Earth is a ball

Judaism

Nice gag! Okay. . . let's get serious here. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

" 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/

Out of interest, you seem to be making claims about how the atmosphere refracts light.

Do any of your “refraction experiments”, involve actually making measurements of the atmosphere, or refraction in the atmosphere?

SilverishGoldNova

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, because a couple of people claimed so thousands of years ago, saying the a Earth is flat is like saying the moon is made of cheese? Great argument and use of evidence

Gooberry

SilverishGoldNova said:

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, because a couple of people claimed so thousands of years ago, saying the a Earth is flat is like saying the moon is made of cheese? Great argument and use of evidence

Actually, if you paid attention to history: many people made several observations, specifically that ships move over the horizon. This observation is not consistent with a flat earth, and is consistent with the earth being a very large ball. 

This was a testable theory; later confirmed by measurements of the diameter of the earth, and the suns position, measurements of the suns (and the moons) location, time zones, navigation using the stars, and literally every other measurement you can make.

It’s why these arguments seem overly dishonest.

You have Erfisflat proclaiming that water is measurably flat: no it isn’t, how can it be flat when objects can appear to be behind the water.

What you’re doing, is using a combination of rhetoric and pseudoscience to argue that your position is correct. You’re arguments both fall down onto unsupportable assumptions and assertions, which you both appear to attempting to hide behind layers and layers of irrelevant arguments.

namemcname

Pogue

@namemcname Can that be debunked? What is the channel called?

Nope

Erfisflat said:

" 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/

What was the ruslts of the experiment with different length containers?

The water does not make anything appear smaller. Distance does. The longer container means the object is farther away.

The different length containers experiment shows that if den sty remains the same light will not be bent. This means the water in the atmosphere won't bend the light down.

I am not referring to thermal inversion.

Judaism

Guys, we're wasting our time! Earth is round!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No matter what any of you people say, I won't be moved. Do you think NASA's lying? Seriously? Go to the east coast and scratch your head why you can't see Spain. Depressing? Now imagine this. . . picture all the amount of paperwork NASA has published in the past few decades. . . over millions of dollars there alone. . . is it practical thinking to believe that all these people, and all this money, is done just to trick you? How preposterous!  Guys, I know you're retired and got nothing better to do with your lives. . . but come on! There are a ton of conspiracy theories raised from jet fuel not melting steel beams to the Protocols of Zion!

This philosopher is pretty interesting. . . I recommend everyone to check it out: 

If you can debunk a guy with over 2 million views, you're doing at least something in your life! 

Good luck, and please do so in a "non-spherical fashion" lol"

SilverishGoldNova

namemcname said:

Heres a complete refutation of CHL's countless lies, assumptions, and strawman arguments.

Erfisflat

Judaism said:

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. 

https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.html

Are you sure of your history? Heres a quick lesson. Aristotle was indeed said to have observed varying constellations, but the eclipse was accredited elsewhere. Aristotle was a brilliant philosopher, but a scientist he was not. Usually what he said became accepted fact, regardless of how true it was, often for thousands of years. He claimed that the brain was an organ of minor importance, perhaps to cool the blood. He claimed that plants were only one sex. That was written down an taught in schools until botanists stated the obvious, thousands of years later. When Democritus theorized that everything is made of small things he had dubbed atoms, Aristotle brushed him off and stated everything was instead made up of very tiny bits of the 4 elements. Aristotle set the scientific field back thousands of years.

Bill Nye is a failed and resurrected actor.

As for the Zohar, if it is a quote, I'll agree. The earth may indeed be round, like a coin, or a pizza. What knowledge do you have of "flat earth cosmology"? The flat earth cosmology I recognize perfectly explains "stars changing positions every so often", and selenelion eclipses are nonsensical on a spinning ball earth.

But what I'm looking for is scientific evidence for a spherical earth. Not just what a book or a dead guy claims. Remain in ignorance if you will.

