a lens doing just what the source claims. I know this refutes your position, and you'll continue to ignore it, but I'll spell it out a third time, for clarity. The lens on the shuttle showed little to no distortion on the ground, then warps the horizon at 230,000 feet. Keep playing dumb.”

Your argument is that a video from a different camera with an unknown curvature profile that you’ve claimed is faking it’s image shows that a completely different lens that obviously produces little distortion produces distortion for reasons that make no sense. And you’ve claimed to have proven no camera in the world can ever take a picture of a straight line at height by showing a smattering of evidence.

You’ve claimed that a lens can produce major distortion sometimes, and not others. Essentially saying that light coming into the lens from exactly the same angles is bent differently depending from how far away it came. That is pseudoscientific nonsense, and is unsupported by your evidence

I understand what you claimed: it just makes no sense, is unsupported, and seems to fly in the face of everything anyone knows about lenses.

Except those who know anything about lenses. 

He actually pointed out unfounded assumptions in your arguement rather than dismissing it because he found it unbelievable, so once again you misuse how logical fallacies work to dodge he actually point.

This is why after months you still haven't managed to prove a single point in your favour.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

”Maybe you should go back and read the last few posts again. Try it aloud. More specifically, the sourced fact that the distance to the subject makes a difference, and the footage that shows a lens doing just what the source claims. I know this refutes your position, and you'll continue to ignore it, but I'll spell it out a third time, for clarity. The lens on the shuttle showed little to no distortion on the ground, then warps the horizon at 230,000 feet. Keep playing dumb.”

Your argument is that a video from a different camera with an unknown curvature profile that you’ve claimed is faking it’s image shows that a completely different lens that obviously produces little distortion produces distortion for reasons that make no sense. And you’ve claimed to have proven no camera in the world can ever take a picture of a straight line at height by showing a smattering of evidence.

You’ve claimed that a lens can produce major distortion sometimes, and not others. Essentially saying that light coming into the lens from exactly the same angles is bent differently depending from how far away it came. That is pseudoscientific nonsense, and is unsupported by your evidence

I understand what you claimed: it just makes no sense, is unsupported, and seems to fly in the face of everything anyone knows about lenses.

Except those who know anything about lenses. 

He actually pointed out unfounded assumptions in your arguement rather than dismissing it because he found it unbelievable, so once again you misuse how logical fallacies work to dodge he actually point.

This is why after months you still haven't managed to prove a single point in your favour.

If by unfounded you mean sourced by reputable experts AND demonstrated, I'm with you. 

SilverishGoldNova

Erfisflat said:

Looking for one conclusive piece of evidence that the earth is a spinning ball. When examining the evidence without bias, one can only conclude that it is flat
It has been 2 months since you posted this thread. No sign of any conclusive, hard evidence yet.

The following are things adults should no longer believe in:

Santa Claus
Tooth Fairy
Easter Bunny
Cleveland Browns
Arizona Coyotes
Spherical Earth Theory

 

Erfisflat

Space pictures
Occam's Razor
Sticks in the sun
Lunar eclipse
Muh science book 
Other planet's
Gravity
That one bridge

SilverishGoldNova

Erfisflat said:

Space pictures
Occam's Razor
Sticks in the sun
Lunar eclipse
Muh science book 
Other planet's
Gravity
That one bridge

First, it was Coveny, with the caution signs, then it was Hank with the Stamps of Disapproval, then it was Wake the Psychopath, now it's Ampersand with the fallacious and biased dodges. I've noticed globe Earthers fall FLAT when they're pressed for evidence.

Heres a quick recap of some simple rebuttals to those arguments:

Space Pictures: NASA has admitted to faking images
Occam's Razor: Do I even need to rebut this?
Sticks in the sun: Could also easily work on a flat Earth with a small and close sun
Lunar eclipse: Actually proves flat Earth
Muh science book: But... but
Other planets: That's like taking a picture of 5 dogs and a cat, placing the cat in the bottom right corner, and saying "Look at the cute dog in the bottom right corner".
Gravity: Unsupported theory
That bridge in New York: Just because the bridge is curved does not mean the water is curved 

Nope

"Space Pictures: NASA has admitted to faking images"
So. It not a secret that NASA has their satellites orbiting 36000 km away from the equator and their space stations orbiting closer to close to take a picture of the intre earth. If people wan't a image showing the earth in its inerty of course they are going to use several satellite images to create one large image. I mean they said they are doing it. What does that have to do with the rest of their images?

