Earth is a ball

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Your “experiments” have been shown to be shoddy and to literally not show what you said they do.

A meme is not a rebuttal.

“Matter of factly this is what your model claims the refraction of the atmosphere is doing, raising that image of the sun/boats back up from the edge of the counter. Of course, there is no practical evidence of it. No experiment that supports it, and a great many that contradicts it, this makes your position pseudoscience.”

I have to point out here, that whilst repeatedly railing against atmospheric refraction; you seem to completely misunderstand what you’re arguing against.

Atmospheric refraction that changes the apparent position of the sun does not raise boats over the horizon.

The laws of physics dictate that when light passes through two regions of different refractive index, the angle of the light is change in proportion to the difference.

You rely on these laws of physics for your “refraction”: so you can’t deny this.

Go high enough, pressure drops to near 0, and all the air disappears. A near vacuum has a refractive index of 1.

Air, on the ground is much denser and has generally a fractionally higher refractive index; it changes a little based on temperature but not by much.

This means, the laws of physics require the sun to change position. Given known properties of air on the ground and air at altitude

You literally just called the laws of physics pseudoscience.

Now; if you pay attention, on the ground air can change refractive index a little bit, but you need significant temperature gradients to change the path of light substantially. That’s why mirages happen over hot tarmac. And why the refraction effect that changes the position of the sun doesn’t alter the position of a boat.

We know why refraction happens: we know how it can alter perceived positions of objects.

Your videos are pseudoscientific nonsense, as they don’t show what you are trying to attribute to refraction, and you make no attempt to actually show the laws of physics and measurable refraction indexes in the air can produce the effect.

You are literally asserting that because water and glass bends light a bit; that the sunset in air can be produced by refraction in air.

That is just unsubstantiated pseudoscience.

Erfisflat

"It takes a beat or two for the brain to compute. The image is startling, incongruous, barmy. A car floats in space. At the wheel is a spacesuit, seatbelt on. Earth hangs behind it. The two objects don’t work together. The image jars like bad Photoshop. But it is real."

Lol! All the gullible people ooh and ah. He's sent his car into space!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/space-oddity-elon-musk-spacex-car-mars-falcon-heavy

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

Your “experiments” have been shown to be shoddy and to literally not show what you said they do.

A meme is not a rebuttal.

“Matter of factly this is what your model claims the refraction of the atmosphere is doing, raising that image of the sun/boats back up from the edge of the counter. Of course, there is no practical evidence of it. No experiment that supports it, and a great many that contradicts it, this makes your position pseudoscience.”

I have to point out here, that whilst repeatedly railing against atmospheric refraction; you seem to completely misunderstand what you’re arguing against.

Atmospheric refraction that changes the apparent position of the sun does not raise boats over the horizon.

The laws of physics dictate that when light passes through two regions of different refractive index, the angle of the light is change in proportion to the difference.

You rely on these laws of physics for your “refraction”: so you can’t deny this.

Go high enough, pressure drops to near 0, and all the air disappears. A near vacuum has a refractive index of 1.

Air, on the ground is much denser and has generally a fractionally higher refractive index; it changes a little based on temperature but not by much.

This means, the laws of physics require the sun to change position. Given known properties of air on the ground and air at altitude

You literally just called the laws of physics pseudoscience.

Now; if you pay attention, on the ground air can change refractive index a little bit, but you need significant temperature gradients to change the path of light substantially. That’s why mirages happen over hot tarmac. And why the refraction effect that changes the position of the sun doesn’t alter the position of a boat.

We know why refraction happens: we know how it can alter perceived positions of objects.

Your videos are pseudoscientific nonsense, as they don’t show what you are trying to attribute to refraction, and you make no attempt to actually show the laws of physics and measurable refraction indexes in the air can produce the effect.

You are literally asserting that because water and glass bends light a bit; that the sunset in air can be produced by refraction in air.

That is just unsubstantiated pseudoscience.

I keep thinking that any minute you will post some verifiable evidence. Just more "but, but, muh science book!"

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Should I post a YouTube video of a glass of water as evidence of wide claims about the atmosphere like you do?

In this case “muh science book”, is “the established laws of physics”.

This is why you’re a pseudoscientists; you’re pretending physics doesn’t apply when I use it to prove you wrong; and the same physics applies when you use it to try and prove your point”.

it does beg the question, if your not using the established laws of physics as a basis for your claims; what on earth are you using?

”But muh muh unclear YouTube video”, is probably less valid than “muh science book”.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

so: pay attention.

I’ve explained what atmospheric refraction is; I’ve pointed out you made a rudimentary error in your assertions, I’ve provided a list of things that atmospheric refraction depends on.

I’ve also explained how, and why your video is a faudulent attempt to dodge your burden of proof by completely failing to show anything you claim it does.

Your Angry and desperate non replies are pathetically transparent.

If in doubt, your strategy seems to be assert that your opponent is wrong, and ignore the key failures of your own position.

Erfisflat

I can't even take you seriously anymore. It's just repeating unevidenced claims.

Erfisflat

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

I can't even take you seriously anymore. It's just repeating unevidenced claims.

... he asserts, ignoring the detailed refutation of his entire posirion.


If you think posting a YouTube video of a glass of water, that doesn’t replicate sunset, or the atmosphere is concrete evidence the atmosphere can make the sun appear to set is “verifiable evidence”, and yet do not believe verifiable refraction indexes of air, veritable air presssures, and verifiable laws of physics is not: you are quite frankly insane.

You’re not even making an argument any more; you’re literally stomping your feet complaining at how wrong everyone is; despite having major questions about your claims raised.

You're a grown man. Start acting like it.

But by all means, keep acting like a child.

Maybe you should post a meme? That will surely lens credence to your assertions that every one else is wrong!

Or how about posting “Muh science book”, as if pointing out that my position is based on solid and verifiable empirical laws makes my position weaker!

I predicted a few posts back about how you’d utterly attempt to dodge the fundamental flaws in your position and evidence that you have continued to ignore.

Boy was I right!

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

I can't even take you seriously anymore. It's just repeating unevidenced claims.

... he asserts, ignoring the detailed refutation of his entire posirion.


If you think posting a YouTube video of a glass of water, that doesn’t replicate sunset, or the atmosphere is concrete evidence the atmosphere can make the sun appear to set is “verifiable evidence”, and yet do not believe verifiable refraction indexes of air, veritable air presssures, and verifiable laws of physics is not: you are quite frankly insane.

You’re not even making an argument any more; you’re literally stomping your feet complaining at how wrong everyone is; despite having major questions about your claims raised.

You're a grown man. Start acting like it.

But by all means, keep acting like a child.

Maybe you should post a meme? That will surely lens credence to your assertions that every one else is wrong!

Or how about posting “Muh science book”, as if pointing out that my position is based on solid and verifiable empirical laws makes my position weaker!

I predicted a few posts back about how you’d utterly attempt to dodge the fundamental flaws in your position and evidence that you have continued to ignore.

Boy was I right!

I will start reading your posts when I see something more than assertions and nuh-uhs. You haven't produced any substantial evidence at all. The OP specifically asks for such and you've done nothing but shift the burden. The amount of time you spend here suggests you either haven't a life, or have vested interest in space balls. Which is it?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Asserting that the earth is a ball doesn't make it so. Do you have any objective evidence that it's a ball?


I doubt it.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Asserting that the earth is a ball doesn't make it so. Do you have any objective evidence that it's a ball?


I doubt it.