Judaism

@Erfisflat

I'm not in ignorance. The Zohar is one of the holiest books in Judaism, it states that the earth is round like a ball, that when one side faces the sun, the other faces darkness. So we know it was describing earth's orbit in space. It further mentions that people live all over this "ball," not coin. The Zohar then goes on to say that there was once a supercontinent which later split up into seven. . . sound familiar? Pangea. And there's more: The Talmud says in Berchaot that the Pleiades number in the hundreds (note that all other civilizations could only discern 7, and yet, they claimed divine knowledge). Lastly, the Talmud makes note that there are 10^18 stars in the universe, that is very close to the modern scientific estimate. R. Yitzchak of Acco said that the universe was 15 billion years old (again, science is close), R. Naham described the Big Bang in detail. . . IN DETAIL.

So ya, I'm pretty sure these "old books," all claiming divine revelation from the G-d of Israel, are true. Just keep in mind, I'm not being apologetic here, for every source I just mentioned were written thousands of years ago, when science was just a newborn.

So if this one G-d, who is the Creator of everything in our universe, says the earth is round - and even better - if modern science agrees - we're sure it's true. End of story. Have a good life and keep believing in the flat earth theory and that there is no G-d or whatever you believe. 

Shalom.

Judaism

@Erfisflat

Like I said, I don't know about Aristotle, but the Zohar is divine. You must at least admit that, because if you still plan on believing a flat earth, then you must refute all of my above arguments for a divine Torah. Good luck. I don't think it'll be possible, hence, this matter of a flat earth, round earth, is now closed forever. 

The earth is round, period.

Erfisflat

Judaism said:

@Erfisflat

Like I said, I don't know about Aristotle, but the Zohar is divine. You must at least admit that, because if you still plan on believing a flat earth, then you must refute all of my above arguments for a divine Torah. Good luck. I don't think it'll be possible, hence, this matter of a flat earth, round earth, is now closed forever. 

The earth is round, period.

Lol, that did it guys, conclusive scientific evidence for the testicular shaped earth. "But, but, muh holy book!"

Erfisflat

"What was the ruslts of the experiment with different length containers?"

I did answer this question. 

"The water does not make anything appear smaller. Distance does. The longer container means the object is farther away."

Agreed, relevance?

"The different length containers experiment shows that if den sty remains the same light will not be bent. This means the water in the atmosphere won't bend the light down."

I should like to see the results. You'll understand that I can't just take your word.

"I am not referring to thermal inversion."

What are you referring to?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"What was the ruslts of the experiment with different length containers?"

I did answer this question. 

"The water does not make anything appear smaller. Distance does. The longer container means the object is farther away."

Agreed, relevance?

"The different length containers experiment shows that if den sty remains the same light will not be bent. This means the water in the atmosphere won't bend the light down."

I should like to see the results. You'll understand that I can't just take your word.

"I am not referring to thermal inversion."

What are you referring to?

Have you performed any experiments on the atmosphere to tell whether your refraction effect occurs in the atmosphere?

Have you performed any experiments on water to recreate the exact effect you claim the atmosphere produces?

IE: have you placed a container of water on a flat surface and made an object behind the container appear to dip behind the flat surface?

If the answer to either of those is no, then I believe captain pseudoscience may need to go back to the drawin board.

Judaism

@Judaism

In the meantime, my opponent will never refute my argument. So much for flat earth theories! 

Erfisflat

"Actually, if you paid attention to history: many people made several observations, specifically that ships move over the horizon. This observation is not consistent with a flat earth, and is consistent with the earth being a very large ball. "

We paid attention, we just realized it was horsesh!t, because we tesred it. When Aristotle first made this observation, telescopic lenses had not even been invented yet. What would he have said if he had pulled out his binoculars and had magically pulled the ship backwards over the supposed curvature into view again. This is what is happening today, in reality. So, even though videos clearly show refraction, which has been proved to cause objects to appear lower, playing a significant part in this phenomenon, and skylines have been sighted at distances that should be impossible on a sphere earth, and water has been found flat in every measurable circumstance, you're willing to ignore this evidence to support your position. Sounds very dogmatic. Tell me, at what distance does a ship start dropping over the supposed curve of the earth? Has this been tested and proved? 

