Earth is a ball

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@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.

A mirage is the inversion. If an inversion is present in only part of the lapse (citation , or time stamp?) Then that part of it only was a mirage.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Only part of it was that thing you said it wasn’t?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

Only part of it was that thing you said it wasn’t?

Yes, at one part of it, if you say so,most likely a sliver of the skyline was inverted, or miraged. None of it was refracted around the curvature of the earth.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

Only part of it was that thing you said it wasn’t?

Yes, at one part of it, if you say so,most likely a sliver of the skyline was inverted, or miraged. None of it was refracted around the curvature of the earth.

And you know that, how?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

Only part of it was that thing you said it wasn’t?

Yes, at one part of it, if you say so,most likely a sliver of the skyline was inverted, or miraged. None of it was refracted around the curvature of the earth.

And you know that, how?

You mean, aside from the very many instances of long distance and short distance curvature tests that have proved the water is flat, from around the plane?

Erfisflat

No scaled demonstrations with those predicted results?

Erfisflat

I have made an object disappear over the horizon. Can you make one reappear with refraction?

Erfisflat

the same 5

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

Only part of it was that thing you said it wasn’t?

Yes, at one part of it, if you say so,most likely a sliver of the skyline was inverted, or miraged. None of it was refracted around the curvature of the earth.

And you know that, how?

You mean, aside from the very many instances of long distance and short distance curvature tests that have proved the water is flat, from around the plane?

Well, let’s ignore the fact that there are no such tests, only the same sort of botched attempts at experiments that are easily explained by errors, or don’t show what you claim; that you have already shown you get easily suckered by....

We’ve both agreed that objects fall below the horizon. We’ve both already seen photos of pylons going over Lake Pontecharin.

Right?

im both cases water doesn’t appear to be flat.

in fact you’re ridiculous botched glass of water experiment is presented as a way to explain why water doesn’t look flat.

Youre argument is basically “water is provably flat, except when it isn’t: in which case it’s refraction.”

Thats called kettle logic. And the type of thing people desperate not to be proven wrong, when they are, use.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

I have made an object disappear over the horizon. Can you make one reappear with refraction?

No you haven’t?

This is some crazy major league denial. How many times do I have to point this out?

You have one videos where you can’t tell the test conditions, one where there is refraction but the sun doesn’t set. And one video where the sun is still above the flat surface, partially obscured by the glass base of a container before the camera operator fakes a sunset by lowering his camera.

You appeared to angrily rebut this by posting an image that proves the video showed a sunset, where the sun was visible above the flat horizon, with the bottom obscured by the base of the glass. 

If the best Defense you have for the video showing a sunset was not a sunset: you kinda have problems.



The best thing you can say about that video, is that water bends light (duh), and that the experimenter massively botched the experiment by lowering the camera level, giving the impression he was deliberately trying to fake a sunset by moving the camera lower than the flat plane.

If you can discount all NASA images as fake because you think you see the word “sex” in a cloud: there is no intellectually honest realm in which you can not discard this evidence too. 


Its gone past you just being mistaken now; this is an outright lie.

SilverishGoldNova

@Erfisflat I found something interesting relating to spacex. Where are the cameras

Ampersand

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Erfisflat I found something interesting relating to spacex. Where are the cameras

You can literally see the pole holding the front mounted camera through the windscreen. The actual cameras are obscured from one another by the top of the windscreen frame.

Pogue

Can you please explain how the spherical Earth model is used to precisely predict when astronomical events happen? How come you can see curvature? Can you go to the edge of the Earth and show me the Antartic wall? If not, why? How far away is the sun? What evidence for the spotlight sun? How does it exactly light up half of the Earth when it is above it? How come you can't see the Northern Stars in the Southern Hemisphere? How are lunar and solar eclipses possible? How are pieces of buildings are hidden behind a horizon? Using the flat Earth model please show the math involved that predicts when there will be a solar or lunar eclipse? Why have civilizations been lying to the citizens? What is the purpose and gain of tricking the citizens? What about all the photos from private and public space agencies? What about videos randomly picked from youtube that explains spherical Earth? Surely they all cannot be in cahoots. Please explain in detail. 

Gooberry

@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.”

Science, and specific experiments are about applicability, and the separation of variables. To support a position, an. experiment needs to show that the variable your testing is producing the experimental results; and to show that the experimental conditions are applicable to the conditions you are trying to reproduce.

You attribute the sunset (that doesn’t actually happen): to “refraction”, which is an assertion, as you have made no attempt to rule out how obstruction from the base effects the sun.

(FE Lie count: 1)

You also can’t claim applicability either because you haven’t bothered trying to make any argument that shows how this is directly applicable to the atmosphere: and as I pointed out, there are innumerable reasons to show it isnt.

(FE Lie count: 2)

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

Nothing you can say changes the fact that the sun doesn’t set in any of the videos you posted.

(FE Lie count: 3)

If you can’t reproduce a sunset in a video using water: one of the highest refractive index mediums that is easily available, what makes you think it’s possible in the atmosphere, with a refractive index of 1.00028?

“At any point you have a better means of testing the hypothesis, I'll be glad to consider the experiment and it's results.”

It’s not my job to propose valid experiments to test your hypothesis. That’s kinda your job.

Just so you’re aware, how science works is that you propose an experiment to test a hypothesis. If it is pointed out the experiment is flawed, you discard the results and come up with a new experiment.

I am not sure what demanding that the person who is pointing out the experiment is flawed come up with a better experiment, but it’s not science. 

It’s more the fallacy of “shifting the burden of proof”, making me do what you should be doing with respect to proving your assertions.

(FE Lie count: 3, Fallacy count: 1$

“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."

Okay; no the experiments do not.

(FE Lie count: 4, Fallacy count: 1)

And yes, google “superior mirage” or “looming you will be confronted with hundreds of not thousands of images and videos of light from objects appearing higher than where the object is.

(FE Lie count: 5, Fallacy count: 1)

“If do some reason you intend to say these results are botched, I'd suggest you perform some results, as requested half a dozen times now.”

The results are botched: I explained why. Demanding I make the measurement is shifting the burden of proof, and not scientific.

(FE Lie count: 5, Fallacy count: 2)

“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)”

Water in the air is called humidity, refraction is 100% to do with change in refractive index, and doesn’t depend on distance (unless the refactive index is a gradient, which wouldn’t apply in the case of constant temperature and humidity); as you do not source anything you just said, it’s an assertion.

Google snells law angle and refractive index is the only component.

Google refractive index of air; there are detailed calculations and measurements of the refractive index of humid air (has water in it).

(FE Lie count: 6, Fallacy count: 2)

“Even your scientists recognize that there is water in the air, and that this causes refraction.”

Not a single scientist would agree that longer distances through a medium with the same refractive index produces more refraction. 

This is because you made it up. 

What you did: just to point out, use use a few generic scientific terms, and then dropped in some made up nonsense.