"Lunar eclipse: Actually proves flat Earth"
How so?

Erfisflat

Nope said:

"Space Pictures: NASA has admitted to faking images"
So. It not a secret that NASA has their satellites orbiting 36000 km away from the equator and their space stations orbiting closer to close to take a picture of the intre earth. If people wan't a image showing the earth in its inerty of course they are going to use several satellite images to create one large image. I mean they said they are doing it. What does that have to do with the rest of their images?

"Lunar eclipse: Actually proves flat Earth"
How so?

Because you could take high altitude photos of a flat earth and easily wrap them around a ball too. It doesn't prove a spherical earth.

Selenelions.

SilverishGoldNova

Nope said:

"Space Pictures: NASA has admitted to faking images"
So. It not a secret that NASA has their satellites orbiting 36000 km away from the equator and their space stations orbiting closer to close to take a picture of the intre earth. If people wan't a image showing the earth in its inerty of course they are going to use several satellite images to create one large image. I mean they said they are doing it. What does that have to do with the rest of their images?

"Lunar eclipse: Actually proves flat Earth"
How so?

What images, the blue marble, and the moon landings? Those are the only ones they say are real, and they've been debunked.




Eclipses:

Do you remember the Solar Eclipse from last year? While many ballheads were quick to claim that it was irrefutable globe Earth evidence, it's actually one of the simplest proofs for a flat Earth.

http://debateisland.com/discussion/1205/the-eclipse-debunks-the-globe-heliocentric-model-of-the-universe

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

”Maybe you should go back and read the last few posts again. Try it aloud. More specifically, the sourced fact that the distance to the subject makes a difference, and the footage that shows a lens doing just what the source claims. I know this refutes your position, and you'll continue to ignore it, but I'll spell it out a third time, for clarity. The lens on the shuttle showed little to no distortion on the ground, then warps the horizon at 230,000 feet. Keep playing dumb.”

Your argument is that a video from a different camera with an unknown curvature profile that you’ve claimed is faking it’s image shows that a completely different lens that obviously produces little distortion produces distortion for reasons that make no sense. And you’ve claimed to have proven no camera in the world can ever take a picture of a straight line at height by showing a smattering of evidence.

You’ve claimed that a lens can produce major distortion sometimes, and not others. Essentially saying that light coming into the lens from exactly the same angles is bent differently depending from how far away it came. That is pseudoscientific nonsense, and is unsupported by your evidence

I understand what you claimed: it just makes no sense, is unsupported, and seems to fly in the face of everything anyone knows about lenses.

Except those who know anything about lenses. 

He actually pointed out unfounded assumptions in your arguement rather than dismissing it because he found it unbelievable, so once again you misuse how logical fallacies work to dodge he actually point.

This is why after months you still haven't managed to prove a single point in your favour.

So, why are you still here obsessing if I haven't managed to prove a single point in my favor? I mean, if I found a website that claimed the moon was made of cheese with "Not a single point proved" I certainly wouldn't spend as much time and effort posting in their forums as you have here.

SilverishGoldNova

Unrelated to the conversation but am I the only one getting ads like "Live in Prosper? Then come meet these Slavic Babes"

Nope

Erfisflat said:

Nope said:

"Space Pictures: NASA has admitted to faking images"
So. It not a secret that NASA has their satellites orbiting 36000 km away from the equator and their space stations orbiting closer to close to take a picture of the intre earth. If people wan't a image showing the earth in its inerty of course they are going to use several satellite images to create one large image. I mean they said they are doing it. What does that have to do with the rest of their images?

"Lunar eclipse: Actually proves flat Earth"
How so?

Because you could take high altitude photos of a flat earth and easily wrap them around a ball too. It doesn't prove a spherical earth.

Selenelions.

That is a better reason to discard NASA photos then simply they make up some photos because they could not actually take a real one.

A Selenetions is possible with atmospheric refraction which is what we mainly disagree on so I feel like this one is a question of atmospheric refraction.

Nope

SilverishGoldNova
"Do you remember the Solar Eclipse from last year? While many ballheads were quick to claim that it was irrefutable globe Earth evidence, it's actually one of the simplest proofs for a flat Earth.

http://debateisland.com/discussion/1205/the-eclipse-debunks-the-globe-heliocentric-model-of-the-universe"

I thought I had already countered this point. Far moon and moon moving relative to earth where as sun does not move relative to the earth (Mostly) and Earth.