"This was a testable theory; later confirmed by measurements of the diameter of the earth, and the suns position,"

What does this have to do with anything., again, if I'm standing at the water's edge at a beach, at what distance should a boat's hull start to disappear?

"measurements of the suns (and the moons) location"

Irrelevant.

", time zones,"

Works on either model.

" navigation using the stars, "

Irrelevant. Flat earthers navigated with the stars too.

"and literally every other measurement you can make."



LITERALLY? I can think of about a billion measurements I can make that have nothing to do with the earth. You are literally fluffing your pitiful argument. 

"It’s why these arguments seem overly dishonest."

Like saying that seeing across 100km of water is because of "refraction" but a ship will go over a curve at ___ miles. Intellectually dishonest.

"You have Erfisflat proclaiming that water is measurably flat: no it isn’t, how can it be flat when objects can appear to be behind the water."

Refraction. It has been demonstrated repeatedly. 

"What you’re doing, is using a combination of rhetoric and pseudoscience to argue that your position is correct. You’re arguments both fall down onto unsupportable assumptions and assertions, which you both appear to attempting to hide behind layers and layers of irrelevant arguments."

Sounds exactly like your position to me.

Erfisflat

"Have you performed any experiments on the atmosphere to tell whether your refraction effect occurs in the atmosphere?"

We can see refraction happening everywhere. From boats to the sun to the city of Chicago over lake Michigan. Are you claiming there is none?

"Have you performed any experiments on water to recreate the exact effect you claim the atmosphere produces?"

See above.

"IE: have you placed a container of water on a flat surface and made an object behind the container appear to dip behind the flat surface?"

Yes

"If the answer to either of those is no, then I believe captain pseudoscience may need to go back to the drawin board."

Have you? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no, and redirect the same response to you.

Erfisflat

Judaism said:

@Judaism

In the meantime, my opponent will never refute my argument. So much for flat earth theories! 

Ok mr. Historian...

Judaism

@Erfisflat

I just don't know why you won't come out of the closet, if you're right, refute my arguments, otherwise, Judaism is true and the earth is round.

Judaism

@Erfisflat

This is because you're afraid of something, just what that something is remains a mystery.

Erfisflat

Judaism said:

@Erfisflat

I just don't know why you won't come out of the closet, if you're right, refute my arguments, otherwise, Judaism is true and the earth is round.

This is a scientific debate, not a religious one.

Judaism

@Erfisflat 

Fair enough, still, you have to admit that the earth is round.

Erfisflat

Do I now? Mr. Jewish historian, can you translate NASA in hebrew?

Erfisflat

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5378.htm

Erfisflat

Here's a hint.

Erfisflat

Another hint.

Erfisflat

Notice any recurring patterns?

Erfisflat

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~Dresden James. 

Erfisflat

They're all over.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

you just said this was a scientific debate: you just posted a set of subjective opinions that don’t seem show very much at all.

SilverishGoldNova

Anyone falling for the video of Elon Musk's car in space? Most blatant CGI I've seen Hahahahaha.

Gooberry

SilverishGoldNova said:

Anyone falling for the video of Elon Musk's car in space? Most blatant CGI I've seen Hahahahaha.

Why do you say that? What is your evidence?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

you just said this was a scientific debate: you just posted a set of subjective opinions that don’t seem show very much at all.

Here's another.

SilverishGoldNova

Hmm, so neither namemcname nor the other couple of globe-Earthers here a counter-refutation to the CHL thing? Maybe in a couple of weeks, knowing McName, we'll see some more hot air

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

you just said this was a scientific debate: you just posted a set of subjective opinions that don’t seem show very much at all.

I just showed pretty conclusive evidence that a claimed photograph of the earth was faked. As in created in Photoshop fake.