(IE: pseudoscience!)

When air is humid, it has a certain refractive index. Whether you are looking through 1 inch, or 100 miles of medium; if the refractive index doesn’t change (because the air is just as humid), there is no additional refraction due to distance. Google it: no distance component in snells law!

(FE Lie count: 7, Fallacy count: 2)

“Now you're openly denying refraction happens in either model.”

Bzzzzzt wrong.

No: I have pointed out repeatedly examples of mirages, looming, stopping etc. Claiming I am denying refraction occurs is an obviously dishonest lie:

(FE Lie count: 8, Fallacy count: 2)

My position (as should be obvious), is as follows:

-Refraction happens.

-Refraction happens based on snells law.

-This means objects can be made to appear higher or lower depending on refractive index.

-Objects can appear lower due to refraction, in conditions: these are normally called inferior mirages, and are obvious.

As you are deliberately misrepresenting my position to a ridiculous degree, then attaching the misrepresentation, this is a straw man.

(FE Lie count: 8, Fallacy count: 3)

“Where's that? Goober. You have been holding out! Experimental evidence for your position is what I've asked you for!”

Ironically, after linking the wiki page for intellectual dishonest, you then go onto be intellectually dishonest.

As I pointed out: you can experimentally  confirm sunset, and objects falling over the horizon. Both of these confirm water is curved, and indicate the earth is a sphere.

These are repeatable experiments: we see them every day in every location on the planet (unless your in the Arctic circle!).

You dismiss these plain, everyday observations with your unsupported conjecture; and then tell me to “use my senses and use your eyes”: I do that, and what do you know! The earth looks like a sphere!

Pretending these experiments do not exist, do not mean they don’t exist.

(FE Lie count: 9, Fallacy count: 3)

"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...”

Argument by assertion.

(FE Lie count: 9, Fallacy count: 4)

"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.”

Moving the goal posts/shifting burden of proof.

You’re using google, calculators, Wikipedia, and images you find on the internet too. You’re also using “muh science book”.

Indeed; you’re rejecting my argument because a source of information you are using is invalid when I’m using it, but not when you are using it.

This is a clear example of hypocrisy, and shifting the burden of proof/moving the goal posts by trying to argue as if I have to prove the laws of physics personally; where you can rely on whatever botched YouTube videos you wish.

(FE Lie count: 10, Fallacy count: 5)

"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...

Always did! (Both a lie and a straw man!)

(FE Lie count: 11, Fallacy count: 6)

“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.”

(FE Lie count: 12, Fallacy count: 6)

I just did....

You can verify yourself the refraction index of a vacuum, the refraction index of air, and plug it into snells law when light passes from one to the other. Light from objects is bent downwards due to snells laws

If your incapable of doing the maths: let’s try it.

Snells law is refactive index1 * sin(angle1) = refactive index2 * sin(angle2).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

Angle is measured from a line perpendicular to the change in medium.

So, if light is incident at 30 degrees from verticals (60 degrees from horizontal), you have

Sin(x)= sin(30) * N1/N2

If N2 is less than N1, the refracted angle (x) must be smaller than 30 (the object appears lower), but if N2 is larger than N2, the object appears higher.

To explain why: if the angle is made larger due to refraction the angle is closer to vertical. If it’s closer to vertical, to look at it you have to raise your head at a higher angle from horizontal to see it: IE: appears higher.

Given snells law is genuine validated physics, and given that we know air can have higher and lower refractive indexes depending on temperature and humidity: and given that I have pointed out examples of objects appearing higher: you have no argument.

I suspect you know this, and despite this being a proof that you are wrong, I strongly suspect you won’t bother arguing against any of the details. I’m going to preemptively call you out for that!

“Those measurements of refractive index, and smells law are not yet shown to be in disagreement with my position.”

You haven’t shown them to be in agreement. This is your burden of proof, not mine.

This is changing the burden of proof:

(FE Lie count: 12, Fallacy count: 7)

In addition; I have explained in detail using the science why not the refractive indexes and snells law both refute your position of how the atmosphere behaves, meaning that yes: I have shown they are in disagreement:

(FE Lie count: 13, Fallacy count: 7)

"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. “

(FE Lie count: 14, Fallacy count: 7)

This is an obvious lie; you don’t seem to understand snells law and it’s implications. 

If you pay close attention; I have given you specific reasons why your claims are disproven by the basic laws of physics, you have mostly ignored these as evidenced by the fact that none of your replies reference the maths or refractive indexes of water or mediums to attempt to show snells law or atmosphere can work in the way you claim.

This makes your argument here effectively a red herring: you haven’t read all the literature, and even if you had: it’s not a valid response to a claim that you’re ignoring the key science involved.

FE Lie count: 14, Fallacy count: 8)

“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.”

This is a lie:

(FE Lie count: 15, Fallacy count: 7)

I have provided detailed justifications as

To why you’re wrong these include:

• Your video doesn’t show sunset (and why this is important)
• You haven’t made any attempt to show that what happens in water can happen in air. (And why this is important)
• Snells law of refraction, combined with refraction index indicate objects can appear higher, and why.
• examples of objects that appear higher.
• that the experiment you cited was botched.

The claim that I’m just asserting you are wrong: is a flagrant and flat out lie.

In addition; you are yet again shifting the burden of proof: if you don’t believe that the established laws of physics are accurate: you need to show that. 

Just dismissing my argument out-of-hand because I base my position on the known laws of physics; isn’t any more valid because you say it sarcastically.

(FE Lie count: 15, Fallacy count: 8)

"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.”

As discussed, justified and explained: this is a lie.

(FE Lie count: 16, Fallacy count: 8)

"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?”

Red herring. I am asking you to describe the sunset using refractive indexes, and snells law methodically. This is not the same as simply describing how refraction works. One is a generality, one is a specific example.

(FE Lie count: 16, Fallacy count: 9)

“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 literally argued with this a couple of paragraphs ago when you mocked me for thinking refraction works as per the laws of physics “the science book is Always right”. 

(FE Lie count: 18, Fallacy count: 9)

Also a lie, is that if you can’t argue with atmospheric refraction: you can’t argue with its conclusion. Atmospheric refraction explains how, and why celestial objects like the sun generally appear higher: and that objects on the ground can appear higher and lower in specific conditions.

Your argument here, is that you can’t argue with atmospheric refraction: and then go onto argue that you simply disagree that atmospheric refraction produces the effects atmospheric refraction and the laws of physics produces.

This basically inherently misrepresents your argument to make it sound as if you’re agreeing with science when you are not.

(FE Lie count: 19, Fallacy count: 9)

"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”

Red herring: again. Atmospheric refraction makes objects appear higher. You are using it to claim objects appear lower.

By definition; saying your effect is atmospheric refraction disproves your effect because atmospheric refraction makes objects appear higher.

So I am asking you to provide an explanation as to how your effect works: as it is obviously different from that of atmospheric refraction.

