Earth is a ball

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

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: 34)

Ok, thanks for playing, you're not here for honest debate, and you have no evidence. Muted.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

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: 34)

Ok, thanks for playing, you're not here for honest debate, and you have no evidence. Muted.

Please refer to your own link on baseless claims.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

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: 34)

Ok, thanks for playing, you're not here for honest debate, and you have no evidence. Muted.

- as I have repeatedly pointed out: yes I have evidenxeX I have outlined what that evidence is, and you pretend it doesn’t exist.

This is a flat out lie I have already called you out for 10 times already.

(FE Lie count: 60, Fallacy count: 34)

In the last six or seven replies; you have lied a total of 60 times, and committed 34 logical fallacies.

Every single argument you made in response to me was either a lie, or a logical fallacy. You haven’t bothered to defend any of these. the idea that I am the one not interested in being honest: despite your habitual lying, is itself another lie.

(FE Lie count: 61, Fallacy count: 34)

In addition it is fairly obvious, you’re muting me because you’re unable to address anything I’m saying: as well as a , you are also a coward.

If anyone wants to copy and paste this; feel free

Pogue

@Erfisflat
You know nothing of the Flat Earth. Not the density, just an assumption of the thickness of it. Oh, and the sun could not be 3000 km away. It would have to be about  in this video. For gravity, ever wonder why your velocity decreases eventually becoming negative bringing you back to the Earth? That's gravity my friend. If it was not for gravity you would continuously go upward from the Earth with no end (ignoring stuff like friction). The apple still proves gravity since it would not be dense enough

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

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.

Why doesn't it pull it up? The fact you have weight proves Gravity. Gravity pulls things to the Center of Mass. A toy shows this. 
https://www.amazon.com/Toysmith-4035-Balancing-Eagle-7-Inch/dp/B004R6VB2E/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_21_bs_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=D2FHVBXAZJB6ES129SWP
So something has massive the Earth would collapse back into a ball shape if it were flat. This happens because it will take up less area. 

Erfisflat

"You know nothing of the Flat Earth."

I know it's not a ball.

"Not the density, just an assumption of the thickness of it. "

I mean, I could make some sh!t up like you do, but there is no evidence for it, so I can't make proper measurements.

"Oh, and the sun could not be 3000 km away. It would have to be about ...
...in this video.

About what in the video?

"For gravity, ever wonder why your velocity decreases eventually becoming negative bringing you back to the Earth?"

That is a very confusing statement. 

 That's gravity my friend.

That is an assumption.

 If it was not for gravity you would continuously go upward from the Earth with no end (ignoring stuff like friction).

So, if the earth were flat, maybe an infinite plane, we would all be flying around. Wonderful. You're not thinking logically here.

 The apple still proves gravity since it would not be dense enough

...

Pogue

@Erfisflat ;
If it were because of density why do things still fall down in a vacuum chamber? 

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat ;
If it were because of density why do things still fall down in a vacuum chamber? 

Because the air under the "thing" is far less dense than the "thing"

Erfisflat

Which fallacy is that?

Erfisflat

Because I have common sense to be able to determine up from down, and that the theories of gravity were conjecture to support and assumption? I'm pointing out your and vsauces argument then uses this conjecture to prove the assumption. It is illogical.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:.

 The apple still proves gravity since it would not be dense enough

...

Thank you for proving my point.

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat ;
If it were because of density why do things still fall down in a vacuum chamber? 

Because the air under the "thing" is far less dense than the "thing"

Vacuum chamber. There is no air. Why does it push things down not up? 

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

"For gravity, ever wonder why your velocity decreases eventually becoming negative bringing you back to the Earth?"

That is a very confusing statement. 

This sounds like you are ignoring that statement because you do not understand it. You have contradicted yourself many times. I have pointed it out. You just say perspective or refraction and explain nothing. 

Erfisflat

Thank you for proving my point.

I was pointing out that your sentence is missing something. It's an incomplete and incoherent statement. Dense enough for what exactly? I thought you left off the period because you've intended to complete your sentence.