SilverishGoldNova

Nope said:

SilverishGoldNova
"Do you remember the Solar Eclipse from last year? While many ballheads were quick to claim that it was irrefutable globe Earth evidence, it's actually one of the simplest proofs for a flat Earth.

http://debateisland.com/discussion/1205/the-eclipse-debunks-the-globe-heliocentric-model-of-the-universe"

I thought I had already countered this point. Far moon and moon moving relative to earth where as sun does not move relative to the earth (Mostly) and Earth.

And where exactly did you do that?

Also, Interesting. No rebuttal to the NASA thing.

Evidence

Nope said:

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

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

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

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

"But here is what we DO get from our trillions of dollars in taxes 'Space Program' from outside the ISS, .. "space walks".
As for inside the ISS, Ooooh,  it's the undeniable scientific proof of BB-Space: "backflips". Yep, it's space walks with bubbles, or backflips."
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html This website gives a list of things that come from space exploration. Weather you believe that people actually go to space or not ether way society does get something in return. If their not going to space with that money they are making devices which benefit society. 

Hello @Nope said - How do you know we could have a boat disappearing over the horizon and see Chicago over lake Michigan?

It always does, remember? As I stated in my post.

Moderators - half my post just disappeared. My letters are trailing as I type it is next to impossible to respond. the tits and ash ads are annoying please fix?

Nope

.SilverishGoldNova said:

Nope said:

SilverishGoldNova
"Do you remember the Solar Eclipse from last year? While many ballheads were quick to claim that it was irrefutable globe Earth evidence, it's actually one of the simplest proofs for a flat Earth.

http://debateisland.com/discussion/1205/the-eclipse-debunks-the-globe-heliocentric-model-of-the-universe"

I thought I had already countered this point. Far moon and moon moving relative to earth where as sun does not move relative to the earth (Mostly) and Earth.

And where exactly did you do that?

Also, Interesting. No rebuttal to the NASA thing.

I did it in the debate about the solar eclipse disproving the common model. I also did it in my last comment.

I can't watch some videos on my school computer. Also while I do believe the earth is round and many of NASA pictures are real, I do not think I would be able to prove their pictures are real to you. I am not as knowledgeable in that subject.

Also every one has a base opean so you can't know if a unbase claim leads to the conclusion the earth is flat at this moment.

Erfisflat

Evidence said:

Nope said:

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

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

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

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

"But here is what we DO get from our trillions of dollars in taxes 'Space Program' from outside the ISS, .. "space walks".
As for inside the ISS, Ooooh,  it's the undeniable scientific proof of BB-Space: "backflips". Yep, it's space walks with bubbles, or backflips."
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html This website gives a list of things that come from space exploration. Weather you believe that people actually go to space or not ether way society does get something in return. If their not going to space with that money they are making devices which benefit society. 

Hello @Nope said - How do you know we could have a boat disappearing over the horizon and see Chicago over lake Michigan?

It always does, remember? As I stated in my post.

Moderators - half my post just disappeared. My letters are trailing as I type it is next to impossible to respond. the tits and ash ads are annoying please fix?

I'm a mod, but that sounds like a sight issue. I've had the trailing letter problem for a while now. As is the ads problem.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

”Maybe you should go back and read the last few posts again. Try it aloud. More specifically, the sourced fact that the distance to the subject makes a difference, and the footage that shows a lens doing just what the source claims. I know this refutes your position, and you'll continue to ignore it, but I'll spell it out a third time, for clarity. The lens on the shuttle showed little to no distortion on the ground, then warps the horizon at 230,000 feet. Keep playing dumb.”

Your argument is that a video from a different camera with an unknown curvature profile that you’ve claimed is faking it’s image shows that a completely different lens that obviously produces little distortion produces distortion for reasons that make no sense. And you’ve claimed to have proven no camera in the world can ever take a picture of a straight line at height by showing a smattering of evidence.

You’ve claimed that a lens can produce major distortion sometimes, and not others. Essentially saying that light coming into the lens from exactly the same angles is bent differently depending from how far away it came. That is pseudoscientific nonsense, and is unsupported by your evidence

I understand what you claimed: it just makes no sense, is unsupported, and seems to fly in the face of everything anyone knows about lenses.

Except those who know anything about lenses. 

Personal incredulity is when I use my own disbelief as an argument. This is obviously not what I’m doing, and you should know better than to spuriously accuse people of logical fallacies when it is obvious that this is not what they’re doing.