You are replying with an argument irrelevant to the point you are trying to support.

(FE Lie count: 19, Fallacy count: 10)

“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.”

You are intentionally misrepresenting my point: I am asking you to explain the mechanics of how object can appear lower (which is not how atmospheric refraction works), and you’re replying that a physical process that doesn’t do what you are claiming explains what you’re claiming.

That’s a non-sequitor fallacy, and a misrepresentation.

(FE Lie count: 20, Fallacy count: 11)

"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. “

Here are a few examples of repeatable reputable evidence and observations that I mentioned:

• Watching sunsets
• Watching boats fall over the horizon.
• Snells law of refraction
• Measurable refraction indexes
• Superior mirages
• Fata Morgana

I have explained the relevance of all of them, and wrapped them all up nicely with the laws of physics. Saying I haven’t provided anything, that’s a lie:

(FE Lie count: 21, Fallacy count: 11)

Now, I have raised specific problems with your experiment; and pointed out how it doesn’t show what you say it does. 

Your Defense of the video, and my attempts to actually get you to explain how it is applicable thus far, has been:

• “You have to suggest a better experiment”
• “I have explained how my process works by using a process that I have claimed produces different results”.
• “Even though it doesn’t show a sunset - it does”

This is not to mention the technically inaccurate, and other fallacies detailed above:

(FE Lie count: 22, Fallacy count: 11)

"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!”

Deliberate misrepresentation of my position: straw man.

(FE Lie count: 22, Fallacy count: 12)

As per snells law: as the reference angle decreases, so does the amount of refraction.

If sin(angle) is close to 0, sin(angle2) is also close to 0.

This means as you approach horizontal, the amount of refraction is minimized. When the object is high, it will be lowered more than when the object is lower.

Something you don’t consider; and the omission of which is basically the reason I am continually asking you to explain how your process actually works rather than simply say “the air refracts and makes stuff look lower”

(FE Lie count: 23, Fallacy count: 12)

" 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.”

As pointed out, repeatedly: the screenshot you took did not show the sunset. It showed the top half of the sun visible; and the bottom half of the sun mostly blocked by the bottom of the glass: which becomes mostly opaque when viewed sideways on.

As pointed out, repeatedly; and as yet not answered by anything other than denials of reality: this means it does not show a sunset.

(FE Lie count: 24, Fallacy count: 12)

"You claim that refraction makes objects lower. "

Demonstrated is the word”

In context, I’m talking about the atmosphere and in general: so as I am pointing out, you haven’t demonstrated that.

 (FE Lie count: 25, Fallacy count: 12)

"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.

(FE Lie count: 26, Fallacy count: 12)

• None showed what you claimed.

(FE Lie count: 27, Fallacy count: 12)

• Two of them showed refraction through humid air.

(FE Lie count: 28, Fallacy count: 12)

• two of them were not clear the object was lowered.

"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:”

Your position 1 paragraph ago: “you have given no examples or evidence: the atmosphere makes objects appear lower”

Your position now: “the example you gave makes objects appear higher”.

Your position is that the atmosphere can’t make objects appear higher: you just acknowledge that your claim is incorrect.

(FE Lie count: 29, Fallacy count: 12)

(FE Lie count: 30 , Fallacy count: 12)

You include no examples of looming: which is not always distorted and often not inverted: a lie by omission.

(FE Lie count: 31, Fallacy count: 12)

In addition, your position is using the kettle logic fallacy where you defend your position using two mutually exclusive arguments 

(FE Lie count: 31, Fallacy count: 13)

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

It was pointed out that the video most commonly used of Chicago show the same sort of distortion and inversions as claimed.

(FE Lie count: 32, Fallacy count: 12)

“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.”

This has been previously pointed out. Snells law is a valid law of physics, repeatedly reproducible and correct. If the refraction index increases between you and an object; the light is refracted downwards; making the object appear higher than it is. 

This is how the laws of physics work. I can’t say it any simpler this; it is justified and explained, you’ve posted atmospheric refraction links you claim are valid, and there that snells laws are valid: so you have already agreed on all the principles involved are valid.

If the globe prevents you seeing a 1000 feet of a tall object, but refraction in the atmosphere can make an object appear higher than it is; then you will see more of the object.

I am basing this on:

• the laws of refraction.
• Known refractive indexes of air.
• How the latter works in the former.

Now; you obviously don’t like it: but that’s proof. The experimental evidence is as follows:

1.) snells law is has been repeatedly validated by all experiments: feel free to search the internet for these experiments.

2.) measurements for the refractive index of air are ubiquitous and well documented.

3.) because of (2) and (1), we now how the atmosphere behaves.

IE; I’m basically doing the same thing you are, snells law and the measurements for refractive index are based off repeated experimentation. These are documented experiments you are old enough and capable enough to google.

These prove that refraction doesn’t work the way you claim, and proves that refraction could make objects beyond the horizon visible (it’s no coincidence that every single example you’ve cited is of objects and buildings that are not far below the horizon...)

They are based on experiments: and what you’re doing is trying to pretend as if the supporting evidence and justification for the laws of physics do not exist

That is a lie.

(FE Lie count: 33, Fallacy count: 12)

"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.”

Kettle logic.

I repeatedly asked you to be more technical: there’s at least three places I specifically asked. Your original reply was that you had already explained it using a phenomena that you’ve already claimed you refraction works differently to.

So of course I want you to be more technical, and I have been asking you to do this repeatedly.

(FE Lie count: 34, Fallacy count: 13)

“This, alongside a demonstration, i feel, is suffice.”

You are responding to a post that specifically details failures and faults in your position with statement that you think your vague non-description is sufficient. That in itself is a red herring.

In addition; you’ve made the argument thus far that you’ve provided a sufficient explanation, and now changing your position to that you haven’t but didn’t want to. That is kettle logic.

(FE Lie count: 34, Fallacy count: 15)

“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.”

This entire post was pointing out the flawed issues and axioms of both you position and the experiment. You’ve spent the last 20 paragraphs trying to say you’ve already done that. This makes your statement dishonest.

+1 lie, as I’ve already highlighted that if you disputed the way in which light bends is disputing snells law and atmospheric refraction.

(FE Lie count: 36, Fallacy count: 15)

"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.”

Misrepresentation of my position, and ridiculing the result: straw man. I’m clearly pointing out (and it is clear taken in context), that your experiment doesn’t match the reality of the atmosphere: where you are looking through air with a similar refractive index, which the equivalent in your experiment would be to have the object in question (a boat, in this case) and the observer be in the refraction medium; as your experiment uses water, this would be analogous to you taking a video of the boat whilst you were both in the water.

(FE Lie count: 34, Fallacy count: 16)

"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.”

Kettle logic. As pointed out earlier

Also deliberate omission of looming (which has no inversion)

(FE Lie count: 35, Fallacy count: 17)

"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”

Lie: even accepting everything you say about the video as true (it isn’t); you have made no attempt to show this is applicable to the atmosphere.

(FE Lie count: 36, Fallacy count: 17)

I am pointing this out. When it is explained that you didn’t demonstrate something (with reasoning and justification of why), and you simply reply that you demonstrated it, this is an argument by asssertion: an attempt to dismiss the opposing argument by saying it is wrong with no other justificafion.

(FE Lie count: 36, Fallacy count: 18)

“I'm with you. I have shown three different ways that refraction can lower an object and be obstructed by a flat plane”

Untrue: explained above.

(FE Lie count: 37, Fallacy count: 18)

“If you feel you have a better experiment than using water as a refractive material substitution than water, feel free to elaborate why.”

Deliberately shifting the burden of proof.

(FE Lie count: 37, Fallacy count: 19)

"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.”

This was repeatedly explained in the rest of the post: you have used 37 lies, and 19 logical fallacies to duck having to explain why. This renders this statement both dishonest, and a red herring (irrelevant in context of the remainder of the discussion.)

(FE Lie count: 38, Fallacy count: 20)

“As for "made no attempt to show or demonstrate how your experiment is applicable," this is a lie”

Aside from moments where you have asserted you are correct and I am wrong, you have made two defensive arguments

1.) you’ve claimed your process is basically atmospheric refraction with no further elaboration: despite this working completely differently: thus proving you haven’t shown your position.

2.) you’ve claimed you purposefully didn’t include any detail, but you can if I ask (after I asked, maybe 3 times).

So given this, it’s clear I am being accurate, and you are not: your competing Defense is kettle logic.

(FE Lie count: 40, Fallacy count: 21)

I have provided detailed justification and rebuttal of your entire post and noted a total of 41 lies and 21 logical fallacies used to support your position.

Pogue

@Erfisflat @SilverishGoldNova
All questions I have for the flat Earth:
How does it rotate? How thick is it? What is its density and mass? What's inside? How was it formed?Can you please explain how the spherical Earth model is used to precisely predict when astronomical events happen? How come you can see curvature? Can you go to the edge of the Earth and show me the Antartic wall? If not, why? How far away is the sun? What evidence for the spotlight sun? How does it exactly light up half of the Earth when it is above it? How come you can't see the Northern Stars in the Southern Hemisphere? How are lunar and solar eclipses possible? How are pieces of buildings are hidden behind a horizon? Using the flat Earth model please show the math involved that predicts when there will be a solar or lunar eclipse? Why have civilizations been lying to the citizens? What is the purpose and gain of tricking the citizens? What about all the photos from private and public space agencies? What about videos randomly picked from youtube that explains spherical Earth? Surely they all cannot be in cahoots. Please explain in detail. 

Erfisflat

All questions I have for the flat Earth:

I'll answer them all very quickly. It sounds like you should do some basic research into the model.

How does it rotate?

It doesn't.

How thick is it?

At least seven miles or so. This is about how far down we got last time I heard.

 What is its density and mass?

Unknown.

What's inside?

Fire? At least seven miles or so deep, the bits were melting, I believe.

 How was it formed?

Lol? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
This certainly rules out what were taught in school, right?

Can you please explain how the spherical Earth model is used to precisely predict when astronomical events happen?

The same way the Mayans and Egyptians did.

How come you can see curvature?

Lol. I don't see any. Been looking for three years.

Can you go to the edge of the Earth and show me the Antartic wall?

I wouldn't be able to, you're welcome to go see it yourself.

If not, why?

A bit impractical. I am 40 with a wife and 3 1/2 kids.

How far away is the sun?

Definitely NOT 93 millions miles away.

What evidence for the spotlight sun?

Spotlight sun? Lol. You've been to the tfes forums, haven t you?

How does it exactly light up half of the Earth when it is above it?

Rrefraction.

How come you can't see the Northern Stars in the Southern Hemisphere?

Perspective.

How are lunar and solar eclipses possible?

Many theories, but I can only say one thing for sure, the earth is irrelevant.

How are pieces of buildings are hidden behind a horizon?

Refraction, look back a few posts, I literally just posted a video on this.

Using the flat Earth model please show the math involved that predicts when there will be a solar or lunar eclipse?

Tell you what, you first. Using the spherical earth model please show the math involved that predicts when there will be a solar or lunar eclipse.

Why have civilizations been lying to the citizens?

Money? Power?

 What is the purpose and gain of tricking the citizens?

Same question twice?

What about all the photos from private and public space agencies?

Obviously faked.

What about videos randomly picked from youtube that explains spherical Earth?

Mostly strawmen and false assumptions.

Surely they all cannot be in cahoots. Please explain in detail. 

Me: "Santa Claus is not real"
You: "but, what about the visit to the mall? How did I get all those great presents under my tree?"
Me: "they are fakes, and your parents are lying to you."
You: "but ALL the parents in the world couldn't possibly be lying to us!"

Pogue

@Erfisflat
Math
Lunar

ΔT=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2ΔT=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2

Where: 

y=year+(month−0.5)/12

t=y−2000

Solar

T=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2ΔT=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2

Where: 

y=year+(month−0.5)/12

t=y−2000

What about Flat Earth?

Pogue

How far away is the sun on a flat Earth? In the 3rd century BC, Eratosthenes used two measurements of shadows from two cities in Egypt. He was able to almost precisely get the diameter of the Earth (round). How far would the sun have to be on a flat earth? How come you see different constellations in Greece and Egypt? What about perspective makes that possible? You would be able to see the same things in both hemispheres. 

Gravity would make the Earth a round shape because it pushes things to the center (fundamentals of gravity)(center of mass and center of gravity). Everything would have to be built on an angle the further from the center you go. 

Erfisflat

Well, let’s ignore the fact that there are no such tests,


Did you miss that post that @silverishgoldnova made? Of course you did. 

"only the same sort of botched attempts at experiments that are easily explained by errors, or don’t show what you claim; that you have already shown you get easily suckered by...."



We’ve both agreed that objects fall below the horizon. We’ve both already seen photos of pylons going over Lake Pontecharin.

Right?

You have not produced anything as far as evidence yet. Not even a botched experiment. If lake pontchartrain is curved, how much is it curved? How do you know? What experiments were made to prove that it wasn't refraction? We plainly see refraction obscuring the pylons. Refraction has been shown several times now to cause an object to appear lower. It's common sense that as it accumulates, it will cause more and more refraction, and it's obvious that this is what is happening, when you stop assuming the earth is a ball.

 You can say with straight face that boats appear to go over a curve, and this is impossible on a flat earth, no measurements, no experiments, you haven't even factored for waves or swells. Again, you're welcome to clarify your claims at any time. After 3 requests now, it's obvious that you haven't a clue about the mathematics of a ball that is 25,000 statute miles in circumference, and you can only use logic in a debate. 



im both cases water doesn’t appear to be flat.

Key word is appears. You claim to be a scientist, but you're not giving me any data, or experiments, or even a scientific source that supports your position.

in fact you’re ridiculous botched glass of water experiment is presented as a way to explain why water doesn’t look flat.


Youre argument is basically “water is provably flat, except when it isn’t: in which case it’s refraction.”

Thats called kettle logic. And the type of thing people desperate not to be proven wrong, when they are, use.

If I'm applying faulty logic by saying that water is probably flat, except when it isn't: in which case it's refraction, you are applying that same kettle logic by saying that water is curved, except when it isn't: then it's refraction. The only difference is the default position, and the fact that I've produced scalable, repeatable and practical demonstrations and experiments, aka evidence for my claim. You?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-bare-assertion

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
Math
Lunar

ΔT=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2ΔT=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2

Where: 

y=year+(month−0.5)/12

t=y−2000

Solar

T=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2ΔT=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2

Where: 

y=year+(month−0.5)/12

t=y−2000

What about Flat Earth?

That's some pretty complicated maths! I don't think that's how the Mayans, who were flat earthers, were able to accurately predict them. I'd say it was more likely based in repetition. I wonder how a chaotic explosion could, after billions of years, cause such a predictable pattern.

Erfisflat

"How far away is the sun on a flat Earth? "


Due to refraction, using the Pythagorean theorem is innacurate. Measuring the sun is therefore speculation that would require more data. Refraction displaces the sun, it may even be an objective illusion, similar to a rainbow, where each observer sees it in a slightly different position. Not to mention the possibility of the firmament.



In the 3rd century BC, Eratosthenes used two measurements of shadows from two cities in Egypt. He was able to almost precisely get the diameter of the Earth (round).

He also assumed the sun was 93 million miles away, and the angles of sunrays all hit the earth at the same angle.

 How far would the sun have to be on a flat earth?

100km? This is my guess, based on some previous evidence. Maybe less than that.

How come you see different constellations in Greece and Egypt? What about perspective makes that possible? You would be able to see the same things in both hemispheres. 

Assuming that the stars a billions of light years away, of course you would. We more than likely have a ceiling. This is a question about a model, not all flat earthers agree on a full model, I state with assurance that the earth is flat, nothing more. I can look around me and see the basic physics of water, that it is flat and level from one end of it's container to the other.

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

"I can look around me and see the basic physics of water, that it is flat and level from one end of it's container to the other."

Do you not realise how silly statements like this make you sound? It's like saying "I know atoms don't exist because I can just look at things and see they aren't made of billions of tiny particles which are themselves mostly empty space".

Its like no duh, we wouldn't expect you to see anything. That you think you would and that you believe your comment is a relevant point just shows a very basic misapprehension on your part.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
Math
Lunar

ΔT=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2ΔT=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2

Where: 

y=year+(month−0.5)/12

t=y−2000

Solar

T=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2ΔT=62.92+0.32217∗t+0.005589∗t2

Where: 

y=year+(month−0.5)/12

t=y−2000

What about Flat Earth?

That's some pretty complicated maths! I don't think that's how the Mayans, who were flat earthers, were able to accurately predict them. I'd say it was more likely based in repetition. I wonder how a chaotic explosion could, after billions of years, cause such a predictable pattern.

The Mayans did it through pattern recognition, which is why their method tells us nothing about the shape of the earth. We both recognise that the sun will set ~every 24 hours despite having different opinions about how this happens because recognising a pattern is separate from understanding the underlying physics of WHY that pattern happens.

It only matters if you use a model which factors in the properties of the sun, earth, moon, etc like their size, distance and speed. Then if your model is accurate again and again and again, you know those properties must be right.

We can do this but the Mayans couldn't. That's the scientific method.

WilliamSchulz

By the way, I saw the Manhattan visible over 48 miles and that should be covered by 1536 feet of water. This is wrong, but I found the calculations for it. Multiply 48 by water refraction's 1.33, multiply again by 48 to make a plane, and divide by two because we view objects in a perception triangle. This number is actually 1532.16, give or take, this is relatively close. Now take into account that Gooberry mentioned that air refraction is different than water refraction, about 1.0026. Do the same math, and the answer is 1154.99, or 1155 feet for rounding purposes. In Manhattan, the highest point of elevation is 265 feet, but that is to the North, there is only 22 feet of elevation in the south, so subtract 22 from the total and get 1133 feet. What does this number mean. In the best possible scenario, you would be able to see 1133 feet below the curve, but due to Earth's combined factors, this makes it near impossible

Gooberry

@erfisflat ;

“Well, let’s ignore the fact that there are no such tests,”

(FE Lie count: 41, Fallacy count: 21)

Bald faced lie. In fact, it’s such a bald faced lie, I have to record it twice.

(FE Lie count: 42, Fallacy count: 21)

I am repeatedly, multiple times explaining what the specific tests are: sun set, and objects appearing behind the horizon.

Simply pretending these tests do not exist; and not acknowledging them is a bold faced lie

“Did you miss that post that @silverishgoldnova made? Of course you did.”

Red herring: I am not replying to SGN, I am replying to you. 

(FE Lie count: 42, Fallacy count: 22)

"only the same sort of botched attempts at experiments that are easily explained by errors, or don’t show what you claim; that you have already shown you get easily suckered by...."

We’ve both agreed that objects fall below the horizon. We’ve both already seen photos of pylons going over Lake Pontecharin.

“

Right?

You have not produced anything as far as evidence yet.”

Same bald faced lie as the start. Made even more bald-faced as you are telling my I haven’t produces any evidence whilst replying to a portion of my post where I am explicitly outlining evidence.

I’m giving you two lies again, because that is so brazen dishonest.

(FE Lie count: 44, Fallacy count: 21)

“Not even a botched experiment.”

Dodge and blame shifting. You’re not defending your experiment, just compiling in about mine.

(FE Lie count: 44, Fallacy count: 22)

“If lake pontchartrain is curved, how much is it curved? How do you know? What experiments were made to prove that it wasn't refraction?”

Attempt to shift the burden of proof. You can’t prove yourself correct, so you’re demanding I prove you wrong.

(FE Lie count: 44, Fallacy count: 23)

In answer to the question:

• yes it is curved.
• The pylons disappear in a curved profile over the horizon
• Measurements of the refractive index of air, and the combined speed of modern atmospheric science allows you to determine that there is not enough refractive index change over a the distance to produce the effects. There’s no evidence refraction could produce this effect as a result.

“We plainly see refraction obscuring the pylons.”

There is sometimes minor distortion of the pylons. To say that because there is a little distortion there is likely enough to make it appear exactly as it should on a globe: is a leap of conclusion.

(FE Lie count: 44, Fallacy count: 24)

“Refraction has been shown several times now to cause an object to appear lower.”

Appearing lower, in some specific conditions does not show that objects can appear to fall below the horizon. I’ve been saying this throughout, and you have been repeatedly dodging this.

(FE Lie count: 45, Fallacy count: 25)

“It's common sense that as it accumulates, it will cause more and more refraction”

Appeal to common sense

(FE Lie count: 45, Fallacy count: 26)

As pointed out in the previous point refraction doesn’t work that way. Water in the air is accounted for i measurements of refractive index based on humidity: if the air with the same humidity is 1m thick, or 100000 the refractive index in the same, so refraction will not “accumulate”.

This is a lie.

(FE Lie count: 46, Fallacy count: 26)

“and it's obvious that this is what is happening, when you stop assuming the earth is a ball.”

As specified and explained; no it is not obvious. This statement is false.

(FE Lie count: 47, Fallacy count: 26)

“You can say with straight face that boats appear to go over a curve, and this is impossible on a flat earth, no measurements, no experiments, you haven't even factored for waves or swells.”

Waves larger than a boat rising and falling would be obvious in images and videos of boats falling over the horizon. To claim that something that evidently doesn’t exist in the evidence hasn’t been accounted for is, you guessed it, a lie.

(FE Lie count: 48, Fallacy count: 26)

“Again, you're welcome to clarify your claims at any time. After 3 requests now, it's obvious that you haven't a clue about the mathematics of a ball that is 25,000 statute miles in circumference”

Lie: clarified multiple times. Including in the post you are replying to.

(FE Lie count: 49, Fallacy count: 26)

Lie: the maths we have been talking about, is a trivial mention of curvature maths (what should and shouldn’t be visible), and the application of snells law: Out of two of us, I’m the only one that’s even referenced the maths, and you certainly haven’t gone into any detail into any of it.

To turnaround and say that as a result of this conversation, I know nothing of maths: is an unsupported lie.

(FE Lie count: 50, Fallacy count: 26)

“and you can only use logic in a debate.”

I’ve produced examples and evidence. You have pretended those don’t exist, except where you didn’t!

(FE Lie count: 50, Fallacy count: 26)

In addition; you’re confusing me pointing out why your position is logically absurd as somehow “not scientific” this is a lie.

(FE Lie count: 51, Fallacy count: 26)

Finally: as shown in this reply, you’re replying to a post attacking the you use to defend your position; a post that outlines and clarifies the issues succinctly: as pointed out, you have dodged (using lies, and logical fallacies), and thus the pretence that you’re doing anything more than using bad logic to defend a shoddy position earns a lie too.

(FE Lie count: 52, Fallacy count: 26)

“im both cases water doesn’t appear to be flat.

Key word is appears. You claim to be a scientist, but you're not giving me any data, or experiments, or even a scientific source that supports your position.”

Except I have, multiple times. Double lie again!

(FE Lie count: 54, Fallacy count: 26)

All your “observations” of water you have cited are optical: ie the water looks flat. If you’re not admitting it doesn’t look flat, this is my whole point: you are refuting yourself. Logical contradiction:

(FE Lie count: 54, Fallacy count: 27)

“in fact you’re ridiculous botched glass of water experiment is presented as a way to explain why water doesn’t look flat.

Youre argument is basically “water is provably flat, except when it isn’t: in which case it’s refraction.”

Thats called kettle logic. And the type of thing people desperate not to be proven wrong, when they are, use.

If I'm applying faulty logic by saying that water is probably flat, except when it isn't: in which case it's refraction, you are applying that same kettle logic by saying that water is curved, except when it isn't: 

then it's refraction.”

Straw man.

I am saying water is curved (and always is). Your claim that I am saying that water is ever not flat, is a deliberate misrepresentation, which you attack.

(FE Lie count: 54, Fallacy count: 28)

Also, don’t think I didn’t miss the red herring: I’m pointing out your kettle logic, you don’t defend your logic, but reply with an unrelated straw man.

(FE Lie count: 54, Fallacy count: 29)

“The only difference is the default position”

There’s no default position on the shape of water. Both are positive claims, and so without data you have to remain on the fence with a “we don’t know”.

(FE Lie count: 54, Fallacy count: 30)

I have presented evidence that moves the needle and shows that water is curved, which you ignore.

(FE Lie count: 55, Fallacy count: 30)

When proposing a process or phenomena to explain an event, the neutral position is that process doesn’t exist. This means you can’t assume refraction causes sunset or the apparent curvature until you can prove it

(FE Lie count: 55, Fallacy count: 31)

“and the fact that I've produced scalable, repeatable and practical demonstrations and experiments, aka evidence for my claim. You?”

No. No. No.

I have repeatedly pointed out why your experiments are meaningless botched nonesense that do not show what you’ve claimed: and you have not defended them.

(FE Lie count: 56, Fallacy count: 31)

https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-bare-assertion

Again, two lies by pretending that my continual pointing out of evidence is “an assertion”.

(FE Lie count: 58, Fallacy count: 31)

Literally everything you just said was either false, or a fallacy. Do you not realize that having to lie so much, probably means you’re not telling the truth?

SotaSkoldier

To even defend the notion that the earth is flat you are having to assume some things.

1. The entirety of NASA knows that the earth is flat and have systematically kept it a secret for over 60 years.
2. Every astronomer going back to Galileo were wrong.

Pogue

@SotaSkoldier
Not even Galileo, the ancient Greeks such as Aristotle 

Gooberry

SotaSkoldier said:

To even defend the notion that the earth is flat you are having to assume some things.

1. The entirety of NASA knows that the earth is flat and have systematically kept it a secret for over 60 years.
2. Every astronomer going back to Galileo were wrong.

It’s worse.

Radar designers, surveyors, satellite communications companies, designers, anyone who has developed GPS technology, or test equipment, anyone in any of the worlds commercial or private space or satellite industry, meteorologists who measure the atmosphere have to be in on the conspiracy.

The scale and scope is impossible.

There are hundreds of communication companies that use communication satellites, and should be able to actively tell whether the satellite is really there or not.

This means for every genuine honest start up in this sector, in every country, the government has managed to get to them, convert them to the conspiracy, and every single individual wasn’t successfully turned, and not one has raised the alarm.

This goes for the millions of people in admin, technology, or communications in the position to know; that have needed to be recruited and hired, have all been converted to the conspiracy with 100% success rate, with not a single one blowing the whistle.

The same goes for the teams of thousand CGI artists, photo school individuals in multiple government organizations, infrastructure engineers and communication experts; plane operators, LORAN installation engineers and others thay have all been recruited with a 100% success rate with no one blowing the whistle.

The functional requirements of the conspiracy to conceal the flat earth are so substantial; that no reasonable person could even consider such a conspiracy to be possible to maintain for a week, much less 60+ years

Ampersand

Don't forget people involved in long distance travel; pilots and several hundred years worth of ship captains.

Erfisflat

SotaSkoldier said:

To even defend the notion that the earth is flat you are having to assume some things.

1. The entirety of NASA knows that the earth is flat and have systematically kept it a secret for over 60 years.
2. Every astronomer going back to Galileo were wrong.

With the first, you are ignoring what is commonly known as the chain of command. We all know the government, in the interest of "national security", is compartmentalized. This makes your statement an ignorant one. We can start with the custodial department and move up to the ones that haven't been to space, and are pushing buttons looking at a screen and cross most of that list off.

For your second statement, you first have to prove that "every astronomer since Galileo" held the same exact view.

Pogue

@Erfisflat
You posted a picture in my "Is space Fake" debate (heads up, it isn't). It was this

If the Earth has a dome on it, but not around it, it can not be the center. How about actually responding to my arguments. Checkmate

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Don't forget people involved in long distance travel; pilots and several hundred years 

Because they're all lying about how the water is curved?

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

@SotaSkoldier
Not even Galileo, the ancient Greeks such as Aristotle 

Aristotle was a geocentrist. So, you are now saying he was "wrong" unless of course you see the impossibility of heliocentrism...

Erfisflat

Which fallacy was that, @goober?

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
You posted a picture in my "Is space Fake" debate (heads up, it isn't). It was this

If the Earth has a dome on it, but not around it, it can not be the center. How about actually responding to my arguments. Checkmate

Who said the earth does not have a dome around it? I don't know how big it is.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

SotaSkoldier said:

To even defend the notion that the earth is flat you are having to assume some things.

1. The entirety of NASA knows that the earth is flat and have systematically kept it a secret for over 60 years.
2. Every astronomer going back to Galileo were wrong.

It’s worse.

Radar designers, surveyors, satellite communications companies, designers, anyone who has developed GPS technology, or test equipment, anyone in any of the worlds commercial or private space or satellite industry, meteorologists who measure the atmosphere have to be in on the conspiracy.

The scale and scope is impossible.

There are hundreds of communication companies that use communication satellites, and should be able to actively tell whether the satellite is really there or not.

This means for every genuine honest start up in this sector, in every country, the government has managed to get to them, convert them to the conspiracy, and every single individual wasn’t successfully turned, and not one has raised the alarm.

This goes for the millions of people in admin, technology, or communications in the position to know; that have needed to be recruited and hired, have all been converted to the conspiracy with 100% success rate, with not a single one blowing the whistle.

The same goes for the teams of thousand CGI artists, photo school individuals in multiple government organizations, infrastructure engineers and communication experts; plane operators, LORAN installation engineers and others thay have all been recruited with a 100% success rate with no one blowing the whistle.

The functional requirements of the conspiracy to conceal the flat earth are so substantial; that no reasonable person could even consider such a conspiracy to be possible to maintain for a week, much less 60+ years

Translation: " every parent in the world couldn't possibly be lying to us about Santa claus!"

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Don't forget people involved in long distance travel; pilots and several hundred years 

Because they're all lying about how the water is curved?

According to you, yes. If the earth were flat they would need to travel completely different routes to reach destinations than they do with a spherical earth. Hence by your logic they must be part of a dastardly conspiracy.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Don't forget people involved in long distance travel; pilots and several hundred years 

Because they're all lying about how the water is curved?

According to you, yes. If the earth were flat they would need to travel completely different routes to reach destinations than they do with a spherical earth. Hence by your logic they must be part of a dastardly conspiracy.

You can say, according to me all you want, I haven't subscribed to any map here. I did like the AD map, but I realized that I'm not a cartographer and I can't verify the map is correct. It's usefull as a general idea of the flat earth.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

SotaSkoldier said:

To even defend the notion that the earth is flat you are having to assume some things.

1. The entirety of NASA knows that the earth is flat and have systematically kept it a secret for over 60 years.
2. Every astronomer going back to Galileo were wrong.

It’s worse.

Radar designers, surveyors, satellite communications companies, designers, anyone who has developed GPS technology, or test equipment, anyone in any of the worlds commercial or private space or satellite industry, meteorologists who measure the atmosphere have to be in on the conspiracy.

The scale and scope is impossible.

There are hundreds of communication companies that use communication satellites, and should be able to actively tell whether the satellite is really there or not.

This means for every genuine honest start up in this sector, in every country, the government has managed to get to them, convert them to the conspiracy, and every single individual wasn’t successfully turned, and not one has raised the alarm.

This goes for the millions of people in admin, technology, or communications in the position to know; that have needed to be recruited and hired, have all been converted to the conspiracy with 100% success rate, with not a single one blowing the whistle.

The same goes for the teams of thousand CGI artists, photo school individuals in multiple government organizations, infrastructure engineers and communication experts; plane operators, LORAN installation engineers and others thay have all been recruited with a 100% success rate with no one blowing the whistle.

The functional requirements of the conspiracy to conceal the flat earth are so substantial; that no reasonable person could even consider such a conspiracy to be possible to maintain for a week, much less 60+ years

Translation: " every parent in the world couldn't possibly be lying to us about Santa claus!"

However, the evidence supports it. Santa Claus is very different

Pogue

@Erfisflat
If gravity does not exist (you said it does not pull things to the center but that is a fundamental of gravity) how do things fall? 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

SotaSkoldier said:

To even defend the notion that the earth is flat you are having to assume some things.

1. The entirety of NASA knows that the earth is flat and have systematically kept it a secret for over 60 years.
2. Every astronomer going back to Galileo were wrong.

It’s worse.

Radar designers, surveyors, satellite communications companies, designers, anyone who has developed GPS technology, or test equipment, anyone in any of the worlds commercial or private space or satellite industry, meteorologists who measure the atmosphere have to be in on the conspiracy.

The scale and scope is impossible.

There are hundreds of communication companies that use communication satellites, and should be able to actively tell whether the satellite is really there or not.

This means for every genuine honest start up in this sector, in every country, the government has managed to get to them, convert them to the conspiracy, and every single individual wasn’t successfully turned, and not one has raised the alarm.

This goes for the millions of people in admin, technology, or communications in the position to know; that have needed to be recruited and hired, have all been converted to the conspiracy with 100% success rate, with not a single one blowing the whistle.

The same goes for the teams of thousand CGI artists, photo school individuals in multiple government organizations, infrastructure engineers and communication experts; plane operators, LORAN installation engineers and others thay have all been recruited with a 100% success rate with no one blowing the whistle.

The functional requirements of the conspiracy to conceal the flat earth are so substantial; that no reasonable person could even consider such a conspiracy to be possible to maintain for a week, much less 60+ years

Bare assertions. Prove each position with evidence, I'll show you where you are disconnected.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
If gravity does not exist (you said it does not pull things to the center but that is a fundamental of gravity) how do things fall? 

Simply put, the air under the Apple was not dense enough to hold the Apple up. Please demonstrate how this "fundamental "(pulls things to the center) can be proved.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Don't forget people involved in long distance travel; pilots and several hundred years 

Because they're all lying about how the water is curved?

According to you, yes. If the earth were flat they would need to travel completely different routes to reach destinations than they do with a spherical earth. Hence by your logic they must be part of a dastardly conspiracy.

You can say, according to me all you want, I haven't subscribed to any map here. I did like the AD map, but I realized that I'm not a cartographer and I can't verify the map is correct. It's usefull as a general idea of the flat earth.

I can say according to you that is the obvious logical conclusion of your claims

You state the earth is flat.

The area and features of the surface of a sphere cannot be accurately represented on a flat surface without distortion, hence how all 2d maps won't be totally accurate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

Ergo the  surface of the spherical earth and the proposed surface of ANY flat earth must be incompatible. That you have not managed to give any specific details of your beliefs beyond the superficial "it's flat" does not matter in this case.

Ergo if your claim is true any person involved in piloting or captaining ships long distances must be part of a conspiracy. They say they travel one route (As expected on a spherical earth) but MUST travel another.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

SotaSkoldier said:

To even defend the notion that the earth is flat you are having to assume some things.

1. The entirety of NASA knows that the earth is flat and have systematically kept it a secret for over 60 years.
2. Every astronomer going back to Galileo were wrong.

It’s worse.

Radar designers, surveyors, satellite communications companies, designers, anyone who has developed GPS technology, or test equipment, anyone in any of the worlds commercial or private space or satellite industry, meteorologists who measure the atmosphere have to be in on the conspiracy.

The scale and scope is impossible.

There are hundreds of communication companies that use communication satellites, and should be able to actively tell whether the satellite is really there or not.

This means for every genuine honest start up in this sector, in every country, the government has managed to get to them, convert them to the conspiracy, and every single individual wasn’t successfully turned, and not one has raised the alarm.

This goes for the millions of people in admin, technology, or communications in the position to know; that have needed to be recruited and hired, have all been converted to the conspiracy with 100% success rate, with not a single one blowing the whistle.

The same goes for the teams of thousand CGI artists, photo school individuals in multiple government organizations, infrastructure engineers and communication experts; plane operators, LORAN installation engineers and others thay have all been recruited with a 100% success rate with no one blowing the whistle.

The functional requirements of the conspiracy to conceal the flat earth are so substantial; that no reasonable person could even consider such a conspiracy to be possible to maintain for a week, much less 60+ years

Translation: " every parent in the world couldn't possibly be lying to us about Santa claus!"

However, the evidence supports it. Santa Claus is very different

The evidence is obviously misunderstandings and strawmen for a spherical earth. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

SotaSkoldier said:

To even defend the notion that the earth is flat you are having to assume some things.

1. The entirety of NASA knows that the earth is flat and have systematically kept it a secret for over 60 years.
2. Every astronomer going back to Galileo were wrong.

It’s worse.

Radar designers, surveyors, satellite communications companies, designers, anyone who has developed GPS technology, or test equipment, anyone in any of the worlds commercial or private space or satellite industry, meteorologists who measure the atmosphere have to be in on the conspiracy.

The scale and scope is impossible.

There are hundreds of communication companies that use communication satellites, and should be able to actively tell whether the satellite is really there or not.

This means for every genuine honest start up in this sector, in every country, the government has managed to get to them, convert them to the conspiracy, and every single individual wasn’t successfully turned, and not one has raised the alarm.

This goes for the millions of people in admin, technology, or communications in the position to know; that have needed to be recruited and hired, have all been converted to the conspiracy with 100% success rate, with not a single one blowing the whistle.

The same goes for the teams of thousand CGI artists, photo school individuals in multiple government organizations, infrastructure engineers and communication experts; plane operators, LORAN installation engineers and others thay have all been recruited with a 100% success rate with no one blowing the whistle.

The functional requirements of the conspiracy to conceal the flat earth are so substantial; that no reasonable person could even consider such a conspiracy to be possible to maintain for a week, much less 60+ years

Bare assertions. Prove each position with evidence, I'll show you where you are disconnected.

Shifting the burden of proof. Again. One of your favourite fallacies.

The person making the claim should be the one to support it with evidence and justification: as I am not claiming there is a conspiracy, the evidence is up to you to provide.

I have explained the complexity the conspiracy must have.

(FE Lie count: 58, Fallacy count: 32)

You also drop a flat out lie, by claiming my point is an assertion. Arguments don’t work like that: I have provided, with justification, a necessary size and scope of  your alleged conspiracy, together with a justification that it’s size precludes it’s existence.

(FE Lie count: 59, Fallacy count: 32)

Erfisflat

Until we have more than broad assumptions and bare assertions, here's some reading.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-bare-assertion

WilliamSchulz

@Erfisflat
By the way, I saw the Manhattan visible over 48 miles and that should be covered by 1536 feet of water. This is wrong, but I found the calculations for it. Multiply 48 by water refraction's 1.33, multiply again by 48 to make a plane, and divide by two because we view objects in a perception triangle. This number is actually 1532.16, give or take, this is relatively close. Now take into account that Gooberry mentioned that air refraction is different than water refraction, about 1.0026. Do the same math, and the answer is 1154.99, or 1155 feet for rounding purposes. In Manhattan, the highest point of elevation is 265 feet, but that is to the North, there is only 22 feet of elevation in the south, so subtract 22 from the total and get 1133 feet. What does this number mean. In the best possible scenario, you would be able to see 1133 feet below the curve, but due to Earth's combined factors, this makes it near impossible.

I also saw your image about not finding the curve in your second image. To the person at sea, there are two horizons, not one.The horizon is a matter of perspective, my horizon is different than yours as you sit to write the response. The fisherman sees two horizons, the land horizon, and the sea horizon. It is wrong to assume that he can measure a curve, he can't, but that also relies on the assumption that there is only one horizon, which is untrue.

Erfisflat

"Shifting the burden of proof. Again. One of your favourite fallacies."

You wish. Your claim was that all these scientific fields are somehow purposely lying to everyone, specifically about the shape of the earth. You make a broad assumption with no evidence to back your claim, making it a bare assertion. I have bot made the claim that "they're all in on the conspiracy", therefore the burden, on YOUR claim, is yours.

The person making the claim should be the one to support it with evidence and justification: as I am not claiming there is a conspiracy, the evidence is up to you to provide.

You ignorantly say you've made no claim, but I'll just randomly pick one.

"This means for every genuine honest start up in this sector, in every country, the government has managed to get to them, convert them to the conspiracy, and every single individual wasn’t successfully turned, and not one has raised the alarm."

Do you have any evidence for this? If not, it's a bare assertion and broad assumptions. 

Erfisflat

Until either of you offer any factual support for your claims, they're broad assertions and bare assertions. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Until we have more than broad assumptions and bare assertions, here's some reading.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-bare-assertion

Previous post outlined and justified the specific reasons you are incorrect, described and explained the fallacies you were engaged in.

This reply ignores the key flaws in your argument as pointed out, AND ignores a justified rationale as to why your defense is logically fallacious.

As a result, your reply is a deliberate red herring presented to dodge the fact you can’t justify your claims.

(FE Lie count: 59, Fallacy count: 33)