"Vacuum chamber. There is not air. Why does it push things down not up? "

Why would it do that? How do you logically come to the conclusion that "since things don't float around, the earth must be a ball"?
This is a non sequitur.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Thank you for proving my point.

I was pointing out that your sentence is missing something. It's an incomplete and incoherent statement. Dense enough for what exactly? I thought you left off the period because you've intended to complete your sentence.

"Vacuum chamber. There is not air. Why does it push things down not up? "

Why would it do that? How do you logically come to the conclusion that "since things don't float around, the earth must be flat"?
This is a non sequitur.

You said the air not being dense enough to hold it up is why it falls. There is no air in the vacuum chamber, so it can not be that because it still falls. 

Pogue

Oh and if one observation does not fit in the model (such as the stars not being visible in reality but are on a flat Earth) it would have to be thrown out 

Erfisflat

"Oh and if one observation does not fit in the model (such as the stars not being visible in reality but are on a flat Earth) it would have to be thrown out "

Take your own advise, if all bodies of water are measurably flat, or do not match those measurements required of a sphere that is 25,000 miles in circumference, I have thrown that aspect of a model out. In your case, we would throw out the idea that they are billions of light years away, and observe common facts like perspective, and say they are close.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat is trying to argue against gravity existing without understanding what it is, or offering any evidence.

That is effectively an argument by assertion.

(FE Lie count: 61, Fallacy count: 35)

He’s also making the same typical dishonest statement he’s made throughout: people are offering arguments and evidence to support gravity; which he is dismissing as “‘not showing anything” without an argument. He then throws together trivial explanation of what he thinks gravity is, and claims that is an argument, when yours is not.

(FE Lie count: 62, Fallacy count: 35)

Erfs problem here, is that he deliberately ignores force: there is obviously a force applied to objects to make them accelerate, the force is important, not its cause. Indeed erf is arguing the force doesn’t exist, and also that it does.

He doesn’t bother referencing any gravity experiments that refute his position: different objects of different weights and densities fall at the same speed through air: and at the same speed without air.

This pseudoscientific assertion he makes throughout; which he argues is validated, is quite frankly dishonest.

(FE Lie count: 63, Fallacy count: 35)



We should all realize he’s obviously not even bothering to play by the same rules of logic, argument or science.

We need to take this into account.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Thank you for proving my point.

I was pointing out that your sentence is missing something. It's an incomplete and incoherent statement. Dense enough for what exactly? I thought you left off the period because you've intended to complete your sentence.

"Vacuum chamber. There is not air. Why does it push things down not up? "

Why would it do that? How do you logically come to the conclusion that "since things don't float around, the earth must be flat"?
This is a non sequitur.

You said the air not being dense enough to hold it up is why it falls. There is no air in the vacuum chamber, so it can not be that because it still falls. 

You do realize that in a vacuum, the air under the object would be Even less dense than that in the atmosphere, correct?

Gooberry

FYI:

The cavendish experiment was the main proof that masses attract.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Gooberry

FYI:

The cavendish experiment was the main proof that masses attract.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Thank you for proving my point.

I was pointing out that your sentence is missing something. It's an incomplete and incoherent statement. Dense enough for what exactly? I thought you left off the period because you've intended to complete your sentence.

"Vacuum chamber. There is not air. Why does it push things down not up? "

Why would it do that? How do you logically come to the conclusion that "since things don't float around, the earth must be flat"?
This is a non sequitur.

You said the air not being dense enough to hold it up is why it falls. There is no air in the vacuum chamber, so it can not be that because it still falls. 

You do realize that in a vacuum, the air under the object would be Even less dense than that in the atmosphere, correct?

There is no air in a vacuum.

Erfisflat said:

"Oh and if one observation does not fit in the model (such as the stars not being visible in reality but are on a flat Earth) it would have to be thrown out "

Take your own advise, if all bodies of water are measurably flat, or do not match those measurements required of a sphere that is 25,000 miles in circumference, I have thrown that aspect of a model out. In your case, we would throw out the idea that they are billions of light years away, and observe common facts like perspective, and say they are close.

Perspective can be misleading. Better ways have proven the round Earth. Water conforms to the container it is in. This was taught in Elementry school. 