As I said:

1.) it is nonsensical to say all cameras work one way, because a completely different camera works one way.

2.) it is nonsensical to say that a camera that objectively does not distort an image, will somehow distort an image. You are basically saying that light hitting a camera lens at a specific angle bends differently than light hitting than camera lens at a completely different angle.

3.) You do not have enough information about the camera in question to draw conclusions: not have you made any attempt to demonstrate your position in depth. 

I was pretty clear.

You may not like that I am pointing out the key logical and evidential flaws in your position (and will do so one by one), but to accuse me of simply being incredulous is massively dishonest.

You seem to be building a pattern of dishonest behaviour: from misrepresenting your own position to make it seem stronger, to accusing people of fallacies they aren’t commiting. That is quite different from the “scientist” position you claim to hold.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

.SilverishGoldNova said:

Nope said:

SilverishGoldNova
"Do you remember the Solar Eclipse from last year? While many ballheads were quick to claim that it was irrefutable globe Earth evidence, it's actually one of the simplest proofs for a flat Earth.

http://debateisland.com/discussion/1205/the-eclipse-debunks-the-globe-heliocentric-model-of-the-universe"

I thought I had already countered this point. Far moon and moon moving relative to earth where as sun does not move relative to the earth (Mostly) and Earth.

And where exactly did you do that?

Also, Interesting. No rebuttal to the NASA thing.

I did it in the debate about the solar eclipse disproving the common model. I also did it in my last comment.

I can't watch some videos on my school computer. Also while I do believe the earth is round and many of NASA pictures are real, I do not think I would be able to prove their pictures are real to you. I am not as knowledgeable in that subject.

Also every one has a base opean so you can't know if a unbase claim leads to the conclusion the earth is flat at this moment.

I started out biased in favor of a spherical earth. Everyone does. It's only when you lose the bias and look at the evidence that you see the truth. 

Medic

@Erfisflat
I muted you long ago but I'd be interested to know what you think of the Falcon Heavy rocket taking off and showing a definite curvature to the Earth. Non-NASA, non-governmental source. No fisheye lens.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Nope

Erfisflat
The problem with that is you can never lose base. That is currently impossible. All humans are base. So you can claim a not base person will think the world is flat after considering the evidence but scene you have no way to test that it stands as an unsupported claim.

Erfisflat

Medic said:

@Erfisflat
I muted you long ago but I'd be interested to know what you think of the Falcon Heavy rocket taking off and showing a definite curvature to the Earth. Non-NASA, non-governmental source. No fisheye lens.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Sorry to see you lost interest so suddenly. You were adamant about proving the testicular earth for a few days. Why did you mute anyway? Anyways, about the video, it was pretty long, I didn't watch it yet. Skipped around and saw a couple launches, but no curves yet. Timestamp it? You do know that fake X works for NASA right?

Medic

The time stamp you're looking for is about 34:41. I didn't actually know that SpaceX works for NASA and it seems absolutely not the case that just working with them = working for them and somehow complicit in their conspiracy. Nice to know you haven't changed your infantile worldview that all evidence that is contradictory of your priors is necessarily false, though.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat
The problem with that is you can never lose base. That is currently impossible. All humans are base. So you can claim a not base person will think the world is flat after considering the evidence but scene you have no way to test that it stands as an unsupported claim.

I did lose my bias. As you can tell. Most of the spherical earth evidence is unverifiable, pointing at the sky, assumptions and conjecture. All you have to do to see the flat earth is to observe the shape of the surface of any body of water, and the shape of the horizon. It's verifiable and conclusive in every way.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Medic said:

@Erfisflat
I muted you long ago but I'd be interested to know what you think of the Falcon Heavy rocket taking off and showing a definite curvature to the Earth. Non-NASA, non-governmental source. No fisheye lens.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Sorry to see you lost interest so suddenly. You were adamant about proving the testicular earth for a few days. Why did you mute anyway? Anyways, about the video, it was pretty long, I didn't watch it yet. Skipped around and saw a couple launches, but no curves yet. Timestamp it? You do know that fake X works for NASA right?

Faking requires deliberate intent to deceive, right?