Erfisflat

It doesn't show much at all.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

you just said this was a scientific debate: you just posted a set of subjective opinions that don’t seem show very much at all.

I just showed pretty conclusive evidence that a claimed photograph of the earth was faked. As in created in Photoshop fake.

No you didnt.

What you did, was post a bunch of pictures, with no context, no attempt to describe its background, and then assert that they prove your point.

You have now attempted to change the argument, and post one of those pictures, copy an arrow on to it, and then assert that because of the artifact you are pointing to, that not only is this image fake, but it lends credence to the idea that all photos are fake.

Now, we know what that photo actually is: it’s a composite photo taken from multiple satellites and stitched together. We even have a detailed explanation of how the photo was constructed by the person who constructed it.

We we know this, not because of some leaked material, but because the creators matter-of-factory explained what the photo is, what it is of, and how it was created.


There has been no misrepresentation of what the photo was of, or what it shows: everyone has been 100% clear.

What you are doing, is without any evidence of basis in fact; arguing as if this photo was purported to be something it was not (this is not true), or purported by the creator to be an unedited and unaltered image (not true either), intended to prove the earth was a sphere (also not true: as NASA, frankly, has better things to do).

Despite you repeatedly claiming you have evidence that images were faked: you have never provided any documentary or objective evidence of any dishonesty or misrepresentation; merely your own conspiracy theories and subjective opinions.

Shoot, You even undermine the whole conspiracy by repeatedly pointing out that NASA is honest and open about this picture and how it was created: IE your evidence for it being fake proves it is not.

By your own measure: this is unscientific pseudoscience, you aren’t presenting any facts, only your own opinions.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

you just said this was a scientific debate: you just posted a set of subjective opinions that don’t seem show very much at all.

I just showed pretty conclusive evidence that a claimed photograph of the earth was faked. As in created in Photoshop fake.

No you didnt.

What you did, was post a bunch of pictures, with no context, no attempt to describe its background, and then assert that they prove your point.

You have now attempted to change the argument, and post one of those pictures, copy an arrow on to it, and then assert that because of the artifact you are pointing to, that not only is this image fake, but it lends credence to the idea that all photos are fake.

Now, we know what that photo actually is: it’s a composite photo taken from multiple satellites and stitched together. We even have a detailed explanation of how the photo was constructed by the person who constructed it.

We we know this, not because of some leaked material, but because the creators matter-of-factory explained what the photo is, what it is of, and how it was created.


There has been no misrepresentation of what the photo was of, or what it shows: everyone has been 100% clear.

What you are doing, is without any evidence of basis in fact; arguing as if this photo was purported to be something it was not (this is not true), or purported by the creator to be an unedited and unaltered image (not true either), intended to prove the earth was a sphere (also not true: as NASA, frankly, has better things to do).

Despite you repeatedly claiming you have evidence that images were faked: you have never provided any documentary or objective evidence of any dishonesty or misrepresentation; merely your own conspiracy theories and subjective opinions.

Shoot, You even undermine the whole conspiracy by repeatedly pointing out that NASA is honest and open about this picture and how it was created: IE your evidence for it being fake proves it is not.

By your own measure: this is unscientific pseudoscience, you aren’t presenting any facts, only your own opinions.

You continue to show exactly how ignorant you are in this dichotomy. I repeat, if you're going to act like a know it all, at least get your facts straight. 

The photo is claimed to be one from a single satellite from a million miles away. Sourced.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory

So, despite your claim, "we" don't know what this photo is supposed to be. I do. You can pretend as you do, and "matter-of-factory" rhetorically claim whatever you like. It makes you look really intelligent here, keep up the good work. Neil Degrasse Tyson would be proud.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

you just said this was a scientific debate: you just posted a set of subjective opinions that don’t seem show very much at all.

I just showed pretty conclusive evidence that a claimed photograph of the earth was faked. As in created in Photoshop fake.

No you didnt.

What you did, was post a bunch of pictures, with no context, no attempt to describe its background, and then assert that they prove your point.