Pogue

@Erfisflat
The family emergency that you stopped the other debate for, are you ok.  

Erfisflat

"There is no air in a vacuum."

You've completely dodged my point. Let me rephrase so that you can address the response this time, the space or area under the "thing" is less dense...

"Perspective can be misleading. "

Agreed.

"Better ways have proven the round Earth. "

Better ways. Go on... I'm with you so far, kinda.

"Water conforms to the container it is in."

And the surface is always flat. This is a more relative to the point, especially if you're claiming the earth is a ball that water would out of necessity be conforming to the exterior of its container, which was not...

" This was taught in Elementry school. "

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

"There is no air in a vacuum."

You've completely dodged my point. Let me rephrase so that you can address the response this time, the space or area under the "thing" is less dense...

I am talking about a vacuum chamber on Earth. Objects still fall when there is no air so the density of the object does not matter. 

Erfisflat said:

"Perspective can be misleading. "

Agreed.

"Better ways have proven the round Earth. "

Better ways. Go on... I'm with you so far, kinda.

You agreed with me. You said to use " ... common facts like perspective, and say they are close." So what you are using is misleading. Better ways like the moon, the sun, and other stars and planets

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

You've completely dodged my point. Let me rephrase so that you can address the response this time, the space or area under the "thing" is less dense...

The space above the thing is even less dense than the space below (air density typically decreases as height increases). By your logic things should fall into the sky.

This is of course putting aside that all you can offer is some vague handwoven claim supported by nothing.

qipwbdeo

I want to add on. We have a limited view of the Earth because we are on the surface of it and we are so small compared to it. 

Erfisflat

"I am talking about a vacuum chamber on Earth. Objects still fall when there is no air so the density of the object does not matter."

Does this mean that "all objects are attracted to the middle of other objects" ? Of course not. It means that up is up and down is down. 

"You agreed with me."

I do agree that perspective is misleading, in that the telephone poles seem to be getting shorter as they get further away.




I could say for certain that I wouldn't be able to make out what the last lights down the hallway look like. They've reached a point of conversion. Imagine the hallway long enough for the entire hallway would appear as but a speck! This doesn't mean the hallway is curved. It just means they're just too far away.


 You said to use " ... common facts like perspective, and say they are close. So what you are using is misleading.

How is this misleading?

" Better ways like the moon, the sun, and other stars and planets"

That is absolutely brilliant. The way you can tell you are on a spinning ball is by looking up...

Pogue

SilverishGoldNova said:

ISS really stands for Imaginary Space Station.

It is zoomed in

Gooberry

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

You've completely dodged my point. Let me rephrase so that you can address the response this time, the space or area under the "thing" is less dense...

The space above the thing is even less dense than the space below (air density typically decreases as height increases). By your logic things should fall into the sky.

This is of course putting aside that all you can offer is some vague handwoven claim supported by nothing.

Whats really interesting for the scientists here is that the science behind gravity, and it’s measurement is a million times more interesting than the petulent rantings of our local resident flat earth cretin!

The history of gravity measurements are actually much more interesting, and - history of precision measurement.

For example, up until the late 1700s, Gravity was  a neat mathematical tool, that made the solar system make sense when applied to orbits; but the central tennet of it: that mass attracts each other’s hadn't been measured.

Interestingly, this is an area where Erfisflats science is only 200 years out of date, rather than 2000.

When you think about it, how to measure the gravitational force between two objects is quite difficult: the initial proof was actually kinda genius.

Take a pendulum, compare the angle of the pendulum to a known object (say, the North Star), and do it either side of the mountain. As long as you can measure the downward angle compared to that objects you can measure the amount the mountain tugs the pendulum.

The first experiment was the scheihallien experiment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment

Its a a very fascinating read!

but the most famous experiment was the cavendish exerpent; where he measured the attraction between two lead weights on a really finely calibrated bar.

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

This is also a crazy read, I suggest you take a look too! The specifics of how the experiment worked is absolutely
genius!

But, saying this if you’re careful enough you can recreated it in the lab too, there are some fairly good examples, it’s all about how well you can balance the ball.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=11sLusnVZwM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0

The actual physics that goes into some of these experiments are so much more interesting than Erfs bland denials and assertions.

Interestingly; as they prove that masses attract each other: they basically utterly refute everything erf has said. But fortunately as he’s muted me, I’m sure we can have some fun discussing actual science!

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

You've completely dodged my point. Let me rephrase so that you can address the response this time, the space or area under the "thing" is less dense...

The space above the thing is even less dense than the space below (air density typically decreases as height increases). By your logic things should fall into the sky.

This is of course putting aside that all you can offer is some vague handwoven claim supported by nothing.

Oh I see where you're misunderstood, you think that I'm suggesting that objects seek the lesser density. Where would you get that idea? Objects seek a density equilibrium. If you take an object out of it's density equilibrium, then you'll have a force to cause it to regain that quilibrium. It's just basic laws of buoyancy and density.

Pogue

@Erfisflat
Question: Since you do not have gravity, what keeps the sun and moon up/floating in the sky? Also, what is the arrangement of other planets in our solar system, other solar systems, and other galaxies?

Gooberry

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
Question: Since you do not have gravity, what keeps the sun and moon up/floating in the sky? Also, what is the arrangement of other planets in our solar system, other solar systems, and other galaxies?

This is the wrong question to ask, @Pogue. Erfisflat is great at writing nonsensical explanations. While questions like this are great for people like you and me postulating various hypotheses, the only reason erfisflat is here is because he confuses the actual scientific process with being able to throw around speculative and unsupported processes, as if they are one and the same.

If you ask him a question, he’ll be able to real of a dozen answers, change the subject and Gish gallop you until you don’t know what it was you’re talking about.

Stay focused on one point, and push at it, point out when he changes the subject, dodges, lies, and he falls apart and capitulates to the point where you can catch him in outright lies and contradictions.

Pogue

@Gooberry

Gooberry said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
Question: Since you do not have gravity, what keeps the sun and moon up/floating in the sky? Also, what is the arrangement of other planets in our solar system, other solar systems, and other galaxies?

This is the wrong question to ask, @Pogue. Erfisflat is great at writing nonsensical explanations. While questions like this are great for people like you and me postulating various hypotheses, the only reason erfisflat is here is because he confuses the actual scientific process with being able to throw around speculative and unsupported processes, as if they are one and the same.

If you ask him a question, he’ll be able to real of a dozen answers, change the subject and Gish gallop you until you don’t know what it was you’re talking about.

Stay focused on one point, and push at it, point out when he changes the subject, dodges, lies, and he falls apart and capitulates to the point where you can catch him in outright lies and contradictions.

Oh yeah. He did that on the other questions I asked. Thanks for the advice! I will probably push on star view and gravity.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
Question: Since you do not have gravity, what keeps the sun and moon up/floating in the sky? Also, what is the arrangement of other planets in our solar system, other solar systems, and other galaxies?

There are theories, but I can't even say for sure what the sun is. How do I know it is an object floating in the sky? What keeps this object floating in the sky?

 Gravity? It's largely irrelevant. I know we as humans have to have everything explained to us, because we have lost the basic ability to question what we're told and figure it out ourselves, but you can't exactly expect me to explain in full detail, any model. The flat earth community is a free thinking investigation into the model. I personally don't like to make assumptions, if I can verify something as fact like that water is flat, I can start with this factual premise.

SilverishGoldNova

Pogue said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

ISS really stands for Imaginary Space Station.

It is zoomed in

And you know this because?

qipwbdeo

@Erfisflat
List of flat Earth society astronomy accomplishments:
*blank*

See it s blank because they have none

qipwbdeo

SilverishGoldNova said:

Pogue said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

ISS really stands for Imaginary Space Station.

It is zoomed in

And you know this because?

You know it is fake because of what? The ISS can zoom in with their camera. They have real sizes of the Earth images. 

SilverishGoldNova

qipwbdeo said:

@Erfisflat
List of flat Earth society astronomy accomplishments:
*blank*

See it s blank because they have none

Well, yeah, if you're gonna discuss a controlled opposition shill group.

SilverishGoldNova

qipwbdeo said:

I want to add on. We have a limited view of the Earth because we are on the surface of it and we are so small compared to it. 

Erfisflat

qipwbdeo said:

I want to add on. We have a limited view of the Earth because we are on the surface of it and we are so small compared to it. 

At some height though, we should see some curvature. And it shouldn't rise to eye level as you ascend, as amateur balloon footage shows.

Pogue

If everything we use for a round Earth is false, please provide your own equations, laws of nature, observations, and full models. Yes, curvature does exist. 
If you rise to a higher elevation more of Earth becomes visible. 

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

You've completely dodged my point. Let me rephrase so that you can address the response this time, the space or area under the "thing" is less dense...

The space above the thing is even less dense than the space below (air density typically decreases as height increases). By your logic things should fall into the sky.

This is of course putting aside that all you can offer is some vague handwoven claim supported by nothing.

Oh I see where you're misunderstood, you think that I'm suggesting that objects seek the lesser density. Where would you get that idea? Objects seek a density equilibrium. If you take an object out of it's density equilibrium, then you'll have a force to cause it to regain that quilibrium. It's just basic laws of buoyancy and density.

So if I rub two bits of wood together, as they are equally dense they will try and stick together to maintain their density equlibrium. Or if I hold a ball in midair and then suspend some jelly above the ball touching it the ball will rise upwards as jelly is closer to it's density?

*tries it*

Nope, still .

As per Newton's first law, objects will remain at rest or move in a straight line at their existing momentum unless a force acts upon them. The force is gravity and the density of what's between objects and the centre of the earth acts against this movement via friction  rather than causing the movement.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

qipwbdeo said:

I want to add on. We have a limited view of the Earth because we are on the surface of it and we are so small compared to it. 

At some height though, we should see some curvature. And it shouldn't rise to eye level as you ascend, as amateur balloon footage shows.

Except when it does.

in which case the footage is fake!

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

qipwbdeo said:

I want to add on. We have a limited view of the Earth because we are on the surface of it and we are so small compared to it. 

At some height though, we should see some curvature. And it shouldn't rise to eye level as you ascend, as amateur balloon footage shows.

Let’s recap..

Every measurement of earth and water shows it is flat....except the ones that shows it’s not flat, which are due to refraction.

Cameras distort the horizon when they are at altitude and always make it looked curved, erf has evidence, and everyone else is for not agreeing.... except when the camera is on an amateur balloon and looks flat, in which case the camera is accurate and the mechanism you spent 20 posts telling me effects all cameras doesn’t effect all cameras...

Amateur balloon footage is accurate and valid: unless it shows the earth is curved, in which case it’s fake.

are we starting to see a pattern here?

Ampersand

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

qipwbdeo said:

I want to add on. We have a limited view of the Earth because we are on the surface of it and we are so small compared to it. 

At some height though, we should see some curvature. And it shouldn't rise to eye level as you ascend, as amateur balloon footage shows.

Let’s recap..

Every measurement of earth and water shows it is flat....except the ones that shows it’s not flat, which are due to refraction.

Cameras distort the horizon when they are at altitude and always make it looked curved, erf has evidence, and everyone else is for not agreeing.... except when the camera is on an amateur balloon and looks flat, in which case the camera is accurate and the mechanism you spent 20 posts telling me effects all cameras doesn’t effect all cameras...

Amateur balloon footage is accurate and valid: unless it shows the earth is curved, in which case it’s fake.

are we starting to see a pattern here?

Don't forget that when asked to actually provide even a single example of water being measured with enough accuracy to detect the effects of the earth's curvature and being found flat, just one example to support what he says, he can't provide even one measurement.

The nearest he got was referencing a study he hadn't ready that actually showed the earth was spherical.

Gooberry

Ampersand said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

qipwbdeo said:

I want to add on. We have a limited view of the Earth because we are on the surface of it and we are so small compared to it. 

At some height though, we should see some curvature. And it shouldn't rise to eye level as you ascend, as amateur balloon footage shows.

Let’s recap..

Every measurement of earth and water shows it is flat....except the ones that shows it’s not flat, which are due to refraction.

Cameras distort the horizon when they are at altitude and always make it looked curved, erf has evidence, and everyone else is for not agreeing.... except when the camera is on an amateur balloon and looks flat, in which case the camera is accurate and the mechanism you spent 20 posts telling me effects all cameras doesn’t effect all cameras...

Amateur balloon footage is accurate and valid: unless it shows the earth is curved, in which case it’s fake.

are we starting to see a pattern here?

Don't forget that when asked to actually provide even a single example of water being measured with enough accuracy to detect the effects of the earth's curvature and being found flat, just one example to support what he says, he can't provide even one measurement.

The nearest he got was referencing a study he hadn't ready that actually showed the earth was spherical.

If it wasn’t genuinely sad, it would be hilarious. He did something similar: he posted a YouTube video of a fake sun behind a glass of water that never fell below the level of the surface, and was botched by the experimenter when they lowered the camera level... Apparently this was conclusive proof that refraction in the air always made the sun drop under the level of the horizon for all observers in all conditions.

SilverishGoldNova

@Goobery @Pouge I notice you left a fallacy on this post of mine

http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/17124#Comment_17124

What fallacy did I use? Disagreement? This is basically a repeat of flat and stationary, where we have a couple of globers circle jerking and marking any dissenting opinions as a fallacy @Erfisflat ;

Pogue

@SilverishGoldNova
The Earth being flat is not an opinion, it is wrong

SilverishGoldNova

Pogue said:

@SilverishGoldNova
The Earth being flat is not an opinion, it is wrong

Well I guess I have my answer, you're just marking everything you disagree with as a fallacy. Claiming that a statement is fallacious is because you believe it to be wrong is fallacious itself.

Gooberry

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Goobery @Pouge I notice you left a fallacy on this post of mine

http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/17124#Comment_17124

What fallacy did I use? Disagreement? This is basically a repeat of flat and stationary, where we have a couple of globers circle jerking and marking any dissenting opinions as a fallacy @Erfisflat ;

1.) If is measure water, you can’t measure it to be flat. Any google search can reveal this “flat water” obscuring objects, like boats (should be on the surface), or buildings on an opposite shore. This repeated measurement refutes you’re first claim.

1.1) you arguments then descends into arbitrary assertions: why should the water bulge? Why should water flow uphill? How have you measured it to show they don’t happen? 

In reality: measurements prove you wrong, you can measure a bulge at the equator; and you have provided no basis in physics for any of the rest of your outlandish claims: meaning that they are simply assertions.

2.) flight patterns. Sa281 flies direct from johanasburg to berth. Pan am 50 famously flew a polar route. Both directly refute your claims. flights generally won’t fly over the arctic for safety reasons. You don’t want to be 1000 miles from the nearest rescue boat or landing strip if you get into trouble with 300 passengers on board. Governments are normally sticklers for safety.

3.) multiple images from multiple space agencies show curvature. We’ve famously seen eart rise from Apollo, orbits from Russians, Chinese, satellites, etc. We see live streams of the iss, and we’ve seen curvature shown in images from the first suborbital US test flight of the V2 in the 1940s. Claiming there’s no evidence or examples of curvature is flatly ridiculous. 

3.1.) simply saying that images are distorted by plane windows, is not sufficient evidence to ignore all evidence of curvature.

3.2) faking images requires deliberate intent to deceive and misrepresent. Using NASA sources clearly explaining what the image is: refuted this aspect.

3.3) one image you use as evidence of no curvature shows curvature. Refuting your position.

3.4) simply asserting you should see curvature in an image; is not evidence. If you can’t showncurvature should be present given the position of the horizon, height, lens type and image width (with these things accurately established): your claims are mostly unfounded assertions.

4.) you assert Chicago is not a mirage with no evidence.

There are multiple types of refraction in the atmosphere: when seeing Chicago from Lake Michigan, in every video, we see buildings appear, dissappear, change shape, distort and invert. On the one hand, the videos of Chicago from the other side of the shore invariable match every expected property of atmospheric refraction, such as a mirage: and on the other hand you assert “we know that’s not true.” It seems you’re just making up your claim, and have provided no support for them.

actually looking at the properties of what you see in the Chicago videos that are always provided, they look like mirages when you look at the properties of them.