Nope

Erfisflat
You can't not have bias. All humans as bias. Even if it is not a lot of bias it is still their. What does the shape of the horizon half to do with the earths shape? What do you mean the shape of any body of water?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Medic said:

@Erfisflat
I muted you long ago but I'd be interested to know what you think of the Falcon Heavy rocket taking off and showing a definite curvature to the Earth. Non-NASA, non-governmental source. No fisheye lens.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Sorry to see you lost interest so suddenly. You were adamant about proving the testicular earth for a few days. Why did you mute anyway? Anyways, about the video, it was pretty long, I didn't watch it yet. Skipped around and saw a couple launches, but no curves yet. Timestamp it? You do know that fake X works for NASA right?

Faking requires deliberate intent to deceive, right?

? 

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat
You can't not have bias. All humans as bias. Even if it is not a lot of bias it is still their. What does the shape of the horizon half to do with the earths shape? What do you mean the shape of any body of water?

Like is said, I was like these globetards, adamant about the earth being a ball. Since now I know the earth is not a ball, one can only conclude that my bias for the spherical earth has been lost. I could care less if the earth were a testicle or flat, but I've done the experiments to prove my case, and I'm asking for someone to show just as or more conclusive evidence for a ball earth. Do you think i like being shunned by humanity?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Medic said:

@Erfisflat
I muted you long ago but I'd be interested to know what you think of the Falcon Heavy rocket taking off and showing a definite curvature to the Earth. Non-NASA, non-governmental source. No fisheye lens.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Sorry to see you lost interest so suddenly. You were adamant about proving the testicular earth for a few days. Why did you mute anyway? Anyways, about the video, it was pretty long, I didn't watch it yet. Skipped around and saw a couple launches, but no curves yet. Timestamp it? You do know that fake X works for NASA right?

Faking requires deliberate intent to deceive, right?

? 

Did I stutter?

Your claiming images are faked.

If I take a photo of anything with a distorting lens, it isn’t necessarily “fake”, you said so yourself.

Its only fake, if I start saying the photo is accurate. 

Erfisflat

@Medic

Here?

Nope

Erfisflat The human brain naturally judges. Bias for or agents something is the result of this judgment rather you are able to recognize your bias or not it is always their because your brain is always judging everyone and thing around you and all the ideas you here. Humans always of bias toward things. This is why it is impossible to make an not bias claim because we have yet to create a machine smart enafe and which does not have a brain that always naturally gets bais about a topic. This is a big problem all scientist must face. When minimizing bias as much as possible I have come to the conclusion that the earth is a globe. If you have done the same but concluded the earth is flat then eather one of us is leaking important information or we are inteprating evidence differently.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat The human brain naturally judges. Bias for or agents something is the result of this judgment rather you are able to recognize your bias or not it is always their because your brain is always judging everyone and thing around you and all the ideas you here. Humans always of bias toward things. This is why it is impossible to make an not bias claim because we have yet to create a machine smart enafe and which does not have a brain that always naturally gets bais about a topic. This is a big problem all scientist must face. When minimizing bias as much as possible I have come to the conclusion that the earth is a globe. If you have done the same but concluded the earth is flat then eather one of us is leaking important information or we are inteprating evidence differently.

Most humans haven't even considered the flat earth, let alone examined the evidence for it. To say that humans will always have bias about everything is not accurate. You could ask me what my preference of bread is white or wheat, and I could honestly say it matters not. Now I won't say I am unbiased about everything, but this is a topic that I have weighed heavily, and have overcome my previously held bias for a pudenda planet.

Erfisflat

@Medic oh no, that wasn't what you said the timestamp was...

Nope

Erfisflat said:

Nope said:

Erfisflat The human brain naturally judges. Bias for or agents something is the result of this judgment rather you are able to recognize your bias or not it is always their because your brain is always judging everyone and thing around you and all the ideas you here. Humans always of bias toward things. This is why it is impossible to make an not bias claim because we have yet to create a machine smart enafe and which does not have a brain that always naturally gets bais about a topic. This is a big problem all scientist must face. When minimizing bias as much as possible I have come to the conclusion that the earth is a globe. If you have done the same but concluded the earth is flat then eather one of us is leaking important information or we are inteprating evidence differently.

Most humans haven't even considered the flat earth, let alone examined the evidence for it. To say that humans will always have bias about everything is not accurate. You could ask me what my preference of bread is white or wheat, and I could honestly say it matters not. Now I won't say I am unbiased about everything, but this is a topic that I have weighed heavily, and have overcome my previously held bias for a pudenda planet.