You have now attempted to change the argument, and post one of those pictures, copy an arrow on to it, and then assert that because of the artifact you are pointing to, that not only is this image fake, but it lends credence to the idea that all photos are fake.

Now, we know what that photo actually is: it’s a composite photo taken from multiple satellites and stitched together. We even have a detailed explanation of how the photo was constructed by the person who constructed it.

We we know this, not because of some leaked material, but because the creators matter-of-factory explained what the photo is, what it is of, and how it was created.


There has been no misrepresentation of what the photo was of, or what it shows: everyone has been 100% clear.

What you are doing, is without any evidence of basis in fact; arguing as if this photo was purported to be something it was not (this is not true), or purported by the creator to be an unedited and unaltered image (not true either), intended to prove the earth was a sphere (also not true: as NASA, frankly, has better things to do).

Despite you repeatedly claiming you have evidence that images were faked: you have never provided any documentary or objective evidence of any dishonesty or misrepresentation; merely your own conspiracy theories and subjective opinions.

Shoot, You even undermine the whole conspiracy by repeatedly pointing out that NASA is honest and open about this picture and how it was created: IE your evidence for it being fake proves it is not.

By your own measure: this is unscientific pseudoscience, you aren’t presenting any facts, only your own opinions.

You continue to show exactly how ignorant you are in this dichotomy. I repeat, if you're going to act like a know it all, at least get your facts straight. 

The photo is claimed to be one from a single satellite from a million miles away. Sourced.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory

So, despite your claim, "we" don't know what this photo is supposed to be. I do. You can pretend as you do, and "matter-of-factory" rhetorically claim whatever you like. It makes you look really intelligent here, keep up the good work. Neil Degrasse Tyson would be proud.

You posted random pictures with no actual argument. You continue to post random pictures with no evidence.

Having a nervous breakdown over your inability to support even one of your crazy claims?

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

you just said this was a scientific debate: you just posted a set of subjective opinions that don’t seem show very much at all.

I just showed pretty conclusive evidence that a claimed photograph of the earth was faked. As in created in Photoshop fake.

No you didnt.

What you did, was post a bunch of pictures, with no context, no attempt to describe its background, and then assert that they prove your point.

You have now attempted to change the argument, and post one of those pictures, copy an arrow on to it, and then assert that because of the artifact you are pointing to, that not only is this image fake, but it lends credence to the idea that all photos are fake.

Now, we know what that photo actually is: it’s a composite photo taken from multiple satellites and stitched together. We even have a detailed explanation of how the photo was constructed by the person who constructed it.

We we know this, not because of some leaked material, but because the creators matter-of-factory explained what the photo is, what it is of, and how it was created.


There has been no misrepresentation of what the photo was of, or what it shows: everyone has been 100% clear.

What you are doing, is without any evidence of basis in fact; arguing as if this photo was purported to be something it was not (this is not true), or purported by the creator to be an unedited and unaltered image (not true either), intended to prove the earth was a sphere (also not true: as NASA, frankly, has better things to do).

Despite you repeatedly claiming you have evidence that images were faked: you have never provided any documentary or objective evidence of any dishonesty or misrepresentation; merely your own conspiracy theories and subjective opinions.

Shoot, You even undermine the whole conspiracy by repeatedly pointing out that NASA is honest and open about this picture and how it was created: IE your evidence for it being fake proves it is not.

By your own measure: this is unscientific pseudoscience, you aren’t presenting any facts, only your own opinions.

You continue to show exactly how ignorant you are in this dichotomy. I repeat, if you're going to act like a know it all, at least get your facts straight. 

The photo is claimed to be one from a single satellite from a million miles away. Sourced.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory

So, despite your claim, "we" don't know what this photo is supposed to be. I do. You can pretend as you do, and "matter-of-factory" rhetorically claim whatever you like. It makes you look really intelligent here, keep up the good work. Neil Degrasse Tyson would be proud.

You posted random pictures with no actual argument. You continue to post random pictures with no evidence.

Having a nervous breakdown over your inability to support even one of your crazy claims?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

you just said this was a scientific debate: you just posted a set of subjective opinions that don’t seem show very much at all.

I just showed pretty conclusive evidence that a claimed photograph of the earth was faked. As in created in Photoshop fake.

No you didnt.

What you did, was post a bunch of pictures, with no context, no attempt to describe its background, and then assert that they prove your point.

You have now attempted to change the argument, and post one of those pictures, copy an arrow on to it, and then assert that because of the artifact you are pointing to, that not only is this image fake, but it lends credence to the idea that all photos are fake.

Now, we know what that photo actually is: it’s a composite photo taken from multiple satellites and stitched together. We even have a detailed explanation of how the photo was constructed by the person who constructed it.

We we know this, not because of some leaked material, but because the creators matter-of-factory explained what the photo is, what it is of, and how it was created.


There has been no misrepresentation of what the photo was of, or what it shows: everyone has been 100% clear.

What you are doing, is without any evidence of basis in fact; arguing as if this photo was purported to be something it was not (this is not true), or purported by the creator to be an unedited and unaltered image (not true either), intended to prove the earth was a sphere (also not true: as NASA, frankly, has better things to do).

Despite you repeatedly claiming you have evidence that images were faked: you have never provided any documentary or objective evidence of any dishonesty or misrepresentation; merely your own conspiracy theories and subjective opinions.

Shoot, You even undermine the whole conspiracy by repeatedly pointing out that NASA is honest and open about this picture and how it was created: IE your evidence for it being fake proves it is not.

By your own measure: this is unscientific pseudoscience, you aren’t presenting any facts, only your own opinions.

You continue to show exactly how ignorant you are in this dichotomy. I repeat, if you're going to act like a know it all, at least get your facts straight. 

The photo is claimed to be one from a single satellite from a million miles away. Sourced.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory

So, despite your claim, "we" don't know what this photo is supposed to be. I do. You can pretend as you do, and "matter-of-factory" rhetorically claim whatever you like. It makes you look really intelligent here, keep up the good work. Neil Degrasse Tyson would be proud.

And again; you have presented no evidence to show its fake.

I mistakenly thought you were talking about the other image you dishonestly present as if it’s “faked”.

If you do not understand why pointing to part of an image and saying “this is fake”, without any other information, context and argument is merely unscientific assertion; you probably have bigger problems.






Im also waiting for you to say whether you have demonstrate with experiment that your refraction effect can make it appear as if the sun sets on a flat surface; and whether you have any experiments that show that this effect is present in the atmosphere.

Erfisflat

Gotta love the haters

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

you just said this was a scientific debate: you just posted a set of subjective opinions that don’t seem show very much at all.

I just showed pretty conclusive evidence that a claimed photograph of the earth was faked. As in created in Photoshop fake.

No you didnt.

What you did, was post a bunch of pictures, with no context, no attempt to describe its background, and then assert that they prove your point.

You have now attempted to change the argument, and post one of those pictures, copy an arrow on to it, and then assert that because of the artifact you are pointing to, that not only is this image fake, but it lends credence to the idea that all photos are fake.

Now, we know what that photo actually is: it’s a composite photo taken from multiple satellites and stitched together. We even have a detailed explanation of how the photo was constructed by the person who constructed it.

We we know this, not because of some leaked material, but because the creators matter-of-factory explained what the photo is, what it is of, and how it was created.


There has been no misrepresentation of what the photo was of, or what it shows: everyone has been 100% clear.

What you are doing, is without any evidence of basis in fact; arguing as if this photo was purported to be something it was not (this is not true), or purported by the creator to be an unedited and unaltered image (not true either), intended to prove the earth was a sphere (also not true: as NASA, frankly, has better things to do).

Despite you repeatedly claiming you have evidence that images were faked: you have never provided any documentary or objective evidence of any dishonesty or misrepresentation; merely your own conspiracy theories and subjective opinions.

Shoot, You even undermine the whole conspiracy by repeatedly pointing out that NASA is honest and open about this picture and how it was created: IE your evidence for it being fake proves it is not.

By your own measure: this is unscientific pseudoscience, you aren’t presenting any facts, only your own opinions.

You continue to show exactly how ignorant you are in this dichotomy. I repeat, if you're going to act like a know it all, at least get your facts straight. 

The photo is claimed to be one from a single satellite from a million miles away. Sourced.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory

So, despite your claim, "we" don't know what this photo is supposed to be. I do. You can pretend as you do, and "matter-of-factory" rhetorically claim whatever you like. It makes you look really intelligent here, keep up the good work. Neil Degrasse Tyson would be proud.

You posted random pictures with no actual argument. You continue to post random pictures with no evidence.

Having a nervous breakdown over your inability to support even one of your crazy claims?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

So you think expecting people to provide evidence is groupthink? And again you state this with no explanation, evidence or logic?

Poor.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Gotta love the haters

"Boo boo, people are asking me for evidence of my absurd claims and when I can't provide anything it damages my self esteem. What bullies! It's almost as bad as when they ask me to respond to evidence that shows I'm wrong." - Every flat earth poster who has ever posted on debate island.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gotta love the haters

Your argument is pasting an arrow on to a picture and then posting how this proves the earth is flat with limited, if any other argument.

If your rebuttal to this pretty clear proof that you have neither evidence or an argument to show your opinions are correct is name calling an memes; you are falling well short of the standards you demand of the other people in this thread.



And again: there are reproducible experiments that show water is no flat, and the earth is a sphere: observations of boats and sunsets: if boats or pylons fall behind a body water: that body of water cannot Ben flat. If the sun sets at every location on earth, and rises at other locations at the same time, the earth cannot be flat.


You only rebuttal to this: are assertions that refraction can cause this.

Can you prove that refraction can make the sun appear to rise? Have you experimentally recreated the effect with water?

Can you prove that the atmosphere bends light in the way you claim it does? Have you any experimental validation that the atmosphere does indeed behave in the way you claim?

I am fairly certain that the answer to both of those are “no”. Which means despite your continual profession to follow the scientific method, you are discounting repeatable measurements and verifiable evidence with asserted conjecture you have no ability to prove: which is basically the definition of a pseudoscientist

Erfisflat

This debate is currently glitched for me, hopefully ill be able to see the brilliant globetard posts soon, at the moment I can't. Site moderation has been notified.

Ampersand

lol, he admits it could be coincidence and offers absolutely no reason that it isn't, just saying he 'knows'.

Thanks for showing your complete disregard for evidence and willingness to believe any conspiracy theory of if it suits you and allows you to ignore actual evidence.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gotta love the haters

Your argument is pasting an arrow on to a picture and then posting how this proves the earth is flat with limited, if any other argument.

If your rebuttal to this pretty clear proof that you have neither evidence or an argument to show your opinions are correct is name calling an memes; you are falling well short of the standards you demand of the other people in this thread.



And again: there are reproducible experiments that show water is no flat, and the earth is a sphere: observations of boats and sunsets: if boats or pylons fall behind a body water: that body of water cannot Ben flat. If the sun sets at every location on earth, and rises at other locations at the same time, the earth cannot be flat.


You only rebuttal to this: are assertions that refraction can cause this.

Can you prove that refraction can make the sun appear to rise? Have you experimentally recreated the effect with water?

Can you prove that the atmosphere bends light in the way you claim it does? Have you any experimental validation that the atmosphere does indeed behave in the way you claim?

I am fairly certain that the answer to both of those are “no”. Which means despite your continual profession to follow the scientific method, you are discounting repeatable measurements and verifiable evidence with asserted conjecture you have no ability to prove: which is basically the definition of a pseudoscientist

Actually, if you paid attention, I did just that, and I guessed you wouldn't acknowledge it. 

Erfisflat

Ah, moderation has deleted the half dozen experiments I posted for the glitch