Yes, bodies of water appear curved as objects fall behind them for observers around the planet. The sun also sets for every observer on the planet, meaning that the sun falls below all observers: both only possible on a globe. We also have photos of places such as Lake Pontecharin, or images from a variety of space agencies from space that all show images consistent with a spherical, not flat earth.

These are recreatable and reproducible evidence of a spherical earth, much of which you can personally validate, and all of which fundamentally contradict your entire position.


Now, you will obviously stamp your feet and object to these empirical measurements. The only two reasons you’ve provided that we should believe all of these pieces of evidence; is that the photos are all fake, and the documented and verifiable measurements of the sun and objects is caused by refraction.

The only arguments you’ve provided of the former, is that a random cloud spells “sex”, that astronauts weren’t smiling, and that a matter-of-fact description how a photo was created was “an admission of fakery”

The evidence you have offered in support of the latter, is a YouTube video of a glass of water that doesn’t show the sun setting, obviously botches the experiment; and is s glass of water: not the atmosphere; two YouTube video of unclear or unknown conditions that also neither show the sun setting, and are obviously not of the atmosphere.


This is a rather pitiful and remarkably unscientific rebuttal to objective and reproducible evidence, and the dubious support for your claims in the face of overwhelming proof otherwise is why you are, most assuredly, a pseudoscientist.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Asserting that the earth is a ball doesn't make it so. Do you have any objective evidence that it's a ball?


I doubt it.

Yes, bodies of water appear curved as objects fall behind them for observers around the planet. The sun also sets for every observer on the planet, meaning that the sun falls below all observers: both only possible on a globe. We also have photos of places such as Lake Pontecharin, or images from a variety of space agencies from space that all show images consistent with a spherical, not flat earth.

These are recreatable and reproducible evidence of a spherical earth, much of which you can personally validate, and all of which fundamentally contradict your entire position.


Now, you will obviously stamp your feet and object to these empirical measurements. The only two reasons you’ve provided that we should believe all of these pieces of evidence; is that the photos are all fake, and the documented and verifiable measurements of the sun and objects is caused by refraction.

The only arguments you’ve provided of the former, is that a random cloud spells “sex”, that astronauts weren’t smiling, and that a matter-of-fact description how a photo was created was “an admission of fakery”

The evidence you have offered in support of the latter, is a YouTube video of a glass of water that doesn’t show the sun setting, obviously botches the experiment; and is s glass of water: not the atmosphere; two YouTube video of unclear or unknown conditions that also neither show the sun setting, and are obviously not of the atmosphere.


This is a rather pitiful and remarkably unscientific rebuttal to objective and reproducible evidence, and the dubious support for your claims in the face of overwhelming proof otherwise is why you are, most assuredly, a pseudoscientist.

Good, you've determined beyond all doubt, because you think you've found curved water, though you can't, after multiple times requested, specify what distance boats go over supposed curvature, how much the bridge curves and at what distance, and the sun, boats or the bridge couldnt possibly be refracted by the atmosphere, the earth is a spinning ball, no matter what. Why are you still here?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Asserting that the earth is a ball doesn't make it so. Do you have any objective evidence that it's a ball?


I doubt it.

Yes, bodies of water appear curved as objects fall behind them for observers around the planet. The sun also sets for every observer on the planet, meaning that the sun falls below all observers: both only possible on a globe. We also have photos of places such as Lake Pontecharin, or images from a variety of space agencies from space that all show images consistent with a spherical, not flat earth.

These are recreatable and reproducible evidence of a spherical earth, much of which you can personally validate, and all of which fundamentally contradict your entire position.


Now, you will obviously stamp your feet and object to these empirical measurements. The only two reasons you’ve provided that we should believe all of these pieces of evidence; is that the photos are all fake, and the documented and verifiable measurements of the sun and objects is caused by refraction.

The only arguments you’ve provided of the former, is that a random cloud spells “sex”, that astronauts weren’t smiling, and that a matter-of-fact description how a photo was created was “an admission of fakery”

The evidence you have offered in support of the latter, is a YouTube video of a glass of water that doesn’t show the sun setting, obviously botches the experiment; and is s glass of water: not the atmosphere; two YouTube video of unclear or unknown conditions that also neither show the sun setting, and are obviously not of the atmosphere.


This is a rather pitiful and remarkably unscientific rebuttal to objective and reproducible evidence, and the dubious support for your claims in the face of overwhelming proof otherwise is why you are, most assuredly, a pseudoscientist.

Good, you've determined beyond all doubt, because you think you've found curved water, though you can't, after multiple times requested, specify what distance boats go over supposed curvature, how much the bridge curves and at what distance, and the sun, boats or the bridge couldnt possibly be refracted by the atmosphere, the earth is a spinning ball, no matter what. Why are you still here?

Well, ignoring for the moment that I HAVE objectively found curved water by the observations, I can specify that, and I don’t believe you’ve requested it of me once, leave alone multiple times; that saying that refraction cant make the sun appear to set is not saying refraction doesn't
happen at all: all of which are major dishonest misrepresenting of other position, the reason I am here is to stop pseudoscience and irrational psycho-narratives like yours being the only one people here.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Holy hell man, look at it. You actually believe that? 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Holy hell man, look at it. You actually believe that? 

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

but to answer:

Yes: you said it was fake, and didn’t explain why: I believe that is an assertion.

Yes: I’ve asked you to provide information, and detail on how you could tell videos were fake, and as you have not provided any, I do very much believe that you have no objective evidence that this video is fake.

By all means, educate me as to why this video is a fake; but this is simply just you trying to pretend the video is fake when in reality, you have no evidence that it is.

this is called an argument by assertion: also a logical fallacy.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

Should I post a YouTube video of a glass of water as evidence of wide claims about the atmosphere like you do?

In this case “muh science book”, is “the established laws of physics”.

This is why you’re a pseudoscientists; you’re pretending physics doesn’t apply when I use it to prove you wrong; and the same physics applies when you use it to try and prove your point”.

it does beg the question, if your not using the established laws of physics as a basis for your claims; what on earth are you using?

”But muh muh unclear YouTube video”, is probably less valid than “muh science book”.

Established laws of physics that assume the earth is a ball? Your argument here is no better than @Judaism argument. You're telling me that a book written by men should take precedence over actual empirical evidence. I've provided that evidence here on multiple occasions. You've done nothing but deny. You likely haven't performed a single experiment and you probably never will. I've asked you to produce any results of such on multiple occasions.

This is not surprising as the only evidence you've offered is space pictures, which you have yet to provide even the first example, a thousands year old observation (before telescopic lenses were invented) that ships go over curvature (still waiting for the measurements on that, along with a respone to my refutations), and a supposedly curved bridge, no measurements, no accounting for refraction, no experiments. Pure pseudoscientific asertions.


Objects have been shown to appear lower than their actual position when refracted with water. Another point you ignored because it refutes several assertions you and your model makes.

You ignore empirical facts, along with anything else you can't refute or understand. I can pull up over a dozen points I've made here that you simply ignore. Those are dropped arguments no matter what you call them. As I've said before an honest debater responds to each point most often in a chain. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Holy hell man, look at it. You actually believe that? 

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

but to answer:

Yes: you said it was fake, and didn’t explain why: I believe that is an assertion.

Yes: I’ve asked you to provide information, and detail on how you could tell videos were fake, and as you have not provided any, I do very much believe that you have no objective evidence that this video is fake.

By all means, educate me as to why this video is a fake; but this is simply just you trying to pretend the video is fake when in reality, you have no evidence that it is.

this is called an argument by assertion: also a logical fallacy.

Well at least you agree with elon musk, silverishgoldnova and i that it looks fake. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Asserting that the earth is a ball doesn't make it so. Do you have any objective evidence that it's a ball?


I doubt it.

Yes, bodies of water appear curved as objects fall behind them for observers around the planet. The sun also sets for every observer on the planet, meaning that the sun falls below all observers: both only possible on a globe. We also have photos of places such as Lake Pontecharin, or images from a variety of space agencies from space that all show images consistent with a spherical, not flat earth.

These are recreatable and reproducible evidence of a spherical earth, much of which you can personally validate, and all of which fundamentally contradict your entire position.


Now, you will obviously stamp your feet and object to these empirical measurements. The only two reasons you’ve provided that we should believe all of these pieces of evidence; is that the photos are all fake, and the documented and verifiable measurements of the sun and objects is caused by refraction.

The only arguments you’ve provided of the former, is that a random cloud spells “sex”, that astronauts weren’t smiling, and that a matter-of-fact description how a photo was created was “an admission of fakery”

The evidence you have offered in support of the latter, is a YouTube video of a glass of water that doesn’t show the sun setting, obviously botches the experiment; and is s glass of water: not the atmosphere; two YouTube video of unclear or unknown conditions that also neither show the sun setting, and are obviously not of the atmosphere.


This is a rather pitiful and remarkably unscientific rebuttal to objective and reproducible evidence, and the dubious support for your claims in the face of overwhelming proof otherwise is why you are, most assuredly, a pseudoscientist.

Good, you've determined beyond all doubt, because you think you've found curved water, though you can't, after multiple times requested, specify what distance boats go over supposed curvature, how much the bridge curves and at what distance, and the sun, boats or the bridge couldnt possibly be refracted by the atmosphere, the earth is a spinning ball, no matter what. Why are you still here?

Well, ignoring for the moment that I HAVE objectively found curved water by the observations, I can specify that, and I don’t believe you’ve requested it of me once, leave alone multiple times; that saying that refraction cant make the sun appear to set is not saying refraction doesn't
happen at all: all of which are major dishonest misrepresenting of other position, the reason I am here is to stop pseudoscience and irrational psycho-narratives like yours being the only one people here.

So far you're you're just doing exactly what you claim to be stopping. Imagine that. 

Erfisflat

That ships go over some curvature at only under 3 miles matter of factly, but Canigou can be seen from 160 miles away is "refraction" because reasons... is ultimately a logical imbecility without a shred of objective basis in practical reality, and intellectual dishonesty.

http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty

https://youtu.be/CIIDhOb8MZ0

CYDdharta

A flat-earther finally tried to fly away. His rocket didn't even ignite.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Holy hell man, look at it. You actually believe that? 

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

but to answer:

Yes: you said it was fake, and didn’t explain why: I believe that is an assertion.

Yes: I’ve asked you to provide information, and detail on how you could tell videos were fake, and as you have not provided any, I do very much believe that you have no objective evidence that this video is fake.

By all means, educate me as to why this video is a fake; but this is simply just you trying to pretend the video is fake when in reality, you have no evidence that it is.

this is called an argument by assertion: also a logical fallacy.

Well at least you agree with elon musk, silverishgoldnova and i that it looks fake. 

You are asserting that it is fake.

you have thus far provided no evidence for your accusations.

Erfisflat

CYDdharta said:

A flat-earther finally tried to fly away. His rocket didn't even ignite.

https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11174

SilverishGoldNova

CYDdharta said:

A flat-earther finally tried to fly away. His rocket didn't even ignite.

And that's relevant because?

SilverishGoldNova

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Holy hell man, look at it. You actually believe that? 

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

but to answer:

Yes: you said it was fake, and didn’t explain why: I believe that is an assertion.

Yes: I’ve asked you to provide information, and detail on how you could tell videos were fake, and as you have not provided any, I do very much believe that you have no objective evidence that this video is fake.

By all means, educate me as to why this video is a fake; but this is simply just you trying to pretend the video is fake when in reality, you have no evidence that it is.

this is called an argument by assertion: also a logical fallacy.

Well at least you agree with elon musk, silverishgoldnova and i that it looks fake. 

You are asserting that it is fake.

you have thus far provided no evidence for your accusations.

Then I'll go ahead and do that.

Gooberry

As you have been angrily asserting I’m a pseudoscientist, with little argument, let me explain how you argue someone is a pseudoscientist.

A pseudoscientist is someone who uses scientific terms, but not the process to make outlandish or unsupported claims, but which sound as if they have scientific backing

Claiming that water makes objects appear lower; you have used terms like refraction only; and then claim that because a glass of water makes objects appear lower, that this must be what happens in the entire atmosphere.

You’ve made no attempt to show what process makes light refract, how it refract, whether the properties of the water match the atmosphere, and whether the refraction properties of air have the same effect. You haven’t attempt to apply the laws of physics or even Made any attempt to show that looking through air works like looking through water.

Because of all the scientific and logical omissions in your argument: you are literally using scientific sounding information to try and give your position credence, even though your arguments clearly don’t support your conclusions

hence, you are a pseudoscientist.

@Erfisflat

Erfisflat

SilverishGoldNova said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Holy hell man, look at it. You actually believe that? 

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

but to answer:

Yes: you said it was fake, and didn’t explain why: I believe that is an assertion.

Yes: I’ve asked you to provide information, and detail on how you could tell videos were fake, and as you have not provided any, I do very much believe that you have no objective evidence that this video is fake.

By all means, educate me as to why this video is a fake; but this is simply just you trying to pretend the video is fake when in reality, you have no evidence that it is.

this is called an argument by assertion: also a logical fallacy.

Well at least you agree with elon musk, silverishgoldnova and i that it looks fake. 

You are asserting that it is fake.

you have thus far provided no evidence for your accusations.

Then I'll go ahead and do that.

I'm sure they'll come up with some excuse, like a parent trying to justify how Santa Claus is able to fit all the kids' presents into one bag."but, but, but, magic!"

Gooberry

As you have been angrily asserting I’m a pseudoscientist, with little argument, let me explain how you argue someone is a pseudoscientist.

A pseudoscientist is someone who uses scientific terms, but not the process to make outlandish or unsupported claims, but which sound as if they have scientific backing

Claiming that water makes objects appear lower; you have used terms like refraction only; and then claim that because a glass of water makes objects appear lower, that this must be what happens in the entire atmosphere.

You’ve made no attempt to show what process makes light refract, how it refract, whether the properties of the water match the atmosphere, and whether the refraction properties of air have the same effect. You haven’t attempt to apply the laws of physics or even Made any attempt to show that looking through air works like looking through water.

Because of all the scientific and logical omissions in your argument: you are literally using scientific sounding information to try and give your position credence, even though your arguments clearly don’t support your conclusions

hence, you are a pseudoscientist.

@Erfisflat

SilverishGoldNova

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Ya, @SilverishGoldNova this is fake as hill! I can't believe that 99% of people actually think this is real. What has this world come to? @Evidence have you seen this??? Lmao

Asserting that a video is fake doesn’t make it so.

Do you have any objective evidence that it is fake?

I doubt it.

Holy hell man, look at it. You actually believe that? 

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

but to answer:

Yes: you said it was fake, and didn’t explain why: I believe that is an assertion.

Yes: I’ve asked you to provide information, and detail on how you could tell videos were fake, and as you have not provided any, I do very much believe that you have no objective evidence that this video is fake.

By all means, educate me as to why this video is a fake; but this is simply just you trying to pretend the video is fake when in reality, you have no evidence that it is.

this is called an argument by assertion: also a logical fallacy.

Well at least you agree with elon musk, silverishgoldnova and i that it looks fake. 

You are asserting that it is fake.

you have thus far provided no evidence for your accusations.

Then I'll go ahead and do that.

I'm sure they'll come up with some excuse, like a parent trying to justify how Santa Claus is able to fit all the kids' presents into one bag."but, but, but, magic!"

Indeed.  If you are an adult, there is no reason for you to keep believing in things like Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Cleveland Browns, The Arizona Coyotes, The Big Bang, Evolution, or the Sphere Earth Theory

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

As you have been angrily asserting I’m a pseudoscientist, with little argument, let me explain how you argue someone is a pseudoscientist.

A pseudoscientist is someone who uses scientific terms, but not the process to make outlandish or unsupported claims, but which sound as if they have scientific backing

Claiming that water makes objects appear lower; you have used terms like refraction only; and then claim that because a glass of water makes objects appear lower, that this must be what happens in the entire atmosphere.

You’ve made no attempt to show what process makes light refract, how it refract, whether the properties of the water match the atmosphere, and whether the refraction properties of air have the same effect. You haven’t attempt to apply the laws of physics or even Made any attempt to show that looking through air works like looking through water.

Because of all the scientific and logical omissions in your argument: you are literally using scientific sounding information to try and give your position credence, even though your arguments clearly don’t support your conclusions

hence, you are a pseudoscientist.

@Erfisflat

When you can demonstrate something with experimentation, this is the scientific method. Since you haven't demonstrated ANYTHING yet, it's obvious who the pseudoscientist is here.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

As I pointed out, you have repeatedly used incorrect data to pretend your point is supported: so as you haven’t used the scientific method, by your own definition, you are a pseudo scientist.

At this point, you’re not objecting to any of the claims; you’ve stopped defending your own nonsense, and you’ve started making these asinine assertions.

As for me, I’ve provided proof of a spherical earth; sunsets, boats going over the horizon; direct images. I’ve also pointed out using the science of refraction how atmospheric refraction works; and referring to measurements that other people have made. While you may not like it, I’m mainly relying on modern science, and the experiments made to support it for my justification.

So as I’m using real science (and so far, other than name calling, there is no argument you’ve provided against any of it); in scientific way: meaning I’m using science.

You have attempted to use, by your own definition, pseudoscience to refute this actual science.

And, most important: when I call you a pseudoscientist, I present a post like you: an argument, explanation and justification. You just assert things.

So in this respect, you are right: it IS clear who the pseudoscientist is.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

As I pointed out, you have repeatedly used incorrect data to pretend your point is supported: so as you haven’t used the scientific method, by your own definition, you are a pseudo scientist.

At this point, you’re not objecting to any of the claims; you’ve stopped defending your own nonsense, and you’ve started making these asinine assertions.

As for me, I’ve provided proof of a spherical earth; sunsets, boats going over the horizon; direct images. I’ve also pointed out using the science of refraction how atmospheric refraction works; and referring to measurements that other people have made. While you may not like it, I’m mainly relying on modern science, and the experiments made to support it for my justification.

So as I’m using real science (and so far, other than name calling, there is no argument you’ve provided against any of it); in scientific way: meaning I’m using science.

You have attempted to use, by your own definition, pseudoscience to refute this actual science.

And, most important: when I call you a pseudoscientist, I present a post like you: an argument, explanation and justification. You just assert things.

So in this respect, you are right: it IS clear who the pseudoscientist is.

That is completely fabricated and you know it. Aside from faulty logic, and pointing to "the laws of physics", with no explanation of how these "laws" support your position, you only use assertions to prove your position. You haven't cited the first experiment, you only cite vague assertions about observations, like "muh boats". No measurements, no supporting evidence. If you'd like to continue falsely claiming you've done something you haven't, while claiming I haven't done something I obviously have, I can safely mute you and those assertions. It would essentially be the identical format you have used up to this point, except you are ignoring valid points and I would start ignoring your nuh-uhs and assertions.

SilverishGoldNova

So, are we gonna get some actual debate, or fight about who we should label a Psuedoscientist? 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

As I pointed out, you have repeatedly used incorrect data to pretend your point is supported: so as you haven’t used the scientific method, by your own definition, you are a pseudo scientist.

At this point, you’re not objecting to any of the claims; you’ve stopped defending your own nonsense, and you’ve started making these asinine assertions.

As for me, I’ve provided proof of a spherical earth; sunsets, boats going over the horizon; direct images. I’ve also pointed out using the science of refraction how atmospheric refraction works; and referring to measurements that other people have made. While you may not like it, I’m mainly relying on modern science, and the experiments made to support it for my justification.

So as I’m using real science (and so far, other than name calling, there is no argument you’ve provided against any of it); in scientific way: meaning I’m using science.

You have attempted to use, by your own definition, pseudoscience to refute this actual science.

And, most important: when I call you a pseudoscientist, I present a post like you: an argument, explanation and justification. You just assert things.

So in this respect, you are right: it IS clear who the pseudoscientist is.

That is completely fabricated and you know it. Aside from faulty logic, and pointing to "the laws of physics", with no explanation of how these "laws" support your position, you only use assertions to prove your position. You haven't cited the first experiment, you only cite vague assertions about observations, like "muh boats". No measurements, no supporting evidence. If you'd like to continue falsely claiming you've done something you haven't, while claiming I haven't done something I obviously have, I can safely mute you and those assertions. It would essentially be the identical format you have used up to this point, except you are ignoring valid points and I would start ignoring your nuh-uhs and assertions.

I pointed out the specific problems with all your arguments?

Would you like me to repost them?

these specific problems are devastating:

for example the sun sets: we see it every day. 

On a flat surface, with the sun above: it could never fall below.

this proves the earth is not flat.

your only reply to this is that somehow, for reasons you can’t explain refraction causes it, or why, you dont describe how refraction works, what properties it depends on, or the science behind. Despite this, our offer proof in the form of a video of a glass of water, that doesn’t show a sun setting, is botched by the person taking the video and is not of the atmosphere and which you claim proves the atmosphere produces sunset via refraction.

so, comparing: I have offered objective evidence, that is repeatable and proves the earth is not flat.

You have offered nothing to any counter this.

you haven’t argued the sun doesn’t set; or that without your effect it would be impossible on a flat earth. You haven’t defended your video and shown it does have a sunset, or shown
evidence that it applies to the atmosphere.

Quite frankly, I’ve proven my position: if you want to resort to this name calling insanity when you claim I’m asserting or “nuh-uh”ing, yet every time go back and point out why your argument fails only to keep being ignored: do that.

Each time, im going to go back and point out that your position is wrong, you won’t defend it, I have provided you evidence showing my position is correct and all you seem to be doing is trying to pretend nothing that I have just mentioned exists.

Erfisflat

SilverishGoldNova said:

So, are we gonna get some actual debate, or fight about who we should label a Psuedoscientist? 

He doesn't care about evidence, he's a logic debater. You'll notice how he dodges even the simplest of requests for any measurements, clarification, etc. Several pages were spent on the idea of space images, yet not one has been provided. Boats over the horizon was refuted, those points and requests for clarification were altogether dodged. Lake pontchartrain was mentioned, yet no clarification on that yet. The list goes on and on.

SilverishGoldNova

They're both fake

SilverishGoldNova

A post.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

So, are we gonna get some actual debate, or fight about who we should label a Psuedoscientist? 

He doesn't care about evidence, he's a logic debater. You'll notice how he dodges even the simplest of requests for any measurements, clarification, etc. Several pages were spent on the idea of space images, yet not one has been provided. Boats over the horizon was refuted, those points and requests for clarification were altogether dodged. Lake pontchartrain was mentioned, yet no clarification on that yet. The list goes on and on.

Of course I care about evidence!

My evidence, is sun sets and objects falling over the horizon: two things that aren’t possible if the earth was flat.

These aren’t genuine and repeatable experiments.

You currently have no rebuttal to these verifiable experiments; and empirical observations of the earth. 

These proove the the earth is a sphere; and you have no rebuttal.

You have asserted that these are caused by refraction: but you haven’t explained why it works, how it works, or provided any direct evidence.

I care about evidence, which is why I don’t accept your botched experiment in a youtube video, that uses a glass of water to distort a fake sun, and not produce a sunset as “evidence”, that some strange refraction effect in the atmosphere makes the sun appear to set, on a flat earth.


I keep mentioning the empirical observations that support my position, and pointing out that you posted an insane video to support your position.

You’ve been refuted; which is why you have been throwing out accusations, name calling, attempts to change the subject, and pretty much anything you can to not talk about the evidence.

Tell me, if you care so much about evidence; why have you gone nearly two pages now without defending the “evidence” you presented?  

Why is it that the moment I pointed out, in detail, why you can’t support your claims, you’ve just resorted to name calling, and avoiding talking about your claims?

Erfisflat

"I pointed out the specific problems with all your arguments?

Would you like me to repost them?"

I would simply repost the validatably evidenced rebuttals that you ignored.

"these specific problems are devastating:"

...to the ignorant maybe.

"for example the sun sets: we see it every day. 

On a flat surface, with the sun above: it could never fall below."

This was plainly demonstrated to be a false assumption, and more plausibly explained by refraction, with verifiable experimentation I must add. I know that you will continue to wave your hands and dismiss the demonstrations, simply because something being demonstrated to you is "pseudoscience" in your opinion.

"your only reply to this is that somehow, for reasons you can’t explain refraction causes it, or why, you dont describe how refraction works, what properties it depends on, or the science behind. Despite this, our offer proof in the form of a video of a glass of water, that doesn’t show a sun setting, is botched by the person taking the video and is not of the atmosphere and which you claim proves the atmosphere produces sunset via refraction."

I really didn't think I had to explain what refraction is and how it works in a scientific debate. This is commonly agreed upon in the whole of the scientific community. We all know that light travelling through different refractive indexes cause light to bend. What is currently disagreed upon is what direction that light travels. For this we need to test the claims in an experiment. I have provided 2, and have plenty more like it upon request, unlike you, who has nothing but assertion both that I am wrong, and the opposite results MUST be the case, because the earth is most positively a ball no matter what, and the low hanging fruit that is the local flat earther here could not possibly win an argument here that proves the earth isn't a 25,000 mile circumference ball in a vacuum.

At any point you have a better means of testing the hypothesis, I'll be glad to consider the experiment and it's results. Even the most rudimentary of experiments yield the same results, and you can't produce even the first verifiable results proving that objects can appear higher, as your model requires. The only thing I get is assertions about the laws of physics.

"so, comparing: I have offered objective evidence, that is repeatable and proves the earth is not flat."

Objective evidence that has been misunderstood and alternatively explained with verifiable evidence upon further investigation. 

"You have offered nothing to any counter this."

I'll bet I can figure out why you missed it. Does this remind you of someone?

"you haven’t argued the sun doesn’t set; "

Sure haven't, point?

"]or that without your effect it would be impossible on a flat earth. You haven’t defended your video and shown it does have a sunset, or shown
evidence that it applies to the atmosphere."

Would it help if I recreated the experiment with a smaller sun? Obviously this wasn't the point of this experiment. The point is that refraction causes the object to be lower. By adjusting variables such as thickness of container and distances or size of the objects being refracted would no doubt yield the results you ask for. 

You saw with a simple experiment that the bottom of boats and the sun can essentially be "blocked" by a flat earth from the bottom up. You can assume that I am wrong about this point all you like, sooner or later you're going to have to prove these assumptions.

As for the atmosphere, it is only logical to say that 6.6855 × 10^24 water molecules that are found in a glass of water will act roughly the same, as far as bending light, as roughly the same amount of water molecules stretched out over miles of lake or seawater.

"Quite frankly, I’ve proven my position: if you want to resort to this name calling insanity when you claim I’m asserting or “nuh-uh”ing, yet every time go back and point out why your argument fails only to keep being ignored: do that.

Each time, im going to go back and point out that your position is wrong, you won’t defend it, I have provided you evidence showing my position is correct and all you seem to be doing is trying to pretend nothing that I have just mentioned exists."

It's amazing how accurately you've described yourself here.

Erfisflat

Try and respond to all of the points in your response, so we know you aren't  cherry picking. @Gooberry

WilliamSchulz

@Erfisflat

I saw the mini debate about being a pseudo-scientist, I am going to avoid that completely. To all people debating this, does it really matter? Are we actually going to debate the facts or are we going to debate what terms we can give each other? 

For that reason, I will go way back and try to make some point about the Chicago skyline, to perhaps veer the conversation away from this debate. Erfisflat said that the Earth must be flat because in one instance, thousands of people were able to see across a lake into the heart of Chicago downtown, and that because this extended a radius of 60 miles, above from my 30 mile maximum radius vision view, then the Earth must be flat. 

To clarify, one point was that I did not clarify my 30 mile radius max terms. To confirm, most people can't see to 30 miles on an average day, maybe 2 miles on ground level, perhaps 15-20 miles on a hill on a foggy day. Similar to Erfisflat's claim, on special occasions in the right spot, one can see 30 miles around them, perhaps if they were on a Rocky Mountain summit at the top of Colorado. 

However, there is a difference between the 30 mile claim, and the 60 mile viewing radius of Chicago. My claim revolves around the fact that most people can't see 30 miles on the average day, but in special instances like if they go high enough or are in a really flat area of Wyoming, or even if they are at the top of a skyscraper, they can see in excess of 30 miles. Now, point in hand, the Earth did nothing to make this happen, we just happened to be in the right location at the right time, which was none of the Earth's doing. 

That being said, if we take refraction into account and go to the same lake Erfisflat mentioned, we can't see Chicago on a usual day, similar to my claim above, we can't see 60 miles on an average day, and in a special instance, you can see Chicago across the lake. The crucial difference is because refraction is released for the split moment, a phenomenon occurs where Chicago is somehow visible to the average person. However, this is something of the Earth's doing, not of man's doing. We can't release retraction from the air, yet we can consistently climb to the summit of a Rocky Mountain to see 30+ miles. 

Therefore, our two claims are different. In my 30 mile claim, man can do something to make 30 miles possible. In Erf's claim, the Earth has to do something in order to make viewing possible. 

This release of retraction, therefore, does not make the Earth flat, it is simply a phenomenon similar to that of a solar eclipse. If you look at the pictures posted previously of this skyline, you can't see the lower floors, they are covered by the water, as Erfisflat mentions is necessary if the Earth was round. Erf claims that because you can see the lower floors of a building, the Earth must be flat. Even in this phenomenon, the lower floors are invisible to the human eye, which supports my theory. 

I await a response, please stop with the name-calling, this isn't a 5k viewed debate for nothing!

Pogue

@Erfisflat
(First, why is there a distrust of government agencies? What is the point and reward in deceiving you? Why have people been "deceiving" you for thousands of years? I do not think that both public and private space agencies, along with every scientifically literate person is trying to deceive you.)

Here some videos that prove the Earth is not flat. I am to lazy to type or explain





Just watch this. It will convince you. 

Also, how far away is the sun on the "flat" Earth?

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

On a flat surface, with the sun above: it could never fall below."

This was plainly demonstrated to be a false assumption.”

To demonstrate this as a false assumption; you need to demonstrate that it is possible for the sun, on a flat earth to appear to set below a flat surface through the atmosphere.

None of your videos or evidence show the sun appearing to set. None of three you posted showed much more than the sun being distorted; one was a blatantly botched attempt at faking refraction causing a sunset by lowering the camera. 

None of three reproduce or demonstrate what you claimed.

Even worse; the atmosphere is not a glass of water: air doesn’t have the same refractive index, and can’t produce the same effects.

In this respect; as I have been pointing out: making wild claims about what the atmosphere does or doesn’t do based on a what you claim a glass of water does (but doesn’t), is unsupported assertion.

In this regard, you are dismissing an easily demonstrable experiment, with a collection of nonsense experiments, botched claims and little explanation.

So; the idea that the sun set can’t happen on a flat earth is trivial to explain.

In a sunset, the sun is at a negative angle to the observer. On a flat earth, the sun is at a positive angle at all times.

Refraction works because when light travels between two mediums with different refractive indexes. This is a validated law of physics, don’t you know.

We know the refractive of air, at a variety of different temperatures, pressures and humidities (how much water that air holds), and that of a near vacuum.

Because of this, we know that the light from the sun passes through two mediums, and so the Angle of the light is modified by a ratio of the two refractive indexes. Hence: the light from the sun must be refracted.

Please note the why, the how, and the justification and reasoning. I’ve explained what makes refraction happen and how, used what we know of refractive indexes to show what happens.

You can’t argue with measurements of refractive index, you can’t argue with snells law of refraction; with those two things the sun light must refract in the way explained.

As you can’t argue with any of the specifics: what you did before is simply ignore the detail, and assert that this well explained and evidenced scientific phenomena is “pseudoscience”.

Moving on: you’ve claimed that refraction works to make the sun appear to set and boats fall over the horizon?

How, exactly? How does refraction make this happen?

You mention that the laws of refraction change the angle based on the change in refractive index of two mediums; that’s the only reference to any science, and then never mention any of the science involved again.

This is what I mean by pseudoscience: you mention a few key words, launch into a bunch of random nonsense and assertions; then pretend you have demonstrated it.

What your experiment shows, is that when you place a glass of water in between an object, it’s position is distorted. It also shows that sun appears to set when you lower the camera and the “flat surface”. It also shows a glass bottom of a container is nominally opaque.

The scientific answer to all three points is “no sh*t, Sherlock”.  What you’re experiment shows is mostly basic information that any first year high school science student would know.

None of the videos show the refraction of water producing a sunset. At best you see the base of the glass obscure the base of the fake sun.

You claim these experiments show the sun can be made to set on a flat surface. These experiments do not show this: making your claims nonsensical assertions.

You claim that refraction makes objects lower. 

You’ve provided one example: seeing objects through water.

What evidence do you present to show refraction can’t make objects appear higher (we know it can, btw) in other situations? 

Like seeing objects in water when you are also in water? Or objects in air through? 

You don’t use refractive indexes, the properties of water, or any science to prove this position either.

No support, just assertion. We know the assertion is false. If you’re in water looking out, light bends a different way than if you’re out of water looking in: this is because of the laws of refraction bending light in proportion to the change in refractive index: the angle change is reversed when the refractive indexes are swapped around.

You yourself have refuted your own claim by posting images of superior mirages: refraction where light is bend downwards, making an image appear higher than the real object!

You claim this video shows how light behaves in the atmosphere.

How can you make this claim? You make no attempt to compare the properties of the experiment with the properties of the atmosphere (you just assert one proves the other).

You don’t mention any refractive indexes at all; and you make no attempt to show or demonstrate how your experiment is applicable.

I’ve been saying this all along, so it shouldn’t be surprising. When you simply reiterate the same assertions as you did here, it’s not a particularly useful reply.

So: in reality; what you’ve done; is shown a set of shoddy, botched experiments which don’t show what you claim: and you are now trying to desperately pretend that these demonstrate what you want them to.

They really don’t; you need to do more to validate and demonstrate your outlandish claims.

Erfisflat

@Erfisflat 

"I saw the mini debate about being a pseudo-scientist, I am going to avoid that completely. To all people debating this, does it really matter? Are we actually going to debate the facts or are we going to debate what terms we can give each other?"

It does matter which position is pseudoscience, for obvious reasons. 

"For that reason, I will go way back and try to make some point about the Chicago skyline, to perhaps veer the conversation away from this debate. Erfisflat said that the Earth must be flat because in one instance, thousands of people were able to see across a lake into the heart of Chicago downtown, and that because this extended a radius of 60 miles, above from my 30 mile maximum radius vision view, then the Earth must be flat." 

It was more than instance. The photographer has captured the image many times. By thousands of people, I mean thousands of people very often, weather permitting.

https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com/Looking-toward-Chicago-from-Mi/i-npbCsds/A

Time lapses show that this isn't some "once in a lifetime opportunity" as you make it out to be.



His channel even has several of those.


"To clarify, one point was that I did not clarify my 30 mile radius max terms. To confirm, most people can't see to 30 miles on an average day, maybe 2 miles on ground level, perhaps 15-20 miles on a hill on a foggy day. Similar to Erfisflat's claim, on special occasions in the right spot, one can see 30 miles around them, perhaps if they were on a Rocky Mountain summit at the top of Colorado. "

There is a calculator for determining exactly how far the horizon should be dictated by the supposed curvature of the earth.

"However, there is a difference between the 30 mile claim, and the 60 mile viewing radius of Chicago. My claim revolves around the fact that most people can't see 30 miles on the average day, but in special instances like if they go high enough or are in a really flat area of Wyoming, or even if they are at the top of a skyscraper, they can see in excess of 30 miles. Now, point in hand, the Earth did nothing to make this happen, we just happened to be in the right location at the right time, which was none of the Earth's doing."

Pretty vague numbers there.

"That being said, if we take refraction into account and go to the same lake Erfisflat mentioned, we can't see Chicago on a usual day, similar to my claim above, we can't see 60 miles on an average day, and in a special instance, you can see Chicago across the lake. The crucial difference is because refraction is released for the split moment, a phenomenon occurs where Chicago is somehow visible to the average person. However, this is something of the Earth's doing, not of man's doing. We can't release retraction from the air, yet we can consistently climb to the summit of a Rocky Mountain to see 30+ miles. "

Like I said, Chicago across lake Michigan isn't some "split second" phenomenon. And for the record, climbing to the summit of the rocky mountains will yield a horizon of 140 miles.

"Therefore, our two claims are different. In my 30 mile claim, man can do something to make 30 miles possible. In Erf's claim, the Earth has to do something in order to make viewing possible."

That is the most ignorant statement I've seen all day. What do you suppose the earth is doing? Unfurling itself for some days, hours at a time, the curling back up into a ball, like a frisbee ball?



"This release of retraction, therefore, does not make the Earth flat, it is simply a phenomenon similar to that of a solar eclipse. If you look at the pictures posted previously of this skyline, you can't see the lower floors, they are covered by the water, as Erfisflat mentions is necessary if the Earth was round. Erf claims that because you can see the lower floors of a building, the Earth must be flat. Even in this phenomenon, the lower floors are invisible to the human eye, which supports my theory."

The bottom floors are not visible most of the time, because the image of Chicago is being bent so that they are lower than the horizon.






"I await a response, please stop with the name-calling, this isn't a 5k viewed debate for nothing"

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Erfisflat

Gooberry

@erfisflat

And this is how we know you’ve made up everything you’ve claimed thus far:

1.) the refraction index is air is known.

This means we know how much air can bend light. Unfortunately, the refraction indexes are enough to bend light a tiny amount during extreme temperature gradients that occur in particular conditions. 

Most of the time the refractive index of air from your position to the horizon isn’t going to change a great deal.

At best this would mean that in the right conditions, you could possibly make the sun appear lower than it is: but this is not going to be true for all observers.

2.) air/glass/water/glass/air transition is not the same as air-air.

The refraction produced by light moving trough 4 boundaries, is very very different than of light moving through one or none.

There’s two stages of refraction, as the first transition is from low to high refractive index, and a second from high to low: compounded with a solid glass bottom, there aren’t many scenarios where you can see this happening in the atmosphere.

Claiming that this experiment is equivalent  to just looking through air is nonsense.

3.) water has extreme refraction. Air does not.

Water (and glass) have a refractive index of around 1.33. Air is around 1.00029. This is why water can produce some pretty extreme distortion and air does not.

Considering you can’t produce a sunset with water: the idea that a medium that refracts less could do so is, quite frankly, made up nonsense.

4.) refraction makes stuff appear higher and lower: depending on the refractive index.

Despite your contention, as alluded to, there are multiple ways in which light can be retracted to make objects appear higher than they are. These include:

Fata Morgana: (multiple images above the real object)

Superior mirage: (mirage image above the real object).

Looming: (magnification of object so it appears much taller than it is)

There are multiple examples of all three: each refute your position.

Hence, your claims are, for a fourth time, made up nonsense.

5.) the experiment moves the atmosphere; not the sun.

If you pay attention; even though there is no sunset, the distortion produced occurs because the observer moves further and further away from the location at which refraction occurs. The fake sun maintains its distance from the point of refraction.

Sunset occurs for stationary observers through a stationary atmosphere, with a moving sun: which is not what is happening in the experiment.

Again; yet another way your experiment fails a key requirement of applicability.

6.) lack of known variables.

when Chicago is explained using refraction, we use the following:

• Distance, which allows us to determine how much the light needs to bend.
• Temperature gradients and humid conditions that allow us to determine the refractive indexes of the atmosphere between location and observer.
• Using snells law with the above to determine whether such an image is possible (note: it is).

The earth rotating above the earth means there will be an east/west and north/south discrepancy in the position of the sun. How much refraction that could occur depends on how high the sun is, the refractive indexes of where the sun is, and the air in between the sun and the observer.

Because you can’t tell where the sun is, you don’t know what the positional discrepancy of the sun is at sunset, nor will you talk about the refractive indexes and as a result, you don’t know how much the light from the sun could be bent, nor in what direction.

If you don’t know how much light needs to bend, nor in what direction, nor how much the light could bend: claiming that light can definitely bend in the way you want is, you guessed it, an assertion!

Gooberry

@erfisflat

And this is how we know you’ve made up everything you’ve claimed thus far:

1.) the refraction index is air is known.

This means we know how much air can bend light. Unfortunately, the refraction indexes are enough to bend light a tiny amount during extreme temperature gradients that occur in particular conditions. 

Most of the time the refractive index of air from your position to the horizon isn’t going to change a great deal.

At best this would mean that in the right conditions, you could possibly make the sun appear lower than it is: but this is not going to be true for all observers.

2.) air/glass/water/glass/air transition is not the same as air-air.

The refraction produced by light moving trough 4 boundaries, is very very different than of light moving through one or none.

There’s two stages of refraction, as the first transition is from low to high refractive index, and a second from high to low: compounded with a solid glass bottom, there aren’t many scenarios where you can see this happening in the atmosphere.

Claiming that this experiment is equivalent  to just looking through air is nonsense.

3.) water has extreme refraction. Air does not.

Water (and glass) have a refractive index of around 1.33. Air is around 1.00029. This is why water can produce some pretty extreme distortion and air does not.

Considering you can’t produce a sunset with water: the idea that a medium that refracts less could do so is, quite frankly, made up nonsense.

4.) refraction makes stuff appear higher and lower: depending on the refractive index.

Despite your contention, as alluded to, there are multiple ways in which light can be retracted to make objects appear higher than they are. These include:

Fata Morgana: (multiple images above the real object)

Superior mirage: (mirage image above the real object).

Looming: (magnification of object so it appears much taller than it is)

There are multiple examples of all three: each refute your position.

Hence, your claims are, for a fourth time, made up nonsense.

5.) the experiment moves the atmosphere; not the sun.

If you pay attention; even though there is no sunset, the distortion produced occurs because the observer moves further and further away from the location at which refraction occurs. The fake sun maintains its distance from the point of refraction.

Sunset occurs for stationary observers through a stationary atmosphere, with a moving sun: which is not what is happening in the experiment.

Again; yet another way your experiment fails a key requirement of applicability.

6.) lack of known variables.

when Chicago is explained using refraction, we use the following:

• Distance, which allows us to determine how much the light needs to bend.
• Temperature gradients and humid conditions that allow us to determine the refractive indexes of the atmosphere between location and observer.
• Using snells law with the above to determine whether such an image is possible (note: it is).

The earth rotating above the earth means there will be an east/west and north/south discrepancy in the position of the sun. How much refraction that could occur depends on how high the sun is, the refractive indexes of where the sun is, and the air in between the sun and the observer.

Because you can’t tell where the sun is, you don’t know what the positional discrepancy of the sun is at sunset, nor will you talk about the refractive indexes and as a result, you don’t know how much the light from the sun could be bent, nor in what direction.

If you don’t know how much light needs to bend, nor in what direction, nor how much the light could bend: claiming that light can definitely bend in the way you want is, you guessed it, an assertion!

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Your time lapse video of Chicago is obviously a mirage.

you can tell because of the following:

The buildings shimmer, the buildings disappear, the buildings distort, they stretch and contract, and towards the end of the video you can clearly see inversion.

Pogue

@Gooberry
It is a type of refraction due to temperature. Also, parts of the buildings are not visible. 

Erfisflat

"To demonstrate this as a false assumption; you need to demonstrate that it is possible for the sun, on a flat earth to appear to set below a flat surface through the atmosphere."

I really thought you could begin to understand the scientific method after all this dialogue. Science is about scalability, if you really want me to "demonstrate the actual sun going down through the actual atmosphere" I'd simply post this.

"None of your videos or evidence show the sun appearing to set. None of three you posted showed much more than the sun being distorted; one was a blatantly botched attempt at faking refraction causing a sunset by lowering the camera."

You're just repeating yourself. This was adressed the very last post.

" We all know that light travelling through different refractive indexes cause light to bend. What is currently disagreed upon is what direction that light travels. For this we need to test the claims in an experiment. I have provided 2, and have plenty more like it upon request, unlike you, who has nothing but assertion both that I am wrong, and the opposite results MUST be the case, because the earth is most positively a ball no matter what, and the low hanging fruit that is the local flat earther here could not possibly win an argument here that proves the earth isn't a 25,000 mile circumference ball in a vacuum.

At any point you have a better means of testing the hypothesis, I'll be glad to consider the experiment and it's results. Even the most rudimentary of experiments yield the same results, and you can't produce even the first verifiable results proving that objects can appear higher, as your model requires. The only thing I get is assertions about the laws of physics."

If do some reason you intend to say these (above in post to fredsnephew) results are also "botched" I'd suggest you perform some results, as requested half a dozen times now.

"None of three reproduce or demonstrate what you claimed."

"Even worse; the atmosphere is not a glass of water: air doesn’t have the same refractive index, and can’t produce the same effects."

Of course an area of air directly as round and relative to you would not be retracting as much as a glass of water, it's the distance and attributed accumulation of water molecules of water in that air that makes using that glass of water, causing refraction) Even your scientists recognize that there is water in the air, and that this causes refraction. Common sense and everyday observations tell us (well, me anyway) that more water means more refraction. Glass has the same refractive index as water, so that is a fairly known axiom.

"In this respect; as I have been pointing out: making wild claims about what the atmosphere does or doesn’t do based on a what you claim a glass of water does (but doesn’t), is unsupported assertion."

Now you're openly denying refraction happens in either model. But the city just happens to be bent backward over the curvature...

http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty

"In this regard, you are dismissing an easily demonstrable experiment, with a collection of nonsense experiments, botched claims and little explanation."

Where's that? Goober. You have been holding out! Experimental evidence for your position is what I've asked you for! I'm guessing you left that big open space for your experimental evidence! Maybe you forgot, like you did an image of earth from space! Maybe next time...

"So; the idea that the sun set can’t happen on a flat earth is trivial to explain.

In a sunset, the sun is at a negative angle to the observer. On a flat earth, the sun is at a positive angle at all times."

Ignoring refraction, I'll agree.

"Refraction works because when light travels between two mediums with different refractive indexes. This is a validated law of physics, don’t you know."

Lol, it seem like you're the one that doesn't know. Sometimes you completely ignore it, sometimes your assuming aspects of it that you cannot prove...

"We know the refractive of air, at a variety of different temperatures, pressures and humidities (how much water that air holds), and that of a near vacuum."

We as in you and i? Or just what Google tells you. 

"Because of this, we know that the light from the sun passes through two mediums, and so the Angle of the light is modified by a ratio of the two refractive indexes. Hence: the light from the sun must be refracted."

Now you recognize atmospheric refraction...

"Please note the why, the how, and the justification and reasoning. I’ve explained what makes refraction happen and how, used what we know of refractive indexes to show what happens."

Commonly agreed upon and highly irrelevant to the separation in agreement, which is the direction the atmosphere bends the light. This is where you need to be. Bring some practical evidence with you.

"You can’t argue with measurements of refractive index, you can’t argue with snells law of refraction; with those two things the sun light must refract in the way explained."

Those measurements of refractive index, and smells law are not yet shown to be in disagreement with my position. Were still waiting on that information from you, along with some practical evidence that supports it.

"As you can’t argue with any of the specifics: what you did before is simply ignore the detail, and assert that this well explained and evidenced scientific phenomena is “pseudoscience”.

I haven't ignored anything. I've read all of the literature. You haven't given us anything but assertions that I'm wrong. You can't even produce anything that contradicts my position, except your assertion that I am wrong for... reasons... and the science book is always right.

"Moving on: you’ve claimed that refraction works to make the sun appear to set and boats fall over the horizon?"

Correction. I've demonstrated that. On multiple occasions.

"How, exactly? How does refraction make this happen?"

You've literally just explained how refraction works... Why does it seem like you are wasting my time? Once again, atmospheric refraction is a known phenomenon, you can't argue with that. The disagreement is the direction that the light is generally bent.

"You mention that the laws of refraction change the angle based on the change in refractive index of two mediums; that’s the only reference to any science, and then never mention any of the science involved again."

If you need me to explain atmospheric refraction to you, you're probably debating the wrong subject.

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

Again, the only disagreement is the direction the light is bent. Making sure you see this point, as I see you haven't responded as of yet, and have no practical evidence so far.

"This is what I mean by pseudoscience: you mention a few key words, launch into a bunch of random nonsense and assertions; then pretend you have demonstrated it."

You didn't see the practical evidence? Scroll up and back a few pages. See how many demonstrations I have provided versus you. That is what I mean by pseudoscience. 

"What your experiment shows, is that when you place a glass of water in between an object, it’s position is distorted."

Distorted as in magnified and lowered. Exactly. Now you get it!

" It also shows that sun appears to set when you lower the camera and the “flat surface”. It also shows a glass bottom of a container is nominally opaque.

The scientific answer to all three points is “no sh*t, Sherlock”.  What you’re experiment shows is mostly basic information that any first year high school science student would know.

None of the videos show the refraction of water producing a sunset. At best you see the base of the glass obscure the base of the fake sun.

You claim these experiments show the sun can be made to set on a flat surface. These experiments do not show this: making your claims nonsensical assertions."

They do. The experiment's do show this. I've even screenshotted it. Take your cognitive dissonance goggles off.

"You claim that refraction makes objects lower. "

Demonstrated is the word.

"You’ve provided one example: seeing objects through water."

I've shown refraction making objects appear lower at least 3 times now. Three different ways.

"What evidence do you present to show refraction can’t make objects appear higher (we know it can, btw) in other situations? "

In every experiment the results are the same. How exactly do we know it can? I know there are mirage that raise, as in superior mirages, but the image is always inverted or greatly distorted, hardly discernable three or more inversions, like these:

But most images of Chicago are very discernable and inversions are absent.

Agreed, some superior mirages of Chicago, this is not my position, that superior mirage don't occur. What has yet to be proved is that this is possible.

"Like seeing objects in water when you are also in water? Or objects in air through? 

What? You may have to reword that set of incomplete sentences disguised as a paragraph or coherent statement.

"You don’t use refractive indexes, the properties of water, or any science to prove this position either."

If you'd like to be more technical about it, I can. I didn't feel you leading to or with that level of understanding, so I chose to keep it simple so that most people can understand. This, alongside a demonstration, i feel, is suffice. I am perfectly aware of the various materials and their refractive indexes. If you would like to even technically explain how any of the experiment is including false axioms, i can have that discussion also. What is disputed is what direction the atmosphere causes.

"No support, just assertion. We know the assertion is false. If you’re in water looking out, light bends a different way than if you’re out of water looking in: this is because of the laws of refraction bending light in proportion to the change in refractive index: the angle change is reversed when the refractive indexes are swapped around."

Agreed, mostly, Relevance? When we see across lake Michigan we aren't in a body of water looking out, or vice versa, unless you think Chicago is underwater.

"You yourself have refuted your own claim by posting images of superior mirages: refraction where light is bend downwards, making an image appear higher than the real object!"

And always inverted. This does not equate to what I've presented. I did state this stipulation early on.

"You claim this video shows how light behaves in the atmosphere.

How can you make this claim? You make no attempt to compare the properties of the experiment with the properties of the atmosphere (you just assert one proves the other)."

If by asserting you mean demonstrating, I'm with you. I have shown three different ways that refraction can lower an object and be obstructed by a flat plane. If you feel you have a better experiment than using water as a refractive material substitution than water, feel free to elaborate why.

"You don’t mention any refractive indexes at all; and you make no attempt to show or demonstrate how your experiment is applicable."

If you feel that the different refractive indexes are relevant and somehow contradict my results, you'd be happy to explain such. As for "made no attempt to show or demonstrate how your experiment is applicable," this is a lie.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

@Gooberry
It is a type of refraction due to temperature. Also, parts of the buildings are not visible. 

I didn't watch the video again, if you'd like to put the relevant parts of it into words, I'll be glad to address the rebuttal, but for me to rebutt this entire argument would take too long sorry.