This argument is better suited for another debate. We are getting of topic. I have tried to explain the importance of a decreasing air density to atmospheric refraction and suggested an experiment to show how the thickness of a medium dose not effect refraction only a change in medium and thus your water expriement did not represent the atmosphere acratly at all.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat said:

Nope said:

Erfisflat The human brain naturally judges. Bias for or agents something is the result of this judgment rather you are able to recognize your bias or not it is always their because your brain is always judging everyone and thing around you and all the ideas you here. Humans always of bias toward things. This is why it is impossible to make an not bias claim because we have yet to create a machine smart enafe and which does not have a brain that always naturally gets bais about a topic. This is a big problem all scientist must face. When minimizing bias as much as possible I have come to the conclusion that the earth is a globe. If you have done the same but concluded the earth is flat then eather one of us is leaking important information or we are inteprating evidence differently.

Most humans haven't even considered the flat earth, let alone examined the evidence for it. To say that humans will always have bias about everything is not accurate. You could ask me what my preference of bread is white or wheat, and I could honestly say it matters not. Now I won't say I am unbiased about everything, but this is a topic that I have weighed heavily, and have overcome my previously held bias for a pudenda planet.

This argument is better suited for another debate. We are getting of topic. I have tried to explain the importance of a decreasing air density to atmospheric refraction and suggested an experiment to show how the thickness of a medium dose not effect refraction only a change in medium and thus your water expriement did not represent the atmosphere acratly at all.

If you feel that you can more accurately perform the experiment and prevent the mixing of opposing tempurature of water, I'd be happy to see your setup and results, without bias, of course.

Nope

Erfisflat The problem with your experiment is it has a change in medium from side to side. If one can gather containers of different lengths but the same materials and fill them with water one would find that if you keep your viewing angle constant the object would have the same shift up or down behind both containers. Of course it might appear smaller behind the longer container by the shift is the same it is of course important to be accurate. This expiramant contradicts you model from how i understand your model. Why did you dismiss the temperature difference over lake Michigan?

Erfisflat

" The problem with your experiment is it has a change in medium from side to side. If one can gather containers of different lengths but the same materials and fill them with water one would find that if you keep your viewing angle constant the object would have the same shift up or down behind both containers."

I've seen the experiment performed at least 3 times, and all the results agree. If you feel that you can more accurately perform the experiment and prevent the mixing of opposing tempurature of water, I'd be happy to see your setup and results, without bias, of course.

"Of course it might appear smaller behind the longer container by the shift is the same it is of course important to be accurate. "

Why would water cause objects to appear smaller?

"This expiramant contradicts you model from how i understand your model."

Which one is that?

" Why did you dismiss the temperature difference over lake Michigan?"

Are you referring to a thermal inversion?

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/05/06/weather-mirage-chicago-skyline-lake-michigan/70902190/

Judaism

It's a ball, no doubt. Let's not waste our time on this when the ancient Greeks concluded the matter three thousand years ago. If you disagree, you might as well also believe Elvis is still alive and that the moon is made of blue cheese. America *is* a free country.

Erfisflat

Judaism said:

It's a ball, no doubt. Let's not waste our time on this when the ancient Greeks concluded the matter three thousand years ago. If you disagree, you might as well also believe Elvis is still alive and that the moon is made of blue cheese. America *is* a free country.

So your conclusive scientific evidence is: "because Aristotle said so 3,000 years ago"? How quaint. How old are you?

Judaism

I'm only commenting here once, you can choose to believe in whatever you want. I'm Jewish, I believe in the Zohar, it says the earth in round, so does the Bible and NASA. Again, you can believe we live on a flat earth if you like, but it's bad science, Bill Nye has a video on this.

Aristotle recognized this truth simply because he observed the earth's spherical shadow casted upon the moon during an eclipse. He also noted that the stars changed their positions every so often, such a fact wouldn't be true on a flat earth cosmology.

I'm not retired, I'm young, but I'm a student of history. That's all I'm saying. Good luck convincing the masses you're right. 

Evidence

Judaism said:

It's a ball, no doubt. Let's not waste our time on this when the ancient Greeks concluded the matter three thousand years ago. If you disagree, you might as well also believe Elvis is still alive and that the moon is made of blue cheese. America *is* a free country.

Hello @Judaism
Elvis just may be alive, .. looks like Prince is! Take a look at this video some years back when he was still alive, specially time 0:32
the double glasses act:
Time 0:32



was he giving us a hint of what he will be wearing in the future after they fake his death? Like here pretending to be Princes sister? Look at the glasses he's wearing: